1985-10-11

Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, for years the Cyprus Anvil Mine in Faro, Yukon, was a mainstay of the territorial economy. Between 1970 and 1982, when it was in full production, the mine provided close to 700 jobs and represented about 40 per cent of the Yukon economy. In 1982, when metal prices fell, Dome Mines announced a shutdown at Faro. The Liberal Government of the day moved to soften the blow and helped finance a strip-mining project which employed 250 workers. This initiative helped keep the mine viable. With some urgent action by the present Government, it is still possible to prevent Faro, Yukon, from becoming another Schefferville.
The company which has agreed to buy the mine awaits certain Government decisions, lower power rates, and other financial considerations. The Yukon winter is fast approaching. The company's plans to resume mining and milling operations this year become less attainable with each day's delay. Negotiations with the smelters have to begin soon. The opportunity to reopen this mine will be lost unless decisions are made quickly.
The Government has hundreds of millions of dollars for bailing out badly managed banks. Reopening the Cyprus Anvil Mine means 500 jobs for Yukon. Yukon needs those jobs.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, every month in Guatemala 80 to 90 people disappear. The Group for Mutual Assistance for Families of the Disappeared, or GAM, seeks information on disappeared family members. However, in March, President Mejia Victores said: "To take steps toward the reappearance alive of the disappeared is a subversive act".
Subsequently, two of GAM's leaders were tortured and murdered. One had his chest and skull bashed in and his tongue removed. In the other case, the death squads pulled out the fingernails of a two-year-old child before murdering the child with his mother. In spite of such torture and intimidation, GAM persists in its demand that the Government account for the missing family members. Each Friday it holds a vigil for this purpose.
GAM worries that the November 3 election will lead to a situation even worse than that prevailing today. It fears the military might try to clean out the clandestine prisons before it transfers power. Alternatively, it fears the new administration might use the election to close the books on the problem of the disappeared and say: "That is a problem of the previous Government. It has nothing to do with us".
In the name of humanity and justice, GAM asks us to demand that the present Guatemalan Government give a full accounting of the disappeared people before the election.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Lakeland, Manitoba, no longer have a post office as of September 27. Canada Post closed it down because costs exceeded revenues by less than $70 per week. I received notice of the closure on August 16, and I tried in vain to obtain a stay of execution so that I could study the situation fully. Canada Post told me that the people involved had been consulted and understood the closure. The people were told, not consulted, about the September closure, and they were told by three officials travelling in three separate cars, the cost of which could have kept their post office open for several weeks.
As of September 30, Lakeland people must travel as far as 30 miles to pick up their mail. "No problem", says Canada Post. "The people have to travel many miles to buy groceries anyway, so they can travel that far to get their mail". Does Canada Post use this same logic as it continues with free door-to-door delivery for millions of urban Canadians?
Customers in small towns and in the farm community are losing services at an alarming rate, while at the same time Canada Post continues with expensive delivery in our cities. I suggest that a modest user fee for door-to-door service should be instituted, perhaps the same amount that small-town people pay for post office box rentals.

October 11, 1985
I quote from a letter to me from Canada Post:
You can appreciate the difficulty of our decision in these situations, where we seek to maintain acceptable levels of service while at the same time reducing our deficit.
Acceptable levels of service are not being maintained, and rural Canadians are subsidizing city mail service as Canada Post takes the path of least resistance in deficit reduction.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, the constituents in my riding of Nunatsiaq are extremely concerned that discussions to date aiming for agreement on a political boundary have regrettably been inconclusive due to certain unacceptable preconditions set by the west.
The media have added fuel to the fire as in the case of the editor of the Edmonton Journal, through the CBC Northern Network, referring to the Nunavut Constitutional Conference as a "tin pot banana republic" run by "tin pot dictators". Canadians in the south are forced fed with trivia on what has been happening in Coppermine, such as the press being kicked out of strategy sessions. The reason why the press had been kicked out was because it has been doing all the negotiating for the Western Constitutional Forum.
The continued pressures of fast paced economic and social change in the Arctic regions dictate an urgent need for the creation of a new, more responsive and representative Government. A boundary which includes Beaufort and Kitikmeot regions is fundamental to the survival of the distinct Inuit people occupying the coastal Arctic who share a common culture and unique way of life with the eastern Arctic.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, finally the Conservatives have found their man of steel. The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) has criticized the Prime Minister's Office and has said he will not retract. Lesser men such as the Conservative national director, the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), the Conservatives in Fron-tenac riding, and even the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) have bent in the face of powerful winds blowing from the Prime Minister's Office. But not the Hon. Member from Fundy-Royal.
Earlier this week we awarded the winner for the "retraction of the week" award. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) deserves an award for "the apology of the week". The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) has the "bail-out of the week" award. The New Brunswick Tory
Members of Parliament deserve the "I wasn't at that meeting" award. The campaign buses in Frontenac deserve a "mystery campaign expense of the week" award. Tuna remains the "fish of the week".
Mr. Hitchman deserves the "truth of the week" award for contradicting the Government's statement on the cause of bank failures. It is impossible, Mr. Speaker, to award the "junket of the week" award. The "Taiwan ten", the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean), the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), and the former Minister of Defence are all in contention for that award. The Mercantile and the Continental are trying to avoid yet another award. It is obvious that this Government deserves the "one term Government" award.

[DOT] (U10)



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians tell me they are not particularly interested in tuna fish or speculation as to who might have said what to whom. Canadians gave the Government a mandate to deal with basic bread and butter economic issues: jobs, interest rates, and inflation. That is what they want to hear about.
In just one year, despite inheriting a mess of unprecedented magnitude, this Government has done more for economic renewal than any Government in history. In my Province of Saskatchewan 13,000 more people are employed. The unemployment rate is down to 6.8 per cent. Nationally, there are
300,000	more Canadians at work and 180,000 fewer unemployed. The jobless rate has fallen from 11.6 per cent to 10.1 per cent, the lowest since May of 1982. Housing starts are up 29 per cent, retail sales up 10 per cent, and new manufacturing orders are up 13 per cent.
The Bank of Canada rate on election day was 12.38 per cent and this week it stands at 8.85 per cent. That is the lowest level in seven years. The prime rate has fallen to 10 per cent. Inflation remains steady at or below 4 per cent, the lowest since 1971.
These are hard economic facts which provide clear evidence that the Government's deficit reduction measures are working. The dark cloud is lifting. Canadians have every right to feel good and confident about the economy and, indeed, the future of this nation.
October 11, 1985




Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the strong performance of the Canadian economy since last fall, let me suggest to you some conversations which I expect will take place among Canadian families as they enjoy their Thanksgiving dinners this weekend.
In Trois-Rivieres, Suzanne runs into the dining room exclaiming:

"Mother, I got a job and I am starting on Tuesday." "Very good!"-

-says her mother. "Why, I just read this morning that
175,000	more women are working this year in Canada than last year. I am glad you are one more; it shows the federal Government Canadian Jobs Strategy Program is really paying off."
In a high-rise apartment in Toronto, Elspeth says to her husband as they sip their coffee: "Darling, why don't we go house hunting tomorrow? Interest rates are down three points from a year ago, the lowest in seven years. We can finally afford to carry a mortgage." "You're right," her husband Tom replies, "and with housing starts up 29 per cent I know we will find what we want and finally make our dream come true. It will be great for the kids to have their own home."
In Vancouver, Jane Alexander announces to her family as they sit down in front of a golden turkey: "Well, I am going ahead with that plant expansion. New orders are up 13 per cent. Export markets are really opening up in the Pacific Rim. We will be hiring 100 more employees. A big step, but now is the time."


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



COPYRIGHT


[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
we will not see the same stalling of which the previous Government was guilty.
The next question to answer is: How much is it going to cost and how much of the granting of new rights will benefit the Canadian cultural community? Conservative Members have been quick to dismiss the problem of an outflow of scarce cultural dollars to the United States. Will the Conservative Government ensure the $100 million cut from cultural budgets in Canada will be restored before there is any increased outflow of funds to the U.S.? Or will the Government see to it that President Reagan gets the money he demanded at the Shamrock Summit so it will not go to the Canadian arts community?
These are the questions that the Canadian cultural community needs to have answered. Is the Government going to act now for artists? Will it act fast? Will it advance the interests of the Canadian cultural community?


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is here. Perhaps he can answer my questions. As Canadians are preparing their Thanksgiving dinners the Government's incompetence has served us up another tuna fish surprise. Although on Friday, September 20; on Monday, September 23, and on Tuesday, September 24, the Prime Minister promised the people that all rancid tuna would immediately be taken off the shelves, is it not true that his incompetence may allow that rancid tuna back on the shelves across Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for the question. 1 would have thought it would have come from the Leader of the Opposition but, of course, he is absent again. Every time I come to the House he is gone, Mr. Speaker.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Revision of Copyright tabled its report yesterday in which it advocates the establishment of a Charter of Rights for Creators.
The Copyright Act has not been the subject of significant changes for over 60 years. The time for change is now. [English]
The question now is: Is the Government prepared to act quickly? Will it bring in a Bill by February as was promised in the press conference yesterday on this report? The arts and culture community badly needs this new legislation and I hope


Mr. Gauthier:: You're not here very often. Three times out of nine days. That's a cheap shot, Mulroney.


Martin Brian Mulroney: A cheap shot? An offended virgin from the Liberals, of all things.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. I think the Right Hon. Prime Minister knows that mention of the absence of another Member is not allowed.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I accept that, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you very much.

October 11, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 would have thought that my hon. friend would be interested in the fact that it was announced at seven o'clock this morning that 304,000 new jobs have been created by this Government in one year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: As of this morning unemployment is at its lowest level in three and one half years in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have reduced unemployment by 1.5 percentage points in 12 months, and youth unemployment, which interests the Hon. Member, has been decreased by 2.2 per cent in one year.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Is this a press conference?


Martin Brian Mulroney: This, Mr. Speaker, is great news for Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Prime Minister found out what interested the people at the Toronto Blue Jays game when they cried out "tuna, tuna, tuna" in light of his Government's incompetent handling of this issue.


GOVERNMENT'S COMPETENCE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As you know, on September 24, the Prime Minister assured Canadians, in his most mellifluous tones: "We are so competent that when this matter was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister of Canada, he immediately took action on behalf of the consumers and citizens of Canada". And look at what happened!
How can he talk about competence when on TV we still hear about the tuna problem that still exists Canadian markets?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the Hon. Member. It is true that I went to the Blue Jays baseball game. I was given a tremendous standing ovation by the spectators, unlike-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: And that isn't bad for a Montrealer who has been an Expo fan all these years! It says a lot for national unity and harmony.
In any case, the Hon. Member does not seem to be the least bit interested this morning in the real concerns of Canadian men and women, and the fact that today, interest rates have reached their lowest level in seven years, that in the past twelve months 304,000 new jobs were created in Canada, that
confidence is increasing and that the economy is growing from day to day. That is the kind of news the people in Quebec want to know about.


REQUEST FOR DESTRUCTION OF CANS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada want to know why, almost three weeks after the Prime Minister promised in the House that the tuna would be taken off Canadian shelves, it has not been categorically removed and why there has not been an order to destroy that million cans of rancid tuna. Will the Prime Minister promise in the House today that he will issue an order to destroy the million cans of rancid tuna so that fishery jobs and Canadian consumers can finally rest easy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have accepted our responsibility and I have responded fully in regard to this important matter. Those questions have all been answered. If my hon. friend thinks that that is the preoccupation of Canadians, she has another thing coming, because it is economic renewal, and job creation, and national reconciliation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will get into it later on, but I have touched briefly on job creation and economic news that impacts so favourably on our country. Let me just make this point. In terms of national reconciliation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This morning the Prime Minister stated that his Government's policy toward the People's Republic of China was the same as the Trudeau policy.
It is well known that a number of his Ministers, before they became Ministers, were in favour of establishing direct diplomatic relations directly with Taiwan, and opposed the Trudeau policy on China. Was the Prime Minister unaware of the fact that one of his Ministers, publicly and officially last week, celebrated National Day with the Taiwan Government?


Miss MacDonald:: What about Boudria?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on certain occasions I have indicated to the House, to the Premier of China and the President of China the fact that the intention of this Government is to pursue the policy set out by
October 11, 1985

my predecessor, Mr. Trudeau, with which 1 agree. We have honoured that in all circumstances.
I believe that what should be pointed out is that the Hon. Member for Glengary-Prescott-Russell, "Mr. Virtue", is over in Taiwan right now, so 1 am told.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: With seven Tories.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Perhaps that should be looked into by the former Solicitor General as he begins his inquiries into other people's virtue.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There is an important difference between the responsibility of a Member and a Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MINISTER'S CONDUCT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Does the Prime Minister believe it is compatible with that policy, which he said he supported, for one of his Ministers to behave in that way?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has given me the assurance that that is not the case. The Minister has conducted himself consistent with the policy that has been set out by myself. It is not inconsistent at all with the policy articulated by Mr. Trudeau in regard to this very important relationship that we have and which I do not think will be mortally damaged although it could happen with the presence of the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell in Taiwan.


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. There is a report in the press today concerning the involvement of the chartered banks in new financial arrangements with the Mercantile Bank. The essence of this report is that the Government of Canada will be underwriting the involvement, or guaranteeing the involvement of the chartered banks in this new arrangement, to the extent of $2 billion. The same point was made by a vice-president of the Bank of Nova Scotia in a French television program last night. Will the Prime Minister tell us if this is the case and if this was a Cabinet decision?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will understand and hopefully support me when I say that in these circumstances 1 ought to limit my remarks to the following. The Canadian banking system is widely regarded as one of the finest and most outstanding systems in the world. It is one that has commanded high regard and respect for the manner in which it has been administered.
Oral Questions
I indicated earlier today that from time to time any system, including the best, can have blips. There have been some difficulties, as there have been in the United States of America, for example, with a number of bankruptcies of some of their banks this year. I acknowledge that the systems are different, but there is no reason at all to have anything but strong confidence and pride in the integrity of the Canadian banking system.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Prime Minister that I have said words to that effect recently myself. However, as Leader of an opposition Party, I also have a responsibility to ensure that when public funds are being expended or used as a guarantee, the people of Canada have a right to know that. I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: My question has nothing to do with the immediate circumstances of the Mercantile Bank, which I recognize to be quite different from two other banks with which we have had a less pleasant experience.
Has the Government of Canada entered into any kind of financial arrangement with the chartered banks, in writing or otherwise, that would put up public guarantees to the extent of some $2 billion for any financial arrangements in which the Government is involved with the Mercantile Bank?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada has ongoing arrangements with all of the banks, arrangements which vary and change from time to time. The main thrust of the activity of the Bank of Canada in these circumstances is to sustain confidence and the strong feelings of support that people have in regard to our banking system. That is a feeling that is widely held not only in Canada but around the world. 1 believe that Canadian chartered banks are regarded with envy for the manner in which they have been managed and conducted over very many years.
Any announcement in regard to a particular arrangement could best be discussed, and I hope my friend would agree, at the judicial inquiry headed by Mr. Justice Estey where a degree of serenity and objectivity will allow people to make value judgments.


REPORTED GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the inquiry to which the Prime Minister refers has absolutely nothing to do with the Mercantile Bank. According to Andre Bisson, the vice-president of the Bank of Nova Scotia, there has been an additional commitment or, to use his words, "en garantie totale" provided by the Government of Canada in new financial arrangements involving the chartered banks and the Mercantile Bank. Has the Government of Canada offered such a guarantee?
7586

October 11, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: I saw the
comments made by Mr. Andre Bisson, First Vice-President and Director General of the Bank of Nova Scotia in Quebec, when he was interviewed last night on Le Point. I think he mentioned that the Government's actions were entirely appropriate, and I can assure my hon. friend that intervention or action by the Bank of Canada in circumstances of this kind is appropriate and will be disclosed in due time.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Could the Minister indicate to the House what initiatives she has taken to promote employment equity for women, aboriginal people, the disabled, and visible minorities?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there are two major initiatives which the Government has taken. One is to introduce legislation into the House regarding employment equity and equal opportunity for women and minority groups in the workforce, legislation which will require the private sector and the public sector to make employment equity a reality.
The second major step that we have taken is to make sure that employment equity is central to our Canadian Jobs Strategy and that the programs under the Canadian Jobs Strategy must take into consideration the needs of women and minority groups. The first of those programs, Challenge '85, was experienced this summer and 52 per cent of the people employed were women.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BANKS AND BANKING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. The Minister did not answer the question I asked her yesterday, so I put it again. Her letter of August 9 to the Canadian Commercial Bank shareholder, Mr. Reg Kendrick, assured him of the bank's long-term viability. Does the Minister not consider this misleading and an inducement to Mr. Kendrick and the other shareholders to hold on to their shares?
[ Translation]


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that seven
years ago, a Minister in the Liberal Government said, and I quote:
-he will also recall that at the very beginning, before the Commission started its proceedings and I took up my duties, 1 said I did not intend to comment on the issues as they were examined by the Commission.


MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that really is outrageous. Mr. Kendrick listened to the Minister in August, and on September 1 he lost his money. How can the Government justify blocking debate on its $875 million Bill to make secret payments to depositors over and above the $60,000 which they will receive from deposit insurance, while taking no responsibility for shareholders who were misled by Ministers' statements?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone has been misled by any statements which I have made. What is happening at the moment is that we have a debate in the Chamber which will lead into committee where we will discuss this issue in full. We have a judicial inquiry under Mr. Justice Estey, which is discussing this issue in full. In addition, we have a forum in the parliamentary lobby every day, and questions in the House every day.
My answers have been forthright and consistent and will be carried on before the inquiry and in the debate in the House.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Fisheries. Last evening there was a story which seems to indicate that the Star-Kist tuna operation has in the past ignored the orders of fisheries inspectors and retailed, in one form or another, fish products which were considered to be unsuitable. What can the Minister say now about the potential for the recalled tuna to be reintroduced to the market? Is it going to be, or is it not?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member, as I have already answered on September 19, I believe, there will be a proposal put before Cabinet next week in respect to the entire range of food inspection services, an action which should have been taken, to my way of thinking at any rate, many years ago.


INSPECTION OF RECALLED CANS OF TUNA
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, after that is all done, what is to happen to the recalled tuna which we are now led to believe may well be put back on the shelves?
October 11, 1985

Can the Minister answer in one way or another? Is it his understanding that that tuna is now being reinspected with the possibility of it being reintroduced to the market-place? If so, what guarantee can be given to Canadian consumers that the inspection process will be adequate?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think I should assure the Canadian public, since the fears are being re-aroused in their hearts by questions like the one put by the Hon. Member, that nothing will be hitting the shelves-


Ian Deans: Forgive me for being concerned.


Erik Nielsen: -of any market which is not of proper quality and which is not fully consistent with the highest possible standards of health and safety.
Having said that, I saw the same story to which the Hon. Member referred. I have asked for a specific and immediate review of those circumstances to ensure that health and safety standards of the highest possible quality are met. This does not detract for a moment from the specific action which the Government is taking concerning the Cabinet consideration of all food inspection services that is so long overdue.


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today the statistics indicate that full-time employment in September dropped by 24,000 jobs, mostly among women and youth, while part-time employment increased by
47,000	jobs. Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he promised jobs, jobs-that he would replace full-time jobs with low-paying, part-time jobs? Is that what his Government is promising 2,000 full-time skilled workers at Bombardier, Vickers and Gulf in Montreal? Is he trying to give them some part-time jobs? Is that his policy?
[ Translation]
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday or the day before, my hon. friend raised the problem of Montreal East, a serious problem which we intend to look into. But Quebecers also know perfectly well that within a year this Government has been able to reduce unemployment in Quebec by 1.3 per cent, which is a formidable accomplishment.
In Canada, 304,000 new jobs have been created. This morning, the unemployment rate reached its lowest level in three and a half years: a 1.5 per cent drop in unemployment, and a 2.2 per cent drop in youth unemployment. This is good news for Canada. Why are the Liberals always upset when we have good news for this country?
Oral Questions


CRITICISM OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, while plants are closing and there are still 1.3 million unemployed people, the Prime Minister is smuggly patting himself on the back. When will he take seriously the criticism levelled against his Government's programs by 55 groups and individuals who attended his Economic Summit, indicating that the employment programs in the Budget are not working? As is proved by this morning's statistics, we are moving from full-time jobs to part-time jobs.
Mr. Gormley:: That is not right.


Mr. Allmand:: It is right; read the statistics.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, he is ashamed. I can understand; even a Liberal would be mortified by a statement like that.


William Warren Allmand: Part-time jobs.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The fact is that 304,000 new jobs were created in a year. Bank of Canada interest rates dropped 3 percentage points.


William Warren Allmand: Part-time.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Consumer spending is up 10 per cent. Motor vehicle sales are up 23 per cent. The CPI is at its lowest level since 1971. Bankruptcies are down 13 per cent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Two banks have gone under.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oil and gas activity is up 19 per cent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Two Ministers are shot.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Manufacturing orders have risen by 13 per cent. That is solid economic progress.


An Hon. Member:: Two banks have gone down the drain.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I can understand why he only shows up on Friday.


Mr. Nystrom:: Tuna sales are down, Brian.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It concerns his response to my Leader's question regarding the nature of the assurances which the Government has given the banks involved in the support package to the Mercantile. Is the support which is being provided and offered by the Government in the form of guarantees by the Government of Canada or by the Bank of Canada?

October 11, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I have fully responded to that in the circumstances. I have indicated the extent to which the Bank of Canada is and has been in the past, over many years, helpful to some of our institutions, as my hon. friend would wish it to be. That continues to be the policy. Of course the banking system remains very strong and an instrument of pride.


WAR CRIMINALS
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, after raising the matter outside the House, I am surprised that no opposition Member raised a question about the allegations made that certain Department of Immigration records were destroyed just before an RCMP investigation was to take place in respect of them. My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Has she received an explanation of this matter from her departmental officials?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the question of the destruction of the files was raised by the Hon. Member for York Centre before the Deschenes Commission. I wondered why he had not raised it with his colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, during whose term of office those files which he brought into question would have been destroyed. Also, he could have looked through his own Party archives to the time when Mackenzie King was Prime Minister to see what might have taken place during that period of time.
What is important to note in this very critical issue is that the Conservative Government took the steps to appoint the Deschenes Commission to look into all aspects of possibilities of Nazi wartime criminals in this country. That commission is doing a very comprehensive job of coming to the major problems that may exist in this area.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION FROM DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: My supplementary question is the same as my initial question. I wonder if the Minister has received an explanation from her departmental officials respecting the destruction of those files.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the officials to look into this whole matter and report to me. I know that during the month of July of 1984 when the Hon. Member for York Centre was then the Solicitor General-


Mr. Crosbie:: And doing nothing.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -a report was sent to his officials by the Department of Employment and Immigration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I am sorry, the question was answered.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Dealing with that whole question.


John Carnell Crosbie: And he did nothing about it.


Mr. Caccia:: That is not true.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it concerns the continuous waste of public funds by his high flying Ministers. We have reports this morning that the former Secretary of State for Immigration, his wife, and a political aide spent well over $100,000 in public funds using Government aircraft for a one-month safari in Africa. My question to the Prime Minister is as follows. Given that this cost is five times the regular aircraft commercial cost, did the Prime Minister know about this trip in advance, did he approve of it, and, if he does not, is he prepared in this House today to condone this senseless and irresponsible abuse of taxpayers' dollars?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the trip in question was approved, as is appropriate, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the reasons being that the Minister was going to attend a very important conference on women's rights, at the end of the UN Decade for Women, in Nairobi. Because the Minister had vast experience as a missionary in Africa and had developed very close friendships with many people both in and out of Governments it was decided that prior to the Commonwealth meeting it would be appropriate for him to visit a number of states, including a number of heads of state, which he did, for private and formal meetings as well in regard to Canada's position at the Commonwealth, our aid programs and so on.
The Minister of State for Immigration, then the Secretary of State, fulfilled very important responsibilities in a very noble way.
I can point out to my hon. friend, as it bears on the question, that 1 have asked for a report and analysis of ministerial aircraft utilization from year to year. From the last year of the Liberal administration and our first year in Government it is now down 37.5 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT EXPENSE VOUCHERS BE TABLED
Sergio Marchi: The Prime Minister claims that the Minister went to this Nairobi conference. I agree, but that was only a small portion of the one-month safari trip of this Minister. My question for this Prime Minister is if he is prepared to justify the trip for one month for these three individuals, is he prepared to table in this House and make public all documents referring to the expenses of these three individuals, which may amount to some $200,000
October 11, 1985

when accommodation, entertainment, and food costs are counted up?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is long enough. Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that anybody who knows the Hon. Minister of State for Immigration would know that he would undertake-as I say, in his earlier career he was a Minister of the church working in Africa where he acquired very important knowledge.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Congratulations.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East says congratulations. I think Mr. McLean should be congratulated on his outstanding career.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: What about the taxpayers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: He asks about the taxpayers. In point of fact, under this Government, in this year, the total hours used were 21.3 per cent less than under the Liberal administration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it does concern the new Ulysses of the Cabinet on his Panafrican odyssey. In view of the fact that the Government jet travel alone cost in excess of $90,000 how can the Prime Minister justify that expenditure when in fact, if the Minister had used commercial travel, the cost would have been a fraction of that?


Mr. Speaker:: That is the same question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, come on.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister may answer if he wishes but the Member is in fact asking the same question that has already been asked. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I did not ask the same question. 1 would like the Prime Minister to respond specifically to the question of whether he could not have used commercial jets rather than the very expensive and less fuel efficient JetStar Government aircraft.


Erik Nielsen: The answer, Mr. Speaker is in all reasonableness, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary question.
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT EXAMPLE


John R. Rodriguez: My supplementary question is this. Does the Prime Minister not think that a Government which preaches restraint to the Canadian public ought to give an example-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


John R. Rodriguez: -of such restraint?


Mr. Speaker:: No. Order. That question is clearly not supplementary.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques.
Take your seat.


John R. Rodriguez: No, I won't sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member to sit down.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 beg your pardon? The Hon. Member was given two questions. I thought he had a supplementary for a third. I had already indicated that the first one was repetitive and I found the final one just as repetitive. Therefore 1 ruled it out of order. Would the Hon. Member-


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry but I won't sit down.
I won't sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 name the Member.


John R. Rodriguez: You are not the one to decide whether my question is repetitive or not.


Mr. Speaker:: I name the Member. I have no choice.


John R. Rodriguez: He was standing to answer the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. I invite the Hon. Member to resume his seat.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Then I name the Member.


John R. Rodriguez: No, I will not. I have asked a supplementary question and I am asking-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John R. Rodriguez: -to indicate to the Canadian public-


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: No, with regret, no. I am sorry, no. I invited the Member to sit down. I invite him now to remain in his seat.


John R. Rodriguez: No, I will not.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member shooses to disregard the authority of the Chair. I have no choice under the circumstances but to name the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.

October 11, 1985
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Out! Out!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am entitled to explain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. No, you are not, with regret.
1 indicate to the Hon. Member that he now has one option and that is to resume his seat. That is his option and that is all. I therefore invite the Hon. Member to resume his seat.


John R. Rodriguez: 1 have asked a supplementary question which is a very important supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. I invite the Hon. Member to
resume his-


John R. Rodriguez: I am not going to sit down, 1 am sorry.


Mr. Speaker:: The I have no choice but to name the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, and that is that.


John R. Rodriguez: I'm not leaving, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry.


John Carnell Crosbie: Haul him out.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Prior to that, there is a technical point I will introduce. I invite the Member on his own to withdraw. I invite the Hon. Member to withdraw from the House on his own.


An Hon. Member:: He is not going to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore I have no choice. The Hon. President of the Privy Council.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I therefore, according to tradition am obliged to move this motion-


Mr. Aithouse:: I know you are crying.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt be suspended from the servce of the House for the remainder of this day's sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is as follows. Mr. Hnatyshyn, seconded by Mr. Nielsen, moves:
That the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of this day's sitting.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair should advise the House that I have been advised that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt wishes to speak pursuant to Beauchesne's Citation 25(2). It is a very unusual procedure, in terms of its occurrence. Let me cite it to the House:
When a Member is named, he has the right to make a statement to the House and should then withdraw while the House makes its judgment.
The Hon. Member wishes to avail himself of his right.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me begin by saying that I regret that this whole situation has come to this point. However, I want to explain that when 1 saw the employment statistics this morning with respect to my riding showing it to have the second highest unemployment rate in the country and then read of the Minister of State for Immigration spending over $100,000 in a one month odyssey around Africa, I decided to come to the House and ask why the Minister could not have taken a commercial aircraft which would have cost a fraction of the over $90,000 that the Government JetStar cost to take him on the trip. That was my concern.
This was motivated by the fact that whenever I go to federal Government agencies and ask for make-work projects to deal with the unemployment in my riding, 1 am told that the federal Government is in restraint and that it cannot afford it. Therefore, that was what motivated my questions to the Prime Minister.
I am really regretful of the fact that it has come to this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt wish the House to take that as withdrawing his earlier refusal of the authority? Is that what the Hon. Member wishes the House to hear?


John R. Rodriguez: From the moment 1 came to Canada 1 have never regretted standing up for what I think to have been the right action. Therefore, I do not want you to take it that 1 was withdrawing anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, may I remind the Hon. Member of the rest of the citation of Beauchesne with regard to his right to make a statement. It indicates that the Member, having made that statement, should withdraw from the House while the House resolves the question.
And Mr. Rodriguez having withdrawn:


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Hnatyshyn, seconded by Mr. Nielsen, moved:
That the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the day's sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
I am in receipt of a notice of a desire to raise a question of privilege arising out of Question Period from the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).
Point of Order-Mr. de Cotret Government Members should withdraw these efforts to mischaracterize the records so that I may function effectively during Question Period. Today, they went so far in their interventions as to tell me what questions I should ask. It is my busienss what questions I should ask and they have no right to be telling me what I should be doing here in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his representations. I think he will understand that 1 can find in no way that his privileges as a Member have been breached. Therefore, I cannot find that there has been a prima facie case made for a question of privilege.
* *


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions with the exception of 10 presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, October 10, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a question of privilege arising out of Question Period. During Question Period, questions were asked about the evidence before the Deschenes Commission. My objection is that my ability to function effectively as a Member of Parliament is affected by the constant efforts of members of the Government who mischaracterize the evidence before the Deschenes Commission.
In the case of the Estey Commission, Government Members insist on leaving matters to the Commissioner. In the case of the Deschenes Commission, which is reviewing matters for which 1 was responsible as a Minister, they are constantly writing the report of the Commissioner in this House and writing it based on their own false and misleading interpretation of what is happening before that commission and what happened in the ministry of the Solicitor General in the period of time for which I was responsible for the ministry.



CORRECTION OF ANSWER GIVEN DURING QUESTION PERIOD

Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On October 8, in response to a question put by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I referred to last November's program reduction exercise and the House will recall that the numbers I mentioned at that time were from given memory. I have now been provided with the figures and I would like to set the record straight.
Last November a decision was made to reduce the growth planned by the previous Government for 1985-86 by some 1,300 person years. Because of vacancies and attrition, only 725 indeterminate employees were directly affected. Almost 700 of them were redeployed within the Public Service. Approximately 30 were actually laid off and all of them were entitled to a priority for placement for one year.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is a well established practice of this House that "Late show" questions are allowed. At that time the person putting the question and the Minister answering the question can further elaborate on that question.

October 11, 1985
Petitions
I absolutely reject the precedent the Minister is setting today. I do not think Ministers can, outside of the normal Question Period or the "Late Show", make that kind of statement. I have a "Late Show" question to ask and I would still like to ask that question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member raises a point. There have been practices in the past where Ministers have corrected an answer that they gave in Question Period in which they had made minor slips. Those have been treated as points of personal explanation. I take it that that was the practice this Minister was adopting, but I would sympathize with the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. He will continue to be able to ask his "Late Show" question.
Perhaps I might suggest that in future when Ministers wish to do this, they might make a distinction between something which is a point of personal clarification that is minor and something which is not. Perhaps in future, other Ministers may avail themselves of an opportunity to make a statement under Statement by Ministers and that would give them the right to respond when a matter is that detailed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition from a number of citizens resident in Toronto. These citizens are concerned that the Government's decision to enter legislation that will reduce the family allowance payment will hurt primarily low-income people. This is in conjunction with other new taxes which will hurt primarily low-income people and with tax benefits that go primarily to the rich in Canada. Therefore, the petitioners urge that the House of Commons should reinstate the full indexation of family allowances and rescind the unfair tax increases.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several people from the ridings of Gatineau, Ottawa Centre, Nepean-Carleton, Ottawa-Vanier and Ottawa West asking the Government to reconsider its policies and its legislation and to restore full indexation to the family allowance and child tax credit because budget measures will take away $55 million in family benefits from ordinary Canadians.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of residents of Winnipeg. They point out that the deindexation of family allowances is an attack on women and children, especially on single-parent families, and that the amount of family allowance which even the poorest families receive after 1990 will be decreased. They call upon the Government to restore full indexation of family allowances.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be
answered today: No. 389.


Mr. Riis: Is the Government planning to issue newly designed bank notes and, if so, on what dates?


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Bank of Canada, under Section 21 of its Act, has the responsibility of arranging for the issue of banknotes. The form and material of the notes are subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance. Four series of banknotes have been introduced since the Bank of Canada was established. These are dated 1935, 1937, 1954 and for the latest series, the various denominations have dates from 1969 through 1975, depending on the year that the particular denomination was printed for the first time. Two denominations of the current series, the $5 and the $20 notes, were revised in 1979.
The Bank of Canada maintains an extensive program of research into banknotes with a view to maintaining and improving upon the high standards of the banknote issue. In recent years this has involved work on such aspects of banknotes as additional anti-counterfeiting features, features to help the visually impaired and blind, and techniques to increase the durability of notes. This highly technical work takes considerable time and involves several stages of preparation and review before a final decision to produce a new series can be made.
Once a final decision has been made to introduce a new series, to circulate alongside existing banknotes, an announcement will be made which will explain the reasons for any changes in advance of issue. Also, all practical information, including information on timing, will be supplied to help Canadians become familiar with the new series.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
October 11, 1985


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-73, an Act to validate certain ordinances of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, as reported (without amendment) from the legislative committee, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I have been involved with this question both as an MLA and as an MP for a good ten years. It is strictly a technicality conflict between the condominium ordinances of the Northwest Territories and Yukon and the federal Land Titles Act. No one is opposed to it. In fact, I have yet to meet one person who would be against allowing the Legislatures of the two Territories in question to make enactments dealing with condominiums. My faith today in the parliamentary system has been somewhat restored. After 10 years of work on this issue, it would appear that we are getting through the last hurdle as far as the House of Commons is concerned. The matter now has only to be dealt with in the other place.
This morning I am filling in for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) who unfortunately is absent. I have in my possession a prepared speech. 1 have never given one in the House of Commons before.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dave Nickerson: These words should have been uttered by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. However, if the House will bear with me, I will try to give a prepared speech.
Today I ask Hon. Members to turn their attention again to Bill C-73, an Act to validate the condominium ordinances of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. It is a matter of serious concern to the residents and the Governments of these two northern Territories. Following second reading on September 26, the Bill was referred to the special parliamentary legislative Committee, which reported it back to
Condominium Ordinance Validation Act
the House on October 7. The Bill now has the unanimous support of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the special parliamentary legislative committee. For this support I am grateful, since it confirms my belief and feeling that this legislation is truly required and will be a benefit and a convenience for those people who have chosen to make Canada's North their home; those who have made a commitment to that part of Canada which, to be honest, requires in many ways a higher degree of willingness to accept the challenges of nature, location and geography than in the other areas of our great country.
Today I do not intend to belabour the facts giving rise to the Bill-the extreme housing shortages in parts of the North, the desire of the people there for affordable housing which they can call their own and the deficiencies of the Land Titles Act with respect to condominiums. These were well covered at second reading. However, I will address myself to certain concerns raised by Hon. Members which, while somewhat peripheral to the technical aspects of the Bill, have a certain relevance.
The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) raised concerns regarding the possible conversion of existing rental units to condominiums and referred to a similar situation when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was mayor of Toronto. I assure the Hon. Member that the Minister shall express his concern on this point to the Governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. It must be emphasized, however, that this is a matter entirely within the legislative prerogatives of those Governments and that the ordinances are territorial ordinances. It would not be in the interests of the Government, as a condition of introducing and supporting the Bill, to dictate to those Governments the terms and conditions which they must place in their own legislation. They are freely elected representatives of the people of the Territories, and I can assume nothing else but that their only concern is the well-being of the people they represent. This viewpoint represents not only the constitutional position of the territorial Governments but the sincere commitment of the Government of Canada to the devolution of powers and responsibilities to the territorial Governments and the people they represent.
The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), at second reading, raised the question of conflict between federal and territorial legislation. It is not really a matter of conflict but a matter of federal legislation not being quite current. The federal legislation has simply not kept pace with the times and, as presently written, cannot accommodate what is contemplated by the condominium ordinances. The present Bill will overcome this legal technicality. The Minister has introduced the Bill to ensure that federal legislation, no matter how inadvertently or unintentionally, does not stand in the way of territorial initiatives in areas where those Governments have legislative responsibility.
I referred a few moments ago to devolution. This is an ongoing process placing under scrutiny all matters in the Territories for which the Department of Indian Affairs and

October 11, 1985
Condominium Ordinance Validation Act
Northern Development and other federal Government departments exercise jurisdiction over subject matters which are or may be more appropriately assumed by the territorial Governments. Rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that the ways and means of ensuring local control of land titles registration are part of these in-depth studies.
Before concluding, I should like to express my appreciation once again for the continuing support of the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk), the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the members of the two committees for their very helpful recommendations and suggestions. Therefore, 1 strongly recommend to all Hon. Members the passage of the Bill. Those were the words which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would have spoken had he been present.
Finally, I should like to express my personal thanks for all the assistance by Hon. Members on both sides of the House, in particular the Hon. Member for Spadina, the housing critic for the New Democratic Party, and the official opposition critic for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who is about to speak next.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We resume debate on Bill C-73 with the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I and the members of my Party support Bill C-73 without any hesitation or reservation of any kind.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is an important speech we are going to hear now.


B. Keith Penner: This is an important speech.
This matter has been contemplated for a long while and before making any comments on the Bill itself I think it would be appropriate for me to recognize the hard work of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). He introduced a Bill on this very same matter and the House saw fit to refer the subject matter of that Bill to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In the standing committee the result of the deliberation on that Bill was to bring forth a unanimous recommendation that the Government act post haste to validate a territorial ordinance which was designed to ease the serious accommodation shortage in the Northwest Territories, and particularly in the City of Yellowknife where, according to testimony that the committee received from the mayor of that city, there is today
a zero per cent vacancy rate. We were all alarmed and shocked by the rising costs of accommodation in that city.
I think the standing committee also deserves credit for the manner in which it acted. It acted with dispatch. It endorsed federal action and did so last May 28. The only thing that is surprising to me is that an uncomplicated Bill such as this, dealing with a technical matter, was not dealt with before the summer recess. This resulted in a loss of the advantage of the summer construction season, and that is certainly very regrettable. The Government knew that this Bill had unanimous support, and that a genuine, demonstrated need existed. It is very difficult for parliamentarians-and I know the Member for Western Arctic is equally frustrated-to understand why winter will be approaching before this Bill is passed. I do not think we can now expect to see the necessary construction beginning until late spring.
In giving our thanks it is probably also correct to thank the legislative committee for the way in which it handled this matter so quickly, under the able chairmanship of my good and honourable friend, the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle).
Before resuming my seat let me just place this Bill in some context so that all Hon. Members will know and the citizens of Canada will understand what we are doing and why we are doing it. All the property registration in the two Territories north of 60 is governed by a federal statute which is called the Land Titles Act. That Act goes back to 1894. Of course, in 1894 parliamentarians in this House of Commons did not foresee or envisage something called condominiums.
It was in the late 1960s that the two territorial Legislative Assemblies passed ordinances to register condominiums. Having done so, they were advised that they were probably in conflict with the federal statute, the Land Tittles Act. When northerners talk about the continuation of a colonial regime, this could be cited as an example. Life north of 60 is still extensively and rigidly governed by Ottawa and this creates a great deal of resentment and frustration among northerners. We who have been members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for many years have heard recitations of this hostility and this frustration repeated over and over again. Yet so little seems to be happening in recognizing the capabilities and the responsibilities of northerners to manage and direct their own affairs. They really do not need Ottawa breathing down their necks, looking over their shoulders and holding their hands. They can look after their affairs very well, and the Member for Western Arctic who served for a long period of time and with distinction in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories knows that much better than I do. The previous Government did bring in a Bill to deal with this matter. It was going to repeal the whole of the Land Titles Act, and at first blush that seems to make eminently good sense. Again for reasons that Members of Parliament cannot understand that Bill died on the Order Paper. It was not passed.
The present Government received advice that it would probably be well to delay or postpone the repealing of the Land
October 11, 1985

Titles Act until there is a full settlement of the comprehensive aboriginal claims in the North. I really cannot argue with that.
It seems to make good sense. It was probably good advice that the Government received. But we do need to get on with the settlement of these outstanding aboriginal claims in the North.
Much in the way of development in northern Canada is being delayed because these aboriginal claims remain outstanding and unsettled. In fact the Macdonald Royal Commission drew attention to the fact that this matter should be dealt with as quickly as possible. The Minister, in recognition of this, is now trying to put together a new claims policy. He wants to take out some of the impediments in the former policy, which caused more settlements to be blocked than were allowed. Once those aboriginal claims are settled, then I think the door will be opened for what we call devolution. That simply means the transfer of powers and responsibilities from Ottawa to the two territorial Governments and their Legislative Assemblies in the North.
[DOT] (MIO)
I wish to refer to the MacDonald Commission again. The commission said that this process of devolution, this transfer of powers and responsibilities to the North, should get under way quickly and that all provincial-like powers should be transferred to the North within a period of five years. Again, I would like to tell my hon. friends how frustrating it has been for those of us who sit on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development each year when we examine the Estimates. We have confirmation that the policy of devolution exists, not only with this Government but with the previous Government and with administrations before that. Yet, we ask: How much devolution has there been? The answer is: Precious little. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) can correct me if I am wrong but I think the last time some control was transferred it was over co-operatives and place names. It was something as small as that. More recently, there has been some transfer of responsibility over the forestry sector, which is encouraging. It can be seen how slowly things move.
We still have a very large Department in Ottawa of more than 800 person-years which is responsible in some way which is never very clear to anyone for administering the North from afar. All of these federal public servants in the northern development part of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are stepping on the toes of territorial public servants who are every bit as competent as those here in Ottawa. It does not make one more competent to be a federal public servant. It does not mean that the federal public servant is one notch above provincial or territorial public servants. These public servants are stepping on the toes of territorial public servants. They are also bumping head-to-head with other federal public servants who are working vigorously on their own projects in the North. I am speaking of public servants from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Departments of the Environment, Energy, Mines and Resources and Transport Canada. Thus, if one visits the North it would be difficult to meet someone who is not some type of
Condominium Ordinance Validation Act public servant. In order to find a real northerner one has to search around.
There are so many public servants that certainly devolution ought to mean that responsibility of the northern development part of the Department could be easily and quickly transferred to the North. If the Government wishes to save some money, if it is really serious about cutting the deficit, then it should look very hard at the northern development part of that Department and reduce it significantly. It could be done without causing any hardship or any serious difficulty to anyone in the North of whom I am aware.
I would like to give one example of the problems that we seem to be having with the policy of devolution. A few years ago the standing committee established a subcommittee, as the Hon. Member for Western Arctic will remember since he served on it. He proved to be very helpful because of his engineering background. We looked at the Northern Canada Power Commission wanting to know whether or not we really needed a federal Crown Corporation to supervise the production and distribution of power in all of northern Canada. In a province such as Ontario there are municipalities that can quite ably handle the matter. We came to the conclusion that there could be territorial power commissions which could handle the matter quite well, provided there was some continuing transfer of funds to assist the power rates paid by those people who live in isolated areas and who rely upon diesel fuel for the generation of electrical power. That was our conclusion. It was a long time ago. At this moment 1 cannot remember the year we tabled the report in Parliament, but I know that the Northern Canada Power Commission still exists. It still has its headquarters in Edmonton and not in the real North, north of 60. So far nothing has happened but we all await some action.
I conclude by saying that it is my urgent hope that the legislation which is before us will make possible more affordable housing to residents of northern Canada. We recognize that a Bill such as the one before us can be handled competently by northern legislators who are responsible to their electorates. It is a small, technical matter for the Parliament of Canada to be dealing with. It is really an item which is not on the national agenda. However, it has important ramifications for the North, as we have been reminded by other speakers.
Once the Bill is passed, the territorial Governments will be able to proceed with legislation or ordinances which they passed some 15 years ago. Can we really comprehend that? Some 15 years ago they decided they should act and they have had to wait since that time to have certain ordinances validated by the Parliament of Canada. Does that not illustrate that it is time for Ottawa to let go and allow northerners to conduct and manage their own affairs?
The Minister has promised that there will be action with regard to devolution. We want to believe that. All members of the standing committee will want to see some real and concrete results during the lifetime of this Parliament. Those results will certainly have my full support.

October 11, 1985
Condominium Ordinance Validation Act


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-73. I agree with the Hon. Members who spoke before me that it seems to be long overdue. That is to say, the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon decided 15 years ago through their legislators to have a condominium ordinance. It was in technical conflict with the Land Titles Act of the federal Government, which had been passed nearly a century before, before condominiums were even thought of. However, for whatever reason, it has taken 15 years to come this far in removing that technical barrier.
Like the previous speakers, I have not heard of anyone who opposes the principle of this Bill. However, there is a problem associated with it which is not a matter of principle. In fact, if this Bill does open the way for the creation of more housing in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon it will certainly be a useful Bill. I am not convinced that we will have any sudden action with respect to it. Perhaps some people will say there was a time five years ago which would have been more favourable. What I understand is taking place at least in some parts of the Territories, particularly in Yellowknife, is that there is not a good financial situation for building condominiums and, perhaps, for building anything. It is expensive to build in that part of the country. Much of the housing which is being built is being constructed with federal subsidies. I think these subsidies are right and necessary. Whether or not they will be available for condominiums is not yet clear to me. Other Hon. Members may have a better view with respect to that issue.
The irony is that very few people living in the Northwest Territories are likely to benefit from this legislation. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), when he was speaking to this Bill on second reading, gave some of the recognized statistics with respect to the gross shortage of housing and the gross over-crowding among the Indian people of the Northwest Territories. Very few, if any, of those people will be in a position to buy a condominium. They are not likely to be seen as potential customers for those who would invest in building a condominium. There is probably a very small potential market for condominiums there and, from talking with some of the people in Yellowknife, my impression is that the market has been shrinking of late as opposed to expanding. So this Bill may not have an effect for several years and when it does have an effect, it is likely to be of no benefit at all to a very large number of the people in the North who badly need housing.
Condominium housing is not the solution for low income or moderate income people whether they live in the Northwest Territories or in Toronto. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, mentioned on second reading, and I in fact had the opportunity to raise it in committee, that in Ontario we have had experience with condominium legislation. It was passed in the late 1960s, I am not sure whether it was 1967 or 1968, and was no doubt much like the condominium legislation in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. But we found that when things were going well and the
builders were building rental and condominium apartments, no serious squeeze was felt. But since the early 1970s, in many parts of southern Ontario, certainly from Windsor to Kingston, building has dried up, not totally, but the situation is serious, particularly with respect to the building of rental apartments. In fact, in the middle of 1972, there was a downturn of investment in rental apartments in southern Ontario. Rents started to shoot up shockingly and in 1973 and 1974, there were 25 per cent, 30 per cent, 45 per cent increases for little or no reason. The landlord perhaps put on a coat of paint and said he had to pay the cost of the paint. Nobody believed that. It was simply that the industry decided that there should be a shortage of rental accommodation and, therefore, landlords were able to force rents up exorbitantly. The result of that, of course, was that rent control, for the first time in anyone's memory, became a major election issue in the Ontario election of 1975. The reigning Government at that time said no to rent controls and continued to do so until the day after the election when it found itself to be a minority Government. We then got rent control in Ontario.
Now, of course, the industry would like to rewrite history. It tells us that the reason for the shortage of apartments is the rent control legislation, but in fact that is false. It is a complete reversal of the truth. The fact is that it was the shortage of apartments which forced the unusual step of rent control in peacetime. We had rent control in wartime and some people thought we would never see it in peacetime. But the industry forced it on us.
Because of the rent control situation there was pressure on some apartment owners to find a way out of this. They decided to convert their buildings into condominiums, sell them off and spend their money out west or in buying up Florida or New York, which some of the large real estate companies in Toronto are busy doing. The legislation in Ontario provides that the municipality shall have power to approve or disapprove, allow or disallow a conversion from a rental building to a condominium. Toronto City Council did exercise that power because of the great need of the people in Toronto for rental accommodation. Toronto adopted a policy statement that there should be no conversions from rental apartments to condominiums so long as the vacancy rate was below 2 per cent. It did make some exceptions. It said that if the rents are already so high that only the rich are renting, it might as well let the rich buy them if they want to. However, for most apartment buildings there was to be no conversions until the vacancy rate rose above 2 per cent. In the last 15 years that has never happened in Toronto.
On the basis of that experience, I would suggest that the Legislatures of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon take note of what has happened and guard against the loss of rental accommodation. I believe there are only about 504 rental units in the larger apartment buildings in the City of Yellowknife. Actually, there are 700 units publicly owned and leased, but only 500 units in the private market. I am sure it would be a great hardship for many people in Yellowknife if those 500 units were to be converted to condominiums. The Legislatures
October 11, 1985

have the power to prevent that. I believe the Legislature of the Northwest Territories is meeting next week. I do not know about the Legislature of the Yukon. In principle, the Legislatures have the power to prevent this conversion or, if they wish, they can share that power with the municipalities. But they should simply recognize that below a certain vacancy rate it is not in the public interest to eliminate rental accommodation. The vacancy rate in Yellowknife is worse, from a tenant's point of view, than the vacancy rate in Toronto has ever been. It is zero. There are no apartments to rent in Yellowknife so I have been told by knowledgeable people. This would be a poor time to turf out tenants because the owner wants to sell the apartment as a condominium and the tenant does not have the money to buy it.
I urge, therefore, the Legislatures of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to profit from the experience in places like Toronto. In spite of the policy of the Ontario legislation, Toronto in 10 years or 15 years lost 1,800 rental units. Some of them were very expensive and, therefore, perhaps, it was no loss in a practical way. But some of them were units which had been rented to people who could not afford to buy them as condominiums. I believe the municipalities of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon should take warning from Toronto.
I agree with the two previous speakers and the Minister that this is a decision which belongs to the people in the Legislatures of the Territories. It is correct to pass this problem on to them as it is without attempting to amend it here. We should leave to them the responsibility to resolve that problem. However, I do recommend that they look at the experience not only of Toronto but in a good many other cities in the south where tenants have been very hard pressed by the loss of rental units. That being said, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to approve the legislation. I hope that the serious shortage of decent and affordable housing in the two Territories will be relieved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.

Criminal Code
to give a brief explanation as to why we are dealing with this matter at this particular time.
This amendment results from a decision taken by the Department of Justice and enshrines in legislation a longstanding practice of the race-track division of Agriculture Canada. The existing regulations delegate to the director of the race-track division the authority to approve changes in the percentage deducted and retained from each dollar bet up to a maximum amount set by the Minister and the race-track division regulation. It was the opinion of PCO lawyers that the existing words in the subclause were inadequate to allow for such delegation. Thus, this amendment will allow for the delegation of the authority to approve the association percentage up to a maximum set by the Minister. The Department concluded that this amendment was needed for clarification, thereby removing any doubt about the delegation of authority to the director of the race-track division.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, let me say
on behalf of my fellow Liberal Members of Parliament that we are familiar with the amendment. I have reviewed it and it is satisfactory to us. We are glad to see this amendment to the Bill. I might just add that I had the honour to serve as co-Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments and it pleased me very much to see the attention being paid by the Government to ensure that enabling legislation of this sort adequately states the power it conveys. Although one could have argued that the power already existed by virtue of the larger regulation-making power given in the legislation, it is always better in cases where it can be done to specify clearly the discretion being awarded, in this case to an official in the Minister's Department.
I am glad this step has been taken and 1 am glad to support the Bill. I hope it is proclaimed shortly so that race-tracks across the country as well as the agricultural industry can have the benefits it provides.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that, having consulted very carefully with our members in the other place, we, too, agree with this amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


CRIMINAL CODE
John Carnell Crosbie: the second reading of, and concurrence in, an amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-77, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (pari-mutuel betting).


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much time of the House. I just want


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
October 11, 1985
The Governor General's Act THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S ACT

John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-78, an Act to amend the Governor General's Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Salaries Act and the Judges Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to commend to Members of this honourable House Bill C-78, an Act to amend the Governor General's Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Salaries Act and the Judges Act. Just to start things off, the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) will not be speaking in this debate so I wish to touch first on the changes this Bill provides with reference to the emoluments of the Governor General and the Lieutenant-Governor. The salary of the Governor General of Canada was fixed at Confederation at 10,000 pounds sterling. In 1931 it was converted from sterling to $48,666.63 and has remained at that level until today. The salary is, however, tax-free. If this Bill is passed by the House, the Governor General's salary would be increased to $70,000, which I think is clearly more appropriate for the occupant of that office. In addition, there is a slight amendment to the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act.
The Lieutenant-Governors have had their salaries revised by statute only three times since 1867; in 1952, 1975 and again in
1983.	Without going into too much detail, this Bill would increase the salary of all Lieutenant-Governors to $69,000 a year as of January 1, 1985. Their present salary is $44,100. However, those salaries are taxable rather than not taxable which is true of the Governor General. I think there will be no hesitation by Members of the House in approving these salary increases for both Her Excellency the Governor General and for the Lieutenant-Governors who today are, by and large, not persons of any substantial wealth and who therefore need to have a reasonable salary if they are to occupy those offices. Of course, that reminds me that the new Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario happens to be a former colleague of ours in the person of His Excellency Lincoln Alexander, so I hope Line will be pleased with this presentation I am making here today.


Svend Johannes Robinson: He wrote the Bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is a merit increase.


John Carnell Crosbie: Just before getting into subject matter of the increases we propose for the judiciary, I want to outline the context within which the judiciary is operating in our system. We have had a very productive year in the area of justice, the most productive, I would say, in many years, since September,
1984.	This House passed Bill C-14, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act. The Opposition when it was in Government had a similar Act lying around for several years but could do nothing with it. We have now passed that legislation, which puts Canada in a position where we have some weapons at our disposal to use if there are any threats to our sovereignty through interference with the operation of Canadian law
through another state such as the U.S. trying to apply its influence in an extraterritorial manner.
The House has also passed amendments with respect to the Ontario and Manitoba courts, namely, Bill C-3 and Bill C-61. We have made major amendments to the Criminal Code through the Criminal Law Amendment Act known as Bill C-18. That will be proclaimed on December 2 of this year. These are major amendments, particularly regarding impaired and drunken driving. That measure will be proclaimed three weeks ahead of the Christmas season. There will be an intense campaign to make the provisions of the Bill well known at the end of November, and of course there are a great many other amendments included in that legislation.
The House enacted the Charter Conformity Bill, which will be proclaimed on October 15. We prepared a discussion paper on equality. We appointed a subcommittee of the House Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to consider this discussion paper on issues raised by the coming into force of the equality provisions of the Charter on April 17. That committee is going to report, I believe, on October 25. As a result of its report we will have to respond to its recommendations and findings. There will be another charter conformity Bill arising out of the subcommittee's report as soon as time permits it to be prepared.
Bills C-47 and C-48 are now before a committee of the House. They are the new Divorce Act and the Bill for family orders enforcement which are about to be studied at the clause by clause stage. I believe that those two pieces of legislation will have a greater effect on Canadian life than any other legislation which will be enacted in the House during this Parliament. This is not the time to go into the details, but the family orders enforcement Bill includes an effecitve national system for the enforcement of maintenance and custody orders, the lack of which has been a national scandal for some years.
Bill C-49 is legislation to deal with the problem of street soliciting and is now before a legislative committee and should be passed through the House before the end of November. That legislation deals with a major public nuisance and decaptures the streets of the cities of this country for the ordinary law-abiding citizen. That legislation deals with a problem which has existed since 1978 about which the predecessor Government dithered and twittered around and did nothing.
Bill C-78 deals with the issue of compensation for judges. Every three years there must be a report by an independent commission on what should be done about judges' compensation and emoluments. There was such a report produced over two years ago, about a year before the Official Opposition was defeated last year. Unfortunately, no effective action was taken and we are now dealing with that matter, the details of which I will give in a few moments.
In the area of justice, during the last year we have entered into a mutual legal assistance treaty with the United States in order that both countries can be more effective in attempting
October 11, 1985

to deal with crime and in assisting one another in the battle against crime. There will be legislation forthcoming in the House in the next few months for the implementation of that treaty. We have adopted a policy of compensation for wrongfully convicted and imprisoned persons. Our predecessor Government refused to deal with that problem. It refused to join with the provinces and the provinces were forced to compensate such persons on their own. The federal Government has paid half of the compensation which the Province of Nova Scotia agreed to pay to Mr. Marshall who was found to be wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. We have advised British Columbia that we will do the same in connection with the Fox case there.
There is before the House a resolution on reform of the Senate. As time permits, we will see what becomes of that. We have introduced a new policy in the Charter Challenges Program which was announced a week or two ago. It provides $9 million over the next three years to assist women, the handicapped, and other persons who may wish to take advantage of the equality clauses of the new Charter in worthy cases of national importance. Who is to be assisted and to what extent will be decided by a board of competent people independent of the Government.
We have established the Deschenes Commission to deal with the question of whether there are any war criminals or persons reasonably suspected of being war criminals in Canada today or whether there have been any such people here in the past. We have, therefore, taken some action on that very sore and important question as the commission is now sitting.
These are just some of the highlights of the actions taken on the justice scene in the last year. This is only a warm-up compared to what I hope to have before the House in the course of the next year.
We will have to deal with the question of the Constitution, pornography, hate literature, child abuse, the Badgely and Fraser Reports, and, hopefully, our response to those through legislation will be put before the House in the new year. I am ascribing a high priority to the question of mental disorder and the criminal law. This area badly needs reform. I intend to have legislation dealing with that subject before the House this fall. As 1 mentioned earlier, there will be another Charter conformity Bill and mutual legal assistance treaty legislation.
This fall most important legislation will be placed before the House dealing with the application of Canadian laws to the off-shore, the Off-shore Laws Extension Act. This is particularly important because of our determination to establish clearly the fact that Canada has sovereignty in the Arctic and northern regions of this country. For the first time in many years decisive action in that respect is being taken. There will be legislation coming before the House dealing with the implementation of the Atlantic Accord in the energy area between Canada and Newfoundland. There will be legislation forthcoming dealing with important amendments to the Supreme Court Act. There will be legislation proposed dealing with the question of tax appeals amending the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Income Tax Act.
The Governor General's Act
There will be Criminal Code amendments suggested, Mr. Speaker, in the area of contempt of court, the jury, theft and fraud, vandalism and arson, and dealing with the question of proceeds from crime. There will be a new Bill coming before the House in the next few months proposing amendments to the Federal Court Act and the Crown Liability Act.
I intend to assign a high priority to the question of changes in the process of the appointment of judges. We have had a report from a committee of the Canadian Bar Association which, of course, we will consider in the course of deciding how we are going to change the process to ensure that there are improvements in it. 1 also intend to deal with the question of judicial independence and the reports which have been made in that area in order that it be not only a fact that our judiciary is independent, but that it be apparent that we have an independent judiciary. There will be some changes in the criminal legal aid area and initiatives in the area of the victims of crime.
We will have to deal, of course, during the course of the next several years, with changes to the Constitution, particularly, hopefully, in connection with the endorsement of the Constitution by the Province of Quebec. There are amendments to be suggested in connection with Newfoundland Pentecostal schools. Of course, there will have to be changes in connection with aboriginal rights and it is very likely that changes will have to be considered in connection with the upper House.
This is the general context of the framework of the past 12 months in the field of justice and our prospects for the next several years. I am hoping that Members of the House will have an opportunity to deal with all of these matters in such a way that progress will be achieved in all areas within the next two years. If we can make progress at the rate of that achieved in the last year, it will certainly be an astonishing three years in the area of social justice.
This brings me to the subject of the judiciary. If we are to have social justice and if this framework is to work and these reforms are to be carried out satisfactorily, we must have an independent and able judiciary. We must have a judicial system which attracts people to become judges. As a matter of interest, Mr. Speaker, we have 793 Section 96 judges. That is, there are 793 federal judges appointed by the Government of Canada. Eighty-two of them are supernumerary judges and 711 are in the active category. Of course, the supernumerary judges hear cases as well, but not on a full-time basis. As another point of interest, I point out that since the Government took office it has made 68 new appointments, seven judges have been elevated to higher courts, and six have been transferred. The total number of appointments in the last year was 81. The total expenditure on salaries for our judges in the last fiscal year ending May 31, 1985, was $64,893,806.40. The total expenditure this year, if there are no changes based on the judges presently holding office, is projected to be $70,992,539.53. If this Bill is enacted, we would add $9,580,710 to salaries for the present fiscal year. There would be an increase of $136,000 for conference allowances and an increase of

October 11, 1985
The Governor General's Act
$141,500 for the representation allowances. The increase in salaries and allowances would be $9,858,200.
It is interesting to note also that of the total number of judges, 231 are county or district judges and of the total number of judges as of September 1-this has changed slightly since then-41 are women. Obviously, there are too few female judges and this is an area to which we must and will give high priority. It is only being held back by the fact that women in large numbers have only joined the legal profession in the last 10 or 15 years. Since one must be in practice for at least 10 years before becoming a judge, this, at the moment, limits the number of available women to become judges. However, it is a high priority for us to increase the number of female judges in this country as rapidly as possible.
To operate this whole system we need judges who are intelligent, who have ability, who are hard working, independent and understanding. We need judges who are humane, literate, discerning and who are well disposed and humble. That is a great attribute of a judge. There are not too many humble judges but I strongly recommend it to members of the judiciary. They should be polite and caring. These are the kinds of judges that we want to encourage on the benches of our country. They will not be encouraged there unless we make sure that their working conditions and emoluments are attractive to them. Whether we like it or not, we must face the fact that lawyers can do very well in their own practices without going to the bench. In fact, those who are not failures-because there are always some failures in any profession-do much better by staying in private practice than they can ever do on the bench. When we consider what we pay judges, we must make the comparison to what they can earn in private life if we are to attract them to the bench. They have families and other needs to look after.


Cyril Keeper: Go to the bench, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: John is not going to the bench. John has no intention of going to the bench. There are too many other things to be done before I go to the bench.


Cyril Keeper: Do it for your family.


John Carnell Crosbie: If I ever do go to the bench, it would be the great bench in the sky. Perhaps that is the only bench I will go to.
Let me give some details with respect to the judiciary.


Cyril Keeper: Get those dolts off the bench.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman said to get the dolts off the bench.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The dolts out of the PMO.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member had better watch it or I will call him and his Party une bande de cruches, which means, of
course, a bunch of dolts. It is not widely known that I am bilingual.
Unfortunately, we cannot delegate the task, and the Constitution imposes upon Parliament the duty to fix and provide the salaries, allowances and pensions of the federally appointed judiciary. It is a difficult duty. It may have seemed straightforward back in 1867, but it is a difficult task.
We must balance the needs and expectations of our judiciary with our own responsibility to see that the money of the taxpayers of Canada is used wisely and to the best effect. However, we are not allowed to pass this duty off to anyone else. By virtue of the wording of Section 100, it cannot be delegated to any other body. It is a duty that is often found to be embarrassing and distasteful to Parliament and members of the judiciary because it results in public debate upon the remuneration of men and women who may be subjected, as a result, to generalized abuse but who, by their offices, are denied the privilege of public reply. Our judges cannot reply themselves when they are criticized here or anywhere else. Therefore, it is my duty as Minister of Justice to attempt to act on their behalf and be a public voice for them.
The fact that all of this must be done by Parliament itself carries with it the danger of politicizing judicial compensation issues, and unless the levels of compensation are reviewed at regular intervals there is also the danger of inequity and unfairness to the judiciary if their salaries and benefits are permitted to fall behind on the basis of leading economic indicators.
There has been erosion in judicial salaries since 1981, when an indexing formula was first provided to cushion the effects of inflation between parliamentary reviews. As I mentioned earlier, there is provision now for triennial commissions to review the adequacy of judicial salaries and benefits.
Mr. Otto Lang, a former Liberal Minister of Justice, two years ago reported on judges' salaries and benefits and that report was tabled in Parliament. At its 1985 annual meeting, the Canadian Bar Association passed a resolution deploring the delay in dealing with the Lang Report and calling for its implementation forthwith. We regret the serious delay, but 1 believe that we did not cause it.
We also have a mandate for fiscal restraint and to protect the nation's economic interests. As a result of that mandate, we are not going to accept fully, at this time, the Lang Commission's recommendations. We have sought to arrive at salary levels which will adequately compensate the judiciary, while recognizing the fact that we are in a position of fiscal restraint and are attempting to achieve economic recovery. Incidentally, it is good to see from the economic figures announced today that there is a drop in the unemployment rate and a drop in the interest rate. We now have the lowest interest rate in seven years, I believe. We are on the road to economic recovery. When the froth of insidious suggestions and when the cesspool of slanderous imputations is removed from the surface of the House of Commons, we can see the real progress that is being made in this country in the last 12 months.
October 11, 1985

We were fortunate in the past to attract practitioners to the bench who considered the judicial appointments not only a great honour but also a public duty. Those appointees were usually senior lawyers. When they came to the bench they had wide experience and a mature and reflective outlook on legal and social issues. Those personages were usually financially secure and could leave the rigours of practice and its returns in favour for what was then a more sedate pace of life on the bench. However, believe me, the pace of life on the bench today is no longer sedate. It is not a sinecure to be appointed a judge. Everywhere I have gone in the country, judges are among the hardest working. It is not a holiday. It is not entering into a pleasant retirement. Joining the judiciary is entering into a life of rigorous work. The work that they do is of tremendous importance.
Now, with the Constitution and new Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the judges of this country are in the trenches when it comes to determining what kind of society we will have in the future. In the last three years we have transferred tremendous powers to them. Now we must make sure that we have people at the bench who are more than suited to exercise those tremendous powers over us and our descendants.
The judiciary is still dedicated to public service. I repeat that life on the bench is the same as an active practice with the bar. The case loads in all of our courts have increased dramatically. The trend since 1975 has been to appoint younger men and women. Throughout the first half of this century the average age at appointment was 55, but it has fallen to 49. Far more judges have been appointed in their late thirties or early forties.
Much of our success in making judicial appointments has come because we are trying to consult broadly within the legal and judicial communities in making the appointments. I have mentioned that we will be reviewing the judicial appointment process. I intend to recommend major changes. However, the responsibility for judicial appointments will still remain with the Government of Canada and we do not intend to delegate that responsibility to anyone else, no matter what reports come in from wherever recommending that. The process can certainly be improved, though. Of course, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has announced that he has asked me to review the process and to recommend changes.
There will be full consultations in connection with these proposed changes with provincial Attorneys General, Chief Justices, the Canadian Bar Association and other interested groups. The McKelvey Committee Report will be considered by the CDA at its winter council meeting in February.
It is obvious that we must have very high standards on the bench. Their position within our constitutional framework provides that members of the judiciary have a greater and greater influence on the lives of us all. They will determine the shape of our society for generations. If they are to carry out that great task, we have to ensure that they are adequately compensated for this onerous and essential duty.
The Governor General's Act
Judges are just as vulnerable to economic concerns as the rest of us. As the age of appointment has fallen, the men and women on the bench have become less concerned about the hereafter, the retirement package, and are more concerned with the here and now, their salaries. Because they are younger appointees, they do not have the financial resources behind them that would permit them the luxury of indifference to their cash flow. Younger judges have younger families and they have to make adequate provision for them. I am surprised by the number of people approached by me or on my behalf to become judges who have said no because they have children who are going to university or have other heavy responsibilities and do not feel that they can afford to sit on the bench.
I know judicial salaries are high by the standards of the average Canadian but they are not exceptional when measured against the professional incomes lawyers can expect to enjoy at the Bar and they are not even exceptional when measured against senior public sector salaries. One must have at least 10 years at the Bar to be appointed. Once one has 10 years at the Bar in private practice, one should be enjoying his or her best earning years. Therefore, judicial salaries must be appropriate to those circumstances.
The present salary of a provincial superior court judge, the judge with which we are most familiar, was $93,800 as of April 1, 1985. This Bill proposes to increase that salary to $105,000. The Lang Commission made its recommendation using 1975 salary levels for the judiciary, applying the full industrial composite index and allowing for a cap of 6 per cent and 5 per cent in 1983 and 1984. Following that formula, the salary recommended by the Commission would have come to $119,000. If we adjust its recommendation to take into account not the inflation it expected but the actual rate of change, then the salary in accordance with that formula would be $114,000. The salary that we are recommending is $9,000 less for a puisne superior court or supreme court judge than the recommendation of the Lang Commission.
As I said earlier, it is not possible for us to provide salaries in the order of these recommended by Mr. Lang at the present time. However, we know that compensation must be adjusted because we have to take into account the erosion of judicial salaries by inflation and other pressures since 1975. We consider the figure of $105,000 to be just and equitable in the circumstances. Whether or not the salaries we have proposed are adequate will be examined again next year because we have to appoint the next statutory review commission in 1986. By the way, the Commission will be asked to pay special attention to the question of what changes there should be made to judicial pensions.
The salary of $105,000 was determined by restoring the relativity that existed in 1975 between judicial salaries and those of the most senior classification of Deputy Ministers, the DM3 level. I do not want to deal with all of the salaries because we issued a release with all the details. However, the salary of the Chief Justice of Canada would be fixed at $135,000 under this Bill and other categories of the judiciary would be scaled downward accordingly.

October 11, 1985
The Governor General's Act
With respect to county and district court judges, the Lang Commission recommended that the difference in salary between a county court judge and a superior court judge should not exceed $5,000. We have accepted that suggestion. There are four provinces in which there are still county and district courts, Ontario, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Newfoundland. Since the jurisdiction of those courts is not that much different from the jurisdiction of superior courts, the present differential of $6,900 will be reduced to $5,000. Under this Bill, for example, a puisne district court judge or county court judge will receive $100,000 per year which, incidentally, is $14,000 less than that suggested by the Lang Commission. Of course, the chief justices will receive somewhat more than the puisne judges. A puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada will receive $124,200. As I said, a judge of a superior court will receive $105,000 and a judge of a county court will receive $100,000.
The Bill also deals with certain judicial allowances. A representational allowance is provided to chief justices and other senior judges to defray expenses incurred in hosting or attending functions of an official or semi-official nature in their capacity as heads of the court. That allowance is also provided to the puisne judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and to the senior judges of the Supreme Courts of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. We will double that allowance from its current levels to $10,000 for the Chief Justice of Canada, $7,000 for the Chief Justice of the Federal Court and the chief justices of each of the provinces and $5,000 for all other judges entitled to that benefit.
The Lang Commission had recommended that the ceiling on this allowance be removed and that all certified expenses be reimbursed. Rather than doing that, we are extending the benefit of this allowance in certain cases so that expenses incurred by spouses can be defrayed as well. We felt that when a chief justice attends a Government or other official function on behalf of the court, it is usually expected that he or she be accompanied by his or her spouse. At the present time, there is no authority for reimbursing expenses incurred by reason of attendance of spouses and we propose to permit reimbursement out of the representation allowance for such expenses. That, in my view, is only fair.
1 believe that spouses should not be forgotten, whether they are male or female, and I am pleased that we are making this change. By the way, several years ago a report pointed out that in the External Affairs Department, the wives of diplomats and the like should be paid a salary. That is a principle which 1 thought was a reasonable one in view of the kind of life they lead and the kind of work they do without pay at the present time. As part of that kind of experience-


Svend Johannes Robinson: What about Jane?


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, I believe Jane should be paid a high salary for travelling expenses. However, I have not had her at any staff meetings. I never know when she is going to barge in, mind you. I hope that she is not watching me.
The terms of the removal allowance will also be broadened by the Bill. There is now a removal allowance available to reimburse judges required to move their place of residence on appointment to the bench or when they are subsequently reassigned. We are going to extend that allowance to permit payment of such expenses in two special cases affecting the administration of justice in the north. If the Bill is passed by the House, a judge who resigns or retires from the Supreme Court of the Yukon or of the Northwest Territories-and I am glad to see that both Hon. Members are present this afternoon-and if it is the judge's wish to relocate in one of the 10 provinces, he will be paid a removal allowance which will cover reasonable moving and related expenses.
The same benefit will be extended to the surviving spouse and children of a northern judge who dies in office, if the judge's surviving dependants decide to relocate in one of the provinces. However, this benefit is conditional upon the judge having been appointed to a northern court while being a resident of one of the provinces. These amendments are proposed in recognition of the special circumstances which exist in the North.
Finally, the conference allowance will also be increased. That allowance is now based upon a multiplier of $350 per judge on a court, with a minimum per court of $3,000. The purpose of it is to meet expenses incurred by judges in attending conferences, meetings and seminars which promote efficiency or uniformity in the courts or improvements in the quality of judicial service in the courts. We are suggesting a new multiplier of $500 per judge, with a minimum of $5,000 per court, as a response to increased travel costs since the allowance was last adjusted. We are not proposing any change at this time to the conference allowance of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, which will remain at $1,000 per judge.
We cannot over-emphasize the importance of the judiciary to our system. We must strive, not only to secure the best legal talent available for the bench, but to compensate our judges adequately for the enerous and vital tasks which they undertake on our behalf. We think that we are proposing a fair and equitable approach to the issue of judicial compensation and allowances. They may be less generous than many in the judiciary had hoped and less generous than those advocated by the Lang Commission, but I think there are valid reasons to say that it is not possible to implement the Commission's recommendations in full. Judges are subject to the same economic realities as you and I, Mr. Speaker. Within the limits imposed by the need for restraint, I think that these amendments will go a long way toward improving judicial remuneration and the quality of life on the bench. This is why I am happy to move the Bill today.
In conclusion, I should like to return to the kinds of characteristics we need in judges. We need intelligence and ability. They have to be hard working. We cannot have lazy louts on the bench any longer. They have to be independent and
October 11, 1985

understanding. They have to be humane, literate, discerning, well disposed and humble. By the way, this reminds me of myself. Perhaps I should go to the bench; perhaps that is the only solution. They have to be well disposed, humble, polite and caring. It is not easy to find people of that nature. I look upon our judges today, as a result of recent constitutional changes, as voyageurs-and I did not say voyeurs-in a new legal frontier, exploring the frontier of the Charter. I look upon them as the coureurs de bois, the people who portaged and explored Canada in canoes, people such as Radisson, Des Groseilliers and others. Our judges are penetrating unknown territory. It would be very unwise for us to have a short-sighted attitude and sound to the general public as if we are paying judges tremendous salaries-and I think they are tremendous salaries-or to arouse envy among the public. The comparison is to what they can make if they do not go on the bench. We want the best, we want more women and we want more representatives of ethnic communities on the bench. We want a good mixture on the bench for this exploration; they are the new voyageurs. Who knows how they will interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or what they will think it means? If any of us have to come before a court, we will want to have the best on the bench, and we will only have the best on the bench if we not only respect them but pay them well.
I thank my hon. colleagues in the Official Opposition and in the New Democratic Party who I believe will co-operate in seeing that the Bill goes to committee relatively quickly, like sort of today or, if not, the next day. The legislation will make these payments retroactive to April 1, but I hope we will not keep the judiciary on tenterhooks for the next several months and that we will give reasonably swift treatment to the Bill which I commend to the House as being a reasonable compromise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by admitting that I had underestimated the Minister. I came to the House today thinking that his remarks would perhaps take five minutes to make and knowing that the Bill was heading for the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and that we would be able to examine it further there. However, upon listening to the length of his speech, I reflected upon the fact that he came from Newfoundland. In Newfoundland they try to say things well and, by and large, they do so. I do not know if that is a total explanation of it. Also I recognized, as I listened to his speech, that he was bound to set the record straight, as he saw it, and to try to demonstrate the terrible record in the justice field of the former Government, as well as the excellent record of his own Government in the brief one year it has been in office. I do not want to take the bait on any of his misstatements, no doubt through a lack of full examination and study of the Liberal record. I commend the Liberal record to him. I have to say for my part that I am disappointed that few things have been done in the area of justice in the year. However, I welcome the things which have been done. They were mostly bits and pieces of Bills on the
The Governor General's Act
Order Paper which would have proceeded during the last Parliament if only the Opposition of that day had been as co-operative as the Opposition of this day is intending to be, certainly in relation to legislation which we started. I thought, as he continued on and on, that even a Minister wanting to set the record straight would not have taken that long to try to do it. Then we found out the real reason for the speech being what it was, and I guess the real reason was that Jane was listening. I am glad that the wife of the Minister takes a considerable interest in her husband's work to listen that long, it being that full of baloney and hot air. I certainly want Jane to know that I enjoy her husband's speeches very much and I enjoy his presence in the House. I hope he stays out of trouble long enough to bring in even a small proportion of the many good things not yet delivered but promised. I hope Esterelke is listening, by the way.
I have little to say on the subject of the piece of legislation before us. It is a Bill to raise salaries, pensions and other related benefits. I endorse fully what the Minister said about the importance of the bench to a society which is animated, as is ours, by the rule of law and which wants to give absolute reality to the rhetoric that emerges from the House about our commitment to a society where all citizens truly have access to the judicial process. We want good judges.
My friend has offered himself as a candidate for the bench today. I hope he will not go until a lot of that good legislation about which he talked is brought forward and is made into law. However, since he raised the subject, I want to add a note about a type of judge who is needed and was not mentioned by my hon. friend. The record of the last year shows a lack of sensitivity to this criterion. As the judicial arm of the public administration of Canada has gained more and more authority by the passage of laws which have been referred to it and by the passage, in particular, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in addition to all the fine qualities mentioned by the Minister, we should add a greater reflection in the bench of the population nature of society. For example, he spoke about women. I was disappointed to hear him say that he could not find many good women to appoint to the bench now. He explained that only lawyers can be appointed and far less than half the lawyers in the country today are women. I still think, in spite of what the Minister said, and my own experience is that women can now be found to be appointed to the bench. This ought to be a more positive goal of the Minister than he indicated.
I recently tabled a question on the Order Paper which I had hoped would be answered by today. I asked how many of the 68 judges named by this Government are women. The reason I asked the question is that my sense of it is that since the election there are fewer women appointed to the bench, in proportion, than there were. I am very proud that in the former Liberal Government a substantial proportion were women. I have asked for the actual facts and when they are available I think they will show a falling off of the appointment of women to the bench. The Minister says he is in favour

October 11, 1985
The Governor General's Act
of it. He says that he cannot find enough good candidates, and I think that he is wrong. I hope that he will take another look at it.
1 want to indicate that it is not only women who ought to be represented more on the bench. There are other groups in the country whose views ought to animate the judiciary in Canada. Minority groups have very proud and able lawyers among their communities who ought to be elevated to the bench as much as possible, as a priority, I am indicating, not just as a coincidence, in order to achieve a judiciary which truly comes from the people of Canada, in addition to having all of the other qualities my friend mentioned and with which I very much agree.
Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my comments about particular provisions until we reach committee. I can tell you that the Liberals will not hold up this Bill. We are in favour of this increase. We recognize and note that it is not everything that was recommended by the independent outsider who reviewed the qualifications for judges, but it is an improvement. My sense of it is that it is an improvement that will make it easier for good people to accept when they are invited to become judges. On this side of the House we are all in favour of that.
As I said it was a very long speech by the Minister. He covered a lot of subjects that I could challenge but that is almost always the case with that Minister when he is on his feet. So far as second reading is concerned, I will simply note on behalf of our Party our approval in principle of the Bill.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-78 which has as its primary objective a rather substantial increase in the salary of the federal judiciary. As well it would increase the salaries of the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors of Canada.
I do not intend to comment with respect to the proposed increases in salary of the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors as I understand that the last time those salaries were increased was back in the 1800s, and it is probably about time that we had another look at that. Certainly we on this side are not prepared to storm the barricades with respect to those proposals contained in the Bill.
I had the honour of taking part in a similar debate, that is with respect to judicial compensation, some four years ago. That was on what was then Bill C-34, at a time when rather substantial increases once again were being proposed in the salaries of members of the federal judiciary. The previous occasion on which salaries had been increased was in 1977.
In March of 1981 the approximately 750 federally appointed members of the judiciary, and here of course we are talking about country and district court judges in those provinces in which there still is a country and district court, I believe Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia; Supreme Court judges; Court of Appeal judges; Federal Court; Federal Court of Appeal; the Tax Court and the highest court in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, a substantial pay raise which was in fact retroactive to April 1 of 1980.
At the same time as we passed that Bill there was provision made for annual cost of living increases which were based on a percentage. I believe there was a maximum of 7 per cent in the cost of living. Finally, that Bill made provision for an independent commission to study the whole range of compensation and benefits offered to members of the federal judiciary.
In 1983 the first such commission was appointed. It was chaired by a former Liberal Cabinet Minister, Otto Lang, former Minister of Justice in fact, and that committee met and recommended some very substantial increases in salaries for the federally appointed judiciary. They reported in October of 1983 and recommended salary increases ranging from 26 per cent to 36 per cent, very significant increases. At the same time they recommended eliminating any contributions by federally appointed judges to their very generous pension plan.
The question of contributions to their pension plans by federally appointed judges has been a sticky and controversial one and indeed in the previous Bill the Minister of Justice had proposed eliminating contributions by those judges to their pension plans. However, in the face of strong opposition from my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, as well as from the then Official Opposition, the Conservative Party, the Minister of Justice withdrew those provisions and appointed a special commission, as a bit of a face saving gesture, to look into that whole area.
The suggestion was made that somehow by requiring judges to contribute to their pension plan the way all other Canadians contribute to their pension plans we were in some way attacking the independence of the judiciary. I have the report of the special committee that looked into this whole question which was chaired by Mr. Jean de Grandpre and which included Mr. Jack Birkenshaw and Mr. Jack Munro. That report made an astonishing suggestion. They said, and I am quoting from the report:
-there exists a subtle but real relationship between the annuity benefits provided by law for the judges and the quality, competence and independence of the judiciary in Canada.
Clearly any such suggestion that the requirement for judges to contribute to their own pension plan is in some way linked to the independence of the judiciary is completely without foundation. I was pleased to note that even the report of the Lang Commission quickly put the lie to that particular suggestion. I quote again from the Lang Commission:
We do not consider the issue of contributions to annuities as in any way affecting the independence of the judiciary.
I suggest that that is certainly the only appropriate approach to that particular question.
I was pleased to note that despite the recommendatoin both of the de Granpre committee and the Lang Commission that they did not in fact include in this Bill provisions to elimiante contributions by federally appointed judges to their very generous pension plans.
I want to put the Government clearly on notice that our position on this issue remains the same today as it was four years ago. We will vigorously oppose any Bill which is brought forward to eliminate contributions by judges to their pension
October 11, 1985

plans. That is not to say, however, that there are not deficiencies in the current provisions for pension plans for members of the federal judiciary.
I will refer to the report of the Lang Commission which noted that it had been made aware of at least one recent case in which a judge, after holding an office for over 10 years but less than 15, had resigned his office and was thereby disentitled from receiving any benefit, apart from the return of his contributions. The Commission said that was unfair and we in this Party agree that it is unfair. It went on to recommend that a judge with no final qualification for retirement should be entitled to a partial annuity after completing 10 years of service on the bench. That is a recommendation which was repeated by the committee chaired by Louis-Philippe de Grandpre on the independence of the judiciary in Canada. That committee recommended, as the Lang Commission had done, that there should be changes made in the eligibility in vesting requirements for pensions of the members of the federal judiciary. I would note that one outstanding former judge and lawyer, a man who has contributed a great deal not only to the development of jurisprudence but to human rights in this country, and I am speaking of Thomas Berger, is one of those who is affected by this present inequity in the provisions for judges' pensions. I hope that the Government is prepared to move forward on an early basis to make the changes necessary in this particular area.
Parliament is called upon to consider the question of the level of judges' salaries by virtue of the provisions of the British North America Act. Section 100 of the BN A Act requires Parliament and no other body to establish the level of salaries, allowances and pensions of judges who are appointed by the federal Government. Those payments are established by way of amendments to the Judges Act which come before this House from time to time. I believe the time has come to consider seriously whether this is in fact the most appropriate way to approach the sensitive question of what is an appropriate level of judicial compensation. I suggest that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs may want to consider the advisability of looking into other approaches to the method of fixing judicial compensation.
1 emphasize that the final decision with respect to the level of such compensation must clearly be made by Parliament. However, it may well be that there are other methods for arriving at an appropriate level of such compensation. For example, in the State of New South Wales in Australia there is a provision whereby an independent remuneration tribunal is empowered to address the issue of salaries for the judiciary, among other federally-appointed individuals. The tribunal reports to Parliament and unless there is a specific objection to its recommendations by 50 per cent of the Members of Parliament after the passage of a certain period of time the recommendations become law. That is the negative resolution means of proceeding. I suggest, without endorsing that particular proposal in any way, that the time has come for us to examine alternatives which remove the direct link between those of us
The Governor General's Act
in Parliament and the judiciary when it comes time to fix levels of salary.
I wish to make it clear that we reject the argument that it is necessary to substantially increase the level of salaries for federally-appointed judges in order to ensure that the best people are appointed to the bench. I suggest it is totally without foundation to advocate, as does the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), that we increase the level of salaries in order that those people who are already making $150,000 or $200,000 would then be in a position to accept appointments to the bench. We do not want a bench which is appointed on the basis of those individuals who will accept a position which pays a great deal of money. In fact, even the report of the Canadian Bar Association on the independence of the judiciary, the committee to which I referred earlier chaired by Louis-Philippe de Grandpre, stated the following:
-it is neither necessary nor desirable to establish judicial salaries at such a level as to match the judges' earnings before appointment to the bench. The most obvious reason for this is that such a policy would tend to attract people to the bench for purely financial reasons. The sort of person who would accept a position on the bench because it paid well is not the sort of person who would make the best judge. Rather, the sort of person we would wish to see on the bench are those who appreciate the honour of being a judge and who see as part of their reward the satisfaction of serving society on the bench.
I suggest that is a more appropriate approach to the question of what is adequate judicial compensation. The suggestion that somehow the best people are those who are making the most money is one that we in the New Democratic Party reject. There are many outstanding members of the bar who, in fact, are making salaries well below those which are currently being paid to members of the federal judiciary. In looking at the level of judicial compensation we have to consider as well the fact that there is a very generous annuity plan which should be included in any assessment of the level of compensation. Lawyers who are working in the area of public interest advocacy, lawyers who do a great deal of legal aid work and those involved in poverty law are not necessarily the best paid. They do not make as much money as corporate lawyers, for example. Nor do they make as much money as tax lawyers. However, that does not mean they are not eminently qualified to serve on the bench of this country.
I would note as well that by this bench-mark, as suggested by the Minister of Justice, senior members of the bar would presumably be unwilling to serve in Parliament because we are paid even less than members of the federal judiciary. The suggestion that the quality of representation, either on the bench or in Parliament, is directly linked to the level of compensation is one which I find invidious and without any foundation in substance.
My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) asks why there are so many lawyers in Parliament. I think that that perhaps is a question he may want to address in the context of his speech.
Stanley Knowles, the former Member for Winnipeg North Centre, spoke in 1981 when a Bill dealing with judges' salaries was before Parliament. I think it is appropriate that 1 remind the House what Stanley Knowles had to say with respect to

October 11, 1985
The Governor General's Act
judges' salaries. I might say that he said the same thing with respect to the salary of Members of Parliament. Stanley Knowles said this:
Most of our senior citizens, and this means most of the 2 million people over the age of 65, are struggling at or just below the poverty line. We have many others, particularly women, in the 55 to 65 age bracket, those unattached who would be well off if they could get up to the poverty line who are having a difficult time-
1 cannot bring myself to believe that it is the right thing in the face of these problems to keep on giving massive increases to those who are at the top-
I still think, if I may go back that far, that there was something to the idea in Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward", who said that those who had to do the dirtiest and the meanest jobs should get paid more than those who had the privilege of doing the delightful and the enjoyable jobs.
There is considerable substance to what my good friend and former colleague Stanley Knowles had to say on the occasion of the debate on judges' salaries in 1981. There is a great deal of job satisfaction in the work of a federally-appointed judge. There can be no greater honour bestowed upon a member of the bar than to be called upon to serve as a member of the federal judiciary. I think that the level of status within the community, the degree of respect, as well as the existing salary levels are certainly adequate.
I would note as well that there is a built-in percentage increase already in the Judges Act. When we deal with percentage increases on salaries which are already up around $100,000 what we are doing is increasing the gap between rich and poor. At a time when the Government is talking about allocating scarce resources efficiently, I have to ask myself whether it is really appropriate for us symbolically, if in no other way, to add to the salaries of those who are already at the top at the same time as this Government is cutting back on family allowances. I have to question the priorities of a Government which is prepared to move forward in this way. I have to question the priorities of a Government which tables a Bill to substantially increase the salaries of federally appointed judges at the same time as it tables a Bill to remove full indexation of old age pensions, a proposal which was turned back only as a result of the collective will, determination and energy of senior citizens right across this country.
It is my view and that of my colleagues in the NDP that this is not the time for this increase. I emphasize again that we do not in any way dispute the vital role played by the judiciary in Canada. What we do question is whether it is necessary to significantly increase these salaries in order to attract the finest legal minds to the bench. The argument is made that senior lawyers are paid well in excess of what members of the federal judiciary are paid. In fact, the Lang Commission included a table in its report which would appear to document that. It noted, for example, in 1981 that the average income of a lawyer who had been practising for 10 years, in the third quartile of the profession, was $95,269. Certainly those lawyers are not underpaid by any stretch of the imagination. Once again we have to ask ourselves as a society whether it is not the case that the gap between rich and poor is too great, that it is too great between those who have and those who have not, and
whether we, as a society, should be moving to narrow those income inequities instead of broadening them as this Bill would do.
The Lang Commission as well made a rather sad plea on behalf of members of the federal judiciary. It said that for many judges, particularly those in the large urban centres, and in areas with a high cost of living, cash flow is an increasing problem. I think all of us will shed a tear or two for the federal members of the judiciary for whom cash flow is a problem when we note that the bottom salary of these individuals as of April 1 of this year was $86,900. I do not think we have to shed too many tears, although I am sure it must be a struggle for them to survive on $86,900 a year. I am sure the cash flow must be a difficult problem but I suggest there are literally millions of Canadians who are struggling to get by on salaries far below those suggested by the Lang Commission as inadequate. Indeed, the current level of salaries is from $86,900 for a judge of the County Court up to $117,800 for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. I suggest that range of salaries will not in any way lead to financial hardship. Quite frankly, it will not in any way act as a deterrent to those who generally want to serve on the bench. I suggest that if someone turns down an appointment to the bench because they are making $90,000 or $100,000 a year, we have to ask ourselves whether that is an individual we really want on the bench in Canada today. If someone is prepared to say no to a salary like that, despite the fact that the position itself brings honour and prestige and, indeed, is the pinnacle of any lawyer's career, do we really want him on the bench?
I would like to deal for a moment with another area of fundamental importance to this whole question. That is, the nature of the appointments process. Quite frankly, I would have hoped that, instead of bringing a Bill forward to deal with judges' salaries, this Government would have brought forward a Bill to deal with the question of the method of appointment of judges. The Canadian Bar Association recently issued a report called The Appointment of Judges in Canada. This excellent committee, chaired by Neil McKelvey, interviewed literally hundreds of people and came to the conclusion that there has been a long history of political patronage appointments to the bench by both major Parties in Canada. The committee noted that although there had been some commendable exceptions, the practice of appointing the Party faithful to the bench has been all too common. Those were the words of a reputable committee of the CBA which suggested very clearly that political patronage has played an excessive role in the appointment of members of the federal bench. It went on to add that that does not in any way mean that those who were appointed were incompetent because they happen to be of a particular political persuasion. However, what it does mean is that we are not appointing judges on the basis of quality and ability; we are appointing them on the basis of their political stripe.
The committee said that in the light of political appointments, continued public confidence in the integrity of the Canadian justice system cannot simply be assumed. There is
October 11, 1985

cynicism concerning the appointment of judges and this cynicism must be allayed if public confidence in the legal system is to be maintained. The committee went on to say that the process of the appointment of judges tended to vary widely from province to province. For example, in the Province of British Columbia, Quebec, the Ontario Court of Appeal and the High Court, the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon, political favouritism has not had a significant influence on appointments. Speaking as a Member of Parliament from British Columbia, certainly that has been my sense of the nature of appointments to the federal bench in British Columbia. Political appointments have not been a significant problem there, although there certainly have not been an excessive number of lawyers who happen to be New Democrats appointed to the bench. However, the committee goes on to note that in Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and in Ontario county and district court appointments, political favouritism has been a significant but not dominant consideration. Finally, in the most damning portion of this report, the committee says that in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan, political favouritism has been a dominant, although not the sole, consideration. Most appointees have been active supporters of the Party in power. That is a pretty stinging indictment of the method of appointment of judges in Canada today. I suggest that rather than focusing on the level of salaries we should, as a Parliament, be looking very seriously at the mehthod of appointment. This is particularly important at a time when the role of the judiciary has been significantly enhanced. The Charter of Rights, of course, has been in effect since 1982. The equality rights section of the Charter has been in effect since April 17 of this year. Members of the federal judiciary are going to be called upon to make fundamental decisions which will in many cases shape the fabric of this nation in the future.
I suggest that to continue with a method of appointment of judges which is clearly flawed and, in too many instances, based on partisan political factors, does a great disservice to the people of Canada. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, as well, that we look very seriously at the recommendation made by the CBA for an independent appointments process. I happen to believe that we should not reject as quickly as they do the suggestion of a role for Parliament in scrutinizing appointments to the federal judiciary. A similar role was played by American legislators, elected representatives. I suggest that we want to look very carefully at the implications of that in the Canadian political and parliamentary context.
As the Canadian Bar noted, Mr. Speaker, the primary cause for concern, the support of a particular Party, is totally irrelevant to whether a person is qualified to be a judge. Another concern they noted is that where political favouritism exists, supporters of Opposition Parties are frequently not given serious consideration as candidates for the bench. Those who support no Party at all are also often excluded. They go on to suggest that the system may produce appointments of unqualified people, those whose only qualifications are frien-ship with the Party in power or one of its Ministers. They also
The Governor General's Act
suggest that even if political affiliation may be a minor consideration, patronage and judicial appointments can become a means of managing a political Party. Finally, they raise two other major concerns. Now that increasing numbers of Charter cases are coming before Canadian courts, some involving review of political decisions, and of course the Supreme Court of Canada has indeed held that Cabinet decisions can be reviewed, as in the cruise missile case, Governments might try to stack the courts with people of their own ideological persuasion in an effort to influence the outcome of decisions on contentious social issues. Finally, and this is a very important factor, even if political favouritism is reduced or eliminated in judicial appointments, if the public perceives that it exists, public confidence in the judicial system is effectively undermined. The committee goes on to make a number of suggestions for reform and I believe many of them should be looked at by the Government on a priority basis.
There are a number of other issues of concern with respect to the question of the judiciary in Canada. I was recently most disappointed with the decision of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to call upon a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Willard Estey, to conduct the investigation into the Government's mishandling of the CCB and Northland Bank fiascos. I believe the Chief Justice of Canada, Brian Dickson, very clearly and eloquently urged the Government as recently as last month to be very cautious before calling upon judges to embark upon commissions of inquiry. At a time when the Supreme Court of Canada has a very heavy workload before it, I believe the Prime Minister made a serious mistake in taking away an albeit outstanding member of that bench and asking him to conduct this commission of inquiry. 1 hope the Government in future will heed the concern of the Chief Justice of Canada and others in not appointing such individuals. On this point I would note that the de Grandpre Commission on the independence of the judiciary was very clear and explicit. It said:
The Committee ... is not in favour of judges sitting on commissions of inquiry except in those cases where the nature of the matter under investigation makes the choice of a judge as commissioner particularly appropriate. Time spent away from the bench sitting on commissions of inquiry tends to reduce the independence of the individual judge involved and of the bench generally. The most obvious problem is the absence of the judge from the bench. A greater burden is placed on the other judges of a court when one is absent for a substantial period, and the work of the absent judge may suffer.
Therefore, I think this is an appropriate occasion to draw to the attention of the Government my concern about weakening the bench by making these kinds of appointments. 1 suggest as well that we look very seriously at the fact that access to our courts is becoming increasingly restricted. This is the result of serious but-backs in legal aid programs all across Canada. This has the effect of creating a justice system in which there is full accessibility only to those who can afford to go before the courts. We in this Party have always spoken out strongly for full and equal access to the courts. I suggest it is incumbent upon both the federal and provincial Governments to provide all necessary resources to ensure that legal aid programs, both

October 11, 1985
The Governor General's Act
civil and criminal, are adequately funded. They are not adequately funded today and that can very easily lead to a system in which there is justice for the rich but not for the poor.
The Minister of Justice touched upon in particular the question of appointments of women. While some progress has been made, I think it is only appropriate to draw to the attention of this House and Canadians the fact that until this Government came into power not one woman had been appointed by a Conservative Government in the history of Canada. Not one woman by any Conservative Government since 1867. That is a pretty disgraceful record. However, 1 am pleased to note that the Government has started, albeit slowly, to appoint more women to the federal bench. However, I suggest there is no shortage of qualified women at this point and if ever there were a need for strong and effective affirmative action, it is in this area. The time has come for qualified and capable women to be appointed to the federal bench and I hope the rate of such appointments will increase very significantly.
In conclusion, I want to again emphasize the importance of the task now before Parliament in being called upon to determine an appropriate level of compensation for members of the federal judiciary. At the same time I want to underscore our concern that judges should not be appointed on the basis of how much money they are going to be making. They should be appointed on their willingness to serve and accept this very important position. In many ways there can be no greater honour for a member of the bar than to be called upon to serve as a member of the judiciary. It is a difficult job and one which by and large in this country is done very well. I know that most of us who are members of the legal profession in British Columbia have the greatest confidence in and respect for our federally-appointed judges at all levels. I think it is important that we take the opportunity, when this Bill gets to committee, to look very carefully at some of the questions raised today regarding appointments to the federal judiciary and access to the courts, and look very seriously at whether it is an appropriate time for us to be increasing salaries of judges at the federal level as proposed by this Government. We in this Party are opposing this Bill at second reading and I know my colleagues will be taking an opportunity to speak at greater length today and in the days which lie ahead.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I see that this Bill is not going through today but that will not be on my account because I am going to finish my remarks before four o'clock. I am not going to involve myself in the argument as to whether or not a judge can scrimp by on the present salary of $95,000 and whether he really needs that extra $10,000 at a time when others in society are being asked to cut back on their expectations. I am not going to involve myself in the argument about whether or not the general level of compensation in the legal profession is too high in relation to other people in society for the type of work they do. What I am going to do is speak specifically about Clause 6 in the Bill which deals with the removal allowances paid to judges in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. There is a good reason why
you need that allowance. Judges in those jurisdictions usually come from elsewhere. However, I would like to point out that this only applies to judges who are originally from and retire to one of the 10 provinces. It occurs to me that there might well be a case where a judge originally from the Yukon goes to the Northwest Territories, or the reverse, and he or she ought to be entitled to the same removal allowance as judges originating in and returning to the south.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). Does the Hon. Member wish to call it four o'clock? The Hon. Member will have the floor the next time this matter is debated.


Cyril Keeper: Yes, call it four o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well.
It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   INDIAN AFFAIRS ADVISABILITY OF PROMOTING INDIAN SELF-GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 15, 1985, consideration of the motion of Mr. Penner:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of promoting Indian self-government by:
1.	Announcing support for an affirmative policy of constitutional recognition of aboriginal self-government;
2.	Pursuing actively, a bilateral process of discussion with representatives of first nations on such issues as self-government, natives claims and the elimination of the extinguishment policy; and
3.	Introducing legislation to recognition first nations self-government which should be developed by means of a joint process and utilization of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) on a point of order.


B. Keith Penner: Am I being recognized for debate, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member for Cochrane-Superior has already spoken on this matter. Of course, if he speaks now, that will close the debate. Are there other Members who wish to speak?


Mr. Tupper:: Yes.


Cyril Keeper: Yes.
October 11, 1985


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, on a point of order, the Member for Cochrane-Superior.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the motion that I put on the Order Paper on February 15 of this year has now been before the House on several occasions. If Members will examine the motion carefully they will recognize that to a very extensive degree, almost entirely, this has become-


Mr. Dick:: That's debate.


B. Keith Penner: It is not debate, it is a point of order. It has become the policy of the Government. The point I want to make, on a point of order, is simply that it is the intention of the Government to bring in a closure motion next week on Bill C-79 which involves the expenditure of some $800 million. I would like to ask, on a point of order-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Order. That's not a point of order.


B. Keith Penner: Will the Parliamentary Secretary please listen for a moment-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Get to the point.


B. Keith Penner: -instead of shouting so that no one can be heard?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Get to the point.


B. Keith Penner: The point is simply the following: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider allowing debate to stop now and having this motion come to a division next week?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


B. Keith Penner: Will he recognize what that will do?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. There may be personal discussions but, unfortunately, this is not a point of order.


B. Keith Penner: Well, this certainly is a point of order because it is how we conduct our business and how we conduct our business is a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I cannot allow it as a point of order.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to finish the last part of my point of order and then the Speaker will see that it is a point of order. By allowing this motion to come to a division we will in fact be getting behind the Minister and saying that Parliament supports the Minister in his program. We will be getting behind the Indian people and saying that we are aware of their aspirations and that we, as a Parliament, are behind them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


B. Keith Penner: That is the point and the reason we should proceed to division now instead of debating any longer.
Indian Self-Government


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair does not consider that to be a point of order. The Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) has the floor for debate.


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, 1 am delighted to rise this afternoon on behalf of the constituents of Nepean-Carleton to provide Members of the House with my analysis of the Private Members' motion which is before us. I think we all want to compliment our colleague, the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) for his interest in native peoples, many of whom live in northern Canada and many of whom are his constituents. He has approached this subject in the House with a great deal of sincerity and integrity and he is to be complimented on that. I took the time today to read his speech of December 4 in the House when he introduced this motion. He ended his presentation that day by noting that these very important, sensitive, and difficult issues have to be addressed. I compliment him for that.
As I look at his motion which we are considering today I see that the Member for Cochrane-Superior is asking the Government to consider promoting Indian self-government by taking action in specified areas. Indian self-government, as I understand it, is intended to do the following four things: to enhance community control and decision-making; to recognize the diverse needs, traditions and cultures of those it serves; to enable Indian people to provide for Governments accountable to them rather than to the federal bureaucracy; and to establish future economic self-reliance for Indian people.
Aboriginal peoples have a historical view of this land prior to European exploration and colonization. It was inhabited by many different indigenous people who came from various geographic areas and eventually inhabited North America. These people were organized into political entities and groupings based on common language, culture, and history. These diverse communities were self-sufficient. Their economies were based variously on hunting, fishing, agriculture, gathering, and trading. Those economies depended upon the climate, forest cover, availability of game and good fishing, etc.
Over the years our native peoples were segregated onto reserve lands. The evolution of technology, the development of economies based upon manufactured products, and the dissemination of the tribes through disease disabled their traditional economic system. Many of these problems relate back to the Indian Act of 1876. Through the treaty-making process the Indians believed that their economic base would be protected or enhanced. Non-Indians saw the treaties as an extinguishment of Indian rights with the acceptance of a defined land base and government programs such as education and medical services.
Over the years various Governments have tried to stimulate economic growth in the aboriginal community. There have been some notable successes witnessed in many communities. The failures occur mainly because we have tried to impose our concept of business practices and economies on to the native peoples. The statistics tell the story. On every count aboriginal people suffered by comparison with the rest of Canadian society, even in comparison to adjacent non-native communi-

October 11, 1985
Indian Self-Government
ties. They have less education, live in lower standard housing, and suffer from more health problems. This all leads to a continuous cycle of poverty and dependence, a cycle which this Government is anxious for those peoples to break out of. Changes in the economic prospects of aboriginal people will not come about easily. Movement must take place on a number of fronts simultaneously. This will not happen overnight, but we are starting now.
To be more specific, the educational levels of native peoples have historically been less than that of non-natives. Forty-four per cent of the Indian population have less than grade nine education compared to 22 per cent of the rest of the population. Fortunately, there are some signs of change in this area. A significantly larger number of young Indians are achieving higher levels of education than were achieved in their parents' generation. Enrolment in post-secondary schools, especially in management, administrative and related programs, between 1979 and 1983 increased by 63 per cent. Enrolment in architectural, engineering and related programs in 1982 to 1984 increased four times over that in 1979 and 1980.
The view of Indian people, which view the Government supports, is that economic development is linked to self-government. I am confident that the Member for Cochrane-Superior would agree with this hypothesis. Both are necessary to achieve the common goal of increased self-reliance. Therefore, we are moving in the direction of economic control being transferred to Indian peoples. Because of the diversity of the Indian nations, a wide range of possibilities must be and will be accommodated. This takes time.
We are currently working on a number of initiatives which will assist Indian people in breaking their dependency cycle and in moving toward economic self-reliance and self-sufficiency.
For example, in confirmation of the Government's commitment to improve the quality of life of Indian people through economic development, we have announced a $24 million fund for an Indian community human resource development strategy program. This program is based on the principle that a successful human resource strategy must be tailored to the needs of the community. Communities will be encouraged to assume full responsibility for the development and implementation of their own strategies.
In July it was announced that a fund of $11 million would be made available for the implementation of the Indian fisherman's economic development program designed to stabilize the participation levels of Metis people in the West Coast fishing industry.
We are currently working in close co-operation with the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion to pursue, through various tripartite agreements with the provinces and native people, the development of specific program initiatives that take into account the needs and circumstances of native communities. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) has announced that he is exploring a means of introducing new funding arrangements for Indian bands and tribal councils. Such funding arrangements would enable them to decide how best to meet their people's needs and to set their own priorities in view of their local conditions.
The need for other changes is fully recognized. As has been said before, we must find a way in these times of restraint and fiscal responsibility to provide a level of funding sufficient so that First Nation's communities can receive levels of service on a par with other Canadians in other parts of Canada which will allow them to become healthy and productive communities. This can only be done when funds can be expended in accord with their own values and under their own control.
The economic revitalization of this country is a major goal of the Government. This revitalization is clearly needed for our aboriginal people as well as for other citizens. The Government has made a commitment that Canada's native peoples will be part of the process of building a national economic consensus. It is absolutely essential that we provide an environment in which our native peoples find their true role in our society. We want them to enhance their educational opportunities in their own communities, to enhance their social opportunities, their business interests and their total well-being so that they can contribute in their own way and in their fullest way to the fabric of Canadian society.
We have a great deal to do in working for them. Naturally, we want them to work within their own councils. Beyond that, however, they must take their place in the framework of our great Confederation. I believe it is the hope of every Member of the House and every Canadian that as we move through the 1980s we will be able to enhance the economic and social well-being of native peoples who have such a great tradition and form such a great part of Canadian and North American heritage.
The Government is looking for new approaches to replace the policies that have failed our native people so badly in the past. It is talking to aboriginal peoples and seeking their views. I know that we can succeed in establishing the new relationship that is so vital to the enhancement of their place in our society. Together we can make a better future for native persons.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, in speaking briefly in this debate, I want to make it clear that our Party supports this resolution. It aligns itself very well with the aspirations and needs of Indian people. The resolution begins by calling upon the Government to make an affirmative policy of constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights and points out that the Government could accomplish a great deal through a bilateral process of negotiation with First Nations' government. Finally, it indicates that the Government should be introducing legislation that would recognize First Nations' self-government.
My Party and I support this resolution because it brings these aspirations and hopes of aboriginal peoples directly to the attention of the Government. While it will not be easy,
October 11, 1985

Indian self-government will be achieved. I hope that we take many steps toward that goal during our lifetime.
Indian self-government must be achieved because it is the lack of self-government and self-determination which has caused native people to end up at the bottom of the totem pole. The inability of the Indian people and Indian communities to make decisions about their needs and find solutions to their problems has resulted in low levels of education in Indian communities, high levels of alcoholism, violence and extremely high unemployment. Present conditions are enough reason to move toward Indian self-government.
History will show that the symptoms of today's conditions began when their right to self-determination was taken away. When European people first stepped foot on this continent in an attempt to establish communities here, it was the Indian people who came to their aid and taught them the ways to survive on this continent. There was greater equality later on during the fur trade between the trappers and merchants. At that time there was a mutually beneficial relationship between the Indians and European people. This mutually beneficial relationship between European and native people on this continent has been destroyed as a result of the undermining of the traditional native economy and the changing political process which left Indian political organizations with very little power or influence.
We must recognize that Indian self-government is the proper solution. Canadians were made aware of this fact by the parliamentary committee which produced the report on Indian self-government entitled "Indian Self-government in Canada: A Report of the Special Committee of the House of Commons". My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), who was the chairman of that committee, deserves special recognition.
He and the other members of the committee deserve special recognition. They spoke and listened to Indian leaders right across the country. When they wrote their report, they demonstrated that they had in fact listened because the report reflected something that had been said by Indian people for many years: quite simply, that if there is going to be any real resolution to the problems that face Indian people, it is the Indian people who are going to have to fashion and implement the solution. The way to assure that that can be done by structuring the political process in a way that allows Indian people self-government.
In a country like Canada which in the past has been traumatized by threats of separatist movements, notions like self-government can throw fear into the hearts of many. It is necessary for Canadians to appreciate the need for self-government and what is meant by self-government and to appreciate that it is possible to negotiate self-government and still maintain a national unity.
I would like to pay particular tribute to those Hon. Members who served on the special parliamentary committee and issued the report on Indian self-government because they
Indian Self-Government
demonstrated that Parliament can serve a useful, worthwhile function and that it can take hold of a complex and difficult problem which has been unsolvable throughout the last 100 years of our history and come up with intelligent, reasonable and workable solutions. Having demonstrated that Parliament can work, we now need a real demonstration that Government can work.
It is not only Indian people who are cynical about the Government. In large measure, the whole of the Canadian public is cynical about the Government because Governments have so often promised so much and delivered so little. This matter provides a real opportunity for the Government of the day to live up to its promise and to demonstrate that Governments can serve people.
The cynicism that exists in the Indian community is based upon painful experience and has resulted in the fact that while this report on Indian self-government came from the Indian community, a number of Indian people have opposed its recommendations and concepts primarily because they no longer trust the political process and public authority. They feel that anything that comes from a parliamentary or Government source is bound to be flawed and detrimental to the interests of the Indian community. We have a long way to go toward building the trust that must exist between the Canadian Government and Indian communities in order to allow the negotiations that will result in Indian self-government.
There is some value to going through the agony, trouble and work that would be involved in establishing Indian self-government in this country. By achieving Indian self-government, we could aid human dignity. That Indian people face the conditions they do today is an affront to human dignity. By negotiating Indian self-government, we would show that we are no longer willing to tolerate the kinds of social and economic conditions under which Indian people live and that we would no longer tolerate the affront to human dignity that those conditions represent.
The benefits of Indian self-government would accrue not only to Indian people. Certainly Indian self-government would lead to a better life for Indian people and it would lead to the development of Indian communities and individuals. As well, it would be of benefit to the entire nation because as one segment of the community flourishes, we all benefit. As one flower in the garden blossoms, the beauty of the entire garden is enhanced.
As we demonstrate that it is possible for this nation to negotiate and create Indian self-government, a measure of democracy, we could also extend that same kind of negotiation in other directions. There are many other communities in this country that feel powerless and are cynical about the promise of democracy. If we could demonstrate that we are capable of putting in place a democratic system for Indian people, then we could do that with regard to other groups and communities as well.
The resolution brought forward by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior is a historic resolution. It is a real step forward in the progress of the Indian people of this country

October 11, 1985
Indian Self-Government
and in the building of national unity. I would call upon the Government to take very seriously the concept of Indian self-government and to seek all ways possible to achieve it in reality without simply speaking of it in rhetorical terms.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) on the interest he has shown here today for our native communities, an interest that was apparent before, both in the proceedings of the parliamentary committee and in this House. The Hon. Member may be aware that my riding too has a native population that is very much present, very community-oriented, and that also wants to evolve towards a certain form of self-determination.
In the motion presented by the Hon. Member, he is asking the Government to support the adoption of an affirmative policy of constitutional recognition of aboriginal self-government. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall, first of all, that at the First Ministers' Conference on constitutional issues concerning native peoples, held on April 2 and 3, 1985, the Government indicated that it was entirely in favour of adopting a Bill to amend the Constitution, to recognize and affirm the right of aboriginal peoples to self-government within the Canadian confederation.
In his preliminary speech, the Prime Minister indicated that, like other Canadians, Indians, Inuit and Metis must be able to take responsibility for their own affairs by setting their own priorities and establishing their own programs. They also must have a guarantee that their cultural and linguistic background and traditions will be respected. "The key to the changes that are necessary . .." said the Prime Minister, " ... is to grant (native people) self-government within the Canadian confederation".
Mr. Speaker, he also recognized and accepted the desire of native peoples to have their rights, which are unique, enshrined in the supreme law of the land, in order to protect these rights against any legislative interference. The federal Government has demonstrated its commitment to providing constitutional protection for native rights in the amending proposal tabled at the conference, in which we find the following elements:
The recognition and affirmation of the right of native peoples to self-government within the Canadian confederation, provided these rights are set forth in agreements negotiated and approved by the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislative assemblies concerned;
Second, a commitment by the federal and provincial governments to conducting negotiations with native peoples on the issue of self-government, in accordance with their respective
jurisdictions, while providing for participation by territorial governments if necessary.
I am sure I do not have to remind Hon. Members that the Constitution Act, 1982, contains a constitutional amending formula requiring the agreement of two-thirds of the provinces whose total population is equal to at least half of the population of the country. Furthermore, Section 37 of the Constitution Act provides for participation by representatives of the Indians, Inuit and Metis, and of both territories, in the process of determining native rights.
Obviously, it is not easy to reach an agreement when there are so many parties with such vastly diverging interests. However, the federal Government, by playing the role of moderator as well as tabling a detailed and innovative amending proposal, has helped to create the requisite framework for discussion and reaching an acceptable compromise.
The initial reaction of native participants was that although the amending proposal did not go far enough, considering the provisions they wanted to see in the Constitution, it was nevertheless a good starting point for discussion.
Among the provinces, reactions varied from unqualified support for the federal Government's proposal to outright rejection. The proposal was supported by five provinces: Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan admitted that it responded to many of their concerns. However, Nova Scotia would have preferred a more precise definition of self-government, while Saskatchewan was concerned about the nature of commitments that were not clearly defined and the risk of court challenges. British Columbia and Alberta were opposed to the proposal. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Cros-bie), who played a major role at the Constitutional Conference, chaired meetings held in camera on the evening of the first day and the following morning, in an attempt to try and develop a constitutional amending proposal that would be acceptable to all parties. The struggle to find a common ground that would make it possible to reach a compromise was a long and difficult one.
The federal Government's new proposal, reflecting Saskatchewan's compromise, was tabled around noon on the second day. It differed from the initial proposal in that, first of all, the commitment concerning the negotiating process was withdrawn from the amending proposal and included in the agreement. Second, the approval of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislative assemblies concerned would be necessary to conclude any agreement on self-government. Third, a provision was added to the amending proposal to protect native people against any measure that would repeal of infringe on their rights, including their rights to self-government.
The new provisions of the Accord included, among other things, the right to appear before the First Ministers' conference and present progress reports on the negotiations as well as
October 11, 1985

proposed amendments to the Constitution with respect to self-government, an item which was to be on the agenda of the following conference of First Ministers on constitutional matters concerning aboriginal peoples.
This new proposition gave rise to various reactions from the provinces and the organizations of aboriginal peoples, from rejection in certain cases-because it did not go far enough- to conditional acceptance in other cases.
British Columbia tabled a counterproposition. Some provinces stated they would not take position until the aboriginal groups had expressed their views, and the Inuit Committee on National Issues said it would announce its opinion only after further consultations with other Inuit people. The Native Council of Canada and the Metis National Council both expressed conditional support for the new proposition, whereas the Assembly of First Nations rejected it outright even though it endorsed the initiative taken by the Government.
Just so the representatives would have time to consult with their aboriginal brothers, more ministerial meetings were held last June 6 and 7 to continue the discussions. At the time the federal Government indicated its willingness to support any proposition deemed acceptable to the other parties.
However it soon became obvious that it would be impossible to reach an immediate consensus to adopt a proposed amendment.
We were disappointed but not discouraged by the outcome, if only because it had been possible to reach agreement on more issues than ever before. What matters now is to provide unequivocal evidence that self-government is a viable concept in Canada. The constitutional process is therefore still ongoing as we wait for the 1987 conference.
In the meantime, mechanisms other than the constitutional process are being set up to show that the Government does indeed take the necessary steps in this field.
Earlier, the Hon. Member mentioned a host of programs that have been made available to native peoples and should be seen as a transitional measure, to help them until such time as native rights can again be enshrined in the Constitution.
However, I believe that the federal Government's commitment to recognition of aboriginal self-government in the Constitution has been made abundantly clear, and that is why we are asking all Canadians to give their elected representatives the support they need to enact this draft amendment.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments this afternoon particularly on the motion and generally on the question of Indian self-government. I should like to begin by being as partisan as I am going to be in this debate and by paying tribute to the Hon. Member who moved this motion, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). If a certain Prime Minister in a previous Government had been more
Indian Self-Government
well-intentioned in his thinking, he would have named this Member as the Minister of Indian Affairs, and a great number of the difficulties encountered by Indian people would not have been encountered to the extent that they were. I pay tribute to him for his invaluable work both on the subcommittee report on self-government and for his continuing work in the House of Commons. He deserves our thanks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Kenneth Gormley: I feel qualified in some respects to speak about Indian self-government, in that my constituency of The Battlefords-Meadowlake has some 19 Indian reservations. Approximately 22 per cent of the electors or citizens in my constituency are of native ancestry. These people feel very strongly about the need for self-government and are supportive in principle of the move of our Government as it continues toward genuine native self-government.
As was mentioned by the previous Hon. Member who spoke, many interpretations were given, at the First Ministers' meeting and at other conferences, about what precisely was selfgovernment. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) is working with a large number of native constituencies, provincial Governments and other native organizations toward specifically defining self-government. However, the general principle is one which I think all Hon. Members of the House can support, to the extent that the Minister has been working hard to bring self-government to reality.
There is a historical need for Indian self-government. The very principle of a Government ending the 20th century with a specific Department which deals with the running of people's lives, namely the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is no longer acceptable. There is no doubt that that institution has long passed its time. A very necessary, historical point must be mentioned first-the native people of Canada must be the people who control their own destiny. For that reason it is crucial for us to move toward the position of self-government and to continue to move at a rate which will see the Hon. Minister, as he said, as the last Minister of Indian Affairs. This is his desire. I think it is the desire of all Members of this House.
I had the opportunity to speak recently to a native economic development conference. I spoke at that time about the need to couple the move to self-government with many other areas of concern of native people. Economic development is the most prominent of those concerns, of course, and this is being acknowledged by native people in my constituency of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake as a movement away from what they have seen, within the framework of this very paternalistic Department of Indian Affairs mechanism, as a hand-out mentality. When they look back on the years of reliance on the Department of Indian Affairs they see that economic development has not worked. Quite simply, the approach of the Government in handing out amounts of money to people.

October 11, 1985
Indian Self-Government
perpetuating a sense of reliance on the Government, is a system which is doomed to fail. These native investors and businessmen and businesswomen now see economic development as a self-sustained, self-driving sort of entrepreneurship. These people see that genuine economic development will only come as native people begin to govern themselves.
The process of devolution of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and of many of the other roles that the federal Government plays is a request long held by native people in my constituency. Presently across the spending range of the Government of Canada there is almost $3 billion annually spent through 11 different Government Departments on native people and native programs. Understandably the native community and the non-native taxpaying community share many of the same frustrations, and the frustration quite simply is, are we getting value for our money? I don't mean this as an aspersion upon the urban community of Canada but I travel to larger Canadian cities and I do sense there is a very profound misunderstanding of the way in which funds are administered to native peoples.
One only need drive, as I do, thousands of miles a year from reserve to reserve to see that with a consistency that is alarming, and I use the word shocking, that native people have a standard of health that is below that of non-native more urbanized Canadians; a standard of education that is lower and certainly a standard of housing which is sub-standard. The taxpayer says the Government is spending almost $3 billion a year on all of these programs so surely the native people must be getting at least enough money, if not more than that which they are entitled to. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. One only needs to see the standard of living in those Indian reservations and it will be obvious that the money is not finding its way to the rightful people who should be benefiting from that money, namely the Indian men, women and children of Canada.
There is a latent frustration, which is coming ever more to the surface, by the native community, saying that band by band, local Indian community by Indian community these people are not able to enjoy a standard of living in the commitment that the Government of Canada has made to them.
On the other hand, the taxpaying non-native person says, how much more money should the Government be spending. The answer is clear that a great deal of this money is lost, if I may use that term, in administration. Of the vast mechanism that we call the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, administration within the native community in the very large native umbrella organizations is not, in my humble opinion, representing the aspirations, the desires, the goals, the ideals of the average person on the reserve as well as the local chief and council, or the local tribal council or district chiefs association would be representating their concerns.
We have two large mechanisms within the native community first and, second, within the Department of Indian Affairs that on an administrative basis are consuming vast amounts of money and I think not providing the service to native people that could be provided at their own grass roots level.
The answer is clearly to begin to devolve this process and move toward genuine self-government. A system of self-government as I would envisage it would see the political, the economic and the economic development opportunity resting with those people who best know their community. The local chiefs, the tribal councils, the organizations of district chiefs are the groups that know about the true needs in the native community and are better set to administer it politically and certainly, an important aspect, financially.
If one looks at the present move toward self-government I think that we should pay tribute for a moment to the present Minister. I cannot speak with any scientific accuracy, but certainly by the experience of watching the Minister travel, he has logged more miles than many Ministers in the Department of Indian Affairs have done in the past. An important aspect of what our Minister has done is this concern that he has shown for the local band, the local native community. I know in my Province of Saskatchewan where we have 69 Indian bands we have seen this Minister visit the province several times in his first year of office, and that first year is a difficult time for any Minister. The Minister made this endeavour to talk with native people in individual bands in their own communities.
An Hon. Member speaking earlier mentioned the First Ministers' Conference on Native Affairs and Indian Self-Government and the disappointment felt by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who came closer than any Minister has come in the past as a First Minister to secure a specific commitment on behalf of the Governments of Canada to entrenching the need for self-government in the Constitution.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs, their colleague the Minister of Health have all spoken clearly for the need to have Indian people control their own destinies, and I think that is a tribute to what this Government is doing.
As a Member in the last session of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development I had the honour to work extensively on Bill C-31 which was a historic day for native women and for those who had lost their status as treaty Indian people. This was a Bill that, like self-government, had long been desired. It has been talked about for a long time. I think it is significant that it is the first major piece of legislation by which the Minister of Indian Affairs chose to right a historic wrong that affected our native people.
I know there are other Members who would like to speak today so I will wind up my remarks by saying that the move to self-government is truly upon us. It makes sense, first and most importantly, for the native communities. Like any people who aspire to control their own destiny are well deserving-I should not use the term right, it was a right long ago for people to control their own lives-but, for lack of a better word, these people are now ready. They want that right to be able to control their own lives and their own communities.
The larger question of responsibility also rests with the native people who say they want full responsibility for housing, education, economic development and health. These are matters that should no longer be administered from afar by a large
October 11, 1985

weighty Government bureaucracy. Similarly there is a feeling I think in the rest of Canada that self-government is a proposal that will begin to give true autonomy to the native community and therefore a more efficient use of not only the funds but the expertise and the political development between the Government of Canada and the Governments of first nations. I fully applaud our Minister of Indian Affairs for undertaking the initiative that he has thus far and I know that he will have the support of all Members of the House as he moves toward constitutional self-government and the areas of non-constitutional self-government. I know that all Members will join with me in supporting our government's proposals, our government's move and push towards full self-government for native people.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin, with permission of the House, by congratulating the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gorm-ley), who has just spoken, for a thoughtful, well informed and sensitive discussion of what is a very, very important issue. I also think it is exceedingly important, as those who have preceded me, to comment upon the dedication of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) for whom this has been an interest and a concern-perhaps even a mission- for many, many years. It is largely to his credit that the issue is before us now. I know that all Members of the House recognize the contribution of an individual Member and, quite frankly, I think what the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior has demonstrated to us is the ability of a so-called back-bencher, a so-called ordinary Member of the House of Commons, to make a significant contribution. He is to be commended. I think many of us hope to use him as a model in the years to come.
The issue which is before us is an important one. Yet, in many ways it is a difficult one, particularly for those Canadians who have not had the opportunity to have any type of direct and intimate experience with the Canadian Indian community. 1 have had a reasonably close association within the community in two ways for which I am pleased. First, as a Canadian historian, and although I do not pretend to be an expert in Canadian Indian history, I have paid a considerable amount of attention to the history of the Canadian Indians and their relationship with other Canadians. Second, I have had the distinction in the past to have taught a number of Indian students at the university level in the early 1960s when many of our education programs for Canadian Indians at the university level were just beginning.
I became very aware at that point in time, as a result of that experience, of some of the tremendous difficulties faced by young and not so young Canadian Indians who were seeking to improve upon their own economic and educational positions. I became aware as I visited them in their reserves and taught them in their own northern communities of the incredible disadvantages which they faced and of which many other Canadians were largely unaware.
Indian Self-Government
I would like to take this opportunity to share with the Members of the House one of my first intimate experiences with a young Indian lad. I think he was probably about 18 at the time. He had been brought to the college residence where 1 happened to be the Dean. This chap was trying to break new ground by continuing on in an educational program at a time when he was very much a part of a minority. He was trying to finish his high school. Unfortunately, there were no others within that high school community who were of Indian ancestry. This young person who had been supported by the President of Brandon College, as it then was, and which is now Brandon University, had been selected because he had remarkable artistic talents. He was doing well as a high school scholar. Unfortunately, to my dismay, he did not return from the Christmas vacation.
Because I had grown fond of this young man, whose name is Cecil, I went to seek him out in his home. That was my first real genuine introduction to the living conditions to which other Members have referred. I found him in a cabin not too far from Portage La Prairie in the Province of Manitoba. 1 found him with some difficulty because he was living with his grandmother. I went and spoke to him about why he should return to school and why he should make his contribution.
It seems to me that the goal of self government, the topic which we are addressing today, is to a large degree dependent upon the likes of Cecil attaining an education and assuming a role of leadership within the native community. Cecil was reluctant to talk about why he had not come back to the residence and to school. We sat in the kitchen of the two-room cabin and I, with all the enthusiasm and naivete of a 27-year old white Canadian who knew little of what he was talking about, tried to explain to this young man how important it was for him to carry on with his education. Cecil did not talk a great deal. However, he finally said that he wanted to come back but there were many reasons why he could not. He explained to me that he was there to chop wood. He was chopping the wood because there was no one else in his family who was able to chop it in order to keep the fires lit. This was the month of January, although I have forgotten the year. His sisters and brothers had been and were being raised by his grandmother who was ill and not present at the time. Neither his father nor mother were available to carry on with their parental responsibilities. Thus, young Cecil, who wished to be an artist and to become educated like other white Canadians, who wished to play a role in society, felt that his responsibilities as an elder member of the family required him to drop out of school and return home.
We talked and talked for a long time. I even reached the point where I offered to help cut the wood, although that was obviously a short-term solution. What he finally did was bring me a poem which he had written. The poem was about a young Indian lad who had a brother. The brother had become ill. The family in the poem lived on the reserve, which is certainly a tragic by-product in many ways of our Canadian history. The brother in the poem had tried to get some help for his younger brother who was seriously ill. He had called a doctor by

October 11, 1985
Indian Self-Government
walking to a phone since there was no telephone in the home. The doctor would not come to the reserve. The only solution was for the young Indian lad in the poem to take his sick brother to the doctor, which he began to do, according to the story outlined in the poem. It was wintertime and he trudged across the snow-covered fields of Manitoba carrying his ailing brother in search of medical assistance.
As I read to the bottom of the poem the story revealed that the young brother had died in the arms of the older brother. After I had finished reading the poem I looked up at Cecil who was sitting there in the cabin with me. After a few moments of hesitation he said to me that he was the elder brother in the poem. He had given me his own autobiography. As I thought about what I had read I realized just how inadequate my own comprehension was of the lot of the life which that young individual faced.
I realize that when we talk about the history of the Canadian Indian who lives on the reserve and when we look at some of the statistics we find it exceedingly difficult, perhaps impossible, to fully realize the incredible barrier experienced by such Canadians.
Cecil came back to college, although I am not sure whether he finished his high school education. I do know that he went on and participated in some of the other Government programs
that were available. I see him from time to time when I am home in my riding. Today, he is an ordinary Canadian. He lives not too far from the constituency which I represent. I see him in the City of Brandon. He has a family and is self-supporting. He will not be a person of any particular distinction because I think he has failed to develop his artistic skills. However, he is carrying on as a self-supporting Canadian citizen.
It seems to me that what we are attempting to do and what we are hoping will happen is that people such as Cecil, who were in many ways victims of a highly paternalistic governmental system developed in Canada after the 1870s, and particularly after the tragic event of the 1885 rebellion, will slowly but surely evolve to recover the concepts of self-government and self-sufficiency.
When the whites first arrived the Canadian Indians were a self-governing people. I look forward to the day when they will return to that same position.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted for Private Members' Business has now expired.

It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, October 15, 1985, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 15, 1985