1985-05-10

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), who is a past master at this sort of thing, has brought an entirely new dimension to the patronage system in his riding.
The Hon. Member is refusing to negotiate with the municipal representatives elected by the people of the North Shore, and letting political organizers decide which municipalities may benefit from federal grants.
These organizers not only decide which municipalities are going to get the grants, they also oblige these municipalities to hire staff from a list of names they provide, the point being that the grants will be withdrawn if they do not comply.
Mr. Speaker, needless to say, the mayors in Charlevoix heartedly disapprove of the Hon. Member's approach and have sent him a letter to that effect, and I quote:
In recent months, since your election as the Member for the riding of Charlevoix, it has been noted by the mayors that the political organizers in each municipality, meaning those belonging to the party in power, take precedence over municipal representatives who, like yourself, were democratically elected.
1 would be curious to know how many ridings in Quebec are seeing the same patronage game being played by the Progressive Conservatives.


FORESTRY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in tribute to National Forestry Week, the New Democratic Party fully recognizes the importance of our forests to our economy and our communities. Canada's forests generate an industry worth $23 billion and contribute to our country's trade balance more than agriculture, mining, fishing, and petroleum combined. One in every ten jobs is dependent on our forests, and over 300 communities are solely dependent on the forests. On a world scale, Canada has more than 10 per cent of the woodland resource.
Despite the overwhelming value of our forests, through government neglect they are in a state of crisis. They are being mined rather than harvested. They are being attacked by acid rain. They are not being rejuvenated through replanting and intensive silvaculture. The federal Government spends less than a nickel on our forests for every dollar it extracts in taxes. We are like robbers looting our own bank account.
If the Government is ever to recognize the importance of our forest resource, it will appoint a full Minister of Forests rather than continue to bury the Canadian Forest Service somewhere deep within the Department of Agriculture. The New Democratic Party demands that the Government immediately embark upon broad-based consultations with the industry, communities, and workers that depend on our forests, and create a national forestry Act.
A national forestry Act would give a legal guarantee to all Canadians that our forests will be replenished so that they may flourish for future generations to enjoy and use. A national forestry Act would consolidate the federal responsibility that is now spread out among a dozen government Departments. A national forestry Act would address the needs of private woodlot owners, loggers, environmentalists, the industry, and communities which have no other economic base. A national forestry Act would ensure that Canada-


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


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that there is a gaping and dangerous loophole in the proposed postal increases as they appear in The Canada Gazette. The photography marketing industry in Canada could be devastated if third-class mail is replaced by first-class restrictions on packages measuring over two centimetres thick. The current mailing charge of $1.15 will soar to $4.19 or more to send a 35-millimetre film and have the photos returned.
This price spells disaster in an industry mailing packages with a billed price of between $6 and $9. Some 6,000 Canadians are employed in this $600 million a year industry, and

May 10, 1985
roughly $100 million of that is mail order business. The Photo Marketing Association International estimates that 500 jobs will be immediately wiped out if the mail increase for packages is approved. The crippling price hike would also give a great advantage to foreign mail order photo finishers who need not pay Canadian federal sales tax or customs duties.
The Government is committed to making life better for Canadians, not worse, so we must abort these cruel measures as they pertain to the photo marketing industry.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in December I rose in the House and asked the Governor of the Bank of Canada to end the practice of subsidizing staff cafeterias at Bank of Canada offices across the country. The Bank's out of date pricing policy at these cafeterias has cost Canadian taxpayers over $2 million in the past five years.
I have since discovered that the prices in these cafeterias have doubled since April 1. However, I have also learned that Bank of Canada employees have been given a $250 raise to compensate for this price increase. This clearly defeats the whole purpose of raising the prices in the first place. In effect, any savings from any increase in cafeteria prices are going in one pocket and out the other.
This indirect subsidy to Bank of Canada employees will cost Canadians almost $500,000 per year. I urge the Governor of the Bank of Canada to stop this deplorable practice. I wish to remind him that it is not up to the people of Canada to ensure that Bank of Canada employees are well fed.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has seen its finest hour. Since 1867 our constitutional development as a nation has been shaped by numerous court cases which have had a dramatic impact on our society. Federal-provincial relationships, economic development, human rights, language, and culture have all been profoundly affected by court cases such as Russell v The Queen, The Queen v Drybones, and The Attorney General of Quebec v Blaikie. Yesterday a decision was handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada which places a very significant limitation on the use of executive power in Canada.
The Court ruled that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is supreme and that Cabinet decisions are reviewable by the courts. The Charter's supremacy is now unquestioned. This landmark decision has blazed a constitutional trail which helps
define the relationship of the citizen, the state, and the Constitution.
U0)
This is a victory for Canadian civil liberties and a victory for Canadian civil rights. In every sense it is a victory for all Canadians. Operation Dismantle should be congratulated for its courage in challenging the Government of Canada, thus allowing the Supreme Court to render this momentous decision.
This organization now faces a substantial legal bill which threatens its continued existence. Because this court decision benefits all Canadians, I call on the Government of Canada to pay the legal costs in this case. It is indeed a small price to pay for what every Canadian has gained.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, to no one's surprise we have recently learned that there were no responses to a questionnaire circulated in the Senate by one of their own concerning the duties of a Senator. The invitation to justify their existence was met with, to quote the Senator who sent it around, "unanimous silence". All the more reason to abolish the Senate.
What the Government currently proposes is that the Senate be reduced, through limiting its power, to its essence, i.e., a house of political patronage. Gone will be the facade of real political power. Only the pork barrel will remain. Also gone will be anything left on which to justify the continued existence of the Upper Chamber, except the uses the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has for it in making political pay-offs.
Perhaps the Prime Minister would be induced to abolish the Senate if we agreed to let him use it as his personal lounge. Given his recent refusal to stay in a hotel that was good enough for Cabinet Ministers but not for him, the presidential style of this Prime Minister is on the verge of becoming monarchial. The Senate Chamber would make a perfect place for the Prime Minister to retire in the evenings to enjoy his delusions of grandeur, a place where so many have been deluded by so little for so long.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few days we have seen the Bank of Canada rate fall below 10
May 10, 1985

per cent, a six-year low, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada is suggesting the possibility of much lower interest rates if the deficit is reduced. We have also seen, for the first time in decades, the reintroduction of mortgages with terms of seven to ten years. Our unemployment rate has fallen below 11 per cent, and we have had a significant increase in our trade surplus. In the first quarter of 1985 the Canadian economy grew at twice the rate of the United States.
On November 9 last, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), on behalf of the Government, put forward the agenda for economic renewal. Many decisions that have been taken in the past seven months have not been easy ones. There are no simple, quick solutions to a legacy of financial ineptitude. There will be further hard decisions made in the upcoming Budget. The balanced approach to reducing our debt will be fair and equitable to all regions of Canada. Less debt means more jobs.
The country is responding with confidence to the leadership of the Government. Confidence is growing, confidence that through the principles of the work ethic and less government hand-outs, economic recovery can be achieved, at the same time being confident that this can be achieved while ensuring that those in need are cared for. This is what the Progressive Conservative Government is all about.


THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. My remarks are directed to an official of this House whose behaviour astonishes me and, as I see it, belittles his important responsibilities. According to the Auditor General Act, the Auditor General shall report annually to the House of Commons and its Members on the work of his office and on whether, in carrying on the work of his office, he received all the information and explanations he required.
He must discharge his duties respecting fully our laws, our customs and our Canadian traditions.
Resorting to the courts without such specific instructions was definitively not the best nor the cheapest approach Mr. Dye could have taken to fulfil his duties. His personal decision to hire former Members to lobby through elected Members of this House, and the fact that these are Liberal Party members add insult to injury since the latter are not particularly conversant with accounting principles. The Auditor General truly overstepped his authority. In so doing he may have shown a propensity for grand-standing and sensationalism, or wanted to challenge openly the Conservative Government. Most certainly, such action lessens the confidence of the House in this
Oral Questions
official and, by the same token, undermines the institution he represents.
Just before graduating from Montreal's Ecole des hautes etudes commerciales-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, this being Friday, it gives me great pleasure to proclaim the PAW award, the Patronage Award of the Week. The envelope, please. The nominees for the PAW award are Doug and Wendy Lawson, Peter and Marcia Clark, and Bud Sherman. And the winner is-it is a joint award, Peter and Marcia Clark. They may pick up their award this week, next week, or the week after, in my office. The prize is a Rat Pack T-shirt.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister deliberately excluded the Governor General from his meeting with the President of the United States in Quebec City last March on the grounds that it was only a working meeting. What work was being done at the television gala held during that meeting where the Prime Minister sang along with the President, which justified the Canadian taxpayers paying more than half a million dollars for the bill from the CBC for that television extravaganza?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. friend to know that, with the implications of that question, he has offended two million Irishmen in this country. I want that to be known. He will pay a handsome price for that.
We have not received the bill for the event that was put on, or at least I have not seen it, but it involved a showcasing of Canadian talent and young Canadian artists, both French and English, on Canadian and American network television. Every time that we have an opportunity to display such magnificent Canadian talent around the world and encourage Canadian artists, we will do so with great pride.

May 10, 1985
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PAY COST
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that that television extravaganza was put on principally for politically showcasing the Prime Minister and feeding his ego. Therefore 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister to make a commitment to have the Conservative Party pay the cost of that extravaganza rather than the Canadian taxpayer. Will he make that commitment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that such a thing is a tradition as, for example, I remember such an extravaganza to which I was invited when the President of the United States came to Canada and the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, hosted a gala at the Arts Centre. It featured Canadian talent, both English and Frenchspeaking. It was a marvellous display of Canadian talent, in the same way as was the reception for President Reagan in Quebec City. I think that Canadians are proud of their artists, their entertainers, and their cultural communities, and we were honoured to have the opportunity to showcase them in such an international manner.


ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, almost eight weeks ago the Hon. Member for Gengarry-Prescott-Rus-sell raised 20 specific questions regarding the cost of that extravaganza and the cost of the summit meeting with President Reagan in general. Why, after a delay of almost eight weeks, have these questions not been answered? What does the Government have to hide? Is it the cost of the quail, is it the cost of the imported wine, or is it the cost of the caviar that was served to more than 1,800 Tory friends and relatives at functions connected with that extravaganza?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, one can see the priorities of the Liberal Party and one can see the line of questioning, because this morning Statistics Canada announced that since we came to office 201,000 new jobs were created in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Statistics Canada announced that in April,
89,000	new jobs had been created, the largest single monthly increase in five years, and that is what this Government is doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: While they are talking about rats and rat packs, we are talking about jobs and hope for Canadians. That is what this Government is doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know why the Prime Minister deliberately left Newfoundland out when he was flinging around the jobs, because unemployment in Newfoundland has gone up.
I am tempted to move a motion of censure against The Globe and Mail for challenging the Prime Minister for throwing Canada's Ambassador to West Germany out of his home. Any Prime Minister worth half a million dollars of warble cannot be expected to stay in the same second-class hotel as Joe Clark and Michael Wilson. There can be no doubt about that.
In addition to the $500,000 cost of showcasing a frustrated young artist named Mr. Mulroney on Canadian television, while all the others have been cut off, what other costs were associated with the visit by President Reagan to Quebec City on March 17?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is true, unfortunately, that unemployment has risen in Newfoundland. We have made an historic effort to counter that by signing, after 13 years of Liberal indecision, the Atlantic Accord which will bring new hope and prosperity to Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Unemployment declined in seven other provinces. I think that is good news for all Canadians. I think that Canadians watching this are wishing that the Liberals would set aside their cheap partisanship.
I know that the Hon. Member, too, is a fine Irish tenor. And I know that he wanted to sing in Quebec City. But, I am sorry, the stage was not big enough. We are here to create jobs, and the significant figure today and every day is that-


Brian Vincent Tobin: We want jobs.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He talks about jobs. In a comparable period in the previous year, 72,000 jobs were created, and we have created 201,000. That is our commitment to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, with an ego that big, no stage would be big enough for another performer anywhere in Canada.
As a good Irishman, as the Prime Minister pointed out, I am sad that the Prime Minister is living the life of Reilly while 32 per cent of the people in my riding are unemployed. 1 want to ask the Prime Minister a serious question. Has he ever, between mouthfuls of quail or tidbits of caviar, paused to wonder how the poor people of this country are living? Will he quit his presidential style? He is not a head of state; he is the chief executive officer. The people in the country want work
May 10, 1985

and action. Jobs are created every spring. Quit gloating. Show us some concrete results.


Right Hon.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, the Member quite properly asked for concrete results. This morning Statistics Canada announced that in the month of April we created the largest number of jobs in five years. The Liberal Party does not like good news for Canadians. They like cheap partisanship.
Statistics Canada announced that 201,000 jobs were created, two-thirds of them being full-time permanent jobs, since we came to office. Those are the tens and tens of thousands of jobs which we promised. Unlike the Liberals, we have delivered on our promise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NATIVE PEOPLES


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, one of the
promises of the Prime Minister, which he said he would deliver, was to provide more open government. I would like to ask him, in that context, concerning a document which the whole country knows very well came out of the Deputy Prime Minister's office recently, but about which the Government has continued to be evasive and refused to answer questions, has the Prime Minister undertaken an investigation into the origins of that document? Considering that the document refers to the fact that the Prime Minister was consulted on its contents, will he tell the House in a straightforward, open manner, that, indeed, this document was prepared in the office of the Deputy Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have told my hon. friend, and I think he will remember, that the document to which he refers is one which I have never seen myself. It has never been brought to my attention. I do not deny the possibility of task forces or study groups doing work in examining government programs. But in regard to native peoples we set out very, very clearly that, notwithstanding recommendations which may or may not come forward from various study groups, the Cabinet will decide at an appropriate time what the policy will be, and that we shall never do anything which is unhelpful to our native and aboriginal peoples.



REQUEST FOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ORIGIN

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister continues his attempt to treat the proceedings of this House as some kind of charade. He knows, and the whole country knows, that he did not answer the question. I want to ask him again will he live up to what he
Oral Questions
promised during the summer election campaign on the question of open government. He will have consulted with his Deputy Prime Minister during the last few days, and with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, all of whose Departments endorse the recommendations which are outlined in this report. Will he now, to use an old phrase, "come clean" with the House of Commons and acknowledge that this document was produced by the Deputy Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know it is hard for the Hon. Member to get over his own self-inflicted sanctimony. I know it is. But I have told him point-blank that I have never seen this document. It has not come to Cabinet, and if and when Cabinet is seized of it and makes a decision, we will tell you in the House. Then it will be government policy.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Prime Minister that he is the last person to talk about being sanctimonious. It was he who made himself the white knight on the question of patronage, and then reversed everything he promised once he took office.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What about Gerry Caplan? He used to work for you.


John Edward Broadbent: Go swallow your red tie.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I always put it in front of a bull.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Stay cool, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: If we can get some order, Mr. Speaker, I'll ask the question.



GOVERNMENT POLICY

John Edward Broadbent: In this document there are two key elements; first, a whole range of changes in native people's programs involving massive cut-backs and, second, something which pertains directly to the budgetary process which leads us to believe we are going to have one budget on May 23 and the real budget after. I refer to the fact that this document said that there are going to be cut-backs in native programs announced after the Budget, but not in the Budget. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the real reason the Government doesn't want to acknowledge the existence of the document is because the kind of duplicity which is involved in native people's programs is going to be carried over into virtually every program affecting every Department in the Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend does himself and the House a grave disservice by that kind of unbecoming attitude. We have indicated that there will be a Budget. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and I have made formal statements in the House outlining the principles which will govern our conduct in regard to our native peoples. We were

May 10, 1985
Oral Questions
under the television lights in Canada-the Hon. Member talks about openness-where we conducted ourselves on the aboriginal issue in a manner which I think brings honour to this House. We tried to secure a deal with dignity for the native peoples of Canada. That's the way we feel about our commitment to helping the native peoples, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party does himself a grave disservice by this kind of unbecoming conduct in the House of Commons.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and concerns patronage.
Mr. Speaker, the mayors of the regional municipality on the upper North Shore recently sent a letter to the Member for Charlevoix, accusing him of usurping the rights of municipalities for the benefit of Conservative organizers, and of letting the organizers select grant recipients and the people to be hired for the various projects.
My question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister is as follows. Considering the kind of patronage being indulged in by this Member, by which certain municipalities or individuals are given preference, depending on their political allegiance, could the Right Hon. Prime Minister give the people of Charlevoix, the Members of the House of Commons and people in all ridings throughout Canada that are represented by Progressive Conservative Members, the assurance that this appalling practice will be stopped immediately?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the people of the riding of Charlevoix reversed the previous 16,000-vote majority of the Liberals and voted against a Liberal Minister because of the patronage practised by that party in the past. The people of Charlevoix and all Quebecers know perfectly well that we deal fairly and squarely with all our municipalities and with all Quebecers, unlike the Liberals who favoured their own party followers exclusively, at all times. You are hardly in a position to rise in the House on questions about Quebec. Shame!



QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Mr. Speaker, I did not expect the Prime Minister to accuse the mayors of the municipalities of Charlevoix of lying.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians found out recently that the Progressive Conservatives were setting up a big blue machine in Quebec. Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether the tactics being used by some of his Members in Quebec will form the foundation of a big blue machine in that province? Is this the kind of tactics the Progressive Conservative Party is going to use to build the power base they utterly lack in that province?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that the Progressive Conservative Party has not always had an easy time of it in Quebec, and that we had to start from scratch. It took a lot of hard work to build up an organization that includes people from all walks of life in our society. It took a lot of hard work, that I admit, but we have a democratic organization that is highly representative, and the people of Quebec have come over to our side and will continue to do so in increasing numbers, because they are so fed up with your behaviour in the House of Commons. You had better change, because you are going to be in the Opposition for a long time!



NATIVE PEOPLES


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. There is a certain degree of hypocrisy in the responses coming from him and his Cabinet colleagues regarding this document. I would like to go back to the comment he just made that while he was under the bright lights with the Indian and Inuit leaders of this country, ferreted away in his office was the Deputy Prime Minister producing this document which is repugnant to Indian and Inuit people in this country and that is why the Government is finding it so sensitive.
Will the Prime Minister confirm what is stated in this document, that he met with the ministerial task force on native programs and that he confirmed the recommendations contained in this document?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That's false.



RCMP INVESTIGATION

James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, page 17 of the document says the Prime Minister has been consulted regarding his prerogatives on mandates. It is very clear in the-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Is that it?


James Ross Fulton: I am not going to quote from the whole of the document. My supplementary is directed to the President of the Privy Council. It is reported today that he or his Depart-
May 10, 1985

ment has ordered an RCMP investigation into who leaked this document. If it is not a Cabinet document, and none of you will stand up in this House and show some gumption and admit this document has reached the point it has in going to Cabinet Ministers, why have you ordered an investigation into it?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times you have to repeat something for the NDP. Obviously you have to repeat it for one or two days consecutively.


John Edward Broadbent: Tell the truth once.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The fact of the matter is that if there is any document which comes into unauthorized hands, there is a routine procedure-and this has been repeated by the Deputy Prime Minister-under which the RCMP make an investigation. I am sure the NDP would approve of that; in any province where they have been in power they want to make sure that Cabinet confidences are kept within the Cabinet and no place else.


John Edward Broadbent: So it is a Cabinet document? Thank you very much.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I just said it was routine procedure.



THE AUDITOR GENERAL


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Andre:: Don't let the truth get in the way of a good issue, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: Do another poll on that one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Wednesday came late this week.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He will know that the office of the Auditor General is conducting a joint study with the United States General Accounting Office to identify needs of users of federal government financial information. The international advisory group includes the Comptroller General of the U.S., the president of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, and many distinguished academics and public servants. As part of this study two former Members of Parliament, a lawyer and an economist, were hired to help interview present Members of Parliament on their informational needs. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has been quoted using the term "Gestapo tactics" to describe the project. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the Parliamentary Secretary's total misunderstanding of the project is unique to that Member and not to be taken as a
Oral Questions
reflection of government policy or as discouragement of this very important initiative?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this matter arose yesterday through the Hon. Member for Drummond who asked me to inquire of the Auditor General with respect to the rationale of the Auditor General's position which, as the Hon. Member will know, should not only be independent and accountable to Parliament, but should be perceived as being totally independent from partisan participation by active politicians of any political stripe. I have spoken with the Auditor General and he has indicated that Mr. Deniger had already decided it would be appropriate for him to resign his position.
All I am saying is that I am discussing this matter with the Auditor General who agrees with me that there should be no suggestion of partisanship in the performance of his duties. He is an officer of the House of Commons.



SUMMARY FINANCIAL REPORTS

Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I find that answer astonishing in view of the fact that a very well respected former Leader of the Opposition in this House, Mr. Robert Stanfield, is a consultant to that project, as is Mr. Huntington, a former Conservative Member of Parliament and chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and co-author of the Huntington-Lachance report on accountability.
If we are ever going to get what we want in the summary financial reports, and bear in mind this project particularly gears into the summary financial reports, if we are going to get the kind of information which assists parliamentarians to do their job of looking at government reports, surely former Members of Parliament are the obvious people to be involved, and I am delighted to see Mr. Stanfield and Mr. Huntington involved. But surely the Minister is not saying that only Conservative Members have anything to contribute to this House?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is quite simply that, with respect to advice the Auditor General received concerning this project, he may have consulted a variety of people on a non-paid basis. Mr. Stanfield and Mr. Huntington were simply consulted, they were not paid $80 or $90 an hour as consultants.
The question is, I suppose, whether or not the Auditor General, who, I know as an officer of the House wants to be completely apart from any suggestion of partisanship-the whole question is whether or not with these people, who are former Liberal Members of Parliament, still active in the Liberal Party, there is a perception that they are paid consultants to the Auditor General, an officer of the House, and whether this is appropriate. The Auditor General is giving that matter consideration, and I expect he will reply to the appropriate committee.

May 10, 1985
4610_______________________________________
Oral Questions



BONN ECONOMIC SUMMIT


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Ele attended the recent Bonn conference, and in order for him to do so the Ambassador, his wife and daughter, were forced to leave their residence and move into a hotel 30 kilometres away from Bonn. The Hotel Koenigshof was not good enough for the Prime Minister, it was supposedly second class, but it was good enough for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Finance.
[DOT] (U40)
Why was it necessary for the Prime Minister to place this inconvenience on a family when the Hotel Koenigshof was good enough for his key Ministers? Why could the Prime Minister not have stayed there as well? Or are we seeing the arrogance of Pierre Trudeau all over again?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and defend Pierre Trudeau against that unfair attack from the NDP. In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, the statement is completely false. Government officials in Bonn sought out an area where we could meet with Ministers and with Dr. Sylvia Ostrey and her group nightly, and every morning before breakfast. Such an area was unavailable, given the extreme shortage of hotel rooms.
1 had no contact myself with the ambassador, nor did I express any wish one way or the other. However, my understanding is that our excellent ambassador in Bonn offered his residence, which has a large dining room which we used as a meeting room. Security considerations entered into the matter as well. There were security recommendations made.
The situation in Bonn was really so bad that when our team went over there they wanted to instal the Canadian journalists on barges. Only the diligence of Bill Fox and his colleagues got these distinguished journalists from a position on the river into an hotel.



ATTENDANCE AT FUTURE CONFERENCES

John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in effect the Prime Minister is saying that there was no room at the inn. It is inconceivable that all the other delegations from France and the United States made proper arrangements and had room at hotels for that sort of thing. The Prime Minister should stand in the House and give his assurance that that kind of insensitive action on his part will not be repeated again.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, most of the other delegations took over entire castles and moved right in. I took advantage of the hospitality of our own ambassador who was kind enough to offer for 48 hours, or whatever it was, the use of the Canadian
government residence in that place. He made the offer. I thought I would accept it because, if I were to accept a castle, the NDP would criticize me. I thought they would salute me for being this modest and for saving money in the process.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. I have had lengthy conversations with persons involved in the photography business. Five hundred jobs in the photo finishing industry will likely be lost if the proposed postal increases for packages are approved. Bearing that in mind, would the Minister reconsider those increases? While he is doing a reassessment, can he assure Canadian photo finishers that their $100 million a year mail order business will not fall prey to those proposed increases?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Finally, Mr. Speaker, a question on the great issues of the day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member, who is an inveterate photographer himself, that the corporation will be meeting with representatives of the photo finishing industry to discuss the rate proposals. For the 60 day period following the gazetting of the rate increase applications, Cabinet sits as a regulator. We will be receiving representations from photo finishers and others with regard to their concerns. We will certainly take them seriously. I have encouraged the corporation to meet with all interested people to see whether these concerns can be resolved.


Mr. Speaker:: Despite the stoppage of the clocks, may I advise Members that, as usual, Question Period will go until twelve o'clock. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.



CHARTER OF RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a very important and historic judgment making Cabinet decisions subject to the Charter and reviewable by the courts. That important case would not have gone before the courts if it was not for Operation Dismantle, a voluntary, non-profit organization, taking the initiative of bringing that case to the courts.
May 10, 1985
[Stage Direction]
Unfortunately, in rendering the judgment the court ordered Operation Dismantle to pay all the costs in the case, which could be quite high. Considering the very great value of that important and key judgment to all Canadians, and the fact that this is a voluntary, non-profit organization, would the Prime Minister consider forgiving the costs of Operation Dismantle in that particular case since it is one that benefits all Canadians?
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is absent, but I will discuss with him the suggestion made by my hon. friend. I am aware of the remarkable significance of the judgment. I take notice of the suggestion made. I will discuss it with the Minister of Justice and report to my hon. friend.



LITIGATION UNDERTAKEN BY VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister's response. 1 would ask him also to consider that when voluntary, non-profit groups like this must go to court against the Government of Canada they are going to court against an opponent which is heavily financed by the taxpayers of Canada and whose lawyers are often on full-time staff. I think that if we are going to get the type of decisions that we need, we should not saddle these groups that are involved in important decision-making cases such as this, with expenses. I would ask the Prime Minister to convey that as well to the Minister of Justice.
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are involved in a policy review of the progressively litigious nature of our society as a result of the Charter, and the extent to which the Government should and should not properly be involved in some of the funding dimensions. I think it is an important matter. I do not have the answer today. I think it is difficult to anticipate where we might be on these issues in four or five years, given the changes to the Charter. The courts' role will be a progressively important one. We live in the kind of a democracy for which we are all thankful. I will take that up as well with my colleague.



REFUGEES


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. There are 20,000 refugee claimants in Canada waiting for the Minister to decide their fate. I understand that Rabbi Plaut's report on the method of determining refugee status, promised by the Liberal Government for December, by the Minister in her Estimates for January, and again by her five weeks ago for "in a few weeks", has in fact been received by the Minister in both English and French, along with new draft legislation proposed by the Department. Will the Minister table the Plaut
Oral Questions
report without delay to permit Members of Parliament and the public to respond with constructive suggestions?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that the report will be made public very shortly. I would welcome his response to it and that of other Members of Parliament.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, "very shortly" sounds like "in a few days" which I heard from the Minister on March 27, nearly two months ago.



MINISTER'S POSITION

Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, public debate on Canada's internal treatment of refugees has been stifled for several years by a chain of delayed reports. Is it now the intention of the Minister to delay the Rabbi Plaut report until nearly the end of this session so that she can ram legislation through Parliament without effective public debate, claiming that she has to hurry us up to help the refugees?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. However, I understand that the Hon. Member always looks on the dark side of things. We want to ensure that those people who are in the refugee determination process are given justice and compassion. That will be the way in which we respond to the Plaut report. I trust the Hon. Member will do the same.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. The reform undertaken by Canada Post management concerning the weight of parcels, among others things, is outright discrimination against some regional newspapers such as the Courrier du Sud in my constituency which is faced with a $24,000 annual increase since all subscribers receive their paper through the mail. I should like to ask the Minister whether he intends to bring pressure to bear on Canada Post management so as to make an exception in the case of regional newspapers which provide information because, should that newspaper cease publication, for instance, Canada Post would lose $ 150,000 a year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An Hon. Member:: Do not bother to get up unless you have a question to ask.

May 10, 1985
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal.



EMPLOYMENT


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Given that the Challenger '85 program which the Minister announced was designed to provide jobs this summer for students and that most students have now finished college, CGEP, or university, and given that the Minister knows students need a minimum amount of savings in order to qualify for loans and bursaries, depending on the province from which they come, to continue their schooling this fall, can the Minister explain to the youth of this country, and to this House, why the $30 million loan guarantee student entrepreneur program, which was to allow students to create their own jobs and demonstrate entrepreneurial spirit, is not off the ground as yet across this country?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have one of the Members opposite raise the subject of Challenge '85. It is the most successful student program that has ever been introduced in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It has provided jobs and is providing jobs for well past the target group that we suggested at the outset of the program. It has brought $100 million in additional funding from the private sector to the program, and some
60,000	additional jobs. That is a program which the Hon. Member should be standing up congratulating us on, and not criticizing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



STUDENT ENTREPRENEUR PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Sheila Finestone: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed, Madam Minister, I am glad for young Canadians, but still it is too late for those to whom you promised the entrepreneur program, which has yet to get under way. Please correct me if I wrong. Otherwise, I want to know whether the $7.5 million set aside for this program will be reallocated on a proportional basis to the various provinces where the program was to be implemented.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I must say to the Hon. Member that the programs are off and running and working well. Just so she will be aware that that is the opinion all across the country, I can tell her that headlines from papers read: "Student Job Picture Brighter this Summer"; "Metro Centre Sees Big Jump in Summer Jobs for Students". Right across the country that is what people are saying. I think the Hon. Member should also recognize that students are finding jobs this summer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: My question is for the Minister of State for Mines. It pertains to the $1 billion hole in the wrong place, specifically the Quintette mine in British Columbia. It is apparent that the federal Government spent a half a billion dollars on infrastructure for this project against the advice of the chief geologist of British Columbia and against the advice of other prominent geologists.
Would the Minister of State for Mines tell this House whether the federal Government conducted any studies into the viability of the Quintette mine before making the half a billion dollar investment in infrastructure?


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question raised by the Hon. Member, the growing pains related to the start-up conditions of this mine in B.C. are being monitored by the Government of B.C. and by the industry that has invested in the project.
With regard to the studies that were done by the previous administration, I will make a full review of them and bring them to the Member's attention.



GOVERNMENT'S RELATIONS WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA

Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Quintette mine was predicted to be a complete fiasco. Now that prediction is coming true.
Would the Minister indicate whether this Government intends to deal with the Province of British Columbia in a different way because of the fact the Government was duped into spending a half a billion dollars on a hole in the wrong place? Is there going to be a different way of dealing with that Government if it is going to continue to dupe the federal Government?


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the investment made in infrastructure, the up-grading of the rail line to the ports and the ports themselves for handling the products of British Columbia, those facilities
May 10, 1985

are in operation and are handling those products as planned. The full capacity of that mining development has not yet been realized, but there is confidence that it will be.


Raymond John Skelly: Get your cue cards. You have the wrong hole.


Mr. Nystrom:: He is talking about the wrong mine.


Robert E.J. Layton: With regard to the arrangements and good will that exist between this Government and the B.C. authorities, I can assure the Hon. Member personally, Mr. Speaker, that in my dealings with the provincial Minister of Mines we are very confident the working relationships between our Governments will bring benefits to the citizens of British Columbia.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
Last April 17, the President of the Treasury Board made a major statement in the House concerning four points under negotiation with federal labour unions. He stated there was agreement with labour on a master agreement, a dental plan, a revised pension plan and improved workforce adjustment procedures. Now we learn that the largest union, the Public Service Alliance, simply refuses to endorse the agreements-or to go along with the other unions-and rejects both the revised pension plan and the dental plan.
May I ask the Minister what he is going to do now that the largest union has refused to go along with that decision?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: As everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, what I announced was an agreement in principle which was to be submitted for concurrence to each union and, in our case, to the Cabinet. Quite obviously one of the 14 unions has revised its position since last month. I therefore intend to sit down with them for a new bargaining round, hopefully to reach agreement on issues raised in recent years which are of interest to our Public Service employees.



PENSION NEGOTIATIONS

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. There are two other items of the four remaining. I take it the Minister is telling us that he is going to proceed with those two items.
On the question of pensions, is the Minister willing to go back to the table now with Mr. Samson and others, Mr. Oral Questions
Donegani and the two main unions, to discuss other modalities with them, since they have refused his plan as it is now?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the only answer I can give to that question is that, apparently, one of the unions is experiencing internal problems. I have no intention of getting involved. However, anytime Mr. Samson or representatives of the Alliance want to sit down with me, my door is wide open and they simply have to give me a call-as 1 told them at the very beginning. I will be pleased to sit down with them to see how things are going.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns Mitel, a Canadian high-tech corporation with a very high international reputation. The Prime Minister will know that tens of millions of taxpayers' moneys have gone into direct grants to develop this high-tech company. Furthermore, tens of millions of dollars in tax relief have gone to support the development of this high-tech company. It is now about to fall into foreign hands. Is the Government prepared to step in and take action, and will the Prime Minister use his supreme authority to stop this particular takeover?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, Mitel is now negotiating. We know what is going on. We are monitoring the situation very closely. The interests of Canadians, the Government's investment in the company, the millions of dollars that have been invested in Mitel, all this will be watched very closely, and we have things under control.



GOVERNMENT POSITION

['I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of three, presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, May 9, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.\nThe petition presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and certain petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.']
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary question. Is the Minister saying that the Government will not allow the takeover to occur of this critical Canadian corporation which, in a sense, is a world leader in the development of telecommunications technology? Is he prepared to say that the Government will not allow this Canadian company to fall into foreign hands? Be specific.
[ Translation]


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, the agreement between Mitel and the Federal Government includes an agreement on non-transferable technology. We know exactly what this agreement con-

May 10, 1985
Business of the House
tains, we will examine it closely and keep a close watch on developments.
One thing we must not forget is that the agreement is not about who owns Mitel, but-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Answer the question!


André Bissonnette: We know what the interests of Canadians are, and we are keeping a close watch on the situation.



Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of three, presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, May 9, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and certain petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the Parties, and I know you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the first report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. President of the Privy Council have the unanimous consent required to put his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point to designate next Tuesday as an allotted day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House today. It pertains to the adequacy of the housing situation for the Nuxalt Indian people of Bella Coola, British Columbia, and reads that whereas the past Liberal Government refused to provide adequate funds and support for proper housing to the Nuxalt people of Bella Coola, B.C., whereas the present Conservative Government also failed to provide the Bella Coola Band with adequate housing funds, and whereas every Canadian citizen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is reading the petition. Could he just summarize it, please?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, basically it calls upon the House of Commons and the present Government to be more responsive than the previous Liberal Government in supporting the Nuxalt people in terms of adequate housing.
I have a second petition to present. It deals with the Sechelt Indian Band of British Columbia. As many Hon. Members of the House know, the Sechelt Band has been one of the leaders in the business of promoting self-government among Indian people. The petition requests that the present Government of Canada be more responsive than the previous Liberal Government in bringing forward legislation which would promote Indian self-government among the Sechelt people of Sechelt, British Columbia, and hopefully thereafter bring forward selfgovernment in a rapid and expeditious manner for Indian people in Canada.
Also I have the honour to present a third petition today. It pertains to the Heltsuk Tribal Council of Bella Bella, British Columbia. Again it points out that the previous Liberal Government failed to support Indian people and that the present Conservative Government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is making an interesting comment. However, would he please summarize the petition?


Raymond John Skelly: In an attempt to summarize the petition quickly, the upshot of it is that the Liberal Government failed to provide any support for them, the present Conservative Government has cut off an $800,000 grant for land claims research, and the Heltsuk people call upon the Parliament of Canada and the present Government of Canada to be more responsive than the previous Liberal Government in supporting native people in the business of developing research on their land claims proposals. They also call upon the present Government to restore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is more than enough time to summarize a petition. Does the Hon. Member have any further petitions to present?
May 10, 1985


Raymond John Skelly: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Thacker:: It is an Opposition Day today.


Raymond John Skelly: Perhaps I will present the rest tomorrow.


Mr. Dick:: That is Saturday.


Raymond John Skelly: Hopefully on Monday, then.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition concerning the registration and and re-registration of native women and their children in my riding who belong to the Abenaquis.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by as asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 305 will be answered today.


Mrs. Sparrow: With reference to the answer to question no. 262, what were the specific amounts assigned to each designated initiative under the Western Development Fund?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Under the Western Development Fund, $345 million was assigned to Native Economic Development, $82 million was assigned to the Agri-Food Development Program, and $60 million was assigned to the Vancouver rapid transit system. Amounts assigned to western grain transportation related initiatives include $1,740 million, up to 1985-86, plus increased future commitments under the Western Grain Transportation Act.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: May I also congratulate the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on finally getting the bottom of the notice changed after eight weeks. He will know that 1 could not resist saying that.
___________________________________________4615
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY ALLOTTED DAY, S O. 62-ABORIGINAL PEOPLES Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior) moved:
That this House condemns the Government for its confusing and manipulative approaches to Indian and aboriginal issues in Canada, thereby fostering uncertainty, distrust, cynicism and outrage among native peoples by:
(1)	turning the April First Ministers' Conference into an elaborately staged public relations exercise in an attempt to achieve a consensus with the Premiers which ignored the legitimate rights of the aboriginal peoples;
(2)	developing strategies such as those outlined in the study known as ''The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s", which run contrary to the unanimous report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government; and
(3)	using the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as the frontline ambassador of goodwill, while surreptitiously preparing policies which will damage beyond repair the special trust relationship that exists between the Government of Canada and the aboriginal peoples.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I present this motion to the House today with a considerable measure of sadness; sadness because we in Canada have at the present moment a glorious opportunity to work with the indigenous and aboriginal people of Canada-the Indian, the Inuit and the Metis-to show how self-determination and self-government for our original inhabitants can work in a settled federal state such as ours, how self-government for aboriginal peoples can end almost all long-standing grievances that still exist, how self-government can end gross injustices which have been imposed upon the Indian people and how we can chart a new course.
Mr. Oberle:: Perpetrated by 50 years of Liberalism.


Mr. Penner:: The Hon. Member opposite will have his chance if he is patient. If he stays around for most of the day, we will hear him.
We have to re-establish a very battered and bruised trust relationship and, now that we have the opportunity, end once and for all the totalitarian and colonial regime that has been imposed on Indians by the strong arm of the Indian Act, the federal bureaucracy, the Department of Indian Affairs. Selfgovernment for the aboriginal peoples of Canada is the way that we must proceed. My hon. friend opposite, who was emboldened to interject, was a part of the special committee on Indian self-government helped to make it's report unanimous. For that I give him all the tribute that he deserves.
There are those who say that it will never work. The cynics say it will never work. When they say that, they never give any reasons why it will not work and they never provide any examples. I do not argue that it will work. I say that it does work. There are case histories and models in abundance. They have been mentioned often. There is no time to repeat them today.
Over and above those models and examples there is the historical argument, which is simply that Indian people



May 10, 1985
Supply
governed themselves before explorers and settlers arrived in this so-called new world. When they came, they did not bring with them from Europe, that I am aware, any examples or models that were particularly useful to the new world. They brought with them a history of battles and blood-baths and the blatant abuse of power. That is why so many of these people who came to these shores decided to emigrate from the past and the dismal existence they had experienced there.
There are the skeptics who ask, "Who needs these little postage stamp provinces in Canada scattered from one shore to the other?" Whoever argued for that? Whoever put forward that proposal? What the report of the special committee argued for was a distinct order of government for the Indian people of Canada, not provinces or municipalities but distinct governments.
What form will it take? How often do we hear the statement that we must have every single detail before we can accept the principle? In the 18th century when the American Republic was born or in the 19th century when the Canadian Confederation was put together, did we have all the details? Was it all put together for us? Of course not. They were acts of faith. There were commitments. There was a belief that free people will strive mightily together to build a better future for those who follow after.
Then there is the concept that we hear from the Premiers of the provinces at the First Ministers' Conference that this is nothing but an empty box that is being proposed, that we should fill it up first, tell them what we have in mind and then they might be able to consider it. It is not what we have in mind. It is what the Indian people have in mind for themselves if we will stop stepping on their toes, if we will get off their backs, if we will halt our ceaseless meddling, manipulating, controlling, directing, reordering, rearranging and reviewing. How much longer are we going to persist in this madness?
Then we have those policy people in the Department of Indian Affairs who now say that they have embraced, like a lover that has been absent for some time, the concept of Indian self-government. They embrace it all right, but with great hesitancy. They say not yet, most people do not have enough education, they do not have an economic base and they have insufficient land. Let me ask my hon. colleagues through you, Mr. Speaker, what has been done over the years to correct these inadequacies? Who has been running this educational system except the Department of Indian Affairs? Who has been trying all these wonderful economic development schemes that have come to life? Not the Indian people, but one government Department after the other. Who took away the land? Do you remember Pauline Johnson's poem that she wrote in 1912/1 Cry from an Indian Wife? I quote:
They but forgot we Indians owned the land From ocean unto ocean; that they stand Upon soil that centuries agone Was our sole kingdom and our right alone.
They never think how they would feel today,
If some great nation came from far away,
Wresting their country from their hapless braves,
Giving what they gave us-but wars and graves.
One noted newspaper columnist believes that all of this concern for aboriginal peoples, aboriginal rights and Indian self-government is based on nothing more than one huge Canadian guilt complex. How irrelevant. Who needs in this important debate another amateur psychologist? I wish he would turn his attention to something he knows something about. The demand for recognition of aboriginal rights, including self-government, is historically based. In denying that recognition, we have stacked up in this country a dismal, dreadful record of failed attempts, attempts to assimilate, to integrate, to absorb into the mainstream, call it what you will, but always to dominate and control.
Our failures have not only been terribly destructive for a minority of people in this country, the original inhabitants, but also frightfully and increasingly expensive, a huge, inefficient bureaucracy wasting millions upon millions of dollars every year. So many of those efforts were so damnably well meaning, but what did they do? They created dependency. They were soul destroying. They crippled the ability of a proud, noble and able people to manage and control and direct their own affairs.
The Nielsen report, also known as "The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s", has as one of its purposes to save the federal Government some money, about $312 million between 1986 and 1988. Let's think about that for just a moment. The Grand Council of the Cree of Quebec who, incidentally, are the only Indian group in Canada to have Indian self-government legislation, indicated by a statement they made that they were not consulted at all during the preparation of the recommendations in the Nielsen report. They have this to say about the Nielsen "Buffalo Jump" report. I quote from a document sent to me by the Grand Council of the Cree:
It is unrealistic to expect the same bureaucrats who have administered Indian programs so poorly over the years to take responsibility for making recommendations to solve the very problems they themselves have created.
The recommendations do not even begin to address the real problems of inefficiency, incompetence and mismanagement that are responsible for the funds now wasted by Government on the administration of native programs.
Let us be clear from what they are saying who is wasting those funds. It is not the Indian people of Canada. It is the inefficient way in which they are administered by government; the way in which those programs are so ill-conceived and have been for a long time.
To conclude, the Cree argue that in the light of the Nielsen report and in the light of its admission that the Government's record in dealing with social and economic problems has been dismal, the conclusions of this report are cynical and racist.
There are also some ill-informed and probably not very interested observers who argue that the proposition of Indian self-government is nothing but a Canadian version of apartheid. Let us clear that off the decks right away. This is not at all so. Apartheid is what we have now, or something akin to it. In Canada now there are some 350,000 people who are governed by the Indian Act, an intolerable piece of legislation to
May 10, 1985

which no other group of Canadians would submit. If we tried to impose the Indian Act on half a million other Canadians in any part of the country, just think of the demonstrations we would see on Parliament Hill. No group of people would live under a totalitarian piece of legislation like that one.
This all began a long time ago before any of us were around. However, we are the ones who are left with the problems. Perhaps there is a lesson there for Parliamentarians to learn. It would be nice if once in a while we solved a few problems and did not create so many problems for the future. The Parliamentarians of long ago assumed control of Indians and lands reserved for Indians under Section 91(24) of the British North America Act. In so doing, they completely ignored a guideline that was already there. There was a shining beacon telling the Fathers of Confederation, the Parliamentarians and the decision-makers how to proceed, and that was the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which was totally ignored. What was that guideline? It was not very complicated and not hard to understand at all. It was very simple and indicated that Parliamentarians should recognize Indian Governments; they exist already, recognize them. It told Parliamentarians to proceed by way of negotiations leading to agreement on a government-to-government basis. What is so difficult or hard to grasp about that? However, it was ignored.
It is only in this decade, the decade of the 1980s, that we have made even moderate and modest moves to bring the aboriginal peoples of the country into Canadian confederation as partners and as full participants. Is that not what we all want? The patriated Constitution recognized aboriginal rights but did not get around to defining them. The purpose of the constitutional process is to undertake the task of definition. That process too has failed. Why does everything related to aboriginal peoples in this country have to fail? We can succeed in so many other things but if we want to do something right for those people, it is failure after failure.
The last meeting of the First Ministers' Conference held in April of this year, as witnessed by those of us who were present or who watched it on television, was nothing more than a public relations exercise. We have to admit that the aboriginal peoples at that conference were used. They were like props in a play and the theme of that play was, "look how well our new Prime Minister can get along with the provinces". There is nothing wrong at all with getting along with the provinces, but for goodness' sake, don't leave us with the idea that the Premiers are the ones who are running the country. There is nothing wrong with getting along with the provinces provided that something tangible, concrete and useful is arrived at. If the result is nothing more than agreeing that we all love Mom and her cinnamon-laced apple pie, to what avail then is agreement and concord and goodwill?
There may have been some small measure of accomplishment at the last First Ministers' Conference, but if we look at it carefully, we will realize that the accord upon which a number of the Premiers were prepared to agree was so weak and watered down that there was nothing in it of any value or
Supply
interest at all to the Indian and Inuit peoples and quite rightly they rejected it. Of course they rejected it. As a matter of fact, there are some who argue that it would have been a step backward instead of a small, modest step forward.
The theme of the last federal election was: It is time for a change. That is okay, but a change to what? The Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party who is now the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) acted like a real estate agent. He went around saying that we should move out of our house and into a different one. Perhaps it is a good idea to do that from time to time but there are a couple of questions that ought to be asked. What will the new structure be like? What plans are there for this new place in which the Prime Minister wants us to live? Incidentally, what are the costs?
During the election campaign, did we know about these plans for change? No, they were either not known by those who were advocating change or they were kept a dark secret. We still do not know the plans for the change but the Canadian people voted for change. Only now are some of the architects and their draftsmen beginning to leak out some of these plans. They are letting the blueprints be known and some of them, I suppose, will end up in jail because of it. That is how we got the Nielsen "Buffalo Jump" report on native peoples.
How different is the mood and temperament of the Nielsen report from the beautiful words of the Prime Minister spoken at the First Ministers' Conference? How different is the emphasis in this document from the responses of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), our happy wanderer who moves around the country responding positively to the aspirations of aboriginal leaders? The plans contained in the Nielsen "Buffalo Jump" report are quite different. They are sombre and more like a haunted house than an exciting new structure in which aboriginal peoples can live.
It is time for a change. So far we do not like the plans and blueprints we are seeing. As well we fear the costs. The costs will be made known on May 23, budget day. I would say that we should get ready to pay a lot more for considerably less.
I am sure my hon. friends on the Government benches are construing my remarks as being the negative-minded approach of an Opposition Member. This is not so. Let me refer the House to the press release put out by the Assembly of First Nations, one of the most distinguished of national Indian organizations in this country. A document that it recently released says the following:
The Prime Minister, along with his government colleagues ... , has a cynical blueprint for the elimination of the First Nations as unique peoples within the Federation of Canada. This plan is documented in a Cabinet Memorandum of April 12, 1985. The plan is characterized in that document as: "the Buffalo Jump of the 1980's". The Prime Minister stated on April 18, 1985 that he was disowning the Nielsen Report. The actions now being initiated by his government clearly show that he is not withdrawing the Nielsen Cabinet Memorandum.
This Cabinet Memorandum shockingly outlines a strategy to assimilate Indian people beginning with the 1985 budget speech. The "Communications Strategy" outlined in the document indicates that the plan of the government is to tell the Indian people and the Canadian public one thing; and meanwhile to begin to implement the opposite.

May 10, 1985
Supply
A "buffalo jump" was a method of exterminating vast herds of buffalo to make way for colonial expansion.
Elimination of the buffalo was equivalent to elimination of the livelihood of Indian people-an act of genocide. The Prime Minister's initiative to take dollars away from Indian people is proof that the strategy outlined in the Cabinet Memorandum is being implemented. The object is clearly to kill the political effectiveness of the First Nations-to exterminate the "body politic".
The First Nations of this country have undergone tremendous political development over the past fifteen years. First Nations communities, tribal councils, regional and national organizations have steadily evolved to the point where they are beginning to tackle the many problems which beset the Indian people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. Could the Hon. Member wind up his remarks in a few seconds?


Mr. Crombie:: Give him some time, Mr. Speaker.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the permission of the House to continue? I have only four or five minutes or even less than that left.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its graciousness in allowing me to conclude.
I shall continue to quote from the document of the Assembly of First Nations. It goes on:
This political development is graphically exhibited in the success of the First Nations' representatives in advancing their political goals in the First Ministers' Conferences of 1983, 1984, and 1985.
The Prime Minister has said many wonderful things to the public and to the Indian people in support of the unique rights of the First Nations. The initiatives of this Government, intended to stifle the political effectiveness of the First Nations, make a mockery of the Prime Minister's statements.
It is apparent that within the ranks of government Members an ideological struggle is taking place. An editorial in the The Micmac News described the Nielsen report as being "outrageous". The editorial read:
It's astounding that such reactionary thinking still exists in the federal Government during a time described by Prime Minister Mulroney as "a new era" in relations between Ottawa and aboriginal people.
The Micmac News editorial continued:
There is a major conflict between the two positions. Are the true colours of the Mulroney Government showing? What is the real position? All questions which demand immediate answers.
In conclusion, I would say to the House that the purpose of my motion today is to have the Government of Canada clarify its position regarding aboriginal peoples. A letter which the Assembly of First Nations sent to the Prime Minister said:
The level of goodwill and mutual trust that has emerged in our relations with your Government has been seriously undermined. The policy approach is in basic opposition to our objectives as unique and self-governing peoples within Canada. As the Assembly of First Nations, we demand a disclosure of the documents and full clarification of the status of the policy approach and recommendations contained in both the Task Force Report and the Deputy Prime Minister's memorandum to your Cabinet.
I call upon the Government and its members today to end the confusion, because it is fostering uncertainty, distrust, cynicism and outrage among the native peoples of Canada.
Please stop it. Move with vigour toward solutions which are just and equitable for our first citizens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is with more than passing interest that I notice the motion which is before the House today concerning native people. I believe that the House will probably be treated to one of the most profound acts of hypocrisy that it has seen in many years. Even the most casual observation would tell a Canadian observing a native community that those communities have been deprived of adequate health care, housing and economic opportunities. In fact, the life expectancy of native people is less than that of Canadians. Their life opportunities are nowhere near those of many Canadians. I wonder how the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada, which is ultimately responsible for these acts, can stand before the House in open criticism and make these statements. Where was the Hon. Member when the previous Liberal Government was condemned for its failures to meet the needs of native people?
My only comment on what I see before us in the form of a motion, and what I perceive will be the note of the Liberal Party's presentation, is that it is an act of profound hypocrisy.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I feel very sorry for the Hon. Member who just rose. His partisan skin is so thin that it is shrinking and disfiguring him in a very grotesque way. He has my sympathy.
Injustices against the aboriginal peoples of Canada have been going on for a century. I praise no Government for its endeavours. We worked hard with one of his colleagues, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), for whom I have great respect; a respect which I do not have for the Hon. Member who has just spoken. We worked together to present a unanimous report which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development called the high water mark, because there is the period before the report and there is the period after the report. So I would ask the Hon. Member to mature, grow up and join with the rest of us in attempting to solve some of these serious national problems. He should get out of his narrow partisan skin, which is shrinking him into a small person, and become larger as a Parliamentarian. We would all appreciate that.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to have that deflection from the real issue. It is not an issue of partisanship, it is an issue of the previous federal Government. That Government was in power for approximately 50 years and it failed to meet the needs of Indian people. It played the game of divide and conquer, and it played the game of creating backlashes. It created, in many Indian communities which I represent as well as those which other Members represent, one of the most despicable pieces of Canadian history. I am very concerned. I would exclude the chairman of the committee who produced
May 10, 1985

the task force report; however, I believe that the previous Government has a despicable record in this matter.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, of course when we deal with minority rights and the injustices which have lasted for a century, there is very little room for any praise to be given to anyone. I do not recall in my speech that I offered praise to anyone. The fact is that the last Government did start us down a route which we hope will be continued. Aboriginal rights were recognized in the Constitution, although they were not defined. Progressive steps were at least begun, if not completed. What we want to see in the next four years of this Parliament is the continuation of the good endeavours which were begun.
That is the impression which I received from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when he began his task, and in the words which he has spoken across the country. Certainly, it is the impression which I received from the Prime Minister when he spoke at the First Ministers' Conference. But it is not the impression I get when I look at the document which was leaked to the New Democratic Party, called the Nielsen report or "The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s". I get a completely different picture, which is more of a throw back. It suggests that the small, modest steps which were taken under the last administration are to be denied.
That is why we need a clarification that the foundation, even though it was not very high and about which none of us can feel very noble, will be continued. At least that foundation was a beginning. We want to build on that to have Indian self-government recognized and to have our aboriginal people become full participants in the Canadian Confederation. Surely, that is the goal of us all. I am not clear as to how partisanship enhances or furthers that to any degree.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) for his fine and vibrant speech. I would like to ask him whether the propensity of the Conservative Party historically to let provincial interests override national interests bodes well for the realization of legitimate rights for aboriginal people.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the only evidence which we have in that regard was the accord that seven Premiers agreed to at the First Ministers' Conference. I mentioned that in my speech. It was not an accord which the Indian people could accept, because it did bring into the process, to an unacceptable degree, the participation and involvement of the provinces. We already know from the First Ministers' Conference how frustrating that can be. I think at some point in time, if we want to make progress, we are going to have to move forward as much as we can based on a bilateral relationship. Some day we may have to have a resolution, supported by all Parties in this House, affirming that one of the aboriginal rights in our Constitution is the right to Indian self-government. But that, of course, leads to a very serious omission, that is, how will we do that and accommodate the aspirations of the Metis people of Canada? That is one problem which would be outstanding if we went the bilateral route.
Supply


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the comments of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), it occurred to me that none of us in this country, no political Party, has anything to be proud about with respect to our record on Indian affairs. I can recall when I was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, there were New Democratic Governments in British Columbia and in Manitoba. In Manitoba, that Government flooded eight or ten of the northern reserves, disregarding the aboriginal rights of the people there. In British Columbia the New Democratic Government which was in power, after making a commitment to the Nishga that their claim would be settled, did not do so, and the member of the New Democratic Party from the area, I believe, resigned.
There is no doubt that we have blots on our copy as Liberals. So have all Parties. I think what we have to do today is to learn a lesson. I want to ask the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) about the lessons which many of us learned during the process of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, of which he was the chairman, when we all travelled about the country for months. I think what we have to do is adopt a completely new attitude, admit that our Parties were wrong in the past and look to the future with a different attitude. I think the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior will confirm that in the process we undertook through the committee, that did happen. We saw many people in this House who first doubted the right of the aboriginal people to have self-government come around to a new way of thinking, and that is the way we have to move. I would like the Hon. Member to comment on the process of the committee.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, when we think of the work of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, we not only have to think of the recommendations but of the process itself. The process very simply was non-partisan. During that whole year in which we lived, worked and travelled together, partisanship never entered in any significant way into the work we were doing. In addition to that, we involved the recognized aboriginal organizations of this country who were concerned with this particular issue and they worked along with us.
I believe when people look at the report they will see not only the recommendations, the words on the page, but the process. There is a lesson to be learned there by Parliamentarians and by the Canadian people in general.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am both troubled and enraged to have to participate in this debate today. What I intend to do is to lay out the chronology of what has brought us to today, because I think it is important that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), who is going to speak following my remarks and the remarks of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), listen to the three very important parts of the motion before us today.
First, regarding the staging of the April 1 First Ministers' Conference, I don't think you could find an Indian or Inuit

May 10, 1985
Supply
leader in this country who felt that it was anything other than a public staging of that conference. There was no legitimate forerunning of negotiations between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to really get the kind of benefits out of such a conference which there could and should have been. That is well known.
Second, I want to deal briefly with the chronology of "The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s", but before I do that I think it is important to put certain things on the record for Canadians, so that they have some understanding of what kind of mentality has been involved in the task force and in the preparation of the Nielsen document.
I was surprised to learn that so few people in the news media knew what the buffalo jump was. Certainly people from the west who have travelled either on the Prairies or on the edge of British Columbia know that historically the Indian people used natural devices, natural forest breaks, or whatever, and either on foot or on horseback-particularly prior to the introduction of firearms-drove the buffalo to cliffs or river banks where they went off the edge and were killed by the fall. One has to try to understand for a moment what kind of mentality and approach was being taken to the 395-page report that the provincial and federal people involved, particularly members of the task force, would use the buzz words "buffalo jump" not only as a coffee table slogan, but actually put it into their report and then into a Cabinet document. One has to stop for a moment and go back in time to the 1969 white paper, which was known as an assimilation document, and various other measures which have been taken in the horrible treatment of our first citizens in terms of extermination policies, such as there were in Newfoundland of the Beothuk people.
We are talking in terms of this document of a kind of mix of assimilation, passing certain powers to provinces, and extermination of many Indian and Inuit cultures around the country. I find almost everything within the Nielsen document to be repugnant. I hope that this afternoon the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will take the time to respond to the issues I want to raise with respect to this document because we have had no success during a whole week of questioning of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the Minister responsible for housing and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development himself, in flushing out where they are going in this document.
When one reads the media strategy included in the document, it becomes clear that this process has evolved so far, that the Deputy Prime Minister has exercised so much power in terms of this task force process that it seems unlikely now that the Government will turn back. In fact, the media strategy talks about the possibility of some leaks and how to deal with them and to simply forge ahead and make what I think would be the most reprehensible and wrong-minded decisions on policy which would affect Canada's first citizens.
I would now like to take as a starting point, Mr. Speaker, something which is well known by the Hon. Member for
Cochrane-Superior and my colleagues who are here. When we are talking self-government, it is not enough to just put it on a piece of paper and then into the Constitution. Self-government has always existed in this country among the First Nations. If one goes back to the potlatch one finds that that was a parliamentary system. There are transmissions of title. They deal with the states. They deal with every imaginable law including property law, common law and criminal law. It is a very highly evolved process of Parliament which is still in existence. It was outlawed by this Parliament and by provincial legislatures. But I think we have to get down to the nitty-gritty. This document talks about the S3 billion spent by the 11 Departments which deal in one way or another with Indian and Inuit programs. It talks about delaying and deferring negotiations on comprehensive claims which would save $8 billion over the next five years.
We have to understand why the native communities in Canada have the highest rate of suicide, infant mortality, unemployment and the lowest life expectancy. Every negative sociological factor which you could possibly find amongst a minority group anywhere in the world is symptematic in the Indian and Inuit communities of this country. We have to ask ourselves why? They have been deprived of their traditional cultural livelihoods in many areas of the country. The people of Canada have to come to understand that title is the key, giving back to the Indian people their rights to their land. They need a natural resource base because self-government will flow naturally from title and having their rights again over the natural resources in their area. I do not think we should beat around the bush any longer about how to set things right.
I honestly believed the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when he told me both in the House and outside of the House that he had not read this 395-page leaked document before it was leaked. He has read it now. It is unfortunate that he could not get himself enmeshed in that task force process and slow it down because I am quite confident in my own mind that the process which is now before this House is progressing and it is going to be very difficult for the Minister alone to stop it. It is going to require the mobilization of all of the honest, genuine-thinking Hon. Members of this House to bring pressure on the Cabinet, in order to bring that whole process to a screeching halt.
We have to stand still for a moment in time and ask ourselves how we can honestly deal with this. Not through the Federal Business Development Bank, not by transferring it to the provinces, not by going through a bunch of jiggery-pokery in assimilating Indian and Inuit people into the "mainstream" of Canadian society. There are pillars we can lean on. There is the Calder decision in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Nishga case, where the court split three-three on the issue of title. Half the justices who sat on the case agreed that the aboriginal people hold unfettered title to the land, but this Parliament continues year after year after year to say we will come up with some new programs, we will do this and that.
May 10, 1985

That is not good enough. Comprehensive and specific claims have to be dealt with up front. They may have to be amortized over a long period of time, but the negotiations have to go forward full force. The Meares Island case is not a joke; the Nuu-chahnulth case, the Gitksan Wet'suweten case, which will be before the Supreme Court of Canada during this term of Parliament, is no joke. It is going to deal with the issue of title and will allow tribal groups in British Columbia, Yukon and the Northwest Territories, as well as other areas of the country, to come forward with injunctive action regarding highways, hydro lines, transfers of property, you name it. The country will then be enraged and hostility will again be directed at Canada's first citizens.
We have a responsibility for once to try and direct that hostility away and keep it under control. That is supposed to be why we are here. That is why I believe I am still here. I get very frustrated at times being here and having to even read documents like "The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s", talking about closing schools, student residences, deferring comprehensive claims, deterrent fees, housing programs only in areas of low unemployment. That is absolutely preposterous and we have to get back to fundamentals and deal with title, natural resources and compensation. We have to go to the Canadian public but not by way of polls, as this document talks about. It says in here that the new Government has done polls which indicate that Canadians generally think it is good that some special rights are being given to Canada's first citizens. But now that there is some chatter about costs attached, people are getting a little nervous. Well, part of the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada is to deal with that. But not by way of polls which show a little bit of nervousness; not by fanning a bunch of partisan MPs out across the country saying that if there is an aboriginal settlement in Penticton, the city is going to have to move, and all that kind of irresponsible crap.
We have to understand the deep spirituality which still exists in the aboriginal communities of this country regarding the land. They do not have the affectations we have for flashy cars and all kinds of other things. They have a very specific, bonded relationship with the land and we are torturing them decade after decade, generation after generation. In what other group in Canadian society could you find 50 per cent of the population under the age of 20? We have to start grappling with what they are asking for and what they are due, not only morally and ethically but what they are due under British common law.
There is no question in my mind, or the minds of many people far more learned in constitutional and common law than I, that the title to the land in places such as British Columbia is the unfettered right of the aboriginal peoples of that province. If we do not start moving in that direction and say yes, the Nishga case has some meaning, and yes, Section 35 is a boxful of rights related to the fisheries and all kinds of things, rights to their own Parliament

and when we talk about self-government, we are not talking about implanting our parliamentary system on to tribal land. What they want is
Supply
the right to have their own systems re-evolve and move forward.
Since I think I have touched at least briefly on title, let me spend a moment on the chronology of the events which have brought us to where we are today. There was a task force which started last November 8 under the leadership of James Collinson, and that 395-page report was provided to a number of bureaucrats and most Cabinet Ministers. It says it is available to any Minister who wants it. On April 18 that document was basically put back under wraps by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Prime Minister. They said in effect that there are some good ideas in there, some bad ideas, but that is not government policy and it is out of the way. However, this document, which left the Deputy Prime Minister's office on April 12 and went to at least the 11 Departments listed, is quite different. It has completed the process, as the House will learn from what I put on the record. Eleven Departments have agreed to it, although at least one member of Cabinet, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), had some continuing concerns about the effect of deterrent fees on some Indian and Inuit people. But the document is basically underway.
It states definitively that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) may point out on Budget night that the task force review on native programs is complete. It then goes on to say that that same night, and on into the debate, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) will take the lead, not the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. There is a wholly different strategy taking place here at the highest of levels. The Prime Minister has been involved; that is clear from this document. He tried to play fast and loose with the truth in the House today, saying the statement in this document is false. Well, we will find out quite shortly what exactly is going on.
It is important that the Canadian public understand the chronology involved here because of the "fuzzification" by Cabinet all this week in denying it is a Cabinet document, and then the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) ordering the RCMP to investigate. The RCMP have been up to their shoulders in investigations in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development trying to find the leak. They will not find out from me where the document came from, but I can tell you that the implications of this document include the possibility of this document coming forward. It has been a very carefully mapped-out strategy and I think the senior Members of Cabinet and the Prime Minister have said let's keep our heads down, this is part of the Budget process, and we are going to make $312 million worth of "deficit reduction announcements" over the next couple of fiscal years. There are no cuts right now, the Minister and his Prime Minister are correct, but that is not what this document deals with. It deals with how to wind down future costs and transfer most of the processes related to Indian and Inuit people to the provinces and territories.
The executive summary of this document discloses the rationale of this Cabinet process. The first is the potential fundamental change in the relationship between the Govern-

May 10, 1985
Supply
ment and Canada's aboriginal people. It then goes on to say that 25 per cent of federal expenditures for Indian and native people are to meet legal obligations of the federal Government. That is a rather blunt statement, Mr. Speaker. Some 40 per cent relate to what would normally be provincial and largely statutory programs due to the federal responsibility for Indians and Indian lands under the Constitution Act. The remaining 35 per cent is discretionary. That leads on into the departmental position.
I see you are about to rise and perhaps I could continue at two o'clock.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: When the House rose at 1 p.m. the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) had the floor.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with the quotations that I am taking from the memorandum to Cabinet now known across the country as "The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s". The departmental positions are well worth putting on the record. I will not read it in its entirety, but the following Departments were and are in general agreement with the recommendations in the report: Transport, CMHC, Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, Fisheries and Oceans, Solicitor General, RCMP, Justice, Secretary of State, Employment and Immigration, Finance, and Health and Welfare. The final line is worth putting on the record. It says:
The findings are acceptable to DIAND officials but they have concerns about the anticipated adverse reaction from native people toward any changes in programs.
It is laid out very carefully on the next page who else was involved in this process. I quote from the heading "Background". It reads:
The analysis was carried out by a mixed study team, with input from program managers, federal economic development co-ordinators, deputy heads, and the Private Sector Advisory Committee to the Task Force. Additional input came from limited consultations with selected client groups and with senior deputies in selected provincial Governments. The Study Team report, a 395 page document informally referred to as "The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s", is available to any Minister wishing further background.
The document goes on to lay out the growth and expenditures within DIAND and then goes on to say the following:
In addition, it is noted that the backlog in Indian reserve housing alone would cost at least $500 million in today's dollars to catch up to where current annual expenditures could keep up with demand. These figures are exclusive of land
claims, both specific and comprehensive (except for some specific claims in an advanced stage of negotiation), which on the basis of average settlements to date could add another $8 billion to total expenditures over the next 5-20 years.
It is statements such as that within this document that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development needs to respond to this afternoon. On page 15 it says:
It is important to distinguish between what is being done on the basis of legal obligations of the federal Government and programs grown up over time for social policy reasons so that discretionary expenditures can be evaluated against real need, not regarded as a "right" that must be provided.
I am sure the Minister will want to respond to that in terms of what he and others have said publicly regarding Section 35 of the Constitution. On page 17 it says:
Devolution of native problems to native communities from the federal Government for resolution through negotiation of local community plans based on community priorities and funded on a multi-year block basis;
I think the Minister must respond to that as well. As 1 quoted earlier today in Question Period, Section 10 reads:
The Prime Minister has been consulted regarding his prerogatives on mandates.
The document goes on to deal with financial considerations. It reads:
Estimated savings from current projections in subsequent years are $133.9 million in 1986-87 and $178.4 million in 1987-88. The important financial aspect of these recommendations, however, is to contain the rapid escalation of future costs that would derive from leaving existing programs unchecked.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a few more selected quotes which I would like to put on the record if I could get unanimous agreement. I would like to put them on the record so the Minister could respond.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Ross Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be as quick as I can. Under the heading "Federal Provincial" is an attempt to devolve what has historically been the relationship between the federal Government and aboriginal peoples of Canada to the provinces. It reads:
-for defining a comprehensive agreement which would be custom tailored to address the particular needs of each province and territory and which would encompass all original native programs of both levels of Government.
These memoranda of understanding which are about to be negotiated between the Government of Canada and the provinces are being buzzed about the country right now.
Under "Priority Changes for Economic Development" it proposes to:
-transfer all DIAND business development support and loans and loan guarantee activities to DRIE.
I am sure that Indian and Inuit people will be interested to know that that is a policy priority of the Government. On page 25 it proposes to:
-terminate the separate Native Economic Development Program-
-terminate support to... native economic institutions and administer native economic development programs using standard business criteria-
May 10, 1985

-decline requests for support for third party native financial or economic institutions-
If we are talking of self-government, how can this same Government at the same time be talking about declining any support whatsoever for native financial and economic institutions? All native loans would be transferred to the Federal Business Development Bank.
Under major resource development, in my area, Mr. Speaker, the Council of the Haida nations has made use of resource development impact funding to evaluate the effects of offshore oil drilling. The Nishga people have made use of these funds to study the impact of Amax on their traditional fisheries. The Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en have made use of that money to study the impact of Alcan's Keman project. Here is what the Government is proposing as a priority change. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development consolidates the resource development impact program with the northern participation and public review program. The resource development impact study program will go out of the window.
Under "Native Claims", Section 39 says:
-defer the negotiation of comprehensive claims until the Government's position on native self-government and control is determined.
Under Section 42, which is headed "Priority Changes", it reads:
-development funds, now expended on Indian political associations, directly to bands.
Under "Housing" we see one of the ways this approach would be used to force the assimilation of Indian and Inuit people, particularly from rural areas and urban areas, because it is recommended:
-programs apply equally on and off reserves in order to eliminate any incentive through housing assistance to remain in areas of high unemployment.
It is a pretty Draconian housing policy to be proposing to fund housing projects that are in areas of low unemployment only. I suppose all the native people in Quebec are supposed to live in Montreal and all the native people in British Columbia are supposed to live in Vancouver.
Under Indian and Inuit health services there are very Draconian proposals. Let me quote:
(I) reduce the costs of providing non-insured health benefits through deterrence-
(3) close certain Indian hospitals-
(6) and terminate consultation funding to native political associations.
Under Indian and Inuit education, priority change, we find:
(1)	terminate federal operation of schools on reserves-
(2)	terminate the operation of Indian student residences on reserves.
51.-eliminate the guidance and counselling program-
53. review federal policy on financing of school construction with a view to providing some type of debenture repayments-
There is an interesting proposal! The federal Government would have Indian and Inuit people borrow money through debentures to construct schools.
Supply
Let me add a couple more, Mr. Speaker. We find under the communications strategy and I quote from Section 4:
News coverage has routinely been sympathetic and supportive of native concerns and aspirations. Conversely, the limited polling that has occurred suggests that while sympathetic to the economic hardship of native people and their struggle for cultural identity, most Canadians are not entirely persuaded by arguments for special rights. This reticence can be expected to increase as knowledge of the costs associated with new definitions of rights is brought into focus. News coverage of recent developments to eliminate sexual discrimination from the Indian Act and establish a membership basis for Indian self-government has featured these cost considerations.
It goes on:
-the message has been persistently critical; and it has not been countered publicly with a strong defence of either the role, the interpretation of jurisdiction or the administration of native affairs on the whole or of Indian Affairs in particular.
As I was saying earlier, that is part of the job of this Parliament. It is to get the right message out, not the message in this document but the message that is ethically, morally, and legally correct, rather than continuing to "fuzzify" around. Section 7 reads:
Native people are capable of mobilizing effective and highly-visible demonstrations of objection to change with which they disagree. Such demonstrations could not only impede the Government's action plan for native program changes, but could reflect adversely on the over-all Task Force process.
It goes under the heading "Strategy" to read:
It is especially important that early announcements relate to sectors where there is the strongest public support for change. Analysis in the framework communications strategy suggests that the business community's vigorous expectations for deficit reduction present a starting point-
I find that a particularly startling revelation, When we are talking about Indian and Inuit affairs the bottom line, the starting point, is the business community's vigorous expectations for deficit reduction.
Finally in the communications strategy it goes on:
At Budget time: except for an acknowledgement that the native program review has been completed, no detailed reference would be made to resulting action at the time of release of the pre-Budget "management package".
We do know from this quotation that those who prepared this document to go to Ministers considered that, at the time of the preparation of this document, native program review was complete. They put it in this document.
In the same section it reads:
While the Minister of Finance may make reference to native programs in the Budget speech or other documentation, Ministers whose portfolios are directly affected by the changes would be provided with briefings.
Consistent with the over-all strategy, the Deputy Prime Minister would take the lead in explaining the Status of the Task Force on Budget night and may do so during the subsequent debate. Ministers with a direct interest in native program changes should be prepared to participate in the Budget debate; they will require briefing to field questions from the media and others in the days that follow the Budget, whether or not it contains a direct reference.
I rest my case, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the document. I wish to say how pleased I am that the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior brought forward this motion to deal with "The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s", what happened at the April 1 Ministers' Conference and what is being done to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, who I think all Members
4624

May 10, 1985
Supply
of this House would agree is an honourable and hard-working Member of the House.
It appears to be quite clear now as a result of the RCMP investigation, the content of the document and the strategy revealed regarding the Budget, that there is an entirely separate process going on within the Government that has excluded by design the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I think one of the most important things we can do to repair that special relationship which we have with our aboriginal peoples is for the Minister to rise in the House today and deal, if he so feels, point by point with what is in the document in terms of a media strategy, in terms of manipulating public opinion. Particularly I think the aboriginal people would like to hear him on the question of title and comprehensive claims, because self-government flows only from title and access to natural resources. If the Minister so wished, I know the Indian and Inuit people would like to hear his views on health matters, education, and what is contained within that document, because the document is a blueprint for probably the most Draconian attack that has ever been proposed to be launched against Canada's first citizens.


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), a question about the memorandum of understanding that is being drawn up with the provinces.
Could the Member confirm that the document he has suggests that responsibility for drawing up that memorandum should continue to rest with the task force itself rather than with the Minister of Indian Affairs? Could he tell the House what the implications are?


James Ross Fulton: I will try to be brief. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) is correct that the task force has suggested a process for developing these memoranda of understanding which do propose the involvement of a Minister. The Minister who would do it is not named. The document leads into that by very carefully laying out that only 25 per cent of the existing payments, in the neighbourhood of $3 billion, is considered by the task force in its evaluations to be actual statutory obligations. Another 40 per cent in the document is claimed to be related to matters that are provincial. It mentions that it touches in some way on Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act.
I do not know of any Inuit or Indian leaders in Canada who would like to see a tighter relationship with the provinces within which they reside. They look at Canada as country wherein they have a very special and long-standing relationship with the federal Crown. In fact, some aboriginal people look beyond that to having a special relationship with the Crown of Great Britain. What they have made abundantly clear in their movement toward real self-government and the attainment of title and the attainment of their own government structures is that they wish to maintain a relationship with the federal Crown, but they do not want to become municipal-type structures in dealing with all the provinces.
It is clear within this document that one of the thrusts which is under way right now is to design these memoranda of understanding to transfer to the provinces perhaps 40 per cent-and the document does not indicate it specifically-and perhaps a chunk of the 35 per cent which is discretionary. Perhaps as much as 75 per cent of the programs with which they are presently involved would be delegated to provincial authorities through joint federal-provincial memoranda. Again that is the wrong approach to be taken. The devolution of block funding to bands at the tribal council level should go in stages-title must be resolved, access to natural resources, development and sustainability of their own economic institutions, education, health care and so on, and then a continuing relation much like a group of smaller provinces within the country with the federal Crown. That is the approach which aboriginal people hold very dear. I find that thrust to be one of the most negative principles alluded to in the document.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on the motion before the House today. I had some plans in other parts of the country which I cancelled because the motion of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) provides me with an opportunity to set this Government's response to it fairly, squarely, openly and frankly. Let me read, first of all, the preamble to the motion:
That this House condemns the Government for its confusing and manipulative approaches to Indian and aboriginal issues in Canada,-
My submission is that if anyone has confused or manipulated Indian issues in the past week, it has been members of the Opposition. At least they are familiar with how our form of government works. They know that Members of Cabinet are not permitted to comment on matters before Cabinet. Cabinet Ministers can neither confirm nor deny. Had the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior been appointed Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by the former Prime Minister when his Party was in power, as well he should have been, he would have had to confront pieces of paper held in front of him and would have had to give the same essential response in carrying out his Cabinet responsibilities-"I can neither confirm nor deny". Hon. Members of the Opposition also know that officials in the Public Service draft, redraft and draft again memoranda and documents by the thousands. Some of them are signed by Ministers. Few of them find their way to policy. Most of them find their way to oblivion and most are rejected as government policy.
In our parliamentary system this whole process takes place within the privilege of Cabinet, and Members of Cabinet, whatever Party is in power, are bound to maintain that process in the most stringent and complete confidence. While we in the House are familiar with the intricacies of these parliamentary notions, many people in Canada are not. By using these tactics I hope the Opposition will not be guilty, even inadvertently, of doing the very thing which this motion accuses the Government of doing, that is, causing confusion and manipulating a system in which Cabinet Ministers cannot respond.
May 10, 1985

Also this motion mentions uncertainty, distrust, cynicism and outrage among native people. In my opinion-and I think it was amply noted by two previous speakers-that outrage, cynicism, distrust and uncertainty is the product of more than a century of bad policies by all Governments and Parties in this country. I hope the action of the past week and a half has not been so scary to Indian people as to make that fragile relationship even worse, when there has been no need to do so. The Hon. Member knows that while I cannot comment on Cabinet matters, I am able as the Minister to state what the Government's policies and directions are and will be. I thank him for his motion, for giving me that opportunity.
During the eight months of this Government, its policy for Indian, Inuit and Metis people has been made as clear as a bell. There are some more things we can do, and more will be done, but after eight months the Government can feel great pride in the manner in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), all Members of Cabinet and the caucus have worked hard to make strides and to push forward aboriginal policies which support aboriginal people. Those policies are a matter of public record.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: There was a First Ministers' Conference in which the federal position-and I say this especially to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton)-was known in advance and discussed in three meetings prior to it. In that process the Prime Minister stated clearly the policies and attitudes of his Government, aspirations the aboriginal people have waited long to hear. The conference is a matter of public record; it was on television for two days.
Another ministerial meeting is scheduled for the first week of June to have another try at an accord and to discuss a work plan for the next two years which will result in some real accomplishment, in my opinion. It was a privilege to have assisted in this process, along with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), and to have the Prime Minister reaffirm the significant initiatives which I have taken on behalf of the Ministry and on behalf of the Government.
The attempt at reaching consensus with the Premiers was done with the consensus and the participation of aboriginal groups. When it was obvious that the best possible agreement still fell short of the mark set by aboriginal groups, the Prime Minister suggested a time for reflection, a space of time to allow for exploration on how to proceed. What Canadians saw from the Prime Minister was a magnificent effort at conciliation and diplomacy which cannot by any stretch of anyone's imagination be termed a public relations exercise. As the Hon. Member's motion indicates, certainly there was a sense of disappointment that a compromise did not emerge at that time. However, none of the aboriginal representatives can doubt, nor do they doubt, the sincerity, energy, effort and intentions of this Government to do so. Indeed, Hon. Members know that I could walk in here and read for an hour the comments made by independent third parties, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, as testimony to the way in which the confer-
Supply
ence went so well. But I will only bother the House with four lines from the Ottawa Citizen. Right after the conference this was said:
For the first time, the chairman of a conference was a man who knows how to negotiate. Prime Minister Mulroney's efforts to find consensus were a refreshing departure from Pierre Trudeau's confrontationalism.
The motion also says that I as the Minister have been engaged in creating goodwill amongst aboriginal peoples while the Government is preparing policies which would be prejudicial to aboriginal interests or to the special relationships which exist between them and the federal Government. Yes, ample goodwill has been created and more, I hope, will be created, not by any ambassadorial abilities which might be mine, but rather by the policies which this Government has begun to strengthen aboriginal communities, to remove obstacles which prevent them from controlling their lives and their destinies and to finally end colonial conditions which have resulted for them, the aboriginal people, in poverty and dependency.
As was announced in this House, the Prime Minister has shown the interest and priority which he attaches to the aboriginal peoples by asking me to chair a Cabinet committee on all aboriginal programs and policies. This committee will begin its work soon. I am sure there will be many items in the work plan, but there are three items on that work plan which I would like to make mention of in the House today and which I can mention specifically.
First on the work plan for the new Cabinet committee will be the Penner report. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior was the author and chairman of the committee that submitted that report. I also note Members in the House today from all Parties who formed the core of that parliamentary task force. The report of that parliamentary task force was tabled in this House in November, 1983. It was carried unanimously by all three political Parties. I am sure the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior has recognized many recommendations in that report which bears his name in the actions which have already been taken by this Government. The all-Party report recommended that the federal Government establish a new relationship which would have as a central element a recognition of self-government. He no doubt saw that as the central theme of the First Ministers' Conference.
The Hon. Member heard the Prime Minister mention pursuit of many processes leading to self-government, including developing the bilateral process which the Prime Minister committed his Government to at that conference. I am sure he has heard from his Indian constituents and others about long awaited policy changes which would enhance their community control. He has seen the introduction of legislation which asserts as a basic principle the right of Indian peoples to determine the membership of their own communities according to their own criteria. He has heard about new fiscal arrangements which are being developed leading to block multi-year funding for Indian governmental services so that Indian people can determine their own policies, set their own priorities and hold their own councils accountable.

May 10, 1985
Supply
I am sure the Hon. Member has heard of the review of the claims policy and a specific mandate to examine alternatives to the demand that aboriginal people must extinguish their aboriginal rights, the cornerstone of the policy developed by the last Government which has been so thoroughly condemned and rejected by aboriginal people.
I might add that he has no doubt heard of the initiatives taken by this Government to protect the special relationship between the federal Government and Indian people. The Hon. Member may recall the recognition given by this Government a few months ago, after years and years of waiting, to Indian communities in the Treaty Nine area which extends into the Hon. Member's riding.
Whether it is the issue of twin-tracking in British Columbia, the renovation of Treaty Eight, I have honoured and this Government has honoured its fiduciary obligations to the people of this country of aboriginal origin, and will continue to do so.
There are many other recommendations in the Penner report which I intend to bring before the new Cabinet committee on aboriginal matters and on which there will be, of course, full participation with aboriginal people concerned. I think this list is a better statement, the one I have just gone through, measured by the Hon. Member's own standards of the intentions of my Ministry and the support of this Government, than any document that the Opposition may wish to wave in our face at camera time. I am quite content to be judged by the actions which the Government has taken. The record speaks for itself.
The second matter which will be before the Cabinet committee will be the study team report. That is the matter which I intend to place before the new committee. We will examine it carefully. I assure Hon. Members of this House with regard to the recommendations contained in the report, which was done by a group of outside consultants and officials, that some of those ideas were wise, some were unwise, some were acceptable and some were unacceptable. As the Prime Minister assured the House, all of those recommendations, no matter what their origin, will be subjected to public open discussion with aboriginal people before policy decisions are made. That is the key. That is what has been missing in previous Governments. That is not what will be missing from this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Not only the Penner report, not only the study team report, but suggestions from aboriginal peoples will be discussed at that Cabinet committee. In dozens and dozens of meetings that I have been involved in across this country, east, west, north and south, I have been impressed with the considered suggestions which have been given to me regarding changes in federal practice and federal policy. At all of these meetings, which now involves contact with every Indian community, the meetings have been held, the minutes sent out and recorded, and I have instructed officials after each of those meetings to prepare policy options on workable suggestions so
that consultations can be further extended and decisions made. That is how we build Indian policy in this Government.
I would like to mention the manner in which we moved on very positive suggestions we received from northerners, particularly northern aboriginal people, on the question of division of the Northwest Territories. I have been urged by northern peoples, particularly aboriginal peoples, to make sure that that debate is held first in the north and by northerners and not in the back rooms of Ottawa where it has been for so long.
When I opened the new legislative chambers in the Northwest Territories earlier this year, I promised on behalf of the Government to be fully responsive to the unique constitutional developments occurring in the north, developments which are important to all Canadians. At that time John Amagolik, president of the Inuit Tapirisat, was quoted in The Edmonton Journal as saying that it was "a very historic occasion for the Inuit people". In that same speech, I put on the public record that I accepted the suggestion that development and division should not prejudice land claims. No one can say that this Government has not been open and receptive to the longstanding, long-neglected positive ideas, aspirations and suggestions that aboriginal people have been pressing on the federal Government for generations.
Much more could be said, but I think the time has come when the Opposition should return to its responsibility of examining the actual actions and policies of this Government relating to aboriginal peoples. I welcome that challenge. The critical examination of real policies and real issues is what opposition and government are about. If the Government proposes and the Opposition opposes or criticizes real policies and recommendations, then the magic of the parliamentary system works and will work to the benefit of aboriginal people.
If I could put it in a nutshell, surely that responsible kind of debate is preferable to trying to examine the entrails of policies which have been found in the waste baskets of the bureaucracy. That responsible kind of debate is real discussion.
This Government will not give sympathy nor support to any policy which goes against its general objective of strengthening the communities and cultures of aboriginal people. The policies and principles upon which this Government will act were set out clearly at the constitutional conference and reiterated in this House by the Prime Minister on April 18. I am going to repeat those because they have not been heard. There are four very clear principles.
The first principle is that the special relationship between Canada and the aboriginal peoples will be strengthened. The Prime Minister said that the second principle was that the aboriginal rights and especially the right of self-government shall have constitutional protection. The third principle set out was that current funding levels of programs designed to correct the serious inequities which exist for native people and native communities will be maintained. Last, the Prime Minister set out on the public record the assurance that he would honour the principle that policies regarding aboriginal people
May 10, 1985

will be made after open, public consultation, particularly at the grassroots level. He went on to say that all these policies are dedicated to enhancing the ability and power of aboriginal communities to control their own affairs. I assure the House that this is my personal agenda as well.
This agenda is important not only to aboriginal people but to all Canadians. If we continue to perpetuate policies which cause aboriginal people to become severed from their roots, policies which permit their communities to disintegrate and lead to the abandonment of their cultural values, Canada as a whole will be the loser. The Government will not let that happen.
Aboriginal people, like all human beings, must have a sense of their own independence, a sense of purpose in their lives, a sense of who they are and a sense of their own self-worth. Those things have been denied them by previous Canadian federal Governments. This Government is dedicated to changing all of that. That is why this Government's record is clear and, if I could be so humble, commendable. We stand ready to look at each Member of this House and at each aboriginal person and to receive their criticism on actual policies, actual procedures and actual implementation of government policies; not on illusions, thoughts, scraps and documents that are lost in a waste basket somewhere.
If I could conclude, what we need is for all Parties to remember that we have the obligation which both the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior and the Hon. Member for Skeena made as a charge on the House earlier, and that is the obligation of us all. That is why I think the ideas and notions contained in the motion put by the Hon. Member should be utterly rejected by the House.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment to make and one question to ask. I think the Minister understands from what he has heard from this side of the House so far that in fact it is the Minister's agenda that we want to see prevail. We have heard the Minister speak across the country. We have heard him respond to questions put in the House. We know that the reaction to his statements from the aboriginal community has been positive. It is his agenda that we want to see prevail. However, for the Minister to suggest that in some way the Opposition Parties have acted in an unbecoming manner because there came into the possession of one of those Parties a document which calls into question and undermines the Minister's own agenda, and we come to the defence of the Minister in this regard, is not fair. Surely that is a legitimate and fair role for Parliament to play.
The Minister has taken refuge in a system that allows him no comment, a system that allows an RCMP investigation to take place because a document has come into the hands of the Opposition. Surely what is happening here is further testimony and proof that our parliamentary system is desperately in need of reform. The fact that Parliament cannot participate in the formulation of public policy means that Parliament is not fulfilling its role and is not doing what those who elected us to this body wanted us to do. That is why I am delighted to be
Supply
associated with the Committee on Parliamentary Reform headed by the Minister's distinguished colleague.
If the Parliament of Canada can only get involved after policies have become hardened and firm, when the Government must defend them even when they have inadequacies here and there which the Opposition must attack, there is a never-ending confrontation. No wonder the people of this country are asking what the parliamentary system is all about. The people of this country say that we only defend and oppose. They ask if they will ever see something that is mutually beneficial to a group of people like the aboriginal citizens who desperately need the concern of every Member of Parliament.
Will the Minister not agree that the system that binds him hand and foot by disallowing Parliament to be involved in the process of public policy formulation is wrong? Does he not agree that we ought to do something to change that?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that he has me on good ground. I have been a long and fairly vocal advocate throughout the years I have been in this House for drastic, immediate, boots-up, forever-and-a-day reform of the parliamentary system. My good friend the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is heading the committee on parliamentary reform. He has been making some advances on the matter and when the committee's report comes forward in its totality, I hope that its measures will be adopted by this House.
In answer to the question, quite frankly I do agree that this parliamentary system does indeed need reform. I think that we can do it during this term of office if the recommendations made by the Hon. Member for St. John's East are adopted by this House.
Could I hitchhike on the Hon. Member's question by responding to his comment regarding the Minister's agenda? As I have said in the past to the Hon. Member, I would certainly appreciate any support that he could give me with respect to the agenda and I would particularly appreciate support from him, an Hon. Member who is so well known by Indian people regarding these matters. I want to assure him that the Ministers' agenda is intact. I have exceedingly strong support from the Prime Minister, the caucus and all my Cabinet colleagues. We must ensure that we march forward together, and I appreciate the Hon. Member's willingness to do so.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the matter which concerns Members of the Opposition, Indian and Metis people across the country, is the wide divergence between what the task force report said-the 396-page report which was leaked to the press-and what the Minister and the Prime Minister have said. Could the Minister tell the House what types of policy guidelines were given to the task force when it was performing its work? How was it possible for members of the task force to sit down and come up with a report which is completely at

May 10, 1985
Supply
variance with everything for which the Minister and the Prime Minister stand?
I would also like to ask the Minister about the consultation process. He said that no changes would be made without a full and open consultation process. Yet in his press release of two days ago, when he spoke about the new funding formula for political organizations, he said that he would be consulting with Indian chiefs. But the only process which was stated in the press release was:
The Ministers said letters were going out requesting written proposals addressing the principles of the new policy. The additional suggestions would be added to those Crombie received during an extensive schedule of meetings with chiefs across Canada.
Is the request for written proposals the full extent of the consultation? What process of consultation will be followed in the development of the new land claims policy about which the Minister said he would be very proud when it was released?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first question regarding the task force report and its terms of reference, quite frankly, I would have to ask the Member to direct that question to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) because I am not involved in that task force. I might say that, at least, it showed that this is not a hidebound Government. We in the Government are willing to entertain a broad range of thoughts and options.
With respect to his question regarding funding, I can assure the Hon. Member that the whole purpose of my office sending out letters asking the Indian organizations to discuss among themselves considerations regarding funding was to elicit their views. The process began some months ago. As the Member will know, I went across the country from reserve to reserve and from assembly to assembly. One of the things about which we talked was the funding of Indian organizations at the band, tribal, regional and national level. That was the second phase. It was to say: "Thanks very much; there appear to be three principles upon which we can all agree". I think the Hon. Member would agree with those three principles which were outlined in the press released. The Indian organizations are to respond to me on those principles.
Following that, I will hold whatever discussions are appropriate. Those discussions may differ from one part of the country to another. For example, in British Columbia there is already a certain practice of band council resolutions, which practice will not be found in other parts of the country. Therefore, there will not be one response from coast to coast. It will very much depend on what I get back. If, indeed, I had already figured out the third part of the process, I would be denying the importance of getting their input in the second phase. I can assure the Hon. Member that nothing will be done until that has been completed. He is aware of that, as are other Members, as are the aboriginal people.
With respect to the third item concerning land claims, as I believe I mentioned in the House the other day to the Hon. Member, I met with claimant groups and we drew up some terms of reference and had some discussions as to whom we would like to have serve on a study group. Therefore, the
process is contained in those terms of reference. It will take about six months. It is not finalized, only because we have not yet completed our selection of people. As soon as it is available, I will provide a copy for Hon. Members.


Mr. Moore:: Mr. Speaker, what is the Minister's understanding of the legal and moral obligations which he as a Minister has toward the Indian people?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, it is tough to answer that question in a minute, but I can say that my first responsibility is, of course, to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. However, I have an unusual responsibility which I believe is contained both in tradition and probably in law, and that is that I speak as an advocate and have what is known in the law as a fiduciary obligation to aboriginal people to ensure that they are dealt with, both individually and collectively, according to the highest possible standards which this country has.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today states:
That this House condemns the government for its confusing and manipulative approaches to Indian and aboriginal issues in Canada, thereby fostering uncertainty, distrust, cynicism and outrage among native peoples-
It goes on to refer to three examples of the confusing and manipulative approaches. It refers to the First Ministers' Conference in April. Then it refers to the leaked document to which we have all referred as "The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s". Third, it refers to situations in which the Minister says one thing, of which many of us on this side approve, about which other individuals in the Government are saying something else.
With respect to the First Ministers' Conference which was held in April, although it started well, that conference was a failure. We must admit that. The documents which were tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the statements which were made by the Prime Minister on the first day were good. As a matter of fact, I put them side by side with the documents which were tabled at the previous aboriginal conference by the previous Prime Minister, and they were pretty much the same. They were not perfect in either case, but they were something with which to work. They were something which the aboriginal people of Canada felt they could use as a base during the conference on which to build and improve. But during the process of the conference, the provinces which did not understand aboriginal rights and Indian self-government attacked the proposals of the Prime Minister and the Government. Those provinces would not give in. Finally, the Government went the way of those provinces.
I was at the entire conference and I watched what happened. Between the meetings, instead of the Government leaning on the provinces which were hesitant to agree, it leaned on the aboriginal groups to accept a weakened version of the proposals for self-government. It was a situation of big, strong, wealthy provinces with lots of resources going against the major aboriginal groups of the country which do not have many resources, but which do their best to get along. Instead of the Prime Minister taking the side of the aboriginal people
May 10, 1985

and leaning on the provinces, he gave in to the position of the provinces and tried to convince the aboriginal organizations to accept what the provinces wanted in order to get an agreement so that the conference would be successful and the Prime Minister and the Government would look good. I believe that was wrong. It was a case of doing what was expedient rather than doing what was correct. The conference was a failure. It did not achieve agreement and it did not end with the goodwill which it had when it started.
With respect to the leaked report of the Nielsen review committee, or as it is called "The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s", the Minister has just said that those of us in the Opposition who are familiar with the Cabinet system should understand that nothing is government policy until it is finally approved by the Government, and that this was probably one of many documents which was put forward but discarded, remade or whatever. He said that since it was not finally approved, it is not the policy of the Government. He said he did not approve it himself. That may be true, Mr. Speaker, but I served in Cabinet for seven years and I know that the very fact that a document like this got as far as it did, with so much support from various Departments, and that there are so many people within the structures of the Canadian Government who would support this type of document and these types of proposals, is a shocking and shameful thing. I feel that if the document had not been leaked, we would not have had a chance to raise this publicly before it went to Cabinet for final approval and it might well have been approved at least in part. So I think the Opposition did its job in raising this document at the time it did because it cut off at the pass the initiatives of those people in the Government of Canada-perhaps not the Minister- who wanted that kind of policy with respect to Indian people.
When we look at the composition of the task force set up by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), we find it included people who, as far as I can see, had no understanding or knowledge of Indian matters. There were no Indians invited to participate in that task force. It certainly was a complete violation of the bilateral process which was set up a few years ago and which was supposed to be the modus operandi between the Government of Canada and the aboriginal peoples. There was no bilateral process. And the principal criterion of the people who worked on that task force seemed to be financial savings. There was no human consideration and no social or economic criterion applied.
The question was just asked of the Minister if he had anything to do with the instructions to the task force before it started its work. He said he did not. I find that a surprising admission. Here we have a task force which is dealing with the survival of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and which is given instructions to examine that Department and make suggestions, but the Minister responsible is not even consulted on what the very basic criteria for the operation of that task force should be. In answering the question he said that it goes to show how open a Government it is. That may be so, but it is the type of thing which does lead
Supply
to the confusion which is referred to in the motion before the House.
I would like to spend a few minutes speaking about the bilateral process. The bilateral process was started a few years ago by the former Government. It was something which it did not agree to immediately, but about which it was finally convinced. It was a process which was proposed by the Assembly of First Nations and other aboriginal groups, and the proposal was to the effect that changes in policy with respect to the aboriginal and Indian people of Canada should always be made nation to nation, Canadian Government to Indian nations, one on one. Nothing should be done in a unilateral way and then sprung on our native or aboriginal peoples. That was the process, Mr. Speaker, which was carried out at the time of the treaties. At that time the British Government, which preceded the Government of Canada, dealt with the different Indian nations in Canada as nations on a one-to-one basis and negotiated what the arrangements between the Crown and the Indians should be. But that approach disappeared with the passing of the Indian Act and the many other unilateral types of legislation which we have passed in this country over the last hundred years.
We have had in this Chamber hundreds of non-Indians, white men of various backgrounds, making laws which touched the very lives of these Indian people without even consulting with them. After coming to the conclusion that this was not the right way of doing things, we finally had a Government which agreed just a few years ago to the bilateral process. That bilateral process was followed to a great extent by the work of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government. We had on that committee three representatives of the major native organizations in Canada. While they did not have a vote, they participated fully in the committee. No proposal was put to the committee without their comments, criticisms, and suggestions. Although they did not vote, their views on the various proposals were taken seriously by the members of the committee. I cannot recall members of the committee pushing ahead with any type of recommendation or proposal which was not supported by those three native representatives. We often had a long debate when there was a disagreement, but we worked it out in due course and a consensus was arrived at. That process was started with the Burghardt committee which dealt with Indian women and the Indian Act. I believe three representatives were invited in that case, but only two participated. That was an offshoot of the bilateral process between Canadian Governments and the Indian people.
For the last few weeks, several of us have participated in the discussions with respect to Bill C-31 which amends the Indian Act, especially with respect to Indian women and discrimination. Unfortunately, the way that Bill is being proceeded with is in contradiction to the bilateral process. We are sitting around in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development with various Hon. Members putting amendments on the table, but there are no native representatives to give us their views with respect to those amendments, and in no way can we adjourn the committee continually in

May 10, 1985
Supply
order to get their views. I proposed several times that we should have proceeded in the same way as the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government and have the main representatives sitting at the table with us, but that was turned down for one reason or another.
The problems we are having with Indian issues in this country are continuing. The same mistakes are being repeated over and over again because there are still too many individuals in the Government of Canada who do not really understand what aboriginal rights mean, and who do not really understand what Indian self-government means. When I say there are "individuals" in the Government of Canada, I do not mean only the elected Members; I mean senior officials, bureaucrats, some elected people and some Ministers. There are still too many of them. If we did not have so many of them, we would not see the kind of document which was leaked the other day. We also would not have the confusion where we get acceptable statements by the Minister on the one hand and the type of proposals in the task force document on the other.
I would like to repeat myself, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it has to be repeated over and over again. People ask what aboriginal rights are, what they mean in the way they are now recognized in Section 35 of the new Constitution. As far as my understanding of it is concerned, they are all those rights which the aboriginal peoples had on this continent prior to contact with the Europeans, related to their lands, languages, social and economic structures, customs, religion and Government. These aboriginal people, before contact with the Europeans, had all of those things. They had societies, they had governments, languages, economies and religion. Those were their rights and they did not cede them after the Europeans came. Nor were they conquered, although there were battles here in Canada. However, although we just remembered the fortieth anniversary of the end of World War II, I do not think we believe that if you conquer another people you have the right to take away their rights and impose on them your way of doing things. We fought that war because we did not believe in that way of life. We believe that people have the right to keep their own way of doing things unless they voluntarily give them up or make agreements with the other party to change them. But here we have a situation where the aboriginal people of Canada had these rights, these Governments, these languages, these lands and waters, and these economies which involve fishing, hunting and trapping, and they never gave them up. We should recognize that they are still there, and we have recognized them in Section 35 of the Constitution, in my opinion.
Indian self-government is one of those aboriginal rights and several Members of this House spent a lot of time on the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government pursuing that matter. As a matter of fact, from July, 1982, to October, 1983, we had 60 public hearings in many parts of the country, almost 40 of them were outside Ottawa, taking place on reserves and friendship centres, and we got the views of the Indian people. I think probably there was no other exercise in
the history of Canada where a parliamentary committee or commission heard the views of so many Indians. There were 55 recommendations, and what is interesting is that all of them were unanimous. Seven Members of Parliament from three political Parties, as well as three native representatives, unanimously agreed on the recommendations.
Nevertheless, at the First Ministers' Conference, despite the process the special committee went through, we still saw provincial Governments and politicians who misunderstand what is meant by the self-government term and who fear it. They think it is in some way going to threaten them, their Governments and their constitutional structures. Unfortunately, colonialism still remains a fact of life in Canada because we see Governments and parliamentarians-although not all of them-who take the position that we must continue to legislate for Indians as if we knew best. We do not trust the Indians to do things for themselves. We feel they will not do the right thing, therefore we should do it for them. That is a very strange point of view on our part because we certainly made a mess of things for over 100 years. We set up a Department of Indian Affairs, passed the Indian Act, made amendments to that Act, and more than 100 years later Indian communities are living in abject poverty. The social conditions there are horrible in many cases, with high rates of suicide, alcoholism and imprisonment. And we are the ones running things, they are not.
It is evident to me that if there is going to be a basic change we must recognize the right to self-determination of these Indian peoples. We must grant them the self-government they used to have. In fact, they still have it but we are interfering with it. We must let them run their own affairs and their own lives. They must have the right to make their own mistakes. Surely they will not make as many as we have. We all know that when you run your own affairs you make mistakes from time to time, but we have to recognize that we made more mistakes and that half-way measures will not work.
Bill C-31, Mr. Speaker, is an example of a half-way measure. We recognize the right to Indian self-government to a certain extent, but not fully. As a result, we get into all sorts of complex problems. Simply to throw money at the problem will not work. Funding is necessary for Indian Government, just as it is for provincial Governments and federal Governments, but they have to control those Governments themselves and set the priorities themselves.
I would like to conclude by quoting a statement that we put in the front of our report on Indian self-government. It was submitted to us by the Mayo Indian band in the Yukon when they appeared before us. It was spoken by Leo Tolstoy in 1886 and it is:
I sit on a man's back choking him and making him carry me and yet assure myself and others that I am sorry for him and wish to lighten his load by all possible means except by getting off his back.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion put forward by my friend from Cochrane Superior because I think that this issue is of importance to all Canadians and not
May 10, 1985

simply to the native people of Canada. It is important to all Canadians because what we are seeing happen to the Indian people is very likely to happen to other segments in Canada. A number of years ago someone made the comment that the Indian people are very much like the miner's canary, and I think most Members of the House are aware of the practice of miners who used to take a canary with them down into the mine. As long as the canary was able to live, the miners were assured the air was tolerable for them. When the canary got in trouble, the miners knew they were in trouble. In the same way, when the Indian people of Canada are in trouble, I think the rest of us can understand that we, too, are in trouble.
It was interesting to listen to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) today because he is very obviously embarrassed by the documents which are floating around, documents which have a degree of authenticity, although the Cabinet has yet to come clean on this issue. He is also embarrassed by the actions of his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). It was scandalous to hear the Minister say, when I asked him what guidelines had been issued to the Deputy Prime Minister's task force on native policy and programs, that I would have to ask the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister was not aware of what guidelines had been issued to the task force which was going to be looking at programs within his own Department. This is a very serious indication of the wide divergence of views within the Cabinet, some members of which espouse one policy and others another policy. As a result, we do not really know in what direction the Government is going, although we have our suspicions when we look at where the real clout lies. It lies with people like the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), people who are interested in making cut-backs. The real clout does not lie with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who is intent on preserving programs and trying to enhance the lives of Indian people.
It is interesting that when that Minister was first appointed to his portfolio there were a lot of rumours that he really wanted to be appointed to the communications portfolio, and that the appointment to Indian affairs of a former mayor of Toronto was an example of the Prime Minister's rather warped sense of humour. However, I want to say that the present Minister took the ball and ran with it. He saw as his first task the establishment of a relationship with the Indian people. He saw the need to get to know Indian people and establish in them some sense of confidence in himself. Given the constraints of the colonial situation in which we all live with regard to Indian people, I think the Minister succeeded very well. However, his efforts have been very seriously undermined by the activities of other members of Cabinet, particularly the Deputy Prime Minister.
Nevertheless, all the efforts of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are really irrelevant to true understanding of what is happening between the Tory Government and the Indian people. The Minister of Indian Affairs
Supply
and Northern Development does just fine with regard to personal relations, ceremonial affairs, and public relations. However, regardless of the Minister's desire to do a good job, he runs smack into the reality of the Government, the reality of cut-backs and elimination of programs, and the reality of secret task forces which operate under the guideline of cutbacks and the bottom dollar rather than of a trust relationship which the federal Government might have to look after the best interests of the Indian people.
Native programs were among the first six priority areas in which the Deputy Prime Minister established task forces to find where cuts could be made. It is astounding, Mr. Speaker, that the informal title of big report became "The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s". Perhaps that title is really instructive. It gives us a clue into the mind-set of certain people of Cabinet and the people who were active on that task force report. This is a kind of gallows humour with a racist flavour. It is a suggestion that the Indian people can somehow be stampeded into a situation which leads to extermination, such as the buffalo were.
I would like to emphasize that there is absolutely no relationship between what the report calls for and what the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have been saying in public statements. It is shocking for a Minister of the Crown to have to stand in the House and admit that he was not aware of any policy guidelines given to the task force.
In the report of the task force we see no recognition that the federal Government had a trust responsibility. The emphasis of the report is on legal obligations rather than on programs. It makes a distinction between legal obligations on the one hand, and programs that have grown up on the other. It speaks of beefing up the Government's legal services so that it can beat back any challenges that Indian people might be interested in making to past government mismanagement. While the Government wants to beef up its own legal services, it calls for a cut-back on legal funding to Indian people who might want to test certain aspects in court. It says that it is contemplating this cut-back in legal funding to Indian people because possibly the Charter of Rights and Freedoms could prohibit the granting of legal aid to one group but not to another.
I would like to remind government Members that Section 15(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which talks about equality, says:
Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
It is obvious that the task force did not even do its homework with regard to the Canadian Constitution. It is dragging up all kinds of spurious reasons for making cut-backs.
Sally Weaver has written a very interesting book called Making Canadian Indian Policy: The Hidden Agenda, 19681970. In that book she details the duplicity of the early Trudeau years in the area of making Indian policy. While the Government had set up an elaborate system of consultation with Indian peoples across the country, at the same time a

May 10, 1985
Supply
secret task force was busy developing what was later released as the 1969 white paper. That paper proposed turning Indian programs over to the provinces, termination of the Department of Indian Affairs, and eventual assimilation of the Indian people.
Weaver quotes from a former Liberal Minister of Indian Affairs, the Hon. Art Laing, who wrote:
The prime condition in the progress of the Indian people must be the development by themselves of a desire for the goals which we think they should want.
If ever there was a statement of the way in which different Canadian Governments have operated with regard to Indian people, that is it. It says that somehow the Government has to do the manipulative job of getting Indian people to accept the goals for themselves which the Government has already chosen for them.
We are seeing a repetition of history. The Prime Minister had a very open First Nation's Conference. He sat in the glare of the television lights. He met and talked with aboriginal leaders. He indicated that he was in favour of aboriginal self-government. The task force said that he was consulted, so he must have been aware at that time of the kinds of recommendations the task force was bringing forward.
I want to talk about some of the specific findings of the task force and the Cabinet memorandum that was put forward to try to implement it. First, it talks about cutting the impact funding on resource development. Let us take a look at the Estimates that were tabled by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development this year. On page 61 it says:
In addition to benefiting Indian communities, resource development impacts funding also benefits resource developers and contributes to the security of proposed major resource developments as it enables Indian bands to enter into effective dialogue and negotiations leading to settlement rather than only having recourse to resorting to negative court actions or the use of land claims to protect their interests.
This statement of departmental policy says that resource impact funding is perhaps a better route to follow than land claims. It says that resource impact funding helps Indian people to get a piece of the action. Yet the Cabinet memorandum suggests that resource impact funding should be cut. That document also suggests that land claims should be deferred.
On the issue of housing the Cabinet document suggests that there should be no encouragement for Indian people to build homes in isolated areas where the economy is in some difficulty. It suggests that there should be an even-handed policy to ensure that Indian people are encouraged to move away from reserves and into the urban areas. This brings us back to the 1960s when Indian people were lured into the cities with all kinds of promises of government support.
This year's Estimates point out that between 1980 and 1983 there was a decrease of approximately 5,000 students under the responsibility of the Department of Indian Affairs. The decrease does not necessarily mean that approximately 5,000 students ceased attending school. It means that the Department discontinued funding all off-reserve students, thereby striking them from the departmental data collection process.
In other words, Indian people are being forced to leave reserves because the Government says there will not be any development there and it does not want to encourage people to stay in areas of economic difficulty. The people are forced to go to cities and once they are there, programs which they had been promised are cut.
Government estimates point out that one in three Indian on-reserve homes was crowded as defined by the 1981 census, compared to one in 43 non-Indian homes. This indicates the seriousness of the problem which must be addressed directly. It is going to require more funding, not less. To suggest that somehow we will solve this problem by forcing Indians to leave reserves is repugnant, Mr. Speaker.
We can look at the whole question of land claims policy. It says that negotiations should be deferred until the Government comes to some decision about what its policy is on native self-government. The Minister has indicated a process is in place. He hopes there will be some clarification within six months. We will be watching this whole question of land claims very closely, Mr. Speaker, because there has been a lot of stalling in the past. If there is going to be Indian self-government, which I think is a necessity for the Indian people, then land claims are essential. It is not possible to have Indian self-government without an adequate and decent economic base. That means land claims have to be settled in a just and equitable manner.
We can look at the question of health where the Cabinet's memorandum suggests that deterrence should be introduced. It does not say what kind of deterrence, just that deterrence should be introduced to keep Indian people from making as much use of health services as they do at present. At the same time the Government is cutting back on any consultation process that would help Indian people come up with their own health policies. We are cutting out one policy and we are not helping Indian people to put something else in its place.
The report talks about closing hospitals. At the same time I think there is general recognition that Indian health is far below the national standards. The average life expectancy for an Indian is ten years less than that for a non-Indian.
I see that my time is running out, but if I could have just a few more minutes, Mr. Speaker, I will try to conclude. The Government talks about amalgamating economic programs and using standard business criteria for them. This may be good, this may be bad. What do the Indian people say? What consultation process was followed? In the meantime, we see in the Estimates that there are cut-backs of some $23 million in economic development for Indian people in the current financial year.
I would like to close by reading the final couple of paragraphs of a letter written by Tom Sampson, Chairman of the AFN, Constitution Working Group, who wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He wrote:
May 10, 1985

The level of goodwill and mutual trust that has emerged in our relations with your Government has been seriously undermined. The policy approach is in basic opposition to our objectives as unique and self-governing peoples within Canada. As the Assembly of First Nations, we demand a disclosure of the documents and full clarification of the status of the policy approach and recommendations contained in both the Task Force Report and the Deputy Prime Minister's memorandum to your Cabinet.
To the Assembly of First Nations, it is absolutely essential that the disclosure and clarification be made by you as soon as possible. Upon receipt of the documents, we would respectfully request a meeting to discuss the ongoing constitutional talks.
The divisions within this Government have cast a great deal of uncertainty and distrust not only within this House but among Indian people right across the country, among the Metis and the Inuit people. I think it is incumbent upon the Government to come clean on this issue and to make a full and complete disclosure of all documents. The Government should say what its policy is. Let the Government release the 396-page task force report. That is not a Cabinet document. That can be released. And let us have the Government's official response to that task force so that Indian people can engage in a dialogue with the Government instead of having to fight shadows in the dark.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and then a brief question. I regret that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) is not here. I think we should commend the Minister for keeping the comments he made at the beginning of his speech direct, honest and sincere, as is typical of him. No one in this House could question those values of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The reference he made to Cabinet confidence, I think, is of the strictest importance to the effective process of our system of Government. I do not think that this process should ever be tampered with.
The aboriginal conference referred to by the previous speaker came very close to resolving many of the problems of our aboriginal people. The motion here, which really has not been dealt with effectively by any of the speakers says:
That this House condemns the Government for:
-using the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as the
frontline ambassador of good-will-
Can the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) suggest a different way of being an ambassador? Should we continue to follow the old route of former successive Liberal Governments that really got us nowhere?


James Douglas Manly: I thank the Hon. Member for his question, Mr. Speaker. I do not think I would want to hold up former Liberal Cabinet Ministers as a model for anybody.


Mr. Rompkey:: Why not?


James Douglas Manly: I would like to ask that the present federal Government not follow the policy of the Trudeau Government in 1968-69 when it said one thing in public while something else was happening in the back rooms. That is what this motion is concerned about. That is what we are concerned
Supply
about. On the one hand we are getting statements from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that sound good. I believe he is sincere when he makes them, although I do not believe he has the full confidence of the Cabinet behind him when he makes them. I believe there is a tremendous gap between what that Minister says and what the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) is looking for.
I am very concerned about where the real power in Cabinet lies. The Hon. Member commented that the recent First Ministers' Conference came very close to resolving some of the problems. I do not believe that was the case. I watched the Prime Minister at that conference. I saw him attempting to manipulate the situation rather than dealing with it in a forthright manner when the Provinces of Manitoba and Ontario said on the last day that they were not prepared to go along with the Saskatchewan proposal unless it carried with it the consent of the aboriginal people. The Prime Minister completely ignored that and acted as though he still had the consensus of seven provinces. He manipulated the situation by refusing to recognize some of the real concerns that people raised with respect to some of those issues. In addition, he watered down the whole concept of aboriginal self-government to such an extent that the Indian people felt there was absolutely nothing in it for them. There was no constitutional recognition of their right to Indian self-government but only a vague accord that there would be negotiations. There was nothing that would bind the provinces in any way. In other words, when he said, "Let's put a little bit of water in the wine", there was not much wine left at all but only an awful lot of water, some of which didn't smell very good.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to this Opposition motion and especially the first part of the motion which concerns the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
First of all, I would like to point out that the approach taken by the Government to constitutional discussions on Native issues is a comprehensive one which must consider the many important interests that are at stake. The Prime Minister himself confirmed this in his preliminary remarks at the First Ministers' Conference in April. He insisted, and righly so, on the need for identifying, defining and protecting aboriginal rights, and for doing so within the Canadian Constitution. In fact, it is a process that has been going on for several years or at least several months, and at the First Ministers' Conference held by the former Government in 1984, three of the four national native people's associations made a joint proposal for negotiations leading to the application of their ancestral rights. Among these rights, the right to self-government appears to be the most important and the most fundamental one, and, in fact, the basis for successful negotiations.
The Government of Canada agrees with the native representatives that self-government will help native groups to have

May 10, 1985
Supply
more effective control over everything that concerns and affects them.
Last December, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), and the Minister of Justice, called the first federal-provincial conference held by this Government. At a meeting to prepare for the Constitutional Conference, the Government, through its spokesmen, tabled a proposal to have certain rights of these native groups recognized in the Constitution. We felt that recognition would have to involve agreement on a definition, negotiated by the governments and the groups concerned. The discussions covered the rights issue and especially the very basic issue of native self-government.
Details were worked out at two subsequent preparatory meetings for the April conference and at a number of meetings of senior officials, with the consent and support of native representatives. Generally speaking, the Government shared the view of these representatives that only a constitutional amendment could guarantee protection of ancestral rights and the establishment of a new relationship between the Native groups and the Government of Canada.
We understand the objections of the provinces to enshrining rights which they saw as being rather vague. Nevertheless, the conclusion was that without the constitutional protection or enshrinement of native rights, a special relationship between the Government, the provinces and the native peoples would not survive.
The Government, and I think this deserves some emphasis, considers this a special relationship-a relationship based on trust and honesty and the basis for future developments in the constitutional process. In his opening speech at the First Ministers' Conference last April, the Prime Minister of Canada stated, and I quote:
The Federal Government will not take any unexpected initiatives, nor will it resort to pressure tactics to make you adopt positions that run counter to your principles. We are going to play fair, with our cards on the table.
The Prime Minister went on to stress the place and rights of Native peoples and the inclusion of those rights in the Constitution. He said, and I quote the Prime Minister again:
Recognition in the Constitution of the principle of governmental autonomy would seem to be a primary objective, because it constitutes the most solemn manifestation of the establishing of an indissoluble link, a social contract, between Native peoples and governments.
Mr. Speaker, our first proposal, like the joint proposal made by the native associations, reconciled these two positions. It acknowledged in the Constitution the principle of the right of aboriginal peoples to self-government, leaving aside such issues as powers, fields of jurisdiction and financing to be negotiated later with representatives of the aboriginal peoples. Any agreement resulting from these negotiations should have the same constitutional status and provide the same protection as land claims settlement agreements.
The first proposal paved the way for the discussions I mentioned a moment ago. On every occasion the federal Government proposed a draft constitutional agreement so as to make it possible for all participants to reach agreement. This draft would have led to an amendment on self-Government as early as this year, 1985. This proposal unveiled on the eve of the First Ministers' Conference was three-fold; it included first, full recognition of the rights of aboriginal peoples to self-Government within the Canadian Federation, a point which was to be the subject of negotiated agreements; second, the willingness of the federal and provincial Governments to negotiate with representatives of the aboriginal peoples so as to conclude those agreements; and third, a specific provision stating that those special rights would be constitutionally guaranteed.
During the conference, the majority of participants came close to endorsing an amended version of that proposal in which there was no reference to the willingness or need to negotiate. It could have led to this constitutional amendment rather quickly. We have every reason to believe that we can now count on the support of seven provinces-they represent more than 50 per cent of the Canadian population-to have the amended version accepted. It has been unanimously endorsed by the Council of Native Peoples of Canada and the National Metis Association. However, two of the main groups attending the conference refrained from taking position on that issue. Just the same, the Prime Minister thought that support for the proposal ought to be reassessed at a meeting of interested Ministers to be held later on. As we know now, this meeting will take place next June 5 and 6.
According to the motion now under consideration by the House, Mr. Speaker, the First Ministers' Conference last April was nothing but a public relations exercise intended to reach a consensus which ignored the rights of the aboriginal peoples.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be farther from the truth. Allow me to address a particular point. The native people representatives who took part in the April meeting were all well informed and experienced statesmen. They had been involved in the negotiation process concerning aboriginal rights for many years and they did not express any bitterness, contrary to this opposition motion. To prove my point, I should like to quote directly from the proceedings of the Conference a statement made by the representative of the Native Council of Canada, Mr. Daniels, and I quote:
Mr. Prime Minister, we agree with you, and I am surprised at the provinces' unwillingness to support you more.
Mr. Speaker, does this comment sound to you as a futile exercise in an attempt to achieve a consensus with the Premiers without consideration for the legitimate rights of the aboriginal peoples? Here is another statement made during this conference by Mr. Jim Sinclair, who was the representative of the Metis people, and I quote:
May 10, 1985

This is truly a historical event when a commitment is made for the first time for the Constitutional recognition of the Indian people's right to self-government.
Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, he was referring to the government's Constitutional proposal.
The Government had achieved this series of extraordinary successes in fewer than five months. During the Conference, even the native representatives were prepared to recognize this progress.
Those were not the only comments made at the time. A great many letters sent later on to the government and especially to the Prime Minister by several Indian chiefs provide a great testimony. These comments and the results obtained clearly demonstrate that the Prime Minister did his utmost to reach a consensus which, in our view is essential if we want to move forward and protect in the Constitution the rights of the aboriginal peoples. The Prime Minister was expressing the Government's intention to pursue that goal at the next First Ministers' Conference, and he repeated it afterwards in a broadcast statement that was made public on April 8, 1985. Far from ignoring the legitimate rights of native peoples, this Government has made giant strides in the process of recognizing those rights. And we intend to keep on doing so.
I would hate to conclude without taking this opportunity because I am well informed, seeing the everyday actions of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie).. . Under the Prime Minister's reponsibility, they have held since last September quite a number of meetings and discussions both with the Provinces and the native groups. And I am absolutely sure that under their guidance, under their responsibility, and because of their determination and energy, we will manage to finalize a constitutional draft that will, first, allow native groups in this country to find within Canada the place they would like to have, and, second, reassure and assure the Provinces that they can, in the overall negotiations, and at all stages put their views forward, in order that in the future our native groups and the whole of Canada can live under a Constitution which provides that each and everyone will have the essential rights to their freedom and collective rights.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), who has just delivered a very wonderful address in the interests of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), how he would respond to the press release which I have in my hand coming from the Assembly of First Nations, which says this:
This Cabinet memorandum shockingly outlines a strategy to assimilate Indian people beginning with the 1985 Budget speech. The "Communications Strategy" outlined in the document indicates that the plan of the Government is to tell the Indian people and the Canadian public one thing; and meanwhile to begin to implement the opposite. A "buffalo jump" was a method of exterminating vast herds of buffalo to make way for colonial expansion.
Supply
The press release goes on:
Elimination of the buffalo was equivalent to elimination of the livelihood of Indian people-an act of genocide. The Prime Minister's initiative to take dollars away from Indian people is proof that the strategy outlined in the Cabinet memorandum is being implemented. The object is clearly to kill the political effectiness of the First Nations-to exterminate the "body politic".
It concludes by saying the following:
The Prime Minister has said many wonderful things-
Just as the Minister did.
-to the public and to the Indian people in support of the unique rights of the First Nations. The initiatives of this Government, intended to stifle the political effectiveness of the First Nations makes a mockery of the Prime Minister's statements.

Now, could the Minister respond to that?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that there is a normal way to run a country, and that is to analyze and comment on official documents and not papers found in trash cans. The document in question is not an official Government document, which means that comments which may seem interesting at first glance relate to something which is not Government policy. If we and other people were to act and develop our policies according to excerpts from official documents, I am afraid we would not be in a position to run the country very well.
The concerns expressed by the Hon. Member when she quoted from the document could be valid if they were based on a document officially recognized as reflecting the position of the Government of Canada, but we all know that such is not the case, and that is indeed why the motion now under consideration is so unreal. It is because it is based on a document which does not reflect the official position of the Government of Canada. That is the position as stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), by the Minister concerned, namely the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), or else by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) when constitutional problems arise. They are responsible for announcing the will and the decisions of the Government. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member's comments are not relevant to an official Government document.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) on a supplementary.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I did not formulate this press conference or this press release. It was the Assembly of First Nations that did. Supportive of the Assembly of First Nations' point of view is that of the Cree regional authority. [Translation]
-the Cree regional authority, a group you should know quite well since they are based in Quebec, and they too have filed complaints and they insist on having a meeting to obtain some clarification. And I think that as Minister of Communications,

May 10, 1985
Supply
the Hon. Minister realizes that something like this could light the powder keg and destroy all the goodwill that has been built up. I am sure he realizes that none of us want this, and I hope the Minister will respond to a request by the Cree regional authority and the Assembly of First Nations and arrange a meeting with them, and that he will provide an explanation through the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Marcel Masse: I could not agree more with the Hon. Member. It is unfortunate that a political party should use a document that is not official to scare the Native peoples, at a time when we must find ways, and that is what the Government is doing, within the framework of a dialogue with the provinces and the Native peoples, to find a solution within the framework of the Canadian Constitution.
I think the Hon. Member was absolutely right to deplore, without necessarily saying so but that is what she was thinking, I am sure, that a political party should use a document which it knows perfectly well is not the Government's official document, to scare people. And that is what is so unfortunate, and 1 think the New Democratic Party is showing incredible intellectual dishonesty in this debate. What this political party is seeking above all is its own personal interests, its interests as a party and not those of the Indians. They are trying to build their future on a foundation of intellectual dishonesty, and I am convinced that both Indians and Canadians will remember how these people managed to spread fear and disrupt the dialogue between the Indians and the Government, a dialogue that is absolutely essential. And if that dialogue and the constitutional amendments materialize, and I sincerely hope they do, it will be thanks to the Prime Minister's initiative and not to the unfortunate action taken by the New Democratic Party.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister's references to intellectual dishonesty sound rather strange coming from a member of the Conservative Party. If members of the Conservative Party are concerned about intellectual honesty, let them release the 396-page task force report, which is not a Cabinet document and does not need to be protected by any cloak of secrecy. Let them come clean about the whole status of this other document of which we have been speaking.
How is it possible for a high-level task force appointed by the Deputy Prime Minister to bring forth a report that is so completely at variance with the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs? How is it possible for that task force to do its job in complete isolation from everything the Prime Minister is supposed to have been saying for the last six months?
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, such a question could only come from our friends of the New Democratic Party. Not quite used
to discussions and research work, rather inclined to accept as the final word any instruction from higher-up, they just do not seem to know how a Government operates. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) set up a series of discussion meetings to review existing programs in all Departments. Any new Government coming into office has to review such programs. Within that context and as a result of lengthy discussions, documents are produced. It is quite possible that a document such as the one referred to-I have not seen it, it might just be the twenty-seventh version preceding the one we have now-has somehow been leaked to you by somebody, and you are now trying to claim that it represents Government policy. That is very dishonest, and you know it.
Mr. Speaker, Government policy will be made public by someone whose responsibility it is to do that, not by public officials who leak bits and pieces of committee proceedings in brown envelopes. The Hon. Member and his Party are aware of that. They are trying to play a game of political one-upmanship with a document they got through a nameless sender.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, we would understand the Government's position much better if it were prepared to release the final reports to this House so that Members could see them and so that the Indian people could see them as well. What kind of policy guidelines were given to the task force when it began its work? Did it operate in complete isolation from the professed policy of the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible or was there some kind of dialogue? What guidelines were given to the task force?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, I will say that it is obvious that the government is going to make public its policy in due course, when it has completed its discussions with everybody. It will make public the government policy when it comes to the conclusion that the policy should be made public.
Secondly, as far as the guidelines which were given are concerned, I will point out that the programs must be reviewed; groups of people in all areas are entitled to their own ideas. However, the fact that, at a certain time, some people expressed a certain idea is not reason enough to make it government policy in the end. It is a step whereby some people expressed some ideas. But the government policy will be made public either by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) when it is felt that it is in the public interest to disclose what the government policy will be in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question and answer period is now over. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).
May 10, 1985


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the opposition motion moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). It is unfortunate that we feel the need to raise this issue, but recent events have forced us to bring this important subject to the attention of all Hon. Members.
The media issued press reports on possible cut-backs in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the proposed changes to the Indian Act have created an air of uncertainty for both status and non-status Indians across the country. It would appear that, contrary to Tory promises made during the 1984 election campaign, disadvantaged members of our society will suffer as a result of government policies. It is unclear, however, what exactly are the government policies. The Government's actions are not a just response to Indian concerns regarding the mechanism of self-government.
As a member of the International Helsinki Watch Committee, if I had to report right now to that committee on the situation in Canada, it would be very difficult not to cite the lack of care and concern that is the hallmark of the administration of the Indian Act. In fact, the long 100 years of injustice would be something that would be unfortunate but would have to be clearly enunciated. I would be ashamed to have to enunciate the litany of injustices that have been inflicted upon our native people.
I refer to the words of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior for I agree with his analysis. He has said that we as Canadians have our own version of apartheid, a most nefarious piece of legislation, one that has disenfranchised men and mostly women and always with the most ridiculous of reasoning. As I participated on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and heard the evidence of over 105 groups, I was absolutely horrified.
I would like now to put this present-day nightmare aside. I would not like us to lose sight of the fact that in the determination of aboriginal rights, equality must prevail. These two issues, the right to self-government and the right to equality, must go hand in hand. It is basically and fundamentally a question of human rights.
The Government has touted its great consultation process, and consult it has. That is so if one can define consulting as being the process by which a party presenting its concerns is speaking to those who have deaf ears. The word used to mean a two-way process involving give and take and a general learning, growing and open approach leading to some consensus or resolution of issues. However, we do not see much evidence of that when it comes to the native or aboriginal peoples. This is obvious from the objections of Indian people themselves concerning the constitutional process, departmental funding, amendments to the Indian Act and the latest scam of the Nielsen "Buffalo Jump" report.
The Tory Government also has a credibility problem when it comes to its stated objective of removing discrimination from the Indian Act. The Minister's laudable principle of equality is
Supply
simply not being met, and Indian men and women, both status and non-status, are dissatisfied with the Government's actions in this regard. Principles are not enough; we must have some action. We have to carry through with the deeds that demonstrate a real commitment.
I know that the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) has had to fight in Cabinet for money for his programs and I know that he is well-meaning Minister. But let us not pretend that equality has been achieved, and let this Minister not continue to say that equality has been achieved. Certainly, equality has not been achieved. Some non-status Indians will regain their status in band memberships and their names will appear on the Department's lists. However, not everyone will regain that status.
In the 1980s, we have finally started to address the issues and to move toward a partnership. We have started to listen. I believe that the Penner report was the first step. Section 35 of the Constitution Act recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples- Indian, Inuit, Metis and non-status Indians. While Section 25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that the Charter cannot be construed to abrogate or derogate from existing treaty or other rights of aboriginal peoples, those two provisions affirm the place of native groups in Canadian society in a particular and distinct way. The principles are in place. It remains to find the mechanisms for the application.
In order to identify and define native rights for later inclusion, the Constitution Act called for a Constitutional conference between Canada's First Ministers, native leaders and the territorial Governments. That conference, which was held in 1983, resulted in an accord, which subsequently became the first amendment to the Constitution which was proclaimed in June, 1984. I believe this legal framework is necessary for a new relationship, based on mutual respect and defined aboriginal rights. But as we saw at the Constitutional conference which was held this April, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) failed to get the provinces to agree to proposals which would have given the aboriginal people the rights which they sought. He gave them his guarantee that if they agreed to the principles behind the proposals, without entrenching them, he would personally ensure that those rights would be defined after consultation with the provinces. I think one should read that differently. What he said was that once the provinces agreed to what they would like to negotiate, then they would talk about what is appropriate.
I must give the native leaders credit. They were not fooled by the Prime Minister's empty promises. I was there. I saw and watched what went on. It was a fascinating process of the playing off of differences and incredible labour negotiation tactics. But what was obvious was the great differences to be found between the provincial Premiers, the acceptance of the role of the provinces by native peoples, and the deep differences between patrilineal and matrilineal societies and their approaches to the issues. The accord which was suggested by

May 10, 1985
Supply
the Prime Minister would have been a travesty, had it been accepted, for all parties concerned.
Given the "Buffalo Jump" proposal to cut funding for native programs-never mind whether they were found in la pou-belle, whether they were official or unofficial, or any of the excuses that are being put forward-one must acknowledge that where there is smoke there is fire. If there is a beginning document, it indicates some form of thought and some form of action.
I think it was very wise for the leaders of the aboriginal groups to hold back. This approach to Indian affairs is totally unacceptable. We all need to plan. We must prepare budgets to meet the changing circumstances. It is my view that the Government is denying to native people with its current actions a thoughtful approach to autonomy. It is impossible to plan without knowing what revenue will be available, from where it will come and how it will be spent. Planning in a vacuum is not possible.
I heard the Minister talk about the give and take and the exchange, but that still does not deposit a firm financial funding plan. It is not clear. The process is one thing. That is great. But how can we expect Indian people to plan if they do not know how many dollars they will have and what Treasury Board will approve? The Minister talked about giving aboriginal peoples more control over their own affairs, yet we continue, in our white man's way, to interfere and to perpetuate discrimination. I think that is a very strange way of going about it.
Concerns have been expressed about the ability of some bands to accommodate more members. The Minister is sympathetic to those concerns, and I believe he is sincere. But the Government's actions indicate otherwise. Fear over the lack of infrastructure, schools, roads and houses and insufficient funds to improve conditions are a real impediment to the integration of the reinstated members.
The lack of direction of the Government on native affairs and economic development has contributed to the uncertainty which was created by proposals to restore status and band membership to those who had lost their rights under the discriminatory sections of the Indian Act, in particular the infamous Clause 12(1 )(b), for which Canada was found in contravention of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that there was a violation of Article 27 of the Covenant, and thus a denial of guarantees that persons belonging to minorities may enjoy their own culture.
Since the hearings of the Lavell and Lovelace case, Canada has ratified the United Nations Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. In addition, Section 15, the equality clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has come into effect. That clause states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. There is a subsection
to that section which does not preclude any law, program or activity which has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups, including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Indian women and their children believe that they would be protected by the Charter, but the Government's policies, if not changed, will force them to appeal to the courts for their rights. I do not believe that should be allowed to happen. It is incumbant on the Government to pass laws which conform to the Charter in both spirit and letter. The protection of individual and collective rights is part of the Canadian mosaic. We see in our Charter concern for the approaches to freedom and non-discrimination obligations. Indian collective rights prevail for the most part. We see collective rights for language in Section 23; multiculture in Section 27; aboriginal rights in Sections 25, 35 and 37; and guarantees for equality to men and women in Sections 15 and 28.
In our desire to rectify the wrongs of the past 117 years, we want to move as quickly as we can toward self-determination. We want to be respectful of differences, patrilineal and matrilineal cultural backgrounds. We want justice to be done. That being said, and having listened to all shades of opinion, the largest consensus has been that every man, woman and child who was enfranchised, or who is a descendant of an enfranchised native person, who so wishes, should have the right to affirm his or her cultural identity as an Indian person within the Indian nation, on Indian land. It must be recognized that aboriginal peoples are part of today's modern world, and that neither under the Canadian Charter of Rights, nor under any of the international covenants which have been signed by Canada, is discrimination based on sex an acceptable principle.
I fully recognize and acknowledge that in dealing with the Indian Act we are dealing in a very complex area. I fully recognize that the Minister is trying to be very cautious. I also recognize that the issue of Indian women is only part of the over-all concern. However, Mr. Speaker, it is only right and just that full equality between men and women be restored and that they and their children and their children's children shall not be part of the political manoeuvring of other agendas, whether it be the right to self-determination, to autonomy, to band self-determination, to lands, to equity or to trust funds. These women and their descendants must be restored to their rightful place, and that includes sharing in the decision-making process which will directly or indirectly impact on their lives, which means participating in the development of native band codes or practices.
Status must be returned to those who were disenfranchised, along with their rights to return to their tribal lands if they so wish. That is what we must accept and what we must do. We must accept the obligation to keep family units intact, which means status and band membership for all who are affected. In no way can we sanction the separation of husbands and wives or women and their children. The splitting of families is not
May 10, 1985

the goal of this exercise, nor is it the Canadian way of life, but it may well be the result. Once this central issue of equality is resolved, only then can we address the agenda of self-government and let the Minister's agenda-not that of the Deputy Minister-begin to prevail.
This weekend we celebrate Mother's Day. Let this be the kind of Mother's Day we can all share and rejoice in, one of family togetherness for all generations. Let us set an example of the fullest expression of human rights for all who share this wonderful land. Let us be people of our word. Let us remove discrimination, not just displace it.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in listening to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Fine-stone). She mentioned that she had been very interested in the fascinating process of the First Ministers' Conference. When she was there she had an opportunity to see how the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) operated and she also saw how some of the provinces operated. She saw the reaction of some of the provinces, particularly the western provinces, to the whole question of aboriginal self-government. I think she got some impression of their over-all approach to aboriginal questions. In the light of that experience, would the Hon. Member care to comment on the proposal which was in the task force report and in the Cabinet memorandum that more responsibility for Indian Affairs should be turned over to the provinces? In light of what she saw of the provincial reaction at the First Ministers' Conference, how would she feel about that?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, that question was one that I asked myself as I sat and watched an incredible exercise in labour negotiations. I particularly responded to the Saskatchewan proposal, which I believe the Hon. Member mentioned earlier, Alberta's reluctance, the very sensitive remarks of the New Brunswick Minister, and the obvious discomfort of many of those Prime Ministers who were placed in a situation of thinking of themselves first and of the aboriginal peoples second. They were thinking of the potential for loss of land, income, and all kinds of things. I do not really believe that the primary interest of the aboriginal peoples was the primary interest in the minds of all those Premiers. It may well have been that the wish of the federal Government was that that would happen, but with all of the manipulation and manoeuvring which was going on-and it was pretty obvious that plenty of the coffee breaks included some twisting of arms-it was easy to see the isolation of the Assembly of First Nations and the NCC groups as they differed, the Inuits as they suffered, and the Metis as they were trying to find their proper place. I would say that the provinces and the aboriginal peoples have not yet found their proper and comfortable home and, for the most part, these aboriginal people feel more comfortable and have a greater sense of trust in the federal Government, in which they feel the responsibility was vested in the first place.


Mr. Holtmann:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). In her experience with the past administrations' handling of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Supply
does she feel that it was on the right track? Does she feel that it was taking the right attitude and approach to the problems which many native people have? I would like to have her comments on what has happened before. I want to know whether the Hon. Member felt that the previous administration, in its wisdom, was tackling this problem in the right manner.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the question is one of interest. First, I was not here then, so I cannot respond to what was done by the previous administration. I sat with the Hon. Member and watched and listened, as he did, to all these groups which appeared, and my impression, in total candour, was that something has to be done about the bureaucrats and the functionaries. I do not think any of the Ministers over the last 100 years have had a darn thing to say. What I think has happened is that we have lost ground to those who wheel and deal with the rights of deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and Indian agents, and it is the Indian agents who remove status and disenfranchise left, right and centre. The Hon. Member heard, as I did, the most incredible stories, and I don't even know if the Ministers knew about them.
So the Hon. Member should not try to dump on the past Liberal administration. I was not there so I cannot account for that. However, what has happened over the last 117 years? I think that for a few of those years the Hon. Member's Party was in office.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote).


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, actually, I have a question I would like to ask the Hon. Member. Before she came here, before she was elected to this House, she must have kept herself informed about what was going on in our country. I was saying that even though you were not here in this House, you kept abreast of things. I suppose you were in Canada!


Sheila Finestone: I was in Quebec.


Clément M. Côté: So, you knew what was going on in this country, especially in Quebec. Has the situation deteriorated to that extent these last few months? We must come to grips with a problem that existed before and the Liberals were in office for at least fifty years. What did they do?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).


Sheila Finestone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy to answer this question. The day before yesterday, I had a meeting with native women of the province of Quebec who came here and were bitterly disappointed. They thought they would find friends among you but they are disappointed that you have . . . You tricked them. You approach the whole

May 10, 1985
Supply
Indian matter with some mistrust. On one hand, you emphasize all the nice promises, and on the other hand, you put obstacles on their way and, you make them feel as non-persons. If you wish, I will later circulate some documents and testimonies of those Quebec native women who are not very happy with your government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. [English]


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, as I stand today to address this motion, Mr. Speaker, I am indeed tremendously shocked. We have heard Hon. Members of the Opposition today describe how they feel that our Government has let the native people down some garden path. That is a totally insane accusation. I can honestly say, Mr. Speaker, that if the members of the New Democratic Party gave us their Regina Manifesto today, we would find that it would not help one single native in this country. However, they do not exactly throw that out in the open because there would not be an economic growth opportunity for natives at all. Those are the facts of life, yet they stand here and condemn the Government for having had more consultations in eight months than had probably taken place in the previous 25 years of Liberal Government. The Members who sat on the committee dealing with the removal of discrimination, which has existed for so many years, heard a large number of witnesses giving testimony. When the previous Government brought in a Bill, which dies on the Order Paper, it involved this much worth of material. But since December I can tell you that we have had that much material, and that is the difference. That is consultation. That is hearing witnesses, the native people who gave us their impression of how we should improve the Bill. They gave us their impression of what was wrong with it. That is the kind of process this Government has undertaken. To say that we have a hidden agenda is to make a total mockery of what happened.
If we look at members of the Liberal Opposition here today, and they are small in number, for 25 years they did nothing but bring the economy of Canada so deeply into debt that we wonder if we can pull it out, even with the greatest amount of effort. They did that to create jobs, but they left us with almost one and a half million unemployed when we started eight months ago. They went from a $4 billion deficit not so many years ago to a total national debt of $180 billion. But they feel they can stand up and bring a motion such as this to the floor of the House. It is simply scare tactics applied to the native people who are relying on us to help them regain what they have lost over hundreds of years. This is the attitude which shocks me and my colleagues in the Government, and I cannot stand here without illustrating my deep feelings about that ridiculous motion we have to debate here today.
The motion refers to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) as the frontline ambassador of goodwill. Will someone tell me what is wrong with having a Minister of goodwill? Should he go around to all the
reserves and have the native representatives come up and accuse him of not having goodwill for them? Should he tell them to go and solve their own problems? Is that what the Opposition is suggesting? Yet it is condemning him for being an ambassador of goodwill. For goodness' sake, what kind of sense does that make?
I have travelled with the Minister and listened to the concern of many Indian leaders. We have listened and the Minister has addressed each and every individual problem. Certainly he has not been able to visit the 500 and some odd bands which exist in Canada, but in eight months he has probably visited more bands, more chiefs and councils, more native organizations, than probably any previous Minister.
That is the consultation process we began, and we are going to continue it. That is what we are here to do. Certainly we are not going to come up with a total solution to every single problem. Certainly the native groups will not have a total solution to the problems with which they come to us. But we have to find a balance. It is not going to satisfy everyone, but if we do not continue on this route, then the Opposition can say to us that we have not acted in good faith. The committee sat for many, many hours trying to work out amicable solutions for all the parties concerned.
Let us just consider Bill C-31 for a minute, and compare it to the previous attempt in Bill C-47,1 believe, brought forward by the Liberal Government. Bill C-47 involved a total of just under 20 hours of consideration and some nine witnesses. The Bill was studied for five hours in camera, a few amendments were made and it was sent to the House, where it ultimately died on the Order Paper. However, regarding Bill C-31, we have had 52 witnesses and in excess of 75 hours of committee hearings. Can anyone over there honestly say that that is not consultation? Not if you compare it to what there was before, because it makes a mockery of what went on before, doesn't it? This never happened before. Members of the Opposition sat in on those meetings and listened, and even proposed amendments, which we accepted! Yet they sit there and condemn this Government. I say, shame!
We made amendments resulting from witnesses' testimony. If that is not consultation, then I would like Members opposite to tell me how to do it better. We added a new clause to Bill C-31 which says that the Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament not later than two years after this Act is assented to a report on the implementation of the amendments, which report shall include detailed information on the number of people who have been registered, the number entered on each band list and so on. In other words, we are going to review what we have done to find out if it has had the effect of solving some of these major problems which were created many, many years before. That is a review. We are not saying it is perfect, but we are saying we are prepared to look at it again to see if we can make it still better. That is the review process which I think was lacking so many times before in any legislation which went through this House. Yet we are criticized.
May 10, 1985

I can take good constructive criticism. I can understand when someone says we should have taken longer. I can understand that sometimes it is very difficult for a Government of this country to take more time to implement what is needed. In the past we have debated some very serious problems which needed quick solutions that affected farmers or other groups which were in distress. We have had all-Party support for resolutions because veryone recognized the necessity. Surely this is a far cry from what has happened previously. I cannot stand here and continue to condemn the past. If we continue to do that, we will not make good legislators for the future. We must have visions for tomorrow and do the best possible job for the people of Canada.
This is probably the worst activity of the Opposition that we have seen recently. It attempted to use a scare tactic with the native people of the country. Once the opposition Members had made a few statements in the House they ran outside and said that this is a terrible Government. They did that to get as much publicity as they could. I do not feel that they can be proud of that.
In debate in the House today someone said that there is a hidden agenda and a document has been found. They know it is not an official document, but they waved it in front of the microphone in an attempt to look good next week. The time will come when they will see how foolish their activities are. They are not helping anyone.
We have heard speeches about Indian self-government. There are many opinions on what that is. The Government will eventually turn over self-administration without destroying the culture of native groups. I am sure that is the right way to go. However, there is an important factor which we cannot leave out. We must bring them to the table to discuss how we can best help them achieve self-government which will work within the confines of the Government of Canada for the benefit of all Canadians. The consultation process must carry on. It is the job of the Government and of the Opposition to hear those ideas in order to best help the native people and make them proud again, as they once were. We must give them some meaning again, especially in those areas where they have virtually nothing but dollars from the federal Government to keep them going from day to day. The challenge for the Government and the Opposition is to accomplish that rather than to make political waves. Let us look toward tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
While self-government will not automatically ensure economic development, and a stronger economic base will not automatically ensure self-government, I believe that efforts by the Government to foster these interrelated elements will. Such efforts will give communities more scope to make decisions about shifting resources and investment decisions.
The most fundamental part of this is education. Very few of us would have been able to achieve success in our businesses or as parliamentarians without education, a knowledge of the country and of common-sense activities. Education must be
Supply
the thrust of the Government to help those who do not have adequate education. I do not necessarily refer to our type of education with regard to the native people of Canada, but that which is important to them to sustain their growth and culture. That is the important point, Mr. Speaker. As a country we must grow economically sound in order to help those less fortunate than us. We can only do that by putting our economy back together.
An Hon. Member from the Liberal Party indicated that the Department of Indian Affairs has created more problems than it has solved. He made a very valid statement. Through talking to many native leaders I have learned that their bands have lost funding due to improper management by the Department. This is a very sad truth which the Government must address. It is inconceivable that a Department has been allowed to grow so quickly and not be responsible to the people it was assigned to assist. It is a challenge to all Members of Parliament to ensure that money allocated for native development and culture goes to the natives rather than to people in between. To that end I dedicate myself, my Government, and the Opposition.


Mr. Caldwell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Hon. Member on his presentation. He gave us all a good insight into the problems faced by our native people. I know he was speaking from the heart. 1 understand he has several Indian bands in his riding.
Does he think that there has been irreparable damage caused by the leak this week of that document? How long does he think it will take to heal the rift that has developed among the native people?


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, that will be determined in the weeks and months ahead. I believe that those who are most harshly affected by the poverty levels of native people will fear these accusations the most. Their only resource is monies from the federal Government, whether through welfare or another type of assistance. As you well know, many native people do not have a level of education which allows them to go on to bigger and better jobs, inside or outside their community. If they feel the money that they are receiving will be cut, it will be very damaging to our objectives of helping them find better opportunities.
Yes, I think we have to be sensitive to their needs and not allow this type of unfounded dialogue to be scattered around like paper in a wastebasket. We have to be very careful. We are dealing with people's lives. I for one would not like to see those people, the very needy, who need every source of Government funding to put bread and butter on their table or to be able to buy bedding, the basics while there is no opportunity to get a job, be subjected to further poverty. When there is no opportunity, it would shock them should those minimal funds be cut. That is not the intent of this Government. It never should be. In this country we have economic problems but we do not have to take away what is essential for living, which is

May 10, 1985
Supply
not enough in many cases. Never should those people be denied that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments?
Resuming debate. The Eton. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words on the motion filed by our colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). First, I am not quite as optimistic as the Member who just sat down about the intentions of the Government across the way. I have known the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) for many, many years. I have known him for 17 or 18 years and I suspect his recommendations might be a bit more draconian than the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Inter lake (Mr. Holtmann) believes them to be. He was a tough guy in the opposition in this House for many years. He was a rather conservative Conservative. He believed in a lot of restraint and cut-backs. He did not have too much sympathy for social spending and programs of the sort. I just want to caution the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake that he should not get himself too far off on a cliff because he is liable to fall off in a few weeks, a few months, or a year or two years' time when we see some of the ramifications of this paper put out by the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada.
I think that the memorandum is very serious. It is a memorandum to Cabinet under the name of the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada. It is dated April 12, 1985, which was four weeks ago. This is a report of the ministerial task force on native programs. As one goes through this particular task force report one finds example after example of possibilities of really severe cut-backs to programs for the native people of Canada. These seem to fly in the face of the rhetoric, the style and the image of the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie).
I wish the Deputy Prime Minister were a little more honest and direct and I wish he would confirm that this is his document. It is under his name. It has his in-put and he is responsible for it. It seems to me to be a rather cynical and hypocritical document from a man who, when in opposition, was so quick to condemn the Liberal Government of the day for not being honest, above board, not having freedom of information laws, not being more direct, not having openness in government. All of those things were very big issues for the Deputy Prime Minister and indeed for the Leader of his Party last summer during the election campaign. Now this Government is carrying on in the same old way. The faces on the front bench have changed. The Government has not changed. We have the same old bureaucrats, the same old consensus and the same old studies.
I think the time has come in this House for a back-bench revolt by members of the Conservative Party. Where are those who have the individualism, guts and willingness to get up and say no? That revolt will have to come some day, Mr. Speaker. It has come before in this House when we had massive majorities, insensitive and uncaring majorities that trampled
on the rights of ordinary citizens. It will come again, Mr. Speaker. We are already seeing signals around this country of shifting sentiments in provincial politics where Conservatives in many provinces are losing support. I refer not only to Ontario, but to Newfoundland, the by-elections in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia where our Party picked up two seats last fall. We see the signals all over. Even in Saskatchewan, the Conservative Government of Premier Devine had its popularity drop from 62 per cent to 42 per cent in the riding of Thunder Creek in a by-election to replace Colin Thatcher. All of these are signs that people do not like big, insensitive government and muted, quiet back-benchers who are afraid to speak their minds. If there is ever a better issue, it is an issue like this.
I will take you very briefly through some of the important things in this report, Mr. Speaker. Even the code name in this report is one that I do not think is very complimentary to the Indian people of this land. The code name is "Buffalo Jump of the 1980s". I have eight Indian reserves in my riding. I grew up on a small farm adjacent to one reserve, a mile and a half from the second. I went to school all my life with Indian children, into high school and university as well. I know that kind of attitude is not one that is appreciated by the Indian people. They want Members of this Parliament in all Parties to stand up and speak out against this type of a document.
In terms of things that are substantive in this report, let us look at page 17. There is a recommendation to eliminate around $300 million worth of spending from 1986 to 1988. In 1986-87 the amount is $134 million, and in 1987-88 it is $178 million. Perhaps even more seriously the report says on page 17 that one of the objectives should be to contain the rapid escalation of future costs that would derive from leaving existing programs unchecked.
We have just heard a very passionate speech delivered by the Hon. Member from Manitoba about the Indian people not having enough money for food, bedding, clothing and medicine and that his Government would not touch programs to harm the native people of Canada.


James Douglas Manly: We will see.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, we will see. Here is the most powerful Minister in the Government of Canada, the Deputy Prime Minister, the guy who has the hammer in terms of the controls, recommending in his memorandum that a look be taken at cutting existing programs, that they should not be left unchecked.
Let me go further, Mr. Speaker, on to page 23 of this report. Here is another argument why there should be concern. On this page, in Section No. 7 the Government calls for "a review of the practice of funding Indian groups to clarify points of law".
We have a tremendous debate in this country with the Charter of Rights, the Constitution, Indian self-government and the aboriginal conferences. We have a practice in this country of helping to fund some of the legal costs of native people. That is being done by the federal Government. It is a
May 10, 1985

good practice and a good precedent. But what we see here in this memo is a call to review that practice, to curtail that kind of funding. At the same time, if you go back a page in the report to Section 5 on page 21, you find that the Government is talking about beefing up the legal services of the federal Government of Canada to fight these very same Indians or aboriginal people in court, while cutting back on their funding and legal services.
In the one or two minutes that I have left, let me refer you as well to the whole question of jobs, Mr. Speaker. On page 29, instead of talking about putting more money in the hands of Indian people for self-government, self-direction, self-control and self-reliance, the Government is talking about referring more and more to job creation in the private sector. I have eight reserves in my riding. The private sector provides but a pittance of employment to the Indian people on those eight reserves. What they need is more federal funding in their own hands where they can control it with true and just economic democracy.
Supply
What about health care, Mr. Speaker? On page 39 the Government is talking about closing hospitals and about deterrence to health care. In my province we had a Liberal Government under Ross Thatcher defeated, because it brought in deterrence fees to health care prior to 1971. Is this the kind of system that the Conservative Government across the way is talking about? I hope not, Mr. Speaker. I invite my friend on the government back-benches to rise as one and speak out against this uncaring and insensitive Government led by the Member for the Yukon, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that in accordance with Standing Order 62(11), the proceedings on the motion have expired.
The House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.