1985-03-01

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, as part of the Conservative Party's fund raising efforts of last year, my constituents received appeals from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the then Leader of the Opposition, to contribute sums of $50, $100, $150, or $350 to his campaign. In this appeal he criticized the Liberal Government for high unemployment, lack of foreign investment, and poor economic conditions in Canada. In November, 1983, he said:
The purchasing power of the Canadian dollar has been diminished both domestically and in the world market... I believe your support for the Progressive Conservative Party today will be the base on which a strong and revitalized Canada can grow.
However, this revitalized Canada is not a reality. The very dollar he promised to save from its diminished state, has plunged even lower during his administration. As a matter of fact, it is the lowest it has ever been in the history of Canada.
The Prime Minister and his Party have not fulfilled the promises made in these fund raising letters. Therefore, on behalf of my constituents I am asking that the Conservative Party return the money.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Zundel was found guilty yesterday of wilfully causing harm to racial and social harmony by distributing a booklet that claimed that the holocaust was a Jewish hoax. I wish to applaud the decision reached by the jury.
While we in this country pride ourselves on our basic freedoms, including the freedom of speech, thank God we have ways to deal with the vicious, outrageous, and harmful views of this man whose heroes are Hitler and Hess. While I was in Israel a few weeks ago, I visited the holocaust museum, Yad
Vashem. I simply cannot imagine anyone doubting that the holocaust did indeed happen.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, today The Globe and Mail reported that the Iranians who were detained near Pearson Airport were interrogated by unidentified police. We were not told on what authority they were detained nor who authorized the detention. We are given to understand that no lawyer representing the people being interrogated was present at the interrogation. This sort of thing could happen to any of us. It could even happen to Canadian citizens on Canadian soil. It may be the work of the secret police force that was established last June under Prime Minister Trudeau.
I call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to broaden the inquiry she has undertaken so that it will examine all places at which those arriving in Canada may be detained, who orders such detentions, and under what criteria, and what provision is made for acquainting detainees with their rights under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With particular regard to The Globe and Mail story, the inquiry should find out who carried out the interrogation and who authorized the entry of the police into the detention centre. As well, it should determine whether or not those who were interrogated were informed of their rights under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and whether or not they were given an effective opportunity to exercise their rights by retaining a lawyer to act in their interests.
According to The Globe and Mail, what is reported was based on affidavits, and constitutes a very serious danger to our rights and freedoms from this newly-minted secret service. It is important to-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, in politics and in business, we cannot afford to be negative and pessimistic. With the advent of the Conservative Government, the situation has

March 1, 1985
improved and attitudes are changing as a result of new perceptions of government. Federal-provincial relations are improving across the country. When optimism reigns, Canadians are happier, more productive and more inclined to invest.
In Beauce, the employment situation is improving and the number of jobless workers has dropped. According to the Director of the Canada Employment Centre in Beauce, in 1985 the employment situation will improve, mainly as a result of an increase in the number of jobs. I think it is important to emphasize the positive aspects of success, and consequently, I would like to give a few examples of what is happening in our riding and show what we are doing.
I would like to mention the remarkable performance by the CANAM MANAC group in Saint-Georges et Saint-Gedeon, whose production figures have increased dramatically to SI30 million. There has also been a considerable expansion at the Systemes Archimedes construction company in Saint-Frederic, which has been very successful on the export market thanks to a new concept in housing design. I may add that Culinar intends to invest $15 million in its two plants in Sainte-Marie.
As far as small businesses are concerned, my riding is in very good shape.
I agree with my industrial commissioners that there is a general feeling of confidence and optimism in Beauce, a riding that has often been considered as a barometer for the entire province of Quebec.
To the pessimists opposite, I-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are angry at the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). In fact they are furious at the White Paper he tabled in this House entitled Tax Issues in Agriculture, a document which alleges that farmers earn twice as much as the average taxpayer and only pay one-quarter as much in taxes. This ridiculous statement by the Minister of Finance comes at a time when tens of thousands of our youngest, most productive farmers are facing the worst debt crisis since the 1930s, and at a time when total farm income today is almost identical to what it was 10 years ago, while purchasing power has been cut in half by inflation.
The Minister of Finance thinks it is fair to compare the income of a farmer with the income of the average wage earner. I would point out to him that a farmer works 12 to 15 hours a day, throws in the labour of his family members to
boot, and has a massive capital investment compared to that of the average wage earner.
The farmers of the country are getting fed up with the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) who says that he will not help them out of their debt crisis. However, they are totally frustrated by the Minister of Finance who wrote this misleading document on farm incomes, a document which totally distorts and misrepresents the really difficult situation faced by farmers in Canada today. With a Minister of Finance like this, it is little wonder that our country reached two of the worst economic records in Canadian history this week-the lowest dollar ever of 71 cents U.S., and the highest government spending estimates ever of $105 billion.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to say a few words about agriculture and the International Development Research Centre.

As Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, I often hear of how Canada has helped other nations, particularly in the area of agriculture. Naturally this pleases me as one of the great agricultural institutions of the world is in my riding.
My point today concerns the International Development Research Centre and its splendid work with Bolivia in the field of genetic and agricultural improvements of the Quinoa plant, a most important source of energy and nutrition in the Andean region. I have been asked to extend the thanks of the Bolivian Government to the Parliament of Canada for the support which was given with good will and without self-interest. Accordingly, I do so, Sir.

[DOT] (mo)


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I would like to extend my congratulations to Sylvia Gold, the new President of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. We are pleased to see the appointment of a progressive woman with excellent experience, a good understanding of women's issues, extensive labour experience, and outstanding leadership qualities. She has the support of women across the country.
However, one good appointment does not make a council. There are 13 vacancies. Competent women from across the country representing all regions, cultural groups, native people,
March 1, 1985

the disabled, business and labour, must be appointed to this Council, and the appointments must be from all political parties. The effectiveness of the Council also depends on access to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mr. McLean) and the political will of the Government to act on the recommendations made by the Council.
Too often in the past the Council's excellent research and recommendations were allowed to gather dust. Accordingly, we recommend that reports made by the Council not only be reported to the House, but also be referred to the appropriate committees for study and action. In order to accomplish that goal I repeat the recommendation which was made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), who is the NDP critic for the status of women, that there be a standing committee on women's issues. That would be a means whereby we could advance equality for women as we approach the date for equality, April 17, and the implementation of the Charter of Rights.
Once again, our sincere congratulations to Ms. Gold.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.


CURRENCY
Mr. Girve Fretz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, Members are no doubt aware that Canada should have a readily marketable and acceptable dollar coinage. Inco Limited, a company which is vital to the economy not only of my own riding but, indeed, of the entire Province of Ontario, has developed a gold-on-nickel material called nigold. The proposed coin would be multisided, slightly larger than a 25-cent piece, and would weigh less than half the weight of our existing silver dollar, which is not really silver.
The nigold dollar coin would have a three-micron thick plate of gold on a nickel base, which would result in a beautiful golden product possessing great durability. It is understood- and this has been shown by testing-that it will keep its original pleasing appearance for the life of the coin, which is estimated at 40 years.
I understand the issue of the dollar coin will be brought before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I hope this Committee will give serious consideration to the Inco dollar coin. The existence of such a coin would make it easier for vendors who currently have to deal with massive quantities of coins of smaller denominations, and it would provide many jobs for workers at Inco who are currently laid off.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Last September, Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick's ship of state was carried off on a huge blue wave and passengers were in a mood of euphoria. Early in November, however, on a black Thursday evening, the horizon disappeared behind a deep mist which, rather than lift as we had been promised, gradually turned into thick fog.
True enough, Mr. Speaker, the Party opposite had told us that the proposed restraints and many cut-backs would have very little negative impact-if any at all-on the Canadian economy.
It so happens that the number of unemployed is still at an unacceptable level. Unemployment in a riding like mine is a never-ending scourge. We simply cannot afford to have more people out of work-there are too many as it is-yet the unemployment rate has been inching up lately.
Mr. Speaker, that blue wave has carried us far off the coast and we are experiencing increasing difficulty to get back on the right course. I am wondering whether this Government is waiting for a distress signal before reacting.
Talking about challenging new policies, consultation and economic growth is well and good, but the words must have some meaning. To this day, however, all that rhetoric leads us to conclude that the words simply do not reflect daily realities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, according to Canadian Press, FIRA has given the go-ahead to five foreign-owned firms to establish auto parts manufacturing plants in southwestern Ontario, and to two other foreign firms wishing to refurbish and lease various types of vehicles in the same area.
The five firms are owned by West German companies; the other two are owned by companies in the States of Michigan and Indiana, in the United States.
This announcement is significant not only to the economy of my riding and southwestern Ontario but to Canada as a whole, because it appears to demonstrate the beneficial effects of the Government's policy of openness to foreign investment, and

March 1, 1985
Oral Questions
the restructuring of FIRA and the Act under which it operates.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my first question will be directed to the Minister of Finance. The dollar is down and interest rates are up. The Minister of Finance told us yesterday that this was unusual in the history of our country. It may be unusual and unprecedented, but we certainly have not seen any unprecedented or creative action taken to address this situation. In the words of Don McGillivray, the Government is "making a virtue out of indecision". Our weak and wavering dollar, I suggest, is simply a reflection of a weak and wavering Government which refuses to give a firm sense of economic direction to the country.
With respect to the obvious victims of increased interest rates, and I think particularly of home owners whose mortgages are coming up for renewal, and those people who are trying to get into the housing market, with respect to these victims of his policies, will the Minister undertake to introduce fiscal measures to address that situation in order to provide Canadians with a measure of relief and protect them against these increasing interest rates?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the Hon. Member's preamble go by without commenting on the fact that a wide number of editorial comments are supportive of the policy we followed in response to the unprecedented strength of the U.S. dollar. It is the first time in history that we have had this sort of strength. I set out very clearly the economic policy of this Government in my statement of November 8. That is the policy we will be following through on in the Budget coming this spring. I would hope that the Hon. Member would refer to that on a regular basis before he asks these questions, because I think he will find that the direction is there to create the jobs, the confidence, and that sense of certainty which was missing over the past 10 or 15 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is beginning to rival the Prime Minister as the undisputed master of the sanctimonious cliche, which is all we are getting.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Question.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF BUDGET
Donald James Johnston: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister. The last budget target date was set at April. I hope it is not receding into history. Will the Prime Minister get behind his Minister of Finance and ensure that a Budget is brought down in this House before the end of April so that the victims of higher interest rates will know what kind of protection they can expect?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to tell my friend what I think he already knows. The Minister of Finance will be bringing in a budget which will be helpful and consistent with his financial statement of November 8, which was designed to restore confidence and create jobs.
On the question of consistency, given the intervention of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, I believe he should take cognizance of the fact that, having asked for a $100 million contribution to Domtar, it now turns out that the Leader of the Opposition is opposed to the $100 million contribution. Today in La Presse he is announcing that he is in favour of the statement of policy as set out by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. There is the duplicity of the Liberal Party. That's why you were driven from office, and you deserve to have been.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it seems the Prime Minister cannot answer the question because I asked on what date the Budget will be brought down. I asked for a commitment that the Budget will be tabled here in the House before the end of April.
I would like to add that I object to the fact that the Prime Minister still does not know the name of my riding which is Saint-Henri-Westmount. I realize he lives in the Westmount part, but it is Saint-Henri-Westmount, Mr. Speaker.

I would predict-talking about without precedents-that we are going to have the first Minister of Finance who will retire without ever having produced a Budget in this House.


MAIN ESTIMATES
Donald James Johnston: My
supplementary question is directed perhaps to the Minister's colleague, the President of the Treasury Board. I was shocked to find that the Government has abandoned the reform recommended by the Lambert Commission of giving us spending plans beyond the current year. Are they telling us, Mr. Speaker, that they do not know what the spending plans are beyond
March 1, 1985

the current year, or are they scared to tell us what those spending plans are?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we have not abandoned the practice of giving spending plans for more than the current or coming year. In due course we will be very happy to give Hon. Members of this House an indication of the course of government spending over the years to come.


FINANCE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As the House is aware, the Bank of Canada rate has gone up from 10.95 to 11.52 per cent, so that we now have one of those rare times in history when the Bank of Canada rate is higher than the prime lending rate charged by chartered banks, Caisses populaires and credit unions on their corporate loans. The rate for one-year Treasury bills has now reached 12.5 per cent-13 per cent when issued-while the rate for private one-year mortgages is now around 11.5 per cent.
Now that the Government has decided to let interest rates rise, we must expect some changes in the market, and my question is as follows: What does the Minister of Finance intend to do to help small- and medium-sized businesses that are going to see the cost of money rise to about 13 per cent, and homeowners whose mortgage rates will rise between 'A and % of 1 percent? What does the Minister intend to do to help these two sectors of our economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the House on many occasions in recent weeks that what we are faced with here is an unprecedented international situation which is causing upward pressure on interest rates. I have indicated to the House that I am not happy with that upward pressure but it is something that is not totally within our control. The Hon. Member should be aware of the fact that there is a tremendous press of international capital going around, but it is not going to be a long-term situation. There is going to be some relief, I would expect, in the next little while. With that relief I expect we would see some decline in interest rates.


MAIN ESTIMATES FOR 1985-86
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, today again the dollar weakened compared with yesterday's
Oral Questions
level, but confidence does not seem to be recovering very quickly. In the Main Estimates, the average rate for the debt service charge was calculated on the basis of 10.7 per cent, while today, the Bank of Canada rate is at 11.52 per cent. This would have the effect-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but does he have a question?


Raymond Garneau: I certainly do. This increase in the interest rate will mean an extra $1.7 billion in Government spending. Does the Minister intend to correct the Estimates that were tabled last Tuesday?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not intend to correct the Estimates as tabled by my colleague. We are still in fiscal year 1984-85. The next Fiscal year starts on April 1, 1985. I have indicated in my previous answer that I expect by that time we should have some decline in interest rates from the levels we have today. That projection for the balance of the year stands.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday he said that the federal Government can help Domtar but, outside the House, a department official said the opposite. According to him, the federal Government cannot help a company in which a Government has an interest, or which is even controlled by a Government. What is the policy of the federal Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Government policy is the one I announced yesterday: notwithstanding the fact that the Quebec Government may be a majority shareholder through some of its own agencies, we still have every intention of trying to help the company launch a major project. As my colleague knows, I am saying today what I said on Monday and Tuesday, unlike the Leader of the Liberal Party and his supporters who led the fight in the House during four days. Yesterday, the people of Quebec were flabbergasted to learn that the Liberal Party spent the whole week arguing against any kind of assistance to Domtar, yet they kept making a fuss about it. Now we can see how hypocritical the Liberal Party has been with respect to this matter.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals certainly have problems with policies. Still, I might suggest

March 1, 1985
Oral Questions
that the policies of the Progressive Conservative Government are contradictory as well.

In the Estimates that were tabled earlier this week there is a clear declaration that since November Crown corporations or government agencies are no longer eligible for financial assistance from the Government. How can the Prime Minister now leave the impression with Members of the House, and more particularly with the people who are involved in the Domtar enterprise, that the Government may indeed provide some kind of financial assistance? Surely the Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot have a policy statement in the Estimates which excludes financial assistance, and then come into the House and say that they may indeed get such assistance.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have already said so in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I fail to see where the contradiction is. Faced with an outright request for a capital injection of $100 million in favour of Domtar, I had said that we were not in a position to meet that request, regardless of its merits, because of the heavy $35 billion deficit left us by the Liberal Party.
Be that as it may, we do admit to some responsibility in regional development. The Quebec Government may very well intervene in a case through its agencies, but that does not deny the company involved the right to make representations to the federal Government so as to find a formula which would enable us to offer some kind of assistance.


EXCLUSION OF CROWN CORPORATIONS FROM FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the general phrases are not helping to clarify a very serious situation. In the financial operations of the Province of Quebec, la Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec plays a fundamental role and is a public enterprise. Will the Prime Minister explain how the Government could adopt a policy, which the Estimates state has been in existence since last November, that will exclude Crown corporations or other government agencies, even if they have simply effective control, from financial assistance from the federal Government? Does this policy not blatantly discriminate against Crown corporations all across Canada in favour of private sector activity only? Given the thrust of economic development in the Province of Quebec, does this policy not particularly discriminate against the Province of Quebec?
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the contradiction mentioned by my colleague, for he is right to refer to the fact that, last November in the House, the Liberal Government was on the verge of sneaking Bill S-31 through, which would have had the dire consequences you mention for all francophones in Quebec. The NDP and our Party closed ranks against the Liberal Government which was trying to massacre the francophones of Quebec through the Caisse de depot et placement. We fought together in this war against the Quebec Liberal machine which fraudulently attempted to harm Quebecers.
In any event, I do not think there is any contradiction between the policy you refer to and the legitimate desire of the federal Government to meet with its interlocutor, the Premier of Quebec, and try to find a formula under which Domtar might carry out its development project. Unfortunately, we simply cannot meet the original request, and that is that.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of External Relations. The Government's co-ordinator for aid to Ethiopia, Mr. David MacDonald, stated recently that Canada must do more than feed the starving. According to Mr. MacDonald, our aid policy will be useless unless the desert's constant advance can be stopped. However, CIDA is planning to cancel indefinitely a $25 million project that would have used advanced Canadian solar technology to bring water to the surface and stop the desertification process.
My question to the Minister is as follows: Does the cancellation of this project represent Government policy?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, we intend to maintain the programs that have been committed. We are now engaged in program review, and our main objective is to help development in developing countries.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, then how are we to understand a paper prepared by CIDA and dated February 5, which says the Agency intends to postpone indefinitely the regional program for new and renewable energy sources, partly because of budgetary cutbacks at the National Research Council? Is the Minister aware of the existence of this memo? If so, what were her instructions to her Department, and finally is the Minister prepared to promise before the House that the $25 million program will not be cancelled?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for CIDA, my responsibility consists in planning programs and announcing them, and I do not think I have any obligation to announce them here in the House.
March 1, 1985


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Prime Minister which concerns Domtar and the principle defined by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, whose department, according to the Estimates tabled this week, will no longer provide federal subsidies for Crown corporations and corporations controlled by provincial governments. The Prime Minister has been saying that Domtar may get something, but departmental officials have clearly indicated that, according to their interpretation, Domtar would not be entitled to these subsidies. Is this Government policy or is the Prime Minister now saying that Domtar could get a subsidy, thus contradicting the Minister's statement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: You are
probably correct in saying that is the interpretation given by the officials, but it is not my interpretation and it is not the interpretation of my colleagues. I would like to point out to my hon. friend that when his interpretation of the policy in question . . . perhaps I may quote from this morning's edition of La Presse:
When reporters asked him whether he supported Mr. Stevens' new policy on regional development, the Liberal leader was even more evasive and even tried to put an end to the interview. Literally surrounded by four or five journalists who wanted an answer, he finally said: "I am not against it!"
The Liberal leader approuves the policy as stated. Personally, I would say that we in Cabinet have a more "liberal" interpretation.


SUBSIDIES-CROWN CORPORATIONS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that the policy of the Leader of the Liberal Party and the policy of the party to which the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion belongs are not the policy of the New Democratic Party? We believe that Crown corporations should be entitled to accept subsidies. Is the Prime Minister prepared to change the Department's policy since, otherwise, the officials will continue to interpret that particular policy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is well aware that the fact I already announced ... I have been consistent since the beginning of this week. I have not turned my coat like the leader of the Liberal Party and the Member for Westmount. I beg your pardon, Westmount-Saint-Henri . . . Saint-Henri-Westmount. We have been consistent all this week, but when I returned to the House on Wednesday, I announced that I intended to meet with the Premier of Quebec to discuss the case further. This
Oral Questions
implied a desire on our part to be of some use and to try and make a valid contribution to the development of the region.


AGRICULTURE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It follows a question that I asked last week of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If it is brought to his attention that Alachlor, a herbicide that is used in crop spraying, has the potential to cause cancer in humans, and that this herbicide has been found in shallow, rural wells in Ontario in concentrations which could significantly increase the risk of cancer in children and adults, would the Minister demonstrate that he is concerned for the health of Canadians and the quality of ground water by immediately implementing an outright ban on the use of alachlor?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the concern of the Hon. Member. I want to assure him that my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I, have and will continue to have ongoing consultations. At the moment, though, I have not made that final decision.


PEST MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, when will the Minister announce the establishment of the Pest Management Advisory Board, which was announced by his predecessor in May of last year and confirmed by the present Minister as recently as October, 1984? When will he announce this board?


John Wise: The answer is very, very soon, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given the promises he made to Quebecers in an address to the Empire Club and the Canadian Club-$75 million for shipyards and $100 million to finance farm mortgages-why do the main estimates indicate $40 million less for shipyard building and $60 million less for the Farm Credit Corporation?

March 1, 1985
Oral Questions


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice, speak to my colleagues, and return to the House with the appropriate explanation for both of those reductions.
[ Translation]


FINANCING PROMISED TO QUEBEC VITAL INDUSTRIES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. What with all the protests in Quebec concerning Domtar, how can the Prime Minister justify what appears to be an outright withdrawal of financing promised to vital Quebec industries?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this must be the NDP's Quebec day. We do get those days every other month. I encourage you and I congratulate you. Now then, I have been trying for three or four days to indicate to my colleagues that we were forced to turn down a direct request for a $100 million grant to Domtar, which is a very prosperous undertaking, a company which has posted huge profits in recent years and which is structurally sound. The huge deficit we have inherited did force us to reject a direct $100 million grant, but it does not rule out the possibility of co-operating in other fields with a view to helping Domtar and its shareholders carry out a major job-creating project in Quebec. I am sure my colleague will understand that we are considering the file and the requests-that one and others- with some sympathy.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister, but first of all, I want to say how surprised I am to see that he has decided, in an effort to hide his lack of involvement in the Domtar affair, to quote an inaccurate report to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition is now opposed to the Government granting the subsidy. Let us be honest about it. The Prime Minister knows that he has received a letter requesting Government assistance. The Leader of the Opposition asked him about it this week in the House. Members of the Liberal Party and his own Party are pressuring him to grant the subsidy-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Jacques Guilbault: The question is quite simple. When does the Prime Minister intend to meet the
Quebec Premier so that this matter can be resolved? That is the key issue.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in view of this appalling attack on the integrity of the members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, I would like to quote from the article published yesterday in the newspaper La Presse and written by an experienced reporter, Mr. Lavoie, who says the following: "This ambiguous position of the Liberal Leader removes a trump card from the hands of the Quebec Members of Parliament, who had unexpectedly found a new hobby-horse in the Domtar affair. Now that their own leader had sided with the decision made by Mr. Stevens, they will find it difficult to continue their fight on this issue."
You are obviously embarrassed because of the hypocrisy of the Liberal position and the fact that you have reversed your stand before the people of Quebec. The answer to the other question asked by the Hon. Member is that I am meeting Mr. Levesque on March 8.


INQUIRY WHEN DOMTAR SITUATION WILL BE RESOLVED
Jacques Guilbault: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I simply want to point out that I spoke to my Leader this morning and that this article is inaccurate. I can also add that the Government can gain nothing by trying to play politics on the back of the Liberal Party with this issue. When will the Government resolve the Domtar situation? This is what the people in Windsor want to know. It is not by casting aspersions on the Liberal Party that the Government can solve the problem of the people who fear for their jobs in that region.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You are not
being as logical in this affair as your Leader was in relation to the Senate issue when he said in this House that he approved the role of the federal Parliament and would oppose any obstruction by the Senate. He is now approving the action of the Liberal senators, which is costing millions of dollars to Canadian taxpayers. This is what is happening because of the flip-flop of the Liberal Party.
We shall work loyally and without hypocricy. As noted in the press, we shall co-operate loyally with the Quebec Government, the Domtar company, its employees and the social groups involved in this affair. Our co-operation will be sincere and not-
March 1, 1985


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RELEASE OF TASK FORCE REPORT
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications, I will address my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. I understand the Government pays the bills for the CRTC and not the press. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications explain to this House why a CRTC task force report was released last Monday to the press, and the report to the Members of this House was delivered yesterday afternoon?


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I thank the Hon. Member for his question, on behalf of the Minister of Communications, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member should know that when the policy concerning remote areas was announced last December 20, the Minister of Communications asked for the collaboration of the CRTC, which reacted immediately by setting up its own task force. That task force, under the chairmanship of Mr. Paul Klingle, has reported to the CRTC. We are awaiting the reaction of the Commission to the recommendations, and once the Government has assessed recommendations of the task force the Minister will be getting back to the Hon. Member and to the House.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday two Members on the government side suggested that the private homes of senior citizens which have been bought and paid for should be taken into account when determining pension income, and that the imputed rental savings should be calculated when determining GIS payments. Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare advise the House whether in fact these two Members were reflecting government policy, or whether they were just reflecting the right-wing views in the Conservative caucus?


John Edward Broadbent: Or both.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Whichever comes first.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs has been meeting on the consultation paper. We had another meeting this morning, and I have indicated to the Committee, as we have done before, that we are interested in the broad views not only of committee members but of Canadians generally.
I think it is important for all of us in this House to recognize that individual Members of Parliament can have views and
Oral Questions
they can express them. That has always been part of parliamentary form. As to the position of the Government and the position it will take on the consultation, that is quite another matter.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the Minister repudiate the views of these two Members expressed yesterday, and assure this House and the seniors in our country that it is not the intention of the Government to implement any kind of despicable policy such as was enunciated by them yesterday?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member that that is not our policy. The Hon. Member used that word, and it should be clearly established that it is not government policy. He should remember, and I am sure he does, that in previous times when the Liberals were musing about that kind of imputed rent, it was our Party that opposed it. We oppose it. If the Hon. Member had been in committee this morning, the Hon. Member would also know-


John R. Rodriguez: That has changed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -that I gave to the committee examples of costs, for instance, for Canadians over the age of 65, of rent and home ownership. We had a good exchange on that matter. If the Hon. Member goes back to the record of the committee today, many of his questions might be answered.


GOVERNMENT BONDS
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Commission fees for marketable Government of Canada bonds were recently lowered creating an annual saving, I understand, of about $10 million. Would the Minister comment on the merits of the system used in the United States whereby the U.S. Treasury sells all its debt through the auction technique, and thereby eliminates commissions altogether?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm that, about a month or six weeks ago, the Government did reduce the commission rates for government bond issues. It will amount to a savings in the order of $10 million, or about 15 per cent of the total cost of commissions on government bond financing.
With regard to the Hon. Member's question on moving totally to an auction format or a non-commission format, I can tell him that we have taken steps to move toward an auction format. There will be an auction this month, the month of

March 1, 1985
Oral Questions
March. We are experimenting with these opportunities, but we are not ready to go fully to the U.S. format at this point.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns government advertising. Given the past criticism by the Tories of government advertising, and given that the Minister of Supply and Services, in a debate with me on CBC's The Journal in January, stated that the Conservative Government would reduce government advertising substantially, can the Prime Minister explain to this House why the Estimates for 1985-86 show an increase of $23 million for the information budget, and an increase of $5 million in the Estimates for the Minister of Supply and Services particularly?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, without for a moment accepting the premise of the Hon. Member's question, I will take it as notice and make sure an answer is given to him to assure him that the intention of this Government is to cut back on government advertising costs.


PRIVY COUNCIL
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. Could he tell us why, in his own department, the information budget has been increased by 300 per cent?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the previous question applies to this one.


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Speaker, it has been some time since we heard some Diefenbaker French in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL REVENUE
Simon Leendert de Jong: My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. According to the Estimates tabled in the House on Tuesday, the Minister will be allocating 20 person years to assist large corporations in methods by which to avoid taxes. Is the Minister aware that a study by his own Department on tax avoidance stated: "It is the opinion of senior management that the focus of tax avoidance has switched from implementing objectionable schemes to obtaining departmental approval through the advance ruling process"?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will give my answer in Fergus English to the Hon. Member. The Department never has and never will countenance tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is improper. Under no circumstances will we assist in it. What we have said, and what is a key part of the Declaration of Taxpayer Rights, which we unveiled yesterday, is that taxpayers, in dealing with five pounds of the most incomprehensible legislation known to modern man, the Income Tax Act, have the right to know how the Department interprets the legislation. That includes corporate and individual taxpayers alike. What we are determined to do is to tell taxpayers how we interpret that legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEPARTMENT'S INFORMATION SERVICES
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. Of course it is especially incomprehensible to small individual taxpayers. Is it fair for the Department of National Revenue to offer these increased services to the big corporate sector and not offer the same level of services to the small, individual, non-corporate taxpayers, who are surely the vast majority of taxpayers?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the Hon. Member that we are stepping up our information services. One of the commitments that I make to him, and to all Canadians, is to ensure that my Department goes out of its way to provide factual information to all taxpayers, particularly to taxpayers in the low income scale, to ensure that they have the information that is necessary to comply fully with the laws. It is a commitment that we make. It is guaranteed in our Declaration of Taxpayer Rights.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of National Defence a very straightforward question about the Conservative Party's election pamphlet entitled Honour the Commitment, which promised greatly increased spending in the Department of National Defence. The Minister had the unmitigated gall to say that he would have to consult with the officials of the Department. It was not the officials of his Department who
March 1, 1985

made that election promise. It was the Conservative Party which made that election promise.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, does the Hon. Member have a question?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I would simply ask the Minister where is the honour and commitment on the Treasury benches of this Tory Government, when the Minister himself has been sitting on the Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet since last September and obviously had a part in making the cuts in real growth in defence expenditures. He was on the scene.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, one commitment that I can give to the Hon. Member, and to all Members of this House, is that, unlike the last 16 years during which time the Armed Forces underwent erosion of a substantial nature, we will, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government, ensure that we live up to our commitments to our allies and to NATO, to make Canadian men and women who serve in our Armed Forces proud once again to serve their country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ELECTION CAMPAIGN PROMISE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting statement, in view of the fact that the Estimates tabled on Tuesday are $150 million less than the previous Liberal Government proposal. The Minister is chairing the Government's task force examining ways of cutting spending. Is he suggesting that his Party never had any serious intention of keeping its promise of 6 per cent real growth in defence spending, but rather intended to lower it to the bare minimum of 3 per cent or less, as tabled Tuesday, or is it that his Party made promises in the last election simply based on lousy research?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member is confused. That is probably the result of the departure from his usual calm, controlled actions in the House of Commons. The Estimates of the Department will be before the Standing Committee as soon as the steering committee decides how to deal with the agenda. I anticipate that will be within a week or two. He will have the opportunity of going into that detail at that time. I can assure him, with respect to the Estimates, that they will provide sufficient to enable us, unlike the previous Government, to live up to those commitments to our allies in NATO.
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


LUBICON LAKE INDIAN BAND
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is St. David's Day today. I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Last month the Minister appointed the Hon. E. Davie Fulton as his personal emissary to the Lubicon Lake Indian Band. The Lubicon people have been trying for 46 years to have a reserve set aside, and now they are fighting to try to prevent complete destruction of their lands by the oil companies. When the Minister appointed Mr. Fulton, why did he not at least notify the Lubicon people of his action? Can he inform the House of the terms of reference for Mr. Fulton's work, how much power he will have to negotiate a real settlement, and when his work is expected to be finished?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member agrees with me that it was a good opportunity to have the appointment of the Hon. Davie Fulton to such a task, because the matter which he outlined with respect to Lubicon Lake and some of the other communities is such a complicated one. As a consequence of that complication, after I had advised the band that I intended to pick an envoy, I advised that what I would do was work out terms of reference for the Hon. Davie Fulton. We are in the process of doing that. Mr. Fulton indicated that he would not be able to start until mid-March, and we are just on target.


POWERS OF MINISTER'S REPRESENTATIVE
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, will Mr. Fulton have any power to bring justice to the Lubicon people, or is he simply going to be given a mandate to do a further study, which will result in further delays, while the Lubicon Lake area is being further destroyed?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member realizes that after all these years, after waiting for Government after Government to do something, the Lubicon people are delighted to have Mr. Fulton do the job.


James Douglas Manly: Will he have power?


David Edward Crombie: If the Hon. Member would listen, I would say to him that, wherever Mr. Fulton does the job, he does it with a sense of justice, and he will have the power to do so.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Canada Development Investment Corpora-

March 1, 1985
Oral Questions
tion is discussing selling Canadair and de Havilland to Mes-serschmitt of Germany? If that is correct, why is the Canada Development Investment Corporation chairman, according to a report in The Globe and Mail, not looking for a commitment
for "a specific level of jobs"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm any ongoing negotiations. As my hon. friend would know, having served in high government office, questions of this magnitude are negotiated and dealt with, with various proposals on the table. I do not think he would really expect me to confirm or deny whether there are any ongoing negotiations.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. If the reports are correct, and they are apparently based on a visit paid recently by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to the Premier of Bavaria, Mr. Strauss, the chairman of Airbus Industrie, I would like the Prime Minister to explain why the Government is not willing to keep Canadair and de Havilland, the technology they developed, and the jobs they provide under Canadian public ownership, but instead is willing to sell them to Messerschmitt of Germany, a company that has a substantial degree of state ownership, or to Airbus Industrie, a consortium of European companies, most or all of which are also publicly owned?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why my hon. friend would jump to the conclusion that he has, and assert that as a matter of fact when it is no such thing. In his first question he referred to it as an allegation in The Globe and Mail. In his second question, it is a statement of fact that the Government is confirming its intention to do so. There have been no such transactions concluded. Negotiations continue with a number of interested parties, Canadian, North American, and European. At an appropriate time, when the Minister returns and a proper evaluation has been made and submitted to Cabinet, we will be delighted to inform the Hon. Member and the House.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: CDIC has confirmed these discussions are under way-his own Crown corporation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Not our own Crown corporation; your Crown corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


RIGHT HON. JOHN G. DIEFENBAKER PROPOSED STATUE ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Last night I had the pleasure of speaking to a Private Member's Motion which was initiated by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes). I am very pleased to say that that motion was passed unanimously. The motion was for the raising of a statue of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker placed on Parliament Hill.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister when we might expect to see some initiatives taken on that motion. I would also like to ask that consideration be given to inviting a Saskatchewan artist to design that statue.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear of the unanimous passing of the motion proposing the establishment of that kind of a memorial to the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, who served this House and country with such outstanding distinction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know that all Members of the House would want an appropriate memorial raised. Given Mr. Diefenbak-er's background, a Saskatchewan artist would be appropriate. We will be happy to look into the suggestion and report back to the House.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) on Thursday, February 28, 1985 meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) on Thursday, February 28, 1985, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
March 1, 1985
Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 205, 211 and 230.


Mr. Henderson: Did Treasury Board approve the move of the Conservation and Renewable Energy Office from Summerside, P.E.I. to Charlottetown, P.E.l. on July 26, 1984 and, if not, on what date was it approved?


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Treasury Board approval was not required for the above-mentioned relocation and consequently none was given. The Department involved, Energy, Mines and Resources did however advise Treasury Board of the move, and as required under the government's Relocation and Decentralization Policy, the Board advised the appropriate bargaining agents of the department's intentions.
The move, which involved relocating 12 employees from Summerside, P.E.I. to Charlottetown, P.E.I., 65 kilometres away, was not expected to create any special hardships since most of the employees already lived in Charlottetown. In addition, those employees requiring a change in domicile were to be reimbursed for their relocation expenses. Most of the dealings of this energy office were carried out in Charlottetown, and this was the basic reason for the move.
On November 28, 1984, a communique was issued by the Department indicating that the move was being deferred to March 31, 1985 pending a review of the new location. By this time, three or four employees had already moved to the new location and services have since been maintained in both locations.


Mr. Hovdebo: 1.	In each year since the service was initiated, how many radiation meters have been calibrated by the Ottawa Radiation Lab?
2.	How many Lab employees were involved in the calibration process and what was the total cost of the operation to the Lab?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned the answer is as follows:
NRC has calibrated radiation instruments and sources for over 50 years; detailed records for the earlier years are no longer available. During this period, the types of calibrations have been changing dramatically. For example, 60 Co teletherapy sources are no longer calibrated routinely but about 1,500 were calibrated between 1954 and 1973. Similarly, in earlier times NRC calibrated over 28,000 radium needles for use in cancer therapy but the demand for these calibrations has almost disappeared.
The following table shows for several classes of instruments the number calibrated in each of the last 10 years. Even within
Order Paper Questions
a class, instruments are calibrated in, and so require the maintenance of, a variety of different radiation fields.
Frequently a calibration represents the first step in a long chain. For example, Ontario Hydro uses one NRC-calibrated high quality instrument to calibrate hundreds of their own instruments. Health and Welfare calibrates over 100,000 personnel radiation monitoring badges based on one or two NRC calibrations per year. A cancer clinic will calibrate many units
and instruments	based on one NRC calibration per	year.Exposure and Survey Instruments	Neutron	Irradiation of Personnel	Survey*1 * Meters in a	Chemical*2*for X-rays	Survey	Monitoring	7 MeV	DosimetryYear	and 60 Co	Meters	Badges	Field	Service1984	23	2	140	7	21983	28	4	100	-	I1982	23	3	several hundred	6	11981	22	6	several hundred	6	-1980	27	2	several hundred	20	-1979	36	1	several hundred	-	-1978	37	1	355	-	-1977	9(3)	1	544	-	-1976	31	1	254	-	-1975	17	-	-	-	-1974	16	1	-	-	-(1)	Developed in 1980.(2)	Developed in 1981.(3)	New X-ray Generator Commissioned.
2. The Dosimetry and Radiation Calibration Group at NRC involves 12 people and an annual budget of $1 million a year. The activities of this group include the maintenance of standards, research for standards and the calibration service.


Mr. Howie: From January 1, 1984 to January I, 1985, how many persons in the age group between 65 and 70 inclusive, were working full-time?


T.A. Bud Bradley: Statistics Canada reports: It is not possible to derive estimates of the number of persons in the age group between 65 and 70 inclusive who were working full time. However, annual averages drawn from the monthly Labour Force Survey for 1984 show the following:
Employed full-time both sexes
Age	Annual Average. 1984
65-69 years	77,000
70 years and over	45,000


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


T.A. Bud Bradley: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

March 1, 1985
Indian Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


David Edward Crombie: that Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Indian Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am asking Hon. Members to consider legislation which will eliminate two historic wrongs in Canada's legislation regarding Indian people. These wrongs are discriminatory treatment based on sex and the control by Government of membership in Indian communities.
In the early days of Confederation, Canada consisted only of the Maritime Provinces, parts of Ontario and parts of Quebec. The balance of the great land was the territory of the aboriginal people. At that time, the Parliament of Canada took upon itself to define through the Indian Act who it would recognize as having Indian status. As Canada took over those Indian lands, hundreds of thousands of people and their descendants fell unknowingly into a category of people whose lives would become dominated almost totally by the federal Government.
The legal definition of who was an Indian reflected the nature of Canadian society at the time. A woman followed her husband's status. He alone had civil and political rights and he alone could pass them to his children. This 19th century view was reflected throughout the Indian Act. An Indian woman would, parliamentarians of the day reasoned, be taken care of by her white man and therefore would no longer need to be an Indian. She was enfranchised, to use the terminology of the Act. For her, the price of marriage was her status as an Indian.
It is sad to say that these legal definitions continue to the present day. The result is a lengthy list of hotly debated issues. These include questions like who is an Indian, who determines who belongs to a band, who should be registered as having Indian status, what should be done with people who lost status unfairly and with their children, and what is enfranchisement and why do we still have it. All of these issues mean little to most Canadians but they are critical, urgent and important questions to Indian people. That is why the federal Government has been under pressure from many fronts for many years, both in and out of Parliament, to remove sexual discrimination from the Indian Act.
In the legislation which I am tabling today, that removal is being effected. If this was all that had to be done, it would be done simply. However, removing discrimination raises two other questions: what about those who have lost their rights as a result of discriminatory legislation, and who really should control the membership in the bands? To discuss these questions, I need to step back a moment and explain certain facts.
I might say parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that you would find as I did, if you were to travel throughout Indian communities and deal with organizations that deal with matters related to Indian people, that the amount of ignorance which exists about certain facts with respect to these definitions is striking. That is why I wish to spend a short time dealing with them.
The Indian Act deals with three basic things: who is considered to be an Indian within the meaning of the Act; who can be a member of a particular Indian nation; and who can live on reserves. Status defines those individuals whom the federal Government wishes to include within the meaning of the Indian Act. It is the right of the federal Government to make that decision. As a result of certain government policies, these individuals who have status are eligible as individuals for certain programs, most particularly those in the fields of education and health.
Band membership is a qualitatively different matter. Band membership is a collective right because it gives access to the common assets and the decision-making process of the band. Residency on the reserve goes to the heart of the participation in the daily life of Indian people in Indian communities. That is why flowing to those resident people is access to housing and other community services. That is also why it has been clear to me for some time that the intimate decisions regarding membership and residency must be made by the people most concerned and most affected.
I know that some people have felt that the resistance of some Indian people to having discrimination removed from the Indian Act was nothing more than male chauvinism. I wish to take this opportunity to explain that in all of my hours and days of meeting with Indian people on this and other subjects, I have not found that to be true. Many First Nations have long preceded Canada in the creation of egalitarian, non-discriminatory societies, and the recognition of the rights of women. Many Indian women had strong political rights in their nations long before non-Indian Canadian women had the right to vote. Indian people have long been on record as being in support of the principle of sexual equality and have joined with others in condemning discriminatory federal actions which have deprived persons of their rights without their consent or without the consent of their communities.
Indian people have consistently objected to the federal Government intruding into the governing of their communities and nations. What greater intrusion can there be than the arrogance of assuming the right to tell another people of another culture and tradition who is and who is not a member of their
March 1, 1985

community and who can and who cannot live on their own lands?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said that as a Conservative-indeed, I think this matter reflects the feelings of all Members of the House-there has been too much intrusion by the federal Government into the daily lives of Canadians. Indians have been a special target and victim of that heavy hand for over a century.
In removing the discrimination from the Indian Act we are starting a new relationship with the people of Indian First Nations. Walter Currie, an Indian educator, has commented on the old relationship upon which federal policy until now has been based. He said:
Unhappily, for both the white man and the Indian especially, it is not working.
I wonder what would happen if Canada would accept us, would be aware of us as Indians, would accept us as a people, would share with us pride in our heritage- for it is Canada's heritage also ... If we cannot cure the ills of today, heaven help us tomorrow.
I have tried to cure the ills of today in this Bill. I have tried to do so in a way which accepts Indian people as people with a right to determine who they are. All of this is a part of a new awakening, both on the part of Indian people, and I think increasingly on the part of non-Indian Canadians as well. Times have changed. We have all come a long way in our thinking. I know my own thinking has changed from the time when I thought we could simply eliminate discrimination from the Indian Act by putting a bold black line through Section 12(1 )(b).
When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was Attorney General of Canada over a decade ago, he had the responsibility to defend the legal situation of the day in the Supreme Court case of Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, who sought relief from the discriminatory provisions of Section 12(1 )(b). Yet I am sure that he would join with me today in supporting the principles upon which this bill rests.
It has only been recently that many in my own Party Have fully understood the need to respect the demand of Indian communities to determine their own membership. However, interestingly, John Diefenbaker foresaw today's legislation. In commenting the Lavell decision, he characterized the decision as unjust and retrograde. He said:
I agree with the dissenting judges. In the years ahead, the dissent of today will be the cornerstone of the future.
In 1977, Harold Cardinal, a Cree political leader in Alberta, published an essay in his book entitled The Rebirth of Canada's Indians. In that book he said:
Trimmed to the bare bone (our rebirth) means we must regain control over the basic decisions affecting our everday lives, our communities, our children, our futures.
Parents must regain the right to make decisions about the lives of our children, their education, the values they grow up with, their preparation for life. We are talking about the right to make the decisions that will allow our communities to flourish-
He was making a declaration which most Canadians would regard as a given right. Surely, one of the ways in which Indian people can do that is to control the membership of their
Indian Act
own First Nations and to be unburdened from the sexually discriminatory provisions of the Act.
In November, 1983 the Parliamentary Task Force on Indian Self-Government, made up of members of all Parties, made a unanimously accepted recommendation which stated:
The Committee asserts as a principle that it is the rightful jurisdiction of each Indian First Nation to determine its membership according to its own particular criteria.
In the legislation I have tabled today, that has been done.
The legislation is based on certain principles, which are the cornestones that John Diefenbaker identified. The first principle is that discrimination based on sex should be removed from the Indian Act.
The second principle is that status under the Indian Act and band membership will be restored to those whose status and band membership were lost as a result of discrimination in the Indian Act.
The third principle is that no one should gain or lose their status as a result of marriage.
The fourth principle is that persons who have acquired rights should not lose those rights.
The fifth principle is that Indian First Nations which desire to do so will be able to determine their own membership. Those are the principles of the Bill.
It is clear that there is little disagreement on the first principle. Sexually discriminatory sections should be removed from the Indian Act. Where there is disagreement, it is on the question of reinstatement of those persons who have been affected in the past by the discriminatory provisions. Some say there should be no reinstatement in any way, shape or form. On the other hand, there are others who want reinstatement to revert to Confederation, giving Indian status and band membership to anyone with any degree of Indian ancestry.
This legislation achieves balance and rests comfortably and fairly on the principle that those persons who lost status and membership should have their status and membership restored. While there are some who would draw the line there, in my view fairness also demands that the first-generation descendants of those who were wronged by discriminatory legislation should have status under the Indian Act so that they will be eligible for individual benefits provided by the federal Government. However, their relationship with respect to membership and residency should be determined by the relationship with the Indian communities to which they belong.
This legislation also wipes out forever the concept of enfranchisement, which forced many Indian people to give up their status and band membership against their will. Incredibly, in the past some people lost their Indian status simply as a result of the fact that they enlisted in the Armed Forces, received a university education, or became a member of the clergy. When I told that to my neighbours in Toronto, they could hardly believe that this was the law of the land.

March 1, 1985
Indian Act
There is another very important matter which I should raise. That is the matter of determining resources which communities will need as a result of these legislative changes. No one knows how many people will apply for restoration of their rights or how many of those who do have their rights restored will decide to return to live in their communities. It is certain that the impact will be different from one Indian community to another from coast to coast to coast. The legislation does not contain a provision regarding resources simply because the entire question of resources is not addressed in the Indian Act.
I would like to say that currently, and speaking generally, existing levels of service and resources in Indian communities are already appallingly inferior to those received by Canadians in general. That is why I have been taking some vigorous, and I think even creative measures recently to achieve efficiencies within the spending of my own Department to try to free up funds in the next fiscal year from administration expenditures in order to move them to programs for Indian communities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: I have also begun, Mr. Speaker, to implement policy changes which will allow Indian communities to have a much greater control over expenditures according to their own priorities or what they themselves refer to as "block" or "global" funding. The question of resources and lands will be part of a larger review within Indian First Nations to determine actions which should be taken by the federal Government in order to ensure there 'is sufficient land and fiscal resources to meet federal responsibilities and obligations for all the people residing there, including those who have been restored to membership in each community by this legislation. I am sure this House would not want me to proceed on a well intentioned attempt to redress injustices of the past which would end up inflicting an even greater injustice and irreparable damage upon the resources and people of the existing Indian communities.
Following the policy of my Government to consult fully, I have received advice and guidance on this legislation from individuals, from written submissions, women's organizations, Indian groups, bands and chiefs, non-status Indian groups, national organizations, from my Department and from my colleagues in this House. Following the policy of my Government to seek consensus, I have encouraged parties to talk to each other, to attempt to reconcile their differences and to accommodate each other's concerns. I have spent many hours trying to understand and develop a course of wisdom. I invite, indeed I encourage, those who may see better approaches to present them to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for its consideration.
While there may be other ways to reach these objectives, I have to reassert what is unshakeable for this Government with respect to this Bill. First, it must include removal of discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act; second, it must include the restoration of status and membership to those who
lost status and membership as a result of those discriminatory provisions; and third, it must ensure that Indian First Nations who wish to do so can control their own membership. Those are the three principles which allow us to find balance and fairness and to proceed confidently in the face of any disappointment which may be expressed by persons or groups who were not able to accomplish 100 per cent of their own particular goals.
This is a difficult issue. It has been for many years. The challenge is striking. The fairest possible balance must be struck and I believe it has been struck in this Bill. I believe we have fulfilled the promise made by the Prime Minister in the Throne Speech that discrimination in the Indian Act would be ended.
In conclusion, I would like to make one or two points of a general nature and which I believe are important. Decolonizing is not a painless process. No one comes out a 100 per cent winner. We can never go back to square one and start over. We have to begin with the realities we confront today. While we can celebrate the ending of a long-standing injustice, we can grieve that the injustice ever existed at all. Some persons have expressed to me surprise that the Government's approach has not been to claim partisan credit for this Bill. I have seen cases in the past where solutions to injustice died because of an effort to exploit them for political advantage. We in this House should refrain from doing so because no one should claim pride in doing something which common decency says should have been done years ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: We should refrain from doing so because the task of creating a new relationship with the aboriginal peoples of Canada is far from complete and because this legislation should be supported by all the peoples of Canada, male and female, Indian and non-Indian, and all political Parties.
I call upon all of those political Parties to support this legislation. In doing so, Canada can bring to an end sexist discrimination in the Indian Act and at the same time begin to bring to an end colonial intrusion into the affairs of the people of the First Nations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, it was Doctor Samuel Johnson, the great literary figure of the 18th century England, who once said: "Of all the ills that human hearts endure, how small the part that laws may cause or cure". It is arrogant of me, I know, and I do hesitate to disagree with such an eminent English literary figure, but when one considers the misery which has been caused in this country by the various provisions of the Indian Act, it is very difficult indeed to accept the wisdom even of such a notable man as Doctor Samuel Johnson. The effects of the Indian Act have been alarming and disturbing in the extreme.
For thousands of years before there was European immigration to this country, there existed in North America many
March 1, 1985

self-governing Indian nations. They had their various languages, their economies and their political systems. The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which is now referred to in the Canadian Constitution, formalized British colonial policy in North America. It affirmed this reality that Indian nations existed, interrelated, and this proclamation recognized Indian title and rights to land and placed very severe limits on the way that the colonial government could secure land for development. It was the source of the treaty-making process which, by the 1920s, had covered all of Canada with the exception of British Columbia and north of 60.
This original relationship was one to which the Minister has referred in his remarks; it was a government-to-government relationship. We should not idealize it too much; it had all sorts of faults. It was a colonial relationship but it was government-to-government at least. That was the way in which the Crown proceeded to deal with Indian nations.
However, that pattern was not sustained. Early Canadian policy attempted to assimilate and terminate Indian people. For example, the Indian people had no part to play at all in negotiating the Canadian Confederation. They were excluded. They did not have the smallest voice in the terms of the British North America Act of 1867. Yet that same Act, in Section 91(24), assumed legislative authority with respect to Indians and lands reserved for Indians to the federal Government. The federal Government used that section of the Constitution to erode Indian governments. Well, in fact to do away with them. In its place the Government imposed upon Indian nations a colonial regime, and then through the Indian Act of 1876 the Government consolidated its legislative control over the Indian people. Under the Indian Act traditional Indian governments were done away with and replaced with something known as band councils. This was not an invention of Indian people at all. It was not indigenous government but an imposed form of government.
What did these band councils do? They simply functioned as agents of the federal Government. They exercised a very limited range of delegated power, always under federal supervision. The chiefs and councils were given very little real power. All of the important decisions were made by the Department of Indian Affairs here in Ottawa and by the local Indian agent out in the field.
The situation today is not all that much different, Mr. Speaker. Many Canadians, as the Minister has pointed out, are not aware of that. The Indian Act, Sir, is not only paternalistic, not only colonialist in its nature and intent; it regulates fully and in precise detail virtually every aspect of the lives of Indian people living on reserves. The Indian Act is in fact totalitarian. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with that very brief background in history, it should surprise no Hon. Member in this House that the Indian Act is discriminatory in many respects.
The Minister's Bill before us today deals with sex discrimination in the Indian Act. Parliament, through the Indian Act,
Indian Act
took from Indian nations the right to determine their identity and membership. The Act took away Indian status from Indian women who had decided they were going to marry non-Indian men. That was done through the infamous Section 12(l)(b). Although surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, it permitted Indian men to transmit status to their non-Indian wives. Now, that is a federal statute; hard to believe but it is. The Act also took away Indian status from Indian people, as the Minister has already mentioned; from Indian people who joined the Armed Forces to serve their country, from those who wanted to improve themselves by attending a university and from those who became professional people, be they doctors, lawyers or members of the clergy. The Indian Act, no more and no less, played the role of God in the lives of these people and it was not a benevolent deity either. Not at all. It was an evil, whimsical demon creating Indians out of non-Indians and making non-Indians out of Indian women who married nonIndian men.
I would like to say to my hon. friends that it is not just Section 12(l)(b) which should cause us shame in this House, although sex discrimination wherever we find it is odious, offensive, totally distasteful and unacceptable. However, Section 12(1 )(b) and the enfranchisement provisions of the Indian Act were all designed to assimilate or terminate Indians. It is the whole Act which is a disgrace, not just one section.
Members may wonder why, then, has the entire Act not been repealed. Well, there have been attempts in the past to improve it. I have often described it as a leaky, rusty old ship full of barnacles, ready to sink. You try to patch it up but it just does not work. All efforts by very dedicated Indian leaders working with senior Government officials and the most senior members of Cabinet have failed. I do not think you can ever work with the Indian Act and produce something which would be fair and just, no matter what we do to it.
Since the time of the coming of Europeans to this country, Indian people have attempted to obtain the proper recognition of their rights and their place in this country. They have tried to do it, for example, by way of the treaties they concluded with colonial powers. They are trying to do it today in the modern claims negotiations, but so far not very successfully. But I want to commend the Minister for undertaking a wholesale review of the way in which we proceed with the settlement of claims, both comprehensive and specific.
So all of these attempts to recognize the special place of Indian people within the Canadian mosaic have failed. All we have at the present time is this miserable statute called the Indian Act. The Indian people do not want it repealed because, as bad as it is, as little as it is, it is the only thing they have that gives them special recognition within Canada. When you cut off a person's legs at the knees it is not very helpful, Mr. Speaker, to say to that person: "We are now going to go a little further and amputate at the hips". That is in fact what we are doing when we say to Indian people that we should think about repealing all of the Indian Act without according them constitutional recognition of their right to self-government. That is the key.

March 1, 1985
Indian Act


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: You could have done it last year.


B. Keith Penner: I wish we had. I want to talk about that in a moment and about why we did not succeed, because that is the key.
It is not further amputation that is called for, Mr. Speaker, but the giving back to Indian people of all of their legs and feet. It is we who have made them dependent wards, a situation which Indian people are demanding be changed and changed now. How will we do it? We will do it by recognizing in our Constitution, the new Constitution of Canada, their aboriginal right to govern themselves. When we do that, then the entire Indian Act, not just Section 12(1 )(b) or the enfranchisement provisions but the entire Indian Act, then becomes unconstitutional.
Our good friend, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), is certainly not in charge of the constitutional process. We all recognize that and we are not going to blame him for failures or for discouragement over the future process. We must work as best we can with the Bill which is before us. The Minister has been called upon to work in a very confined space rather than in the large constitutional process. In that very confined space is this dirty nest called the Indian Act. The Indian Act, among other sins, discriminates on the basis of sex.
Let us reflect on the actions taken by the Minister within the narrow parameters imposed upon him and ask how he has done. There are some pluses, to be sure. There are some negative features as well. To the Minister's credit, within the very severe and strict limits of the Indian Act he has quite remarkably recognized the right of Indian bands or Indian nations to determine their own membership, at least in a limited way. Bands must have a non-discriminatory membership code. They must have a mechanism to review decisions they make regarding membership. Those recommendations were contained in the report of the special committee. We are grateful that the Minister is aware of them and responded to them.
We should be aware that full control over membership does not come immediately. The Bill says that we parliamentarians are first going to clean up our own act as best we can. Clause 12(l)(b) is our creation. The Indian people did not seek a statutory provision to impose sex discrimination on their own people. The Minister was quite right in pointing out that in many ways the Indian people of the country have led the rest of us in dealing with sexual discrimination.
As I have said before, I encourage Hon. Members to attend an assembly of the Assembly of First Nations. That is the Indian Parliament of Canada. In many ways it is superior to our own institution, if you will forgive me for saying so and not call me to order, Mr. Speaker. In many ways they conduct their business in a better fashion than we do. There are far more women actively involved in the deliberations of the
Assembly of First Nations than there are in the House of Commons.
Band control of membership in this Bill is for the future. The Government is saying that it will impose its will on the Indian people only one more time. It asks to be forgiven and understood because it will not happen again. The Government must clean up those droppings in its dirty little nest but is going to let those droppings fall on the heads of the Indian people.
Every political Party in the House is opposed to sex discrimination. Clause 12(l)(b) must be repealed. But I find the way in which we are forced to proceed distressing. Partly through necessity, we have chosen to be pilgrims in the slough of despond rather than to follow the more noble route of constitutional reform. So it has always been, Mr. Speaker: the high soul takes the high road and the low soul takes the low, and in between on the misty flats the rest drift to and fro. The Minister deserves no condemnation at all for that fact of life. He has done his best within the confines of an almost impossible task. He is seeking to repeal Section 12( 1 )(b) and the loss of status by unfair enfranchisement. The right to band control of membership is partially recognized. The by-law provisions of the Indian Act are strengthened.
I think the credit for that goes to the standing committee which worked with the previous Bill in the last Parliament. Working with the Minister's officials and the Justice officials we did our best to improve a Bill which was not very good to start with. Given more time, I think we could have improved it. However, time ran out on us, the guillotine fell with severity, and we brought into the House a Bill about which the Hon. Member sitting next to the Minister said: "We'll have to hold our noses and vote for it".
Discrimination remains within the Indian Act. The Bill still categorizes Indians as status and non-status. It still indicates those who are band members by action of this Parliament, and those who are not band members and must seek that status or will in some way be ineligible for it. As an example of how discrimination will continue to exist I will describe two different types of marriage unions. In one marriage union an Indian man marries a non-Indian. If they were married before the Act, both will have Indian status. Their children and their children's children will have status transmitted even if they marry non-Indians. However, if an Indian woman married a non-Indian man their child will have status, but that status will not be transmitted if that child marries a non-Indian. Therefore, we have not solved all our problems. We still have discrimination. That is the tragedy of trying to clean up an Act which really cannot be cleaned up. It is also reminiscent of a very mad play in which all the characters have become disconnected from reality.
What should we be doing? What could we have done? Where have we failed? I think we have failed in the constitutional direction. It is true that we must work this Bill now. We must make it as good as possible. On behalf of my Party I give my commitment to the Minister that we will do that. In the standing committee we will work with other members to make
March 1, 1985

the Bill as good as it can possibly be. It is essential, however, for all of us in the House and for the Canadian people to recognize that what we are doing today is not all that progressive or noble at all. We have created heartbreak and misery through our intolerable meddling and tinkering. With this Bill we continue down that same wretched path. We want to feel good. I understand that. We intend to do our best. We want to remove the sex discrimination, but in so doing there are shortfalls and ill side effects.
We will console ourselves by saying that we consulted widely and did our best. There can be no argument there. However, Mr. Speaker, let all Members, the people of Canada, especially the women, and the provincial Governments know that we continue to fail the Indian people of this country. We will continue to do so until we recognize the right of Indian people to manage, direct and control their own affairs within the Canadian Confederation.
In drafting this Bill, the Minister has tried to do his best and he deserves all the credit for that effort. However, the answer to the dilemma lies elsewhere, which he knows full well. I say to him and to his Government and to all the Premiers of the provinces of Canada: let there be no more failure at the constitutional table because that is where these problems can ultimately be solved in a lasting way.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to this Bill. First, I would like to extend my thanks to the Minister for his courtesy in ensuring that I, as critic for the NDP, received a copy of the Bill at least as early as the press. I would also like to say that I believe that Bill C-31 represents a major improvement over Bill C-47 that was before the last Parliament. Our committee was able to outline some of the failures in the previous Bill and I am pleased to see that improvements have been included.
Let me stress the importance of this Bill to a wide range of people. This Bill is important to those Indian women and men who lost status and membership in their band and now will have the opportunity to regain it. These people include women who lost status through Section 12(1 )(b) of the Indian Act, their children who lost status through Section 109(2) of the Indian Act, people who were unfairly enfranchised when they were in the army or had to be enfranchised in order to seek employment. The Bill is important for those who were affected by the provisions that went back to the 1920s which enfranchised anyone who had a university education or a profession.
The Bill is very important to those who now have an opportunity to regain status. It is also very important to the children of these people who will have the opportunity to regain Indian status and the possibility of being accepted into band membership for the first time. The Bill is important to Indian bands because it recognizes their right to make basic decisions about their own membership. Finally, the Bill is very important to the Canadian people as a whole. Canadians have been embarrassed by the international attention that has been
Indian Act
drawn to us because of the sexual discrimination that has been written into the Indian Act.
It is important that this Bill is drafted properly in view of the poor legislation that was drafted last spring. It is also important for us to be realistic about what we can and cannot do as legislators when dealing with this Bill. Let me use the Lubicon people in northern Alberta as an example. During the last four or five years a great deal of oil activity has been intruding into their trapping and hunting areas. What used to be a wilderness is now criss-crossed and honeycombed with roads, seismic lines, pumping stations and other activities. No matter what Parliament does to try to bring justice to the Lubicon people, there is no way that we can restore the pristine nature of their homeland. Similarly, we can look at Meares Island which is the home of the Ahousat and Clayoq-uot peoples. They are faced with the possibility that that area might be logged and we must realize that once the trees are gone no Act of Parliament can bring them back.
How much more is this the situation when we are dealing not just with land and the environment but with the history of a people? The discrimination against Indian people, particularly against Indian women, has a long and shameful history. All Canadians share in that collective shame. Section 12(l)(b) is the legal embodiment of a romantic myth which has some very real economic overtones. In North America that romantic myth goes back at least as far as Captain John Smith and his rescue by Pocahontas when he was about to be executed. It is said that Pocahontas laid her head upon his and saved him.
Many people are not quite so familiar with some of the other accounts of Captain John Smith's rather fanciful history of Virginia in which he tells the story of how Indian people brought food and saved the entire colony from starving to death. We tend to gloss over later accounts of how the colonists seized the land. John Smith actually proposed to make Indian people slaves.
The point I am emphasizing is that among many European males, a romantic attachment to an Indian woman also had a very real economic attachment to Indian land. This commercial attachment is something that Indian people were aware of as well. Indian people had their own view of what was happening and they wanted some means to protect themselves and their lands.
In connection with the Lavall and Bedard case before the Supreme Court, Harold Cardinal explained some of the concerns of the Indian Association of Alberta in his book entitled The Rebirth of Canada's Indians. I noted that the Minister also quoted from this book. On page 109 Mr. Cardinal wrote:
We were terribly concerned over what effect such a decision would have on reserves as the collective home of Indian people. We did not follow nor did we want, a system of private ownership, because we felt that this would rip apart our reserve communities in short order.
Another valid concern was that if the women were successful in their suits, our reserves would be opened for settlement by white men, allowing them, through marriage to Indians, to gain ownership of Indian lands. A number of other questions were raised:

March 1, 1985
Indian Act
1)	Would individual Indians then be free to sell portions of Indian land? This could mean destruction of Indian reserves and the end of Indian land-holding.
2)	Would communal band ownership of reserve land cease to exist, and be supplanted by individual ownership-subject to seizure? Would that entitle non-Indians, related through marriage to Indians, to inherit portions of Indian lands?
3)	Would Indians be subject to some of the provincial laws which do not now apply?
He goes on to say:
Our alarm, which led to our decision to oppose the two women, was based on our belief that if the Bill of Rights knocked out the legal basis for the Indian Act, it would at the same time knock out all legal basis for the special status of Indians.
In committee we will have to examine how far the present Bill deals with these legitimate concerns that were raised by Harold Cardinal and the Indian Association of Alberta. However, whether or not Section 12(l)(b) ever provided any real protection for Indian people, we all know that it exacted a very heavy price from Indian women. By removing status and band memberships from Indian women who married a non-Indian, that section of the Indian Act robbed these women of their birthright. It robbed them of their right to belong to their own people and the right to live in the community where they had grown up, to inherit property left to them by their parents and even to be buried in ancestral graveyards. As has been pointed out by the two previous speakers, all of us know that there is no easy way out of this situation. There is no easy way to decolonize. There is no clean way in which we can get out of this mess. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) had the floor.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for lunch I was simply pointing out that there was no clean way for us as parliamentarians to get out of this situation which we have inherited from our fathers and our grandfathers. Our mothers and our grandmothers really had very little chance to be involved.
The Bible refers to an old proverb which says:
The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge.
This certainly applies to this situation where we are trying to shuck off this tradition of colonialism, sexism and racism. In spite of the fact that there is no perfect solution for the
situation in which we find ourselves, we do have the obligation in our time to try and act in a responsible and just manner. It is in that context that the Minister had to bring forth his Bill and that we as parliamentarians have the obligation to look at it.
How adequate is the present Bill in dealing with the situation in 1985? The Minister has outlined three principles which he says are unshakeable and which he used as the basis for drafting this legislation. First, sections of the Indian Act which discriminate on the base of sex must be removed. Second, Indian bands must have the right to determine their own membership. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, this is an essential of Indian self-government, one that was underlined in the report of the Task Force on Indian Self-Government and, as the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) said, should be entrenched in the Constitution. Third, persons who lose Indian status through sexual discrimination or through unfair disenfranchisement must have the right to be reinstated to band membership.
These three principles do not always sit easily with one another, but I endorse them and so does my Party. But when the New Democratic Party passed a policy resolution on this subject at its 1983 Regina convention, it included not only these three principles but also a fourth. It said that the federal government must provide adequate funding and lands to meet the needs of increased populations. Unfortunately, that fourth principle has no place in this Bill. Perhaps that is why the Minister calls himself a Progressive Conservative. He enunciates some very progressive principles, but when it comes time to put money behind those principles he becomes very conservative.
In his speech the Minister acknowledged the problem but then he sloughed it off by saying there is no provision in the Indian Act for including financial resources. This is not an academic question, Mr. Speaker. The problems Indian people face we all know cannot be solved simply by making money available, but they cannot be solved without money.
There are three situations where the provisions of this Bill require that the Indian people should be given guarantees that money will be available. First, the Bill provides for the reinstatement of band members who once had status and lost it unfairly. A significant number of these people will want to return to their original homes and live once more on the reserve. But the fact is, as the Minister has acknowledged, that many of these reserves are already crowded and are also impoverished. Time after time over the past few years chief councillors have come before the standing committee. They have lobbied individual members of the committee and have told about the desperate state of housing on their reserves. For several years now we have had a backlog of some 10,000 homes that need to be built in Indian communities just to keep up with the present population. Neither the previous Government nor the present Government has made a serious attempt to meet this acknowledged need.
The Government must make a clear commitment to deal with that backlog and to make funding available for the homes
March 1, 1985

of those Indians who will be reinstated by this Bill. There will be social chaos on many reserves if people who are reinstated come back to their home reserves and get housing in advance of present band members who have been on waiting lists sometimes for years.
If, on the other hand, people who are reinstated cannot come back to the reserve and have decent housing, then the entire reinstatement program is a cruel hoax. It is not just a matter of housing, Mr. Speaker, there will also be the need for additional water, sewage and road systems, to say nothing of the need for adequate land base and funding for economic development.
The Minister was aware of some of these concerns when he drafted the Cabinet document that was leaked this last week. It states in Section 40:
On many reserves all available lands are allocated.... Some Indian groups have argued for a land "dowry" of up to 128 acres to be allocated for each such individual. This option would be extremely expensive and really goes beyond the scope of dealing with the effects of discrimination. The Minimum action required on this issue would be to allocate funds to provide additional land to meet the essential housing and infrastructure needs of persons restored as band members. This could be done in accordance with existing federal policy on additions to reserves. Funds for this purpose could be provided on a phased basis depending on their availability. No legislative amendments would be required to implement this system.
Whether or not this is an authentic Cabinet document, I cannot say, but it certainly accords with the way in which this Bill comes forward. What we have is the minimum action. In other words, there is no action being taken on the question of finances. All the Minister says is that funds could be provided on a phased basis depending on their availability. That does not begin to meet the needs of Indian communities, if there is going to be reinstatement of band membership.
In that connection, I would like to ask why is funding for economic development down by some $23 million in the 198586 Estimates when there will be more need of it than ever? The Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, in recommendation No. 22, stated:
The Committee recommends the establishment of a specialized tribunal to decide disputes in relation to agreements between Indian First Nations and other governments. Its structures, powers and procedures should be jointly decided by the federal Government and designated representatives of Indian First Nations.
Given the financial needs of Indian bands and the increased pressures that are going to be placed upon them by reinstatement, there is a great need for some such tribunal where people can come together and reach some kind of agreement as to what will be available to them.
The second area where the Bill requires some funding guarantees is with respect to the estimated 52,000 people who for the first time will be eligible for Indian status. Through band control of membership, some of these people will acquire full membership in Indian bands, but others will not. Theoretically, they will be entitled to health and education services which are presently available to off-reserve Indians. The problem is that these services have been drastically cut back in the past few years.
Indian Act
It will be cold comfort for a non-status Indian in Regina or Winnipeg to acquire Indian status and then find that it does not mean a thing in terms of real benefit. In the past few years allowances for off-reserve high school students have been cut and it has become more difficult to get funding for postsecondary education. Where is the off-reserve housing program that used to exist a few years ago? What is there in the way of economic development funding for off-reserve Indians? Without some guarantee of federal dollars and some commitment to programs, this whole business of Indian status will be a cruel joke on first-generation children.
Third, there is finally the possibility of creating new bands. Considering the intransigence of present bands toward receiving reinstated members, this possibility needs to be actively provided for with some funding. This means funding for land acquisition from the provinces as well as funding for housing, infrastructure and economic development.
Perhaps some Members get nervous with all this talk about the need for money, but they should remember two things. First, we owe a long-standing debt of justice. Indian people have suffered from our imposition of unjust laws and our denial of a decent economic base in the past. We have a great deal of catching up to do. Second, nothing could be more uneconomical than the present waste of our human resources. Many Indian people, status and non-status, are trapped in the downward spiral of welfare-based poverty, yet we continue to pour millions of dollars into that system every year. If we recognized the legitimate needs of Indian people, it would turn to our long-term economic advantage.
I want to raise one question about a detail in the Bill because it involves an important principle. I refer to those clauses dealing with band control of membership. We agree with that principle, but I am concerned that the Bill does not specifically require that band membership provisions should conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Some people might claim that this conformity can be taken for granted, but everything that happens in Canada has to be in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We cannot take this for granted. There is some legal opinion that would hold that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would not be applicable in this area. I would like to see that issue nailed down in this legislation.
We in our Party take a very positive view of the role of government. We believe that government can and should be on the side of people, but we believe that every level of government, whether it is federal, provincial or Indian government, should be acting in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would like to see that tied down in this legislation. In the same way, there has to be some guarantee that the recognized rights of bands to determine residency will be done in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I have a couple of final comments about the time schedule. On April 17 the Charter of Rights and Freedoms comes into effect. I am not completely sure what the legal effect of April 17 will be on the Indian Act; I understand that some Justice Department lawyers are not completely sure of all the implica-

March 1, 1985
Indian Act
tions. We have heard that it could result in chaos if the Charter comes into effect and we have not dealt with this provision. At any rate, April 17 is a very important psychological date that all Members of Parliament have to work toward in order to have the discrimination removed by that time.
At the same time, we do not want to rush the job and botch it as we were forced to do the last time. I want to stress the importance of full committee meetings, the importance of the committee being able to hear all sides of this issue so that we can do a good job. I and other members of the committee will be giving a great deal of time in the next few weeks to hearing from different segments of the Indian community, hearing their views on this very important legislation. For that reason, we want to get it out of the House today and into the committee as soon as possible.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by complimenting both the tone and the content of the speakers who preceded me, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). That tone indicates not only their own interest but is also an indication of the seriousness with which this historic matter is taken by all Members of the House. Indeed, this is one of the few pieces of legislation to come before this House which can genuinely be described as being historic. It does not solve all the problems, as the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior made clear, but it is nonetheless an historic and important Bill.
The Bill ends a discrimination against certain women, a discrimination that all of us now find unacceptable. It marks a large step away from a colonial mentality that has scarred the relations between Indian and other Canadians and marks a step-just a step, but an important one-toward greater autonomy for Indian bands. It proceeds in a way that is simultaneously reasonable, tolerant and principled to resolve dilemmas that have been divisive at home and have been embarrassing abroad.
As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development noted, this is not a Party matter. It is a uniquely profound Canadian question, rooted in the traditions and the rights of our original people, raising the principle of equal treatment, which is at the core of our free society, and resolved by reason, consultation and compromise.
I address these questions in several capacities, including my capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In this 40th anniversary year of the United Nations, I celebrate and commend legislation that brings the laws of Canada into harmony with the international covenant on civil and political rights.
In addition, as the House will know, I have had other incarnations in this Chamber. In October, 1979 I had the honour to include in the Throne Speech of that year a commitment to remove Section 12(1 )(b) of the Indian Act. Then later, on November 20, 1981, I had the honour to move the adoption of the paramountcy clause, Section 28, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In another capacity, my most important capacity as an individual Member of the House of Commons, more than a decade ago in the company of the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen), the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and the former Member for Skeena and others, I was part of a parliamentary committee that for the first time in the life of Parliament achieved agreement between Members of the House of a definition and acceptance of aboriginal title.
The real reason I rise now to offer counsel to my colleagues here and my friends across the country is that those of us who know the emotions this question can arouse have a special obligation to bring balance and understanding to this debate, as all of the participants so far have done. This Bill is about more than an end to discrimination. It is also about a practical beginning to local band control of local band affairs and the challenge has been to respect the principles of equality and autonomy at the same time. It would be relatively simple to embrace one principle and abandon the other. It would be simple, dangerous and a betrayal of our elemental duty to bring Canadians together and to help all of our people understand the complexities of our country.
Questions concerning the equality of women are better understood today than they were a decade ago but there is not yet as wide an understanding of the special sense of community of our Indian people and the importance they place upon defining and controlling their own identity. In addition to suffering more than their share of disease, indignity and early death, they have for a century had their destiny controlled by others.
The children of the Eden Valley Reserve west of my home town were as free as I was to run, to ride and to be children. However, when we stopped being children, the youngsters of Eden Valley were not as free to be themselves as the youngsters of High River because to be Indian in the land which the Stoneys, the Blackfoot and the Cree discovered was to have your life run by someone else. There is somewhat more freedom now for the Stoneys, the Cree and the Blackfoot, but their memory and our legacy was of Ottawa running Indian lives, Ottawa setting Indian standards.
Against that background, Members of the House can understand why local Bands were worried about proposals to have Ottawa again change their traditions and define their members. To many Canadian Indians, the principle at stake was not the equality of Indian women but the autonomy of Indian bands. Our challenge in this Parliament is to respect both principles together, to end the discrimination that everyone agrees should end and to reinforce the autonomy and identity of communities that were treated like colonies for a century.
This Bill is the result of careful and sensitive consultation across the country. The Minister has invited Members to come to committee with proposals they might think better. On this
March 1, 1985

question more than on most, Members who might find fault with the Bill should accept the responsibility of proposing practical remedies.

Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act, in its present form, contravenes international obligations that Canada has freely assumed. Some of these obligations were contracted in 1976, when Canada ratified the International Covenant on Civil land Political Rights, one of the UN's fundamental documents concerning the rights of the individual. Canada also agreed to be bound by the provisions of the Optional Protocol to the Pact which stipulates that the Human Rights Commission may examine claims filed by individuals who maintain that their rights have been violated by their own government.
The House will recall that in 1977, Mrs. Sandra Lovelace filed a complaint with the Committee that because of the existence of Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act, she had lost her Indian status in May 1970... French is occasionally a problem for the boys from High River and Eden Valley, especially figures. That is why I am the Secretary of State for External Affairs and not Minister of Finance ... As I was saying, Mrs. Lovelace had lost her status when she married a non-Indian. She alleged at the time that she was the victim of a violation of certain rights laid down in the covenant.
Hon. Members may recall as well that, in July 1981, the Commission on Human Rights concluded that Canada had violated Article 27 of the covenant because Indian Act Section 12(l)(b) had prevented Sandra Lovelace from living on a reserve. Here is Article 27:
In states where there are ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, people belonging to those minorities shall not be deprived of the right to have, along with other members of their group, their own cultural life, to practice their own religion, or to use their own language.
In the summer of 1983, Canada advised the Commission concerning the steps it was taking to correct that violation. Specifically, our representative gave the assurance that Canada was committed to delete from the Indian Act any discriminatory provision related to sex. The Government is now about to honour that commitment.
It would seem that, on the occasion of the United Nations Decade for Women, we are finally going to do away with a provision which discriminates against women. One of the happier results of that decade is undoubtedly the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women which was ratified by Canada. Section 12(1 )(b) contravenes a certain number of the convention provisions, particularly Article 10 which reads as follows:
State parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations-
By having the House adopt this Bill, Canada will meet its obligations and eliminate that discrimination.
Indian Act

With this measure we have confronted one injustice, an injustice to Indian women and one that over the course of the last decade and a little longer has become well known nationally and internationally. However, as others in this debate have emphasized, there are fundamental injustices which we must still face and resolve. Indeed, while discrimination against women is an unhappy characteristic of many societies, the colonial treatment of the Indian people is a particular Canadian injustice. It is a scar on our society and on our conscience. We have talked about it for a long time.
In recent years we have begun to act more seriously to establish the self-respect and status of the people who were here before any of the rest of us. The work of the standing committee in the last Parliament was courageous, creative and constructive. I think it would not be improper to mention the particular contributions of the Hon. Members for Cochrane-Superior, Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). The tone of this debate has demonstrated that this commitment to change, and to self-respect, reaches throughout this Parliament. If I may compliment a colleague, I think the fact that this Bill has been introduced so early in the life of this Parliament demonstrates the determination and the influence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the priority of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My colleague from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands quite properly raised the question of cost. That is a matter which will be dealt with by the Government, and of course by the parliamentary committee. It cannot be dealt with in legislative form in this Bill, as the House understands, because of the nature of the Indian Act. But the Government accepts and understands that the rules cannot be changed without helping the capacity of the Indian people of the country in responding to the changing rules. We accept that we must help to meet the implications of the changes which are under way. But we know also that the question of determining the cost, and determining the method of dealing with the cost, is one which will take some time and, by its very nature, can neither be anticipated nor applied as though there were no differences from reserve to reserve or from band to band. The Minister, his officials and the committee will be looking very closely at the question as to just exactly what must be done. I can say to the Hon. Member, on behalf of my colleague and the Government, that this Government will address this issue in a reasonable and sympathetic way to be as much help as we can to the Indian people in responding to this reality, which is sought not only by all of us, but sought and accepted-because they oppose the idea of discrimination-by most Indian people of the country.
I have been involved for a number of years in issues concerning equality for women. More Canadians have been involved in that issue than have been involved in the question of concern

March 1, 1985
Indian Act
for Indian bands and Indian status. Indeed, sometimes in the development of this debate there has been the risk of an apparent conflict between those who were concerned about the equality of women and those who were concerned about the problems and the nature of Indian communities across the country. In fact, the issue at the base is the same. The issue is a determination to have identity respected and advanced. I think we have made a step forward in the House today, not simply with the tabling of this legislation, but also with the tone of the response by Members on all sides of the House.
If I may speak to one aspect, in concluding, of the challenge yet ahead of us, it has to do not simply with our colleagues in this House; it has to do with those millions of Canadians who over the last several years have become concerned about the question of equality for women. I hope that they too will recognize that there are other inequalities. I know they do, but I hope that in their recognition of the other inequalities that exist in Canada they will join with the Minister, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior, the Hon. Member for Cowi-chan-Malahat-The Islands and others in the House to ensure that progress is made much more quickly than in the past in improving the status, the self-respect and the capacity to contribute to the future of Canada and the Indian people of our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments on the speech of the Right Hon. Member? If not, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) on debate.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I do welcome this opportunity to rise in such an important debate. I would first like to commend the Minister for his worthwhile efforts trying to reach unanimity on his redressing action. This is truly a complex situation, and I know he has travelled all around the country listening and learning. Sensibly, he has been listening to those groups that will be affected by the amendments.
In order to help us understand the reasons why these changes have to be made, I intend to make a brief historical review of the Indian Act as it has evolved since the 1860s. It is important that we should understand why it is not a well written piece of legislation. This discriminatory piece of legislation is but an attempt at assimilating our Indians into the "white" society.
Previously, there were many ways in which an Indian could forsake his rights as a band member and his status: by obtaining a university degree or by joining the Armed Forces or the Church, to name but a few. This loss of status or enfranchisement had nothing to do with the Indian culture and did not reflect Indian tradition.
The loss of status for Indian women who married non-Indians was one of the worst aspects of enfranchisement. Section 12(l)(b) discriminated against Indian women only. They would forsake their rights as band members and their cultural identity by marrying a non-Indian. There is no equivalent provision where men are concerned.
In my view, this new legislation will have three major consequences: enfranchisement will be abolished forever, sexual discrimination will cease to exist, and the status and the entitlement to membership in a band will be given back to any individual who may have lost them.
I therefore commend the Minister.

I listened most intently to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who gave an interesting expose of the historical background with respect to international law, to other Members of the House, and in particular to my colleague from Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) whose deep commitment and knowledge of the issues was most apparent. I learned even from him, from an historical perspective, of the complexity of the issue and the grave difficulties which were posed in confronting the realities of the impact of this very complex and nefarious Indian Act. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior and I have had many exchanges and I appreciate his taking the time to explain the issues to me.
I must say that Section 12(1 )(b), and the removal of sexual discrimination with respect to women, was my first and primary goal when I came here, and I did learn to understand and respect it in the total context of a most complicated, historical error on the part of we, the settlers of this country. The role of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior was very much appreciated and acknowledged. I noted that the Minister talked about that in his introductory remarks.
After listening to the historical perspective of how the white man has imposed upon the Indian, my conclusion is that the old saying that the "law is an ass" is amply demonstrated in this particular instance.
Notions of humanism, and individual and collective rights followed in the wake of the Second World War when the condition of Canada's Indians began to cause concern. In 1946 a special joint commitee of the House of Commons and the Senate, which sat until 1948, canvassed opinions on all issues with respect to the Indian Act. Originally, the joint committee had not contemplated accepting representations from Indians, which goes along with the history of how we had handled the issue from the very beginning. However, under pressure, the committee relented and during the course of the following two years representations were heard from Indian bands and associations from across Canada.
Only one woman was represented on the committee, Senator Iva Fallis, who at the very beginning of the proceedings brought up the question of Indian women losing their status. She questioned Robert Hoey, the Director of Indian Affairs,
March 1, 1985

with respect to the inequities created by the enfranchisement of Indian women. From Hoey's evidence, it would seem that he saw the Indian Act as an Act which deprived the people of their human rights. I think he was perfectly right. Nevertheless, he believed that, given the existence of such discrimination, it should be based on blood quantum since, as he pointed out, an Indian could have a white mother and a white grandmother and still be legally an Indian. I believe it was called the double mother clause. This question has disturbed him, he said, and he questioned the moral authority of Parliament to deprive persons of 50 per cent or more white blood of their full rights of Canadian citizenship. He believed that a fairer definition would be "An Indian is a person with 50 per cent or more native or Indian blood".
With respect to an Indian woman who loses her status through marrying a non-Indian pursuant to the statute, Mr. Robert Hoey stated that a problem occurred when she returned to the reserve having been deserted by her husband or immediately following her husband's death. She is no longer an Indian in the statutory sense, nor is she the responsibility of the Indian Affairs branch. Indeed, it can be said that the money voted for by Parliament is voted on the distinct understanding that it is for the welfare of Indians and cannot be spent for the relief of white citizens. Senator Fallis, who sounds to me like an intelligent woman-I see we have a few of her followers in the gallery-said, and I quote:
Am I correct in understanding from what you said a moment ago that if an Indian woman marries a white man, she ceases to be an Indian, yet she is not a white woman? If her husband deserts her, or dies, she is left destitute and there is no one to look after her? That does not apply in the case where an Indian marries a white woman. It seems unjust to the Indian woman who marries a white man because neither the white people nor the Indians want her.
Mr. Hoey described this as an "awkward problem" and went on to other matters. We were still going on to other matters until the Minister's Bill was tabled today.
With respect to the Indian testimony and representations made before the committee, almost without exception the Indian bands and associations called for the abolition of involuntary enfranchisement. Representation of such sentiment comes from the submission of the Indian Association of Alberta to the joint committee, and I quote:
When the treaties were signed, the white man was content to leave it entirely to the discretion of the Indian chiefs and their councillors to determine who was to enjoy the treaty rights. It is necessary that those matters be determined by Indians themselves according to the customs and traditions of Indian bands.
The Native Brotherhood of British Columbia stated that a woman who lost her status through marriage, or was deserted or widowed, should be allowed to rejoin her band with her children. This Bill reverses a very serious blot on Canada's international human rights record-which was alluded to earlier-brought by the Sandra Lovelace case to the United Nations, and takes the necessary steps in restoring status to the Indian women who lost them as a result of Section 12(1 )(b). It wipes out the concept of enfranchisement forever. It ends sexist discrimination, for the most part. But no legislative action, Mr. Speaker, can replace the emotional hardship
Indian Act
and the loss of dignity and identity which resulted from enfranchisement.
I received representations from many Indian groups, both men and women. 1 listened to what they had to say and was deeply moved by much of the hardship and heartache which they have lived through over the past many years. My memory goes back to the early 1970s, to the key role played in bringing this issue, which was a non-issue, for the most part, to the fore by the late Senator Therese Casgrain-and I pay her due homage today-and by Mary Two-Axe Early, who should be named a senator, in my view. I only regret that Madam Casgrain did not live to see one of her major causes on flagrant discrimination against women wiped off the statute book. I rejoice with all of those Indian women leaders who must consider today a victory, even though imperfect.
I applaud the Minister's action in repealing Section 12(l)(b) but I cannot support his restoration of status to the women but not to their children. His effort to restore Indian identity is somewhat negated by his potential division of the family.
Let us look for a moment at the 1981 statistics on native women. According to the census there are 248,815 native women in Canada, of which 70 per cent are under 30 years of age. That is compared to 50 per cent for the non-native female population. I am sure that the Minister is aware of those figures. Perhaps the most important observation is the high proportion of single parent families headed by native women. Specifically, 17 per cent of native families fall into this category as opposed to just over 9 per cent of non-native families. It is this group which is most likely to wish to return to the reserve where they could get support from other family members and the community as a whole. The right of those children to return has been removed, leaving that decision in the hands of the band, as I understand it. If I am incorrect, I hope I will be corrected because I consider that matter to be very serious.
The Minister has not really permitted, as I understand it, the reintegration into the Indian culture and identity for this particular group of children except upon request by those children to the band and upon the band's decision to accept their request. No woman could really consider going back to her reserve without her children. This group is most likely to wish to return to the reserve. If I have not explained my concern in the fullest sense of the word, I would like to know about it.
I notice the Minister's concern about the existing levels of social services on the reserves which he described as "appalling and inferior". I am hopeful that the vigorous and effective measures which the Minister enunciated to free up funds will result in the situation being cleared up and we will see serious improvement of a substantive nature.
The Minister's proposals do go a long way to removing the discriminatory sections of the Indian Act. However, I wanted to ask the Minister if he has not now created three categories of Indians; those who live on the reserve, those who choose to live off the reserve and those who have status but may want to live on the reserve. In the past this has been a relatively small

March 1, 1985
Indian Act
group, consisting of those Indians who were on the waiting list for access to band housing. This group is now going to swell to include the 22,000-plus women who lost their status and the 50,000-odd first-generation children of those women who have to make application. I am not saying that all these people are going to want to return but the problem of how to integrate them, even if it is only 10 per cent or 20 per cent, will have to be addressed by the Minister in a very concrete way.
The Minister has indicated that band membership will now be controlled by the bands themselves. While I support this basic principle, I do have some concerns that the women who wish to return to their bands will not be able to participate in the democratic process of establishing band codes. How can they participate in the decision-making if they are not residents on the reserves, which is one of the main criteria in being a band decision-maker? In certain instances that is not the case, but in other instances it is.
I am very positively predisposed to this Act. I am just highlighting some of the areas where I can see that the Minister faced a conundrum in how to resolve this problem. Decisions affecting women and children without their input could cause various concerns.
I understand with respect to the transmittal of status that women who lost their status will now have it back but their children will be treated differently from the children of an Indian man who married a non-Indian woman. Therefore, if I understand it correctly, one can be in a situation where first cousins who are of Indian ancestry will not have the right to claim that ancestry, which could put them into conflict. I hope that that problem will be resolved.
I want to add my voice, Mr. Speaker, to that of the women of the Indian lands and express appreciation for the fine effort which was undertaken by the Minister. He has made a bold move in introducing this Bill. I support the removal of discrimination in the Indian Act and the measures to abolish enfranchisement, and to restore status and band membership to those who lost it unfairly.
He also has made a significant move toward Indian control over their own affairs through the band membership provisions. Colonialism, sexism and racism have certainly been addressed and I congratulate him for the effort. I look forward to hearing in committee from the many interested groups and I certainly hope the Minister's wish that any improvement that can be realized will be realized and shall become a reality.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Since there are no questions or comments, I recognize the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk).


Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in the discussion of changes to the Indian Act. I would first of all like to congratulate the Minister on his excellent and rewarding speech, as well as all other Hon. Members who discussed the need to rectify many of the wrongs relating to native people in general.
Although I have never been quite sure whether Inuit do in fact fall under the Indian Act, I will attempt to illustrate to Members of the House that there are still opportunities to avoid many of the things that are wrong with the Indian Act. Specifically, I would like to make some initial comments about what is happening with the same kind of issues that northern people are dealing with at the present time, or at this moment in history.
Although the Indian Act, Mr. Speaker, was created many, many years ago, and perhaps many of its contents may not have foreseen the problems that might develop such as the ones we are now dealing with, we are also dealing with many of the same kinds of difficult issues in the north through the land claims forum, the modern treaties as it were, which are being conducted between the Governments and other native peoples of Canada. I would just like to give some brief examples.
First of all, a few years ago the Inuit were discussing the problems that might be coming up as a result of any land claim settlement, and we were discussing at one time at what stage we would stop calling Inuit the Inuit in terms of their blood relationships. For example, would we stop calling someone an Inuit when it gets to the 25 per cent stage? That is where the child has only 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 25 per cent of native blood or Inuit blood. Many of these things were very technical and very disconcerting to many of the Inuit in my riding, especially in the Northwest Territories. I would hope that before agreements of this type are reached again with other native people in Canada, specifically those in the Western Arctic areas and in the Eastern Arctic areas, both the Government and the people negotiating on behalf of the respective Indian or Inuit side would foresee many of these problems that governments in the future might have to deal with.
I would just like to relate a brief story about how discrimination against Inuit women was dealt with by one community. It is not dealt with across the Territories but we have a very classic example in my own town of Eskimo Point, Northwest Territories. It concerns the Inuit ladies who are married to Kabloonat, as we call them. In much the same way as we are known as Eskimos to some southerners, we also refer to non-Inuit in the south as Kabloonat. It is not a derogatory term by any means, just a reference that we do have in the north. Inuit women who are married to Kabloonat, that is, not Inuit or, I think the term is, Caucasian or something, did not have the rights and were starting to complain because they could not hunt polar bears. Traditionally, only Inuit men hunt polar bears. However, the polar bear skin has quite a lot of value. In the north, where the economy is not all that great, you can get $1,000 or $2,000 for a polar bear skin, and then naturally it becomes a desirable thing to have. To go back to the story about the Inuit women who felt discriminated against, they raised a big issue out of it in the local press- well, there is no press, just the radio and public meetings and all that-and said that because their husbands are not Inuit
March 1, 1985

and therefore could not hunt, they are being discriminated against.
It turned out that after a lot of discussions and a lot of talking back and forth and a few harsh words here and there, the situation was resolved to the point where the Inuit ladies ended up being allowed to hunt polar bear. Now, people did not raise eyebrows when those ladies went out hunting and perhaps their husbands, who may be non-Inuit, pulled the trigger, but at least for the sake of peace the issue was resolved. I think there is an opportunity nowadays to rectify a lot of things and avoid a lot of problems that are inherent in the Indian Act, especially Section 12(l)(b).
I understand that the amendments are going to remove the discrimination against Indian women and would also give the Indian bands the abilitty to determine who would be eligible, and I think that would satisfy both sides. It would not necessarily be to everyone's satisfaction, but in relation to what is happening in the Northwest Territories, at least they have something which they could sink their teeth into.
I would now like to discuss briefly what I heard many Members making reference to, and that is colonial governments and the need to avoid the same situation. There is in fact this opportunity in the Northwest Territories. For example, many of you may have read certain items in the newspapers since the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) announced that the Government would agree to the creation of two territories out of the existing territory if the boundaries could be resolved by the northerners themselves. The discussions about self government and the division of the Northwest Territories has been going on for the last eight years. However, charges of discrimination against non-Inuit, or specifically charges that northerners wish to create ethnic governments, have been advanced by people who generally oppose the majority of the Inuit population. In the proposed Estern Arctic territory people of Inuit origin, such as myself, would be in the majority by about 80 per cent.
I would like to raise a question here. One of the obstacles to the agreement by the federal Government to allow northerners to create two territories was that the Inuit were trying to create an ethnic government. In fact, we are willing to be assimilated. We are willing to take a colonial style territorial government such as now exists in our area, and mould it into our own. We will accept that. Earlier this week in one of the Canadian Press reports there was a reference once again to ethnicity. In earlier reports it was mentioned that the Inuit and Indians used to fight a long time ago. Mr. Speaker, we do not need to go through all these stories which do not apply any more. We are now in a modern situation. An opportunity exists in the Northwest Territories with another aboriginal group to exercise the modern ways of right and wrong.
I wanted to explain from the perspective of a native person that it is very encouraging to hear parliamentarians talking about the need to allow native people to make a contribution to the systems of government in Canada. I believe that we do have a lot of things to contribute to the Canadian system if we
Indian Act
could only avoid the pitfalls which have dogged many of the discussions relating to aboriginal rights, such as the constitutional discussions, the land claims discussions and other discussions relating either to Indian or to native self-government. I would like to encourage Members here, especially the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to keep the dialogue going, because there are answers to the problems.
I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that I have had representations from Indian bands both for and against changes to Clause 12(1 )(b). I have heard and can identify with many of the remarks made about problems that may develop as a result of these changes. I have also heard representations from women who are very concerned about the discriminatory clauses of the Indian Act. I think that the amendments which are now being proposed could satisfy both sides of the camp. We should accept the changes as they are being proposed, knowing that there will be other opportunities in the future to discuss these in a very gentlemanly fashion if we discover more things that do not work out.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise address Bill C-31 with as full a sense of responsibility for our work and deliberations in the House of Commons as I have had heretofore, and certainly with as full full a sense of that responsibility as I ever hope to have. As the Hon. Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) observed, this is indeed a historic occasion in the life of this House. We are working today, and will be working in committee and at third reading, to attempt to correct a historic sequence of injustices, the perpetration of which began many years ago and has multiplied over the intervening centuries and decades.
We are here, unfortunately, to make decisions which determine the very fabric of the lives of a people and of nations which are not represented directly in this Chamber. I say that with no disrespect to the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) whom we just heard, but knowing that the Indian Act does specifically exclude the Inuit people and knowing that there are no Members of this present Parliament who claim Indian status. That places a great degree of responsibility on us because the decisions that we take, at least at the level of the House, will be without the benefit of the direct representation of Indian people. We will be determining their lives. We must remember that when we talk of Indian people we use a convenient, crisp, inaccurate term that comprises a people whose diversity and variety of cultures and heritages fully matches, if not actually surpasses, those of the heritages and cultures that we as Canadians of largely European Caucasian origin represent.
It is a pity in a way, and I doubt that I will ever feel it to be more of a disadvantage, that our rules do not allow us to hear from substitutes, but only from Members of Parliament within this Chamber. I know from my experience with native leaders in my riding that there are many men and women who could far better express the feelings of native people, be it in their language or in English, on the legislation that is before us. In my capacity as Member for Kenora-Rainy River, I have the privilege of representing more bands than any other Member
2658

March 1, 1985
Indian Act
of this honourable Chamber, and I dare say that, on a percentage basis or as a total population figure, I represent as many Indian people as any other Member of this Chamber.
At various times I have been a resident of an Indian reserve and have worked for Indian people. I have formed friendships with Indian people that endure and I know will grow stronger as the years go by. I have also worked for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but I will not say too much about that because it will play little part in the further regulation of membership and status.
I say those things and draw upon that experience, not in any way to suggest that my opinions are of greater merit than those of any other Member, but simply to say that having been able to experience firsthand some of the effects of the Indian Act as at present constituted, that still does not give me the uniquely valuable perspective of seeing the Act, the instruments it has formed and the divisions it has created, through the eyes of an Indian person.
Let me say that I and others on the committee plan to seek native representation on the standing committee for the period during which Bill C-31 is under consideration; because only at the committee level will we be able to derive the benefit of the unique historic, cultural and personal perspective that the Indian people can bring to the discussion of Bill C-31.
We have already heard the history of the Act presented in a, thorough, erudite and detailed manner. I will not attempt to compete with my colleagues in that regard. However, I will say that the effect of division, exclusion and the effect of federal government control, often exercised arbitrarily by those who had very little real interest in those whom they were controlling, has indeed had the impact of racism, sexism and colonialism that have been alleged.
My friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) mentioned in his address that he felt that in many ways Indian political forums were better regulated and functioned more responsibly than this Chamber. I would also add that in many ways the politics of Indian people are much more interesting than our daily fare in this Chamber. I say that not in derogation of my colleagues or of the Government's legislative agenda, but simply to point out the effects of the Indian renaissance in the last decades in the forums in which Indian peoples have organized themselves to speak at the national level, albeit not with a single voice because there are divisions and differences of opinion that are held strongly. Being able to see from the periphery that process of renaissance, not in the sense of rebirth but of rekindling of the Indian peoples' belief in the strength, responsibility and the relevance of their own Governments and their own interband and intergovernmental processes, has been an exciting time indeed.
I believe that the Indian Act is comparable to the ancient legend of the Gordian knot that was so ravelled and tangled that it could not be undone. The Minister has attempted to emulate the act of Alexander in severing that Gordian knot in
a single stroke. I believe that the legislation, even in its unamended form, does indeed go a long way to severing that knot and undoing the decades and centuries of discrimination, inequality and division that the Act perpetuated.
The amendments address the equality of men and women. They restore status and membership in bands, and the distinction between those two is crucial to an understanding of the Act and the amendments. They restore status and membership in the bands to those who themselves have been directly excluded from that status and membership by virtue of the operation of a discriminatory clause. They restore status to the first generation of descendants on application.
Perhaps what is most important to myself, representing as I do some 50 Indian Governments, is that the amendments recognize that in the future the membership in an Indian band must be under the control of that band. The odious process of enfranchisement, redolent as it was with overtones of colonial Anglo-Saxon superiority, which has no place in this century, is finally abolished. However, we can ask why indeed there should be any continuing provision for the relinquishment of Indian status unless that be at the request of those who have been consulted.
Finally, children will be treated as children and not as classes of children. We will see the provisions regarding adoption and illegitimacy eliminated, and thus those rights harmonized with those rights which exist in the wider society.
We will see the access to off-reserve programs restored. While that is good, I must reiterate my colleague's criticism of the paucity and irrelevance of most of those programs.
I have one major caveat of caution which I would like Members to consider. By the consideration of Bill C-31, we are indeed addressing a major issue for the Indian people of Canada. But we are are as far as ever from solving all of the problems of Canada's native people. The passage of Bill C-31 will indeed smash several major injustices. We must ensure that in the committee process as far as possible those major injustices are not replaced by fragmentary minor injustices, as so often is the case.
The time frame under which we will work is not the time frame that I would have sought, had I been in the Minister's place. While we recognize its compelling nature, the time frame is arbitrary, just as the time frame for the proposed proposed passage of Bill C-47 in the last Parliament was an arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive time frame. I would offer a caution to the Minister in this regard. The Minister speaks of the consultation process which he has undertaken. I know it has been extensive in terms of the miles travelled, the hours worked and the numnber of bands that have been consulted. We must recognize, however, that there are groups that do not feel the consultation process has been fully extended to them.
One of the first lessons I learned as a district manager with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was that it was not good enough to talk to people and then say
March 1, 1985

that a consultation process had occurred. It was necessary to specify, to arrange in advance, and to agree mutually that a certain discussion would be seen as a consultation. There will be the requirement for intensive discussion at the committee level, intensive examination of the ramifications and effects of this Bill. There will be the need for native representation on the committee to ensure that the final legislative product is something that will be fair to the Indian people of Canada.
As I sat in the House today listening to the Hon. Minister, I was more than pleased to see that among his audience was the nation's most famous expectant father. Then I thought of the prospects that his child might face compared to the prospects of an Indian child born at the same time. I do that in no way to single out the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) children. Were my wife expecting, I would use the example of my own child.
First, there is the difference in life expectancy, estimated now at a decade or more, between the two children. Second, there is access to the services which are required to raise and bring up a healthy infant. Third, there is the education, for one in his or her native tongue, for the other in a foreign tongue. Fourth, there is access to the services that you and I take for granted, Mr. Speaker. I am thinking of clean running water, sanitary sewage disposal, paved roads, a light switch that produces electricity when it is turned from the off to the on position, and, finally, housing of acceptable standards.
For many Indian children today, those amenities and those opportunities are not a reality. For many, none of those services are accessible.
The Bill which we consider today will accomplish much that is good, but much will remain to be done for the Indian people of this country. Some discrimination will be removed, and I hope that at the end of the legislative process we will be able to take pride in what we have done. Many problems will remain and some will be created as people seek to be repatriated to reserves where the land or financial resource base is really not adequate to support them. I am hopeful that the interest that is generated on this crucial matter of membership, the matter of necessary reforms to the Indian Act, will eventually impel us to reform not only that Act in its entirety but also to reform and to bring the condition of Canada's Indian people to a state of which we can all be proud.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would it be in order to ask a question of the former speaker, the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk)?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We need unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Fernand Robichaud: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank Hon. Members for their courtesy. In listening to the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq I heard him say, in the question of the division of the Northwest Territories, that the native people had some
Indian Act
concerns. I would like to hear his comments on this question of division.


Thomas Suluk: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the native people, specifically the Inuit who would reside in the eastern half of the proposed new territory in the Northwest Territories, the Inuit were concerned that many reporters and many of the non-Inuit were concerned that many reporters and many of the non-Inuit in the western part keep making references to ethnicity, in particular that the Inuit would like to form an ethnic government even though it is a public government. These kinds of things tend to create some misconceptions about what is happening in the Territories.
Perhaps I will take this opportunity to add that there is a feeling of rejection by the East in the western part of the Territory. Perhaps it could be solved by suggesting that since the residents of the Yukon Territory and the residents of the would-be leftover territory in the west are predominantly of the same culture, that is Indian and others, they should join together and create the eleventh province.


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have been here today thoughout the debate and must say that I have enjoyed it immensely. One of the great privileges I have had as a parliamentarian was to be spokesman for the Progressive Conservative Party when we were in opposition in the portfolio of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In the past year leading up to the election, I have spent a considerable amount of time with the Indian people of our country, many of whom I am proud to say are friends.
I enjoyed my work with the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), the Chairman of the standing committee, and with the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). Although I do not serve on that committee now, but wish I did, there was a feeling on that committee, I believe there still is, to work together in as non-partisan a manner as was possible. There were times when partisan politics did come into play, but we tried not to allow that to happen. We in the committee last spring were faced with Bill C-47, amendments to the Indian Act. It was probably one of the most hectic six days that I have spent. I think that the Chairman and the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands will agree that it was quite an experience.
I do not want this to be interpreted as being critical of the former Government, because my remarks are not intended to be that, but we were not given a sufficient amount of time to listen to the representations, to absorb the representations or to amend the Act in the way we would have liked. There were some last minute amendments brought in and some great negotiations going on with the Minister. As we all know, the House was going down for the summer. If I can put in an aside, it was going down, period. It was going down for the summer and so we were rushed. If my memory serves me

March 1, 1985
Indian Act
correctly, I believe the timing was something like six days or so.
The argument was that this discrimination had been around a long time and that it was time to get rid of it. I do not think there was a soul in the community that could disagree with that. However, there was still some conflict and some concerns were expressed by various groups, including the Native Women's Council of Canada, the AFN and other very interested groups.
There was at that time a compromise arranged through the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations which I think was very significant. It was very important for us as parliamentarians to see that type of agreement reached between two groups which in some instances had been at odds.
Needless to say, the Bill went through. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior quoted me accurately today when he said that I stated in the debate that we must hold our nose and pass this Bill. None of us were happy. We all felt very uncomfortable about it. We felt that this might be the last opportunity to have this Bill passed, so it was passed. History will show that the Senate did not pass it and that it died on the Order Paper.
I want to say a couple of things about the present Minister. He assumed his new responsibilities shortly after the election of September 4. I do not think there is another Minister who is working harder-I know there are some working as hard-on their portfolio than the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie). He has devoted a tremendous amount of time in trying to meet the various groups, organizations, associations and individuals who play a very important part within that Ministry and who, in the jargon of this place, are client groups. I do not like that terminology, but that is the way they are referred to, no matter what the Ministry is.
He has been doing an excellent job. Bringing in this Bill- although not perfect and there will be debate and representations in committee-he has gone a tremendous way to meet many of the objections that we heard last June on Bill C-47. That has been acknowledged today and that is fair enough. I congratulate the Minister for that work.
I want to encourage the members of the standing committee to study this Bill and to give fair hearing to those who want to make representation, but not to hold this Bill up for political purposes. This is such an important Bill that we cannot get into playing politics with it. That is very important. I know my hon. friend in the New Democratic Party, whom I enjoyed working with last year, my colleague from Cochrane-Superior and others who served very well on that committee feel the same way. If they do not, I guess I am not as great a judge of character as I thought I was.
I encourage all those who are associated with the Bill, including those who will be making representations, to treat this Bill in a very fair and open-minded way. It may not satisfy every individual's desire. Very few pieces of legislation that
pass through this place do satisfy every special interest group connected with it. Neither does it probably satisfy at all times Members of Parliament who are on the government side. Politics is the art of compromise, and I am sure that when this Bill is brought back to the House for third reading, if there are amendments to it, it will be absolutely the best Bill that we can bring in to do with the removal of discrimination in the Indian Act.
The year leading up to the election was a rewarding one. I listened today to the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) with great interest when she suggested that our good friend Mary Two-Axe Early be appointed to the Senate. I would like to say to my hon. friend from Mount-Royal that I would not want to inflict that on such a wonderful, warm, genuine person as Mary Two-Axe Early. There are far better fates for Mary Two-Axe Early. We can reward her much more significantly than by putting her in the Senate. She has been a wonderful friend to all parliamentarians. I know she was a great help to me when I was spokesman for the Party. She is the kind of person you cannot help but feel very comfortable and warm with. I too want to pay tribute to her, but I do not suggest that she be appointed to the Senate.
I wish to talk for a moment about some of the concerns that have been expressed in previous Bills and what is happening in this Bill. Some areas have been covered very effectively by Hon. Members today. Some bands, however, were very concerned about enfranchisements where individuals who were enfranchised received a fair-sized pay-out from an Indian band once they left the band. Some bands, although very few, have done extremely well with exploiting the resources found on their band properties. When individuals were enfranchised, they were very well taken care of. Some bands in Alberta, for example, were very concerned about this. They were greatly concerned about someone who had received a pay-out and was automatically brought back into the band without having paid back his or her share or given any accounting for the share he or she had taken out already when they were enfranchised.
The Minister has obviously taken that into consideration in these amendments and I congratulate him for that because now, according to this Bill, persons regaining band membership who previously had received the per capita pay-outs from the band capital and revenue accounts will not be able to benefit from current distributions of band funds until the amount forgone equals the amount they received earlier plus interest. As Hon. Members may know, in some instances that amounts to many thousands of dollars. The Minister has included that concern in the legislation. I think that is a very, very important part of this Bill.
There are other important parts of this Bill. A woman who marries a member of another band no longer automatically becomes a member of her husband's band. Transfers between bands will still be possible if the receiving band agrees. The band has control over its membership, and I think that is very important.
March 1, 1985

As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) mentioned earlier, one of the great debates we had in the past dealt with whether this was a women's issue or an Indian issue. I believe the Minister covered the matter very, very well and indicated that it is really both. I do not think there is any question about that. The attitude of the previous Government depended, I suppose, on who was appearing before the committee. The former Minister of State for Mines, the Hon. Judy Erola, insisted that it was entirely a women's issue and not an Indian issue.


John R. Rodriguez: We know what happened to her.


John Horton McDermid: I know what happened to her. The Hon. Member who defeated her keeps reminding me of what happened to her. I thank him for that, although my memory is not that short.
That was one of the problems with which we were faced the last time we dealt with this issue. That understanding did not exist at that time. It was very difficult for those of us who had spent a considerable amount of time on the issue to try to educate those who were pulling the strings as to exactly what the issues were. In all fairness, I think that the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development understood the problems but did not have the necessary clout or power within Cabinet to make the amendments to the Bill that the present Minister has been able to make. I think we must also commend the Minister for his work at that end.
I wish to congratulate the Minister. I would also like to congratulate the Government for bringing this Bill before the House. In conversations we had earlier today, the Minister assured me that there will be a fair hearing given to this issue at committee and that the committee will delve into the Bill to a great extent. The committee is looking forward to getting its work done. If I am not mistaken, I believe that there is an agreement that as of today, the Bill will be referred to the standing committee so that the committee can get under way with its very, very important and necessary work on Bill C-31.
May I close, Mr. Speaker, by once again appealing to all those associated with this Bill to come before the committee with open minds and a clear feeling of consensus in their hearts so that together, in a non-political way, we can remove this very distasteful part of our history and rectify it as best we can. Although the remedy will not be perfect, we can at least make a very, very honest and good attempt.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? Since there are no questions or comments, I recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having this opportunity to rise to say a few words regarding Bill C-31. I recognize that my colleague and other Hon. Members would like to say a few words. Therefore, I will keep my comments brief.
Having listened to the debate today and having heard from all parts of the House some very positive, powerful, thoughtful,
Indian Act
compassionate and co-operative statements, I feel that this has been one of the days when I have been really proud to be a Member of this House. I listened to the spokespersons from all three political Parties indicate that this was indeed a very historic day for bringing justice to native people and for removing from our books a discriminatory clause in the Indian Act. The very thoughtful and constructive comments that individuals have made have put this particular Bill into a very appropriate context.
I am sure all of us are looking forward to examining the Bill clause by clause when it gets to committee. We are looking forward to scrutinizing every aspect of this Bill and to ensuring that the various groups will have an opportunity to have their concerns registered and, wherever reasonable and possible, to have their recommendations incorporated through amendments to this Bill.
I am very happy to say a few words today on this Bill. When I first became a Member of Parliament, within a matter of hours every Indian band in my constituency arranged a visit with me. As well as the major issue of self-government, they reminded me of the concerns that they had with Section 12(l)(b). Over time, 12(l)(b) has become a phrase with which I am very comfortable. I suppose it has almost come to symbolize this incredible Act called the Indian Act.
One of the previous speakers referred to the Indian Act as being a leaky ship with all kinds of rust and holes, a ship that is literally falling apart. It is almost impossible to save that ship. The only way to save it is to introduce self-government for Indian people. Today we are simply trying to plug one more hole in anticipation of the Act being thrown out as soon as possible to be replaced with Indian self-government.
This Bill deletes membership sections of the Indian Act which discriminate on the basis of sex. It reinstates people who lost status through marriage to a non-Indian or through the double-mother clause which took away status from Indians whose mother and whose father's mother were not status Indians. It reinstates people who lost status through enfranchisement of the husband or father, through the dispute of the status of the father in cases of illegitimate children, through enlistment in Canada's Armed Forces, through obtaining or maintaining employment, through attendance at a university or through the attainment of a professional degree. It also provides that first-generation children be granted status as Indians under federal law and that they would then be eligible for band membership according to rules developed by the band. It sets out a method by which the band can design and control membership criteria. It sets out a system of protest for people disputing a decision regarding the addition or deletion from the band list and gives band councils the power to decide residency rights.
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) indicated very clearly that one of the concerns we must address is the funding provisions for reinstated band members. We must address the incredible pressure this change may place on certain bands in terms of expanded membership, available land and the additional cost that will obviously have

March 1, 1985
Indian Act
to be borne by that particular band. This must be recognized and dealt with as part of this legislation. I know that the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands has discussed many times over the past number of months the need for some type of review board which would assist the bands in obtaining proper funding and land settlements when there is extreme pressure brought to bear upon a particular band as a result of increased membership.
In addition, the fact that the appeal process does not cover residency rights is something which must be dealt with when the Bill goes to committee. Of course, the fact that there is no guarantee of services to off-reserve Indians is also something which ought to be addressed at that time.
I am pleased to play a small part in the debate this afternoon on this very historic day. I look forward to the Bill going to committee, and certainly I look forward to the third and final reading when discrimination on the basis of sex is removed from the Indian act once and for all.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to address this Bill today. First, I would like to say that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) has set a course, possibly unprecedented, and in six months has taken on an activity to return some fundamental feelings and activities which were lost during the many years of former administrations. I am extremely proud of the Minister and I have indicated to him that I will do everything I can to bring about the change which reflects the attitude of this Government. I am sure most Members of the House will do the same to give the Indians in the reserves the pride which in many cases they have lost.
I would like to address a few of the comments which were made today by opposition Members on the committee, whom I would also like to commend. It is the committee which will address the most important concern-the cost. No doubt when this Bill goes through the proper channels and into committee, people will ask what it will cost the Government. There have been some estimates from time to time which suggest that it might cost $30 million, $40 million, or that it might be in excess of $200 million. However, no one has asked what the cost was to those people who have lost their status over the years. What has been the cost in suffering? Can we put a dollar value on those who could no longer be classified as status Indians, as opposed to their neighbours, and were not recipients of the benefits of that status? What was the cost to families who broke up or lost their status because the moved, or to those who married someone who was not a status Indan? Who could put a dollar value on that? I do not think it can be done. I do not think there is enough money to replace that.
.1 recognize that the Bill will not please everyone, because all of the wrongs cannot be undone. However, I think the Bill goes far in helping to make a previous wrong as right as possible. When this Bill is brought to committee, I know my colleagues and members of the Opposition who are on the committee will
suggest every possible way in which to ensure that we will go as far as we can in making it fair and that we will listen to as many people as possible who are affected.
Again, I would like to refer to the Minister in this regard. As my hon. colleague previously stated, the Minister has travelled and has worked as hard, if not harder, than any other Minister in this area. I am sure that if the Minister missed someone, it was not due to his attempt to accommodate everyone. However, my colleagues and I are helping the Minister in this regard. I think that is the bottom line. When this Bill is passed, we will know that we have done everything we could to consult with and listen to the people who are affected. I am very happy to be part of that process.
As a new Member of Parliament I find it exciting to be involved in such an important activity. I look forward in the next four years of this administration to many other dynamic changes which will be required, because the Bill will not restore economic needs and requirements, improve lower education or improve housing, which these people may need. The Bill does not address all of the issues, but it is a start.
Once again, I take my hat off to the Minister and commend all the speakers on this Bill who have given their support and advice. I look forward to debating this legislation further in committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Crombie, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Indian Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

['Me too.', "Order, please. The hour allotted for consideration of Private Members' Business has expired.\nIt being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 5 p.m. the House adjourned.", 'Monday, March 4, 1985']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 40?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 1, 1985



Simon Leendert de Jong: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should order a public inquiry into the collapse of the Pioneer Trust Company of Regina, Saskatchewan and other trust companies, and should adopt a permanent policy of ordering such inquiries for any future collapses; and
That the Government should consider the advisibility of introducing legislation amending the Trust Companies Act to make such inquiries automatic.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the events in the last two weeks concerning Pioneer Trust Company has prompted me on numerous occasions to urge the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) to initiate a public inquiry into the collapse of the Pioneer Trust Company. Upon further investigation into the collapse of other trust companies, Mr. Speaker, I am more firmly conviced that a broad public inquiry, not only with respect to Pioneer, but to other trust companies, is needed. The millions and millions of dollars which have been lost because of trust companies going under, should surely give us a strong indication of the need for public inquiry and a new set of regulations governing trust companies.
The Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation was formed in 1967, following the collapse of the Atlantic Acceptance Corporation. The CDIC has been catapulted into a number of new functions with the collapse of several other trust companies. Originally an insurer, it is increasingly becoming a regulator in conjunction with other federal agencies. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it has a staff of only 12, a five-man board of civil servants and a part-time chairman. Over the last number of years, CDIC has lost some $1 billion because it had to bail out some ten different trust companies. I quote from the report of the Auditor General of March 31, 1984 as follows:
-sufficient information was not available at the time of our audit to determine whether the provision was adequate.
Meaning, Mr. Speaker, that there was not enough information for them to determine whether there was at that time some $650 million which was lost because of CDIC and whether something could have been done to have prevented those losses. Again, I quote from the Auditor General's report as follows:
As of December 31, 1983, the corporation had made loans to the eight troubled companies amounting to $942.5 million in order to fund payment of liabilities and operations. At March 31, 1984, the amount of loans outstanding was $1 billion.
Again I quote the following from the Auditor General's report:
However, the corporation anticipates heavy losses and has recorded a general provision for loss of $650 million at December 31, 1983.
The report continues:
Because of these circumstances, sufficient information was not available at the date of our audit to allow us to determine whether the general provision was adequate. Accordingly, in our audit report to the Minister of Finance, we stated that we were unable to express an opinion on the financial statements of the corporation for the year ended December 31, 1983.
Trust Companies
Government policy regarding trust companies-and I say this with the support of the statement of the Auditor General-has really been ad hoc decision-making. We see, with the collapse of Pioneer, another policy decision being made by the Government on an ad hoc basis. The past government practice has been to assist in the arrangement of agency agreements, for example, with Greymac, Seaway, Crown and Fidelity trust companies. The agency's agreements virtually guaranteed all depositors and shareholders of those trust companies. But apparently the Government has now changed its policy. Two smaller western based trust companies, Pioneer and North-guard in Manitoba, were just cut loose, their assets sold off, and everyone has taken a beating.
The Government has changed its policies without announcing them publicly, without a public process of hearings or a public committee, and this change in policy might have misled investors and depositors with Pioneer. Certainly the investors and depositors in Pioneer did not know that the Government had changed its policy. So we feel, Mr. Speaker, that there is a need for a public forum to discuss these changes.
I would like very quickly, Mr. Speaker, to move to my major concerns. Those are the concerns I have with Pioneer Trust. On February 7 of this year, the biggest financial failure in Saskatchewan's history occurred. Pioneer Trust, a company which has been a constant money loser in its 11 years of operation, was forced to close its doors. There were many small investors, mainly from across Saskatchewan, who supported the company because they wanted to see a viable Saskatchewan financial institution. There are also some 1,800 uninsured depositors. Many of them were hospitals, municipal Governments, theatre groups, provincial government Departments, as well as many retired farmers and business people who will lose substantial sums of money. They kept their deposits with Pioneer because they wanted to support a Saskatchewan financial institution.
The collapse of Pioneer raises many questions: first, could it have been avoided? Since a special report of May, 1984 to the Minister of State for Finance warned of Pioneer's problems, there seems to have been sufficient time at least to reach an agency agreement. We want to know if any efforts were made to contact, for example, Co-Op Trust in Saskatchewan to take over Pioneer? We are concerned that both the provincial and the federal Governments did not do everything possible to protect the depositors and, in fact, aggravated an already serious problem.
The behaviour of the provincial Government is something which can hardly be believed. On November 21, Mr. Bob Andrew, the Minister of Finance for Saskatchewan, wrote to Pioneer Trust, and I quote from that letter:
Dear Mr. Klein:
Please be advised that the Government of Saskatchewan will guarantee the 27.5 million dollar preferred share offering of Canadian Pioneer Management Ltd. Details of the guarantee are now being reviewed by officials. You may expect the guarantee to be ready in time to allow your new equity to be placed prior to December 31, 1984.
That is a very firm commitment, Mr. Speaker, by the Minister of Finance of Saskatchewan to Pioneer Trust. We

March 1, 1985
Trust Companies
also have the Premier of Saskatchewan backing up his Minister of Finance on numerous occasions. I quote from an article in the Regina Leader-Post on January 11, 1985. If reads:
But Devine said the Government has no intention of running the company, although it is prepared to support it with financial guarantees. "If I have to back it up I am prepared to say if it does go all the way to the wall, then obviously I'm going to have all that is necessary to make sure that Saskatchewan taxpayers are protected," he said.
The Premier of Saskatchewan and the Minister of Finance for Saskatchewan make this public and private commitment to Pioneer Trust, yet, Mr. Speaker, on February 7 the Minister of Finance publicly announces that the province will not proceed with the guarantee. His stated reason was that the province was not aware of how serious Pioneer's problem was. They made a bad situation even worse. In effect, they had offered a false sense of assurance to the depositors and shareholders of Pioneer Trust. Did the province not examine Pioneer's books before it made its commitment? It sounds incredible but it appears that the province made a $30 million commitment without even verifying the books of Pioneer. Indeed, its action bears out what former Ontario Premier Bill Davis is reputed to have said about the Devine Government, "Amateur night on the Prairies".
The Saskatchewan Tory Government, which prides itself on its business approach and expertise, is now being sued by Pioneer Trust. So much for those great free enterprisers, Mr. Speaker.
We are also concerned with the federal Government. On August 1 the federal Government had allowed the company to continue to operate under restrictions on the understanding that it would have to increase its liquidity by December 1, 1984, before its licence would be renewed. On December 31, the company's licence was renewed although it had not succeeded in raising more money to increase its liquidity. We want some answers, Mr. Speaker. Did the provincial Government give the federal Government a written guarantee? If not, why was the licence renewed? Obviously, Mr. Speaker, Pioneer Trust did not get its $30 million, yet its licence was renewed by this Government. This Government has to be held accountable for that action. What we are really seeing is mismanagement by both the federal Government and the provincial Government.
It is interesting, in pursuing the court documents which were filed in the Court of Queen's Bench, to note the total lack of evidence showing federal-provincial government communications. We want to know what consultation occurred before the company closed its doors. Did the federal Government make the provincial Government aware of the seriousness of Pioneer's situation before the province committee itself to the guarantee? Was there any discussion between the two Governments concerning alternatives such as an agency agreement, before Pioneer's collapse? It strikes me that both Governments acted incompetently. So much for this new era of federal-provincial consultation, especially between Tory Governments.
There are other questions that should be answered. For example, according to the preliminary audit filed with the court, there was some $36 million in uninsured deposits as of December 31, 1984. On February 7, when Pioneer closed its doors, there was only $24 million in uninsured deposits. What happened to the $12 million? Were there companies and individuals who had privileged information and used that information to make some timely withdrawals? We want to know. We also want to know if there was any unusual selling of shares by a few individuals before Pioneer's collapse. There are some very serious discrepancies, especially concerning the uninsured deposits in the amount of some $12 million that disappeared in a little under two months.
As well, there are rumours and reports that a Conservative Saskatchewan Cabinet Minister obtained a substantial undersecured loan from Pioneer last December without even declaring his conflict of interest when Pioneer was discussed at Cabinet meetings. Again I think this deserves a full public inquiry.
The events surrounding Pioneer and its demise raise many, many questions, Mr. Speaker. The concern we have is that politics indeed played an important part in the failure of this company. We have asked the Minister of State for Finance to institute a public inquiry. We believe the public has a right to know. We believe that before we see more trust companies going down the drain-and there are reports that several other trust companies are in an unstable situation-before the people of Canada pay out hundreds of millions of dollars more, it is time we reviewed the regulations concerning trust companies. It is time that we had an open inquiry.
It surprises me, Mr. Speaker, that despite the mismanagement by the Saskatchewan Government and particularly that Government's Minister of Finance, that same Minister of Finance calls for less regulation of the trust companies. In fact, he feels that part of the reason why Pioneer went under was that there were too many regulations. Can you imagine the gall? After the experience we have had in this country of so many trust companies going under, we know that in fact the problem is not enough controls, not enough regulations. Yet the Saskatchewan Minister of Finance calls for even less. I suppose what he wants is a return to the days of private financial buccaneers and pirates. Well, there are many of us who wonder whether indeed we will see an honest and open public inquiry set up by either the provincial or the federal Government. It seems as though there are too many things to hide. For example, I note with interest that very recently in the Globe and Mail, specifically on February 27, a statement was made by the head of Canada Trustco, Mr. M. L. Lahn. He said that he doubts if this present Government will indeed effect any changes in the regulations as to the ownership of trust companies. I quote him:
Several of the trust company owners fall into the category of influential Conservative Party backers and fund raisers. It would thus be naive to expect an ownership restriction to be forthcoming.
March 1, 1985

I hope the Government and government Members will not talk out this Private Member's motion, Mr. Speaker, that indeed they will recognize that a serious problem exists concerning trust companies, not only with Pioneer but with many others. I hope they will recognize it is high time that a pubic inquiry system were instituted.
I have written to the Minister of State for Finance, and it is unfortunate that she is not in the House today to participate in this debate. We have all known since early last week that we would be debating my motion this Friday afternoon. But 1 have written to the Minister suggesting that a public inquiry be held. I have raised with her in my correspondence many questions similar to these and I hope she will answer some of them and that other answers will come in a public inquiry.
Again, for the sake of Canadian taxpayers, Canadian investors and Canadian depositors, I hope this Government will act and that we will have a full and public inquiry not only into Pioneer but into all of the regulations governing trust companies in this country.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry to hear that the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) regrets the absence of my Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), but I will try to stand in for the Minister to the best of my ability, and 1 welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion moved by the Member for Regina East. I am aware that the Hon. Member has already raised other aspects of the matter during this session, and we want to congratulate him on this thoroughness in seeking to have the issues raised by the closing of Pioneer Trust Company fully taken into consideration.
However, we must point out from the outset that we do not agree with the desired impact of this motion. We must make a distinction between the two proposals made in the motion as it stands. The motion proposes that a public inquiry should be conducted in all cases where trust companies go bankrupt. The second proposal is very specific, namely that an inquiry be ordered into the particular case of Pioneer Trust. In both cases, however, I think the approach proposed by the Hon. Member is not suitable in the present circumstances.
As far as this particular case is concerned, I assume the Minister of State for Finance has sent the Opposition Member a number of replies to questions he has already raised. Neither the Minister of State for Finance nor the other parties concerned have been reluctant to publish or disclose any relevant information. We must therefore conclude that the public's need to know has been amply satisfied. It is a fact that the media have fully and extensively covered the matter, and in articles published before and after this very debatable motion was put on the Order Paper they described clearly and in great detail the entire sequence of events.
In the circumstances, however, it would be preferable to take the time to recapitulate briefly what happened in this case. It will then be abundantly clear that the Government has been entirely open about the matter and that the other parties
Trust Companies
certainly did not cover anything up. Obviously, I am not in a position to obtain information that is not available to the general public, so that there will be nothing new in what I will have to say here in the House.
In May 1984, a report was sent to then Minister of Finance.

Officials of the federal department of insurance have undertaken a thorough study of the situation of Pioneer Trust and reported at that time that there was cause for certain concern as to the company's financial situation. In accordance with the law and the provisions for trust companies, this company was invited to respond and effectively did so at a hearing in June. After due consideration, the company's license was renewed in August, but subject to a number of specific conditions and a properly calibrated reduction in its authorized borrowing ratio. In accordance with the said legislation, the company was given up to December 31 of last year to comply with this reduction in its newly authorized borrowing ratio. In the meantime, between May and December, the department of insurance continued its investigations, and by November it became apparent that the company would not be able to comply with the directives without a substantial injection of capital.
When pressed for additional capital, officials of this company informed federal officials of their intention to arrange for that issue of cumulative redeemable and retractable preferred shares which would be guaranteed by the Government of Saskatchewan. When it became clear that the Government of Saskatchewan had decided not to proceed with this guarantee, the managers of Pioneer Trust themselves realized that the conditions for continuing its operations had not been met and they closed down the company's operations.
As soon as she was instructed of such a situation, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and the Superintendent of Insurance moved at once to protect the interests of all concerned by taking absolute and immediate control of the assets of this company. Subsequent proper legal proceedings have left matters in the hands of a court appointed receiver. Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation has taken action duly to pay off insured depositors within the deposit insurance legal limit of $60,000.
Questions have been raised as to why the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation has not made arrangements to pay off all deposits of all depositors, irrespective of the $60,000 insurance coverage, as was done in connection with the Crown Trust and Fidelity Trust affairs. The provisions of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act are such that this government agency has the authority to enter into the type of global arrangements that applied in similar situations only if it is convinced that allowing a troubled company to run its business in such orderly manner, with sufficient support from this agency to enable all depositors to be paid in full, would be

March 1, 1985
Trust Companies
effectively less costly than bluntly putting the troubled company into liquidation and partially paying off all depositors immediately only to the extent of the $60,000 coverage.
In the case of Pioneer, the particular circumstances were such that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation came to the conclusion that it would be less costly if Pioneer were put into liquidation and the depositors were paid off immediately up to the insurance coverage. In the face of this conclusion, Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation had no option but to proceed in this justifiable manner.
I have only highlighted the most important facts, Mr. Speaker, all of which are public knowledge now. These related facts appeared in the press all over Canada. I am led to believe that these articles are based on the affidavit filed in court during the court proceedings and that these facts, which are now available, demonstrate that the Government acted in the best interests of all Canadians and has not tried to conceal anything.
The Minister of State for Finance said in the House on February 12, which citations can be found on pages 2290 and 2291 of Hansard, that she was strongly convinced that a public inquiry was not essential at that time. No additional information has been brought foward to this date by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), or any others, to indicate that the situation has changed in any substantial way. More information may have been made public since that time, but none of it implies that a public inquiry is required.
We have noticed, with regrettable concern, certain tendencies in discussions pertaining to Pioneer Trust to intimate that the West would not be compensated as fairly as eastern depositors were in previous allegedly similar cases. As an MP from the east-and I am sure you do not doubt it from my accent-I want to emphasize in the strongest possible terms my deep concern for the affairs of the West as for those of any other part of Canada.
Here it is instructive to note that in the case of Fidelity Trust, for example, a company with its head office in Edmonton and with only two offices east of the Manitoba-Ontario border, the then western depositors detained two-thirds of the total outstanding deposits. We would also remind all Hon. Members that in Ontario in the Astra-Remor case, a situation similar to this, there was no federal investment in the payment to the uninsured depositors.
The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation's decision to guarantee deposits in excess of the insurance coverage in the failure of Fidelity Trust, as well as the Crown, Seaway and Greymac companies was made because the corporation believed it would be less costly to guarantee all deposits and let the company run its business in an orderly manner, than to force the companies into liquidation and hastily pay off all depositors to the insured limit.
In the case of Pioneer Trust Company, as I have already mentioned, on February 7, 1985 the Minister of Finance for the Province of Saskatchewan announced that the Government
of Saskatchewan had decided not to proceed with the guarantee of a preferred share offering. This provincial decision was communicated to the company and, as a result, senior management at Pioneer Trust took the further step of ordering that the trust company's offices be closed as of 4 p.m. They deliberately closed their own door.
[ Translation]
As Members of the House, we ought to know that other measures can be taken to respond to public concern, and it is up to us as Members to take the most important of those measures. On similar occasions in the past, we were able to discuss issues with the Superintendent of Insurance when the standing committee considered his estimates. I am sure that the federal Superintendent of Insurance would gladly accept any invitation to address the committee members. It would be the best way to deal with the case mentioned in the motion. Naturally, there being no new and obvious facts indicating that the measures taken are not in the public interest, there is no point in blowing the situation out of all proportion, as would undoubtedly be the case as a result of an inquiry now deemed unnecessary in light of the facts uncovered at this time.
Now I would like to deal with the wider aspect of the motion under study. As a general policy, we are being asked to endorse the principle of a public inquiry in each and every case of trust company collapse. In his motion, the Hon. Member advocates that such an inquiry first be made through an administrative decision, then by means of an amendment to the Trust Companies Act. In my humble opinion, this suggestion does not take into consideration the normal evolution of financial institutions. For instance, I am wondering whether Members of the Opposition realize that, even if Parliament were to pass such legislation, it would not necessarily cover the operations of all similar companies. It is definitely obvious that this vague motion does not seem to take that factor into account.
The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) is no doubt aware that jurisdiction over trust companies is broadly shared. While nearly two-thirds of corporate assets are held by companies under federal jurisdiction, close to a third are not. For this reason the legislation would not apply in a number of cases and would therefore be useless. Besides, even though the motion now before us deals mainly with trust companies, numerous other types of financial institutions are just as exposed to the negative impact of economic conditions. We therefore do not believe it would be appropriate or fair to impose that extra degree of control on only one type of institution.
In fact, in our approach we must recognize that it is not proper to deal selectively with certain types of institutions in that financial area. There must be consultation with the industry involved and the provinces. We must wait for the results of studies now being made concerning various aspects of the legislation as it applies to financial institutions. By that I mean all financial institutions, rather than one specific group.

March 1, 1985
The mandate of the Wyman Committee comes immediately to my mind when I think of the work that has to be done before we can decide how we should deal with the closing down of the operation of a trust company.
The role of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation in the case of Pioneer Trust, as in other cases that have come up, is important for depositors. We should not legislate without knowing about the findings of the important Wyman Committee. Under the circumstances, I really wonder if it is in order to discuss the motion tabled in this House this afternoon. This motion provides for a partial approach which, in my view, is not advisable in principle. We know there will be other opportunities to look at the over-all problem, but it is not obvious nor is it substantiated that the amendment proposed is absolutely vital. The odds are very slight indeed that the chances to look at the over-all situation will be postponed indefinitely. We are therefore not as receptive to this proposal as we might be under different circumstances. We honestly do not expect a large number of such companies to go down. Having said this, we do not see why an examination of the details of this proposal by the House should be a matter of such urgency.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we sympathize greatly with those who may have suffered financial losses because of this unfortunate situation. I hope that when all assets have been realized, those who have deposits or parts of deposits not yet insured will be able to recover most of their money. We also hope that there is no doubt in the minds of investors about the absolute honesty of our trust companies and other financial institutions.
It might be true that we have witnessed the disappearance of a number of trust companies in rather suspicious circumstances these last few years. However, we are certain that most Canadian financial institutions are quite healthy. The evidence available to us suggests that the Federal Superintendent of Insurance and our officials will do their best to guarantee that present regulations are strictly observed, certainly in the interests of the financial sector, but also in the interests of all Canadians involved. We are therefore convinced that it is preferable to try to improve the regulatory system applicable to these institutions so that there will be no need to determine what action should be taken in any future regrettable situation like that of Pioneer. We therefore believe that, without adding to the already heavy regulatory burden imposed on our financial institutions, it will be possible to eliminate any remaining uncertainties and to state that depositors will continue to be well-served by existing mechanisms designed to protect their interests.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak to the motion this afternoon but after listening to the debate, I had a certain feeling of deja vu, having sat in the Ontario Legislature at the time of the demise of Crown, Greymac and Seaway trust companies. I was listening more particularly to the last words of the Parliamentary Secretary-
Trust Companies

-when he said: "We do not foresee that many trust companies will go down." I found these comments quite interesting, Mr. Speaker, because I used to sit opposite people who made similar comments in Ontario.

We can all recall, after the Astra and Re-Mor companies folded in the Province of Ontario, that the government Members stood proudly in their places in the Ontario House and said that never again shall such a thing happen in the Province of Ontario. Some three or four years later, the greatest financial collapse in the history of our country took place with the fall of Crown Trust, Greymac and Seaway trust companies.
We still do not know how much the fall of these three trust companies in Ontario will cost the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation. That cost will ultimately go to the taxpayers of this country. The fact is that the premiums for the CDIC are a tax because most people use banking facilities of some sort. When people use banking facilities, they pay the CDIC premiums, and when a trust company or financial institution collapses, those funds are required in order to either bail out the company or pay a certain amount to the depositors in those trust companies. Of course, the premiums will have to be raised in order to replenish that pool of funds and, as far as I am concerned, it has the same effect as a tax. Because I view this as a tax measure, I believe that a public inquiry certainly would be in order.
Let me return to the fall of the Ontario companies. I recall meeting with some of the preferred shareholders of the trust companies. I recognize that depositors and preferred shareholders are not the same, but it is not always apparent to people who are depositing their money in a financial institution.
For example, if a farmer who wants to put away his funds after selling his farm walks into a financial institution which has a CDIC logo on the door, he would assume that the money would be safe. One of the Crown Trust preferred shareholders who was at Queen's Park was a gentleman who had sold his farm a number of years ago. He had deposited his money in another institution which had collapsed. I believe it was Astra Trust. He had managed to salvage approximately $100,000 from his investment of some $500,000.
Of course, this gentleman had vowed that he would never again make the mistake of putting his money into something that was unsure. Therefore, he went to Crown Trust Company, which had the reputation of being a stable trust company, and put his money into preferred shares of Crown Trust Company. It seemed there was no better investment than that and no way a person could go wrong by putting his money into Crown Trust. This gentleman had purchased preferred shares because it was more advantageous than simply depositing the money into an account. In view of the stability of the company and the fact that it was one of the largest companies in the

March 1, 1985
Trust Companies
country, he assumed that his investment would be safe. Although he had lost a considerable amount in the previous collapse, he would have been able to retire on what he had left.
When I met that gentleman, he was wearing a pair of old boots that were tied with strings. He admitted that he had no money left at all when, not many years before, he had been financially well prepared for the rest of his life, having worked hard on his farm and sold his assets in order to retire.
I do not know what happened to that gentleman. Needless to say, if he were standing in the House today he would want on every occasion to have an inquiry into the fall of any financial institution which could result in those things happening to the people of this country.
We are told by the Parliamentary Secretary that we do not need to burden our financial institutions with more regulations. I beg to differ with the Parliamentary Secretary in that regard. We have long had a reputation in this country of stable financial institutions. Because they have a certain stability, one assumes nothing can go wrong. Because one assumes nothing can go wrong, you retract many deposits in the manner to which I referred a few moments ago, such as buying preferred shares or even putting funds in excess of the limit, which was $20,000 until recently. That limit has now been changed to $60,000. Nevertheless, being as good as the bank, an expression we like to use, means you do not lose funds when you put them in a financial institution. On the other hand, if we fail to supervise properly, to audit properly, and view publicly situations where things go wrong, the changes are that our mistakes will happen again.
I commend the Hon. Member for Regina East for proposing this motion today and I would like to give it my own personal support.


Mr. Gary Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to continue discussion on the motion brought forward by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). At the outset, I would like to reiterate several things that have been brought forward thus far, particularly by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier).
I was attracted to one of the comments made by the previous speaker. I wish to note that I am not necessarily drawn to him but, rather, to some of the comments he made. This had to do with his analogy to farmers. First, the farmer he was talking about and the succession of difficulties that he faced by investing in different companies, both of which had trouble, is, in one way a funny kind of comparison and in another a very serious comparison, but it establishes the background to this whole debate. In 1979 and 1978 there were farmers in my area and right across the country, who kept on farming who have ended up the same way. What this motion really speaks to in part is the fact that this company about which we are talking, in looking for a very specific inquiry to deal with its problem, has a generic background. This should
be looked at more broadly. This company is in trouble because of financial distress as a result of many of the decisions the company itself got involved in. Its equity fell away as land prices deteriorated. These severe economic pressures were being faced not just by the company but by the country as a whole, and the domino effect is felt throughout the whole economy.
We have seen a company fail. Pioneer Trust is a company representative of a financial institution in difficulty. One of the points the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance brought out very clearly and which I think needs to be emphasized is that the Government at the present time is not just looking at a band-aid solution through an inquiry into this company and the difficulties it may have had, and obviously had because it closed its own doors. The Government is looking at the entire range of financial intitutions and the problems they face. The Government is prepared to deal with them. The Government is doing it in an open and consultative way, and is trying to deal with the broad problems, just as we are approaching the economic and the other problems that we face. I will leave it to the Hon. Member in his own mind to describe and explain how we got into this spot. It is very clear to almost every Canadian that we are not in a very good financial position. We have a litany of things; high unemployment, high deficit, and so on that we have to accommodate.


Don Boudria: The falling dollar and the rest of it.


Gary Michael Gurbin: The dollar is levelling out right now. It is being managed very well by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), extremely well compared to the historic management we have had of our economy and our dollar-


Don Boudria: That is why it has dropped 10 per cent since you have been in office.


Gary Michael Gurbin: -and particularly in the period of time that we have had to come to grips with the structural and fundamental changes that need to occur. The only comment we can have on the Minister's performance is one of recommendation and commendation for the excellent job he has done.
Let me come back to the fundamental differences, Mr. Speaker. What we have in the proposed motion is a sort of band-aid. We could go on putting inquiry on top of inquiry on top of inquiry, but we will not solve the problems. We have a situation where this company closed its own doors. The CDIC did what seems to me an amazingly open and reasonable job of looking at the situation. The provincial Government, as far as I understand it, and I stand to be corrected but I have done as much homework as I can on it, withdrew its support after giving initial support.


Simon Leendert de Jong: They fumbled it.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Comments can be made why the provincial Government chose to do that. I am not in a position to comment. My understanding is that the provincial Government withdrew its support. On that fundamental point I think I am accurate. The company itself closed its doors. There has
March 1, 1985

been no effort on the part of the company, this Government, or the CDIC, as far as I can determine, to hide anything in terms of the sequence of events or the situation as it exists. There is no denial of the fact that there are investors who have been significantly affected by what has happened. No one on htis side of the House has indicated any pleasure in the results or in the situation we are in today.
What we see very clearly, and what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister has indicated, is that we are trying to deal with this problem not in a piecemeal fashion, not as one problem, one solution, but by reviewing all of our financial institutions, and coming up with measures that will affect them all. To do otherwise can create almost as many problems as it can try to help solve, even though the intentions might be good. If there is uncertainty, we can influence things even by way of dollars, but the question of people and what they are prepared to do with their money in terms of an investment will go on and on.
It is important not to raise the spectre of insecurity, not to promote lack of confidence, but to try to do things in a manner and style that will engender confidence and in the end make the changes that are constructive that we will all admit are necessary. There is no argument or debate about the fact that the legislation should be changed. There are many parts, but those parts are not independent one of another. An individual change in one part may have a negative result on another aspect.
I am not here to explain nor do I have the capacity to explain all these things or even to understand them, but I know that in principle that is true.
The other major point, at least in preamble, that I would like to make is in terms of the East-West question. I do not want to impute any terrible motives on the part of the Member who provided the motion. I am sure there was no political intention in his comment. If the Member would care to look back in history at the different times that the Government has become involved in individual cases and really looked at the investors who have been involved in those cases, while he may not be perfectly satisfied, he would see that there are investors from all across the country who are affected in any of these individual cases. In fact, there were investors from the west who were involved in the eastern situation and investors in the east who were involved in the western situation. My understanding is that the ratio in this instance works out to something like one-third East and two-thirds West. I do not know all the figures. I do not know how that will work out exactly, but that is roughly the number.
I can understand the Hon. Member's point of view. I do not deny that in a similar circumstance I would want very much to try to protect the interests of people in my constituency or in my province to whom I am close. Those are not motives that I want to try to detract from. As far as I can understand, in this situation I would hate to see us try to promote some kind of aura about the activities of the Government.
Trust Companies
The Government sat down for the first time in my recollection, I do not know whether it is the first time in history, at a First Ministers' conference in the west to try to promote solutions to the kinds of things that this country has suffered from for so long, those things that cost us so much in so many ways. I am sure that Members on this side do not want to leave the aura that a decision has been reached for reasons which I am very sure were other reasons.
The policy has not changed. The CDIC determination in this instance as compared to other instances left it with the impression that instead of letting the company go out of business in the fashion in which it has done in other circumstances, in fact the general interests of the CDIC were better protected in this fashion or better reflected by allowing the company to do what it chose to do in contrast to taking other measures. That is debatable. I am not denying it is. However, the policy has not changed.
If there was any change in policy, it is a question of saying honestly that there are legislative changes that are probably needed. We are looking at them in a broad and open way. We intend to continue to do that. I am not sure of all the formats, but I believe the Hon. Member will have the opportunity to make his representations so that in the future these kinds of things can be included in a proper way. That is there, and it is a policy change. Apart from that, and although it is debatable, there has been no conscious decision by this Government that it is going to do things this way or that way in contrast to what was there before.
A comment was made by another Member on this side of this House. I will not give it attribution because he may not appreciate it fully. It is a little in the context of the comments I have been bringing forward so far. He talked about this being a post mortem. There is an interesting analogy there. A post mortem examination is valuable probably to all of society in looking at a particular situation. Again, the analogy is most important if we are talking about post mortems and looking at what really has happened. If we had an epidemic, for example, we could be doing thousands of post mortems. That is all we would be doing. It would give us some information, but we would end up in a situation where we would be using all our energies on post mortems. We would not be using our energy to dedicating our resources to preventing these things or making the necessary changes. That goes all the way back to the basic economic things. They are not unrelated.


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is an inquest I am asking for.


Gary Michael Gurbin: The Hon. Member who wants an inquest will have to take that up with the Hon. Member on this side who suggested there should be a post mortem. I do not think we will develop that theme any further.
In the United States, there are between 30 and 40 financial institutions which have failed in the recent past. The point we can look at in this country compared to theirs is the relative health. There are some strengths and weaknesses. This is another area where I do not have the expertise to expand fully, but the figure does indicate something. We have had some

March 1, 1985
Trust Companies
failures of Financial institutions in this country, but compared to what is occurring at the present time in the United States, particularly in view of other things happening in their economy, we are probably relatively well off. It is not that we should not change or that this is an excuse, but we do have some comparative strengths if we look at the situation in other countries. One thing that is incongruous about that whole scene is the fact that their economy is performing spectacularly well at the present time. That is another level of debate for another time. Those things do not always seem to flow one with the other.
The bottom line of this debate is that the Government respects the motion that the Member has brought forward and his noble intention in doing so on behalf of his constituents and his province. It is a genuine concern on his part to prevent serious injury to people who have invested in that company. While respecting that and being fully motivated addressing the financial institutions and trying to prevent these things from happening, we need to do it in a comprehensive way that will involve the federal and provincial levels. The Hon. Member will know there is a shared responsibility in a way that will consider the whole range of Financial institutions that will become involved once we start making these changes. In a way, it will benefit the whole Canadian scene and, as far as possible, will prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future. I thank the House for its attention. I would now like to call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe we still have a couple of minutes. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Oxford.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I know the time is short.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure if the Hon. Member realizes that by talking now, he will talk this matter out and prevent it from coming to a vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Oxford has the floor.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I have been interested in this debate this afternoon. As the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) said, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) is very sincere in presenting this motion before the House. As I read the motion, I have a little concern about passing it as it is. While it refers specifically to the Pioneer Trust Company, it also mentions other trust companies. That is a very vague term.
I would hate to see this House pass a motion that vaguely refers to a whole number of trust companies without identifying which ones we are trying to investigate. That is one of the difficulties in this whole problem. Second, I appreciate the sincerity-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Me too.

Order, please. The hour allotted for consideration of Private Members' Business has expired.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, March 4, 1985