1985-06-11

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 10, 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. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands) moved:: 
Mr. Speaker:: Given that the motion is in the Member's name, the amendment must be moved by someone else. Technically, the Member is now rising to move and to speak on Motion No. 3. Therefore, The Hon. Member must seek someone else to move the amendment, other than the seconder of Motion No. 3. Therefore, I will change the seconder of the main motion. With the unanimous consent of the House, the seconder of the main motion shall be Mr. Deans.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to make a few comments and perhaps after that my colleague could move the amendment.
Basically, the motion suggests that the suspension of power by the Governor in Council should include the membership restrictions which we are dealing with in Bill C-31. The power to suspend certain sections of the Act goes back to the first federal Indian Act which was implemented in 1876. The only
restrictions which presently exist upon that power apply to Sections 37 to 41 of the Act. As Hon. Members will know, Sections 37 to 41 deal with the surrender of land. 1 believe the reason that these sections are restricted is the great importance of land to Indian people and to their existence as a nation. The Government, in its wisdom, hedged the surrender of land with a fair number of procedures that were intended to protect Indian people from fraud or from alienation of their land without very careful consideration being given by the people of the band and by the band council. Those procedures are set out in Sections 37 to 41.
Section 4(2) of the Act states that the Governor in Council may exempt certain bands from certain sections of the Act, except those sections dealing with land surrenders.
For the past several days we have been debating Bill C-31, which is attempting to restore one of the most basic rights to Indian people, that being the right to belong to their own people. I believe that right should also be protected from any arbitrary action on the part of the Governor in Council. For that reason, I believe that Bill C-31 should be amended, in line with Motion No. 3, so that Section 4(2) of the Indian Act will specifically exempt the new membership sections from the power of the Governor in Council over certain bands.
My colleague will move an amendment which will change line 15 to line 6 in the motion. That will leave the "greater certainty" clause which is already in the Bill. I did not intend to remove that clause. It was an error on my part that line 15 remained rather than line 6. Therefore, my colleague will be moving a minor amendment which I hope will correct the situation.
In the last Parliament, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments has some very negative comments about the whole use of Section 4(2) by the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in trying to circumvent the problems we all recognized with Sections 12(1)(6) and 12(l)(a)(iv) of the Indian Act. The Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments pointed out quite rightly that the Government should not try to do by proclamation what should properly be done by legislation.
As I listen to this debate, it seems to me to be the clear will of the House of Commons that those people who lost status through Sections 12(1)(Z>) and 12(l)(a)(iv) should have their status and their band membership restored. We want to see this happen without exception. Therefore, I feel we should build that protection into the Act and request that this motion be accepted, with the amendment which will be moved by my

June 11, 1985
Indian Act
colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), so that the membership sections will not be open to suspension by the Governor in Council.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) has indicated, a technical amendment to his motion is in order. I would read it as follows:
That motion No. 3 to amend Clause 2 of Bill C-31, dated May 9, 1985, be amended by subtituting for the reference to "lines 5 to 15" in the second line of the motion, a reference to "lines 5 and 6".
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands has given the reasons for presenting this amendment which I put before the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could we have a seconder for the motion? Mr. Robinson. The Chair will take the amendment under advisement for a few moments and will make a ruling shortly. In the meantime, I will recognize the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie).


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the matter which is contained in Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) and the minor amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
I agreed with the general intent of this motion as originally drafted. However, at that time it had, in my view, a serious flaw which would have prevented me from supporting it. This problem, 1 believe, has been corrected by the proposed subamendment. Section 4(2) of the Indian Act could be used to frustrate the will of Parliament if, at some time in the future, a proclamation were issued exempting some bands from the application of the provisions in this Bill regarding registration and membership. Such an action would be clearly undesirable and could result in unfairness to people seeking membership or the restoration of rights. The Hon. Member's motion would ensure that this would not occur.
The aspect of the motion which gave me some trouble before was that the original motion struck out lines 5 to 15 of Clause 2 of the Bill as reported. These lines provide that previous proclamations made under Section 4(2) of the Indian Act, which dealt with various membership issues as well as other matters, would be deemed valid. As Hon. Members may recall, over the past several years the Governor in Council has used Section 4(2) to exempt bands, if they so requested, from discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act. This procedure was seen as a stopgap measure for those bands wishing to eliminate discrimination without having to wait for the sometimes lengthy process of legislative change.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that since 1980, 111 bands have been granted exemptions from Section 12(l)(i) and 313 bands from Section 12(l)(a)(iv). The use of this procedure was not without dispute. The Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments raised serious questions as to the propriety and validity of using Section 4(2) in this
manner. Motion No. 3, which was offered by my friend, the Hon. Member from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, and is now before the House, is one which, therefore, the Government can clearly support.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, before I leave this issue, that the fact that a considerable number of bands, on their own, without any pressure whatsoever from anyone, utilized Section 42(a), is a very good record. And those who are concerned about whether or not the bands will act in an appropriate manner in dealing with their own people and those people coming back to their community should look at that record; 111 bands were granted exemption from Section 12(1)(Z>) and 313 bands from Section 12(l)(a)(iv).

Having said that, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his Motion No. 3 and indicate that the Government will support it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has received the amendment to Motion No. 3 and finds it to be in order.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to rise very briefly to indicate, as a member of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments for the past six years, that it is with a great deal of pleasure that I see the Minister accept the amendment proposed by my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands. Certainly we had a number of very serious concerns with the process under the existing provisions of the Indian Act, and I hope the Minister's colleagues might be as willing to consider seriously the recommendations of that rather obscure committee as has the Minister himself today.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say briefly that I have no problem supporting this amendment either, but I want to pick up on the remarks made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) when he said that the record of Indian bands in employing the Order in Council provision to allow women under Section 12(1)(6) to retain status prior to this Act going through is probably one of the best arguments one could make for allowing bands to control their own membership. Recognizing the discrimination in the Indian Act, an Act imposed by this House of Commons, recognizing the injustice to their female band members who married non-Indians and subsequently lost their treaty rights and band membership, 112 bands took the initiative to come forward to seek an exemption. One of those bands was the Fort McKay band north of Fort McMurray, my home town. Chief Dorothy Macdonald of that band supports the principle that the bands should control band membership. She supports this principle 100 per cent. In effect, that is what she, a woman chief, did when she made representations to Cabinet for special exclusion from the Indian Act as it presently reads. I still firmly believe we are making a mistake by not allowing the bands to control their own membership and I want to elaborate on that for a moment.
June 11, 1985

I do not for one minute agree with the law the way it was. The Indian Act discriminated against women, and I do not for a moment agree with that. But righting the wrong, forcing it on the bands in this cavalier manner, is not the way to do it, in my view. We would have been much wiser if we had said that bands should control their membership. We would have been much wiser if we had said that if in two years there are still injustices and they have not been redressed, this Parliament would then act. On one hand we say we want Indians to have self-government, and we talked about it at the First Ministers Conference. As I said yesterday, the Penner Report published last year clearly indicates that this is the way we should be moving. I understand the push. I understand the abhorrence that we all feel when we look at the Indian Act and see the discrimination that was practised for many years. Indian women who married non-Indians lost their Indian status and were removed from the reserves. The wives of men who married non-Indians became treaty or registered Indians and band members. That was certainly an injustice.
Indian self-government has evolved to a point. The control of band membership has always been their jurisdiction. The federal Government in Canada can determine who is a status or registered Indian, but that does not force band membership. We have done a disservice to the women who wish to regain treaty status. We are doing them a disservice inadvertently as well because we are preventing the children and grandchildren of those women from gaining Indian status and band membership. With the amendments now, some of them will gain Indian status. However, we have done a disservice because the bands that would have been open and accepting, had we allowed them to proceed in their jurisdiction without interference, will now resist.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment of Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is now on Motion No. 3, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3, as amended, agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion Nos. 13 and 14 will be grouped for debate.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal) moved:: 
James Douglas Manly: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 4 by strking out lines 30 to 35 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"band establish membership rules for itself.
(3) Membership rules established by a band under this section shall provide a mechanism for appealing decisions on membership."


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to thank my colleagues in the House for delaying the debate on my motion. I guess that the airlines are getting to be as reliable as the post office. I am very pleased to speak on Motion No. 13 of Bill C31 at report stage.
When this Bill was first introduced at the end of February, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) indicated that this Bill would achieve the elimination of discrimination based on sex in the Indian Act, that status and band membership would be restored to those who lost it as a result of discrimination, and that there would be recognition of the principle of band control of its membership. I agree with the Minister. These are very laudable principles, but they have not been met in this Bill.
In the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development we heard from many Indian and non-status women and men who will be affected by this Bill. I think I am correct in saying that not one witness expressed satisfaction in total with the Government's proposals. Perhaps that would have been too much to expect. I think the Minister has gone a long way to redressing some of the concerns.
I share, however, many of the concerns expressed on this very complex issue relating to the Indian Act and the Bill before us and to self-government. I understand all that. Nonetheless, I moved this motion in response to the many questions raised by reinstated persons with regard to their participation in the decisions to take control of the band lists and the development of band codes. It seems to me that we are now planning a new version of the Boston Tea Party where rules will be drawn up without the input, impact or participation of those members upon whom it will have a true impact.
As the Bill now stands, a majority of the elected, not a majority of the members, must give their consent to the band's control of its own membership and to the establishment of membership rules. Under the Indian Act, in the definition of electors the term "ordinarily resident" is used to determine elector eligibility. Given the difficulty some bands now have in providing housing for all those who wish to reside on the reserve-and the Minister knows well I have addressed that issue-and the need for infrastructure and increased and

June 11, 1985
Indian Act
improved housing, the reality is that there is much poverty and poor housing that needs to be addressed. The Minister has inherited that problem and he has to address it in another forum at another time. That is not related to the fact that people of Indian persuasion, of Indian belonging, of Indian custom, are now not going to be allowed, because they cannot obtain housing, to have their say. That is why I called it a Boston Tea Party. It is unlikely that many of these reinstated persons will be able to take up any kind of residence with their former bands, even if they would want to do so. As a result, they will be unable to meet the electors' criteria and will therefore be ineligible to participate in the decisions on the band list and, more important, the development and adoption of band membership codes.
I believe all members of an Indian nation should have an opportunity to participate in the band membership process since these rules represent a legitimate move toward native control and self-government over their own affairs. I think it is totally unfair to exclude them. I support this move not.only because it affects the decision of the bands, but because they will have no opportunity even for input.
Their absence is not of their doing. I heard the Member talk before about ancient times et cetera. He spoke, and I agree with him, of the river running, the sun shining, and the moon rising. But the bands would have been there if we had not interfered. Why can we not take it that we will start from scratch after we have regulated what we stuck our nose into, something that we should not have done in the first place?
The children of men and women who regain their status as a result of this Bill do not get automatic band membership themselves. This is discriminatory and results from past injustices suffered by their parents. It is regrettable that the Minister did not move an amendment that would have righted this wrong. That aside, their only option for gaining band membership is through application to the band following the adoption of membership rules. Who knows what is going to play at that time? I do not think anyone can claim that a democratic process has been followed if reinstated persons are unable to contribute to the development of the rules that will ultimately affect them and their children. Under this Bill there is no assurance that children under the age of 18 who will be allowed to return to the reserve with their parents will be able to continue to live there when they turn 18.
It is totally unacceptable to me, and to most women, to divide families according to different status of transmittable rights to offspring. I should like to know who gave anyone, including the Minister, the right to play Solomon and to determine whose child shall be allowed to be a member of the Indian nation and whose child shall not. I also reject the notion that somehow we would be infringing upon the principle of band control. With all due regard, I think the principle of democracy and participation in the future of one's life is paramount, not band control.
At any level of Government, be it federal, provincial, municipal or international, citizens are given the opportunity to voice their concerns and views on decisions which affect their daily lives. Through various forums, they are able to affect change if they feel strongly on a particular issue.
1 have travelled with the equality rights committee across Canada, listening to discriminatory practices and repeatedly hearing from many women's groups about the discrimination with which they are living. They are looking for equality. It is actually ironic that no one in the House has come out with the best of efforts. There have been many who have tried, and 1 congratulate everyone in the House who has been involved. However, good intentions are not an acceptable replacement for resolving the first level of discrimination, that is, the right to participate in the development of band codes and in the control over band lists. The bands should have the right to continue to make those decisions after the original inequity has been removed. At that point we start from square one, but not until then. I just find that to be totally unacceptable.
The Minister indicated-and I think it was yesterday-that he would be unable to reject an application for control of band membership rules on the basis of their content, but only on procedural grounds. In committee I wanted to bring forth an amendment that all band membership rules and by-laws would conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At that time I was informed that this was implicit in all federal legislation. If the Minister finds himself in the position of having to accept rules which do not comply with the Charter at the end of this two-year process, and if the Minister does not have that responsibility, band members will have to go to court to fight for their rights. The Minister has to recognize that not only should the Charter apply, but our signature on international covenants should apply, if we in the halls of Parliament want to be perceived as respectable.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Government to give consideration to this amendment which ensures full membership and band participation and the development of band codes, and which avoids the great cost of fighting injustices in the court. If Bill C-31 remains unchanged, we will continue to deny their rights to men and women who have suffered enough as a result of discriminatory factors and sections of the Indian Act. Members of the Indian nations should not confuse nationhood and self-government with their right to have something to say about what is happening to them and their right to be heard on important and fundamental issues which concern both them and their children and will certainly impact forever on their lives.
These rules will affect women, some men and their children.
I ask the Minister to let them have a say. If what the Hon. Member opposite keeps saying is so, those women will agree with everything that has been well thought out with respect to the development of band code and the development of membership. It will not create the tremendous problem which he seems to feel is inherent in women's participation in these kinds of developments, those who do not have the right to be ordinarily resident through no fault of their own.
June 11, 1985


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) probably outlined more graphically exactly what happened with Bill C-31. I listened with a great deal of interest to what she had to say. She said that she had travelled with the equality task force, had listened to women's groups, and that she thought it was unacceptable to most women. My whole point is that Bill C-31 is not just a women's issue. Women have been discriminated against in the past under the Indian Act. The Indian Act is a federal government Act. It was not imposed by the Indian people themselves. That is the point. Our predecessors in the House of Commons passed an Indian Act which discriminated against those women. 1 abhor the thought that my colleagues of 30 or 40 years ago would have agreed that that was the proper thing to do. Indian people were discriminated against, absolutely. However, they have developed a collective system of Government. For the first time in the history of this country, we are now saying to Indian people that we cannot trust them to run their own affairs and that therefore we will impose membership upon them. We are telling them that we will right the wrong which we know has been done to Indian women. We are not going to compensate; we are going to impose those people back on them and they are the ones who will have to compensate. That is what we are doing.
We must understand the issue and what would happen if the Hon. Member's amendment were accepted. The way it reads now, we would have people influencing the electors, and the electors who are normally residents of the band would determine the membership code. I see nothing wrong with that; 1 see absolutely nothing wrong with that. If we had influence from the other side, what would happen in small bands where the people returning to the reserves outnumber those already there? The people living off the reserves could actually determine who would live on the reserves, in the collective. It just does not make sense to me that people living in Ottawa, in Montreal, perhaps as a neighbour of the Hon. Member in Mount Royal, or in the United States, should have a say in determining the membership code of a collective in northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan or northern Ontario. It just does not make sense.
There is no protection for old members. What about band members who for years worked under discrimination, who could not vote or do the kinds of things we normally do? What about people living on reserves who had to go to a white Indian agent, perhaps from Mount Royal, Edmonton or Calgary, and ask for permission to leave the reserve to go into the Town of St. Paul to do some shopping, and the Indian agent would say that it was all right and give them a pass? That is the type of rule those Indian people lived under. They developed their own system of government. We are now saying that we will give them no protection, and that we will let people who have had no connection with the band or with their system of government come in and determine the membership codes.
In the Province of Alberta we have had Metis colonies, for example the Kikino Metis colony. A number of people have lived there all their lives. They were born there. They par-
Indian Act
ticipated in ranching, farming and so on, and now they are living in this Metis colony. If we cause the Metis to be categorized as Indians, they are going to be kicked off the colony because the colony people have said treaty Indians cannot live on the colony.
[DOT] (U40)
We have done some terrible things here that none of us have really addressed because we are rushing this Bill. The way it is in the Bill, the electors must be at least ordinary residents on the reserve. This amendment that the Hon. Member from Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) is proposing would let anyone, with or without connection to the reserve, vote on membership rules. It would strip the historical community of control. It cedes to the newly created membership. It could devastate bands. It offends, in my view, the fundamental, basic issue, and that is, band control of band membership. The whole Bill offends that, but this amendment would clearly offend that.
I think that I have had my say on this one, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to get those remarks on the record. The fundamental problem that we have is that although, with good intention, we have said that we have to do something to undo the wrong that was done to the women, unfortunately it has become a women's issue. I suggest that that is how the Hon. Member for Mount Royal was drawn into the whole debate, because she sees it as a woman's issue. I see it as discrimination to women;
1 see it as an injustice, but it is fundamentally an Indian issue; it is not a women's issue.
The issue is: are we truly going to allow the Indian people to develop their own system of Government, as we keep saying in this House of Commons that we are going to do? Are we going to do that, and when? Six months or a year from now are we going to come forward and say, Well, we have to do some more changing on the Indian Act before we turn over control of their lives to the Indian people?" Are we going to say, "Oh, gee, we did not recognize that all these people were going to want to become Indian again; we have to expand the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to accommodate all these new Indians we have created". That is what we are talking about in this House.
At what point in time are we going to say, "Enough is enough, let these people become full Canadians with every right that you and I have". They should not have to come running to Ottawa with a band council resolution to do something on their own reserve, to build a school, to build a damned privy out behind the community centre. That is what we are talking about. It is an Indian issue and we have forgotten that because we have allowed the women's groups right across the country to snowball this thing into a women's issue. I am sorry that the Hon. Member from Mount Royal has fallen into that trap.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) on a question of privilege.

June 11, 1985
Indian Act


Sheila Finestone: It is not a women's issue that I have been addressing; it is an Indian issue of which women are a part, and I would like to know how-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe this is a question of privilege. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the contribution to this debate made by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), and we all know that the Hon. Member has a reputation as an advocate of human rights which is enviable. We all wish we had equivalent reputations in fighting for human rights. The Hon. Member's speech this morning was certainly an eloquent speech.


Svend Johannes Robinson: But-


B. Keith Penner: Yes, exactly, but a very big but. The speech was eloquent, all of the sentiments expressed were correct, but the speech was made in the wrong forum. That speech should be made by one who is a member of an Indian First Nation. That is where the speech should be made.
All of those arguments are valid; all of the suggestions put forward by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal are in fact in the report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-government as matters that should properly be considered by an Indian First Nation in putting together the components of their Government and in seeking recognition by the Government of Canada, because one nation seeks recognition from another nation. There are certain requirements in seeking recognition, and so the report laid forward a pattern or a suggestion by which this process may be undertaken. The matters referred to specifically and clearly by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal are all listed there.
The issue here is not really the validity of the arguments themselves about including the maximum number of people in decision making about the membership code and about the particular form of government and the other requirements for seeking recognition. All of those are valid arguments. The simple question is, who calls the shots?
The report of the special committee, on page 54, says:
Representatives of Indian band governments rejected any federal intervention in the matter of reinstatement.
I quote from a brief presented by the Assembly of First Nations on that occasion.
It is up to the Indian governments across the country to resolve that and to put into place some just means of making sure that there is reinstatement or whatever it is they want to do.
The special committee did not shy away from the difficulty that these First Nations were facing in putting together the components of a Government that would be eligible for seeking recognition from the Government of Canada, but you will notice the emphasis that I am giving time and time again-I am talking about Indian First Nations. There is a kind of accepted way of proceeding when you are dealing nation to
nation, which is the pattern that was laid down for us by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and one that we departed from, as the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) correctly pointed out in his remarks yesterday. When we started dealing with Indian people on an individual basis, we got off the track. We should have stayed on that nation to nation approach, and we would not be here debating this issue today; we would not be in this difficulty in which we find ourselves at the present time.
The special committee did not shy away at all from the problem that is raised by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. All of her arguments are good. Allow me to repeat the arguments for her. You will notice a subtle difference, which is, that the suggestions for proceeding were suggestions to be seriously considered by Indian First Nations, not matters to be legislated here in this forum, in this Parliament of Canada. Here they are, Mr. Speaker.
The following procedure might be adopted-
Not "shall" but "might be adopted".
-by Indian First Nations to determine membership or citizenship:
1.	The people in each community would begin with the Indian Act list, plus those who might be reinstated by any changes in legislation.
2.	These people would get together to ask who might be missing and to include those they wished to include.
3.	These people would agree on membership criteria and thus decide who else might be included or excluded. The criteria should be in accordance with the standards in international covenants concerned with human rights.
4.	These same people would agree on appeal procedures and mechanisms.
5.	The whole group would then determine their form of government and apply for recognition.
Now we come to Recommendation No. 9:
9. The Committee asserts as a principle that it is the rightful jurisdiction of each Indian First Nation to determine its membership, according to its own particular criteria. The Committee recommends that each Indian First Nation adopt, as a necessary first step to forming a government, a procedure that will ensure that all people belonging to that First Nation have the opportunity of participating in the process of forming a government, without regard to the restrictions of the Indian Act.
The difficulty that we are facing at this time wit-h this motion is that everything that has been said is so right. Everything that has been said cannot be argued against. The validity of the proposition put forward by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal is unassailable.
We are dealing with Indian First Nations which never relinquished their autonomy to anyone. Their autonomy was taken away from them and now, a long time after that took place, it is beginning to dawn on a few of us that we made a terrible mistake and created problems that are beyond our ability to solve here in this place. If we were to put aside Budgets, transportation matters, agricultural matters and all the other matters with which we in this House deal, and if we were to give full and undivided attention to all the problems that are facing the Indian First Nations, we would exhaust ourselves with work and we would exhaust ourselves with endeavour, but we would not begin to solve the problems because we do not have the understanding and capacity to do
June 11, 1985

so. Far more important than that, we do not even have the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction belongs to the Indian First Nations themselves, and that is what Indian self-government is all about. It is about putting the problem-solving in the hands of the people who know how to solve the problems and who have never relinquished the right to deal with their own problems in their own way. We are not arguing about the principle contained within Motion No. 13 nor the ideas behind it. We are simply saying that the jurisdiction or the forum is wrong and it is the Indian First Nations themselves which should be dealing with matters of this kind.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some problems within the Liberal Party regarding where Liberal Members really stand on this issue. I was listening to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) who said that it is the right of each Indian First Nation to determine its own membership criteria.
I think that that is certainly a principle that we in the New Democratic Party would support 100 per cent. The question, however, is what constitutes a First Nation? Bill C-31 attempts to reinstate people to their proper membership in a First Nation, a membership which was unjustly denied and taken away through the action of the infamous Section 12(1)(6) of the Act.
At the beginning, I might point out that we are in support of the motion put by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). We believe that people who lost memberships unjustly should still be regarded as members of First Nations. It was an unjust Act by the Parliament of Canada that took their membership in First Nations away from them. Certainly those people who are trying to get together to reconstitute their own authority to determine their own membership, those people who were wrongly denied membership by the Parliament of Canada, should have the right to participate in this entire debate.
We must realize that we have, over the past 150 years, destroyed the institutions of the Indian people to a very great extent. The fact that they have survived is due to their persistence and durability rather than to the good intention of the Parliament of Canada. We have destroyed the accountability systems within Indian Governments. For us simply to abdicate and walk away from the situation by saying that we will grant Indian self-government is a farce. It is to act as did King Leopold of Belgium who walked away from Katanga. The example set in the Belgian Congo was one of the worst instances of colonialism that existed in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the example of Katanga was one of the worst instances of decolonialization that we have seen. We cannot decolonialize by simply walking away from the situation. I think we have a responsibility to the Indian people to make sure that when vacating the field, we leave some proper mechanism in place to ensure that the rights of ordinary people are protected. That is what the motion put by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal, Motion No. 13, attempts to do.
Motion No. 14 is similar to Motion No. 13. It suggests that when Indian peoples develop their membership criteria, there
Indian Act
shall be an appeal mechanism. The present legislation indicates that there may be an appeal mechanism. We say that such an appeal mechanism is necessary. This is not because we are dealing with Indian people but because we are dealing with human beings. It is important that we recognize that while we have a positive view of Government and believe that Government can and should be doing positive things for people, we also believe that Government should be bound by certain checks and balances. We believe there should be certain processes that give people the right of appeal.
Certainly, if people feel that they have not been properly dealt with in terms of applications for membership, they can go before the courts. However, we know that going before the courts is a very expensive and time-consuming process. It would serve the interests of all parties if, before appeals to the courts were made necessary, people who felt a sense of grievance could go before an appeal board that would be devised by the Indian First Nations. In committee, the suggestion was made by several witnesses that it could be some kind of a council of elders. This appeal mechanism would make it less necessary to go before the courts in many instances and would save time and money. I think it would work in the best interests of all concerned.
It has been pointed out that in many cases Indian bands will build in their own appeal mechanisms. I know that that is so and I have full confidence that they will do so. However, there are other situations in which this might not happen. I think it is important that there should be an appeal mechanism in place for all membership criteria so that if people feel a sense of grievance, they know what first step they can take.
I urge all Hon. Members to consider the arguments that were presented by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal in support of Motion No. 13 and to consider the arguments I presented in support of Motion No. 14 so that we may make sure that when we talk about an Indian First Nation developing membership criteria, we mean to include all members of that First Nation. On that basis, I urge the support of both Motions Nos. 13 and 14.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 13 proposed by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) would make all band members over the age of 18 eligible to vote on membership issues. This would be a uniform provision applying to all bands irrespective of their current practices with regard to voting on important band matters. We heard very forceful arguments put forward by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) and the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), and I support most if not all of the views put forward by those Hon. Members.
The over-all issue of eligibility for voting was debated at some length yesterday. Unfortunately, as was disclosed this morning, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal was not able to be present in the House for that very lively debate. Other Hon. Members will recall that the House debated and passed Motion No. 14A standing in my name. This motion enables

June 11, 1985
Indian Act
bands to have flexibility in deciding on the voting regime most suitable for their particular circumstances. I think that this approach is preferable to the restrictive approach advocated by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.
With respect to Motion No. 14, I have the following comments to make: the provisions of Bill C-31 dealing with band control of membership were only intended to be enabling provisions. There should be a minimum of statutory restrictions on how bands organize their membership activities. Motion No. 14 would make it mandatory for bands to have rules concerning a band level mechanism for appealing decisions on membership.
There is little debate on the desirability of appeal systems. However, bands should be able to determine whether such mechanisms are required or appropriate for their particular situation. A mandatory requirement to have appeal rules will be viewed as an encouragement of an area of decision-making which should and can be exercised by the bands.
During the hearings, many bands expressed the view that the Bill was overly restrictive and that the ability to make membership decisions was too confined. We trust the bands. In our view, bands will act fairly in exercising their membership function. Bands will establish formal or informal mechanisms, which will be appropriate to their particular circumstances, to ensure that membership decisions will be fair and equitable. With few exceptions, fairness has always been a part of Indian self-government. We have confidence in their ability in the very sensitive area of membership rules.
If there are isolated cases in which disputes cannot be resolved at the local level, it will still be possible to seek redress through the court system. Of course, that is an option which is available to all Canadians. Members of Indian bands can certainly use that mechanism if it is required.
Motion No. 14 is also flawed in that it would strike out an important amendment which was made during committee stage. In the amended version of the Bill, the committee agreed to include a provision that membership rules could be approved only after appropriate notice had been given of the band's intention to adopt such rules. The provision is important as it ensures that all members will have an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. The proposed amendment would delete that provision.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 13 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). I would remind the House that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 would dispose of Motion No. 14.
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.
Motion No. 13 negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 14 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.


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.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stand deferred.
The next grouping includes Motions Nos. 29 and 30A.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to withdraw Motion No. 29.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Athabasca to withdraw the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 29 withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 30A.


David Edward Crombie: Motion No. 30A
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 11
(a)	by striking out line 13 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor: "amount that exceeds one thousand dollars under paragraph I5(l)(a), as
it".
(b)	by striking out line 25 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor: "amount by which the amount that he received under paragraph".
(c)	by striking out line 29 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor: "subject-matter as that paragraph, exceeds one thousand dollars, together".
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) for withdrawing his motion.
June 11, 1985

Motion No. 30A is simply a technical motion. The Standing Committee introduced Subsection 64.1(2) into the Bill which would permit bands to deny programs financed from band funds to persons who received a per capita pay-out from band capital and revenue accounts on loss of status, until the amount of that pay-out, less $1,000, is repaid to the band, plus interest.
Subsection 64.1(1) is similar, in that it denies such persons access to current distributions of band funds to individual band members until the amount previously received is repaid, plus interest. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce into Subsection 64.1(1) the same $1,000 threshold which is included in Subsection 64.1(2). The amendment is required in order to ensure that the two parts of Section 64.1 are consistent in establishing a threshold of $1,000. I would commend the amendment to all Members of the House.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to rise in support of the amendment. However, 1 would first like to indicate how pleased 1 was when the committee initially added the original amendment to the Bill, as I believe it deals with fairness.
In cases in which band members have had to leave recently because of sections in the Act which were discriminatory, the law required that the band had to make a per capita pay-out, based on investments in both their capital and revenue accounts. The bands had no choice in the matter. They had to make the pay-out.
When making these changes to the Bill, the committee felt that there ought to be some fairness. Those individuals who withdraw from their reserve in the month or year before the Bill passes ought to return with the amount of money and assets with which they left, in order that it will be fair to the band to which they are returning. That amendment was accepted by the committee. However, during committee debates, the committee moved an amendment which indicated that we should not ask-nor would the band want to ask-the people who left 30 years ago with $10 or $15 to repay that amount, as most of the bands in Canada at that time did not have assets which amounted to a large pay-out. The committee felt that a limit should be placed on it.
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) moved such an amendment, and it was accepted by the committee. However, arguments have been put forward that the amount, which was at $5,000, was too high and would not be sustained in the courts if challenged. Therefore the amendment is now being moved to reduce that amount to $1,000. I hope that all Hon. Members will take this seriously and support this amendment so that there can be some fairness as we impose this Bill on many Indian communities.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Indian Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 30A agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next motion to be debated is Motion No. 32 in the name of the Hon. Member for Cowi-chan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


James Douglas Manly: Motion No. 32
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 10 and 11 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"(p.l) the residence of persons who are not members of the Band;".
He said: Mr. Speaker, Clause 15 of Bill C-31 recognizes new powers of band councils in Section 81 of the Indian Act, including Subsection (p)(l), the right to make by-laws regarding "the residence of band members and other persons on the reserve." I do not believe that any Government should have the right to decide whether or not its citizens can reside within their own territory. Basically, that is what the present legislation does. Section 81(g), (h) and (/') of the Indian Act already recognizes the powers of band councils to make laws respecting zoning, construction and land allotment. This gives band councils the right to make necessary regulations regarding where people are going to live and properly to allocate reserve lands.
However, that is quite different from giving band councils the right to determine basic residency rights for their own members. Last year the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada reached a consensus that band councils should have the right to determine the residency of non-Indian spouses and other non-Indian people on reserves, and I support that right. I do not think that band councils should have the right to make basic decisions about whether or not band members should reside on reserves, i think that that is a right of band members which should underlie any rights of band councils.
This becomes particularly important in light of the fact that the House has just finished rejecting Motions Nos. 13 and 17 which would have ensured that even non-residents would be able to participate in developing membership criteria. The House has voted against that. I believe it was a wrong decision on the part of the House, but the House has done so and we must accept it. However, that means that it is up to band councils to determine whether or not some of these people who have been reinstated are going to be able to take part in elections. It is going to be up to band councils to determine basic residency. I do not believe that this is a right which band councils should have because I feel it is a fundamental right of Indian people who belong to a band to be able to reside on the reserve of that band. This amendment would recognize the proper right of a band council to make provision for regulations for the residents of persons who are not members of the band. I urge the adoption of this motion.

June 11, 1985
Indian Act


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a couple of remarks. I think the motion is socialism in its purest form. Someone could jump in a car and say, "I'm going to move back on to the reserve", if the band has no control over membership. We are only giving them in this Bill the same control that the people in Ottawa or Edmonton have over who lives within the community. They may not control it directly, but they control it by by-law. One cannot, for example, move a house trailer on to a lot, even though one owns it, if it is in the middle of downtown Ottawa or in a suburban development of Mount Royal. One cannot move a mobile home there if that is what one wants to do. We are controlled by by-laws on our residency requirements in these various areas.
All city councils and town councils have the right to make by-laws to determine how and where one is going to live within the community. The Hon. Member's Motion No. 32 would give the absolute right not to the collective membership to control what happens on the reserve but to the individual. To me, this would result in chaos because anyone would have the absolute right to move on to the reserve and pitch a tent, a teepee, live in an abandoned truck or whatever, with no thought to the orderly development of the reserve. That is why I could never support this motion. It borders on the ridiculous.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here in utter astonishment as I listened to what the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) had to say. The Act already provides the power to band councils to divide the reserve, or a portion thereof, into zones and to prohibit the construction or maintenance of any class of buildings or the carrying on of any class of business, trade or calling in any such zone. That is from Section 81(g). The Hon. Member's argument that what my friend, the Hon. Member for Cowi-chan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), is proposing is a socialist measure, I find utterly astonishing. I do not know how the Hon. Member for Athabasca, who regards himself as the defender of the right of individuals, can suggest that city Governments are involved in determining who can live within their borders when they decide what sorts of dwellings people are going to have. That is quite incredible.
Surely, in this country we prize our right to move about. We do not, as is true in many European countries, believe that one needs to register with the police when one arrives in a city or town so that the police know that one is there even as a visitor. We prize the right to move about. It is surely a fundamental liberty which Conservatives generally, I believe, defend, and certainly it is important to we New Democrats. That is why my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, is proposing that the Act specifically provide for the right to be resident on the reserve.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the House to reject out of hand the argument made by the Hon. Member for Athabasca. It is simply ridiculous.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this particular motion. First, I do not
agree with the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) which would restrict the application of band by-laws concerning residence to persons who are not members of the band. I really feel that probably we are not in that much disagreement on this issue. However, in my view, the suggested change would seriously and unnecessarily restrict the powers and responsibilities which should legitimately be vested with band councils. In fact, the Bill, as presently drafted, recognizes the long standing informal power of bands to regulate residence of all people living on the reserve.
As the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) said, control over residence is essential if bands are to ensure orderly and effective planning and development of their communities and the smooth integration of new and restored band members. Concerns have been expressed that the current provision in the Bill might be used arbitrarily to restrict people, whether existing or restored band members, from living on the reserve. I would like to assure my colleagues that this is indeed not the intention of the provision. Personally, I do not believe it will be used in that way. Rather, it is a simple way of ensuring that communities can control residence in the best interests of the total community.
As we know, the bands must make decisions on community services, infrastructure, housing and education. By-law powers over residence will enable bands to co-ordinate such decisions with the actual flow of people back to the reserve and ensure that existing conditions of over-crowding or over-taxed facilities are not made worse. Recognizing control over residence as a by-law power merely confirms a long-standing and accepted practice. At present, most bands already control residence through their ability to control allocation of land and housing, and through a process of arriving at a group consensus on the pace and direction of development. The adoption of the proposed motion would needlessly restrict such band authority. Formalizing residence control in a by-law should also make the system fairer because it will make the rules more explicit. At present, control is exercised informally and rules are not explicit. With by-laws in place, individuals will have a much clearer picture of what rules are being used to regulate residence. If the rules are unfair, they can also be attacked more easily.
Therefore, I believe this motion is not in the best interests of the Indian bands and I urge my colleagues and all Hon. Members to vote against it.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few remarks to those of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). I think she outlined the situation very eloquently and properly. I think the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) will recognize that there is one other difficulty, that is, that on most, if not all, reserves in this country there is a shortage of housing and a shortage of the capital to build that housing. In most of these communities there is a long list of people waiting for a
June 11, 1985

residence on the reserve. In fact, in most communities there is crowding in the existing housing. Even though the bands have been fair in providing housing on the reserves, to then impose on the community additional residents who would have the right to move directly on to the reservation would cause chaos in most bands. What we are attempting to do in this clause is to offer the bands a fundamental right, one which exists across Canada, to an orderly and well-planned system which is fair to the people who live in the community.
Many of us in committee who examined this question have said it is right and proper that those people presently on a waiting list ought to be looked after as quickly as possible by the Government and the band before the new residents move in and put themselves on the list. This clause as it now stands allows that right to the band chief and council, and I think that is very important. So I would reject this amendment as well.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 32. 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.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next grouping includes Motions Nos. 33 and 33A.


Jack Wendele Shields: Motion No. 33
That Bill C-31, be amended by adding immediately after line 22 at page 17 the following:
"15.1(1) Paragraph 81 (r) of the said Act is repealed and the following
substituted therefor:
"(r) the imposition on summary conviction of a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding thirty days, or both, for violation of a by-law made under this section.
(2)	Section 81 of the said Act is renumbered as subsection 81(1).
(3)	Section 81 of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the
following subsections:
(2)	Where any by-law of a band is contravened and a conviction entered, in addition to any other remedy and to any penalty imposed by the by-law, the court in which the conviction has been entered, and any court of competent jurisdiction thereafter, may make an order prohibiting the continuation or repetition of the offence by the person convicted.
Indian Act
(3)	Where any by-law of a band passed is contravened, in addition to any other remedy and to any penalty imposed by the by-law, such contravention may be restrained by action at the instance of the band council."
15.2 Section 82(2) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) A by-law made under section 81 comes into force 40 days after a copy thereof is forwarded to the Minister pursuant to subsection (1) but the Minister may declare the by-law to be in force at any time before the expiration of that period."."


David Edward Crombie: 
&quot;OFFENCES&quot;
[Stage Direction]
18.	Subsection 103(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"103. (1) Whenever a peace officer, a superintendent or a person authorized by the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that an offence against section 33, 85.1, 90 or 93 has been committed, he may seize all goods and chattels by means of or in relation to which he believes on reasonable grounds the offence was committed."
(б)	and renumbering the subsequent Clauses accordingly.
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: 
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 33 would amend Bill C-31 to accomplish three particular objec-

June 11, 1985
Indian Act
tives. First, it would increase the maximum fine for breach of a band by-law from $100 to $1,000. Second, it would create a power to enforce by-laws in the courts identical to that given to all towns and municipalities in many provinces, including Ontario. You will understand in a moment why I underline Ontario. Finally, it would remove the power presently enjoyed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) to veto legal and valid band by-laws.
Under Section 81 of the present Act, bands have a power similar to towns and municipalities elsewhere in Canada to enact by-laws over a great number of matters, including traffic, zoning and construction, residential health, regulation of business concerns, and the preservation of wildlife on reserve lands. Section 81 (r) of the present Act provides that the maximum Fine for breaching a band by-law is $100. This is obviously inadequate, thus the proposed amendment would leave Section 81 (4) as it is except for the replacement of the words "one hundred" with the words "one thousand".
The second part of the amendment would give to bands the power to seek injunctions from the courts where their by-laws have been breached. The proposed amendments, which would add new Subsections 81(2) and (3), are taken word for word from Ontario's Municipal Act, with which the Minister is most familiar. Let me say as an aside, that I think the Minister, when he was mayor of the City of Toronto, helped push this through to Queen's Park. I am given to understand that, indeed, he may have had some involvement in obtaining these amendments from the Ontario Legislature to assist municipal Government in Toronto, and he would therefore understand why these powers are necessary for the bands. It is impractical for the bands to be laying charges every day when there is a persistent violation of the by-laws. These by-law making powers would apply to all bands and would reinforce band control over band matters, which is one of the principles of the Bill and something dear to my heart.
Finally, the new Subsection 82(2) would delete the present power of the Minister to disallow valid band by-laws. I emphasize that, at present, even if a band makes a perfectly legal and completely valid by-law, the Minister has an unfettered discretion to veto it. With the amendment, we will still allow the Minister to have some say in that area. The amendment would also apply to all bands and would reinforce the principle of band control.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair rules that the amendment to Motion No. 33 moved by the Hon. Member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. MacDougall) is in order.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak with respect to Motion No. 33 and the amendment, as well as to Motion No. 33A, which deals with an entirely different matter, but the two are grouped for purposes of debate and the vote.
I am pleased to speak in favour of Motion 33, subject to the subamendment moved by the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall). This motion will very clearly strengthen the power of the bands to enforce their own by-laws. This was not included in the original Bill, but all Members who have dealt with this at the committee level understand the importance of the motion of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). The motion will strengthen the power of the bands by raising the maximum fine for violation of by-laws from $100 to $1,000. That is only reasonable given the fact that the original $100 was fixed in the 1950s. It will strengthen the power of bands to enforce their by-laws by permitting court orders to be sought to prevent the continued violation of band by-laws.
Anyone who understands the administration of Indian communities at the band level understands the frustration of by-laws being continually broken while bands are unable to enforce them. Increasing the fine to $1,000 and giving bands the power to apply to the court for injunctions in order to stop the continued violation of the by-laws is clearly in the interest of bands. It clearly ought to have the support of all Hon. Members.
I am pleased with the subamendment as well, Mr. Speaker, because it was impossible for me to agree to that part of the original motion which would have done away with the Minister's power of disallowance regarding certain by-laws. Given the normal understanding of how we ought to proceed with Indian self-government, I would have liked to agree to that, but at this time, and within the context of this Bill, it seemed to me inadvisable. It is an awkward power for the Minister to have, but in some cases, in the interest of everyone, it may be necessary. That is why I did not want to have that power cut out at this point within the context of this Bill. I am very pleased with the good work done by the Hon. Member for Athabasca. I urge all Members to support Motion No. 33 as amended.
I will now turn to an entirely different matter. It relates to by-laws but the subject matter is of greater moment and immediacy. I would like to take this opportunity to deal with a matter that has come up which is of pressing concern to Indian communities across the country. I would like to deal with the issue of the use of intoxicants on reserves.
Several recent court decisions in Manitoba have brought into doubt the validity of key sections in the Indian Act which deal with intoxication. The sections may contravene both the Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many bands, particularly those in remote areas, are very concerned that if these sections are not valid, they will have no means to control the serious alcohol problems which unfortunately exist on many reserves.
These motions are intended to give bands the means to control this serious problem in a way that is consistent with both the Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We cannot wait for the outcome of appeals on these court cases as in the interim, during which prohibition could
June 11, 1985

be effectively lifted, several years could elapse. The result could be devastating for certain Indian communities.
Motion 33A would enable band councils, subject to the approval of band electors at a special meeting, to prohibit the sale, barter, supply or manufacture of intoxicants on reserves; the state of intoxication on reserves; or the possession of intoxicants on reserves. The by-laws could also provide for exceptions to the prohibitions on intoxication or possession of intoxicants. These exceptions could deal with such cases as medicinal use of alcohol, transportation of unopened bottles across reserves, intoxication in a private house, or consumption on special holidays.
This new provision would replace Sections 94 to 100 of the current Act. These sections established prohibition on reserves unless a band explicitly decided by referendum to go "wet" under provincial law. At present, only about half of the bands have decided to go "wet". By putting this new by-law power outside of Section 81 of the Indian Act, any by-laws adopted by bands would not be subject to disallowance. Bands would be required to forward a copy to the Minister, but this is only intended to facilitate registration under the Statutory Instruments Act, a condition which must be met if prosecutions are to be valid.
Clause 16 requires that such by-laws have the consent of the majority of electors voting at a special meeting. This preserves the concept of community approval in the present Indian Act whereby switches from "dry" to "wet" require band consent, although now consent will be needed to shift in the other direction, from "wet" to "dry". This reversal arises since, with the repeal of Sections 94 to 100, it is assumed that provincial laws, normally "wet", will apply unless by-laws are enacted.
Subsection (4) establishes penalties to replace those eliminated by repealing Sections 94 to 100. A distinction is made in the severity of the minimum penalties between offences against the prohibition on access where the person providing the intoxicant deserves a strong penalty and likely can afford to pay, and offences against the prohibitions on possession or intoxication where the person charged is likely to be poor and unable to pay. The actual amounts, $1,000 and $100 max-imums, are based on the fines in the present Act of $300 and $50, adjusted to take account of inflation. The summary conviction method of prosecution is retained to facilitate expeditious handling of cases.
Clause 18 amends Section 103 to clarify that intoxicants or other property related to offences against by-laws passed under Section 85.1 can be seized. Warrants will still be required under Subsection 103(9)(4) to conduct searches related to the offences.
The by-law power of new Clause 16 would come into force with the rest of Bill C-31. Motion 42 would delay the repeal or amendment of the existing Indian Act provisions for a period of six months. This will allow time for bands to develop band by-laws to replace the provisions of the Indian Act which are to be repealed. In Manitoba, interested band by-laws could be implemented shortly after Bill C-31 passes. Many bands, especially those in Manitoba which are directly affected, as
Indian Act
well as the Attorney General of Manitoba, have urged prompt federal action on this problem. I am pleased that we can take advantage of the present deliberations on Bill C-31 to plug this very large hole which now exists in the Indian Act.
That is the technical aspect which I wanted to emphasize with respect to Motion No. 33A. The bands, chiefs, and council members who have been in touch wijh me are very concerned. I hope that we will have no difficulty in getting this part of Bill C-31 passed. It is important that it be passed as soon as possible.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate the amendment to Motion No. 33A proposed by the Minister and to commend the Minister for responding to a very serious concern arising as a result of the decision of the Manitoba court.
I would like to raise a matter about the terms in which the Minister is proposing to respond to the Manitoba decision, which I hope he will take into consideration before moving forward. My concern is with respect to the proposed power of the Act under Section 103 as set out in paragraph 18 of Motion No. 33A. That would permit a peace officer, a superintendent, or a person authorized by the Minister to seize goods and chattels with respect to this particular offence.
Section 103 of the existing Act provides a power with respect to Section 97, the relevant section in the current Indian Act, in virtually identical terms. It allows for seizure under a number of sections in the proposed Act. I want to draw to the Minister's attention that, while this particular amendment seeks to respond to a decision of the Manitoba court on the Charter of Rights, I believe the proposal in Section 103 itself is in breach of the provisions of the Charter of Rights. I ask that the Minister consider very seriously the concern in this regard.
As it stands now, the Charter of Rights requires that search and seizure provisions be reasonable, and I refer Members to Section 8 of the Charter of Rights. This provision was recently interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hunter and Southam. As a result of that interpretation, the Minister's colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), brought before the House Bill C-27. This Bill, among other things proposed a series of amendments to search and seizure provisions in a number of federal statutes. This provision, Section 103, was not touched by the Minister of Justice's proposed amendments in Bill C-27, presumably because it was felt that it was more appropriately addressed in the context of Bill C-31.
I want to draw to the Minister's attention the fact that, as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Hunter and Southam, a provision such as this, which allows for a seizure to take place without any warrant whatever, at any time whatever, falls far short of the standards which are set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would also note, Mr. Speaker, that the provisions of the Criminal Code

June 11, 1985
Indian Act
may be relevant here. An amendment proposed in Bill C-18 may make this provision inoperative, that is, an amendment to the seizure provisions in Section 443 of the Criminal Code. I want to note specifically the concerns with respect to this proposed Section 103 in a number of respects, and I am relying upon the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Hunter and Southam that established the standards which were then used to amend other federal legislation in the search and seizure area.
First, there is no requirement whatever in this provision to obtain a warrant. As it stands now, as long as there are reasonable grounds, a police officer can go on the property of the individual in question and seize goods without any warrant at all. Under the provisions of the Charter, such a search and seizure would, in my view, be clearly struck down as being unreasonable. There is no warrant requirement at all. The only circumstances in which a warrant may not be required are circumstances in which there might be a danger to human life, society or loss or destruction of evidence. In those special circumstances, a warrant can be dispensed with. This particular provision allows for a seizure in all circumstances whenever there is a suspicion of an offence.
What is a typical amendment made to other legislation? First, let us take one example from Bill C-27, the amendment of the seizure provisions of the Customs Act. That amendment provides that there must be a warrant issued where there are reasonable grounds. The only circumstances in which a warrant can be dispensed with are clearly set out. Those are the circumstances to which I referred earlier.
Second, the section requires that the warrant be executed at a reasonable time. There is no provision whatever in Section 103 as to when the warrant might be executed. Once again, that provision is unreasonable in that respect.
I would urge the Minister to reconsider this section. Certainly I think all sides of the House agree that there has to be a response, and a speedy response, to the Manitoba court decision which could lead to very serious problems were this Parliament not to move forward quickly. I ask that the Minister consider standing this provision in order that perhaps there might be an amendment brought forward similar to the amendments brought forward to other legislation dealing with search and seizure provisions to deal with those two basic concerns. First, there should be a warrant requirement for a seizure, unless the circumstances are such that a warrant is not appropriate, and that is again contained in the terms set out in Bill C-27. Second, the warrant should be executed at a reasonable time, not at any time.
I would appeal to the Minister to stand this particular clause in order to review the provisions that have been brought in with respect to other search and seizure provisions in other legislation flowing from the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Hunter and Southam. If that is not done, then we may be responding, ironically enough, to one Charter challenge by including a provision that is wide open to challenge as well, and the Minister may just have to come back before the House to make the amendments which, I submit, we should be
making now to ensure that Section 8 of the Charter is respected in this Bill.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises an important issue. However, the cases mentioned relate to search. Section 103(4) already requires a warrant to conduct such a search. I will read Section 103(4):
(4)	A justice who is satisfied by information upon oath that there is reasonable ground to believe that there are upon a reserve or in any building, receptacle or place any goods or chattels by means of or in relation to which an offence against any of the sections mentioned in subsection (1) has been, is being or is about to be committed, may at any time issue a warrant under his hand authorizing a person named therein or a peace officer at any time to search the reserve, building, receptacle or place for any such goods or chattels.
Therefore, there is no need to deal with this matter in Motion 33A. There will be no problem under the Charter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Minister to speak again?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I knew that my friend, the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) was going to speak to the matter. I simply wanted to assure those who have raised the concern, and I appreciate their raising it, that I checked the matter to make sure it was consistent with our understanding of any challenge under the Charter, as I have with other parts of the legislation. I was assured that we had no difficulty with respect to the Charter in so far as our wisdom could take us in determining it.
Second, I understand the general argument which the Hon. Member has made, not only concerning this Bill but in other forms and on other occasions and other Bills. I did not want to have to move in the whole freight of that argument to deal with what is a decision that needs to be made now. That is why I took the route of saying, "This is what we need to do. Will it offend the Charter?" The answer was no.
I appreciate the Hon. Member's bringing the matter forward. I think the Hon. Member for Erie has supported the legal view that we have. In my own view, I think it is necessary not only that we not stand the item but that we proceed with it as fast as we can, given the fact that, according to the best wisdom possible, we are consistent with our obligations concerning the Charter.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments on this entire section. First, I welcome Motion No. 33 in the name of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). This recognizes more power on the part of band councils to enforce by-laws. I think any of us who have dealt with Indian bands are aware of the great frustrations that bands feel in having to make by-laws and then finding they have virtually no power to enforce them. This gives band councils the right to seek some kind of court action and provide for stiffer fines.
Again, I think we will all recognize that this is a partial measure. What we really need is for a broad recognition of the
June 11, 1985

powers of band councils and Indian Governments far beyond Section 81 of the Indian Act. I think it is important to take this one step, and I am pleased to support that motion.
With regard to Motion No. 33A concerning the alcohol problem I should like to make some comments. Of course, this is one of the key problems which has existed between Indian and non-Indian people since the time of first contact. There has always been a fine line between discrimination and the rights of Indian people to protect themselves from the ravages of alcohol. I first became aware of this problem as a United Church minister in British Columbia, where we were lobbied very extensively by groups such as the Native Brotherhood. They protested against discriminatory sections which prohibited them from having, purchasing, being in possession of or consuming alcohol. I came at the problem from a slightly different perspective some years ago than it is being approached right now. Some Indian bands in Canada see protection from alcohol as a basic treaty right. When the Manitoba courts struck down the sections dealing with alcohol in the Act as a contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, many people urged the Minister to act with some speed. Certainly I was one of those who wanted to see some action.
At the same time, some concern has been expressed about the way in which the resolution was brought forward. To be fair to the Minister, he checked with me beforehand, but since then people have raised concerns. I would like to share one concern with the House, the fear of some Indian bands that by repealing Sections Nos. 94 to 100 of the Indian Act, the federal Government is in effect vacating the field and leaving it open to provincial incursion. If there is one area of Indian affairs about which Indian bands are most sensitive, as the Minister knows, it is the opening up of the Indian reserves to greater provincial incursion. We have a problem in this regard. Some Indian bands want reserves to be completely dry, and this amendment gives them that power. I hope it will be effective. However, what alternatives are there to total prohibition? What rights do band councils have to regulate, for example, the sale of alcohol, except by coming under the jurisdiction of the provinces?
On that basis, I should like to move a subamendment-and 1 would ask the House to support it-which reads as follows: That Motion No. 33A be amended in lines 9 and 10 to read:
(a) prohibiting the barter, supply or manufacture of intoxicants on the reserve of the band and prohibiting or regulating the sale of intoxicants on the reserve of the band;
By way of explanation, this means that in addition to band councils having the power to prohibit the manufacture, barter and so on of intoxicants, they also have the right to regulate their sale. This will formulize what is already taking place where some Indian bands want the power to regulate the sale of intoxicants. Certainly we are not talking about the manufacture of intoxicants as being something which should be regulated by Indian bands at the present time. Perhaps with Indian self-government, that is something at which we should
Indian Act
look. Even in 1985, even before we have moved to full-scale Indian self-government, we should recognize the right of Indian bands to regulate the sale of alcohol on their lands as well as to prohibit it completely.
Mr. Crombie*. Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to look at the actual wording of the subamendment of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). I heard his words, and I think I understood his intent.
I would like to stand the amendment over until after we resume debate following Question Period, which would provide me with an opportunity to assess its impact and whether it would assist us in trying to deal with the problem currently experienced by Indian communities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). The Chair rules that the amendment is in order. Shall I call it one o'clock, or is the House ready for the question?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the motion be stood over, so that 1 could read the subamendment of the Hon. Member.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps we could call it one o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, just for the purpose of clarification, did Your Honour make a ruling on the amendment to the amendment of the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Mac-Dougall)? Is it found to be in order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The amendment of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands is to Motion No. 33A, and the amendment of the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) is to Motion No. 33.


B. Keith Penner: I understood that the additional amendment was to Motion No. 33. You said that you would look at it, Mr. Speaker, and I was just wondering whether you reached a decision on it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, the ruling was given. The amendment of the Hon. Member for Timiskaming to Motion No. 33 is in order, as is the amendment of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands to Motion No. 33A. May I call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.

June 11, 1985


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the May 23 Budget brought down by the Government is bitter medicine for eastern Canada. When the Members from the Atlantic provinces toured the region last week, we heard from angry and frustrated Canadians, people who have less money in their pockets because of the Budget. Farmers say higher gas taxes and user fees for potato inspection will force farmers off the land. They are also afraid that the Maritime Feed Freight Assistance Program will be reduced or eliminated.
Tourist operators are scared of higher ferry rates, increased National Park fees, higher taxes on gas, cigarettes, and alcohol. They say that they will be operating in the red by the end of the season.
Fishermen are still smarting from a cut of $40 million last fall. How will a further reduction of $25 million affect their business? Fisheries research and development programs need more money. Programs for small craft harbours and vessel subsidies need more money, not less.
P.E.I. has the highest rate per capita of senior citizens in the country. They are not standing for deindexing; they are fighting back. The three Atlantic Tory Premiers agree with those people. They agree that the Maritimes got the short end of the stick in the Budget. They said so at the Council of Maritime Premiers' meeting held yesterday and today in Prince Edward Island.
It is time for the Members on the government side to stand up and speak in their caucus, to speak in the House and tell the Government that they will no longer tolerate the shabby treatment Atlantic Canadians are getting from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, the Government must come clean on aid for White Farm Equipment Ltd. For weeks the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) has avoided direct questions on this issue with assurances about consultation and private sector Financing. There has been little concrete action, and the June 14 deadline is fast approaching.
If the Minister has arranged private sector financing, let him say so today. If none is available, he should announce that the Government is prepared to step in with loan guarantees.
The Minister has heard the president of White Farm Equipment Ltd. put his case. The financial picture is clear. He need not consult further with the workers. They have demonstrated full support for Mr. Sinclair, the president. He does not have to discuss the matter with small business. All suppliers have told him White Farm is vital to their health. He need not consult Members of this House. Many have sent letters to the Minister urging support for White Farm Equipment.
What are we waiting for? The Minister must simply make his recommendation to Cabinet, and the Government must demonstrate the political will to save those jobs. I ask him to consider this. White Farm is a Canadian company. It does research and development in Canada. White Farm's Canadian workers are bringing new technology into production. Even a depressed market has seen the value of White Farm's new products increase its market share. That is a Canadian success story that the Government must continue to support.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, last month, after a dark year and a half searching for a job, a virtually penniless constituent of mine was brightened by a job offer on a construction site in London. When he reported for his first day on the job, it was apparent that he was not wearing work boots. He was sent home, and his job was put in jeopardy.
A new pair of steel-toed work boots is an expensive proposition for an unemployed worker. The House may be wondering why I am recounting this story this afternoon. I want to share it with my colleagues because there is a solution to this problem as developed by an organization in my riding, called the Unemployed Help Centre.
This non-profit organization has established a work boot depository that makes used work boots available to those in need, for use on their new jobs. The initial reserve was generated by labour councils and others who contributed used work boots. This unique program has proved to be very useful in London. I am certain that it would be similarly useful elsewhere, and I would like to commend it to this House and encourage my colleagues to establish similar programs in their constituencies.
June 11, 1985



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Quebec City, I witnessed the signing of the Canada-Quebec Subsidiary Agreement on Scientific and Technological Development, with the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon), and for Quebec, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson and the Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology, Mr. Yves Berube.
The five-year $100 million agreeemnt is aimed at stimulating scientific and technological development and the attendant jobs in Quebec and facilitating coordination of efforts at both levels of government, with particular emphasis on implementing projects of strategic value for Canada and Quebec.
The signing of this agreement comes at a particularly important time, after the new federal Budget which emphasizes technological development and innovative projects in order to spur economic growth.
Government representatives jointly stressed the importance of the consensus reached on management of the Institut d'optique et de laser located in Sainte-Foy, in my riding.
The subsidiary agreement contains provisions concerning the conversion of the Institute into an independent enterprise, managed by a board of directors whose members will be mostly recruited from the private sector.
1 must say I am extremely happy with the signing of this agreement, because it will undoubtedly be very-


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



OLD AGE SECURITY


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want all Members of this House to know exactly what kind of senior citizens this Progressive Conservative Government is asking to make sacrifices and to submit to cuts in their Old Age Security pensions.
First of all, these are all people who were born before 1920. They grew up during the Depression. They got married and raised children and sent them to school at a time when education was not free. They are all parents, fathers and mothers, who had to pay for medical care for their children at a time when health insurance and hospital insurance were non-existent. These are people who are still making sacrifices
to remain independent and avoid being a burden to their children and who are living in their own homes. These are all people who helped build our country.
Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party say no to the sacrifice the Progressive Conservative Government wants to impose on our elderly. We in the Liberal Party say: we are going to fight this Government to ensure that our elderly get the social justice to which they are entitled.



DISARMAMENT


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Women's International Peace Conference which ended in Halifax this past weekend called for significant initiatives in advancing world peace. The official statement issued at the end of the conference calls for a comprehensive test ban treaty, an end to research, testing, development, and deployment of all weapons of mass destruction, and an end to the militarization of space.
At this time of foreign policy review, a peace statement which reflects the views of many Canadians deserves strong support from the Government. A telex of the official statement has gone to the Prime Minister's Office and a Conservative Member of Parliament in attendance at the conference has also brought him a copy. I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to use his good relations with Soviet Leader Gorbachev and President Reagan to press them to negotiate in good faith. I urge him to take decisive action in stopping Canada's participation in the testing of Cruise missiles over Canadian territory. I urge him to act on the opposition of most Canadians to Canada's participation in President Reagan's star wars program.
The Women's Conference in Halifax gives us hope that reason will prevail in the international power play. The Canadian Government must take the hope this statement expresses, and act decisively.



TRIBUTE TO EDMONTON OILERS, STANLEY CUP HOCKEY CHAMPIONS

Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, Edmonton, my home city, has produced superb championship sports teams. In an earlier era, the Edmonton Grads were the world's best women's basketball team, and for 25 consecutive years most players were from Edmonton, and they were amateurs.
In recent times, the Edmonton Eskimos reigned supreme in the Canadian Football League, winning the coveted Grey Cup
5634

June 11, 1985
five consecutive years, an unprecedented record, and a number of players were from Edmonton. On Thursday, May 30, the Edmonton Oilers won the Stanley Cup for the second year in a row. Last fall eight Oilers played on Canada's victorious team for the 1984 Canada Cup, considered to be the world championship.
For championship teams, Edmonton has an unequalled record. The Edmonton Oilers have Wayne Gretzky, the acknowledged "world's" best hockey player. A number of other players are considered to be in the superb class. Naturally, we have a few players native to Edmonton.
The Oilers' excellence is due to a combination of good business and team work. The general manager and coach, Glen Sather, must be given credit for assembling and fusing these excellent hockey players into a team of such excellence that they are forging a completely new dimension of hockey in North America, and, indeed, the world.
Peter Pocklington, owner and entrepreneur, is responsible for the Edmonton Oilers, and made it all happen. The City of Edmonton continues to represent the very best in Canadian sports, and that has been recognized around the world.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend once again, in the Montreal Region, two heinous crimes were perpetrated on young people, including one girl from Longueuil who was raped and murdered and a five-year old child from Ville Emard who was sexually assaulted and fatally beaten, and whose body was found in my riding. A few weeks ago, an elderly couple was murdered for the sake of $70, and in the last few months, many more such murders have been committed.
Mr. Speaker, it has become very urgent to re-open the debate on capital punishment in Canada, and I am addressing these words especially to my colleagues, the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), in the hope that the Government will table, as soon as possible, a bill to restore capital punishment in Canada.
Although some people tend to say that bringing back capital punishment would be a return to barbarism, I wonder whether they feel the same way about the perpetrators of these foul murders. Imagine, sexually assaulting a defenceless five-year old child and beating it to death. It is too horrible for words. If that is not barbaric, I wonder what is.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the police will manage to arrest the murderers so they can be brought to trial and
sentenced. As for the victims' families, I offer them my sincere sympathy.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, last Friday in Toronto, Senator Kennedy acknowledged a longstanding problem in his address to the Canadian Acid Rain Coalition. The problem he recognized is that the utilities and other powerful interests in the United States are determined to block congressional action on the problem of acid rain. Senator Kennedy also recognized the appointment of two special envoys on acid rain for what it really is, a delaying tactic. Kennedy sees little purpose in having two individuals conduct yet another study to determine if there is an acid rain problem.
While waiting for envoys to deliver the impossible, because they have no political clout, our forests, fisheries, lakes, buildings, and structures continue to suffer from the damaging effects of acid rain. Instead of waiting, the Government should take an active role in urging Canada's friends and allies to exert pressure on the United States between now and July 30 when, in Helsinki, 20 countries will sign an agreement to reduce acid rain emissions by a minimum of 30 per cent by 1993. It should be the highest priority of the Canadian Government to do everything in its power to ensure that the United States joins us and the other 20 nations in signing that agreement in Helsinki next month.



FINANCE


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, a person who owns a Registered Retirement Savings Plan is entitled at any time until the age of 71 to cash in that plan, pay the tax on it, and use the money in any way he wants. Indeed, people have used Registered Retirement Savings to enjoy a sabbatical, to put together money to purchase a business, or for any other purpose they had in mind. However, when a person attains the age of 71, Big Brother steps in. For some reason the Government has treated those with Retirement Savings Plans who reach the age of 71 as nincompoops, as incompetents, and as having the management ability of an infant child.
By edict, the Government demands that anyone who has a Registered Retirement Savings Plan must either convert the plan and purchase an annuity from a life insurance company or, in the alternative, enter into a Registered Investment Fund arrangement with a trust company, when he reaches 71. We trust people to save their own money until they reach the age
June 11, 1985

of 71. However, when they turn 71, all of a sudden treat we them as second-class citizens.
I call on the Government to change immediately the provisions of the Income Tax Act, to allow those over the age of 71 the right to continue to manage their Registered Retirement Savings Plans as they wish, to invest as they wish, to withdraw money as they wish and as they need, and, in short, to have the same freedom as the rest of us.



HOUSING


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the seeming demise of the RRAP program is causing considerable concern to municipal governments across Canada. Mayor Dick Spencer of Prince Albert has written:
Not only has the RRAP program been a considerable benefit to the home owners whose accommodation has been upgraded, but it has had substantial impact on the small business construction industry. The program has enabled many people on low incomes, senior citizens, and working families, to maintain their homes and remain in them. We have canvassed our community and find a continuing need for this assistance, and are concerned that it might be further reduced or eliminated. Our allocation has dropped from a high of over $1,000,000 in 1977 to $280,000 in 1984, and $170,000 in 1985.
Mayor Spencer goes on to say:
Housing is one of the vital sectors of our economy and so directly significant to the citizens of this country. We believe adequate housing is a fundamental right and this program has assisted to achieve that objective through direct senior government intervention to the home owner.
We call upon the Government to increase RRAP funding to its previous high levels. The program's socio-economic benefits will far outweigh its costs.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question this afternoon is for the Minister of Finance who, on the CBC this morning, told us that he might consider the creation of indexed bonds for investors. I wonder if he could explain to the House and the Canadian people the rationale or logic that exists in his mind behind giving investors protection against inflation for investment income, while at the same time depriving those Canadians who depend on Old Age Security of full indexation to protect their incomes.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should ask the Hon. Member to discuss that matter with his Leader. Last August, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that this was the way to save money in interest costs.
Oral Questions
I would point out to the Hon. Member that today we are paying between 10 per cent and 11 per cent on normal bonds. There are some people who suggest that we could issue indexed bonds at rates of 7 per cent to 8 per cent. We are exploring this as a possibility and, if it proves to be a way of saving money, perhaps it is something we will do.


PENSIONS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Minister has to reach into the Liberal platform for the first fresh idea he has provided the House. The proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister was not to deindex at the same time the incomes of those Canadians who were surviving on Old Age Security payments.
I am sure the Minister of Finance will correct me if I do not paraphrase him correctly, but I believe the Prime Minister said yesterday that he would monitor the situation and that, as resources became available, he would monitor those resources and establish full indexation if that were possible. He would no longer be monitoring hardship but would be monitoring resources. I wonder if the Minister of Finance would be able to tell us that this is not arbitrary, and what level of growth beyond that which is in his Budget is necessary, in his mind, in order to establish full indexation for the beneficiaries of Old Age Security.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in two places the Budget said that we would be monitoring not only the performance of the economy and the financial performance of the Government of Canada but also the impact on elderly people. It indicated that, if resources permit, we will take the opportunity to enhance these programs. That is something that we have to watch carefully as time goes by, before we make a decision.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare could defuzzify that response for us. We know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is interested in re-establishing full indexation as quickly as possible. In view of the statements he has made in the House, could he tell us what level of projected growth must be reached before he will insist to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister that full indexation be established? It is important that the elderly poor know that this figure is not arbitrary but that targets have been established, targets to which the Government will adhere.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member feels that

June 11, 1985
Oral Questions
growth in the economy is now possible, and that the direction has been set in which growth can be maintained, sustained, and developed. I am pleased that he has accepted that. What I would say to him, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, is that we are monitoring the situation. I said that the situation would be monitored and that the Government would make a decision in the light of those statistics as they become available.


REQUEST THAT BUDGET MEASURE BE RESCINDED
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate day when the Prime Minister accuses anyone in the country who is opposed to the OAS reductions of promoting class warfare. Whether or not he knows it, that is an insult to the 2.5 million senior citizens who are opposed to those reductions.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Given that the Atlantic Liberal caucus, during the last week, heard from senior citizens in Atlantic Canada, who, in their own words, are normally calm, moderate intelligent and mature, and given that those same senior citizens have described the Budget as immoral, indecent, dishonest-and to use a new buzzword, it stinks-is the Minister of Finance prepared to accept the reality that senior citizens do not support this measure? Will he reverse these Draconian measures which will increase an already unacceptably high number of senior citizens who live at or below the poverty line?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member, when he was meeting with the senior citizens and others in Atlantic Canada, whether he set out very clearly the over-all thrust of the Budget, which is to create jobs through the private sector, to reinforce the clear record of success which we have had. Since September 4,
271,000	jobs have been created.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Allmand:: But we still have 10.5 per cent unemployment.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East has reminded me that unemployment is down from 11.6 per cent to 10.5 per cent. I thank him very much for reminding me of that.
As that performance in the economy continues, as we are confident it will, then we will be able to look carefully at all ranges of social programs, and we will do what the country can afford. That is the direction in which we are going, and 1 hope he has clearly made that point to the people with whom he has met.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET SENIOR CITIZENS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Minister of Finance that senior citizens do not need to be lectured by anybody. They are intelligent, they are articulate, and they understand that the Budget is not fair. They do not need lectures from me, and
they do not need lectures from the Minister. 1 will tell the Minister that they are coming to Ottawa.
Is it fair to ask a pair of senior citizens in their eighties, with SI00 of discretionary spending a month, to bear the burden of deficit reduction in Canada? Is that fair? Is the Minister of Finance prepared to set aside a day to meet, in a public forum in Ottawa, with those senior citizens from whom we heard in Atlantic Canada? The Minister had better reverse himself now, to avoid the spectacle of swallowing himself whole when he does reverse himself when the senior citizens of the country get organized. I tell you, they are coming to Ottawa-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that there is no one on this side of the House who is happy doing what we have been doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is a fundamental reason for it. The fundamental reason is that the interest costs of the Government have grown from $8 billion to $25 billion over a six-year period. The accumulated debt of the country is increasing three times faster than the country is growing, and the interest costs to the Government of Canada are exceeding the total amount of what the federal Government spends on medicare, OAS and GIS. Clearly there is a problem. If the Member is worried about fairness, what is fair about a baby being born and having a debt of $7,000 put on its head the minute it is born, knowing that five years from now, when the baby starts school, that it will have a $14,000 debt if nothing is changed? That is why something has to be done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last week he went to Montreal and told Canadians that there were not enough rich people in the country. Yesterday he went to Quebec City and announced a proposal to make the rich richer. Is it his concept of justice for the Government of Canada to bring down a Budget that reduces indexation for pensioners, which will increase the number of pensioners living in poverty by some 200,000, and then, a few days later, announce that it will introduce indexation to protect the income of all those rich Canadians who invest? Is that his concept of fairness?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the Hon. Member knows that the premise of that question is totally false.
June 11, 1985

What is happening is that the Government of Canada is paying between 10 per cent and 11 per cent on marketable bonds. Some people in the marketplace have proposed that we should consider indexed bonds because they can be issued at between 7 per cent and 8 per cent. That amounts to a saving of some $30 million to $40 million on a bond issue of $1 billion.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party cannot have it both ways. He cannot tell us to look for other ways of saving money, and then turn around and say that we should not try to do something which some people have said will save $30 million to $40 million.


INVESTOR PARTICIPATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot take away indexation from the pensioners and give it to the investors of Canada. That is what he is doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the Minister, as we have checked with a stock brokerage firm today, will he admit to the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -he has talked about the bonds which he wants to create-


Some Hon. Members:: Name it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Will the Minister acknowledge that it is not the ordinary pensioner who will be able to take his money and buy stocks? In fact it will be, as the stock brokerage firm informed my office, wealthy individuals on the one hand, and large corporations on the other hand, which will use his scheme. Will he admit that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon. Member change his broker, because that is wrong. Buyers of indexed bonds, if they are to meet any sort of successful response in the marketplace, would be pension funds, insurance companies, and those financial organizations which are established to provide for the retirement income of Canadians. That is the market at which we are directing the proposal. It is not for corporations, and it is not for upper-income people. It is for the companies which are providing pensions for the many unionists whom the Hon. Member says, he likes to represent.


REQUEST THAT PROPOSAL BE DROPPED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is in a nice position to give some assurance to Canadians. He has talked about pension funds for pensioners. He does not have to wait for a monitoring process, which will go on for a
Oral Questions
number of weeks or months, to admit that pensioners will suffer because of this measure. If he is concerned about pensioners, will he now tell the House that the Government will restore indexation for pensioners, and that it will not proceed with its scheme to give investors a special break until all groups of Canadians are protected against inflation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite clear that this proposal, if you want to call it a proposal, had been discussed by the Liberal Party when it was in government-


John Edward Broadbent: So?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and it was raised with me during my time as Minister of Finance, as a proposal. There is nothing imminent about it. Nothing is going to happen tomorrow or next month. It is something we are trying to explore to see whether there are ways of saving money for the Government of Canada and, through the Government of Canada, for all taxpayers.
I would hope that the Leader of the New Democratic Party would give us some support in trying to control government spending, so that we can then restore some of the social programs which all Canadians, including my colleagues on this side of the House, would like to see in place.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think everyone is aware that this Government is more concerned about helping the rich than trying to help the needy.
Mr. Speaker, last January, five months before this Government came to power, the Prime Minister was aware of the Government's financial situation, he was aware of the national debt, and at that time, through his Minister of National Health and Welfare, he promised that changes in social programs would not be used to reduce the deficit.
My question is as follows: Could the Right Hon. Prime Minister explain to the House, and perhaps he would care to look me in the face instead of reading, could he explain to Hon. Members and all senior citizens in Canada what made his Government renege a second time on its commitments to senior citizens?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, what happened is that last Friday, we were informed that

June 11, 1985
Oral Questions
70,000	new jobs were created in Canada, that interest rates dropped by 29 base points, that automobile sales rose 29.9 per cent during the month of April, and that today, for the first time, real investment in Canada will have increased by approximately 13 per cent.
For the first time since we inherited this extraordinary Liberal legacy, we are seeing signs of progress in our economy which I think should be encouraging to everyone, and which, if the pace is maintained-and we will be monitoring it regularly and closely-will enable us to ensure that a renewed economy can be used to improve and maintain Canada's socio-economic programs which were placed in serious jeopardy by the approach taken by the Liberal Government, as pensioners know so well.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, why deprive the elderly of their Old Age Security pension? Why turn on the neediest in Canada? My supplementary will therefore consider two aspects of the question.
I want to ask the Prime Minister first of all, why, if he failed to meet his previous commitment, he would be any more likely to meet the commitment made in the Budget, namely that he will be monitoring the situation of the elderly? Why would he be telling the truth this time, when he did not keep his word before?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister inform the House why he preferred to spend $56 million to change the colour of military uniforms and $400 million over the next four years to send more members of the Canadian Forces to Europe, instead of protecting the elderly here in Canada? Why did he do that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians and all Quebecers are aware that for fifteen years, the Liberal Government did everything it could to undermine the credibility of our Armed Forces across Canada. It is common knowledge, and that is one of the reason why they were repudiated at the polls.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest we ask for the unanimous consent of the House to award a special prize, an Oscar to the Hon. Member for his brazen nerve, because two years ago, they were saying the exact opposite. They were the game people who cut the elderly off at 6 per cent. That is what the Liberal Party did, the bunch of hypocrites!


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
guarantees them a return on that investment, while at the same time moving to partially deindex the pensions of old age pensioners? Does the Minister of Health, responsible for pensions, think it is fair for the Government to offer to protect the investors' incomes against inflation, while requiring the pensioners to accept all of the burdens of the loss of their income?
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has heard the explanation of the Minister of Finance.


John Edward Broadbent: That's why he asked you.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member has clearly, I hope, understood-or at least listened to-the proposal put forward by the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Deans:: 1 understand.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -that if moneys can be saved for the taxpayers of Canada, that is a responsibility he has. That is a responsibility not only of every member of Cabinet but it should be a responsibility and objective of every Hon. Member of this House of Commons.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, there is a responsibility on all Hon. Members here to be fair to the senior citizens. But I am asking the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he thinks it is fair today to propose that, through some measure brought forward by the Minister of Finance, we will make sure that those who invest in Canada are protected against inflation to the fullest extent, plus receive an income, while at the same time we are moving to deindex the pensions of senior citizens-partially, but nevertheless to reduce their incomes? Is that fair?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe what should be fair-


Mr. Rodriguez:: Is it fair?


Mr. Blaikie:: Answer the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -is that we want to get the economy working, that we want the economy turned around-


Mr. Waddell:: Why do it on the backs of seniors?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -that we want to protect seniors' pensions, that we want to protect their future pensions, and that we want to protect the jobs which Canadians must have.


PROPOSAL TO CREATE INDEXED BONDS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the Minister think it is fair to propose a scheme for the indexing of investments, a scheme which guarantees not only protection from inflation for those investors but also


John R. Rodriguez: Is it fair?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Answer the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: All that is part of the equation of living in society, and I think that when we talk about fairness we should look at the entire package rather than the specifics
June 11, 1985

which the Hon. Member wants to raise in the House of Commons so that he can get on evening TV.


John Edward Broadbent: So do you, with that answer.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday we heard the Minister of Justice tell the House and the country that, to use his own words, "his brother Andrew was innocent and didn't owe the Government one red cent", in connection with claims of which National Revenue has given his brother notice. Does the Prime Minister consider it proper and acceptable for the Minister of Justice to take sides like that?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am very reluctant, not knowing anything about the case, to comment on anything which might become the subject of litigation at a future date. I understood yesterday's exchange to be much more related to an accusation which had been raised by a Liberal Member of Parliament, which impugned a member of the Minister's family, about which he, as a Member of Parliament, attempted to set the record straight. That was my understanding.


PROCLAMATION OF BROTHER'S INNOCENCE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, that question may be resolved in other proceedings which will take place in the House, but what the Prime Minister has a responsibility for is his Minister of Justice taking sides in any matter before the courts.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Prime Minister has indicated that he himself won't be taking sides because he does not know the facts. But does he think it is proper for the Minister of Justice to stand here, or in the hall outside, and influence, or attempt to influence the way things may develop, by proclaiming his brother's innocence? Is that a proper course to follow for the Minister of Justice of this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member feel that it is improper for an Hon. Member from any part of the House to rise-


An Hon. Member:: He's a Minister, come on.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -or a Minister-and attempt to deal objectively with an allegation-


Mr. Nunziata:: Objectively? He was ranting and raving.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
OraI Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will be careful, because I know how offended the Hon. Member for York South-Weston is by ranting and raving.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: But that was my understanding of it. 1 would, quite frankly, in the presence of a loose allegation of that kind, defend with vigour the right of my hon. friend, if that kind of accusation was made against a member of his family, to rise and have it clarified.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for Bay Street, the Minister of Finance. He will know that over the last number of days it has become clear that any advice the Minister received from Atlantic Canada prior to the Budget was thrown overboard on May 23. The Budget is very clearly biased against Atlantic Canada. Not only does it pick on those who are most vulnerable, the seniors, it also picks on the most vulnerable region, Atlantic Canada. Is the Minister of Finance prepared to stand in his place today and defend a Budget which will short circuit economic development in Atlantic Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Budget took very much into account the interests and concerns of Atlantic Canada. I am sure the Hon. Member would be quite interested in the comments made concerning the Liberal task force down there: "There is very little spontaneity in the meetings. The politicians sitting at the head table could not resist the opportunity to make speeches and dominate the proceedings". This is because, as the Hon. Member knows, there were no other people at the meeting except the politicians and the media.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: A typical Liberal meeting.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Is that right, Brian?


Brian Vincent Tobin: You just hung yourself.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party says-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You just hung yourself-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -and you are too foolish to know it.


An Hon. Member:: Shut up!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 11, 1985
Oral Questions


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is what you are telling the people of Atlantic Canada, to shut up.


Some Hon. Members:: You!


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member to be quiet.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps there are some interesting people at Liberal gatherings, but the Conservative Premier of Prince Edward Island said the Atlantic Provinces got short circuited in the Budget. The Conservative Premier of Newfoundland said the other day that the Budget fails to address regional disparity.
The Minister of Finance has clearly indicated that if, there is undue hardship on senior citizens as a result of deindexing, the Government will reconsider that move. Will he, as a sensitive Minister for the Atlantic Provinces, in theory, have a look at the Budget provisions which impact negatively on that part of Canada?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: You are pretty good in theory, Nelson, when you are across the floor.


Nelson Andrew Riis: This Budget is definitely biased against that part of Canada. Will he reconsider what it is doing to Atlantic Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Hon. Member to reconsider the question, because 10,000 jobs were created last month in the Province of Nova Scotia. So good things are happening in Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Members opposite wonder why these things are happening. They are happening because there is a good response to the philosophy and style of this Government and the direction it is following in encouraging- Mr. Speaker, it is hard to compete with the fog-horn on the other side of the floor.
The Atlantic Provinces, like all parts of the country, are responding positively to the direction the Government has been following since September 4, and will continue to respond positively as time goes by.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last year, the fortieth of the nuclear age, saw the world experience 35 nuclear explosions. The future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty depends to a great extent on the credibility of the nuclear powers. In light of the uncertain
future of the NPT, will the Minister support its future by calling upon all nations to cease and desist from further nuclear testing as a sincere way of showing support for the Non-Proliferation Treaty?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty occurs, as the House knows, later this summer, in August and September, with an eye toward trying to achieve a successful result of that conference. Canada's Ambassador for Disarmament has been meeting with representatives of other countries, nuclear and non-nuclear powers, and through the Department of External Affairs we have been in touch with countries which are not yet signatories to the Treaty, urging that they affix their signatures to that document. We will continue to follow every means open to us to try to assure the regime of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SASKATCHEWAN MINISTER OF REVENUE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES
Mr. Speaker:: May I indicate the presence in our gallery today of the Hon. Paul Rousseau, Minister of Revenue and Financial Services for the Province of Saskatchewan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the Minister is meeting with her Nova Scotia counterpart this week, does she still stand by her commitment to that Minister that the Petroleum Incentives Program will be replaced by a frontier incentives program?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items on the agenda for our talks tomorrow, and 1 am sure that in the course of those talks we will certainly be concentrating on the subject the Hon. Member has introduced.


REPLACEMENT INQUIRY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, first she says yes, and now she says she does not know. Who is speaking for the Government on energy matters? Is it the Minister? Is it the Minister of Justice, who said in Halifax that the Government has to be convinced a new incentive is needed? Is it the Minister of Finance, who told Members of the oil industry in the West that when it comes to

special measures to encourage northern and offshore exploration we need to be pushed, "by You"? Who is speaking for the Government on energy matters, and are we going to get a replacement for the Petroleum Incentives Program?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member ignores the fact that under the grandfather clause of the present PIP grants there will be something like $2.5 billion spent in the offshore and the Beaufort over the next few years. That is a very generous grandfather provision. The best incentive for oil and gas development is going to be the development of Venture and Hibernia, and those projects are progressing. Adjusting the incentives is, as I said, one of the things we will be discussing with the Nova Scotia Energy Minister tomorrow.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Members of the Board of the Port of Quebec have just been informed that they are to be replaced, against their will, by a new board that is to be appointed by the Conservative Government and that will be more favourably inclined towards the policies of that Government. Could the Minister inform the House why the Government continues to consider this board of directors as a repository of Conservative patronage instead of providing for local autonomy as in other ports like Toronto and Hamilton, by letting the municipalities appoint port commissioners?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that members of the Quebec Port Corporation serve at pleasure and there are some changes to be made in the port directorship. Those changes will be announced in due course.


REASON FOR NON-INVESTMENT IN QUEBEC OF PROFITS MADE BY PORT OF QUEBEC
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, according to the Budget, from now on, port administrations will have to return any financial surpluses to the Federal Government. Since the Port of Quebec is one of the ports in Canada that shows a profit, could the Minister explain to the House why the profits of the Port of Quebec are not left with the Port to be invested in Quebec instead of being given to the Treasury to
Oral Questions
be spent elsewhere in Canada, without any positive economic impact for the Quebec region?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there are several ports in Canada that operate at a surplus. That surplus is funneled through the Canada Ports Corporation. When there are surpluses they accrue to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and that is what was contained in the Budget.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
In view of the increasing number of heinous crimes in recent months and considering that 25 to 35 years in prison does not seem to act as a deterrent, and also considering that in a survey 1 made in my riding, 80 per cent of respondents said they agreed with bringing back capital punishment, could the Solicitor General inform the House whether he intends to table, in the near future, a Bill to restore capital punishment in Canada?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the Hon. Member which illustrates his concern for a very sensitive issue. Earlier in this Parliament the Right Hon. Prime Minister indicated the hope that, sometime during the life of this Parliament, there would be a chance to deal with this issue. At the present time the priorities of the country and the House are for economic renewal. I will certainly take the Hon. Member's question as a representation.


NATIONAL PARKS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment who has developed an amazing skill of upsetting Canadians from coast to coast whenever she is interviewed on environmental matters, no matter which official language she chooses to speak in. Is she prepared to confirm that she firmly supports the 1979 Parks Canada policy that reads as follows:
Commercial exploration, extraction or development of natural resources will not be permitted in a national park.

Oral Questions
Will she therefore withdraw the dreadful statement that she made on this subject last week?
t Translation]


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal environment critic had bothered to read the whole article, he would not be reacting to a headline that failed to reflect accurately the content of an hour-long interview. Canada's parks are part of our national heritage, and I intend to protect, improve and beautify them.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Since she has withdrawn her statement, is the Minister now prepared to assure the House, and concerned Canadians from coast to coast, that she will not review or change the present policy of Parks Canada, namely, that there will not be any mining, timber cutting, or other activities in conflict with Parks Canada policy?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that if the Hon. Member would stop reading newspaper headlines all the time, he would know about the many statements I have made before the Standing Committee of the House.
1 believe that the stupidity of the Hon. Member's questions is equalled only by his abysmal lack of sincerity.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. We now have the ruling of the U.S. Commerce Department on the hog countervail. Can the Minister explain to the House what actions, if any, the Government is prepared to take to meet the conditions laid down by the U.S. ruling in order that the countervail will be withdrawn?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 share the concern of the Hon. Member on the issue which he has raised. This is not good news for us, or for the Canadian pork industry. However, this is not a final decision. The matter has been referred to the U.S. Trade Commission which will have to prove injury or damage to the U.S. pork industry. We have been successful in previous cases. We will be utilizing every opportunity possible to continue making representations on the issue, in hope that a positive, final decision will be rendered on or about July 25.


UNITED STATES POSITION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Given the response from the United States thus far, is there any indication that the Government will withdraw the proposed stabilization amendments which do not seem to meet with the approval of the U.S. Commerce Department?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not exactly sure what the Hon. Member is referring to in his question. We must recognize that the greater part of the bonding provision results from traditional payments under the federal stabilization program coupled with numerous provincial stabilization payments. The message to be received from that is that we should attempt to move toward the tripartite stabilization plan which is currently before committee and the House.


ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
This morning we had an opportunity to meet with Quebec producers who readily told the committee they are convinced that they have been betrayed by the Government. Earlier the Prime Minister attempted to tell us that everything is going just fine, but I would point out to him that tragedy has just struck the pork industry in Canada and that the American decision is siphoning $200 million from the industry. The Minister is saying he will wait until July 25.
Mr. Speaker, would the Minister tell us whether he intends to wait for the fourth decision-he has already lost the first three and we happen to know that his inaction will lead to many bankruptcies in the pork industry-or whether he will do something now rather than wait until he is once again faced with a unilateral decision by the American Government?


John Wise: with the hog industry to utilize every available opportunity to make representations on its behalf, in order that we will be successful in the final analysis.
[ Translation]


REQUESTS TO THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT FOR ASSISTANCE TO PORK PRODUCERS
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish the Prime Minister would answer and not dissociate himself from the whole thing, because as Prime Minister he is directly concerned.
President Reagan told him in Quebec City that he is as close as the nearest telephone. Does the Prime Minister intend to phone the President of the United States at the earliest opportunity and take up the cudgels for Canadian pork producers, making sure that the industry will not go belly up instead of waiting as his Minister wants to do? He lost three times in the United States and seems prepared to lose a fourth time while the situation is deteriorating rapidly.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the Hon. Member is always so intent on making such unfounded cases against his colleague. The Minister of Agriculture gave him a complete and logical answer and we will continue to make all the necessary representations to the American administration in support of producers from Quebec and elsewhere. This is an important issue which, in our opinion, deserves a new approach on the part of the American administration. We are pushing hard in this case to obtain fair treatment for Quebec producers.


NATIONAL PARKS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and follows from the question asked by the Hon. Member for Davenport of the Minister of the Environment. The Minister of the Environment has consistently refused to answer questions in the House in a mature and comprehensive way. Could the Prime Minister tell us, on behalf of the Government, whether the Government will ensure that the kinds of economic activity referred to by the Member for Davenport will not take place in our national parks? While he is at it, would he consider asking the Minister of the Environment for her resignation, given the ripples of anxiety that she consistently causes among Canadians concerned about the environment, and her many offences against the environment since she was elected?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I noticed a number of Members twitched when the Hon. Member used the term maturity-


John Edward Broadbent: Only in the Cabinet.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -particularly his colleagues. In point of fact the comment is unfair. The Minister has just provided a very thorough and, I thought, proper response to the Member's first question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Better read Hansard.


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Last week I was given an opportunity to provide an appropriate answer to the same Member with regard to the Government's intentions in this area. 1 think also that the Hon. Member, who is so interested in this, should from time to time acknowledge that the Minister was the first person to bring in such a massive and successful program to clean up the Canadian environment, and that she should be encouraged for that kind of action-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -as opposed to a Minister who did absolutely nothing for years and years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: A very short supplementary question.


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's gift for exaggeration does not mask the fact that there are very serious problems. I would ask the Prime Minister to answer the question asked of the Minister of the Environment by the Hon. Member for Davenport, and give a commitment that there will not be those kinds of economic activity in our national parks. Yes or no? Just answer the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is you I asked the question of, in case you did not get the message.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Hon. Member was not speaking loudly enough.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 11, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Malepart


Mr.   de Jong@: You were not listening. You do not listen to the pensioners. You listen to no one.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Progressive Conservative Party takes a back seat to no one, least of all the NDP, when it comes to protecting the environment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: No one has any lessons to learn from you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, June 10, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
*


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr, Malepart).



POINTS OF ORDER


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I wish you would ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to withdraw what he said about me this afternoon and on another occasion last week. Last week, I decided to let the matter pass, but today, for the second time, the Right Hon. Prime Minister has called me a hypocrite.
Mr. Speaker, I may remind you, with respect, that in Beauchesne's, on page 108, chapter 7-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member making a presentation on language in the House?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The kind of language used by another Hon. Member?


Jean-Claude Malépart: The language used by the Right Hon. Prime Minister in referring to me.


Mr. Speaker:: So in fact, this is a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. As I said before, for the second time, the Right Hon.
Prime Minister used unparliamentary language as defined in Beauchesne's on page 108, chapter 7. For the second time, the Right Hon. Prime Minister called me a hypocrite.
Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me to show that what the Right Hon. Prime Minister said about me is not true, because I have official papers to prove that he is mistaken-
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I think you should just ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister to withdraw what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: What did he say?


Jean-Claude Malépart: "Hypocrite."


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry I missed the word, so there is a complaint. It was the word-?


Jean-Claude Malépart: "Hypocrite."


Mr. Speaker:: Very well.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Defend him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think the Hon. Member would be the first to agree that he probably is the last person in this House to rise on a point of order about unparliamentary language.


Ian Deans: That is immaterial.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He has been yelling across the floor of this House more unparliamentary terms in this session than anybody I have seen in the course of my parliamentary career.


An Hon. Member:: What about Nunziata?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), as I recall, makes reference to statements made in that context as being hypocritical, that is not unparliamentary.
There are many, many instances when that has been ruled not only not to be a question of privilege but also it is clearly not a legitimate point of order because it makes reference to things being hypocritical, as opposed to referring to a Member being a hypocrite, which I will desist from saying.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that the use of the word "hypocrite" has been rules both parliamentary and unparliamentary. There is no word itself which is unparliamentary; there is only a contextual circumstance in which language can be used in an unparliamentary way. What I heard amid the noise was an accusation made against what I thought were members of a political Party and not a specific Member. Had it been made against a specific Member, then I would have had a different position.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

June 11, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. I will check the "blues". Under the circumstances, what I heard was an accusation against a political Party. I will, for the sake of the record, check the record. I am sorry, under the circumstances, that was all 1 could hear.



ALLEGED IMPUTATION OF MOTIVES

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit a point of order flowing from the answer to my supplementary question which I asked of the Minister of Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier). In her answer, in the concluding sentence, the Minister of the Environment imputed to me the motive of being inspired by bad faith. It was done in a manner, I think, not consistent with proper parliamentary language.
Maybe this escaped you, Mr. Speaker, and therefore, I would ask you please to check the "blues" and perhaps let me have the benefit of your views tomorrow. If you agree with me that the language used by the Minister of the Environment is improper and the accusation of being motivated by bad faith is improper, then I ask the Minister of the Environment to withdraw her words and apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has a request to which I will gladly accede. I would remind Members of the citation in Beauchesne which is very clear:
-a Member will not be permitted ... to impute to any Member or Members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case-
I take it that is the citation to which the Hon. Member is referring. I will, therefore, be happy to do as the Member requested and verify the record one way or the other.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur
Sport)): Mr. Speaker, last September, just days after taking office, this Government announced that the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation would be wound up along with the dormant Loto Canada Corporation.
This decision was made for two very obvious, and I believe good reasons. First and foremost was the fact that the existence of the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation contravened the spirit, if not the law of the 1979 lottery-
Mr. Speaker:: Could I interrupt the Minister for one second to ask two things: First, that there be an opportunity to hear him. Second I sense that in the noise we missed an earlier call
Lotteries
for Tabling of Documents. To do that we need unanimous consent. With the consent of the House, may 1 revert to Tabling of Documents for one moment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I have the honour to lay upon the Table in both official languages copies of the document entitled White Paper on Redistribution.


Mr. Speaker:: Statements by Ministers. Again I apologize to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) for interrupting him. The Hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
 * *


LOTTERIES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur
Sport)): Mr. Speaker, we will try again. As I said, last September, just days after taking office, the Government announced that the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation would be wound up along with the dormant Loto Canada Corporation.
This decision was made for two very obvious and, I believe, good reasons. First and foremost was the fact that the existence of the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation contravened the spirit, if not the law, of the 1979 lottery agreement between the federal Government and the provinces. For this reason alone, it was necessary to terminate the sports pool as soon as possible, in order to restore a measure of trust and co-operation between the two levels of Government. Second, at the time of our announcement the corporation was losing approximately $1.5 million per week. Suffice it to say, the sports pool was a burden which Canadians could ill afford to bear.
In the spirit of greater federal-provincial co-operation, not to mention fiscal responsibility, the cabinet decision was obvious. Within days of the resumption of the new parliamentary session, Bill C-2 was introduced, thus beginning the legislative process of winding up both the sports pool and Loto Canada.
Of course, this left us with the problem of raising the necessary non-tax revenue dollars toward our commitment to the 1988 Winter Olympic Games in Calgary. I immediately approached the provinces with a view to having them share with us this financial commitment, in light of the tremendous economic impact the games would have on all regions of Canada. Specifically, I am pleased to announce that a recent
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1985
Lotteries
study concluded that the games will indeed contribute approximately $1.2 billion in new economic activity and 28,000 new person-years of employment.
As well, in return for the support of the provinces, I recommended that we clarify once and for all by way of legislation the federal-provincial relationship as it pertains to lotteries. Based upon our show of good faith, the provincial Governments were more than willing to sit down and talk.
As negotiations ensued, it was determined that the Department of Justice, along with the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation and in co-operation with the provinces, would propose draft amendments to the Criminal Code for our consideration, proposals which could protect the provincial status quo in the field of lotteries. In return, it was proposed that the provinces would pay $100 million in non-tax revenue dollars to go toward the funding commitment of the federal Government to the games.
Over the course of the past nine months, much intensive work and many hours of negotiations have taken place. In this regard I should like to take this opportunity to thank my provincial colleagues responsible for lotteries for the co-operative and open manner under which these negotiations were conducted.
On that note, I am very pleased to announce that as a result of these extensive consultations and negotiations I have concluded today, on behalf of the Government of Canada, an agreement with the provincial Governments whereby the provinces will contribute $100 million to the federal Government in three equal payments over the next three years. For our part, my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), will be introducing legislation in due course which will propose amendments to the Criminal Code guaranteeing the protection of the provincial status quo in the field of lotteries.
It goes without saying that this agreement will greatly contribute to the future promotion of federal-provincial relations and in fact confirm that a new era of co-operation is a reality. Indeed, it is as great a day for Canadian sport as it is for Canadian federal-provincial relations. It is with this newfound sense of friendship and co-operation that we can look forward to both a "best ever" performance by our young athletes and hosting the most successful winter Olympics held anywhere in the world.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to rise today on behalf of my Party to respond to the statement of the Hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek). I congratulate the Minister for being successful in obtaining a total of $100 million from the provincial Governments for the 1988 Winter Olympic Games in Calgary.
The Minister suggested for a number of months that he was seeking to secure this type of arrangement from the provinces. The sports community in general will indeed be heartened by today's news. It will also be reassuring to the athletes, to the
Olympic organizing committee and to all those involved in staging the 1988 winter games.
However, notwithstanding this announcement, the federal Government has made a commitment of some $200 million in federal contributions to the winter games. With the provincial share, plus an Olympic coin program, there is a shortfall of between $50 million and $70 million, depending upon how much the Olympic coin program generates. Toward this end, I think it would be incumbent upon the Minister and his Government to inform the House and Canadians, as well, from where the remainder of the federal contribution will come, how these funds will be generated, and when they will be generated.
These are fundamental questions which need to be answered so as to provide certainty and consistency to all interested parties involved in staging the Olympic games, that is, that the promised funding plan will indeed be maintained in full and in time.
The second important aspect is whether the agreement with the provinces is a one-time arrangement or whether a new deal has been negotiated which would amend the agreement of the Conservative Government back in 1979. At that time the federal Government agreed to provide exclusivity in the area of lotteries to the provinces in exchange for an annual amount of some $35 million. Yet, when one examines the arrangement closely, the projected lottery-generating revenues are in the neighbourhood of some $200 million annually. Simple mathematics would suggest clearly that this deal certainly does not favour the federal Government and provides a good and attractive monopoly for the provinces.
Perhaps the Minister has changed those terms, not to penalize the provinces, but to obtain a fairer arrangement for the federal Government, so as to assure greater dollars for federal sports initiatives on a national scale. I trust, in the time allotted to us following the statement, the Minister will address himself to those concerns.
Finally, I assure the House that we on this side had always been firmly committed as a Government to amateur sports and to the pursuit of athletic excellence by Canadians of all backgrounds and from all walks of life. It should be well noted that it was the previous Liberal Government which gave the strongest guarantee ever offered so that Calgary would play host to the Olympic games in 1988. In addition, we need to be reminded that it was a Liberal administration which paid the lion's share in order to send our athletes to Los Angeles, where they made Canadians extremely proud and honoured by their athletic abilities.
It is our sincerest hope that Canadian athletes participating in the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympic Games will do equally well. Moreover, as the eyes of the international community will be upon us in 1988, we wish to ensure our support in making these Olympic games a truly magnificent occasion, an occasion which will instil a huge degree of honour and pride in all Canadians from one coast to the other.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 11, 1985


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to respond to the statement of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek). I am sure he was very pleased to make the announcement that a part of the federal contribution from non-tax dollars has been nailed down. At the same time, recognizing the source of those funds,
I am a shade ambivalent about the agreement. I should like to comment on the basic nature of it and raise some questions, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer this afternoon.
The fact that half the federal contribution of $200 million is drawn from gambling revenues, albeit gambling in the hands of provincial Governments, leaves my caucus colleagues and me unhappy. We think that sporting activities should not be involved in this form of misery tax which gambling so often becomes for people. We would sooner see a genuinely progressive tax as the basis for supporting amateur sport.
It is hardly surprising that the Minister was able to arrive at this agreement, given that he decided to follow along the same lines as the Government in 1979 of giving the entire responsibility for gambling to the provinces. If you are giving away the store, it should be possible to receive something in return. Considering an amount of $100 million over three years, it is not very surprising, although it is curious, that it has taken this long, for an agreement to be reached with the provinces.
The fact that we are going to have an amendment to the Criminal Code which will seek to establish once and for all the provincial responsibility in these areas leaves me uneasy because gambling certainly requires supervision by the federal Government. I hope that the Criminal Code amendment will be drawn up with some care so as to ensure that the conceivable entry of criminal elements into this area will not happen without the attention of the federal Government to the matter. It could in any case be done by delegation rather than by way of this proposal to do something to the legislation once and for all.
To come more particularly to the situation that the federal Government faces in making its contribution, I note that the Minister envisions a tremendous economic impact of the games on all regions of Canada. The situation of the Maritime provinces has been in the public eye for the last day or two and it seems to me doubtful that the Atlantic provinces will share very much in the gain from the Olympic Games. I do not doubt that the Province of Alberta and other parts of the Prairies will share in it fully. I hope that the provincial contribution towards this $100 million is largely drawn from persons in the western provinces, given the fact that it is going to be based on gambling revenues.
I wonder whether the Minister could tell us what the regional split, if not the provincial split, on the $100 million will be to assure us that it is people who may have some benefit from the Olympic games who will, in fact, be the ones who will be paying the shot.
Lotteries
He has also indicated that a recent study on the economic impact of the Olympic games envisions approximately $1.2 billion in new economic activity and 28,000 new person-years of employment. Has that study been tabled or would the Minister be good enough to table it in the House so that we may have a way of assessing it, because an earlier study in the news recently-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but I must indicate to the Hon. Member that the time for his statement in reply has expired, unless the Member could come to an end in a very short time.


Abram Ernest Epp: Other points that 1 would like to make have to do with the additional $100 million. As has already been suggested by my Liberal colleague, the coin program may not reach $50 million. If it does not, more than $50 million will have to come from the private quarter-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I must indicate to the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


Mr. Paproski:: I would like to ask the Minister a question if I may, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know if this $100 million is a one-time contribution over the next three years from the provinces, and does the original agreement for which the annual funding from the provinces from the lotteries, 1 believe, is around $37 million to $38 million still exist? Is this money over and above the $37 or $38 million that the federal Government is receiving from the provinces at this time?


Mr. Jelinek:: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to confirm to the Hon. Member that the 1979 agreement does indeed stay intact. As he knows, we are receiving in the neighbourhood of $36 to $37 million a year tied to the CPI. Those Members who are suggesting that we have given away the store are totally on the wrong side of the track because we are getting our fair share from the provinces. The agreement that I announced today is separate from the 1979 agreement. It is a one-shot deal beyond and above the monies that the provinces are already contributing to sports and cultural matters, from the federal perspective.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, that was one of the questions that I was going to ask. What I was going to ask as a supplementary was whether or not the Minister would see fit, since he was discussing with his provincial counterparts amending that 1979 agreement, to try to get a much fairer split for the federal side.
Second, I would like to get an indication from the Minister as to how he plans to make up that shortfall between $50 million and $70 million depending on how much the Olympic coin program is going to be generating, so that we will be able to know more specifically the complete package of the $200 million commitment that was made by the Government.
Last, I would like to know, based on the interventions made by my hon. friend from the NDP Party, what the provincial split will be. Will it be an even type of agreement based on all the 10 provinces, or will some provinces, particularly the host

June 11, 1985
Lotteries
province, be picking up the greater portion of the $100 million than, let us say, the eastern provinces?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I always find it amazing that when we do something right we still get questioned and criticized for it. I just want to point out to the Hon. Member that it took the Liberal administration, the previous Government, about nine months to lose 46 million tax dollars on the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation. It took us the same amount of time to raise 100 million non-tax dollars. I just want to put that on the record to make it very clear.
In order to answer the Hon. Member more specifically, there is a formula that the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation has on behalf of the provinces as to what their share is in their contributions to the federal Government. In round figures, the Atlantic Provinces contribute approximately 5 per cent; Ontario contributes 32.7 per cent; Quebec contributes 26.65 per cent; and the western provinces contribute the rest, which is approximately 36 per cent.
Having said that, however, concerning this new agreement it will be up to the provinces and the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation to determine what the split is going to be. I am just guessing that it will be based on the same split by which the regular payments are made to this Government.
As far as the Hon. Member's other question is concerned, he knows full well that we have been working with the private sector and we have been looking at other areas of fund raising. We are convinced that the commemorative coin program, the first issue of which comes down this fall is going to raise at least $50 million. As well, other matters are not only under review but under actual consideration at the present time. I hope that he will have the same type of confidence in me that he has had in this field and as I have.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, pursuing the matter of the private sector contributions, I would appreciate the Minister's clarifying the matter somewhat. The Calgary organizers are pursuing very actively the support of various sponsors and have in fact had some singular successes, particularly with the ABC Network in a very large payment for the rights, of which $270 million, I take it, is coming to the organizing committee. What is the federal Government able to hold out to the private sector and how real do the chances seem to be that $50 million, or possibly more, will have to be raised by that means?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify. The fact of the matter is that I never said that the remaining portion was going to be coming from the private sector. What I said and what I repeat is that the private sector is one of the areas being considered as to where these funds could possibly come from. In fact, there is some discussion among some of our parliamentary committees of potentially raising funds from another source. I do not think that it would be prudent at this time to get into that matter just for the sake of trying to make sure that it comes forward.
As far as the private sector is concerned, I want to say what I have said on many occassions publicly, that the program that we hope to have in place before Christmas is one that is not going to compete against the Calgary organizing committee. We are not going to be looking for sponsors to the Olympics. We are going to look at other ways and means that are now being negotiated to raise funds not only for the Olympics but, more important, for future amateur sports programs.


Jack Wendele Shields: I have one last question to the Minister. During the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary, will the Minister be commentating on the figure skating competitions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A short question from the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister specifically whether or not the economic impact study which he cited in his statement will be tabled in the House.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not having answered that question. That impact study has perhaps not been tabled in the House, but it has been made public by the Department of Supply and Services. I am not sure whether or not I am in a position to table it. I know that the study has been made public. I would be very happy to make it available to the Hon. Member and if the Hon. Member would persist, my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre), and I would look at the possibility of tabling it. However, it was made public some time ago.


PETITIONS
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of a group of Canadian citizens residing in the St. David's Senior Citizens' Village and residents who live on or near Danforth Road and Trudelle Street. They wish to express their concern about the lack of safety on Danforth Road and Trudelle Street in the City of Scarborough.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Why would they bring that here?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 do appreciate the Hon. Member's interest in the matter. However, might I suggest that in the future, petitions of that nature would more properly be tabled with the municipal council by the Hon. Member. That process might in fact achieve the purpose that is intended.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I was presented a petition in my riding this morning signed by 17
June 11, 1985

students from the Emily Carr Middle School in Gloucester, Ontario, who represent an important initiative called Kids Action for Peace. Their petition for peace is accompanied by these 1,000 paper cranes made in the ancient Japanese tradition as symbols of hope and peace.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the Hon. Member wish to summarize the petition?


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in presenting this petition and these 1,000 symbols of the petitioners' determination to remind us all that peace is essential for our survival.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 am presenting a petition from a group of seniors, a kind a petition which the Conservative Member should have presented.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My petition on behalf of these people states that they are against the deindexing of the pensions in the Budget and they are going to suffer as a result. I would like to table the petition.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order. That's not what they said.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I was tabling the petition, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) called me a liar. He yelled across the floor that this is not what these people said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. The Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) did not call the Hon. Member a liar. He did say something across the floor just as the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) earlier today in Question Period said something across the floor. I think under the circumstances I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a number of petitions making the case that the May 23 Budget imposes undue hardship on pensioners by deindexing the Old Age Security Program which will amount to $680 by 1999 and increase from that year thereafter.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to present petitions from constituents of the riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon who protest that the cuts in the OAS fly in the face of Conservative campaign promises indicating that a P.C. Government would once more index the old age pensions to the actual cost of living on a quaterly basis and call upon the House of Commons to reverse the decision proposed in the Budget.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker-
Motions


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member rising under petitions? The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) may rise again only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, it's a different petition.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway again seeks the floor on petitions.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member can only rise a second time with the unanimous consent of the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, are Conservative Members saying that I cannot present another petition on behalf of petitioners containing the exact wording to which the Hon. Member objects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The rules are here for a purpose.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What rules? 1 rise on a point of order. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could tell me which rule indicates that I cannot present more than one petition.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no rule that says that the Hon. Member cannot present more than one petition. There is a practice that says a Member may seek the floor once to present petitions at which time the Member may try to present more than one petition. With great respect, that has been the practice for some years while the Hon. Member has been a Member of the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. The difference between the two is a matter for discussion outside the Chamber. Our practice is that a Member seeks the floor to present petitions. The Hon. Member sought the floor, presented a petition and sat down. He had the right at that time, as he would know if he would check our practices, to present more than one petition, but he must do so at the same time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That's not what Madam Speaker Sauve did.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, that is exactly what Madam Speaker Sauve did. I only say that sotto voce to the Hon. Member who would not have things yelled across the floor.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the Parties. 1 think you will find that the following order would be accepted by the House if presented at this time:

June 11, 1985
Order Paper Questions
That the document entitled "White Paper on Redistribution", tabled earlier this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections;
That the Committee report its findings and recommendations not later than June 28, 1985; and
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when the final report of the Committee is completed, that the Committee shall report its findings by depositing its report with the Clerk of the House and that it shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid upon the Table.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent necessary to introduce his motion?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, is it in order for me to ask a question of clarification of the Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: If the Motion were introduced, it would be a debatable motion. However, I believe that what is sought would probably be a helpful practice.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, did the Minister say that the committee will report by the end of June 1985? Does that mean that no hearings will be conducted on this particular paper?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the intention is that this White Paper, which consists of a draft Bill, will receive the consideration of the committee until the end of this month and the committee will make its recommendations, at which time it is the intention of the Government to consider the recommendations of the committee with respect to the amendments proposed in the White Paper. We would then have to take other legislative action if it is the will of the House to proceed. This is not in any way dealing with legislation as such but rather a White Paper setting out certain principles that will allow Members to have input before legislation is introduced.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 367 will be answered today.


Mrs. Cossitt: 1.	For (o) 1984 (b) 1985, what was/is the level of cheese imports permitted by the Government for (i) speciality cheeses (ii) Cheddar cheeses?
2.	Have the cheese producers in eastern Ontario asked the Government for a reduction in these levels and, if so, was a decision made and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: 1.
The total quantity of cheese imports in 1984 and 1985 permitted under the global import quota was 20,400,000 kg. (45,000,000 lbs.): (i) Allowable imports in 1984 consisted of 19,946,403 kg. (44,000,000 lbs.) specialty cheeses and (ii) 453,597 kg. cheddar (1 million lbs.). In 1985, the permitted levels for specialty cheese and cheddar are the same.
2. The Government is not aware of any representation made specifically by eastern Ontario cheese producers to reduce the present level of the cheese quota.
[ Translation]


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: 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.



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. 33 (Mr. Shields) and 33A (Mr. Crombie) (p. 5627).
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, prior to the break at one o'clock, there was a motion put standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) and further motions from another Member of that Party dealing with my Motion No. 33A.
I have had an opportunity to look at the suggestions which have been made with respect to both the search and seizure question and, indeed, at the matter relating to the question of changing the powers with respect to the distribution of liquor in the Act. With great respect, although I appreciate the
June 11, 1985

matters which have been raised, I am going to ask the House to reject the amendments to Motion No. 33A, as they are matters which relate to the powers which exist between the federal Government and the provinces. Clearly it would be inappropriate for me, in the context of this Bill, and without consultation, to make any changes in that connection. All I am seeking to do in the motion is to fill the gap which was created by the court.
With respect to the powers that exist between the two levels of Government, 1 would be happy to look at any further changes with the Hon. Member to determine if there is an appropriate way in which to proceed. However, I think it would be inappropriate for me to proceed without first holding appropriate consultations with the provinces which are involved.
These are no small matters. Anyone familiar with the constitutional history of Canada will recognize that many powers, in terms of the interpretation by the courts of the legislative powers which exist between two levels of Government, were determined by matters which arose from the power to make rules, regulations, laws and by-laws with respect to the production and distribution of liquor. I do not want to get into all of that, as it is a much more complicated matter. However, as the matters which have been raised by the Hon. Member are important, I think we should look for another form. Certainly I do not want Motion No. 33A to be lost, as we still need to have the power delivered to the Indian communities to make rules and regulations with respect to the distribution of liquor, according to the powers which exist in the Indian Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first question will be on the amendment to Motion No. 33. The next question will be on Motion No. 33. Then the question will be put on the amendment to Motion No. 33A. The final question will be on Motion
No. 33A.
The first question is on the amendment to Motion No. 33 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. MacDougall) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 33 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 33 (as amended) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 33A standing in the name of the Hon.
Indian Act
Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it. Amendment (Mr. Manly) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 33A standing in the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 33A agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to Motion No. 35A.


David Edward Crombie: June 11, 1985
Indian Act
Members of the committee will be well acquainted with the many hours of discussions which we had on the matter. Of course, the point was that we wanted to determine if we could establish a mechanism that would allow us to deal with those bands which would be affected to a far greater degree in terms of community members returning to their communities. Therefore, there were a number of thoughts and concerns as to how we might proceed.
With respect to Motion No. 37A, I have carefully studied the committee's proposal and I certainly appreciate the hard work that went into devising a solution to the high impact problem. I cannot, however, endorse the 10 per cent rule which was proposed by the committee in Clause 19. I think the rule was an imaginative approach to the issue, however, I believe that it is seriously flawed. Therefore, it is not possible for me to support that 10 per cent solution.
I had proposed another amendment, which is contained in Motion No. 35A. It is clear that the people who would gain the most from it are not in favour of it. I have listened to representations from the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellen-berger) and a number of Indian communities and organizations from the Province of Alberta and elsewhere. However, I can find no one who wishes to support the proposal and, therefore, I will withdraw Motion No. 35A. I do so, without gilding the lily in any way, for those who do not think that the parliamentary system yields opportunities for people to be heard and to have matters changed to suit their interests. Those who doubt that the process works ought to come and visit the life of Bill C-31.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 35A has been withdrawn by the Minister. I will now move to Motion No. 37A, which I have not done.


David Edward Crombie: 
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. You said that the Minister had withdrawn Motion No. 35A, but I believe when a motion is on the Order Paper, it must be withdrawn by unanimous consent. We are prepared to offer consent to have the motion withdrawn. I would like to make a comment, apropos that, which I think will be in order.
As my Party gave consent to the Minister to withdraw Motion No. 35A, I wanted to point out, as the Minister said, that there was a very genuine effort made in committee, and a very genuine effort made by the Minister himself, to accommodate Bill C-31 to those bands which would be impacted upon much more than other bands as a result of the enactment of this legislation. The House should be aware that the so-called "high impact" bands are primarily located in western Canada, in the Province of Alberta. Those bands also have the
good fortune of being resource rich. If this Bill is not restricted in any way, they could have their populations increase from 200 per cent to 400 per cent.
Committee members made a genuine effort, in listening to testimony, to attempt to find a way in which we could lessen or cushion the impact over a period of time. We failed. Anything which we came up with was not acceptable to the high impact bands. In giving consent to the withdrawal of the motion, I want to have the assurance of the Minister that his office and officials will make a concerted effort to follow what happens when Bill C-31 becomes law, as some bands felt that the legislation would impact upon them in a way which would be felt to a much lesser extent by other Indian bands across the country.
I think we need to pay special attention to see that there is fairness, that we are not imposing a terrible injustice on these people in a way in which the Minister never intended, based on the three principles or the three pillars he enunciated at the beginning of this debate. We just need an assurance that somehow it will just not be forgotten. I am sure the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) and the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) will not let the Minister forget it, in any case, but I feel the House does need the assurance that it is not just going to be ignored and that very special attention, a monitoring if you like, will continue until such time as the committee, in two years hence, reviews the operation of this legislation. I do not want the so-called "high impact" bands to have to wait two years before there is some analysis of what in fact is happening to them.


James Douglas Manly: We are happy to give our consent to the withdrawal of Motion 35A, although it is very similar to my Motion No. 24 which was rejected yesterday. Motion No. 35A would have attempted to meet the concerns of the high impact bands without at the same time undercutting the basic principles of the Bill, providing for reinstatement of those people who had lost their status unjustly. It was an attempt to find a better way than the present clause 19 of the Bill which, 1 am pleased to say, the Minister also feels is inappropriate to the intent and principles of Bill C-31. We are very pleased, therefore, to support Motion No. 37A which withdraws and strikes out clause 19 of Bill C-31.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the concern raised by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), and other Hon. Members, and give him and the House the assurance that we will take special care with respect to monitoring the impact of Bill C-31 certainly on all bands but particularly on those bands which are known as "high impact" bands.
As was so well put by both Hon. Members opposite, there was a strong attempt to try to deal with it, but all of the people who are going to be affected have asked for a withdrawal of the only solution we finally had. I am aware of the potential problem. I feel that there is protection enough in the Bill, but 1
June 11, 1985

will take the stricture of the Hon. Member and make sure that 1 will be able to report a process over the next two years which will ensure that the high impact bands are not adversely affected by this Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Chair have the unanimous consent of the House to allow the Minister to withdraw Motion 35A?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 35A withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now resume debate on Motion No. 37A. Does the Minister wish to speak on the motion?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should make a remark on Motion 37A. I thought I had mentioned it earlier in my comment with respect to 35A. Much of this, of course, came after considerable work by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) who is representing the interests of those bands in Alberta which have been so concerned about the impact of the Bill on their future fortunes and I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his hard work on behalf of those people and on behalf of all of us for making this a better Bill.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 37A agreed to.


James Douglas Manly: Motion No. 37
That Bill C-31, be amended by deleting Clause 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"19. For greater certainty, membership rules established pursuant to Section 10 and all by-laws and regulations made under the authority of this Act,
are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have already deleted Clause 19 with Motion No. 37A. I would simply like to make a few comments about the necessity for including a greater certainty clause ensuring that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply to all membership rules, by-laws and regulations made under the authority of the Act. The argument is made, and I am sure will be made, that in passing the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it applies to all legislation which is passed by the Canadian Government or indeed by any legislature in Canada. However, we know that the question of aboriginal rights is detailed in the Constitution outside of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This has raised some questions with regard to the whole concept of the equality clauses.
The argument will be made, for example, with Motions Nos. 40 and 41 that perhaps by moving that kind of a motion we are in effect weakening the constitutional guarantees of aboriginal rights. I believe Motion No. 37 is somewhat different. All
Indian Act
Hon. Members who are interested in this subject, dealing with Bill C-31, should be aware of the history of Jeanette Lavell. When she brought a case before the courts to try to have her rights restored under the old Bill of Rights, she found that the Indian Act took precedence.
We are very concerned that this House declare with every bit of conviction it can that there shall be nothing which will take away the rights of people who are re-established by Bill C-31. On that basis, I urge all Hon. Members to support Motion No. 37, which would establish Clause 19 to read, "For greater certainty, membership rules established pursuant to Section 10 and all by-laws and regulations made under the authority of this Act, are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". I urge all Members to support this motion.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to Motion No. 37 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). Simply put, it is the government's view that the amendment proposed in Motion No. 37 is, with great respect, not necessary. Section 32(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that, "This charter appplies (a) to the Parliament and Government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament". There is no need, in the government's view, for "greater certainty" as is proposed in Motion No. 37. Membership rules and by-laws are subject to the Charter. They are pieces of legislation subordinate to the Indian Act, which is a federal statute and, therefore, the Charter applies. No further clarification is required.
I would add one other consideration. I know the Hon. Member does not intend this, but I think that putting the clause in the Bill as contemplated in Motion No. 37 has the feel of paternalism about it. We do not include it in any other Bill with respect to the federal legislation touched by the Charter.
I think that some people could reasonably argue why we would do it in a Bill affecting Indians through the Indian Act. My view, and the view of the Government, is that it is not only unnecessary but unnecessarily paternalistic so that we would reject, and ask the House to reject, Motion No. 37.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to oppose or support any amendment to Bill C-31 because in my opinion the Bill, in its present form, is so bad, so flawed, that no one amendment can improve it. What is particularly distasteful to me is the whole process by which we are dealing with this Bill and passing these amendments. Here we are a group of non-Indians-there is one Inuit and one or two Metis in the House but no status Indians-still passing laws in 1985 which will impact on the lives of thousands of Indian people. I find that process distasteful.

Indian Act
I can remember after the war, when I was a young person in school, the British Parliament was debating ending its colonial regimes in Africa and Asia. I listened to the argument that, well, we cannot let these people be independent just now and do their own thing because they may do the wrong thing. They may violate human rights or hurt certain people and so on. Unfortunately, that attitude is still present in this Parliament. We do not trust the Indian people to do what is right by themselves, despite the fact that we, the Governments of Canada, made up of almost entirely non-Indians, have a horrible record with respect to the Indian people over the last 100 years.
We have over 100 years of Canadian Governments of all political stripes. Conservative and Liberal, dealing with Indian affairs, and Indian communities are still in abject poverty and still suffer social conditions which are way out of line with what is seen in the rest of the country, but here we are still legislating and imposing upon them our views and our way of doing things. That is very distasteful and so when I rise on an amendment, I do not do so with great relish.
In committee I finally got so frustrated with the process I refused to participate any further because this is a colonialist, patronizing and manipulative process we are going through. However, and unfortunately, the Bill is going through and some of us have tried to improve it to the best of our ability. It was in that spirit that I put forward an amendment which would have guaranteed land, resources and funding to those bands impacted by these measures. However, it was ruled out of order.
A few years ago the Government of the day agreed to a bilateral process whereby no laws impacting on Indian people would be passed unless they were developed in a bilateral way between the Indian nations and the Government of Canada. I have great respect for the Minister, I think he attempted to do that in developing this Bill, but in committee amendments were thrown on the table helter-skelter and we were obliged to deal with them, vote for or against, without any further consultation with those groups and individuals whose lives will be touched by this Bill. I think all Members agree 100 per cent that we should remove the discriminatory provisions from the Indian Act immediately. Where the problem arises is with respect to those measures in the Bill which attempt to restore status-


Jack Wendele Shields: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, I think the Hon. Member is involved in third reading debate. We are dealing with one clause of the Bill under amendent and I think we have been very good in keeping our remarks to the amendment rather than having full debate on the Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure, given the experience of the Hon. Member, that he will keep his remarks to the amendment.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my hon. friend. This amendment relates to the Charter of
Rights which deals with some broad principles and I will get to the point I want to make in a second.
I was saying that none of us are in disagreement with the principle of removing discrimination from the Act. It is all these other provisions which are causing a lot of difficulty. Since the Bill was reported to the House several weeks ago, 1 have not found anyone who really likes the whole thing. Some people like this section or that section, but I have not found anyone who thinks the entire Bill is a good one. It is my honest conviction that the Bill should be sent back to committee for further consultation with all those groups who are touched by it.
With respect to the amendment now before us, the Hon. Member suggested we put a provision in the Bill to state that the membership lists will be bound by the provisions of the Charter of Rights. Well, again it seems to me that is a very serious statement of mistrust with respect to our Indian people. It seems that we just do not trust them to do the proper thing, yet we have had a terrible record in attempting to do the right thing ourselves. The Hon. Minister said it: Why do we put it in the Bill when we do not put it in all the other Bills we have passed since the Charter has gone into effect? Are the Indians any worse than any other people in Canada? Why should we bind them in a special way to the Charter? On the other hand, thank God for the Charter and the Constitution because they contain two provisions which, if tested, 1 think will overturn many of the provisions we are attempting to pass today. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 says:
(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
According to my interpretation of "aboriginal and treaty rights", they include the right to determine your own band membership, and the right to self-government. If we pass some of the provisions of this Bill and they are tested in the courts, they will, in my opinion, be overturned. However, only time will tell. Section 25 of that same Act says that:
The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada-
It goes on to state in detail some of those rights and freedoms. I rise in this debate out of a sense of frustration with the fact that we have been dealing with things like this for over 100 years and it is regrettable that we, as a Parliament of people of European descent, pass laws like this to govern lives of the Indian people of this country. It makes me feel uneasy, and we are rightly criticized by countries around the world when we continue to do it. I feel that this amendment, like many of the others, is out of place and I will oppose it.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by the remarks of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). He is right in saying what many Members have said, that we are dealing with a problem which has developed in this country over a period of more than 100 years. We are dealing with the descendants of the original inhabitants of this country who, for a host of reasons, have the poorest health record, the poorest education

June 11, 1985
and the lowest rate of employment. In every statistic showing people living in a bad way, the natives are at the top of the list. We are proposing in this Bill to go a long way towards doing away with the authoritarian, paternalistic approach which we, the white people who took this country over from the original inhabitants, have dealt with them in the past. We are proposing that they be given, as much as possible, the right to self-government. We all support that.
Surely the Member must realize that, just as we white people have often been less than fair in dealing with certain individuals or groups, the same thing has happened and could again happen with native people. The Member knows, better than I, the differences that arose between the national and provincial organizations of native people and native women because of the different way in which the children of a native person married to a non-native are treated. The children of a marriage between a native father and a non-native mother have been classified as native. The children of a native mother and a non-native father have not been classified as native. When women and other groups said that children of all mixed marriages should be treated in the same way, many leaders of native organizations opposed that.


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


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


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but say once again that we are dealing with Motion No. 37 moved by the Hon. Member which applies to membership codes. The Hon. Member is debating the total Bill. We should be getting on with debate on the motions. There will be time for the Hon. Member to make comments on any other areas when they come up for debate. However, we are presently dealing with a specific motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) has a point and I would like the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) to debate Motion 37.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference, this is the first time that I have spoken in this debate at any stage. I have spoken for less than three minutes and I will come to this particular amendment in about one more minute. If the Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) would contain himself, we would move on a lot faster than we would with him raising these so-called points of order.
The teachers on the Fort Alexander reserve near Pine Falls, Manitoba, some of who are native, decided that it was in their interest, and in the interest of most teachers, to have an organization and to associate themselves with the Manitoba teachers' society. They followed the provisions of the Canada Labour Relations Act and tried to get certified. The Canada Labour Relations Board and the courts have ruled that they have a right to become members of that organization. The
Indian Act
chief and the band council absolutely refused to accede to that very legitimate request.
We believe in Indian self-government, but in administering their self-government, the Indians must live up to the same basic principles as everyone else who lives in this country. They should not have the right to do things that are contrary to the Charter.


B. Keith Penner: You're wrong.


David Orlikow: Well, the Member says I am wrong.


B. Keith Penner: You're wrong. Read the Constitution.


David Orlikow: He is entitled to his opinion. That is my view and I say that the Charter-


B. Keith Penner: You're wrong.


David Orlikow: Well, the Member can say that I am wrong. In my view the equality provisions of the Charter should apply to everybody in the country. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment moved by my colleague, the Member for Malahat-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Manly).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 York East (Mr. Redway)-Administration of Justice-Enforcement of Young Offenders Act; the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Charter of Rights- Funding of litigation, (b) Departmental studies, (c) Override provision; and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Pensions-Minister's position, (b) Concept of fairness.



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 Motion No. 37 (Mr. Manly) (p. 5653).
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1985
Indian Act
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) were not such an experienced and sensitive Member, I would not take the time to indicate once again why his arguments on this particular issue are as wrong as wrong can possibly be. All he need do is acquaint himself with the Constitution which is now the law of the country. As my hon. friend, the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) correctly pointed out, Section 25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that aboriginal rights and freedoms are not affected by the Charter. My hon. friend from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands wants to make a Constitutional change. The Minister is quite correct in saying that we should reject that. He wants the contents of our Constitution to be applied to Bill C-31. That is absolutely wrong.
Section 25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:
The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada-


David Orlikow: What are those rights?


B. Keith Penner: What are those aboriginal rights? Among them is the basic right to determine the membership of your First Nation. That right does not belong to the Parliament of Canada. It belongs to the Indian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: That is what my friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East was trying to get across and he did it very well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


David Orlikow: Could I ask-


B. Keith Penner: The Hon. Member failed to listen and came up with the spurious argument that this Charter ought to apply to everybody.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


B. Keith Penner: I tell him now that he is wrong and he is wrong-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please!


B. Keith Penner: -and he is wrong and he should understand that he is wrong.


David Orlikow: I wonder if I could ask the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on a point of order, and he has already spoken on debate.


David Orlikow: I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would permit me to ask him a question.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no provision for questions and comments. The only way in which the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North can speak again is by getting unanimous consent of the House.


David Edward Crombie: Back to C-31, folks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) on debate.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful not to have to get involved in this particular tempest. The measure that is before us proposes that all by-laws and regulations made under the authority of this Act are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Minister has spoken carefully in objection to this suggesting that the legislation of the land is subject to the Charter of Rights and that it is both unnecessary and paternalistic to propose the addition of this section to the legislation.
In contention of that position I would suggest, with all due respect to the Minister and the committee that has worked very hard on this Bill and made much progress on it, that the question which faces us here is not so much the legislation itself as lists and by-laws under the Act. There is reason to put this forward. I would take a moment to read from the committee which debated this at length and heard from witnesses. I read specifically from the testimony of Ms. Beth Symes, legal counsel to Indian Rights for Indian Women. On this very question she says:
We have heard, from various opinions, that, in fact, the band membership rules, codes, applications etc., would be subject to the Charter. As that is still an open question and the determination as to how far down the structure the term "government" goes, is still very much an open question-
She offers the opinion that this will be an open question for the next 10 to 25 years in constitutional law in Canada. She concludes:
I think it only prudent to ensure that the rights set out in the Charter be protected. The membership codes and the residency rules should be specifically required to conform to the minimum requirements enunciated in the Charter. Not to do so may prove to be extremely expensive, say, 10 years down the road. I say it should be in and it should be in expressly.
That is a good reason for supporting the motion which my colleague and I have put forward this afternoon.
* (1620)


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 37. 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.
June 11, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. Motions Nos. 40 and 41 will be grouped for debate.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River) moved:: Motion No. 40
That Bill C-31, be amended by adding immediately after line 35 at page 19 the following:
"21. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed as
abrogating or derogating from the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada."


David Edward Crombie: Motion No. 41
That Bill C-31, be amended
(a)	by adding immediately after line 35 at page 19 the following:
"21. Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada."
(b)	and by renumbering the subsequent Clauses accordingly.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address Motion No. 40 which stands in my name, I would like to forewarm all Members of the House that it is my intention to withdraw Motion No. 40. Following consultation with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) and with the three principal native organizations which, as the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) pointed out, have the largest stake in Bill C-31, we have reached the belief that no really valid useful purpose would be accomplished by the inclusion of the text of Motion No. 40 in this Bill. Bearing in mind that the Constitution in Paragrpah 35(1) provides a very similar clause as to the non-derogation and non-abrogation of the very important and fundamental aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada, it is my intention, therefore, to withdraw Motion No. 40. With your permission, Sir, I would seek unanimous consent of this honourable House so to do.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, of course I will not withhold unanimous consent. I want to say that I do so with some regret. I think that although the arguments of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) are valid, that it is a bit redundant to have Motion No. 40 included in the Bill because we already have in our Constitution a section which says that nothing can abrogate or derogate from recognized aboriginal and treaty rights. Nevertheless, I found a certain amount of appeal of actually having this motion in the Bill because there is such a threat that aboriginal rights in some way can be transgressed by Bill C-31.
I regret the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) is not here at the moment because it would be clearer now what a contradiction there is between the motion we have just defeated put by the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-
Indian Act
The Islands (Mr. Manly) who wanted to put the effect of the Charter upon the membership codes of the bands and the motion of my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River, with whom I agree fully. I want the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North to hear this now that he is here. I am not making peace. I am saying on the basis of substance and validity that these two motions are in direct contradiction with each other and the motion of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River, had it not been withdrawn, would have been given my full support.
Let me draw to the attention of Hon. Members Section 35 of the Constitution. It states that the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. Meetings have been going on among first Ministers as well as preparatory meetings with the Ministers of Justice and Attorneys General trying to define precisely what those rights are. I would argue it is axiomatic, it is a basic principle, it is a foundation of aboriginal rights that among those rights are the right of self-government. If you accept that there is the right of self-government, then you have the right to determine your own membership codes.
We cannot say that we have developed a magnificent Charter. We know in this House of Commons that when we were debating the Constitution we knew that there was give and take and wheeling and dealing on the Charter. We know it is not something that has come from Mount Sinai. It is the product of the men and women who worked on it. It was the best we could do at the time, but it is not perfect. It is not such an absolute perfect document that we now have to say that if we cannot impose this on other people then somehow what they do will be inadequate.
I go back to what the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) said so well. "Can we not trust other people, the aboriginal peoples of this country, the Indian people of this country to develop a Charter that may be in terms of their membership code and in terms of their nationhood far, far superior to anything we have developed in this House up to the present time?" In fact, have we made enough inquiries to know that such may not already exist? I would suggest if we were a little more aware of the principles that govern Indian nations, we may discover to our amazement and surprise in centuries upon centuries and thousands upon thousands of years of governing themselves that they have acquired certain principles we could very well adapt for ourselves which would be far superior to what we have done with our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I regretfully say to the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River that I will agree to his request. I understand his argument. We already have the Constitution, but I would have been very happy to see that clause included for greater certainty.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) says that the Indian bands have the absolute right to determine membership. I say to him if they have that right then 1 can see some band deciding that a child born of a mixed marriage where the father is an Indian and the mother is not will be a

June 11, 1985
Indian Act
member of the band, but a child born in a mixed marriage where the mother is an Indian but the father is not will not be a member of the band. Maybe that fits with the Hon. Member's concept of justice and equality, but it does not fit mine.
I say again what I said before, as far as I am concerned every person living in Canada regardless of race, colour, creed, age or any of the other things we have talked about is entitled to equal treatment and equal rights. It could also be another group. If a band can vary that, then I am opposed to it.


B. Keith Penner: Read the Royal Proclamation of 1763.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the debate with respect to this motion so far. I know how Members can feel so strongly about it. We have enjoyed the debate on the organizing principles of the Bill as well. I might say, Mr. Speaker, as Motion No. 40 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) is now being withdrawn with unanimous consent, that I would seek unanimous consent to withdraw Motion No. 41 standing in my name because it stands in my name only because the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River has Motion No. 40 standing in his name. If the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River withdraws his motion, I would like to withdraw mine.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to give my permission to the Minister and to my colleague to withdraw their motions.
I would like to make a short comment about the concern raised by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) who said there was some contradiction between my position on Motion No. 37 which we just dealt with and the position taken by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). I do not think there is any contradiction.
Motions Nos. 40 and 41 were withdrawn out of a concern that if a similar clause were not put in every single bit of legislation that affected aboriginal people, then the guarantee of aboriginal rights in our constitution would simply wither on the vine. If we include that guarantee in some pieces of legislation and not in others, the courts might feel that they had open season on aboriginal rights. It is on that basis that my colleague and the Minister withdrew Motions Nos. 40 and 41.
The question with regard to Motion No. 37 was quite different. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior made the argument that aboriginal rights were outside the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the Charter should not be impinging upon any aboriginal rights. He saw the whole question of membership as being one of those rights, as I do, but I believe that it is a right which should pertain to all Indian people, including those who are being reinstated. They should have that right guaranteed to them. No one should have the right to take it away from them, including any band
council. They need the protection of the Charter. Aboriginal peoples need the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms even though their specific aboriginal rights are outside the Charter. Therefore, I think it was important to mention this in the Bill, and I do not see any contradiction between supporting Motion No. 37 as we do and withdrawing Motion No. 40 as we do.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, we in this Party give unanimous consent to the Minister withdrawing Motion No. 41. I listened carefully to the arguments of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). I think the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) said it all. If the two Members of the New Democratic Party who just spoke want to review how the British Empire was dismantled and decolonized, they can do so. However, the following questions have been asked: How can we allow these people to govern their own lives and to manage their own affairs if we do not give them our marvellous, wonderful British tradition; how will they ever manage without our institutions and guidelines?
The Indian people of Canada can manage, govern and control their own affairs without us imposing upon them all the good things we think we have developed for ourselves. Good things they are, but they are good things for us. Let us not decide so arbitrarily that these are such good things for them. Perhaps we should turn it around and ask: What good things can they impinge upon us? Would that not be a nice change of atmosphere? What would happen if they brought a law into this Chamber saying that they have developed some good things in their several thousands of years of occupying and living on this continent? Perhaps they would like to impinge some of their laws, rights and freedoms on us. I can imagine the tremendous protest there would be. They would be asked: "By what right do you do that? We are sovereign and independent; you cannot come in here and impose your laws on us". However, when it is turned around, and because we are dealing with a minority, we do it in the name of self-righteousness, and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I will be very short in my response.


David Edward Crombie: You are short.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, I am short; that is true. I have listened to those Liberal Members, both of whom I respect a great deal, giving us a rough time for our position on the Bill. 1 just remind them that during the period of time when we discussed that particular clause in the Constitution, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) and some of the rest of us put our political necks and the neck of our Party on the line. We went out on the farthest limb in terms of our support. Our whole support for the Constitution was around that particular clause. I ask them to remember that. I do not think we have to apologize. They were on the back-benches of
June 11, 1985

the Liberal Party but they eventually accepted it, as did their Leader. We should put that behind us.
I should like to make another comment about this particular clause in the Constitution because it is peripherally related to the debate. We do not need to have some of the clauses respecting aboriginal rights in the particular Act because many people in the country, including some provincial Premiers in western Canada, will be very surprised when the Supreme Court of Canada brings down decisions recognizing the most radical clause in the Constitution. I am really pleased that the Minister and the new Government are trying to follow those traditions, prodded by our critic, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands. Take it easy, boys, remember the past.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, it would have been nice to get those kinds of speeches out of those Liberals last year, the year before, and the year before.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) to withdraw Motion No. 40?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 40 withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there also unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Minister to withdraw Motion No. 41 ?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 41 withdrawn.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 42 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 42 agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Indian Act.
Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on a point of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, with the possible exception of the "late" Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), perhaps the count that was taken on Motion No. 14 could also be applied to Motions Nos. 17, 32, and 37. That being the case, the count could be recorded in exactly the same way in Votes and Proceedings.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if the suggestion of the House Leader of the NDP is followed, I would like it to be recorded that I voted with the Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Which Party?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There is only one Party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Do I take it there is consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) will be recorded as having voted the same way as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie). The next vote is on Motion No. 17. Mr. Manly moved:
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. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 32. Mr. Manly moved:
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-31, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 10 and 11 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"(p.l) the residence of persons who are not members of the Band;".


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 37. Mr. Manly moved:
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-31, be amended by deleting Clause 19 and substituting the following therefor:
''19. For greater certainty, membership rules established pursuant to Section 10 and all by-laws and regulations made under the authority of this Act, are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moves that Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Indian Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want the record to show that I was present today but did not vote for or against the amendments because I believe the Bill to be seriously defective and that it should be sent back to committee for further consultation with the peoples affected.

June 11, 1985


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['Mr. Speaker, just because the matter happened to come up a week ago-there is no problem with what has gone through-I think if you check the "blues" you will find there was a case where we all agreed, but the Speaker did not ask to see if there were any nays. An amendment was lost in a Bill two weeks ago on that same type of procedural mistake. I think it should have been checked to see if there were any nays. There were not any, as it turns out.']
Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 13?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Ian Gardiner Waddell: that Bill C-236, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (non listed electors) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak on Bill C-236. It is my private Members' Bill which had first reading on April 25, 1985, and is to amend the Canada Elections Act. I want to thank the Government because I understand it is prepared to refer the Bill to the committee in principle allowing the points to be discussed in committee. I am most appreciative for this action. That is the way Parliament should work.
Briefly let me tell you what the Bill does, Mr. Speaker. It is fairly simple. There are three provisions in it. The first clause reads:
This amendment allows urban voters to be "sworn in" and vote on election day where their names fail to appear on the voters list for the urban polling division. This procedure is currently open only to rural voters.
I will come back to rural voters and explain it in a moment. The second clause reads:
This provision attempts to remedy the situation where candidates and their canvassers have been denied entry to apartment buildings, hotels and the like which have "no soliciting" policies.
I will come back to explain that. The third clause reads:
This provision would allow travellers and students temporarily resident outside Canada to vote in general elections in a manner similar to Canadian Forces and Public Service electors posted outside Canada.
Why did I bring this Bill forward now so early in the session? Because the subject is still fresh in most all Members' minds. It was only last summer around about this time that the previous Prime Minister called upon the Governor General to dissolve the House to have a federal election which took place in September. As a result, most Members of the House are quite familiar with the Canada Elections Act. The Act was
Canada Elections Act
last amended in this House, I believe, on October 25, 1983, through Bill C-169.
Members of this Parliament are aware of what it is like to go through an election. They will know the strengths and weaknesses of the Act. Generally it is pretty strong. We are fortunate to have a vibrant democracy in Canada. I wish my Party had won more seats, but I am particularly happy that I was returned and my colleagues, such as the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) who is sitting beside me were returned.
I took the occasion to write to Members of the House to give them some notice of my Bill and I am pleased to say that I received a response from numerous Members who were prepared to support the Bill or who had some comments and took up my request. I will just mention that the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) responded, a Liberal MP. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) responded, a Conservative. The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) already a very active Member of this House who has been here only a short time, a Conservative, responded. The Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) responded. All Members responded very favourably to referring the Bill to committee.
Some other Members responded who had some concerns with the Bill and, to be fair, I should mention them. A Member from my own Party, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) had some concern about the provision with respect to urban electors voting at the polls when they were not registered. We will discuss that point in committee. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock) also expressed some concern about that part of the Bill.
Let me just go through some of the provisions of the Bill that are relevant to the matter this afternoon. The first provision of the Bill arose from a letter I received from one of my constituents and concerns that I received at the time of the election. Essentially last year's election was a summer election. A lot of people were out of the country who wanted to vote but could not because they were going to be out of the country. Elections usually come every four years. We should err on the side of trying to make it possible for as many people to vote. We should try to figure out procedures that would allow people to vote. I would like to read a letter from E. Carol MacPherson who lives at 2981 E. Twenty-Sixth Avenue, Vancouver, in my riding. The letter is dated July 30, 1984. She writes:
Dear Mr. Waddell:
Like many other people, I imagine. I am having difficulty arranging to vote in this upcoming election. I will be out of the country between August 11 and September 8. The Returning Officer has told me that I will not be able to vote and no possible arrangements can be made. Surely something can be done for those of us trying to be responsible citizens. I am offended by the attitude of the Returning Office that I am somehow remiss to take my hard-earned holidays when an election has been called.
I am writing to your office not only because you are my MP but also because 1 support your candidacy. 1 appreciate the work you have done for your constituency and I would really like to vote in this election.

June 11, 1985
Canada Elections Act
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I wanted her to vote in the election too. The letter concludes:
Thanking you in advance for your interest and assistance.
I could not make the effort then, but I am making the effort now.
I noticed an advertisement in the Vancouver paper, The Sun that I happened to spot. It concerns the elections in Australia. It was an ad that was buried away in one of the advertising columns of the Vancouver Sun. It advertised for people to vote in the Australian election who would be away when the election took place. The ad was for people living in Vancouver who were Australian citizens. It outlined the voting procedure. I thought it was quite a good idea. I would like to see us to do something like that in Canada. I will bring that idea to the committee. Let me read the advertisement. It reads:
Election day is December 1, 1984.
A general election for the Australian House of Representatives, the Senate and two Referendums Questions will be held on Saturday, December 1,1984.
A second heading in the article read: "Apply now for a postal vote" and continued as follows:
If you are enrolled on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll and you are travelling or are temporarily a resident in Western Canada and will not be returning to Australia before Election Day, you may apply for a Postal Vote.
Postal voting facilities and a list of candidates are available at the Australian Consulate-General, Vancouver-
Also included in the advertisement was a telephone number. I found that to be quite interesting. It is true, as my colleague said, that in Australia one is required to vote. My Bill does not require Canadians to vote. Actually, it does not provide for a postal vote. However, it tries to provide the same facilities as those provided for foreign service officers and armed services personnel to vote in federal elections. I think the same could be done for people residing abroad or for people travelling abroad when elections are held. That is one of the first provisions of my Bill.
The second provision is one to give urban voters the same rights as rural voters. There is a provision in the British Columbia Elections Act by which people can show up at the polls, show proof of their identity, and swear affidavits indicating that they were not enumerated but that they lived in the riding and should be able to vote. I believe that can be done under the Canada Elections Act if one is a rural voter. There is some controversy about it, although we have that provision in the Province of British Columbia and it appears to work in provincial elections. The controversy is that perhaps it would enable people to abuse the system. That may be so, but I would argue that we could prevent abuses by a proper procedure.
I have been at the polls, as I am sure other Hon. Members have been, when voters turn up, only to discover that they were not enumerated and could not vote. They feel badly about it, because Canadians generally take their voting rights very seriously. As the former Prime Minister used to say, "If you don't like me, you can throw me out at election time". It is one
of our real rights, perhaps the highest one, next to free speech. It is important that we make the vote as available as we can and on the widest basis possible.
I will point out in committee that if we have a different procedure for rural voters as opposed to urban ones in our present Canada Elections Act, it may be unconstitutional and against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think the committee should look at it very seriously.
My third point in the Bill is a rather personal one. During the last election campaign, canvassers could not go into the Patricia Hotel in the riding of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East. People actually live in that hotel, many of whom are loggers who work in the woods and make the hotel their permanent residence. It was more like an apartment than a hotel. However, the manager of the hotel would not allow canvassers in. I telephoned him and told him that I was a lawyer and a Member of Parliament, that I would like canvassers to be able to go into the hotel so that its residents would have an opportunity to get all available literature, and that it would give us a chance to get their vote or to convert them, if they were thinking of voting for another Party. The manager said: "I don't have to let you in; show me the law". Thereafter I checked the law and discovered that there was nothing in the provincial Act or in the federal Act which would require him to let canvassers in. I telephoned him again to tell him that he was right and to appeal to him as a citizen of Canada, as someone who I expected shared my view that it was very important to have utmost freedom for the dissemination of political literature, freedom of speech and so on. I told him that he should let in canvassers and he said: "Too bad, 1 will not let them in". I told him that there was more than one way to skin a cat, that I would have to change the law. This is why I am particularly pleased to have the Bill before the House this evening. I will send a copy of it to that particular hotel manager.
I considered other possible issues to raise in the Bill. I did not raise one such issue because I thought there was opposition to it. Perhaps I will raise these points for discussion in committee. However, I notice that the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) has Bill C-219, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, on the Order Paper. He is asking for changes in terms of candidates who seek a leave of absence to run. I hope that matter will eventually come before the House as another issue pertaining to the Canada Elections Act.
I think the issue of public opinion polls should be raised. Should we continue to allow public opinion polls to be published during an election campaign? I noted that in the campaign last year it was important to have these polls. However, that issue was not raised in my Bill. Other issues would be shorter election periods and the right of prisoners to vote. Perhaps they could be discussed at another point.
I have made three simple amendments. I would be very pleased if they could go to committee to be discussed.
June 11, 1985


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Clinch):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-236, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (non-listed electors), be not now read the second time but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The House has heard the terms of the amendment. The Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary. I think that is the appropriate disposition of Bill C-236, presented to the House by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).
I just want to note for the record that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections has before it the report of the Chief Electoral Officer for consideration. Some of the matters raised in the Bill of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway are under discussion before the committee. I just want to add three points to what he has already said.
In the first place, with respect to the matter of the differentiation between urban and rural voters, I, for one, believe that that distinction has to be eliminated because under the new provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms all Canadians have equal voting rights. I think we should eliminate that distinction altogether. While I appreciate the effort of the Hon. Member, I think there is another resolution to the problem.
With respect to the matter of a permanent voters' list, the Hon. Member mentioned the list in his presentation, but the Bill actually referred to the special voting rules. I agree that that is something we ought to consider for Canadian voters. I think it is overdue. We have computer systems which can put in place a very easy method to establish a permanent voters' list so that we can obtain the kinds of advantages which the citizens of Australia enjoy.
The third point, access to candidates, I think is long overdue and is a provision that the committee ought to consider. Hopefully it will be enacted. When writing to the hotel proprietor in Vancouver, let me say to the Member through you, Mr. Speaker, you can add that the Hon. Member for Halifax West thinks you should have been allowed into the hotel as well. I say that to all the department superintendents across the country: don't try to obstruct the voting process. Maybe we should have provisions like that.
I see it is approaching six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and you will want to call the question on the motion which I hope all Members will approve.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the main motion?
Adjournment Debate


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Dick) agreed to.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, just because the matter happened to come up a week ago-there is no problem with what has gone through-I think if you check the "blues" you will find there was a case where we all agreed, but the Speaker did not ask to see if there were any nays. An amendment was lost in a Bill two weeks ago on that same type of procedural mistake. I think it should have been checked to see if there were any nays. There were not any, as it turns out.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, you will remember that on April 26 I put a question to the Acting Solicitor General with respect to a request that his Department review the Young Offenders Act, bearing in mind concerns expressed by the Chief of Police of Metropolitan Toronto, Jack Marks, in connection with the Young Offenders Act.
Chief Marks, as you will remember, Mr. Speaker, pointed out a number of concerns relating to the Young Offenders Act. He indicated that at that stage in April there were some 400 individual cases of persons under the age of 12 who allegedly had committed criminal offences but could not be charged with those criminal offences. I understand there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 500 individuals under the age of 12 in the Metropolitan Toronto area that fall into the same category. They had allegedly committed some very serious offences, including arson, break and enter, theft, assault, sexual assault and crimes of that nature. Since that time there have been reports of other very serious matters, including a high-speed chase involving an 11-year old boy who drove a car
5666

June 11, 1985
Adjournment Debate
at a high speed, chased by the police, which resulted in the injury of two police officers. No charge could be laid against that 11-year old boy under either the Criminal Code or the Highway Traffic Act of the Province of Ontario. He could not be charged with any criminal offence whatever because of the provisions of the Young Offenders Act.
Those were some of the incidences pointed out by the chief at that time. Since that time a number of other cases have come to light. One, of course, was the 17-year old offender who had been charged with armed robbery with a sawed-off shotgun, who then escaped custody, yet the police could not warn the public of the name or identity of that person because of Section 38 of the Young Offenders Act.
The police have also pointed out the serious position in which the law puts a person accused of committing a sexual assault, or something of that nature, against a young child under the age of 12. A judge can now accept the uncorroborated testimony of a child under the age of 12 in order to convict a person on a charge of that nature, but that child is not subject to being charged in the event it turns out that the evidence given is not true, or not correct. A child under the age of 12 can give evidence which can be accepted as sufficient to convict an adult. In that event the judge is accepting that evidence on the basis that the child understands what is right and what is wrong, and what is meant by the truth. But at the same time that child can not be charged for perjury if in fact the evidence that the child gives is false. Those are some of the instances raised by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department in connection with this situation.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that at that time the Acting Solicitor General raised the point that the police could fall back on the Child Welfare Act, or perhaps the new Ontario law now scheduled to come into effect on October 1 of this year, the Child and Family Services Act. In both instances it would be necessary for the police not only to investigate the offence involving the young offender, but to investigate the family situation as well, with a view to determining whether the family was a good family, or was not looking after the child properly and did not have the child under proper control. The police and the Children's Aid in a number of instances have pointed out their concern with that sort of approach.
It is obvious that in most of these instances the child under the age of 12 lives in a good home, is well looked after and well cared for. Certainly there would be no way that the Child Welfare Act as it now stands would apply to that child, and no way in the opinion of the police or of Children's Aid that the Child and Family Services Act, which will come into effect in October of this year, would have any application or effect in that situation.
As a result of those inquiries I arranged a meeting with the Chief of Police of Metropolitan Toronto and the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. MacKay) to discuss these concerns and try to sort out some answers to these problems. On that occasion, the police raised five separate areas of concern. They
raised matters relating to those offenders under the age of 12; a ban on publication, a records repository, breach of probation and the definition of temporary restraint. All of these questions remain to be answered.
I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us today that the Solicitor General is seriously considering introducing some legislation to correct this situation so that the police can better serve and protect the citizens of Canada.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am personally aware of the meeting that took place between the Hon. Member, the Chief of Police of Metropolitan Toronto and the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay). I believe that meeting took place within the last 14 days and I am aware, from public and private statements that have been made by the Hon. Member, that he is very concerned about the Young Offenders Act. I might say that certain provisions of that Act have concerned all Members of the House or, at any rate, most Members of the House. 1 can tell the Hon. Member that his concerns are being monitored.
In January of 1985 the Solicitor General met with his corresponding Ministers at a provincial level. It was agreed at that time that there would be a mechanism for carrying out investigation of the Act and the necessary consideration of amendments that might be called for. I would ask the Hon. Member to be patient with respect to this matter. I know that the Solicitor General is very concerned and I know that he will get back to the Hon. Member in due course.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS-FUNDING OF LITIGATION. (B) DEPARTMENTAL STUDIES. (C) OVERRIDE PROVISION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to rise to pursue a very important question I asked of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) on February 1 of this year. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that was the day after the Minister had announced his response to the challenge that was posed by Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Section which guarantees equality for all Canadians.
Many of us were very bitterly disappointed by the fact that the Government had failed to move forward with significant legislation, having been given three years to review its legislation comprised of some 1,100 statutes. In fact, the Government made very little progress in making amendments to ensure that equality would be a reality. As I have indicated, women, the disabled, minorities, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians felt a sense of anger and betrayal. They had waited three years for naught.
The effect of the failure on the part of the federal Government to move forward with the legislative initiatives which would ensure real equality is that those who wish to assert their rights and put an end to discrimination in Canada are being forced into the courts. Of course, a committee has been established, and I have the honour of representing my Party on that committee. That committee has heard witnesses from
June 11, 1985

across Canada expressing concerns that legislation has not been amended.
If there is one concern about which we have been told very strongly and clearly than any other, it is the concern that if equality is to be a reality, and if the possibility of the courts being the last refuge is to be a reality, the courts must not be restricted solely to those who can afford to pay. It is on that basis that I asked the Minister of Justice on February 1, 1985, to agree to establish a special fund which would assist in challenges under the provisions of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights. That was not something which had been dreamed up that week, it was a question in response to a solemn commitment which had been made by the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), on August 14, 1984, during the election campaign. The Prime Minister said:
A Progressive Conservative government will financially assist all Charter of Rights cases deemed to be of national importance. Cases involving the rights of the handicapped and disabled would certainly fall into this category.
There was only one amendment in the Government's legislative response to Section 15 which affected the rights of the disabled and the handicapped. That amendment changed the word "lunacy" to the words "mental disability" in the Canada Shipping Act. That was not the major pressing concern of more than two million disabled people in Canada.
Many other concerns were expressed by the disabled community, which resulted in the strengthening of the Charter of Rights to include physical and mental disability. Those concerns were reflected in the Obstacles Report. There was no shortage of recommendations. The Government did not make the legislation changes which were needed. Therefore, the only alternative, pending those legislative changes, is court challenges.
We have waited for the funding for those challenges. The corporate sector is already active in the courts defending its rights. It has unlimited resources. Generally speaking, victims of inequality tend to be economically unequal; they tend to be poor and powerless. It is those people who must be assisted financially.
We were told in February 1985, by the Minister of Justice that the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) was considering the establishment of a fund to assist in court challenges. The Minister of Justice said that his colleague was a mighty volcano in Cabinet on the question. He said that the Secretary of State was ready to explode at any moment. He was considering the issue together with the Minister of Justice. Well, we are waiting for the Secretary of State to explode. We have been waiting for a little whimper from the Secretary of State. It is the Minister of Justice who has been doing the exploding recently.
This is an issue of fundamental importance. As Frank Scott said so eloquently, "The trappings of democracy hang loosely on an emaciated body politic". I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice will stand in his place today and respond to the concerns of women's groups, the disabled, and other minorities, and announce that the Government will, in fact, make equality rights a reality, at
Adjournment Debate
least to the extent that the people can challenge unjust laws in the courts. I call upon the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Government to live up to the commitment which was made by the Prime Minister during the last federal election campaign, to live up to the commitments made by the Minister of Justice and that mighty volcano, the Secretary of State, and finally announce a court challenges' fund.
April 17 has come and gone and still this Government's promise remains unfulfilled. I hope that we might finally see some evidence of funding which will ensure that these challenges, so important in the absence of a meaningful legislative response, can in fact go forward.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member, seeing that brevity has its own rewards, that the whole matter of funding is under consideration by the Cabinet-


Svend Johannes Robinson: How much longer?


Chris Speyer: -and it will be announcing in due course its decision.


PENSIONS-MINISTER'S POSITION. (B) CONCEPT OF FAIRNESS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue a question I asked of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) last week. It concerns the discrepancy between the actions the Government has taken with respect to deindexing the old age security payment in the budget and some things the Minister of National Health and Welfare had to say prior to the introduction of that budget. 1 referred to a number of things, the first of which was the commitment made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the discussion paper released by him in January concerning social benefits, that there would be no change in the Old Age Security-Guaranteed Income Supplement system. That was a flat statement by the Minister in that document, that no change was required.
In fact, the Minister did not even seek out the opinions of the seniors with respect to the pension system, because he gave the impression in January that this was not even an issue. It was not even up for discussion. Yet when the budget finally came down we found that there was to be a radical change in the system, a deindexing of the Old Age Security payment which will affect seniors far and wide, no matter what part of the country they live in. I think, therefore, that the Minister needs to be called to task for saying one thing in January and allowing the Government, of which he is a part, to do another thing in the budget in May.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) cannot hide behind the fact that the situation is other than what he expected it to be. It is often said by the Government, "Well, we said that when we were in opposition but we didn't know what a mess we would be left in by the Liberals". Yet I am talking about a commitment the Government made in January after it had

June 11, 1985
Adjournment Debate
been in power for five months and after it had had ample time to assess the financial situation. That commitment was made in January and abrogated on May 23 when the budget came down.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare then found himself on the far side of the facts once more when he compounded his embarrassment of having been in a position where the Government was doing something he said it would not, by claiming that seniors supported what the Government was doing. That did not last very long because, I am sure, Members of Parliament on the government side began to get the message back to the Government that it was bad enough to do this to seniors but it was compounding the error to get up and claim that it actually had their support. That was adding insult to injury and making matters a lot worse. And very soon we found the Government saying that it never really did claim that seniors supported this and it was aware of the lack of support for this move. So the Minister changed his mind on that also.
The third thing said repeatedly by the Minister which was contradicted by the budget was that no money obtained from changes in the social benefits package would go towards cutting the debt. Yet reducing the debt has been the kernel, the core of every answer given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to questions raised in this House about the old age pension. It is in direct contradiction to everything he ever said about money saved from cut-backs in social programs not being used to reduce the debt. Yet that is the very thing he has said over and over again in this House since the budget came down.
The fourth thing the Minister has been saying which is not true has to do with the indexing of the Guaranteed Income Supplement. He keeps trying to give the impression that people who receive the GIS are fully protected by this Government. That is not true. People who receive the GIS also receive Old Age Security, and those payments will not be as high as they normally would have been because of deindexation. This is to be distinguished from what happened under the Liberals when they brought in six and five because even they had the decency to double-index the GIS so those people would not suffer from the changes. This the Conservatives have not done and that is why it is false for them to stand up and say that people receiving the GIS have been fully protected. They have not been fully protected.
This Budget is morally disgusting in the way it demands of senior citizens a sacrifice which many of them are unable to make. At the same time it turns over billions of dollars to the oil companies, the investment community, and people who have the opportunity to make a capital gain of $500,000. Is this what you call moral rectitude, giving a capital gains exemption of $500,000 to people who have accumulated all those assets over a lifetime while at the same time asking pensioners on the GIS to make a sacrifice for the country? I think the whole darn thing stinks, pensioners think it stinks,
and this Government is going to come around, you wait and see. If it does not, people will remember four years from now who it was that said one thing before the election, particularly to the elderly, and then did another after being elected.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to answer the questions raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). When we reviewed our social programs, we stressed that the principle of universality would remain unchanged. This principle is the basic element of our social-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You said there would be no change in the system; you did not say there would be no change in universality.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Gabrielle Bertrand: I listened to you, now listen to me!
This principle forms the basic element of our social safety net for the elderly. In fact, senior citizens have informed us that they were opposed to any changes in this respect. Therefore, no changes will be made in the universal Old Age Security pension.
I hope the Hon. Member will listen carefully to what I have to say next. As we announced in the Budget, the Old Age Security Pension will be indexed only for the annual increase in the consumer price index greater than 3 per cent. In addition, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, a key program on which half of elderly Canadians depend, will be fully indexed to cost-of-living increases. We also formally announced in the Budget, and this has been repeated several times, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), my colleagues and myself as well, that the Government will be monitoring the situation very closely, to ensure that benefits are adequate, in light of present and future needs. We will increase these benefits as resources permit, and we shall be very happy to do so.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill does not seem to be aware of the important measures taken by the Government which have had a direct and positive impact on senior citizens and needy Canadians. For instance, the Government has shown its support for the disabled. The definition of disability for income tax purposes will cover all types of serious disabilities affecting Canadians, and many elderly will be able to benefit from this measure. Furthermore, provisions to improve standards for private pension plans under federal jurisdiction will have a much broader impact. Since a consensus has been reached between the federal and provincial governements, we hope that standards for pension plans will be uniform at both
June 11, 1985

levels of government. The uniformity of the standards will mark an important step towards improving pension plans across Canada. Discussions with our provincial counterparts on the subject are expected to start very shortly.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to stress the fact that in the present economic situation, the Budget proposals will help us to maintain economic growth and control the deficit. It is the only way to make it easier for the government to respond to the needs of all Canadians. I would also ask Hon. Members and Canadians in general to consider
Adjournment Debate
the general context in which these proposals were made. In addition to controlling the deficit, we will be creating a climate that will foster confidence and economic growth. Mr. Speaker, we are doing all that is humanly possible to protect the interests of present and future generations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 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 6.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 12, 1985