1985-06-10

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Indian Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Speaker:: There are 44 motions in amendment on the Notice Paper at the report stage of Bill C-31, and Act to amend the Indian Act. All of these motions have been examined and I am now in a position to make a preliminary determination as to their procedural acceptability and to group them for debate.
Motion No. 1 is in order and will be debated and voted on by itself. Motion No. 2 gives the Chair some procedural difficulty in that it appears to go beyond the scope of the Bill by amending the parent Act. Likewise, Motions Nos. 3 and 4 also appear to be amending the parent Act. In addition, the Chair has serious concerns about the effect of Motion No. 4 on the Royal Recommendation. Motion No. 5 infringes upon the financial initiative of the Crown and thus is out of order.
Motions Nos. 5A, 6, 7 and 18A will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: (a) an affirmative vote on Motion No. 5A will dispose of Motions Nos. 6 and 7 and no questions will be put to the House on Motions Nos. 6 and 7; (b) a negative vote on Motion No. 5A will require that the question be put on Motion No. 6; (c) an affirmative vote on Motion No. 6 will dispose of Motion No. 7 and no question will be put to the House on Motion No. 7; (d) a negative vote on Motion No. 6 will require that the question be put on Motion No. 7; (e) Motion No. 18A will be voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 6A, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 19 give the Chair some problems in that they all appear to infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown and thus appear to be out of order.
Motions Nos. 13, 14, 14A, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 32A all deal with various aspects of Band Lists and should be grouped for debate but voted on as follows:
(a)	An affirmative vote on motion No. 13 will dispose of motion No. 14. Therefore, no question will be put on motion No. 14. A negative vote on motion No. 13 will necessitate the question being put on motion No. 14.
(b)	As motion No. 14A is dependent on motion No. 32A, it is the Chair's intention to put the question on motion No. 32A.
The decision of the House on motion No. 32A will also apply to motion No. 14A.
(r) Motions numbered 15 to 18, 20, 21 and 24 will be voted on separately.

Motion No. 19 was grouped with Motions Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 and was dealt with earlier. Motions Nos. 22 and 23 appear to go beyond the terms of the Royal Recommendation and this is a cause of concern to the Chair. They appear to be out of order.
Motion No. 24 was dealt with earlier. Motion No. 25 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 26 gives the Chair some difficulty in that it appears to infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown. Motion No. 27 also gives the Chair procedural difficulty in that it is attempting to amend the parent Act.

Motions Nos. 28, 38 and 39 will be grouped for debate but will be voted on separately.
Motion No. 28A appears to go beyond the scope of the Clause in that it expands the use of the term "dependents" and would thus infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.
Motions Nos. 29 and 30A will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motion No. 30, similarly, gives the Chair some procedural difficulty, in that it appears to infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown.
Motion No. 30A I dealt with a moment ago.
Motion No. 31 also raises in the mind of the Chair some procedural concerns because it attempts to amend the parent Act.
Motion No. 32 will be debated and voted on by itself.
Motion No. 32A was dealt with earlier.
Motions Nos. 33 and 33A raise the same concerns expressed for motion No. 31, namely, these motions appear to be amending the parent Act.

Motions Nos. 34, 35 and 36 appear to infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, thus going beyond the Royal Recommendation. Motions Nos. 35A and 37A will be grouped

June 10, 1985
Indian Act
for debate and voted on separately. Motion No. 37 will be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 38 and 39 which were grouped with Motion No. 28 were dealt with earlier.
Motions Nos. 40 and 41 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: (a) an affirmative vote on Motion 40 will dispose of Motion No. 41 and no question will be put to the House on Motion No. 41; (b) a negative vote on Motion No. 40 will necessitate the question being put on Motion No. 41. Motion No. 42 will be debated and voted on separately.
It would be the Chair's intention to give Hon. Members an opportunity to speak to the procedural acceptability of the motions on which I have expressed some concern. Following Routine Proceedings today when the order for resuming debate is read, I will hear Hon. Members on their procedural arguments.

For the benefit of Hon. Members, these motions are numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28A, 30, 31, 33, 33A, 34, 35 and 36.
For the moment, debate will begin on motion No. 1, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields).


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 1
(a)	by striking out line 4 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"1.(1) The definition of "elector"."
(b)	by striking out lines 9 to 12 at page 1.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proposing this amendment to the definition of "elector" to put more control into the hands of the band so that it may define who the elector is and if he or she should reside on the reserve. It does not necessarily imply that others will be eliminated from the electors' list by not living on band property; it will be strictly up to the band. 1 believe the amendment goes a long way in creating the situation for which we are all aiming-self-government for reserves and bands. I ask Hon. Members to consider Motion No. 1, as it simply extends the definition.


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the House is discussing Motion No. 1, I thought I might spend a moment on the general sense of the matter which is before the House and the various motions which have been grouped in a fairly extensive fashion.
Three months ago, I asked Hon. Members to consider legislation which would eliminate two very great historical wrongs in Canada's legislation regarding Indian people: discriminatory treatment based on sex, and the practice of dictating to Indian communities who may and who may not be members of each community.
When I tabled the legislation I said that 1 did not want to proceed in a way which would increase control of all Indian communities and people, men and women alike, in a colonial fashion which is no longer acceptable in 1985. 1 have attempted to ensure that the legislation is not simply a well-intentioned attempt to redress the injustices of the past. That would inflict even greater injustice and irreparable damage upon the people of the First Nations.
Following the policy of the Government to seek consensus, I encouraged parties to talk to each other in an attempt to reconcile their differences and to accommodate each other's concerns. I spent many thoughtful hours attempting to understand and attempting to respond positively to the various requests. I invited those who sought new avenues to present them to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That committee, under very able chairmanship, has done a heroic and conscientious job in considering all the ramifications of the legislation and in recommending improvement.
While there might be other ways to reach the objectives which I am sure we all agree must be reached, the three pillars of principles which underlie the Bill, are unshakable. The first principle was the removal of discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act. The second principle was the restoration of status and membership to those who lost status and membership as a result of the sex-based discriminatory provisions in the Act. The third principle was to ensure that Indian First Nations, who wished to do so, could control their own membership. Those are the three principles which we needed then and which we need now to allow us to find the balance and to proceed with serenity in passing this legislation in the face of any disappointment which may be expressed by persons or groups who were not able to accomplish 100 per cent of their particular objectives.
As I said, decolonizing is not a painless process. No one comes out being a 100 per cent winner. We can never go back to square one and start over. We have to begin with the reality which confronts us today. The committee-and I refer to its members from all Parties-performed a difficult and lengthy task with diligence, compassion and fairness. I want to take this opportunity to remind Members of the high quality of the discussion which we had three months ago.
I would like to address Motion No. 1 which is before the House. Two purposes of Bill C-31 are involved in the amendment to the definition of a child: first, the equal treatment of children, and second, the right of specific Indian individuals to transmit status to their children.
If an Indian person is capable of transmitting status to his or her natural child, it seems logical to extend that capability to include a child whom the Indian person might adopt, either legally as defined by provincial or territorial law, or by the custom of his or her people. The equal treatment of children in an immediate family is important to the preservation and integrity of the family unit. Band custom adoptions are not uncommon and very frequently involve a relative of the child in question.
June 10, 1985

Section 48(16) of the Indian Act, on the subject of "distribution of property on intestacy", already recognizes children adopted in accordance with Indian custom as having the same rights as a naturally born child or a legally adopted child. Surely, an Indian parent does not have to die intestate for his or her children to be recognized as equals by the federal Government. The amendment to the definition of "child" as outlined in Bill C-31, simply complements the right already recognized in Section 48. Even more important, this Bill would remove that feature of Bill C-31, which would ensure that in future all children will be treated equally whether born in or out of wedlock.
In 1985, what used to be called "illegitimacy" should not affect the registration of children with Indian parents. To adopt this motion would be a step backward in treating all Indians fairly, and I urge this House, with great respect, to reject it for the reasons I have given.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I also would oppose this first motion. The Hon. Member said that it only expanded the definition of who is an elector. That is not so. As the Minister pointed out, in effect it drops the new definition of "child", and the definition of "child" as we have it here is, "Child includes a child born in or out of wedlock, a legally adopted child and a child adopted in accordance with Indian custom". When the committee held hearings on Bill C-31, there were a fair number of witnesses who pointed out that it was necessary to expand the definition of "child" to include those children who are adopted in accordance with Indian customs, and as the Minister pointed out, in 1985 it is completely incongruous and anachronistic to maintain a distinction between children born in or out of wedlock. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, we will not support Motion No. 1, which would have the effect of removing this expanded definition of "child" from Bill C-31.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the motion which is now before us demonstrates the difficulty we are facing in this Bill. The Minister was correct in pointing out that decolonization is never a simple process, and the reason that we are into this difficulty is that we have involved ourselves to such an extent in the lives of the Indian people of this country that we must come down to the fine distinction as to who can be properly considered a "child" within the context of an Indian First Nation.
Since the Minister began with a rather general statement about the thrust of Bill C-31, perhaps I can briefly comment on that as well. When I consider the provisions, including this first motion, it seems to me that the situation we are faced with is not unlike that of two passenger aircraft which are flying in opposite directions and have a separation between them. That separation is usually a thousand feet or so. That is the difficulty we have in Canada. There is a desire in this country, particularly now that we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for individual or personal rights to be emphasized. At the same time, we have Indian First Nations which
Indian Act
have never relinquished their autonomy. They have never turned over the control of their lives to the Government of Canada, to the Parliament of Canada. A long time ago, before any of us were here, that responsibility was assumed by the Government of Canada, and the rest of us have had to live with that ever since. As long as those aircraft are separated by
1,000	feet and flying in opposite directions, there is no difficulty. However, if that separation disappears, we have a clash.
That is the difficulty with Bill C-31, no matter which motion we debate. There is a cultural clash. We have individual rights which are a part of the Anglo Saxon tradition and part of the American tradition falling from the American Bill of Rights. Part of our traditions come from the French Revolution. All of that is dear to us who live in western democracies.
At the same time, in Canada we have another tradition which is equally valid but different, that is, the concept of collectivity, the concept of a group of people working together to protect their cultural integrity. The fact that we have assumed control over their lives to such a degree means that, inevitably, there will be a cultural clash. We are the ones who have the power, authority, and numbers. Therefore, the stage is set for grave injustices.
I know that the Minister is aware of this. All Hon. Members who served on the committee are aware of it. No matter what we do, when we involve ourselves in the lives of these people to such a degree as we are in clause 1 and in Motion No. 1 by defining who is a child, we find ourselves in an awkward, embarrassing, and difficult situation from which we cannot extricate ourselves with any grace. There is no answer to the problem.
As Members of Parliament we must constantly bear in mind that while we are engaged in this exercise our goal must be to put the emphasis on decision-making with the First Nations themselves. That is the direction in which we want to move. We cannot do that today with Bill C-31. We need too many other things. We need a constitutional amendment, if we can get it. We need agreements between Canada and Indian First Nations if and when we can get them. At the moment, no matter which motion we deal with today, we are going to be faced with this awkward and difficult situation.
Having said that, I must confess that it is confusing to know which way to go on Motion No. 1. In what way will we be interfering more or interfering less? The arguments of the Minister regarding illegitimate children and those who are adopted into the Indian First Nation ought to prevail. That would be the position of my Party.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) on a point of order.


Jack Wendele Shields: I have a few remarks I would like to make. When we started debate on Motion No. 1 I was looking for my

June 10, 1985
Indian Act
notes. 1 have now found them and would request unanimous consent to be given three or four minutes to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Athabasca to complete his speech?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well, the Hon. Member for Athabasca has the floor.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the proposed definition in Bill C-31 reads as follows:
"child" includes a child born in or out of wedlock, a legally adopted child and a
child adopted in accordance with Indian custom.
A Member who spoke previously talked about how much we should interfere in the running of bands and band government. The present definition of "child" in the Indian Act says that a child includes a legally adopted Indian child.
As the Minister pointed out, the over-all objective of Bill C-31 is the elimination of sexual inequality, the establishment of band control over band membership, and the restoration of lost rights. The insertion of the new definition of "child" in the Bill is not aimed at, nor does it achieve, any of the three objectives outlined previously by the Minister. I contend that the determination of who is a child is not an issue of sexual discrimination. One of the principles of the Bill, in my view, is to eliminate the acquisition or loss of status in band membership through marriage. The objective of my amendment is to eliminate the acquisition of status or band membership through adoption.
Essentially, if this amendment is not allowed to go through, a family or individual will then be able to impose an obligation on either the Government of Canada or on the band concerned as a result of a family decision. I do not think that that is correct. We are unaware of any band which has requested this Government to amend the definition of a child, but we are going ahead and doing this on our own. We are not only giving the power to create Indian status and band membership to a family, which increases the number of persons entitled to treaty benefits, but it also creates a problem on some reserves where a family makes a decision that certain people are going to be recognized as band members and treaty Indians.
Those are the comments that I would like to make. I think this will increase the charge on the taxpayers and it will certainly interfere at a very basic level with band membership and its control.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to speak on this motion and make some comments, as Chairman of the Standing Committee, on the work done by the committee on this Bill. This is not the first attempt by Parliament to try to deal with a difficulty which has existed for close to 100 years. I have served on the committee for over 13 years now, and I know that over that time Members of Parliament and Ministers have brought this problem to the
committee and the House many times. But as we moved on the constitutional process. Ministers became more serious regarding this matter. The committee was challenged by the Minister in the previous Government to deal with the situation. We had a special committee about two and a half years ago which met during the summer. Let me say, in answer to Members who will wonder why it did so, that it was in an attempt to try to deal with this question. A report was drafted and submitted to the Minister for his guidance.
About a year later, a Bill was presented to the House in the dying days of the session. An experience then took place of which I believe no member of any committee would wish to be a part. There was an attempt to deal with a question which is so serious to the lives of individuals in a matter of only a couple of days. The Bill failed. It failed not in the House of Commons but in the Senate. Of course, the session was over and therefore the issue came to an end. It has now been revived at this time in the House of Commons by the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie). He outlined to the House on second reading the principles upon which the Government was standing and the Bill was drafted.
The committee took those.principles seriously. The rules of the House limit what a committee can and cannot do. We went to work in our limited way and, as Chairman, I want to congratulate Members from all sides of the House who spent many hours not only trying to decipher the Bill but listening patiently to the intensive lobby from people interested in the Bill. These not only included Indians but many others in the country who have been concerned about this issue which involves discrimination, our attitude toward women and of course the very important issue of the treatment of Indian people of this country.
The committee spent 76 hours in public meetings and approximately three times as long preparing for those meetings. The committee heard 52 witnesses, starting at nine in the morning and often working until midnight in order to hear them. There were 10 written submissions from over 200 people, representing groups who did not appear at the hearings.
Members on the committee made 23 direct amendments to the Bill which were passed in the committee stage, 15 of which were a direct result of testimony that was given to the committee. The Minister and his staff were very helpful in assisting the committee draft the amendments properly and guiding us as we put them into the Bill.
As I said, we had some difficulty because we wanted to amend the Bill more fully than we were allowed. As chairman, I had to bring members to order from time to time as they attempted to put forward amendments that were not within the purview of the committee to pass. However, the committee made a recommendation to the Minister that he go to the Cabinet and get a Governor General's recommendation to make certain of those amendments. Some of them now appear
June 10, 1985

on the Order Paper and we will be debating and voting on them soon.
As members of the committee studied the three principles of the Bill, they agonized whether they were doing the right thing. The committee often received opinions from both sides of the question and, as stated by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), members were involving themselves in the lives of other people and therefore had to make decisions according to the governmental process now in effect, according to the Act which has been rarely amended. As I watched members of the committee perform, they attempted to do everything possible in their experience to be fair to all sides involved in the question. I believe they did everything possible under the rules to be fair to the bands because they are the groups who have held their culture together.
During the last 100 years, the Government has put numerous roadblocks in their way and a review of history makes one wonder how many bands in this country have been able to exist. However, they did so through tenacious survival tactics.
When we make these changes again and involve ourselves in their lives, we must be cognizant that we do not involve ourselves in future injustices that will result from legislation that may appear to be an attempt to put one more solid punch between the eyes before Government gets itself out of the process and allows Indian people to become self governing bodies within the Canadian concept of society.
At this time we are discussing an important amendment about the treatment of children. It is a difficult decision to be made by Members in the House. I know that as we make the decision every consideration will be given to the debate that is put forward and the fact that we are involving ourselves in the lives of people. They are not machines that can be manipulated and dealt with inhumanely. We are dealing with people's lives today and in the future. We are determining how they will exist in this country. As we make these decisions, I hope Members are cognizant of that.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Indian Act
Motion No. 1 negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next group of motions consists of Motions Nos. 5A, 6, 7 and 18A.
Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moves:
Motion No. 5A
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 44 to 49 at page 3 and lines 1 to 24 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"1951, under subparagraph 12(l)(a)(iii) pursuant to an order made under subsection 109(1), as each provision read immediately prior to April 17, 1985, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as any of those provisions;
(e) the name of that person was omitted or deleted from the Indian Register, or from a band list prior to September 4, 1951,
(i)	under section 13, as it read immediately prior to September 4, 1951, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as that section, or
(ii)	under section 111, as it read immediately prior to July 1, 1920, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as that section; or".
Recommendation
(pursuant to Standing Order 79(6))
Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Indian Act, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 44 to 49 at page 3 and lines 1 to 24 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"1951, under subparagraph 12(l)(a)(iii) pursuant to an order made under subsection 109(1), as each provision read immediately prior to April 17, 1985, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as any of those provisions;
(e) the name of that person was omitted or deleted from the Indian Register, or from a band list prior to September 4, 1951,
(i)	under section 13, as it read immediately prior to September 4, 1951, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as that section, or
(ii)	under section 111, as it read immediately prior to July 1, 1920, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as that section; or".
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands) moves:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 3 to 10 at page 4.
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca) moves:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 9 and 10 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(B) to enable that person to satisfy an occupational qualification to maintain or obtain employment, or".
Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moves:
Motion No. 18A
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 4
(a)	by striking out line 17 and 18 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"tered under paragraph 6(1 )(c) and ceased to be a member of that".
(b)	by striking out lines 39 to 45 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"for the band

June 10, 1985
Indian Act
(a)	if that person is entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(</) or (e) and ceased to be a member of that band by reason of the circumstances set out in that paragraph; or
(b)	if that person is entitled to be registered under paragraph 6( 1)(/) or subsection 6(2) and a parent referred to that provision is entitled to have his name entered in the Band List or, if no longer living, was at the time of death entitled to have his name entered in the Band List."
(c)	by striking out lines 3 to 6 at page 9 and substituting the following
therefor:
''the first day on which he would otherwise be entitled to have his name entered in the Band List of the band of which he ceased to be a member shall be deemed to be entitled to have his name so entered."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those motions are grouped for debate.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the grouping includes Motions Nos. 5A and 18 A standing in my own name, motion No. 6 in the name of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) and Motion No. 7 in the name of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields).
I would like to deal with those four motions in this grouping, but first I want to deal with those standing in my own name and then with the other two motions.
Motion No. 5A will ensure that all those who were enfranchised for whatever reason can regain status under the Indian Act. The related amendment, Motion 18A provides that decisions on band membership for this group will be made according to membership rules adopted by the bands themselves. If bands do not adopt such rules within two years, those enfranchised would also be entitled to band membership under federal law.
Bill C-31 as tabled proposed to restore Indian status and band membership to those who lost them through enfranchisement in circumstances deemed to be unfair. Such circumstances included enlisting in the Armed Forces, receiving a university degree or entering the clergy before 1920 or obtaining or maintaining a job.
It became very evident at the standing committee and elsewhere that more categories of enfranchisement could reasonably be considered as unfair. Several groups argued that all enfranchisements had been unfair.
On the other hand, granting band membership directly to all who had been enfranchises voluntarily under Subsection 109(1) and related sections, as well as their wives and children enfranchised with them, could be unfair to the bands and, indeed, fly in the face of our approved understanding of the importance of Indian control of Indian communities.
The fairest compromise in this matter, in my view, Mr. Speaker, is the following: First, to grant status under the Indian Act to all those enfranchised under Section 109(1) and related sections. Second, to leave band membership to be determined by the bands' own rules, which is Motion No. 18A. Specifically, this motion amends paragraph 6(1) of Bill C-31 to refer to all those enfranchised under Subsection 109(1). As a result, all references to categories of unfair enfranchisement
are deleted. Nor would the Minister be required to exercise discretion in cases not falling into any of the specific categories as had been suggested at the standing committee. Not only do Motions Nos. 5A and 18A offer a balanced approach on restoration of rights to those enfranchised, but this approach will also lead to fairer and easier administration of the law.
The new Section 6(1 )(e) refers to two sections of previous versions of the Indian Act that also resulted in enfranchisement. Section 13, before 1951, resulted in removal from band lists if a person were absent from Canada for more than five years. Section 111, before 1920, lead to loss of status for persons who gained a university degree or joined the clergy or a profession. These government motions will affect about
8,000	people who were enfranchised under Section 109(1). Previously it was estimated that only about half of these people would have benefited from Bill C-31. Their first generation descendants will also be eligible for status under the Indian Act.
That completes my remarks with respect to Motions Nos. 5A and 18A standing in my name to amend Bill C-31 as it came out of the committee. I would like to have the House support Motions Nos. 5A and 18A.
Let me now turn my attention to Motions Nos. 6 and 7. Motion No. 6 stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands which deals with a part of the amendment that I have put forward as a Royal Recommendation. I suggest, as outlined in Motions Nos. 5A and 18A, that the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, if it is not ruled out of order, be not supported given the changes made through Motions Nos. 5A and 18A. In the circumstances I am asking that Motion No. 6 not be supported.
Motion No. 7 moved by the Hon. Member for Athabasca deals with a technical adjustment to one of the categories of unfair enfranchisement which was specified in the Bill as originally tabled. In my view, approval of Motions Nos. 5A and 18A would make Motion No. 7, with great respect meaningless since all reference to such categories would be dropped. 1 urge the House to reject Motion No. 7 as well as Motion No. 6, and urge the House to support Motions Nos. 5A and 18A as a significant improvement to the Bill flowing from the discussions in the standing committee.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the position of my Party regarding this grouping of amendments will be to support Motions Nos. 5A and 18 A. Before I get into the background of why these amendments were required, let me express a word of appreciation for the way in which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) has responded in amendments Nos. 5A and 18A to the wishes of the committee. This demonstrates a high degree of co-operation and of working together to achieve what the committee members felt to be a continuing injustice if an amendment were not put forward. The Minister has responded. Members of the committee are grateful for that.
June 10, 1985

If Hon. Members look carefully at the Order Paper, they will notice Motion No. 5, which is in my name, has been ruled out of order by the Speaker. There can be no procedural argument against that at all because such a motion does require Royal Recommendation. I hope, some day when we reform Parliament, that we will do something to spruce up the way we handle the report stage of Bills coming out of committee. Our committee Chairman quite rightly pointed out that to extend the range or categories of people eligible for the recognition of status obviously involves the expenditure of public money because such persons are eligible for certain benefits, such as post-secondary education and health care premiums. So it is not good sense at all to have the same motion come back in the House after it has been ruled on in the committee. However, that has been the practice of the House of Commons for as long as I have been here and until we hear from the reform committee a better way of dealing with the report stage, that is the situation.
It does give me the opportunity at least to compare my Motion No. 5 with the Minister's Motion No. 5A. The thrust is basically the same except that I went somewhat further than the Minister did. There were certain categories, for example, Metis people who had received script, who had been included in my motion and they are not in the Minister's motion. The acceptance of 5A and 18A gives us no difficulty at all.
Having said that, allow me, Mr. Speaker, to provide a little background and then to conclude with the comment about the distinction between status and membership in an Indian First Nation.
First of all, the background: it may surprise some Hon. Members in this House, I am sure it will surprise a lot of Canadian people who are not given to examine carefully all aspects of the history of this country, that within the Indian Act there is a good deal of Canadian history, an attitudinal approach to the aboriginal people of Canada.
Whether the Fathers of Confederation were not aware, or whether they were too much aware; but by assuming control over Indian people and subsequently Parliament passing the Indian Act, there was a policy in place that could be very accurately described, although it is crude and rough, as a policy of termination. That will shock a lot of Canadians because the very term smacks a little bit of the "final solution" coming out of the Third Reich. Of course there was nothing physical about the policy of termination, but there was everything cultural about it. It was in fact a policy of cultural genocide, to gradually do away with a distinct aboriginal or Indian culture in this country and to do so by a series of enticements which would allow individual Indian persons to remove themselves from certain prohibitions that were imposed upon them if they did not find the enticements to be attractive.
Among those enticements were the rights to vote, before it was extended to Indian people by an Act of this Parliament; the right to consume alcoholic beverages in public places; the
Indian Act
right to go to universities and enlist in the Armed Forces; all of those categories that the Minister mentioned, if an Indian chose any one of those he was, so to speak, enfranchised. To say that in another way, he was terminated. He was no longer considered in the eyes of the Government of Canada to be an Indian.
So we have that very strange term in this country, which I am sure would baffle anyone. The term is non-status Indian. Let us say that you went to some other part of the world, Australia, for example, where there is also a significant aboriginal population and tried to explain to a legislator in any one of the Australian states or in the federal Parliament, which they call the Commonwealth, that we, by an Act of Parliament, have categorized Indian people; those who are of mixed blood, the Metis; those who have made certain decisions vis-a-vis the Indian Act as non-status; and those who have not made that decision as status, and if you could explain that in a logical, rational way to someone who does not live in Canada or has not been a part of it, then you are a much better teacher than I am, because the end result of that is just a puzzlement.
We can remove the puzzlement here because we know what the intention was. The intention was that, over a period of time-I do not think anyone knew how long it would take- the Indian people would disappear. They would be integrated. They would be assimilated. They would become part of the mainstream, and we would encourage this to happen by certain provisions of the Indian Act.
That is what we mean, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about terminating a people or enacting legislation which results in cultural genocide. Over a period of time it was hoped I think by the Fathers of Confederation, if they thought about it at all, but it must have been thought about by the framers of the first version of the Indian Act, that we will get rid of these people.
The Chairman of the committee has quite rightly noted that the Indian people of Canada have had tremendous tenacity, that now, deep into the 20th century, they still survive. They still have their cultural identity which is distinct and which is deeply held on to by these people despite all of the winds of adversity that have blown against them for so many decades, for a period of time that exceeds a century. They have held on to certain fundamental rights that they emphasize they have never, never relinquished: the right to control and manage and direct their own affairs; the right to be self-governing; they never relinquished that. They have not relinquished their own cultural integrity to any other authority. They retained all of that. What they did was to make generous room in this country for those who came from other parts of the world. In some cases they entered into treaties with the colonizers. Unfortunately, although those treaties are sacrosanct, highly respected and highly regarded, nevertheless I think, even though they have almost a sacred quality for Indian people, we all recognize that there was unequal negotiation for those treaties, that the colonizers had an advantage and they took advantage of these people.
All of that has continued up until the present time, and now at long last we have revealed this policy for all that it is. I
5570

June 10, 1985
Indian Act
think we have stripped away the disguise. Part of that was done by the work of the special committee on Indian Self-government and many Members who are present in the House today who worked in that special committee will know what I am talking about. We stripped away the disguise of the policy of termination or cultural genocide and we said that we have to restore that original right which was never relinquished, the right to be self-determining within the context of the Canadian Confederation.
It does not need to be repeated here again that there is nothing threatening about this to anybody. There is no question here of separating the First Nations from Canada. There is no question here of setting up some kind of Canadian apartheid system, none of that. That is what we have now. That is exactly what we have now. We have people who are segregated now, who are dominated by an Act of Parliament called the Indian Act which dominates no other group of people in Canada. Can you tell me of another group of people in this country who would allow themselves to be controlled and regulated in every aspect of their lives by an Act of Parliament? No other group of people in this country would tolerate it for one single day. They would be here on Parliament Hill in vigorous demonstration asking for the repeal of the whole Act, because you cannot take a group of people and put them under a totalitarian regime such as we have done with the Indian Act when, disguised within that totalitarian scheme, is a scheme or plan or, if I may say so, a plot eventually not to need the Indian Act any more because there will no longer be any Indian people.
All of that has been resisted and the Indian people have gained allies in the Parliament of Canada. They have gained allies among some of the provincial Premiers, unfortunately not a sufficient number. But they will win; history is on their side; they will win. They will become self-governing entities within this country and they will be out from under the domination and the control of the Indian Act.
This policy of termination is now at long last coming to an end. The amendments that the Minister has proposed, the amendments that the committee recommended, go in that direction of saying, stop; stop taking away from people who call themselves Indian people, through some clause of an Act of Parliament saying that someone is no longer an Indian, however, if someone wants to call themselves something else such as non-status, we will accept that.
The Indian Act had a large number of ways of taking away the status of an Indian person. Sometimes this was done voluntarily and sometimes it was done involuntarily. During the committee hearings, we recognized that the distinction between voluntary and involuntary was a very false one because there were so many social, psychological, economic and cultural pressures that might cause a person to so-called voluntarily disenfranchise. Was that voluntary enfranchisement really voluntary? Did the person really know what he was doing? If the person was married and had children, did he
sit down with his family to discuss the implications of this decision? We heard testimony that indicated that that did not occur.
While Bill C-31 says that we will allow Indian people to have their status restored, I do not think that we can be as selective about who will be able to have this opportunity as we were in the first version of Bill C-31. The committee indicated we should extend the privilege to other persons who were disenfranchised or lost their Indian status so they may apply to the Registrar to have their status restored.
I would like to conclude by drawing the distinction that the Minister drew between status and band membership because we do not want this to be interpreted as imposing persons upon First Nations without their consent. In the course of the committee hearings, the Minister was asked to define status, and the definition that he offered was a relationship between the Government of Canada and an individual Indian person. Recognizing that relationship and giving it legitimacy also means that there are certain benefits that flow from it.
In these amendments, we are saying that a large range of categories of Indian persons will have the opportunity to have their lost status as Indians restored. However, the matter of membership will then be up to the bands, provided, as the Minister pointed out, that after a period of two years, they have put in place a band membership code. If the bands have this code, people will be able to apply to them for band membership. If the First Nations fail to put together a band membership code, then these persons will be imposed upon them by having their names placed on the bamd membership list.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, you can see that we are moving in the right direction. However, we are moving cautiously in the right direction and we have not yet totally and completely relinquished the right of the Parliament of Canada to deal in such minute detail with something that is so absolutely central to the autonomy and ability of First Nations to define their own membership and citizenship. We are caught right in the middle of this maelstrom. The Chairman of the committee described very well the agony and sense of frustration that every single Member feels.
In the name of justice, if we are going to extend the right to have status restored to some, we cannot make these artificial distinctions between those who relinquish their status voluntarily and those who relinquish their status involuntarily. I think we must open the gates much wider. This will mean additional costs and obligations for the Government of Canada, but I think that they are costs and obligations that we should willingly bear.
We must face up to the fact that the imposition of persons on First Nations without their consultation and without them having their own membership or citizenship code continues in a way that none of us really want to see. However, we are in an evolutionary process. I think we are making slow progress. I am convinced that much of this problem will be swept away when we take the large step.
June 10, 1985

One of those constitutional conferences will succeed and will say either that an aboriginal right in this country is the right to be self-governing or, through the courts, that the right to self-government already exists in the Constitution as a primary and basic aboriginal right even though it is not spelled out in the Constitution for greater certainty and clarity. Once that decision is made, we will not need to focus our attention on this endeavour into which the efforts of the committee, the Minister and his officials have gone. We all know that no matter what we come up with at the end of this day or the next, none of us will be fully satisfied.
Every amendment that we approve or reject must be done in recognition of the fact that at some point, and let it not be too far down the road, we will have to take the big leap forward so that in the next Parliament and the Parliament after that we will not be engaged in the same kind of exercise. It is long overdue that we cease this constant meddling and interfering and turn over matters like this to the proper authorities, namely, the Indian First Nations themselves.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to indicate that we will be supporting the Minister's Motions Nos. 5A and 18A. As well, I would like to make a few comments about my own amendment, Motion No. 6. Perhaps I could make a few preparatory comments.
For the first time, Bill C-31 is drawing a fairly sharp distinction between band membership on the one hand and Indian status on the other. Perhaps it is inevitable and necessary that we take this step as an interim one. I think it is important to remember that, going back in history, the Governments of Great Britain and later Canada dealt with Indian peoples primarily as peoples.
The whole concept of Indian status whereby the Government deals particularly with Indians as individuals is someting new. We are now refining that definition to some extent. While in the past, Indian status and band membership had been largely coterminous, now they are not nearly so much so. In fact, in the future we will see for the first time band members who will not have Indian status and we will see an increasing number of people who will have Indian status without band membership. I do not think any of us in this House are fully aware of all of the ramifications of that.
As we move toward a system of Indian self-government and recognition of the basic rights of Indian people, I think it is incumbent upon us to move away from the concept of recognizing Indian status as pertaining to individual Indian people. We should be dealing more and more with the recognition of the rights of Indian nations as nations so that we will recognize their rights as a people.
We heard testimony before the committee indicating that there should be no such concept as Indian status and that the Government should be dealing only with Indian nations and nations. Others came before us to say that what the Government wants to do in terms of Indian status for individuals is the Government's own business, that their business is with
Indian Act
their people as a people, and that the whole concept of Indian status is a bit irrelevant. However, I think there was the overwhelming feeling that if we are to have the concept of Indian status, anyone recognized by the Indian people as being a band member should also be recognized as having Indian status in the eyes of the Government. I regret to say that the amendments brought forth by the Minister do not yet satisfy that requirement. This is a serious shortcoming in the Bill and one that continues to exist.
Clause 4 of the Bill contains a number of subclauses and basically repeals Sections V to XIV of the Indian Act. Those are the sections that deal with who is entitled to be registered as an Indian and who is entitled to have band membership. They develop a new system of determining who will be entitled to be registered as an Indian and who will have band membership.
Clause 6 of the Bill determines who is entitled to be registered. Basically it says that those who are entitled to be registered are those who already have such entitlement, those who lost status under paragraph 12(1 )(b) or paragraph 12(1 )(a)(iv) of the old Indian Act, and, subject to certain conditions, those who were enfranchised. The conditions are outlined in Clause 6(d)(i) for people who were enfranchised are as follows:
(A)	as the result of the enlistment of that person in the Canadian Forces, the armed forces of Her Majesty wherever raised or the armed forces of any state allied or associated with Canada, or
(B)	so that that person might obtain or maintain employment-
People who were enfranchised under those conditions will once again be eligible for Indian status. The testimony which the committee heard time and again pointed out that that distinction was completely arbitrary and absolutely unfair.
We were asked in committee hearings about the people who wanted the basic right to vote. Until the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker recognized that right for Indian people, they had to be enfranchised in order to obtain that basic right. What an affront that was to democracy! The basic right to consume alcohol, to go into a beer parlour or a liquor store, was something which status Indians did not have. For many young Indian people, that was discrimination. That is when they first realized that to be an Indian was to be discriminated against. Some Indian people became enfranchised to obtain liquor rights. Sometimes that is looked down upon by other Indian and non-Indian people. They feel that those Indians sold their birthright to have the ability to drink. Every Member in the House was once 18 or 19. Most of us remember how important it was to be able to have the right to go into a beer parlour and buy liquor.
Enfranchisement took place for a number of reasons. 1 am pleased to see that the Minister has recognized that to limit reinstatement to those who were enfranchised for the purpose of getting employment or for the purpose of serving in the Armed Forces, is a completely arbitrary situation. The Minister has proposed that the people should have the right to be

June 10, 1985
Indian Act
registered if they have been enfranchised. In Motion No. 18A the Minister has given the bands the right to determine whether or not those people should have band membership. That is a compromise. It might make the legislation marginally more acceptable to some people and marginally less acceptable to others. I believe that it would be unjust not to restore band membership to people who once had it, but who lost it unjustiy. It wouid be unjust to grant band membership to those who never had it. It would be unjust to force those people into band membership.
It has been noted previously that there is no ideal solution to the situation. We are dealing with the whole policy of decolonization. We cannot do that with clean hands. The Minister, and all Members who are involved in decolonizing, have dirty hands. However, I believe that Motions Nos. 5A and 18A are reasonable compromises. We have a responsibility to deal with the situation. I believe the Minister has come up with a compromise which is as reasonable as that which could be suggested by our Party or by the Liberal Party. On that basis, we are prepared to support the amendments.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31, as it was approached in committee, gives status to some persons who voluntarily enfranchised, either to join the army or to get a job. Other Indians who voluntarily left will not get status. I think Hon. Members are missing the impact which that could have on individual bands.
The way in which the Bill is presently constructed requires that lists be kept by the Department. If a two-year period elapses and the band has not implemented membership rules and regulations, the list which has been kept by the Department is automatically imposed on that band. There are a lot of bands in isolated communities which will not be totally familiar with the amendments which have been brought forward by the Minister within that two-year period. I see that as a danger.
Another very specific danger is what the legislation will do right across the country. Within the grouping I have moved Motion No. 7, which will not be voted on if Motion No. 5A is passed. However, in moving Motion No. 7 I was attempting to limit those who could receive status. A problem which faces Canadians, particularly those in my area, is that status Indians are allowed to hunt and fish out of season. Currently, there are challenges before the courts because status Indians who are working for Syncrude, Suncor and other oil companies in northern Alberta on Crown lands are claiming tax exempt status. 1 believe there are a lot more implications to this particular amendment than those which have been addressed.
Many bands will assume immediate control of their membership lists. However, my contention is that many bands will not do that.
I know of a number of individuals in Alberta who have left wealthy bands during the last five years. When they voluntarily enfranchised, they took with them a great deal of money from band trust accounts. Some people took upwards of $300,000 and some took $150,000 or $200,000. From the moment
this Bill is passed, once again, those people will automatically become status Indians. I do not believe we are being sufficiently careful. I cannot remember many groups which came before the committee requesting that the legislation be expanded in this way.
1 would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) for the Penner Report on Indian SelfGovernment. The Department of Indian Affairs, all of us generally agree, is a monster of inefficiency and waste which we are trying to eliminate within a certain period of time so that the Indian people can become like any other Canadian, not having to answer to a Department of Indian Affairs. This Bill ensures that we are going to have the Department of Indian Affairs, with its bureaucracy, around for a very long time because we are increasing the number of status Indians from its present level. 1 would suggest we may even double the number of status Indians-not band members-across the country.
In Alberta there are Metis who have been members of the Metis Association of Alberta since they were young men. They have fought for the Metis cause, have lived as Metis, but now will be treaty Indians under this amendment. It has to stop somewhere. I think we should very carefully limit those who are granted reinstatement from the voluntary side. If these people left voluntarily, who are we to say, "The decision you people made years ago is not the right decision and we are going to make you Indians again"? They left voluntarily for a number of reasons. My grandfather voluntarily sold the mineral rights to his homestead. I cannot go back and say that he made a mistake when he voluntarily did it. He is dead now, but if he were alive he could not go back and say, "I made a mistake. Now that oil has been found on my homestead, I really shouldn't have done that". That is what we are talking about. It was not an easy thing to do. If someone wanted voluntarily to enfranchise, it was not just a case of going into the office and saying, "I want to quit" and signing a form. It took a year, and in some cases two years, to do so. We are trying that within a one-year or two-year period, people will have had time to think it over and we should not now say, "No matter how you thought then, we are now going to change things and make you an Indian. You cannot give up your status". I believe we have not given enough thought to that matter and I propose to vote against this amendment.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members will be happy to know that it is not my intention to rise to speak on every amendment. However, I would like to make just a few comments on this clause because I believe it is important. 1 am not going to attempt to comment on the excellent speech and history lesson given to us by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) because I think he outlined the basis upon which we now debate this clause.
I would like to remind Hon. Members who served on the special committee of the word "trust". When that committee began its work, we had a very interesting experience in the
June 10, 1985

Province of Alberta. We recognized that over the years the House of Commons had lost the trust of the band members across this country. They were constantly aware of the very points about which the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior talked, the policies of the past Government. Every time an Hon. Member of Parliament came to the reserve saying that he was there to do good things, the Indian people immediately said, "Just a minute. We have had some experience with the good things you talk about".
There is another word I would remind Hon. Members of, and that is the word "consent". Parliament, which assumed that it had certain responsibilities, could invoke laws which impinged upon the lives of the Indian people. Those two words, I believe, are very important as we amend the Indian Act one more time. As we said in the committee report, we should move toward allowing again the self-governing process to take place in this country for Indian people. But with this Bill we will again impose band membership on the Indian people, that is band membership for those people who lost it under subparagraph 12(1 )(b). This amendment, I believe, is consistent with the report in which I believe so strongly which says that we trust Indian people to bring back to the reserve members of their family and people who they think have a right to be there and who will contribute to the community.
I congratulate the Minister for this amendment because he is giving our trust to these people who were voluntarily or involuntarily enfranchised. We are giving our trust to the Indian bands and allowing them back to band membership if they feel they have the right to be there. That was the basis upon which we reported to this House some time ago.
In this Bill there is a recognition as well of the fact that after this Bill is passed, Parliament cannot extract itself from the process. We must review what is happening, and if we find that the courts impose themselves upon this legislation and change it in any way which can be pointed out to be detrimental to the Indian people of this country, we must involve ourselves again in that process. This Bill provides that two years from now the Minister and the parliamentary committee will review this process.
The two amendments put forward by the Government, I believe, are good amendments to the legislation. They were, in part, asked for by the committee and I support them.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 5A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Indian Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
Motion No. 5A agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: An affirmative vote on Motion No. 5A disposes of Motions Nos. 6 and 7.
Motions Nos. 6 and 7 dropped.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now vote on Motion No. 18A.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 18A agreed to.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take it that Motions Nos. 6 and 7 were disposed of as a consequence of the affirmative vote on Motion No. 5A?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister is correct. So far, Motion No. 1 was lost. Motion No. 5A was adopted. Motion No. 18A was adopted. There will be no votes on Motions Nos. 6 and 7 because of the vote on Motion No. 5A. The Speaker has given the opportunity to Hon. Members of the House to make comments on the acceptability of the other motions.
The next group of motions which are grouped for debate are Motions Nos. 13, 14, 14A, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 32A.
The mover of Motion No. 13 is not present in the House. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) to move the motion in place of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone)?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the preliminary ruling by the Speaker this morning, Item No. 7(a) says that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 will dispose of Motion No. 14. Therefore, no question will be put on Motion No. 14. I would like to submit, Mr. Speaker, that Motions Nos. 13 and 14 are two quite distinct issues. Motion No. 13 relates to the question of who is eligible to vote with regard to the establishment of band membership rules. Motion No. 14 requires a mandatory instead of a permissive appeal mechanism, and so I do not see how we can say that Motion No. 13 will dispose of Motion No. 14. I request the Chair's attention to that matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Speaker has already ruled on the group of motions that I am about to put to the House. What I suggest to the Hon. Member is that debate will start on the grouping as I have given it now, and if the Hon. Member wishes to make additional comments this afternoon during Routine Proceedings, which is the time the Speaker has allotted concerning other motions, he may do so at that time.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, you quite rightly drew attention to the fact that my colleague who was to move Motion No. 13

June 10, 1985
Indian Act
is unable to be here this morning. However, I know that she feels very strongly about this motion and certainly wishes to speak to it. You asked whether I would move that motion in her name. I will not be able to do so because of a different point of view on its impact. But I think the whole grouping is going to entail a good deal of debate; it is central to the issue we are dealing with here.
Therefore, I would ask the Speaker whether he would agree that this particular grouping be stood until after Question Period and that we move ahead to the next item, which would be Motion No. 25. In the Speaker's ruling it is item No. 11, Motion No. 25 to be debated and voted on separately. I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to stand that one group, proceed on to Motion No. 25 for the remainder of the time available or perhaps the one following that, and let that other grouping be debated this afternoon.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the constructive intent of the Hon. Member. My thought was that we should try as far as possible to deal with these matters in sequence, and the Hon. Member's colleague will have an opportunity of addressing her motion when she is in the House, 1 am sure. Because of time constraints, we might want to proceed with this grouping as such. It will allow us to carry on debate, without being too technical, regardless of whether or not the Member is here. We can always revert to this item when the Member returns, if that deals with the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate the concern of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). My concern is similar to that of the Government House Leader, that we maintain the order which I think we have implicitly agreed upon. I assume we will not conclude prior to one o'clock because there are nine or ten of these motions. If we did, it would certainly be a wonder of efficiency. I take it from the Government House Leader that we can move back to allow the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) to comment on Motion No. 13. There are a number of motions in front of us and many Members of this House who would like to comment on them, so I hope we would not necessarily move through the whole of this grouping but, rather, allow the flow of debate to go forward. It seems to me that if we are in danger of passing through these motions prior to one o'clock, we could perhaps deal with the question of procedure at that time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am on Motion No. 13. I understand the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) can speak when she comes in, but right now I need a mover for Motion No. 13. If not, I will have to declare it withdrawn.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the House Leader and the Minister that to jump ahead does confuse the issue. I also appreciate that we want to proceed in order; there is no problem there. However, I have to tell the House quite forthrightly that my problem is that the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) feels very strongly
about her motion. She made a significant contribution in committee and I think she deserves the opportunity to make her case. Perhaps what we can do, rather than moving the whole grouping, is to move on to Motion No. 14 and let that be the engine which starts the debate on this grouping. That motion is in the name of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). If that could be done, and if we then allowed the Hon. Member for Mount Royal to move her motion as soon as she is back in the House this afternoon, it would present no procedural difficulty and I would appreciate it on behalf of my colleague.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The suggestion by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior is unacceptable to the Chair because the adoption of Motion No. 13 would dispose of Motion No. 14. The only way it would be possible is if we left those two motions out for the time being.


Miss MacDonald:: Let someone get up and move it for her.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Am I to understand that there is unanimous consent to start with the grouping of Motion No. 14A and leave Motion No. 13 and Motion No. 14 for the time being?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is clearly on the understanding that the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) will be here this afternoon. I do not want this to be delayed indefinitely. If we have a commitment that she will be here to move Motion No. 13 immediately upon Orders of the Day being called this afternoon, I think it would be reasonable. Otherwise we would have to take a vote on the motion at that time.


B. Keith Penner: My understanding is that the Hon. Member will be here, and I am speaking on her behalf in asking that this delay be agreed to by the House, and I thank the House Leader for his co-operation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well, we will leave Motions No. 13 and 14 for now and start the grouping with Motion No. 14A.
Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moves:
Motion No. 14A
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 4
(a)	by adding immediately after line 35 at page 6 the following:
"(3) Where the council of a band makes a by-law under paragraph 8I(p.4) bringing this subsection into effect in respect of the band, the consents required under subsections (1) and (2) shall be given by a majority of the members of the band who are of the full age of eighteen years."
(b)	and by renumbering the subsequent subsections accordingly.
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca) moves:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 36 to 48 at page 6 and lines 1 to 4 at page 7.
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca) moves:
June 10, 1985

Motion No. 16
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 22 at page 7 the following:
"(6.1) Upon receipt of any notice under subsection 10(5), the Registrar shall not thereafter add or delete any name to or from the Band List for the band unless the Minister gives notice in writing to the band council of his decision that the membership rules do not comply with the conditions set out in subsection (1) or subsection (11) and, in that event, the Registrar shall not add any name to the Band List for that band until the expiration of a period of 180 days after the Minister has given notice of his decision in writing to the band council.
(6.2)	Within six months after the Minister has given notice to a band council under subsection 10(6.1), the band council may either
(a)	give any further notice or notices to the Minister under subsection 10(5), or
(b)	appeal the decision of the Minister to a court referred to in subsection 14.3(5)
and, in the event that an appeal is taken under this subsection from a decision of the Minister, the provisions of subsections 14.3(2), 14.3(3) and 14.3(4) shall apply as if reference in subsection 14.3(4) to the Registrar were references to the Minister.
(6.3)	In the event that, within six months after the Minister has given notice to a band council under subsection 10(6.1) the band council gives any further notice to the Minister under subsection 10(5) and the Minister decides that the further membership rules for that band provided to the Minister pursuant to that subsection do not comply with the conditions set out in subsection (1), the Minister may refer his decision to a court referred to in subsection 14.3(5) and the provisions of subsection 14.3(2), 14.3(3) and 14.3(4) shall thereupon apply mutatis mutandis as if the Minister was a person taking an appeal under subsection 14.3(2) and as if references to the Registrar in subsection 14.3(4) were references to the Minister.
(6.4)	After the commencement of an appeal under subsection 10(6.2) or subsection 10(6.3) in respect of the membership rules of a band, the Registrar shall not thereafter add or delete any name to the Band List for that band until the final resolution of such appeal."
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands) moves:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 3 at page 8 the following:
"(11) In this section, "elector" includes every person whose name is included on the band list and is of the full age of eighteen years."
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca) moves:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 3 at page 8 the following:
"(11) Subject to subsection (12), subsections (3) and (4) shall not apply where, at any particular time before April 17, 1987, the council of a band gives notice to the Minister under subsection 10(5) and it is established to the reasonable satisfaction of the Minister that
(a)	the number of persons alive at the particular time who were entitled on April 17, 1985 to have their names entered in the Band List for the band pursuant to paragraph 11(1 )(c) is more than 20% of the number of persons whose names were entered in the Band List for the band immediately prior to April 17, 1985;
(b)	the aggregate of the number of persons alive at the particular time who were entitled on April 17, 1985 to have their names entered in the Band List for the band pursuant to paragraph 11(1 )(c) and the number of dependent children of such persons is more than 20% of the number of persons whose names were entered in the Band List for the band immediately prior to April 17, 1985 and who at the particular time are ordinarily resident on reserve lands set apart for the use and benefit in common of the members of the band; or
(c)	the number of persons alive at the particular time who were entitled on April 17, 1985 to have their names entered in the Band List for the band pursuant to paragraph 1 l(l)(c) and who at the particular time are over the
Indian Act
age of eighteen (18) years is more than 20% of the number of persons who were electors of the band immediately prior to April 17, 1985.
(12)	Subsection (11) shall not apply unless the membership rules established by the band provide that
(a)	all persons who would be entitled to have their names entered in the Band List for the band pursuant to paragraph 1 l(l)(c), paragraph 11(1 )(</) or subsection 11(2) if the Band List was maintained in the Department shall be entitled to have their names entered in a transitional list which shall be maintained by the band;
(b)	any person whose name appears in a transitional list shall be entitled to apply to the council of the band for membership in the band and to have his name transferred from the transitional list to the Band List for the band;
(<[DOT]) all applicants for membership in the band and for transfer from the transitional list to the Band List pursuant to paragraph (6)shall be entitled to a hearing by the council of the band or by a committee established in accordance with such rules; and
(</) all applications for membership in the band and for transfer from the transitional list to the Band List pursuant to paragraph (b) shall be dealt with fairly and equitably without discrimination on the basis of sex.
(13)	The name of a person who is entitled to have his name entered in a transitional list pursuant to paragraph 12(a) is not required to be entered therein unless an application for entry therein is made to the council of the band on or before April 17, 1990."
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 10 the following:
"13.4 No person shall be entitled to have his name entered in a Band List under paragraph 11(1 )(c) unless the application is made on or before April 17, 1990."
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 10 to 15 at page
12.
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands) moves:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 30 at page 13 the following:
"General
14.4 (1) Where the total number of persons whose names have been entered on a band list under paragraph ll(l)(c) and who have attained the age of eighteen years equals or exceeds fifty percent of the total number of members of the band who have attained the age of eighteen years, no amendment may be made to any trust arrangement relating to the assets of the band without the consent of a majority of the electors of the band and a majority of the electors of the band who were members of the band immediately prior to April 17, 1985.
(2) This section shall cease to have effect on April, 1995 or earlier if requested by the Band Council."
Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moves:
Motion No. 32A
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 22 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"band;
(p.4) to bring subsection 10(3) or 64.1(2) into effect in respect of the band;"."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All of the motions that have been put to the House will be grouped for debate.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, before I begin to make comments with respect to the series of motions before us, I

June 10, 1985
Indian Act
take it that, given the procedural change, we are now dealing with Motion Nos. 14A, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 32A. As opposed to the grouping, we are not dealing with Motions Nos. 13 or 14 in order to accommodate a procedural necessity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is right.


David Edward Crombie: Thank you very much. I have some comments specifically with respect to all or most of these motions. I would first like to indicate that, as the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) indicated, there are many aspects that are central to this Bill, and this is one of them. The voting rights regarding band membership rules and eligibility on the assumption of band membership control is very important because it goes a long way toward the principle of band control of band membership.
All of these motions before us are an attempt, from various perspectives, to try to fix up the situation. The situation is interesting because in many ways the current situation has evolved according to certain specific needs. Under the current provisions of the Bill, eligibility to vote varies from band to band. Some bands use the principle of the definition of "ordinarily resident" in the Indian Act. Others use a customary system and allow any band member to vote whether or not he or she resides on the reserve.
The short point I would like to make is to recognize that there is a variety which has arisen across the country over many years in response to the peculiarities and particularities of the particular band. My amendment seeks to ensure that that principle remains. There are motions with which I will deal in a moment that attempt to make it uniform across the country. While such uniformity may provide more clarity and understanding, I suggest that it is not the proper way to proceed. It would offend the requirement for a varied eligibility requirement for voting which the Indian communities have already evolved themselves.
Other motions which have been grouped for debate attempt to impose certain rules on certain bands. It is an attempt to improve the eligibility of those who may not be within the ambit of an Indian community. The Government rejects that as well.
The essence of the Government motion is to put into law and theory the practice which already exists. That is why Motion No. 14A would make it easier for band councils, through passage of a bylaw, to extend voting rights to all people over 18 if they felt it was appropriate for their particular situation. Nothing requires it; it simply states that a band has a right to move in that direction if it wishes to do so. If it does not wish to move in that direction, it need not do so.
That is why Motion No. 14A, standing as the Royal Recommendation, leaves the matter to be decided by the bands. That is where it should be, in the Government's view.
I will comment on Motions No. 13 and 14 later. With respect to Motion No. 15, in the name of the Hon. Member for
Athabasca (Mr. Shields), it was well argued by the Hon. Member at committee. However, this motion would remove protection of acquired rights from the Bill. That is a principle which has not received much debate in the House, but it was central to the Government's argument.
Since it was not challenged significantly, we did not deal with it to a large extent in the committee. Certainly, if we accepted Motion 15 it would, as I indicated, remove from the Bill the protection of acquired rights. Band membership rules would not be constrained to respect the rights of people as they existed immediately prior to a band's rules being established.
It is the Government's view that protection of acquired rights is absolutely essential to ensure that membership rules are applied fairly. I think it is fair for me to say that the matter of protection of acquired rights is a matter of common justice. Without this provision, it would be possible for bands to deny membership as a result of action or events that took place years before the rules were established. For example, a band could make rules that all band members who married non-Indians could no longer be band members. This would clearly be unfair, as people had no knowledge of the rules when they decided to marry.
Also, without this provision, bands could conceivably frustrate the principle of restoration simply by saying that any person who had previously lost status as a result of Section 12(1 )(b) was not eligible for band membership. Again, in the Government's view, that would be unfair. Therefore, I am urging Members of the House not to support Motion No. 15.
With respect to Motion No. 16, again moved by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), this would establish an unnecessary and cumbersome procedure for dealing with possible disputes between the Minister and the bands regarding the acceptance of band membership rules. This is especially true because the Minister does not have the power to reject memberships rules due to their content. The only grounds for rejection would be improper consent from the band or the community, inappropriate notice before the band vote, or lack of protection of acquired rights. Those are the only three ways in which the Minister could intervene.
It is difficult to see why disputes on these points would need to be resolved in the courts. During the First two years after passage of Bill C-31, it is essentially meaningless to freeze the band list during a dispute since Subsection 11(1) states that the only groups that can be added are: first, people already on the list; second, members of new bands established by the Governor in Council; third, persons restored to band membership under Bill C-31, even if that band takes over its own membership; Finally, children born after April 17, both of whose parents are members of the same band.
There is no point, in our view, in excluding these people from band lists since, presumably, they would be entitled under any band rules.
The standing committee already dealt with the problem of Subsection 11(2) coming into effect inadvertently during a dispute over acceptance of a band's membership rules.
June 10, 1985



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The new Section 10(7) provides that the rules will be effective from the date the band gives notice to the Minister, no matter when the rules themselves are approved. Quite frankly, 1 fail to see the need for this motion because it would make the Bill more complicated, without improving it. Therefore, I also ask that Members of the House not support Motion No. 16.
As I indicated earlier, 1 believe the effect of Motion No. 17 would be to have a uniform provision. In our view, that is not consistent with either the practice or good policy for Indian communities.
Motion No. 18 would establish a transitional list for some bands, the so-called high impact bands. This could mean that some women under Section 12(l)(b) who married non-Indians would not get their band membership. There are no guarantees that such people would ever come off the transitional list. That is the difficulty with Motion No. 18. It would contradict the principle of restoration for victims of sexual discrimination. That is why, in our view, it is important that Motion No. 18 not be supported by the House.
With respect to Motion No. 20,1 suggest, with great respect to my hon. friend, that this motion is inappropriate and unfair. Bill C-31 quite clearly seeks to restore rights to certain individuals, as outlined in Subsection 11(1 )(c). One of those rights is to regain band membership. Rights of individuals should not have artificial time limits imposed, as would be the effect of this motion.
While many take it for granted that all native people are aware of Bill C-31 and its implications, the fact remains that many are not aware of the proposed legislation. As indicated in the standing committee, the Government will have to engage in the appropriate communication and community consultation program. Furthermore, it is very possible that some individuals who would be eligible to be band members are living outside Canada and would not be aware of any changes to the Indian Act for many years to come. Others may be minors now and not in a position to make an application.
In practice, we can be sure that the vast majority of those who will want to regain their rights will make the necessary application within the next two to Five years. There is no compelling reason not to allow those few who remain to apply at some later date. The attitude of some bands, as indicated at the hearings of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, may cause some reluctance on the part of individuals to apply actually for their status membership for a number of years. Therefore, in the Government's opinion, it is unacceptable to have any time restrictions imposed on restoration of rights.
I see that it is now one o'clock. I would ask that we proceed in the usual manner.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
The House resumed at 2 p.m.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am once again dismayed, although not surprised, to learn of another broken election promise by the Conservative admnistration. This time it concerns the moratorium until April 1, 1990, on funds for major multi-sport events in Canada. Specifically affected by this decision are the bids by London and Thunder Bay, Ontario, for the Pan Am Games and the Nordic Games respectively, to be held in 1991. It is clear that this announcement will have far-reaching negative effects.
During the election campaign the Tories issued a sports manifesto highlighting their commitments. High on the list of priorities was, and I quote:
We are committed to maintaining the highest level of federal support for amateur sports in Canada. We believe that the federal role can be improved, and we believe that in the years leading up to 1988 this role must be improved.
The recent decision by the Sports Minister makes a mockery of these promises and delivers a strong insult to the Canadian sports world. Canadian sponsorship of these international sporting events is most important for our young athletes as a source of motivation, inspiration and drive. There also exists an economic potential for job creation and tourism dollars. Finally, these international games encourage national pride, not just among our athletes but among all Canadians. I urge the Government and the Minister to re-think this proposal, to be good sports, and honour their commitment.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago on June 3, 1935, a thousand unemployed set out from Vancouver riding boxcars on an historic trek to meet the Conservative Prime Minister to demand work and wages, and an end to slave labour camps.
The Prime Minister stopped the trek in Regina for a peaceful rally, which turned into a bloody riot, which became known as Regina's Day of Infamy.
Conditions are similar today. Unemployment remains high, youth have few opportunities, food banks have replaced soup kitchens, and the poor are facing social program cuts, while pensioners find their income reduced. As the trekkers say, "Fifty years later, we see the same government arrogance and

June 10, 1985
indifference. We see the same callousness and social programs that took years to win being slashed. Once again the jobless are blamed for their lack of work and the poor for their poverty."
We join the trekkers in calling on this Conservative Government to make employment its first priority. It is especially shocking that these same trekkers and their generation are having pensions cut by this Government through reduced indexation. We ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to apologize to these trekkers, and to make sure that the present generation of young people have work with decent wages.



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RESTRICTIONS ON RADIO STATION LICENCES

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the interest of preserving freedom of the press and other media. The Radio and Television News Directors Association (central Canada), met in my riding on the weekend and passed a resolution opposing unfair regulations sought by the CRTC prior to granting licences for radio stations in Windsor and Montreal.
Members of the Association say the CRTC is intimidating those seeking licences by accepting a minimum of 45 per cent Canadian content in news and editorial broadcasting. Such constraints would never be placed on newspapers and magazines, and it is completely unfair to expect the electronic media to comply.
This governmental intrusion into the newsrooms of Canada virtually destroys the mandate of our news gatherers. The preservation of the Canadian identity is all well and good, but the availability of world news should never be purposely omitted.
A promise of performance including Canadian news content percentages should never be offered by a radio station, nor should it be accepted by the CRTC. All other facets of broadcasting are regulated by the all-powerful CRTC and it must not be given the authority to regulate news broadcasts. I believe existing provisos in Windsor and Montreal should be lifted immediately, and no further suggestion of this kind should be offered or accepted in the future.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Government has kept its promises to Canadians. We promised to reduce government waste and control federal spending. We have delivered.
Since September 4 over $4 billion has been cut from government spending, pensions for Members and Senators have been reduced, and 15,000 civil service jobs will be eliminated by 1990.
We promised to reduce the huge national deficit, and we have delivered. Because of the measures taken last fall and in the recent Budget, the deficit will be reduced by $20 billion over the next five years. We promised fair and just social programs, and again we have delivered.
We have increased the child tax credit, increased pensions for veterans, and extended the Spouse's Allowance Program.
Above all, we promised Canadians jobs, and we have delivered in a very big way. Since the election over 270,000 jobs have been created, and business confidence is booming.
The Government has honoured its commitment to Canadians. We have strengthened the economy, improved government efficiency, and reduced unemployment. Because of the actions and policies of the Government, Canada is working again.



DISASTERS


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, in the just released 1984 annual report of the U.S. company, Ocean Drilling and Exploration Company Ltd., it states that ODECO made a profit of $45 million from the sinking of the Ocean Ranger.
The rig was valued at $33 million but was insured in such a way that the company realized a $45 million profit, which was listed as profits per common share in its annual report. The company also bragged that only $16 million of a $200 million liability insurance policy was paid out in settlements. Eighty-four lives were lost, and the company made a $45 million profit, Mr. Speaker.
The settlements to surviving family members also show the same scandalous tone. The settlements to U.S. families, on average, was double the settlements to Newfoundland families. The offers made by the company, for example, to families of single men who died were $150,000 if they were American, and $75,000 if they were Canadian.
A cloud of scandal and lack of concern now hangs over this whole affair. The U.S. company and big business shareholders made a $45 million profit and, as far as the offers and settlements were concerned, it depended upon which country a person was from as to what he or she got. The federal Government and the provincial Government of Newfoundland should investigate this matter on an urgent basis. They should also tell offshore workers why the evacuation procedures have not changed since the sinking-


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Hon. Member that his 90 seconds have expired. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).
June 10, 1985



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the abject failure of Conservative policies toward the Canadian auto industry is dramatically clear. This industry has been the major force in economic recovery in Canada but, rather than help to expand auto jobs and exports, the Government has demonstrated inaction, indecision, and incoherence.
Last week Honda Motors announced a four-fold jump in its U.S. imports into Canada, thereby finding a back-door way to escape any Canadian import limits on Japan.
Over the weekend, reports showed a 19 per cent increase in monthly Japanese car imports over April, 1984. The Minister has continued to reassure this House that there is no need for legislation and that he would act if there were signs of an import surge. These import increases show we need action now. We need immediate quota limits on the major Japanese auto companies, and the introduction of effective Canadian content laws as called for by the Auto Task Force.
The Government must get its act together. It is time for the Minister to stop wringing his hands in despair, and start showing economic leadership.



ABORTION


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, Nazi Germany enacted a law permitting the extermination of "useless members of society". Now we have the same pattern evolving in which a whole category of people, the so-called "unloved, unwanted, and unborn" are being senselessly slaughtered.
The morality of our parents and grandparents where abortion was not accepted is changing drastically to a false belief that the growing baby is nothing but a "fetal tissue" and aborting it is just like having a tooth pulled. I believe life begins upon conception. It has been proven that brain waves can be detected at seven weeks, and at 18 days the beating heart of a baby already pumps blood through its own bloodstream. In addition, a fertilized ovum can be transferred from one woman to another, and the embryo is not rejected as is the case many times when a kidney is transplanted. Many babies born prematurely live, even those born as young as four and one half months.
Preserving the life of the mother, the expectation of a defective child, rape and incest account for only about 4 per cent of the abortions; mostly it is for the convenience of the mother or parents, and the argument that a child is not wanted is merely an excuse as there are hundreds of couples wanting to adopt babies.
No one has the right to murder a child, born or unborn. The sooner we return to the morality of our parents and grandparents, the sooner thousands of unborn lives will be saved.



CANADA BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in response to my question on February 13, concerning the phasing out of The Friendly Giant, the president of the CBC wrote me last week and said that repeats from a library of 800 will run from April for at least a year, and that Friendly will continue to work with the CBC-TV children's department as a consultant, and star in some half-hour holiday specials for next year.
That is not good enough. I have received hundreds and hundreds of representations from Canadians of all ages begging that the program be perpetuated. Let me quote only a couple:
His warmth and gentleness are great-they discuss books and poetry and music-my kids dance and laugh and listen, and they learn about respect for people and animals.
Kathy Nicholson,
Orangeville, Ontario
And:
This is one of the few symbols distinctly Canadian and has added value of being non-violent, a rare feature in children's television viewing.
53 students, Faculty of Law,
McGill University
And:
Friendly, Rusty and Jerome are equal contributors in conversation from which children receive a sense of equality.
Rosalee and Allen Lockyer,
Blandford,
Nova Scotia
And:
To argue that 26 years is enough is like saying that because Shakespeare has been done for four hundred years is reason to drop it.
Rev. Peter Sharpe,
St. Joseph's Basilica,
Edmonton
I say to my colleagues, hang in there, don't be afraid of our big Crown corporations. Go after what you believe in. 1 believe the CBC is trying to close the drawbridge on three of our great Canadian fictional characters and I, for one, will not let that happen.

June 10, 1985



FISHERIES


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) sent shock waves through the Atlantic Provinces, to the point of threatening their very existence. The many cutbacks in federal spending will have a very severe impact on our region. In fact, we get the impression that the Federal Government has slammed the door shut.
Mr. Speaker, as if that were not enough, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) got into the act, and I can tell you that the way he did it was certainly calulated to shock the people of New Brunswick.
Imagine, following a ruling by a court of justice, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans threatened the fishermen of New Brunswick! The very person supposed to protect fishermen is helping to create a conflict situation. Mr. Speaker, all of this is happening in the so-called new era of consultation and cooperation the Government promised us.
If this goes on, Mr. Speaker, we are not out of the woods yet.
Maybe the Minister should take a few tranquilizers before opening his mouth in a conflict situation, because his threats of closing down the Atlantic fisheries have only made the situation much worse. The Minister ought to know that one does not settle fisheries conflicts by threatening fishermen. His conduct has raised some doubts as to his ability to settle conflicts of this kind. Statements like the Minister's increase uncertainty in the Atlantic fisheries industry, and the Minister should think twice before letting himself get carried away.



DEVELOPMENT OF NORTHERN OIL AND GAS

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Following the Western Accord and the Atlantic Accord which have done so much to reinvigorate the Canadian oil and gas industry, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has again struck paydirt in the North.
In her address to the Beaufort Industry Group Conference held recently in Inuvik, she reinforced the policy of the Government of Canada to proceed expeditiously with the development of northern oil and gas, emphasizing regional benefits and national security.
Of particular significance was her announcement of a comprehensive review of the Canada Lands management policy leading to amendments to the Canada Oil and Gas Act this fall, together with a replacement for the Petroleum Incentive
Program until such time as transportation systems are in place.
The possibility of an Arctic Accord negotiated between the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories, which would address questions such as revenue sharing and the territorial responsibilities within the management regime, was well received, and ought to be implemented in a timely manner.
Such an Accord, Mr. Speaker, would have the same beneficial effects in the North as the previous agreements have had in both western and Atlantic Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, for two weeks the Right Hon. Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have been claiming that Canadian pensioners support de-indexation of Old Age Security pensions.
During the weekend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare finally admitted that our senior citizens are not in favour of this Bill to de-index their pensions.
My question is as follows: The Minister has a responsibility to protect the elderly here in Canada. Is the Minister prepared to act responsibly and insist that his colleague the Minister of Finance and especially the Right Hon. Prime Minister of our country restore the real value of Old Age Security pensions and related benefits?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. gentleman for the question which was put forward, I think, in a very reasonable point of view. He said that I and other members of Cabinet had used the words "fully support". I do not think, with all respect, that those are the words that I have been using. I have been saying that there are senior citizens whom I have spoken to who understand the circumstances and also understand the proposal. I do not believe I ever said that all senior citizens support the deindexing, or the partial indexing, of the OAS. I said that also in the interview, in a very straightforward statement that it is obvious that not every senior citizen or every senior citizens' group does support it.
I think the point that has to be made, and that is why I am pleased that he put the question in that context, is the protection of both the social programs and also their future. I think if we take a look at those social programs and also at what the
June 10, 1985

debt does to the ability to maintain those programs, and especially look at the future for new programs and new demands, when we look at that, then as we create new wealth and get the economy moving I think it is on that basis that we have to really see these programs, in total context.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: say to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that when he finds that one single group of pensioners who do support the Budget we would appreciate it very much if he would give us the names and bring it to the attention of the House.
May I turn to the Prime Minister, saying that I have had the opportunity of listening to the Prime Minister state on one occasion-and I understand that he has said a similar thing when he has had other opportunities to defend the Budget- that our senior citizens must share in the burden necessary to bring down the deficit. Why ask our senior citizens to help cut the deficit when such extraordinary tax advantages are given to wealthy investors as a result of the capital gains tax exemption?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I may be wrong, but I do not think I ever used the phrase that my right hon. friend has imputed to me. I did indicate that we had inherited a situation which has now placed in grave peril the capacity of the Government to sustain, as it must, the integrity of social programs in the future.
When we pay 30, 40 and 50 per cent, hopefully never, if that were the case, of government revenues to sustain the interest on the debt, then as a country, collectively, the policies of the past, that degree of profligacy, would have compromised the capacity of the Government of Canada to do what it must to provide the elderly and others with the kinds of programs to which they are entitled.
We are trying to re-energize the economy through job creation so we can create the new wealth that we can then use to sustain these social programs. I hope my right hon. friend would agree that the 271,000 new jobs created since last September are a mark of confidence and go a long way toward helping the country back to the full economic recovery which will allow us to build new programs for the elderly.


BUDGET IMPACT ON SENIOR CITIZENS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a group of Canadians who have retired, who are no longer earning income and cannot protect themselves against inflation, and who should not be asked to bear their share of the burden of deficit control. Our position is that one does not control the deficit on the backs of the weak and those who cannot protect themselves.
The Prime Minister should know that, as a resit of the deindexation provisions, about three-quarters of a million
Oral Questions
Canadians who are living just above the poverty line will be brought below the poverty line and, of those three-quarters of a million Canadians, about 230,000 of them are senior citizens. Does the Prime Minister really believe that it is proper for a budgetary measure to throw one-quarter of a million more senior citizens into poverty? Why does he continue to defend the indefensible?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, just to place the matter in context, on June 29, 1982, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry said the following, as reported at page 18911 of Hansard:
They say we are changing the tax system, that we are de-indexing down to 5 per cent or 6 per cent for certain tax brackets and changing the pensions and some of the allowances. Yes, we are doing that. We are doing it because we believe there are enough Canadians who feel compassion and concern for their fellow Canadians who are out of work.
That was the position of the Liberal Party. We have indicated that we will monitor events very, very carefully. Our proposal would have a 3 per cent effect, while the proposal brought forward by the Liberals deindexed pensions and other benefits by 6 per cent, because inflation was at almost 11 per cent. The Right Hon. Member has the temerity to say in the House of Commons today exactly the opposite of what his Party said in the past. He should be ashamed for taking that kind of position.


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to tell the Prime Minister that Liberal Members are not ashamed of telling the truth, but that is obviously not the case with Tory Members. The fact of the matter is-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: It is about time the Prime Minister learned the same lesson. At that time we doubled indexation of CIS and did not take $860 million out of the pockets of the poorest Canadians, the senior citizens.


THE BUDGET
Lloyd Axworthy: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has said that he has spoken to senior citizens. I spoke to the same group of senior citizens in Manitoba but 1 found that they had different points of view from the ones he was expressing. They want to know where the fairness is. They want to know why it is that senior citizens who are living at the poverty line will be losing $860 million. They want to know how it is fair that they will lose that money at the same time the Government is giving over $650 million worth of benefits to those who can invest in RRSPs. Why is it fair that there can be a full indexation of RRSPs for those who earn up to $80,000 per year, while there is no full indexation for a senior citizen who lives at the poverty line?

June 10, 1985
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, knowing how the Hon. Member works in Manitoba, I am sure he also told them about the full indexing on the GIS. I am sure he talked about the minimum tax that will be effective January 1, when he was talking about fairness. I am sure he talked about the surcharge on upper-income Canadians when he was talking about fairness. I know the manner in which the Hon. Member operates in Manitoba, and I know that he does not put those kinds of propositions forward. I have seen the way he operates.
Surely it is best to look at the deficit. I can quote the Hon. Member's speech again. I can tell the Hon. Member what the former Minister of National Health and Welfare said, which is that if we continue to pay the cost of that deficit, that money is not available for social programs. Surely, when looking at that issue, we must look not only at the present but at the future. I would ask the Hon. Member what there will be in the future if the debt keeps growing and there is nothing to use on increased social programs.


USE OF GOVERNMENT REVENUE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Hon. Minister has seen what I do in Manitoba. We never see him in Manitoba, so we do not know what he does about anything at all.
The Minister put a question to me. Let me reverse that. Let the Minister tell the House why it is that senior citizens will be losing $3.7 billion on both the OAS and the GIS while there exists the kind of give-aways the Government is giving to its corporate and wealthy friends, adding up to close to $14 billion? Is it not true that that has nothing to do with deficit reduction but with the fact that we are asking senior citizens to pay for the largest lottery give-away to the well-to-do Canadians in the history of the country?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate why he has never seen me in Manitoba. It is because he is not there to see me.


Lloyd Axworthy: I was there this weekend; you weren't.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I was there last weekend and the weekend before. In fact, if the Hon. Member were to look at addresses, he will find that certain of us know who lives in Manitoba, and who does not.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member likes to raise the issue of a class war. He likes to think that that is what the issue is.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is. That's exactly what it is.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A class war? Is it a class war for the farmers in Manitoba, for whom the Hon. Member occasionally spoke on the sugar-beet issue? Is it part of a class war that those people are now going to be able to use their farms as
pensions? Is it a class war for small-businessmen, blue-collar workers, and other Manitobans? Obviously the only concern the Hon. Member has is to make sharp, small political points. The point to which we must surely return is the issue of the ability that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do have to tell the Minister that his answer is getting long.
[ Translation]


DEINDEXATION OF PENSIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Over the weekend the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that pensioners are not satisfied with the Budget and, again last weekend, even Nova Scotia and Manitoba Conservatives indicated they are not satisfied with the Budget.
Western Canada residents have urged me to ask the Prime Minister this question: If deindexation was not acceptable from the Liberals in the past, why is it now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the economic situation we inherited is altogether appalling, to the extent that it now costs more to service the national debt than to pay for all social programs. As a consequence-and there is a tragic aspect to this-the future of social programs throughout Canada is jeopardized if we do not take corrective measures. We believe, and I hope we are right, that the only way to maintain our social programs is to have a buoyant economy where ever more Canadians and Quebecers are working. Statistics published Friday reveal that 70,000 new jobs were created last month and 89,000 the month before. Admittedly that is very encouraging news in the job creation sector, and we hope this new wealth will enable us to maintain the integrity of all our social programs. That is what we want to do.


GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION PAPER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, ever since the Budget was brought down we have heard a whole series of excuses about this matter. The first excuse was that everyone supports what the Government is doing to pensioners. Government members found out that that would not wash. Then they said that there were no other options. Considering that the Prime Minister has said that the Government is now doing this in the Budget because it discovered that it had a larger deficit than it had anticipated, why is it that the Government indicated, as recently as the end of January, well after it knew its debt position, in a paper put out by the Government itself, that there would be no change to the OAS? Why were we given that commitment in January, and a reversal of it when the Budget was brought down?
June 10, 1985


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated to my hon. friend on many occasions, and to his colleagues, that this measure and its possible effects will be monitored closely over the course of the next few months. 1 take no joy whatsoever in cutting back on benefits to anyone, least of all elderly citizens. I take not the slightest amount of joy in that. The fact of the matter is that the profligacy of previous Governments has now placed in jeopardy the capacity of Canada to sustain those programs in the years 1989, 1990, and 1991. I think we have a moral obligation to take a very serious look at it, and to ensure that the elderly and others are protected in the future. We are in the process, through new job creation, of building a stronger economy. I have given my hon. friend-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the answers are very long today.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has spoken once again, as he frequently does, about moral obligation. It seems to me that there is a moral obligation for the Government to be consistent in what it says.
The Prime Minister did not answer the question. If he knew in January, as he did, what the deficit position of the Government was, why did the Government say that there would be no change in the old age pensions? Why has the Government now put the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of pensioners, when it made a commitment to the senior citizens of Canada in January that it would not do that? That is what morality is all about in politics.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would cast his mind back to the debate then, the question was whether the Government would support and maintain universality of the Old Age Security Program. That was the issue. The point to which he was alluding at that time was that the Government was not committed to universality. The universality question in the report was stated very clearly. People who became eligible at the age of 65 for Old Age Security, regardless of their income, either before retirement or after retirement, would be eligible for the Old Age Security. The Budget has not changed that. In fact, if he takes a look at the amount of money which old age pensioners will get-and he likes to leave the impression that there will be less money in their cheques-he will realize that their cheques will not be less; they will increase.
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We know he has repeated many times that the Budget was tough but fair.
Today, a headline in The Globe and Mail, for instance, reads;

Deficit cutting really a mask for aiding rich.
Allan Maslove, Director of the School of Public Administration at Carleton University, argues that "the Budget is in fact more noteworthy for its redistribution from the middle class to the high income groups than for its deficit reduction". [Translation]
Considering the comments by analysts that were published today and many others that were published previously, would the Prime Minister explain to the House by what kind of mental acrobatics or magician's trick he manages to maintain that his Budget is fair and equitable?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing magic about it. In September, we took over at a particularly difficult time. We had to start the uphill task of economic renewal, because it was the only way to provide for social programs in the future. Since September 17, we have created 271,000 new jobs in Canada, and I think that for an unemployed person, the best kind of equity is a new job. That is what we have done. We are taking economic renewal seriously, which was proved again last Friday, when statistics indicated there were 70,000 new jobs. I hope the Hon. Member will agree this is another step in the right direction for economic renewal in Canada and for social justice.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister has been talking about the Budget deficit.
I would like to ask him a very simple question. How is it possible that a Government that says it is in financial trouble, has enough money in 1985-86 and 1986-87 to grant $900 million in task benefits to those Canadians who will be making capital gains, while it does not have the $265 million needed to maintain full indexation of Old Age Security pensions? Why was there enough money to help the rich who are given tax

June 10, 1985
Oral Questions
exemptions on capital gains and was there none for the elderly, although this would cost a third less?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, frankly I am amazed at this kind of sophistry, coming from such a distinguished and Hon. Member.
He knows perfectly well that we are trying to boost the private sector, to which he was closely linked in the past. Several years ago, the Hon. Member was not against proposals of this kind. We are in a position to boost the private sector by means of the measures indicated in the Budget, but it is all aimed at achieving a new dimension of social justice, and first of all, social justice demands jobs. And that is what we are trying to achieve in Canada and Quebec: durable jobs for Canadians and Quebecers. That is what we are doing.


GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION PAPER
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister implied that he was fulfilling his promise to senior citizens. I would like to quote from his blue book which stated: "In the Government's view, no change is required in the Old Age Security Program". Why does the Minister now feel justified in making the seniors pay for the deficit when he promised in the book, as the Prime Minister promised before the election, that senior citizens would not bear the brunt of the deficit?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the point which I made to her Leader. She has been asking whether the Government was committed to the universality question. I say to her that that issue, as the three principles in the consultation paper state clearly, has not been changed. I believe she should keep in mind that the largest single cost today to the Government of Canada is the payment on the debt. She is advocating that the debt should be increased. She has never committed herself to a reduction in debt. She feels, philosophically, that it can be increased. What she is saying, by so doing, is that the debt could increase and that it would have no impact on social policy. Obviously, that is not the case.


POSITION OF ELDERLY WOMEN
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is completely distorting the options which this Party presented to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and he knows it. Does he think it is fair for elderly women, who make up most of the poverty group in the country, to bear the brunt of the deficit, rather than placing a tax on the rich? We think that is where the Government should get the money to help reduce the debt.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member supports the
Budget. In the Budget the Minister of Finance said that there would be a minimum tax as of January 1, 1986. There is also a surtax in the Budget-


Mr. Orlikow:: Some day; not now.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, now that I have their attention, they will know that that is the truth. That is what the Minister of Finance said. There is also a surtax which has been put into place. I hope, when the Bill on the spouse's allowance for widows and widowers comes before the House, that she will support it as well.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Premiers of three maritime provinces are meeting today and tomorrow to consider how they can cope with the disastrous Budget and the impact which it will have on eastern Canada. Conservative Premier Buchanan has already condemned the deindexing of the Old Age Security and has said that it "was not only wrong politically, it was the wrong thing to do for senior citizens". Conservative Premier Miller of Ontario and the Tories in Manitoba have also condemned it. Are you going to stonewall your own provincial leaders, as well as the elderly of this country?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order. Mr. Speaker does not stonewall.


Roland de Corneille: Or are you going to stop looking after your political necks, and start looking after the seniors by reinstating their full indexing?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question on Friday, as well as a similar question which was asked on that day. I say to the Hon. Member that obviously Conservative Premiers, leaders, and provincial legislators can make their views known. That is their responsibility. But I say to them, and to the Hon. Member, that the Government, well before the Opposition raised it in the House, had taken this in mind. In fact I will quote again some words from the Budget; "The Government will review the adequacy of payments in light of future circumstances. It will increase them as resources permit". That has been a consistent position right from the night of the Budget.


TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the provincial Premiers who are meeting in the Maritimes right now are also agonizing and sick about the fact that this gruesome Budget will also soon be cutting back over $2 billion per year on transfer payments to the provinces. This will
June 10, 1985

ravage health care, and sock it especially to the elderly. What is the Minister going to do about these sneaky, hidden cutbacks in medical care when he knows that the quality of medical services is going to be impaired, and that an additional
230,000	seniors will be put under the poverty line by 1990 as a result of the Budget's inhumane treatment?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says "sneaky" when it is in the Budget. But I remind the Hon. Member that the former minister of Finance made that provision without any consultation or beforehand notice to the provinces when he cut back on the established programs financing. The present Minister of Finance is giving notice now that when the negotiations start on the next five-year program, this is the process he wants to take.
If the Hon. Member takes a look at the budget words, he will find that that $2 billion would still allow for an increase in the EPF payments from the federal Government to the provinces. But it would be a reduction if one takes a look at the projections from this five-year plan of the EPF to the next five-year plan. If the Hon. Member takes a look he will also find that the percentage paid by the federal Government for both health care and post-secondary education would remain the same.
The Hon. Member should look at his own words when he was in Government and he will see that he said: "When are you going to cut back and make the provinces pay the money they receive from the federal Government for those two programs?" In fact those Hon. Members had a task force trying to monitor exactly that.


PENSIONS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend I talked with hundreds of pensioners who, like pensioners all across the country, feel angry and betrayed by a Budget which the Minister of National Health and Welfare himself admits will increase poverty among the elderly. Will the Minister explain to the House, and to those pensioners, why we cannot afford indexation of poverty-level pensions for the elderly but can afford to provide windfall profits to the wealthy and large oil corporations?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member puts words in my mouth-and I take it he does so inadvertently-when he says that I have admitted that the Budget would increase poverty. I have said no such thing. What I have said is that if we can get the economy turned around, and if we can create jobs and wealth, people who are now unemployed in communities such as the one the Hon. Member comes from, which was sorely hit by unemployment will get jobs. Poverty will not be increased, but wealth will be increased, and as that wealth is increased,
Oral Questions
and as taxes are paid on that new income, we can also maintain social programs. That is the equation I and my colleagues have been putting forward, and I suggest that that is the equation the Hon. Member should examine.


REVIEW OF EFFECT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should get away from rhetoric and get back to the issue of promises, so I will address my supplementary question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who, a few minutes ago, made another promise. He promised that the situation of the pensioners would be re-examined. I would like to know how the Prime Minister expects to be believed when the Government promised the pensioners that full indexation would be maintained.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I notice that we did not hear from my hon. friend when we had, I think, the very good news again about job creation on Friday. But inasmuch as my hon. friend is from Windsor, perhaps this would interest him. "April was a banner month for motor vehicle dealers as sales of new cars and commercial vehicles hit their highest level ever in Canada".


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I ask you about promises.


Mr. Angus:: You don't have an answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Apparently the Hon. Member doesn't want prosperity for Windsor. They will dismiss you pretty quickly in Windsor.
This is good news for the automobile industry.
We have indicated very clearly that it is our intention to monitor events very carefully, and at the earliest possible moment, as soon as resources permit-


Mr. Rodriguez:: Another promise.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -to be helpful to all those affected. The New Democratic Party hasn't said a single word about job creation. All it is concerned about is social discord and class warfare. We are interested in new prosperity and new wealth for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iain Francis Angus: That won't wash any more.


Mr. Thacker:: Did your Leader take a reduction? Not one cent.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

June 10, 1985
Oral Questions
Solicitor General. Many Canadians are helping to control the national debt. They are supporting the new philosophy of economic responsibility and restraint which now exists. What measures are being used by the Solicitor General's Department and how is the inmate population in Canada contributing to the control of this debt, reducing expenditures, and sharing in the economic responsibilities of the nation?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague that the cost of maintaining inmates is the responsibility of the Corrections Services of Canada. The security costs remain very high. However, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that we do operate industrial shops, greenhouses, and farms, and to the extent possible we try to be as cost effective as we can under the circumstances.


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Fifty years ago today a large number of unemployed were stopped on their trek to Ottawa in a brutal way by the Conservative Bennett Government of that day. Today some of those people completed that trek, with many other behind them. Their demands are the same, "work and wages". Since the Budget had no specific programs for job creation, would the Minister tell the House when she is going to announce specific programs for job creation, and would she tell us what goals she wishes to attain by those programs?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I know that it is sometimes difficult for the Hon. Member to accept the fact that there are facts and figures in the Budget which pertain to job creation and training. In this case there is some $900 million additional dollars for job creation and training.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I can also tell the Hon. Member that I had the opportunity to meet this morning with this group of people who had come to Ottawa to discuss their concerns and their needs, and also to tell them the trend which has been developing in the last number of months; the creation of some
270,000	jobs since September; the fact that every single sector of the economy improved as far as jos were concerned last month, and the fact that unemployment insurance will be reviewed positively.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: All of these things were discussed, Mr. Speaker, and these people said they appreciated the fact that we were able to get together and discuss these matters.


Mr. Keeper:: No, they were disappointed.


MINISTER'S POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister has announced that $900 million several times, and we still have not seen the details. We were all pleased last week to see last month's slight improvement in employment.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Allmand:: We were all pleased about that. But no one can be content with a 10.5 per cent unemployment level. No one can celebrate that figure. I want to ask the Minister if she is content with 10.5 per cent unemployment? If she is not, what is her goal, and how does she intend to achieve a goal which is much lower? It was 7 per cent before the recession.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, of course no one is satisfied with 10.5 per cent unemployment. It was 11.6 per cent when we came into office, and it is on its way down. I would also tell the Hon. Member, because he does not seem to realize these things, that, yes, we did announce $900 million for job creation and training in February, but it was an additional $900 million announced in the Budget.


PENSIONS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Fifty years ago young unemployed men attempted to come to Ottawa to demand jobs. Today another Conservative Government is reducing their pension benefits.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simon Leendert de Jong: Will the Prime Minister not admit that the policy of making the victims pay, and not those who own, control, and manage our economy, is as wrong today as it was in the time of R. B. Bennett? Will he stop repeating past mistakes, and not proceed with the deindexing of the Old Age Security pensions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, when my hon. friend reflects tonight or tomorrow upon that question, he will be before you asking that it be withdrawn. It is really quite unworthy.
The fact is that since we came to office we have managed, through co-operation with the private sector, trade unions, indeed all groups, to bring down interest rates by almost 3 per cent, and 271,000 new jobs have been created. In the months of April and May a total of 159,000 new jobs have been created, the largest back-to-back job creation figures since Statistics Canada began compiling them in 1953. That is great news for Canada, and you should stand up and celebrate it.
June 10, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain where the Prime Minister is. The answer I got certainly had nothing to do with the question I asked.


HISTORIC EVENTS
[Stage Direction]
1935 TREK BY UNEMPLOYED
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that on July 1, 1935, a peaceful meeting of relief camp workers and Regina residents was attacked on orders of the Conservative Government of R. B. Bennett.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order. Is this relevant?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Does the Prime Minister not feel that an apology is now in order?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will not dignify a scurrilous remark like that. But I will say that I look forward to meeting with representatives of the marchers in my office at 3.30 with a great deal of empathy and affinity because, unlike some members of the NDP, you are looking at someone from a union background as opposed to some other lofty circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Solidarity forever.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We shall overcome, brothers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Scarborough West.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for the Post Office my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary. When 1 served here in the early 1970s I found that the chief constituency complaint was mail delivery. Coming back in 1984 I find the certain grievance is still the Post Office. In view of this persistent lack of public confidence caused by things such as, for example, a constituent writing a letter to me here in Ottawa and having it take longer to deliver than it would have taken a messenger to carry it by foot, will the Minister consider freezing the cost of postage until the credibility of the Post Office is restored?


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question and for his comments
Oral Questions
on the mails. His question has been noted and will be submitted to the Minister as soon as he returns to Ottawa.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Last April, when the quota agreement for imports of Japanese cars expired, the Minister said he would monitor the situation and prevent any surge of imports of Japanese cars into Canada while discussions for a new deal with Japan were under way. There are now figures from the Japanese auto exporters indicating that in April there was an 18 per cent increase in those imports, and likely a similar increase in May. Yet there is still no deal.
Why has the Minister not kept his word? Why has he allowed this surge to go on? Will he undertake to take steps immediately to push back the level of Japanese automotive imports until there is a new quota arrangement at previous levels, or a new deal with Japan involving commitments for Canadian content equivalent to what is happening in the U.S., to preserve and enhance jobs and production in Canada for Canadian workers?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to figures which appeared in the press over the weekend. If he checks Statistics Canada figures coming out this morning he will notice that the Japanese figure is a much lower increase. However, I can tell the Hon. Member that we are noting any increase and we have already written to Japanese authorities asking for an explanation of whether this is indicative of an increasing of their 18 per cent market penetration in Canada, or if it is just a monthly adjustment which sometimes occurs and does not indicate increased sales.


John Edward Broadbent: That is what Herb used to say.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think what my hon. friend needs is an adjustment in his attitude. He needs to act decisively right now to make sure that surge of Japanese cars into Canada does not go on because, whatever figures he quotes, the Japanese manufacturers themselves say there has been that increase. Will he take action now to stop that surge, and undertake to have an agreement in place by June 12, as was the case previously?
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, it is rare that you see the Hon. Member excitable but he certainly is today, to the point of saying attack before you are even attacked as far as export market penetration is concerned.

June 10, 1985
Oral Questions SOCIAL SECURITY


GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION PAPER
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, although I was going to ask the Prime Minister to lead the House in a rendition of Solidarity Forever after his last comment.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We shall overcome.


Mr. Deans:: No! Please, no!


Svend Johannes Robinson: My question concerns a promise made by the Minister in January of this year that no change would be made to the Old Age Security or Guaranteed Income Supplement payment system, and that the Government was not proposing changes "at this time" in the elderly benefits system. What was it that that changed from January when the Minister knew full well the debt position of the Government which resulted in its decision to place the full load for debt reduction on the backs of those least able to pay for it, the senior citizens?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member is using words which are not adequate. He used the words "full load". That is not the case. He is taking a specific part of the Budget and saying that represents the full load. I say to him, as I have said to his Leader, that, if he looks at it, the system has not been changed. Universality is in place.


John Edward Broadbent: He did not say universality; he said no change, period.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He used the word "system" in is question. I say to him that the people who were eligible for an old age pension before the Budget are eligible for that same pension after the Budget, and that is the issue.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the issue is why on earth Canada's senior citizens should have to pay for debt reduction when the wealthy are enabled to invest in condominiums in Florida and get a greater return on their capital gain. That is not fair. It is tough, but it certainly is not fair.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's discussion paper made no reference to universality. He said there would be no change.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Why is he changing the system now?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. If he looks at the three principles right on the front of that discussion paper, he will
see "universality will be maintained". That is one of the three principles on which the whole paper is based. He can refer back to that.
He says that only the senior citizens are asked to carry the cost of the debt. I repeat, as I have done in other Question Periods, and today, that there is a surcharge on those who are recipients of a higher than average income. There is the minimum tax that will come into effect January 1, 1986. As well, it was necessary to turn the country around from the direction in which it was going, namely, that the deficit was going to grow, and grow, and grow, and take more, and more, and more from our social programs. That is untenable. It cannot be sustained, and that is why the changes were announced in the Budget.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It was recently announced that construction of a special handling unit at the Atlantic Institution at Renous was to be cancelled. What impact will this have on local employment? Can the Minister give his assurance that this decision will not affect future staffing at the penitentiary?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the special handling unit at the Atlantic Institution will not be constructed. Careful projections indicate that we have a surplus of these facilities now, and will have a surplus of space for some years. I sympathize with the Hon. Member's concern about the effect that this will have. However, I want to assure him that the preponderance of the jobs involved in this Institution, which are heavily weighted in favour of local employment, will not be affected.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Friday, June 7, 1985 meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice this morning of a question of privilege which involves comments made in the House a week ago today on Monday, June 3, when I was not present in the House. It is a most serious
June 10, 1985

matter, the publication of libel. It has to do with remarks made by the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). At page 5322 of Hansard of Monday, June 3 he addressed himself to me and members of my family. I want to read the offensive passage, Mr. Speaker. He said:
The Minister's family has one member who is a prominent businessman, and from whom Revenue Canada is now claiming $380,000.
There is not a word of truth in that, Mr. Speaker. It is not claiming $380,000. He went on to say:
Both of the Minister's sons are legal agents for the Department of Justice, courtesy of their father, and have as their responsibilities the task of acting on behalf of Revenue Canada.
That is also untrue. Only one of the sons was a legal agent for Revenue Canada. He went on to say:
The question is: will the Minister's sons, who were named as federal legal agents by their father, act to prosecute the uncle, who is their father's brother, and who owes the Government of Canada $380,000?
That is false in its entirety,, Mr. Speaker. My brother, who is Andrew C. Crosbie, does not owe the Government of Canada $380,000 or any amount in connection with his income tax or otherwise. However, it was totally irrelevant to the debate in any event. The Hon. Member slandered someone who is not in the House in a manner that has nothing to do with the House and on a matter with which he has nothing to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could the Minister tell me what the question of privilege is, please?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if Members of the House can libel whom they like in this connection, and draw the inference that some kind of deal is in place so that a son of mine would not be taking any action against the brother who owes $380,000, the whole thing is a shabby aspersion on myself, my sons, and a false allegation against my brother.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I am entitled to set the record straight because this has been repeated on the radio and in the news in St. John's, Newfoundland. It interferes with him in his capacity to enter into business arrangements because people now feel that he owes $380,000 to the Department of National Revenue.


Mr. Speaker:: I must interrupt the Hon. Minister one more time. Could the Hon. Minister please tell me what his question of privilege is?


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: He has none.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is that my actions as a Minister and Member of the House have been reflected upon. The suggestion is that I will take some action which will relieve my brother from having to pay the $380,000 allegedly owed in income tax. Surely that is a breach of privilege. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the chartered accountants of my brother, Andrew C. Crosbie, who advised me-


Jacques Guilbault: Order.
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie


Lloyd Axworthy: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please! The Minister is introducing into the record his view of a set of facts and is indicating that in his view the facts that were quoted earlier were not correct. That, I take it, is his right in one sense. However, I must ask the Minister to tell me quickly what question of privilege he is raising, because he has not raised one as yet.


John Carnell Crosbie: The question of privilege is that the provisions of the Privacy Act with respect to Andrew C. Crosbie have been violated. The principles of the Income Tax Act have been violated because there is a claim against Andrew C. Crosbie in connection with a firm called Crosbie Offshore Services Limited and a question of payroll source deductions in his position as a director. A letter was sent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: -to him from Revenue Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


John Carnell Crosbie: -on April 10, 1985, a private letter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Minister please take his seat?


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will give the Minister one more opportunity.


Jacques Guilbault: Why? There is no question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister will please immediately come to the question of how his privileges, as a Member of the House of Commons, have been breached. There is no other question that can be raised as a question of privilege.


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, Mr. Speaker, my privilege as a Member of the House has been breached because the Member has tried to cast aspersions on my conduct as a Minister by relating false information to the House about my brother and the Department of National Revenue. And, Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to know where he got his information, if he got the information, and he must be prepared to back up that information-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


John Carnell Crosbie: -and put his seat on the line, or else there is no one in the country who is safe.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: That's where the question of privilege comes in.

June 10, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order! There is a clear dispute as to facts. There has, therefore, as the Hon. Minister I think knows, been no question of privilege raised.
Presenting reports from standing or special committees.


John Carnell Crosbie: On a point of order, then, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Minister of Justice.


John Carnell Crosbie: I pointed out to the House that the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has made a completely false and damaging statement in connection with my brother, Andrew C. Crosbie, who does not owe Revenue Canada $380,000. And I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


John Carnell Crosbie: -the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement unequivocally.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, Mr. Speaker, order. That's what I want, order. That's what I want, rights-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


John Carnell Crosbie: -for innocent people being maligned.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Minister resume his seat? The Hon. Minister may wish to give his brother counsel as to his brother's rights outside the House in the courts.


John Carnell Crosbie: What rights has he got?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! Order, please!


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question of privilege here. There is no point of order here. Presenting reports from standing or special committees.


John Carnell Crosbie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Justice will please resume his seat.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Justice will please resume his seat.


John Carnell Crosbie: On a point of order.


Ian Deans: Don't get thrown out.


John Carnell Crosbie: If this kind of reprehensible conduct can go on in the House, no one is safe.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Justice will please resume his seat immediately.


Ian Deans: John, sit down.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is a disgrace.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Justice will give me no choice in about one more try.


Jacques Guilbault: That's what he wants.


John Carnell Crosbie: Go ahead.


Ian Deans: Don't do it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Justice has raised a point which is significant to him, and he may wish to make a statement under Statements by Ministers, or he may wish to have someone make a statement under Standing Order 21, but no point of order and no question of privilege that I can see has been raised.


John Carnell Crosbie: Standing Order 21, what's that got to do with it?


Mr. Speaker:: Presenting reports from standing or special committees. Tabling of documents. Statements by Ministers.


John Carnell Crosbie: We are not finished with this yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Statements by Ministers.


John Carnell Crosbie: All right, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make a statement in connection with the Department of National Revenue and the case of Andrew C. Crosbie and the false allegations made by the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Rus-sell (Mr. Boudria) on June 3, 1985.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Minister making a statement in his capacity as Minister of Justice or is he making a statement in his capacity as a brother?


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to answer the Minister by indicating that I will verify my facts and respond tomorrow, or at the earliest opportunity, with a full withdrawal, if appropriate.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a few petitions.
The first one is from people at the Centre d'accueil Champlain, a senior citizens' home in Brossard. These people are opposed to de-indexation of Old Age Security pensions, and they ask the Government to maintain full indexation.
June 10, 1985

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is from Manoir Saint-Lambert, on the South Shore of Montreal, where people are against de-indexation and ask the Government to maintain full indexation.
Two more petitions of the same nature were signed by residents on the South Shore of Montreal.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from over 300 people, including B.C. pensioners, parents, workers and young people, who all agree that the May 23 Budget imposes undue and unfair hardship on pensioners by deindexing the Old Age Security Program. That represents a loss of $100 this year and $680 in 1991.
This is reneging on the campaign promises of the P.C. Government in which they promised to index the old age pensions to the actual cost of living, and it is a massive withdrawal from our collective commitment to public pensions. The pensioners are asking that the Government reindex old age pensions to the full cost of living.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of over 200 senior citizens from my constituency of Burnaby who are expressing their anger at the May 23 Budget which deindexes the Old Age Security Program and which further flies directly in the face of the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) that a P.C. Government would fully index the old age pension to the actual cost of living on a quarterly basis. These pensioners, my constituents, young and old, are asking that the Government withdraw this regressive proposal and reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security Program for Canada.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions, all of which deal with the same issue. They all request that full indexing of old age pensions be reinstated.
These petitions are signed mainly by residents of my constituency of Trinity but also include signatures from other Toronto and Ottawa ridings.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition on behalf of Canadian citizens from British Columbia to Thunder Bay who call upon Parliament to reject the Government's proposal to deindex the Old Age Security and who ask that it be reinstated immediately.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 371.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Parry: What is a list of border crossings, between Canada and the United States, where a toll charge applies for the use of a road, bridge, tunnel, right-of-crossing or ferry under one kilometre and, in each case, what is the charge for a passenger automobile?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: There is no toll charge for the use of roads and rights-of-crossing between Canada and the United States. Of the international bridges and tunnels between the two countries, the following are under one kilometre and have a toll charge:
(1)	The Baudette-Rainy River Bridge (Rainy River, Ontario) has a one-way standard toll of $1.25* for automobiles and drivers plus $0.10 for each passenger. It also has a one-way commuter toll of $1* for automobiles and drivers plus $0.10 for each passenger.
(2)	The Fort Frances-International Falls Bridge (Fort Frances, Ontario) has a one-way standard toll of $2.75 for automobiles, drivers, and passengers as well as a one-way commuter toll for automobiles, drivers and passengers of $0.60.
(3)	The Rainbow Bridge and the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge (both in Niagara Falls) as well as the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge (Queenston, Ontario) have a one-way standard toll of $0.50 for automobiles and drivers plus $0.10 for each passenger at least five years of age. They also have a one-way commuter toll of $0.24 for automobiles and drivers plus $0.08 for each passenger at least five years of age.
Most ferry crossings between Canada and the United States are greater than one kilometre. Those under one kilometre are:
Port Lambton, Ontario-Robert's Landing, Michigan, $2.50 (auto and occupants). Sombra, Ontario-Marine City, Michigan, $3.00 (auto and occupants).
* U.S. funds.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 10, 1985
Indian Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Indian Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development; and Motions Nos. 14A (Mr. Crombie), 15 and 16 (Mr. Shields), 17 (Mr. Manly), 18, 20 and 21 (Mr. Shields), 24 (Mr. Manly) and 32A (Mr. Crombie) (p. 5574).
Mr. Speaker:: I indicated earlier this day that I would be prepared now to hear procedural arguments, should there be any.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed the motions which the Chair had raised concerning procedural acceptability. I agree with the Chair's concerns and the reasoning cited on all motions.
Consultations have been held with Hon. Members opposite and I believe, notwithstanding procedural issues, there may be unanimous consent to accept Motion Nos. 3, 33 and 33A. Therefore, may I propose that Motions Nos. 33 and 33A be grouped for debate and voted on separately and that Motion No. 3 be debated and voted on separately.
With respect to the grouping of motions for debate and voting, I agree with the Chair's suggestions regarding the grouping.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the procedure involved is that when there is some doubt that the amendment does not deal with the Bill to amend but with the parent Act itself, the only way to proceed is by way of unanimous consent. We certainly would in no way withhold unanimous consent.
I simply ask the Government House Leader that Motion No. 27, which is in my name and falls in the same category, be included for debate for the same purpose.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat at a disadvantage because I have been advised with respect to negotiations. I feel somewhat constrained at this time, without further discussion with all concerned, to accept the propostion. I certainly will pursue that and perhaps we could seek the eye of the Chair again. However, I understand the request made by the Hon. Member.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the groupings mentioned by the Government House Leader, we are certainly prepared to give our consent to move Motions Nos. 33 and 33A forwad for debate. We are particularly pleased that the Government is willing to give consent for Motion No. 3 to be debated. There will be a minor amendment which I hope will make that motion acceptable to the Government.
We would certainly be prepared to give our consent to Motion No. 27 being brought forward
1 am very concerned about your grouping of Motion No. 14 with Motion No. 13 and the suggestion that the vote on No. 13 cover the vote for No. 14. These two motions deal with two distinct subjects; Motion No. 13 deals with the question of who is entitled to vote in a band referendum on band membership. This is, in fact, the same subject as Motion No. 17, which also stands in my name. However, I have no objection to Motion No. 17 being grouped with Motion No. 13, as the subject matter and indeed the intent are exactly the same with regard to those two motions.
However, Motion No. 14 does not deal with the question of who can participate in determining band membership rules as do Motions No. 13 and 17, but with the rules themselves. Motion No. 14 amends Bill C-31 to make an appeal process mandatory and not permissible under band membership rules.
Therefore, 1 urge you to re-examine that grouping and make it possible for us to debate and vote on Motion No. 14 separately.
I suggest that Motion No. 36 is a necessary acknowledgement by the Government of its responsibility for the consequences of Bill C-31. You have ruled, among other motions, that Motions Nos. 9 and 10, standing in my name, are out of order because they infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown. Regrettably, I must accept that ruling, but that ruling itself implies that there is a government responsibility for the reinstated members. That is what Motion No. 36 seeks to recognize.
The Government is reinstating members to bands. Many of these bands are very poor. They require additional lands, additional houses and additional infrastructures such as roads and sewers. The Minister has acknowledged this responsibility. I think it is important to have it stated explicitly in the legislation. I hope you will rule that Motion No. 36 will therefore be in order for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: It is somewhat unclear to me. The Member seemed to be debating Motion No. 36. The preliminary ruling concerned the fact that Motion No. 36 does seem to seek to expand the royal prerogative. Is the Hon. Member saying that it does not do that?


James Douglas Manly: The burden of my argument was that you had made certain other rulings that infringed upon the royal prerogative because they expanded band membership. Bill C-31 is really about the whole process of expanding band membership and Indian status. Therefore, the kind of obligation that we see in Motion No. 36 is implied. I am simply asking that it be made explicit.


Mr. Speaker:: Can I try one more time? Is the Hon. Member saying that Motion 36 does nor does not expand the royal prerogative?


James Douglas Manly: I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that it does not expand the royal prerogative because it is implied in what Bill C-31 is trying to do.
June 10, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: I think I will read the "blues" on that one.
Is the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary rising to speak on procedural points?


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order in connection with this Bill. Should I raise it now?


Mr. Speaker:: One moment, please.

If that is the end of the procedural arguments, I might indicate that I shall take them under advisement. I will say to Hon. Members that I have looked at the question of what can be done and what cannot be done by unanimous consent. There is a very significant difficulty when one comes into the area of those things that involve the royal prerogative.
I am also, as I think Hon. Members know, disinclined, where I sense there is a will of the vast majority of the House, to force something that could simply become the subject of another Bill and thus put it through all the stages again. I think that I sense there is a will to do those things and I will want to confirm that. I certainly do not believe the Chair should stand in the way of the will of the House. I do, however, want to enter a caveat. We have traditionally allowed unanimous consent on matters that do not relate to the Royal Recommendations. I may be making a phone call or two and I will be back to the House on the matters that have been raised.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At this morning's sitting on this Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when putting one of the motions put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), used my name as that of the seconder. As a matter of courtesy I allowed this, but then Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to use my name for several other motions. I did not protest this morning, but I have now taken a look at the content of these motions and I am afraid that I find I cannot possibly support them. Therefore, I would like to have the record amended or, if that is not possible, at least to have a note put that I did second the motions as a matter of courtesy to my colleague. I wish the motions to be debated, then I will be able to vote on them according to my conscience.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a procedural difficulty here.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the need to debate these matters, I would be most pleased to second the motions put by our colleague, the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields).


Mr. Speaker:: The rules of the House stipulate that where someone wishes to change a matter like that, it can only be done with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent to change the name of the seconder of the motion and substitute the name of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Indian Act


Jacques Guilbault: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, in that case, perhaps it could be said, for the record, that I did it as a courtesy, because the Acting Speaker actually did not give me a chance or a choice in the matter. He did not ask my opinion. He simply read the motion without consulting me.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will know she has sought the floor on a point of order and that that point of order and her comments will themselves be recorded in Hansard. Hansard will show what she has just said.
Resuming debate.
Is the House ready for the question?
Is there some confusion? I was calling resumption of debate. I indicated that I would reserve on the further procedural matters.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Minister was speaking this morning when we entered the debate.


David Edward Crombie: Yes, I was, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: And I believe he had spoken for 10 minutes. The Table indicates to me that the Minister had completed his 10 minute comments and some other Member can now have the floor, unless the House wishes to give consent to the Minister to continue beyond the 10 minute period. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is unanimous consent. The Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie).


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay my own Bill. I think there were approximately three other motions in this grouping. I have some modest though wise thoughts to offer to the House, although it may well be that the wisdom of the Bill is so overwhelmingly obvious that I do not need to do so. I was, however, speaking to that part of the grouping dealing with Motion No. 21 which I would urge the House not to support. Motion No. 21 would delete a positive amendment which was adopted after careful consideration by the standing committee, with support from all Parties.
The discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act have been present for over 100 years. It is a fact of life that documents such as birth and marriage certificates are often lost or destroyed. In some remote areas, especially in the period before the Second World War, they may never have existed.

June 10, 1985
Indian Act
It would seem imperative that the federal Government be prepared to accept other than official documents in order to ensure that every individual is entitled to be registered as an Indian can in fact be registered. It is simply a matter of fairness.
Some individuals have already indicated that they have tried to find official records and cannot do so, sometimes because fire has destroyed the vital statistics of their community or files have been lost or displaced. While the onus is on the individual to prove his or her claim, it would seem that the federal Government should be prepared to accept proof in whatever form it is available. Accepting sworn hearsay evidence will not add one person to those eligible to gain Indian status or band membership. It might permit some people to prove their entitlement who would otherwise have no way to do so. That is why I suggest, on behalf of the Government, that the House not support Motion No. 21.
In the grouping there is as well Motion No. 32A. I would like to respond briefly with respect to Motion No. 32A only because it is a motion standing in my name. It is a motion necessary to ensure that bands have the power to pass by-laws with regard to certain matters covered by this Bill, the first of which was added by the standing committee and the second moved by the Government in this debate.
The two provisions affected are, first, Subsection 64(1 )(2) whereby band councils can decide to make persons who receive pay-outs over $1,000 on loss of status ineligible for programs funded by the band until such time as the amount over $1,000 paid to that person, plus interest, has been repaid to the band. Second, Subsection 10(3), Motion 14A, is another government report stage amendment. This is a provision whereby band councils can decide to permit all band members over 18 to vote on membership rules and not just those ordinarily resident on reserve, as is the normal requirement for electors. I think that covers all of the comments I would like to make with respect to the motion in this grouping.


B. Keith Penner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Dealing as the Minister just has with the same grouping, that is to say, motions Nos. 14A through to 32A, and Motion No. 7 as per the Speaker's ruling of this morning, before indicating my own view on each of these amendments, some of which I can support and some of which I will have to vote against, I want to say that the Minister is correct in pointing out that on this group of amendments, we come to a very central aspect of the Bill. There are bound to be some differences of opinion within political Parties on matters of this kind. That has been demonstrated this morning and it will be demonstrated again this afternoon, regardless of which Party of the House we are talking about.
Let me begin by putting my view on these amendments in some kind of context. The Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) this morning quite correctly indicated to the House that a long time ago, and the precise date and year is not important, we got off the track when we began as a
Parliament and as a Government thinking in terms of individual Indian persons. We got off the track because that was not the pattern that had been established for us by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 when the Crown, according to that Royal Proclamation, confronted various tribes and nations and established a pattern for negotiation and agreement which was, in effect, nation to nation. It is true that the colonial power was a nation that dominated the world and it was dealing with small nations here in continental North America, but nevertheless that was the pattern or the modus operandi for proceeding nation to nation or, if you like, nation to tribe.
When we came to the time of our Constitution and we began to assume unto ourselves the responsibility for Indians, we no longer dealt with nations or tribes, we began to deal with individuals. It is at that point that we talked about integration and assimilation, or putting people into the mainstream. Even if we do not use those terms, that in fact is the thrust of what the Indian Act tries to do in so many cases.
We are left now, in this last period of this century, with the problem of having categorized Indian people into all of these strange categories, status and non-status, on-reserve and off-reserve, and who knows what other kinds of designations, either because of the legislation or for some kind of bureaucratic convenience in the delivery of programs. That is one difficulty.
The second aspect I want to refer to is that which was raised so eloquently by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs when he pleaded with the House that what we really need is to restore the trust relationship as it ought to be properly understood, not in some kind of legal, carefully defined terms but as a trust relationship; that is where we stop doing things to other people and have a relationship where we assist one another, and we reach agreements by way of negotiation. The Indian nations of this country have to learn to trust this Parliament and they have to learn to trust the Government. I think we have started down that road, but we have only just begun.
If you put those two together, that is the context I am trying to establish in getting to the amendments. Thank you for your patience. The context is that we ought to be dealing nation to nation; The Crown ought to be dealing with Indian First Nations on the basis of trust and confidence.
With respect to Bill C-31, the kind of proposal that has been suggested by the chiefs of Ontario is a very reasonable and adequate approach. What they say, and here there can be no argument in the House, is first, they support the removal of sexual and other forms of discrimination from the Indian Act. We support the removal of those odious and unacceptable sections of the Indian Act based on discrimination, sexual and otherwise.
Second, the chiefs of Ontario have reminded Members who have received their resolution that they have taken a lead role in accommodating all of their citizens into their communities and they have done so, Mr. Speaker, despite the restrictions of the Indian Act. Is it not interesting that here is a group of First Nations coming together in the Province of Ontario, the
June 10, 1985

chiefs of Ontario, and they have not allowed these discriminatory provisions to keep them from having in their communities those whom they want as their citizens, despite the law that we have passed?
They say in their resolution that what we should be doing here today is, and this was the burden of the speech that 1 made this morning, first to recognize the exclusive right of Indian First Nations to determine their own citizenship and/or membership, whichever term one prefers to use-exclusive right.
Second, and here we are going to get into some differences of opinion, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Fine-stone) says don't look at me, but when she gives her speech, it is going to become evident. I would argue along with the chiefs of Ontario that the existing band list currently in use by Indian First Nations should be the starting point in the definition of membership and citizenship of the First Nations. Then, having established their membership code, if it is not already in place, those members who are currently on the band list will establish the citizenship criteria, if it has not already been done. For us to say, "oh, can we allow them to do that", this is where we come back to the chairman of the standing committee and the trust relationship. Do we have to be so suspicious and so fearful that there is going to be injustice and unfairness and that it is not going to be equitable if we say that that is their exclusive right? Do we really have to, by an Act of this Parliament, make sure that it happens? I do not think so.
That having been done, Mr. Speaker, if you have followed me so far, the people on the existing band lists will draw up the membership code, if it has not already been done, and we trust that it will be done in fairness and equity and with justice. Now we come to deal with those people who are on this expanded band list, all of the persons whom we talked about this morning and whom I argued had lost their status because of various provisions of the Indian Act, either voluntarily or involuntarily. They will be on what we may describe as an expanded band list. The chiefs of Ontario said it was a general band list. I do not think that the particular term matters very much.
When all of those people are added who have been affected by the various provisions of the Indian Act, then these persons shall be eligible, shall have the right to make application for membership to the Indian First Nation Government. Finally, each First Nation Government will have a membership code, which we have already talked about, and it also will have an appeal mechanism. That is the basis upon which I will make my decision on the amendments of this particular grouping.
I would say this with respect to the Minister's Amendment No. 14A simply gives a choice to the bands. It says the bands, in enacting their by-laws, can either include those who are electors or those who are on the band list. That gives them a choice. It is optional. If it allows the First Nations to have a choice, to have an option, and it is not an imposition, I see no way in which I could oppose that. With respect to the others, the same principle will apply.
Indian Act
I have no difficulty with Motions Nos. 15 and 16 in the name of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) which both attempt to provide the band with a greater degree of power and with less control and manipulation coming from the Registrar. I have to vote no on Motion No. 17 because it goes contrary to what I already suggested was acceptable, which was that contained in Motion No. 14A, the existence of an option.
Motion No. 18, which stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Athabasca, comes very, very close to what I described as the expanded list, what the chiefs of Ontario called the general list and what the Hon. Member has called a transitional list. What is in a name? From my point of view, speaking as a private Member of Parliament rather than on behalf of all of the Members of my Party who can speak for themselves, I would be inclined to vote yes to that.
Motions Nos. 20 and 21 put some restrictions on the timing. I would vote in favour of those motions. Motion No. 24 is a motion to which the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands will wish to speak. It stands in his name and is a very technical motion dealing with what we call the double majority. We will be dealing with that in another context later on. 1 think it has been shown that what the members of the committee thought would be achieved by that motion will not in fact be achieved. I would be inclined to reject that motion.
Finally we come to Motion No. 32A which is intimately linked to Motion No. 14A. To accept one is to accept the other. However, Motion No. 32A does have one addition which I accept; that is that those who return to a band but have taken a benefit from the band at the time of leaving will now have to return to the band anything in excess of $ 1,000, plus interest, before they can become beneficiaries. I think that that is a safety clause and I would be able to accept it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields).


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few brief words. I would like to address my remarks to the amendments that I have grouped.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it not usual practice to recognize Members of all three Parties in the initial stages?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I thought I would, but after I had recognized the Hon. Member for Athabasca.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I will relinquish the floor to the Hon. Member in order to keep with tradition, if that is what he wishes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I did not see the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) rise. When I saw the Hon. Member for Athabasca rise, I thought he deserved the floor. I will bow to whatever the

June 10, 1985
Indian Act
House wishes. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands has the floor.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this grouping of motions because I think that this particular series of amendments is of absolute importance to this Bill. Motion No. 14A standing in the name of the Minister falls short of what is required for the Bill. Motion No. 14A makes it permissible for band councils to recognize the right of all people over the age of 18 to take part in determining any membership rules that the band wishes to develop. I think that this is a fundamental right that should be recognized in this Bill.
In committee, we heard a great deal of testimony from some of the native women's groups, from the Native Council of Canada and from its affiliates, indicating that there is a necessity for the people to be heard. They pointed out that they should not be shut out of the political process. We are dealing with a situation in which people have lost their Indian status and their band membership. As a result, they do not have residency on the reserve. In the Indian Act as it reads now, the band electorate are those who are normally resident on the reserve, unless it is handled by band custom. That means that in many cases, people who are non-resident are not able to vote. That also means that people who are reinstated will not be able to take part in making membership decisions.
The women who are about to be reinstated would like to be able to take full part in all band political processes. I think an argument can be made on the other side indicating that perhaps non-residents should not be involved in making decisions regarding the chief or council, although I think a very good argument can be made that they should have a voice there. Perhaps an argument can be made that non-residents should not have the right to take part in making decisions with respect to the amendment that the Minister would like to bring in regarding the sale, possession or consumption of alcohol. This kind of decision is something that should be left to those who are resident in the community.
In this motion, we are talking about the basic rules for band membership. Band membership has not been exclusively limited to those who live and are ordinarily resident on the reserve. It is a very broad question and I think that all people who are members of a band should have the opportunity to take part in that decision. On that basis, I would urge the House to support Motion No. 17 rather than Motion No. 14A because Motion No. 17 would amend Clause 4 to read:
In this section, "elector" includes every person whose name is included on the band list and is of the full age of eighteen years.
I think some rights must be guaranteed the people who are being reinstated to band membership.
With regard to Motion No. 15, I was a bit surprised to hear the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) say that he was prepared to support that motion. Motion No. 55 gives bands the right to deprive membership from people who have been reinstated. In other words, it indicates that Bill C-31
can be disregarded by some bands if they so choose. 1 do not think that that is something about which this House has been talking for the last four, five and even 10 years when we were speaking of Indian women who lost status and band membership under Section 12(1)(6) having those rights restored. I do not see how the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior can give his support to Motion No. 15.
The Minister has said that there is no need for Motion No. 16. I do not see too many problems with that motion, but I do not see any great merit in it either.
Motion No. 18, submitted by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), attempts to deal with the question of high impact bands. I find this motion quite unacceptable because it enables bands to circumvent the intent of this Act by placing the names of people who would be reinstated on a so-called transitional list. This would be a limbo list and one that would have no real meaning. People would be put on this transitional list and left there forever and a bay if the band so wished. Those on the list would not really have their rights restored in the way Bill C-31 attempts to restore them.
Motion No. 20 establishes a time line such that people must apply for their band membership by 1990 if they want to be accepted under this legislation. I do not think that is realistic. 1 think the situation should be much more open. As the Minister pointed out, there are people who may have lost their Indian status and their band membership who are out of the country and who will not hear of the legislation in time to apply by 1990. If we are attempting to reinstate people, we should leave the situation wide open.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Oh, come on.


James Douglas Manly: If the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) does not like the Minister's argument, he can talk to the Minister about it. I happen to agree with the Minister.
Motion No. 21 would restrict the type of testimony which could be used by the Registrar in hearing evidence as to who should or who should not be accepted for membership. The part of the Clause which the Hon. Member for Athabasca wants to remove reads as follows:
For the purposes of this section, the Registrar may receive such evidence on oath, on affidavit or in any other manner, whether or not admissible in a court of law, as in his discretion he sees fit or deems just.
We are dealing with a situation in which many people were deprived of their band membership and Indian status in ways which were quite unjust and not always properly documented. It is sometimes very difficult to get proper legal documents. The committee, in its wisdom, opened it up by adding the Clause which I have just read, in order that the Registrar would be able to hear a wider variety of evidence than would normally be admissible in court. Motion No. 21 would remove that. I believe it is a retrogressive motion and we will oppose it.
Motion No. 24, which stands in my name, is very similar to Motion No. 35A, which was moved by the Minister. As has
June 10, 1985

been pointed out, Motion No. 32A, the last in this grouping, is consequent upon Motion No. 14A. I have no further comments.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I believe the grouping of amendments which we are now discussing is the very heart of Bill C-31 and is also representative of the disagreement which many bands across the country have with implementing the present Bill.
In bringing forward Motion No. 15, I am attempting to establish band control of band membership. It is as simple as that. There are two issues: band control of band membership and their status. I think we all agree that the Government of Canada can determine status. The Government can name, by legislation, anyone whom it wishes to the status list, making those persons treaty Indians. That is a government prerogative. However, it is the very nature of the bands to determine membership. Nowhere in the present Indian Act has there ever been licence to determine what is band membership. This is a first attempt by the Parliament of Canada to dictate to the bands who should be their members. There is nothing in the Indian Act which indicates who is entitled to be a band member. Therefore, I am suggesting, as a matter of logic, that band members should be determined by the Indian bands.
Bill C-31 is unprecedented in the massive assertions which the Parliament of Canada would have over band membership. Bands have controlled their membership from the time the rivers began to run and the sun began to rise, and before white man came to the country. I think that is the basis of Bill C-31. As I said before, it is quite proper for the Government to determine who is an Indian and to determine the question of Indian status. However, in my view, we must distinguish between Indian status and band membership. We cannot impose band membership on the bands. It has never been done before. The Penner Report indicated what should happen in Indian self-government. One of the key recommendations in the Penner Report was the control of band membership. That parliamentary committee spent a year-and-a-half going across the country, seeking the information from Indians and bands. Yet, we are going against what a parliamentary committee recommended after it had studied the question for more than a year. It does not make sense.
The principle of Bill C-31 is to be lauded. We should all be ashamed that we have allowed the Indian Act to stand for so long, as it discriminated against women. In other words, if an Indian woman married a man who was not a treaty Indian, she lost her status and her band membership. That was wrong. Indian Governments did not impose that on their women; the Parliament of Canada imposed it. That is the tragedy. Now we recognize that it was not just. Clearly, women were discriminated against. In our wisdom, we will now change the law and automatically return the women who were discriminated against to the band lists. They will now be band members. In fact, we are saying that we cannot solve the problem because we made a real mess of it, so we will impose the problem on the bands. In Motion No. 15, I am asking only that control of band membership go to the bands.
Indian Act
There seems to be the feeling that we cannot trust the bands to make intelligent assessments and judgments in saying whom they will return to their membership. There is nothing in the Constitution Act, 1867, that gives to the Parliament of Canada the right to determine who are members of a particular band. It has always been the band which has decided that. Never before in the history of Parliament has an attempt been made to determine who will be a band member. That is obvious. It is the bands which determined membership.
The Indians did not ask for this. The Indians who appeared before the committee unanimously said that if we were talking about self-government, they wanted control of their band memberships. I will give a list of the groups which appeared before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development: the Brotherhood of Indian Nations for Manitoba, March 12, 1985; Assembly of First Nations, March 14, 1985; the Coalition of First Nations, March 18, 1985; the Union of New Brunswick Indians, March 13, 1985; Treaty Six Alliance for Alberta, March 18, 1985; Indian Women of Treaties 6, 7 and 8 for Alberta and Saskatchewan, March 20, 1985; Treaty Six Chiefs Alliance and Saddle Lake Indian Nation, March 21, 1985; Sarcee Nation, March 21, 1985; Treaty 7 Blood Tribe, March 21, 1985; Four Nations of Hobbema, March 21, 1985; Yellowhead Tribal Council, March 21, 1985; Six Nations Band Council, March 25, 1985; Treaty 8, March 26, 1985; Muskegog Cree Tribal Council, March 27, 1985; Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, March 27, 1985; Union of Nova Scotia Indians, March 28, 1985; Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, March 28, 1985; Council for Yukon Indians, March 28, 1985; Conne River Band, Newfoundland, April 1, 1985.
There have been additional supporters since then of band control and membership which is fundamental to Indian government. They are the First Nations of Quebec by resolution May 23, 1985; Indian Association of Alberta by way of resolution and a telex, May 3, 1985; The Prairie Treaty Nations Alliance, letter of May 10, 1985 and Chiefs of Ontario Resolution of June 4, 1985.
We have a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who has the confidence of the Indian people in Canada who are seeking at the First Ministers' Conference aboriginal rights for the First Nations. Now we are bringing in Bill C-31 to this House which imposes membership on the bands, undercutting the very thing we are attempting to do at the First Ministers Conference. It truly does not make sense to me. The Indian people, the bands, as a fundamental right and, as has been proven in the past, an historic right, should control band membership. That is why I put forward Motion No. 15.
Motion No. 16 is a minor amendment. Because of the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), I have no problem if Motion No. 16 is not accepted. I know that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be reasonable. He has the knack of sitting down and resolving a problem if it comes before him.

June 10, 1985
Adjournment Motion
But, what about the next Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? That is the reason I put Motion No. 16 forward. It is a mechanism to resolve a dispute if one develops between the Minister and a band.
If Motion No. 15 is accepted, then we do not need my Motion No. 18. Motion No. 18 is only a transitional band list because, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, there are some bands which face the possibility of extinction by the reinstatement of the very people we are talking about in the Bill, if they outnumber the present members of the bands. There are some small bands with a good economic base which have 15 to 40 members. If we had the band controlling band membership, we would not need Motion No. 18. I only put it forward in the hope that we could come to our senses and agree that we really should be giving control of band membership to the bands.
Motion No. 20 provides a five-year deadline to apply for band membership. That is all it does. What I am saying is once this Bill is passed, 20 years or 30 years from now someone could approach the band and ask to be registered as a treaty Indian. He did not worry about it 15 or 20 years ago because gold had not been found on the reserve in northern Ontario, but now that it has been, he wants his band membership back. I say that that is ridiculous. Each band, as a Government, has the right to know over a period of time-is my time up, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, it is.


Jack Wendele Shields: Then I will close off right now. I do appreciate being allowed one more minute. Motion No. 21 is with respect to evidence going before the Registrar. I was hoping to make the Bill a little more clear because I think we are allowing the Registrar too much leeway as to what he can receive into evidence and what he cannot.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the next Hon. Member, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)-Divorce-Proposed change in waiting period; the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Environmental Affairs-(a) Impact of toxic chemicals on sea-gulls, (b) Request that Minister meet scientists; and the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse)-Industry-Employees of Dominion stores in Ontario.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Indian Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development; and Motions Nos. 14A (Mr. Crombie), 15 and 16 (Mr. Shields), 17 (Mr. Manly), 18, 20 and 21 (Mr. Shields), 24 (Mr. Manly) and 32A (Mr. Crombie) (p. 5574).
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be short but I feel a responsibility, having met with the three tribes in my riding, the Stoneys, the Blackfoot and the Sarcees, to bring their views to the attention of the House. I would like to deal with Section 15 only. These three tribes of Canadians of Indian descent feel very strongly that they were given the right to control their membership under Treaty 7 and they have been doing so. Now they are worried about the size of their reserve, about the increase in population, the housing problems and how these matters are going to be handled.
Members of the Blackfoot tribe, even the women of the tribe, oppose the Bill entirely. The primary reason for their opposition to the Bill is the fact that there are now going to be some memberships imposed on the band council without adequate funds to handle that situation. I do not know how much money will be made available, and I am worried about that aspect. If an Indian woman marries a white man with four or five youngsters, which is not beyond the realm of possibility, she is then entitled to live on the reserve and her husband's children, under the definition which was passed this morning, could become members of that reserve.
Some of the reserves are exceptionally well off financially. There are benefits which Indian people have such as education, health and welfare and no taxation. There is the real danger of a lot of people moving on to the reserve under these provisions who really do not have the interests of the band at heart, or even the interests of the Indian people. 1 think we should take another look at this particular aspect.
Even the native women are not happy with the suggestion that they have been discriminated against. Under their code, they feel they were not discriminated against. They made choices of their own free will. I think there is a danger in this type of Bill of being influenced by the white population to too great an extent. The Indian people have to live their own lives. They want to retain their culture and their way of life. White people want to impose their moral values on the Indians. The people of the tribes in my riding, at least, feel that they are mature enough to use their own culture, develop their own ways, accept their own religions and run their own reserves. They do resent other people being imposed on them by legislation. I want to voice that view of the three tribes in the Bow River riding.
June 10, 1985

I have been advised by another delegation that all tribes in Alberta are opposing this section. I do not know that for sure, but I am disturbed by the fact that the Indians in Alberta generally are not members of the National Brotherhood. I just do not like the idea of their being left out. A very prominent chief of the Stony tribe came here to the constitutional conference. He could not get in because the National Council of Indians would not let him in. He went home very disappointed. This is a very important tribe in Alberta which could not even have an observer because of the National Brotherhood. These things disturb our people. They are disturbed over the fact that the legislation will force people on to the reserve who would otherwise not be able to do so.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot sit here and listen to this wonderful list of bands and groups who have spoken out with respect to the right to band control, and the issue of discrimination against women which is elucidated, enunciated and spoken to but not meant sincerely. Discrimination against women has been done against their will. They were enfranchised despite the band practice. As the Hon. Member across the way mentioned, the bands controlled their process, procedure and membership long before we got here, but they did not enfranchise their women; we did.
What I am saying is that before the Minister moves in this regard, I think he should reinstate the women and the people who lost their status and then start from a degree of equivalency, equity and good common sense and let them participate. I think discrimination, the way he is putting it, is a false issue. Discrimination against women is blatant and they very definitely spoke out. The list that was read earlier was not a complete list.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words on this particular group of motions. I know that this Bill is trying to make the best out of a bad deal. This was part of the Indian Act for a good many years and, while it was inadequate, people learned to live with it. Therefore, it is important that as many wrongs as possible be corrected through the enactment of these amendments without doing harm to the future of the bands which are presently worrying about what is going to happen to them over the next couple of generations. One of the weakness of this Bill is that it does not put in place the finances which might be necessary because of the changes wich are going to be made.
I guess we have covered Motion No. 14A fairly well. Our concern was that it is permissive. If you took Motion No. 14A and Motion No. 17 together, I suppose you would fulfil those requirements we feel are important because if the Bill is passed in its present form, there are a lot of people who might be returned to status. However, with Motion No. 14A, they may not get an opportunity to say anything about what the membership should be or will be. There are people who were enfranchised against their will in many cases, or for reasons which are now considered by this House and most of the people of Canada as being unacceptable. The motion does not
Indian Act
make it necessary for those who might be returned to status to be listed and be part of the democratic structure of the band. 1 think it is also necessary to point out that this clause does not return to status anyone who did not have status before. Consequently it is not a particularly bad approach, as 1 indicated, since it does correct some of the wrongs in the original Indian Act.
Motion No. 16 makes an effort to reduce the power of the Minister and allow for a little more open discussion. I agree with that and support it to some extent at least. As to Motion No. 21, there are groups of Indians and individuals who have never been given status. I have quite a large number of these people in my constituency. They were not given status because they were not on any of the reserves at the time the treaty was signed. Consequently, they find themselves roaming around from reserve to reserve, never getting status because there are no records of their status. It is very important to be able to accept as evidence statements which may not be documented. Therefore, we support that particular approach. As I said, it is making the best out of a bad deal, but in the process we have to be sure that all positions are aired, and that we ensure the possibility of economic and social development among the bands in the future. If this is the aim of this legislation and we are willing to put in place the necessary funds, then we should support it and get the Bill through the House.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 32A (Mr. Crombie) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 15 in the name of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:

June 10, 1985
Indian Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 16 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. Accordingly, the motion is lost.
Motion No. 16 (Mr. Shields) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 17 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next questions is on Motion No. 18 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. Accordingly, the motion is lost.
Motion No. 18 (Mr. Shields) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 20 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 20 (Mr. Shields) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 21 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 21 (Mr. Shields) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 24 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.
June 10, 1985


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 24 (Mr. Manly) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 25.


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


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


B. Keith Penner: You will recall that there was an agreement, under Speaker's ruling No. 7, to take out Motion No. 13 in order to accommodate my hon. colleague, the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). I think it would be proper at this time to call Motion No. 13 before Motion No. 25 is called. That was agreed to earlier.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must advise the Hon. Member that we will have to reserve that until the Speaker comes in with his decision, if that is agreeable to the Hon. Member. It has to be that way because I believe the Speaker ruled that he will decide-


B. Keith Penner: No, no, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish at all to dispute with the Chair, but there was an agreement reached that at three o'clock, as soon as debate was resumed, assuming that all other motions had been disposed of, that we would return to Motion No. 13. It has taken some time to deal with the whole grouping but, by agreement of the Parties, Motion No. 13 was to be heard next. That was agreed to. I think the Speaker simply saw it as an agreement among the Parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) on the point of order.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, as I recall the procedural discussion at the time, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) wished to speak to it. Motion No. 13 also involves Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). I think that if you are going to call Motion No. 13, you should also call Motion No. 14. That would complete the original grouping.


B. Keith Penner: That is quite correct. That is my understanding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Speaker has still not ruled on whether or not Motion No. 14 requires a
Indian Act
separate vote from Motion No. 13. I would respectfully ask that any division on this wait until we have had an opportunity to hear the Speaker's ruling. I am quite prepared to have the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) move her motion and speak on it, but I would like an opportunity to wait for the Speaker's ruling before there is any vote on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) to speak also. However, I must wait for a ruling from the Speaker. I am hoping that that will happen shortly and then we can debate Motions Nos. 13 and 14 together. I cannot really do anything until the Speaker has ruled because I believe that the speakers have a different view on Motions Nos. 13 and 14 and they would like to participate in this debate. 1 must wait for the Speaker to make that decision. Does the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior have another point of order that he would like to bring up?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, it is quite right, as I indicated earlier, that we would debate Motions Nos. 13 and 14 together. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) has created an additional problem for the Speaker by suggesting that Motion No. 14 must be considered on its own merits. It is that ruling for which we are waiting.
There is no difficulty at all with Motion No. 13. Since it is agreed that that would be debated, 1 think we should proceed with it and dispose of Motion No. 13 before proceeding to Motion No. 25. In keeping with the dictum of the Government House Leader earlier that we should deal with these in the order in which they appear and in which the Speaker has made his ruling, I would suggest that you would have no difficulty in just calling Motion No. 13 and leaving No. 14 in abeyance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must disagree with the Hon. Member who is a distinguished Member of the House from the class of 1968. I appreciate his argument but, the Hon. Member will know because he has occupied the Chair a number of times, when the Speaker groups Motions No. 13 and 14 for debate, an Acting Speaker cannot change it at this stage. I hope he will allow debate to begin on Motion No. 25 and wait for the Speaker's ruling on Motions No. 13 and 14. Therefore, I believe we should start with debate on Motion No. 25.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I wish to withdraw the motion and perhaps save a lot of time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) is withdrawing Motion No. 25. Is there unanimous consent for its withdrawal?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 25 (Mr. Shields) withdrawn.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to improve my batting order with the Chair, since I did not succeed in having Motion No. 13 debated, I want to draw Your Honour's
5602

June 10, 1985
Indian Act
attention to ruling No. 13 by the Speaker this morning, dealing with Motion No. 27. The ruling states that Motion No. 27, which stands in my name, gives the Chair procedural difficulty in that it is attempting to amend the parent Act. Far be it for me to even begin to dispute that ruling of the Speaker, but may I, in keeping with the traditions of the House, ask whether 1 can have unanimous consent to at least debate Motion No. 27 and then have it disposed of by a vote, after my arguments have been heard?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, having heard the representations made by the Hon. Member, certainly we on this side of the House have no difficulty with the Chair calling Motion No. 27 and hearing the Hon. Member's arguments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to group Motion No. 27 with Motions Nos. 28, 38 and 39?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: Motion No. 27
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 10 at page 14 the following.
"(2) Subsection 17(2) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) Where pursuant to subsection (1) a new band has been established from an existing band or any part thereof, a portion of the reserve lands and funds of the existing band may be held for the use and benefit of the new band, if the council and a majority of the electors of the existing band consents." "


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River) moved:: Motion No. 28
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 10 at page 14 the following:
"(2) The Minister shall, within two years of receiving notice from a representative of a body of persons seeking a declaration pursuant to paragraph 6(1 )(6), cause an investigation to be made as to the desirability of such a declaration and report his recommendations to the Governor in Council, which report the Minister shall cause to be laid before Parliament at its next session for consideration through an appropriate committee."


B. Keith Penner: Motion No. 38
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 20
(a)	by adding immediately after line 21 at page 19 the following:
"(6)(i) the number of people entered on band lists maintained pursuant to section 10 whose applications for registration under section 5.(5) of this Act have been rejected by the Registrar;
(ii) the total number of applications made under section 5.(5) of this Act which have been rejected by the Registrar;".
(b)	by adding immediately after line 27 at page 19 the following:
''(2) The Minister shall make available to every band council a copy of the report referred to in subsection (1)."
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-31, be amended by adding immediately after line 35 at page 19 the following:
"21. (1) Where a band council requests a study of the impact of the amendments on the band, the Minister shall, in agreement with the band council, designate a person, who shall serve without remuneration, to work with the band council for the purpose of identifying such impacts.
(2)	The Minister's designate shall, in agreement with the band council, determine the social, cultural and economic effects of the amendments on the band, including the requirements for additional land, increased program, service and capital costs, and any other matters that may be identified.
(3)	The Minister's designate shall report his findings and recommendations to the Minister and the band.
(4)	The recommendations of the Minister's designate and the Minister's response to these recommendations shall be included in the report referred to in section 20."
He said: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by speaking to Motion No. 27. I thank the Minister and Hon. Members for giving this motion the benefit of the doubt with respect to its procedural acceptability. However, we can do almost anything here by unanimous consent. I will never forget my first day here when someone moved that we call it six o'clock when it was only 4.30.
Motion No. 27 is not very complicated and simply amends Clause 7 of the Bill, which deals with new bands. Clause 7 amends Section 17(1) of the Indian Act which deals with the Minister's power to create new bands.
The present legislation allows the Minister to amalgamate bands which request that amalgamation. We are not suggesting any change in that respect. The law also allows the Minister to constitute new bands from existing bands and we do not suggest any change there. A new power provided to the Minister is that new bands may be constituted out of the Indian registry. He may do so if requested by the persons proposing to form a new band from the Registrar's list. 1 point that out by way of background.
However, we are concerned that Section 17(2) of the Indian Act remains in Bill C-31. According to Section 17(2) of the Indian Act, when a new band has been created from an existing band, the Minister can take whatever reserve lands and funds from the existing band he deems necessary for the new band. In other words, if two bands are being created from one, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) has the power to select whatever amount of land and whatever amount of funds he deems to be appropriate to give to the new band. As stated by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), the problem is that it impinges an external authority on the autonomy of the bands. There is no provision for consent of the existing band to any such action by a Minister.
Let me come directly to Motion No. 27. That motion would simply require the consent of the council and a majority of the existing band electors to any such action by the Minister. The Minister knows, and so do all Members who served on the committee, that one of the basic concerns about Bill C-31 is the necessary resources of land and funds to accommodate the reinstated people. The Minister before the committee has given his assurance that the bands will be no worse off as a result of these amendments. We have taken the Minister at his word because there is nothing in the legislation to guarantee that. I think if we accept my amendment, Motion No. 27, and put in this consent clause, it is one way of assuring the existing bands that if new bands are to be created out of this new
June 10, 1985

registry list that the land and the funds will not be taken from them to create the new bands.
I do not need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you are aware already that the existing pie, if you can call it a pie, is very very small in most cases. Our Indian First Nations, with only a few exceptions, are among the poorest communities in Canada. If by ministerial prerogative we can take that pie, which does not have very much filling, and subdivide it still further, I think we will be imposing a very serious injustice on these people. We are saying that nothing could be done without their consent with respect to the further division of their property or the further division of their funds. It is simply a consent clause.
With your permission, Sir, I would go on to the other two motions in my name since they are grouped for debate. I turn my attention to Motion No. 38. Motion No. 38 can be dealt with very quickly because it has to do with the reporting provisions to Parliament of the actions taken by the Registrar in accepting new people.
As it is now, by my amendment Motion No. 38, we would require more specific information to be included in the report. The Bill does not cover all the Indians who may be recognized as Indians by their own people. I will not say anymore on that except to say that it just improves the reporting provisions. The motion provides more elaboration.
I come now to Motion No. 39. It is somewhat weaker than I would like it to be. The reason it has been watered down is we had to be very careful I did not step on the toes of the Royal prerogative. If I had been able to do that, and if private Members were able to spend even a little public money, our amendment would have had much more validity and strength. Since we could not do that, I had to get the idea across that there has to be some method or means of assessing the impact on bands of those people returning to the community.
I would have liked the Minister to be able to appoint a commissioner through this amendment and have the commissioner agreed upon by the bands to study the impact and then report to Parliament, making it an obligation upon Parliament, where there was an impact determined which demanded there be more land made available or that there be more resources be made available, to respond. Since there no Royal Recommendation can go with a private Member's motion, the best we could do here was to have a Minister's designate who would serve without remuneration, approved by the Minister and by the bands to take a look at the impact of the new reinstated people coming back into the bands to find out what impact was on housing, on educational facilities, on recreational facilities, on the amount of land and on funding made available to the band. That Minister's designate would then make certain recommendations about what ought to be done and report back to the Minister.
It is not as strong and as forceful an amendment as I would like it to be. In fact, it is not as strong an amendment as I originally wrote myself, but I had to take guidance and counsel
Indian Act
from learned people who work for the House of Commons. This is the end result of that.
I would like to emphasize that we should look behind the motion and recognize that there needs to be some way for the Minister and for Parliament to know what the impact is of what we have done by way of Bill C-31. If the Minister finds Motion No. 39 to be appealing or even if it is accepted and proves to be a useful way of proceeding, he may in due course want to give it additional strength and use his ministerial powers to do so.
Those are the three motions to which I wanted to draw your attention and the attention of all Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments on these four motions grouped for debate. I am in support of all four motions. First, Motion No. 27 which, as the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) pointed out, places the responsibility for making decisions with the band council and the majority of the electors of the present band for any decision regarding new bands. The present Act leaves this at the discretion of the Minister. I am sure the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) would agree that this is the kind of decision that should rightfully belong with the band council and the band electors. I am pleased to give my support to this amendment, and I hope the Government will also.
Motion No. 28 in the name of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) simply seeks to have some mechanisms by which people who wish to form new bands will be able to get some answer from the Minister because, at present if people want to form a new band and apply, their letters can just fall into limbo. Motion No. 28 requires that the Minister, after receiving notice, shall within two years make some investigation into the merits of forming a new band and issue a report to the House of Commons. I think two years is a realistic time period. It is something where the bands obviously need Government support.
Motion No. 38 just briefly deals with further reporting and more detailed reporting to the House of Commons. That is something I think all Members would want to see. The results of Bill C-31 are something all of us will want to monitor very closely in the next number of years. The more detailed information we have laid before us so we can assess the impact on bands, the better we will be able to do our job and the better we will be able to respond to any situation that many arise that requires parliamentary action.
Motion No. 39 I find very interesting. There will be someone to do a study when bands request a study on the impact of Bill C-31 on a band. The impact of Bill C-31 will be considerable on a number of bands. When I first read this, I thought the Liberals had reformed their whole approach toward patronage since September 4. I thought perhaps they were carrying it a little too far when the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior wrote that "this person shall serve without remuneration", or perhaps he just assumed the person to be

June 10, 1985
Indian Act
appointed would not be a Liberal. I understand that he was really concerned about not treading on the toes of the Royal prerogative, so I can understand the reason for putting in that clause. This is a worthy amendment and one that I hope will receive the support of the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: Could I interrupt the proceedings just for one second, before recognizing the Parliamentary Secretary, to clear up the remaining procedural matters and get them out of the way.
1 have had the opportunity to review the Hon. Member's contribution to the procedural debate on Bill C-31 and I am now ready to make a definitive ruling.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has suggested that if unanimous consent were sought, Motion No. 3 could be debated and voted on separately if such is the will of the House. Since this amendment does not infringe upon the prerogative of the Crown, 1 would therefore seek the consent of the House for Motion No. 3 to be deemed in order. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
The President of the Privy Council also suggested that the House would be disposed to debate together Motions Nos. 33 and 33A but would vote upon the motions separately. Again, is there unanimous consent to deem Motions Nos. 33 and 33A in order and to be proposed to the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) has argued for a separate vote on Motions Nos. 13 and 14. I have listened to his argument and reviewed both motions. Motions Nos. 13 and 14 both seek to amend line 30 at page 6 of the Bill and must be dealt with as previously announced. Therefore, an affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 will dispose of Motion No. 14. If Motion No. 13 however is negatived, then and only then will the question be put on Motion No. 14.
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands has also submitted argument to the Chair on Motion No. 36. On reviewing that motion, once again I regret to inform the Hon. Member that this amendment clearly infringes upon the financial initiative of the Crown and therefore cannot be put before the House.
For the benefit of the House I would therefore recapitulate the motions which have been ruled out of order. They are Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 22, 23, 26, 28A, 30, 31, 34, 35 and 36.
As soon as we have finished with the current grouping now before the House, the Chair will return and propose the question on Motion No. 3. When Motion No. 3 has been disposed of, Motions Nos. 13 and 14 will be proposed.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, when you were reading the list of motions that had been definitely ruled out of order, you mentioned Motion No. 3 but then you later said that it was in order.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you. The Hon. Member is absolutely correct. I did read Motion No. 3 and should not have. I thank the Hon. Member for his attention.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly to Motion No. 27. As the Indian Act now reads, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) has complete discretion in Subsection 17(1) to constitute new bands from existing band lists, in effect to split bands. In Subsection 17(2) he also has discretion to divide reserve lands and funds accordingly. Bill C-31 originally provided for future band splits to require approval of a majority of band electors.
In reviewing the Bill, however, it became clear that this approach would indeed be impractical. In fact, it might even make band splits impossible. This is because such splits normally involve a minority group, frequently one that lives apart from the majority of the band. There may be good reasons for acting on the desire of such minorities to split away, but it is unlikely that a majority of the whole band would agree.
During the standing committee's clause by clause review, the Bill was revised to require that those persons proposing to form a new band make a request to the Minister, rather than that a majority of all band electors approve. Any split would still be subject to the Minister's discretion, so inappropriate cases can be rejected. If a decision is taken to split a band, it is only logical to split the band's land and resources accordingly. The members of the new band obviously have a right to a fair share of the assets of the whole band. It would be inconsistent to give a group within a band a right to request the Minister to constitute a new band without also giving them effective access to a reasonable portion of band assets.
The present motion does not seek to amend Subsection 17(1) as reported by the standing committee. To be consistent, and indeed in fairness to those who may seek to form a new band, we cannot accept the change proposed in this motion to Subsection 17(2). In fact, probably the fairest way to share band assets in the case of band splits would be to leave the matter to an independent third party, namely the Minister. Such decisions would only be taken after consultation with all those affected. I might also point out, Mr. Speaker, that we are not talking about a frequent problem. In the past 10 years, for example, there have only been approximately two dozen cases of band splits under Subsection 17(1).
In conclusion, I urge all Members to vote to defeat this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make a few comments with respect not to Motion No. 27 but, in the
June 10, 1985

current grouping that we have of Nos. 27, 28, 38 and 39, some comments with respect to the latter three.
Motion No. 28 refers to a motion placed in the name of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). The motion is well intentioned, but I would submit, with respect, inappropriate. The basic idea seems to be to ensure that applications to constitute a new band are dealt with within two years. In my view, this motion is entirely unnecessary. As it now stands, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to recommend to the Governor in Council on the formation of entirely new bands under the Indian Act. Such decisions are properly dealt with in this way. With the range of issues involved, and I could tell you from some experiences in northern Ontario, dealing with five bands in particular, it is a complex process from the identification of the land base and negotiations with the province on that issue to agreement on financial arrangements. Such investigations and negotiations may take six months or six years, depending on the circumstances. Such cases are always the object of public scrutiny and affected bands have in the past been very effective in convincing the standing committee to champion their cause. There is no reason to think that that informal process cannot continue to serve well the interests of all concerned.
On a technical level, I should point out that the motion is, with respect, flawed. There is no authority under Paragraph 6(1 )(cf) to declare a body of persons to be a band. That paragraph only sets out the eligibility of such persons to be registered as status Indians under the Indian Act. The mechanism for declaring a new band is provided by a combination of the definition of band in Subsection 2(1) and the power in Subsection 73(3) for the Governor in Council to make orders, and I quote "make orders and regulations to carry out the purposes of the provisions of the act".
In conclusion, with respect to Motion No. 28, in my view we should only make rules where they are needed, and in this case there is no reason to change the existing situation. No arbitrary requirement to report to Parliament will make it easier to resolve the complex issues normally involved. With the technical nature of the motion, along with the substantive comments I have made, I hope the House will not support Motion No. 28.
With respect to Motion No. 38, Mr. Speaker, proposed and standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), Motions Nos. 38 and 39 deal with Clause 20 which provides that the Minister will report to Parliament within two years of the Royal Assent to this Bill on the steps he has taken to implement the Bill. Motion No. 38 in particular, as presented by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior would require the Minister to report on the number of people granted membership by the bands that are denied registration as status Indians. The Bill as presently drafted gives bands full control over membership if they wish. There is no obligation to inform the Minister who has applied for, been accepted or denied membership. The Minister would have no accurate way of reporting to Parliament on which, if any, such
Indian Act
band members had been denied status. The proposal, with great respect, is not practical.
The second part of the motion, which would require that the implementation report be made available to every band council, is merely a statement of current practice and would seem hardly necessary to require a statute. All reports to Parliament are, of course, available to all citizens, and copies of the report would be circulated to all band councils as a matter of routine at any rate. That is the practice of the Department in dealing with such important documents.
Very briefly, Motion No. 39, which was also moved by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior, requires the Minister to designate a person to carry out a band impact study if a band so requests. I have already said before the committee and publicly that I have every intention of carrying out such studies on a band-by-band basis as required. Forcing the Minister to designate a specific person to carry out impact studies for individual bands is, I submit, unnecessary. It establishes an unduly rigid model which infringes on what is already a clear Ministerial responsibility. The Government has introduced this legislation and it will take all the steps necessary to ensure that it is properly implemented.
Questions might also be raised about the quality of studies to be done by persons serving without remuneration. If studies are to be done as I believe they should be, is it not necessary to ensure that they be done properly? If it is likely that we may be required to hire or to have volunteers, we should have the option to do both. Finally, the proposal, while well intended by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior, is neither necessary nor practical in my view.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 27. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. Accordingly, I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 27 (Mr. Penner) negatived.

June 10, 1985
Indian Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 28. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. Accordingly, I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 28 (Mr. Parry) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 38. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. Accordingly, I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 38 (Mr. Penner) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 39. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. Accordingly, I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 39 (Mr. Penner) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.04 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

["It being six o'clock, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent that the House proceed to Motion No. 181 ?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of paying veterans of World War I and all recipients of the DSO, the same annuities with respect to gallantry awards received by veterans of World War II.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss my motion in the House today on behalf of World War I veterans who received awards for gallantry during that war. It may come as a surprise to some of us here today that some of these veterans receive annuities for their awards from the Government of the United Kingdom. This fact came to my attention earlier this year when one of my constituents telephoned me about the matter.
I knew that the veterans of World War II who received gallantry awards did receive a small annuity from the federal Government and a quick look at the Veterans Affairs annual report confirmed that gallantry awards and annuities were being paid by the Canadian Government only to those veterans who served in the Second World War and later. I found that the total of those payments in 1983-84 amounted to about $62,000. That would indicate that the resolution that is before us today would do well if it managed to find recipients still surviving from World War I to receive a tenth of that amount.
Prior to 1943 when the current policy came into effect, all awards, pensions and gratuities with respect to gallantry had been paid to Canadians by the British Government. In June 1943, an Order in Council was passed which made the Canadian Government responsible for awards to Second World War veterans.
For reasons which have been long forgotten and are completely unknown to me, the Order excluded World War I veterans who, up to the present time are paid gratuities and
June 10, 1985

annuities from the British treasury. Perhaps 1 could read a few words from the policy manual as it relates to gallantry awards:
In 1943 the Canadian Government assumed the responsibility for the payment involved insofar as members of the Canadian Forces were concerned, with respect to awards earned during World War II or later, but did so under the rules established by the British.
This may account for the amount of these awards which is meagre indeed. The policy manual goes on:
If the veteran is in receipt of a pension for disability under the Pension Act, or an allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act, or an annual allowance under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, he is entitled to an annuity of $50.00 from the commencement date of his pension or allowance or 24 August, 1972, whichever is the later date.
Later on, this was changed to read as follows:
-that it is deemed advisable for the Dominion of Canada, through the Canadian Pension Commission, to assume payment of all such grants arising out of awards which have been or may hereafter be made in respect of the war to members of the armed forces of Canada;-
Remember that this was dated 1943.
It is important to realize that these gratuities are only paid to Canadian gallantry award winners if they have applied to the British Government for them. I submit that many Canadians did not know to whom to apply in the British Government and some were disinclined to apply to another Government in any case. It is now time for our Government to recognize officially the brave members of our Armed Forces who fought in World War I by granting to them, directly from Canadian funds, the annuities and gratuities for which they were eligible if they applied to the British Government.
In connection with this and included in my motion is a request that recipients of the Distinguished Service Order also be entitled to an annuity or award. By way of background, it had been decided many years ago and at least as far back as World War I that winners of the DSO who were almost exclusively of the rank of Major or above were not soldiering for money and indeed that it would be an affront to offer them a gratuity for merely being brave. While the Victoria Cross, the George Cross and the Distinguished Service Cross are included in gratuities, the DSO has been excluded. I would like to see that changed as well. The exclusion of the DSO is a relic of a class distinction that has never really fitted the relatively classless Canadian society of the 20th century.
Since tabling this motion last March, there has been some progress, which leads me to believe that the Minister is giving serious consideration to accepting the motion. I do not need to tell the House that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) has made great strides in bringing to the veterans of the country the maximum benefits to which they are entitled. He has passed legislation to ensure that their pensions are realistic and he has initiated policy changes that give the advantage to the veterans in deciding controversial claims. I am confident that he will continue in this manner and that veterans will receive every consideration, as they so richly deserve.
I would like to speak on another matter, which has been brought to the Minister's attention by the Royal Canadian
Veterans Affairs
Legion. Indeed, I have quite a large file on the matter. The matter concerns World War II volunteers who served in Canada only, but who served as volunteers for 365 days or more. Those veterans are not entitled to receive war veteran's allowance, as they did not serve in a theatre of war.
The Minister knows very well of the anomalies to which that policy has given rise, as a result of some "Canadian only" veterans who were deemed to have been in a theatre of war as a result of having crossed over from the mainland to Prince Edward Island. However, on Vancouver Island the rules are different. Vancouver Island was at one point shelled by an enemy submarine, yet it is not considered to have been in a theatre of war. Veterans who served on Vancouver Island do not qualify for the war veterans allowance. As far as I am concerned, any veteran who volunteered for active service but, through circumstances not of his or her own making, did not make it outside the western hemisphere, should be entitled to the full benefits which are accorded to other veterans.
I know the Government has a first priority to reduce the deficit and, therefore, I understand the reluctance to commit additional funds. In that respect, the Legion made the following suggestion in the brief which it presented to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. It read:
While the estimated cost is high, some of it would be offset by reduced expenses for the Canadian Pension Commission in the consideration of disability claims. With a change in legislation it would not then be necessary to seek rulings from the Commission to try to establish an entitlement to qualify for an assessment of 1 per cent or more. Furthermore, there is the provision in our resolution of having had to serve for a period in excess of 365 days in Canada as the basis of eligibility.
The veterans of Canada would no doubt appreciate a statement of principle from the Minister that "Canada only" volunteers who served in excess of 365 days are deserving of the war veterans allowance and that, when fiscal circumstances are more favourable, a plan of action to implement payment of the allowance to those veterans would be made known.
With respect to the motion, as I have stated, some progress has been made. The Chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission provided to the Minister a cost breakdown of the provision of gratuities and annuities to World War I veterans and to all recipients of the DSO. The Minister graciously provided me with a copy. After the start-up costs, which would provide for all one-time payments in 1985-86, subsequent years' costs for World War I recipients, who are currently paid by the British Government, would amount to less than $5,000 in 1986-87 and would lessen each year thereafter. It should be clearly understood that nothing I am saying would limit the payments to those veterans who are currently being paid by the British Government. Many veterans preferred not to apply to the British Government for the gratuities, and many others, while eligible, were never aware of their eligibility.
The Chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission recommended that consideration be given to assuming the costs. The Chairman's brief noted:
The present situation appears to be a widespread source of dissatisfaction and has been the subject of several resolutions from veterans organizations. Failure

June 10, 1985
Veterans Affairs
to assuage this dissatisfaction may appear to be failure to honour promises of generosity.
The Chairman also pointed out that the advantage to the Government of Canada in assuming the costs of all gallantry awards would provide a "positive image of Canada accepting full responsibility for costs associated with gallantry awards to members of the Canadian Forces".
A meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to discuss the Estimates on May 30 gave me the opportunity to question the Minister directly on the subject. As 1 anticipated, the Minister was receptive to my suggestion. In response to my questions the Minister stated:
-it seems to be a reasonable suggestion and as soon as I get the figures from the British High Commissioner I will be able to do something-
The Minister's statement is most encouraging and I am hopeful that his request will become a reality very soon. The Minister has to be counted among the best in Veterans Affairs. He has received well-deserved praise from many segments of the veteran population. He can count me among those who support his efforts to ensure that veterans are given the best treatment possible.
I have made representations to the Minister on behalf of numerous veterans from my riding of Victoria and from elsewhere in Canada. Members of the House will know of my concerns for veterans and of the legislation which I have put forward. I want to continue work in that vein and 1 am assured of a sympathetic hearing with the current Minister.
In summary, the motion presented today is a request to the Government to pay to recipients of gallantry awards from World War I, along with all recipients of the Distinguished Service Order, the same annuities which are received by Canadian veterans of World War II. A corollary to this, but not included as part of the motion, concerns making the veterans aware of the change. The Minister may wish to consider instructing his officials to prepare an advertisement, which could appear in a publication such as Legion magazine, to inform veterans of the change in the payment of the awards.
There are, no doubt, some veterans who not are aware of their entitlement to an annuity. Others-and I know of some who fit into this category-have chosen to forgo a payment from the British Government. However, if the award were to come from their own Canadian Government, they would gladly accept it. The awards represent very small sums of money. They are based on 10 pounds per annum, which is currently approximately $50 or $100 per annum, depending on whether the veterans have any other government income. The annuities are a source of enormous pride, far larger than the amount would indicate, to the recipients.
I look forward to this initiative being taken and hope that the motion will gain the necessary acceptance of the House.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) on the motion standing in his name on the
Order Paper of the House, in which, as he explained so eloquently, he urges the Government to-
-consider the advisability of paying veterans of World War 1 and all recipients of the DSO, the same annuities with respect to gallantry awards received by veterans of World War II.
I know that the Hon. Member for Victoria, who also served in the military, has done a great deal to improve the lot of our veterans, and especially World War I veterans. At the time, as the Hon. Member described in his speech, everything was the responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom, especially everything concerning acts of bravery and gallantry, as they used to say, by those who fought under the Canadian flag-the Canadian Expeditionary Force as it was called at the time.
I also wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Victoria on the detailed expose given at the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, of the problem he outlined for us this afternoon. I feel there is indeed an injustice that should be remedied, because, need I repeat, all acts of bravery and gallantry rewarded either with the Victoria Cross or the George Cross or any of the other awards were remunerated or subsidized by the United Kingdom or England, as we said at the time. This was the case until 1942, when it was decided by order in council that the Government of Canada would pay the annuities with respect to awards given to veterans for distinguished service during World War II. However, nothing was done for veterans of the battlefields of 1914. There is an element of unfairness that should be corrected, and I am very happy to see that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) is here in the House and is considering the comments made by the Hon. Member for Victoria. I am very pleased.
I also would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about our World War I veterans, for the simple reason that we have never had any official figures on the number of veterans who are still with us. According to the 1971 Census, there were still 18,500, and of that number, 5,000 were receiving a War Veterans Pension or some kind of allowance from the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, I am sure that if we calculate how many veterans are still alive today, the number receiving a pension or an allowance has decreased. In any case, according to the figures available to the Department of Veterans Affairs, it seems that the average age of World War I veterans was 88. I imagine we should follow up at least some of the recommendations that were given in a most eloquent brief submitted by the Canadian Legion on May 30 of this year, which said that all World War I veterans should receive benefits under the new "Aging Program" that has been very successful for the simple reason that it makes it possible for the veteran to live comfortably with his family until he can no longer take care of himself. I believe we can extend life, not indefinitely, of course but quite substantially if we can help these people enjoy a comfortable old age.
June 10, 1985

I therefore totally agree with the brief on veterans submitted by the Canadian Legion, and 1 am sure the Minister will give special attention to the entirely justified demands being made for those who served so well. I do not think there is any reward in this world that could possibly be considered adequate compensation for these people who fought in the first of three wars, and I do not think anything we could give them would ever be commensurate with their efforts to fight for freedom.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a letter 1 received, and I suppose the Hon. Member for Victoria has received a number of letters like it. It is a letter from a veteran who wrote to me, not without humour, in May 1985, on the subject raised by the Hon. Member for Victoria in his motion. I quote:

The Acting High Commissioner, Sir George Perley drew up with the War Office an agreement that was finally approved on January 24, 1915.
That is not yesterday, Mr. Speaker.
It specified that Canada provide the pay, allowances and pensions of her troops and defray the cost of transporting them and material to the United Kingdom. In addition to paying the actual cost of all supplies and stores issued in Great Britain. There is one interesting addition to this agreement. It states that Canada shall pay the sum of six shillings per shell, per man, of all shells fired by Canadian artillery with the exception of seige artillery shells.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have no idea who dreamed up such a thing, but if we could find out how many shells were fired during World War I, perhaps we would know how much all that cost Great Britain, if the agreement was in force.
In any event, I continue reading the letter of my British Columbia friend who states:

My contention is that the Conservative Party under Sir Robert Borden made these agreements so they should straighten it out.

He was referring to this Government, of course. So I am sure that-

I contacted the Legion Magazine asking that any former members of the CEF-
The expeditionary force.
-who had won gallantry awards for World War I and had not received such gratuity get in touch with me.
I have been flooded with letters from both winners of awards and next of kin and all say that they have never received any such gratuity and in most cases were not aware that such gratuities were in force.
Personally I have no particular bone to pick on this issue as the only award I ever received was the Croix de Guerre. (Came up with the rations).

Mr. Speaker, all that to say that most veterans did not know that gratuities were offered those who had sacrificed themselves and accomplished acts of bravery during World War I.
I fully agree-and I am sure the Minister will look into this matter-that the policy ought to be reviewed so that the
Veterans Affairs
Canadian Government might offer gratuities to those Canadians who have served with honour. Needless to say, that would include the group which has always been forgotten, the group of veterans who were recipients of the Distinguished Service Order.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the humble contribution I wanted to make. I rest assured that our representations will be given every consideration by the Minister of Veterans Affairs who has always paid close attention to the claims of the Canadian Legion and of Hon. Members who have shown great interest in veterans affairs so as to improve the situation of those to whom we owe so much.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Private Members' Bill which has been introduced by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) which deals with the annuities paid to veterans of the First and Second World War who received gallantry awards such as the Victoria Cross, the Military Cross, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Distinguished Conduct Medal, the Military Medal, the conspicuous Gallantry Medal and others. The Bill proposes also that recipients of the Distinguished Service Order also receive similar annuities.
Recently I had the honour of being one of those who were members of the veterans and parliamentary delegation who went to Europe to commemorate the heroic contribution of Canadians in the last World War. Our delegation was headed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) and included the Hon. Member for Victoria as well. The trip contributed significantly to my understanding and pride in the contribution of Canadians who fought to preserve freedom in Europe.
We owe a great debt to those who served during both wars. Many did not come back, and many of those who did suffered wounds and made great personal sacrifices. This motion deals with the way we honour some of those people, those who received awards for gallantry in the service of their country and the defence of freedom.
At present the veterans of the two World Wars receive annuities of different amounts and from different Governments. This discrepancy was brought to the Canadian Government's attention by a resolution of the Royal Canadian Legion last year which pointed out that an additional pension is paid to veterans of World War II by the Canadian Government when they are recipients of various medals and awards. Veterans of World War I are not eligible for this payment. Until 1943 it was the British Government's responsibility to pay a gratuity and annuities to the recipients of gallantry awards. In June of that year the Canadian Cabinet agreed to take over the payment of annuities to all future recipients, as well as for those who had received awards up to that point in World War II. The Canadian Pension Commission was authorized:

June 10, 1985
Veterans Affairs
To assume and pay out of the War Appropriation or out of moneys provided for the purpose by Parliament any gratuity annuity, pension or other pecuniary obligation, arising out of any award which has been or may hereafter be made by His Majesty the King in respect of gallantry during the present war to any member of the Armed Forces of Canada.
Under the Gallantry Gratuities and Annuities Order, the CPC pays an annuity to those who have received one of the gallantry awards if he or she is awarded a disability pension, War Veterans Allowance or an annuity under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. This applies only to those who earned awards since the beginning of World War II. As for annuities still being paid to veterans of World War I, we do not know exactly how many there are at this time or how much they receive. I understand that the Canadian Government has made inquiries of the British Government as a first step in eliminating the discrepancies between the different groups of gallantry award recipients, but has not yet received the requested information. When it is received, I am confident that the Minister will move with haste to bring about the necessary changes to eliminate the present inequities. Even though it has been the responsibility of the British Government to pay monetary benefits to members of either the Canadian or British Forces who fought in World War I, I understand that Government has no interest in changing the amount it pays to those veterans. In order to ensure that veterans of both wars are treated equally, the Canadian Government will be required to accept responsibility.
As I stated earlier, we will support this motion. There is no reason that veterans from the two World Wars should be treated differently. I understand the Canadian Government has made inquiries and taken the first steps necessary to bring the two groups up to the same level. I trust it will also provide for the inclusion of DSO recipients among those qualifying for annuities. I cannot believe that the issue of deficits or controlling Government expenditures could be significant when one considers the heroic contributions of the people involved on the one hand, and the trivial amounts involved on the other.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak very briefly in support of the motion of the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). It is a particular pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in favour of a motion put forward by that Hon. Member because, while I have known of his reputation for many years, I actually had the opportunity of looking at his picture on a daily basis for a good many years in the office of my former law partner, Sydney Frost, who had served with the Hon. Member for Victoria as a Company Commander with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry in the Netherlands during World War II. I can still remember that picture on Syd Frost's filing cabinet showing all the Company Commanders gathered in front of a tent in a muddy field in Holland in 1945. Therefore, I am really pleased to have an opportunity to speak in support of a motion put by him today.
It is astounding to me that the veterans of World War I would not be receiving the same sort of recognition, as far as gallantry awards are concerned, as the veterans of World War II. The only reason I can attribute this to, it seems to me, must
be the fact of the slow but steady growth of Canada to that of a complete and sovereign nation. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the collection of Canadian colonies came together in 1867 to form Canada, and that was some 47 years before the beginning of World War I. There had been slow but steady progress in that period of time toward full sovereignty for Canada, but of course we had not achieved that exalted status in spite of the fact that at the beginning of this century we had sent a contingent of our Armed Forces to serve in the Boer War. Many people believed that World War 1 was really the beginning of the true Canadian nationality.
You will recall, of course, that there was the Canadian Corps where the Canadian Forces served together, albeit as part of the British Expeditionary Force in Europe. However, they were a separate fighting unit. Of course, many people consider that the Battle of Vimy Ridge itself marked the creation of the true Canadian nationality. That of course was the premier exercise of the Canadian Corps in World War I, although there were many, many outstanding battles in which the Canadian Corps received recognition.
It is interesting to think back to those times and remember that the Prime Minister of the day, Sir Robert Borden, insisted that the Canadian Corps fight together as one separate unit, and that Canada have its place in the Imperial War Cabinet separate and apart, not just as part of a war effort involving Canadian forces being directed by the British Government alone. He also insisted, of course, on a separate place at the peace table for Canada. Flowing from that a few years later, the Statute of Westminster was passed by the British Parliament which gave Canada full control over its foreign affairs as well as the control over its domestic affairs which it achieved in 1867.
The time is long since past when we should be recognizing our Canadian heroes of World War I. They are a symbol of Canadian sovereignty and I am very pleased to be able to support the motion of the Hon. Member for Victoria. 1 am sure that the Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) is going to stand now and tell us that the Government accepts this responsibility as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before he does 1 have to recognize the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Clinch) and the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King).


Mr. Roger Clinch (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, one might think it strange that a relatively young new Member in the House would want to say a few words on this Bill, but I feel compelled to rise in support of the motion put forward by my colleague from Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). There are many reasons for doing so, not the least of which is the fact that as a former member of the executive of the local Legion, 1 found that the support of this Government and this Ministry has been excellent since the new Minister took office.
June 10, 1985

I would like to congratulate the Minister on his fine work. The words of my constituents in Gloucester are all favourable on the moves the Minister has made for veterans. That is another reason 1 stand to support my colleague today in his efforts to better the lot of some heroes of World War I.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, there are many heroes, not the least of whom reside in my riding. World War I was to be the war to end all wars. We know that that did not come about, unfortunately. There were also many heroes in World War II. That is why I am pleased to support my colleague, the Hon. Member for Victoria and give him my wholehearted support for this motion.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased indeed to speak in support of this very worthy motion which would seek to bring a degree of equity to a matter which, by national measurement, may not assume very significant proportions, but which, to a number of deserving Canadians, would in fact be of considerable significance.
The financial cost implicit in the recommendation is not a consideration. It is, therefore, increasingly important that this symbolic gesture of appreciation to those who served our country's interest with such courage and valour be made. It is important that they should receive this tangible acknowledgment that we recognize them and their individual actions. We fully expect that this motion will pass. We endorse the purpose of the motion which states that:
-the Government should consider the advisability of paying veterans of World War I and all recipients of the DSO, the same annuities with respect to gallantry awards received by veterans of World War II.
We have confidence in the end result of this consideration. We should note that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) has already written a letter to the British High Commissioner in Canada asking for information pertaining to the numbers of Canadians who are eligible to receive this gallantry award because of specific decorations which they received for service during World War II. Until the figure is obtained from the United Kingdom with respect to those Canadians for whom they accepted responsibility in the matter of gallantry awards, it is not possible to respond to the request through Government of Canada action.
It is with a degree of satisfaction that we would point out that the proposed action is completely consistent with the directions taken by the present Government of Canada. The spirit of this motion reflects and parallels the desire expressed in Bill C-28, which is to ensure that veterans and their dependents be treated with equity and generosity compatible with the sacrifices which they made and the service they rendered their nation.
I believe that the entire nation endorses this general thrust in all that is done through the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is certainly the case that the Minister has, by deed and word, spoken encouragingly of the attitude of the Government in respect of expanded and improved programs for the veterans of Canada.
Veterans Affairs
We are all aware that such legitimate responses to identify inadequacies in present legislation and present programs cannot be immediately implemented because of financial constraints. However, this motion should confront no such impediment since the cost is insignificant. We appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of the motion and commend the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) on his presentation.


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable pride that I rise today as the grandson of a veteran of World War I, the son of a veteran of World War II, and a former member of the armed services of Canada myself.
I am very pleased to support the private Member's motion of my colleague from Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). In relative terms, he is my neighbour on Vancouver Island in British Columbia.
I think it is important that the Government act on this matter, and I expect it will. After all, this is the same Government that, through Bill C-28, increased pensions for our veterans. I think it worth noting today, as we discuss those who fought to protect what we hold dear, just what Bill C-28 made possible.
Through Bill C-28, the basic rate of pension will be increased to reflect parity with the average take-home pay of selected categories of public servants. The basic rate of pension will be increased each year hereafter by the percentage increase in the above-mentioned take-home pay, or by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is the greater. Disability pensions at the married rate will be continued for a full year following the death of a pensioner. Survivors of pensioners who had been receiving an Attendance and-or an Exceptional Incapacity Allowance will see the allowances continued for a full year following the death of the pensioner. It will be enshrined in the legislation that whenever a split decision occurs in the adjudication of a veteran's pension claim, the decision favouring the veteran is the decision of the Commission.
More than 700,000 Canadian veterans will directly benefit as a result of that Bill. Should the Department of Veterans Affairs act on the motion of my colleague from Victoria, over
22,000	veterans of World War I will benefit. This attention is long overdue. The average age of these people is 87. Their ranks are becoming thin. How often have we watched the veterans file past us during Remembrance Day ceremonies? How many veterans of that first war to end all wars have marched on to their final reward without receiving the attention they deserve from their nation? This thank-you, if we can call it that, is long overdue.
I commend my hon. colleague from Victoria for his motion. I know it arises from his sincere representation, over many years, to represent those who served Canada so well. I think 1 speak for all members of this Chamber when I say that the Hon. Member for Victoria is still fighting the battles that count and still serving his nation so well. I urge our Government to support this Bill.

June 10, 1985
Veterans Affairs


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to recognize the Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees).


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all Hon. Members for giving me this opportunity to speak during Private Members' Hour. The House has extended the utmost courtesy to me in doing so and I very much appreciate it. In fact, it is an honour to be able to participate in this debate. I would like to congratulate all of those who have spoken in the debate so far on the excellence of what they have said. They have put forward their views on behalf of themselves and their Parties very well indeed.
The motion before us is yet another example of the dedication of the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). It is the kind of dedication that he has always shown in dealing with Canada's veterans. No matter the time or place, veterans can always count on the Hon. Member to speak out on their behalf.
In his comments today, the Hon. Member advanced a relevant and forceful argument in support of his motion. It was a superb speech truly befitting a superb motion. Mr. Speaker, I hope the House is not waiting for the other shoe to drop because this is a private Member's motion that I wish to adopt. The Government is perfectly willing to consider the feasibility of following through on the excellent proposals put forward by the Hon. Member for Victoria. I would like nothing better than to go a step further and say that these measures will be acted on immediately. Unfortunately, further study is required.
At present, the British Government is responsible for the payment of World War I gallantry awards made to Canadians. Canada assumed the same responsibility in 1943 for those Canadians who won decorations in World War II. Those Canadians decorated in the Korean War are also the responsibility of our Government.
When the Hon. Member for Victoria first placed his motion on the Order Paper, I initiated inquiries with the British authorities. I wanted to find out how many Canadian veterans were involved and what exactly has been paid to these veterans. As of today, I have not received the answers to these questions. Once the facts are at hand, however, I can assure the House that it will not take me long to reach a decision on this matter.
There is one concern I will be pursuing in the interim. First World War veterans are unique in many ways, and one of those is the almost 70 year tie to the British Crown in respect of gallantry awards. I would not want to sever that tie without first making absolutely certain that the veterans want me to do so.
The second part of the Hon. Member's motion concerns the Distinguished Service Order and the Military Medal. Unlike Second World War veterans, First World War holders of these medals receive no additional pension. In response to this motion, and to a resolution passed by the Royal Canadian
Legion, I wrote to the British authorities to inquire as to what plans the United Kingdom might have to compensate these particular medal holders. I received word last week that it was not considered possible to trace all surviving holders of these medals, let alone to track down the beneficiaries of the estates of those who died. The United Kingdom, therefore, has no plans to compensate these individuals. This reply settles half of the question. The remaining half must be answered by the Canadian Government. I fully intend to do that.
The House has already been most gracious in allowing me to participate in Private Members' Hour. I do not wish to abuse that courtesy by speaking too long. Let me just state once again that I salute the Hon. Member for Victoria for his sincere interest in Canada's veterans. The Hon. Members' motion is commendable and deserves the support of all Members of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. McKinnon, seconded by Mr. Darling, moves:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of paying veterans of World War 1 and all recipients of the DSO, the same annuities with respect to gallantry awards received by veterans of World War II.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall we call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in the House on May 9 I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) if he would consider meeting with concerned and interested
June 10, 1985

groups to discuss the proposed changes to the divorce legislation and specifically to reconsider the proposed change of the waiting period when there is a marriage breakdown from three years to one year.
Perhaps the length of time which has passed since the divorce legislation was last changed warrants an argument for review and change. The 17-year old Act is due for a change so that it properly reflects and represents the 1980s, and recognizes that attitudes to marriage are much different today than they were in 1968. Indeed, it is very distressing to know that today 40 per cent of all marriages end in divorce. Some may say that it is a national epidemic. This obviously represents a large number of Canadians and ultimately the divorce legislation will have a great impact on many lives.
On May 25, I escorted my older daughter down the aisle in a marriage ceremony. They started that marriage with great hopes and dreams, and both sets of parents share that dream. It would be an outright tragedy if that marriage which has so much hope was in any way eroded as a result of legislation that we might pass in this Chamber. That is why I encourage my Government to proceed with caution on this very important legislation.
Even more distressing and disturbing is the fact that almost 70 per cent of divorced spouses either refuse or fail to comply with their court ordered alimony and child support payments. 1 feel that this is a total disgrace and an abuse of the present system.
The proposed legislation is an excellent attempt at humanizing the process of divorce. This legislation and its elements can ease the pain of ending an unworkable marriage.
The legislation recognizes some of the unpleasant social realities of divorce, and also strives to recognize the consequences of divorce rather than concentrating on the grounds of divorce, as does the current law. It is indeed time that "no fault'' divorce legislation was introduced so that Canadians are no longer forced to lie or create often scandalous, unreal situations for the sake of a divorce. It is refreshing and sensible to know that the new legislation will permit couples to divorce without having to go through a charade of events in order to qualify for divorce on such grounds as adultery.
I fully support and commend the intention of the Hon. Minister of Justice to clamp down on divorced spouses who do not meet their financial obligations. I hope the provinces will mutually agree to the establishment of a tracing system for defaulting spouses, much like the current system that exists in Manitoba. It is outrageous that this negligence is currently costing Canadian taxpayers approximately $1 billion a year. This proposal will go a long way in attempting to correct this alarming situation.
While divorce may be the dissolution of a marriage, it is not necessarily the absolute end of all relations between family members. Indeed, we must consider seriously the quality of life and, more important, the quality of family life in Canada. I believe that family life is the cornerstone of Canadian society,
Adjournment Debate
and divorce legislation must continue to protect the victims of divorce, usually the children.
I am concerned about the proposed change to the length of separation from the current three years to one year. Perhaps a move to a one-year no fault divorce clause may indeed speed the legal process of a divorce, but I also strongly believe that this will weaken the institution of marriage and hamper the prospects for reconciliation. I believe that quicker access to divorce will add to the hardship by encouraging people to seek divorce rather than try to improve their marriage. Perhaps we could compromise and institute a two-year test trial separation period rather than one year, because it is always more difficult to raise the limit of a law once it has been lowered.
In summary, 1 hope the Minister of Justice will take my suggestion of compromise seriously and implement a two-year separation period for an uncontested no fault divorce. I remind the House, that on the whole I believe this legislation is an excellent representation of what Canadians are looking for in new contemporary divorce law.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the deep seated concerns that have been expressed by the Hon. Member, not only publicly but also privately to me and other Members of Parliament.
I point out to the Hon. Member that not too many years ago all grounds for divorce were based on fault. Other sections of the Divorce Act were introduced which allowed for marital breakdowns, those in which there was consent in terms of marital breakdowns, and the element of abandonment, which took five years. Right now it is perceived by the Government that three years is too long a time; that people resort to the more traditional grounds of adultery and cruelty rather than waiting three years.
I invite the Hon. Member to attend the committee which is about to study the Divorce Act in detail, commencing tomorrow morning at 9.30 a.m. We have an abundance of witnesses and this will be one of the areas we will explore. Because of the deep-seated feeling the Hon. Member has with respect to this matter, I cordially invite him to hear the evidence and maybe suggest further witnesses on this point if he is not satisfied with those who appear before the committee. Certainly he will be heard.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-IMPACT OF TOXIC CHEMICALS ON SEA-GULLS. (B) REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET SCIENTISTS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, on May 22, 1985, at page 4957 of Hansard, the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) is recorded as saying in reply to my question that the program on the impact of toxic chemicals on sea-gulls has been reinstated at the Burlington Centre, and monitoring continues. The purpose of tonight's intervention is to get as a minimum an understanding as to what the word "reinstated" means. Does reinstating mean as

June 10, 1985
Adjournment Debate
the word implies, as it was before? That is what reinstating means. Does it mean reinstating the full-time scientists, three of them at least, who conducted bio-effects analysis? Does it mean more than just the collection of eggs, but the examination of contents? By examination we will know what the long-term effects are on human health.
The statement in Hansard raises a number of questions. We would like to know whether the new fund announced only a week ago for toxic studies on wild life will support these activities. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wildlife Service was cut by some $4 million last November with a loss of some 70 scientists and technicians. Will this fund permit the continuation of these activities at the Burlington Centre on sea-gull eggs? To what extent is the new fund going to pick up the earlier work? It is a new fund in the amount of $1 million a year. Previously it was some $4 million. Therein lies the importance of the meaning of the word reinstated. The importance will, I am sure, not escape the Parliamentary Secretary.
We have heard a number of rather unhappy statements from this Government about other environmental areas. We have not seen much happiness in the country as a result of last week's statements by the Minister on the future of parks. The reference to possible mining and logging has caused an incredible amount of unhappiness from Newfoundland to British Columbia. After a visit to the Niagara River, which incidentally took place after eight months in office, the Minister was quoted as saying that the water in the Great Lakes is becoming better, following the acknowledgement that toxicity in fish found at the mouth of the Niagara River is increasing. No commitment has been made on South Moresby, despite a number of interventions from Members on every side of this House, including the Government side. Having found a disposition to proceed with acid rain as a result of the previous Government's activities, there has been no action taken by this Government internationally, vis-a-vis the United States, in order to encourage them to join some other 20 nations in the signing of the protocol at Helsinki next month. This Government has been totally silent on that front, yet this matter is crucial now, and becomes even more so as every week goes by and we approach the date of the signing of the protocol.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, why it is becoming imperative that this Minister, when giving an answer in the House, be clear in what she says. If reinstating the program of sea-gull egg analysis at the Burlington Centre and monitoring continuation means what the words mean, as it did before, then of course we are glad to hear that. We will be glad to know that perhaps the activities of the wildlife services as they existed until November of 1984 will be re-established. Hence, Mr. Speaker, you will understand the necessity of putting this question to the Parliamentary Secretary, so as to understand clearly what the word "reinstating" means as far as this particular program is concerned.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member from
Davenport (Mr. Caccia) included a number of interesting notions in his preamble. I will not have an opportunity to respond to all of them, but certainly 1 will try to answer as precisely as possible the specific question he asked initially in the House on May 22, and that he ended with today.
The one comment I would add is that the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), while visiting the very serious situation in the Love Canal and other areas on the American side, in viewing those directly, was doing that subsequent to visitations made by myself and other Members of Parliament some months ago, and with information that had come to her along the way. In fairness, Mr. Speaker, she did that within a much less period of time than did the Hon. Member for Davenport, who was the Minister of the Environment in the last Government. I do not think he has visited Inco even yet. I do not know whether or not he really saw what he was dealing with in Sudbury. The Minister of the Environment did take it upon herself to go and see directly what the serious nature of the problem was.
I am really happy with the tone that the Hon. Member from Davenport has taken because I think I can come directly and precisely to the question-


Mr. Caccia:: Answer the question and stop fiddling around with other issues.


Gary Michael Gurbin: He wants me to come directly to the question. Having had the chance to ramble on about 10 different subjects I guess I too should have a little latitude too.
Specifically, he wants to know about the herring-gull egg program. He knows that there are two components. One is the Canadian Wildlife Service and the other is the Canadian Centre for Inland Waters.
Since April 1, 1985, the Canadian Wildlife Service has been gathering the eggs and monitoring the colonies, preparing the eggs for chemical analysis and interpreting the biological significance of chemical data from the analysis of the eggs. From the same date, the Inland Waters Directorate has been in charge of the chemical analysis of dioxin in the eggs, carrying out the analysis of new contaminants in the eggs, ensuring the reliability of the data through quality control and administering contracts for standard analysis of toxic chemicals in the eggs.
Those are the parts of the program and precisely the things that are being done on behalf of the Department of the Environment. I think that this very precisely indicates the continued efforts on the part of the Department of the Environment toward ensuring, in so far as possible, as a part of a much broader and necessary approach, that we deal with those contaminants that are in the Great Lakes waters in particular.


INDUSTRY-EMPLOYEES OF DOMINION STORES IN ONTARIO
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, on May 16 I raised a question regarding the closing of 93
m
a
June 10, 1985

Dominion stores through sale to A & P and the possible closing of other stores that remained in the ownership of Dominion Stores Limited. In his answer, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) indicated that the sale of those 93 Dominion stores to A & P had been approved by FIR A through a concern for the preservation of about 7,000 jobs. However, he said that he would naturally be concerned about the jobs in the remaining stores.
I appreciate the Minister's answer and I appreciate his concern, because I believe it is incumbent upon all of us in Parliament and associated with the Government to show an active, positive concern for the all too large number of Canadians who, through no fault of their own, are turned out of work as a result of reorganization of the corporate structures by which they have been employed. That has happened in the case of this impressive food chain which for so long was the leading food distribution organization in this country.
I am concerned about this matter because a large number of Dominion employees from as far away as Hamilton gathered together in Scarborough West to express their concerns about their futures in the stores that had not been sold. They had concerns about what kind of alternative employment opportunities they might be given, what kind of severance pay they might enjoy and what assistance they might receive in finding alternative employment. I recognize that these are not necessarily the legal responsibility of the federal Government, except in those areas that come directly under the jurisdiction of the federal Government. However, there is a human concern here that must weigh very heavily upon our hearts and minds.
One of the things that impressed me when looking at the annual reports of Dominion Stores Limited is that its reports have contained considerable discussion of the various arrangements that were required for the reorganization of the company and the sale of certain stores, but almost no reference at all to the human dimension of this reorganization. There was no explicit concern expressed for the well being of the persons who would be affected, in contrast to the annual reports of other major corporations which, while with comparable realism in the business world, recognize their social obligations to the people who have made those companies possible. For example, the annual report of Alcan states the following:
Any organization is only as effective as the people in it, and the Board of Directors would like to acknowledge the efforts of Alcan employees around the world in meeting the challenges of today's sometimes frustrating conditions.
I was impressed by the statement of one of the owners of Dominion Stores Limited, as quoted in the press, that the return on investment is what it's all about. Certainly all of us can see that a practical concern for the return on investment has to be on the agenda of everyone concerned with the operation of a business, small or large. However, people are part of what it is all about. One cannot build a business without people investing their lives in the well being of that organization. A great company is put together not just by financial capital, equipment and material things, but is put together by people. It is through the efforts of the people, their self-discipline and devotion that a company grows.
Adjournment Debate
When a handful of people who control a company, and who possess the ownership of its capital, decide to close it, surely it is incumbent upon them to recognize the responsibility they have to the people who helped make it possible. It is incumbent upon us to accept the same responsibility. If it is not possible for a federal government to inject its concern directly into a transaction because of constitutional implications, surely it is possible for a federal government to take the lead in bringing together its provincial counterparts so that just procedures can be formulated in behalf of the people who find themselves threatened with unemployment, through no fault of their own.
For example, in the case of Dominion Stores Limited, some people have worked for the company for more than 20 years. They might well have expected that their seniority would have guaranteed them a place in one of the stores which A & P had purchased. However, the agreement between Dominion Stores Limited and A & P has made it essential that employment be provided only to those people already working in those stores. The people in the remaining stores now face an uncertain and anxious future. They came together and requested their Member of Parliament, their provincial member and other representatives to share with them in this concern.
I am grateful to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion that I was able to put this question to him. I am grateful for the concern which he expressed. I hope we will take a further step forward in showing our sense of responsibility as a Parliament and as a Government to those men and women who, through no deficiency on their part, now wonder if they will ever again have the chance to work.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the sale by Dominion Stores Limited of 93 of its stores located in Ontario to The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Limited, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) asked what assurance the Government of Canada could give employees in other stores in Ontario that they would receive fair treatment if any more stores were sold or closed by Dominion Stores.
As the Hon. Member is aware, Dominion Stores has, in recent years, reduced and restructured its retail sales activities in the food sector. As a result, some stores have been sold, and stores that were not economically viable were closed. Many have been reopened as warehouses under the name Best for Less, while others have been converted into Mr. Grocer franchises.
Under the Foreign Investment Review Act, the Governor in Council authorized the acquisition of 93 Dominion stores by A & P on April 29, 1985. The screening of this transaction under the Act made it possible to ensure that any loss of jobs at Dominion Stores Limited would be minimized. In fact, as mentioned by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) in his letter of May 2, 1985 to the Hon.

June 10, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Member, A & P must keep the 7,479 employees in the 93 stores concerned. The agreement also protects the jobs of a further 429 working in the warehouse and in administration. In any case, it was expected that 373 full-time and 300 casual employees would be laid off by Dominion Stores Limited because of a reduction in activities following the sale. To help these employees, a complete program was set up covering lay-off notices, severance pay, adjustment committees consisting of representatives of the company and the federal and provincial governments, as well as a number of relocation
counsellors from the private sector. It is estimated that the program will cost Dominion $6 million.
The screening process was necessary because A & P is controlled by non-Canadians. The sale or closing of one or more stores by Canadian investors is not subject to screening by the Government under the provisions of the Foreign Investment Review Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 11, 1985