1987-03-20

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, last night Liberal Leader John Turner and Hamilton Mountain Liberal Beth Phinney had a first-hand chance to see how poverty is affecting the people on Hamilton Mountain. They visited the Neighbour-To-Neighbour Food Centre on Hamilton Mountain. I think it is a crying shame that in this day of plenty in 1987, ridings across this country should have to open food banks in order to feed our poor and hungry.
The Government in the last three Budgets has taken more money out of the hands of the poor, the working class and ordinary Canadians, and put it into the hands of rich Canadians. Now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has the nerve to talk about tax reform. We saw the reality last night on Hamilton Mountain. When our candidate Beth Phinney took our Leader to the food banks, she was able to show him that it is not only in the cities people are hurting. People are hurting in the suburbs. They are hurting in every riding across the country.
I think it is imperative that the Government come out with a national attack on poverty to ensure that in 1987 people do not have to stand in line for food for themselves, for their children and for their families. That is a decent policy, that is a Liberal policy, and that is the policy that Beth Phinney is going to promote when she comes here to Ottawa.


CHALLENGE 87 JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH IN NORTHERN ONTARIO
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, much has been said in the House recently about Challenge '87 and youth job creation. I rise today to commend the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) for his fine job in furthering
the federal Government's attempt to provide meaningful job opportunities for the youth of our country.
Last year I was pleased to see how successful Challenge '86 was for northern Ontario youth. Over $8.2 million was contracted to northern Ontario under the program which resulted in creation of 4,600 jobs. Students from across the North greatly benefited from Challenge '86, and this year students will have the same enjoyment of this successful program.
I am very happy to see that the federal Government has recognized the special needs of youth in northern Ontario, and we have responded. Again I commend the Minister of State for Youth for his efforts in recognizing the regions of our country, and the Government of Canada for the employment of our youth.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-SASKATCHEWAN RESIDENT'S OPPOSITION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians finally received a clear picture of who is really pushing for free trade in Canada. It is a Liberal-Conservative big business alliance which drew itself together with Donald Macdonald, Peter Lougheed, people such as Philippe de Gaspe Beaubien, and people supporting them from all of the major corporate groups in the country.
I wish to place on the record the voice of someone from central Saskatchewan, someone from the riding of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who wrote to the Minister saying:
I believe it is a mistake to attempt to negotiate a free trade deal with the U.S.
while there are such strong protectionist sentiments down there . . . We don't
want to sell the farm to buy a shovel.
He goes on to make a very strong case and concludes:
Mr. Reisman should be instructed to quietly pack up and come back home.
That is the position of our Party, too.
5. O. 21 FINANCE

March 20, 1987


PHASING OUT OF INVESTMENT TAX PROGRAM
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the investment tax credit was instituted back in the mid-1970s. It turns out that the ITC was not intended to stimulate employment in the production of machinery and equipment. The purpose, according to Finance officials, was to enhance productivity by encouraging more investment in equipment.
Clearly, the ITC ought never to have applied to agriculture. The ITC is a program which encouraged wealthier farmers to flip equipment for tax purposes. It is a program which was not even intended to stimulate employment in the manufacturing of equipment in Canada, a program which did little to enhance productivity in western agriculture-a sector which is already highly productive. It is a program which has cost the Canadian Treasury hundreds of millions of dollars, moneys which might have been better used on other agriculture programs.
The investment tax credit was another Liberal program, like the scientific research tax credit-ill-conceived, poorly designed, and open to abuse.
I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for recognizing the ITC as a program without purpose and for acting to phase it out.


AEROSPACE
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, for a number of weeks now Montreal has been urging that it be designated as the site of the space agency headquarters. Board of Trade President Manon Vennat and Chambre de commerce President Marcel Daoust have made strong representations to have the agency located in Montreal.
Yesterday's Le Devoir stated: "Space centre in Montreal considered as realistic and challenging vision for all Canada". This is a true statement, Mr. Speaker: 55 per cent of Canada's space industry is located in Montreal; 79 per cent of research and development is carried out in that region; 45 per cent of the space industry sales are made in Montreal. Montreal's four universities provide excellent synergy for academic and industrial circles.
Notwithstanding so many good reasons to make Montreal Canada's space agency centre, it would seem that this Government may be considering locating it elsewhere. I think it is a very important issue, and we have been told that there are several reasons for this, one being that some public servants in this sector would be reluctant to leave the national
capital, but I do not think this is a sufficient reason. The Government would be well advised to keep its mandate in mind and make sure that the country's economic interests come first, another way of suggesting that the space centre must be located in Montreal.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the effective policies of the Progressive Conservative Government, poverty in Canada is being significantly reduced. Statistics Canada reports that as real family income increases the number of Canadians living below the poverty line declined by 263,000 in 1985. For those of us of the Conservative persuasion who believe in the dignity of all mankind, this is welcome news.
[DOT] (UlO)
It is evident that the Government's emphasis on the creation of an economic environment which encourages investment, new jobs, and opportunity, is much more effective in eliminating hardship than the old Liberal-NDP approach of hand-outs and giveaways.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the British Columbia Government brought down a Budget that will cost average families an extra $135 in taxes. The Budget also provides strong evidence that the plan of the Conservative Government to ban new generic drugs will indeed hurt consumers.
The British Columbia Government has reached a new low in its treatment of the elderly by forcing seniors to pay 75 per cent of the dispensing fee for prescription drugs, up to $125 annually. Although there is compensation for the very poor, this will affect a great many seniors who live just near the poverty line.
The British Columbia Government has also hurt the elderly and sick by increasing the deductible for pharmacare. I submit that these callous actions are very much related to the drug Patent Act that will force families to pay more for prescription drugs. It is another example of Ottawa Conservatives working hand in hand with B.C. Socreds to make corporations wealthy at the expense of the elderly, the sick, and the poor.
March 20, 1987


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the easiest people to deride in this House are professors. No MP dares say a word against farmers, fishermen, industrial workers, or business people, provided that they are small. But anyone, any day, can run professors down without fear of retaliation.
Yet the cars people use to drive to work, the equipment with which they work, the economy that makes the work possible, and the satisfaction of almost every legitimate need result from the research and innovation of scientists and scholars, mostly at universities.
Here is a priority for all levels of government and all members of the private sector as we see the rising need for increased funding for research. Without it Canada could not have prospered in the 20th century, nor can it hope to advance in the 21st century.
* *
*
[ Translation]


PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
[Stage Direction]
DAFFODILS FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA-HURRAH!
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, today is a very special day. Not only is it the forty-eighth birthday of Canada's Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ted William Schellenberg: -but it is also the last day of winter. Yes, "now ends the winter of our discontent". Spring officially arrives this evening!
As you will agree, Mr. Speaker, spring is eternal in our home Province of British Columbia. The sun always shines, the flowers bloom year round, and ocean waters softly lap against our shores.
But we are magnanimous people who are willing to share our good fortune with eastern Canadians. So, while the Ottawa snow turns grey and gritty, Members of Parliament from paradise on the Pacific have provided daffodils to all of our colleagues in the House.
They are supplied by Vancouver radio station CKNW, which once again this year means: "Canadians know nice weather". These daffodils symbolize that:
Spring has sprung,
The grass is riz-
British Columbia is where The sunshine is!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ESTABLISHMENT OF SPACE AGENCY AND SITUATION OF ELDERLY WORKERS WITH REGARD TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) just pointed out, the Chambre de commerce and Board of Trade of Montreal, the mayor of Montreal and, yesterday, Montreal editorial writers, the Quebec National Assembly-for the second time-the Opposition, the Parti quebecois and the Liberal Party unanimously endorsed a motion urging the Mulroney Government to confirm Montreal as our aerospace industry centre by establishing the space agency in Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative, first, that at their Quebec City weekend meeting the Conservative Members general council adopt a unanimous resolution supporting Montreal; and, second, that the general council of Conservative Members should pass a unanimous motion aimed at eliminating unemployment insurance discrimination against elderly workers.


HARBOURS AND PORTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries has budgeted only $47.5 million for maintenance of small craft harbours. Mr. Mike Godin of the Harbour Maintenance Branch estimates that $120 million per year is needed. If we do not spend that amount of money, within five years we will have to close about 150 Class C fishing harbours.
In other words, the Government is not maintaining the basic infrastructure needed for both our fishing and tourist industries. In some cases if fire breaks out on fishing vessels it will be impossible for fire engines to have access. In the meantime licence fees for fishermen on the Pacific coast have doubled and, in some cases, wharfage rates have more than doubled.

March 20, 1987
Oral Questions
The Government must change this penny wise and dollar foolish policy of neglecting our basic fishing industry.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that some regions of Canada are booming and others are not sharing equally in Canada's strong economic performance. However, there is one key development which helps every region, that is, lower interest rates.
Yesterday the Bank of Canada rate dropped to 7.14 per cent, the lowest in 14 years. When the Government came to power in September, 1984, the Bank of Canada rate was 12.38 per cent.
This is good news for all Canadians. It helps young couples acquire homes. Lower interest rates mean the creation of more small businesses and help existing ones to survive.
Lower interest rates even help the Government. Each 1 per cent decrease means an annual saving of over $2 billion in interest charges on the national debt. This helps reduce the deficit.
As Jackie Gleason used to say, "How sweet it is!"


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the Liberals proposed a very thoughtful amendment to the Government's free trade motion earlier this week. The amendment called for the protection of agricultural marketing boards, the Auto Pact, Canada's cultural industries, and other similar measures. The NDP voted against the amendment.
I have a transcript of an interview on CBC's The Journal of March 17 in which, in response to a question about free trade, the Leader of the NDP said:
Now if we're talking about a trading arrangement that has certain protective mechanisms, that keep in place marketing boards for our western farmers, that keep in place certain investment requirements in the automotive industry, that protect our cultural industries, in other words, all these exceptions, of course we could have a trade arrangement with the United States.
Mr. Speaker, the NDP will never be accused of telling the truth.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, today, there are a number of articles in the Globe and Mail, Le Droit and Le Devoir about the Official Languages Act and the Government's intention to introduce a Bill. Today, Le Droit says that the Conservative Government-
-will provide bilingual services only in offices receiving an average of fifty requests per month, twelve months a year, in the minority language. In areas with a population of over 200,000, there will have to be more than 5,000 Francophones for Ottawa to provide services in both languages as a matter of course.
Mr. Speaker, Saskatoon, Saint John, New Brunswick and even Victoria do not have 5,000 Francophones, and I think their rights are going to be taken away. Why do the Conservatives feel they can afford to quantify the rights of Canadian men and women? This Government does not seem to realize that such a policy is prejudicial to the advancement of Francophones in several provinces.
We could say that this quantification policy is a sure sign of the Government's lack of any common sense. Mr. Speaker, when revising the Official Languages Act, the Government will have to set effective dates for language of service, language of work and language of communication, but it will also have to act responsibly to ensure that equitable representation is reflected in this Government and in this Parliament.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Maybe the NDP would dictate to them. We will not.']
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to offer my best wishes to the Prime Minister on his birthday, but he is not in the House.



John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is therefor directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, because we are celebrating another anniversary as well. Exactly a year ago, the Prime Minister announced:
-We are now going to reduce air pollution. That will remain our immediate objective.
This week, however, the Prime Minister praised the President of the United States for the same promise he received from him last year and the year before, which was that he would look into the problem of acid rain. How many
March 20, 1987

times does he have to thank the President of the United States for promises the latter made and which he has yet to keep?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I really find it strange that the right hon. gentleman opposite would want to be so critical of progress that is being made on a very, very important issue. He and his Party should be the last ones to condemn the actions of this federal Government in trying to make progress in resolving this very important national and international situation. The Liberal Government of the day walked away from the bargaining table of trying to work toward a permanent resolution.
Under the leadership of the Prime Minister and with the close co-operation of the U.S. administration progress indeed has been made, and it was so indicated in Mr. Reagan's statement when he said, "We've made some progress in learning things that can be done and we were ready to make this move. There are others probably yet to come. We're still investigating this." This is a positive reaction to a very important problem. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and his Party should be commending our Government and the United States for this action rather than adopting that attitude.


ENVOYS' REPORT-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is contagiously close to the Prime Minister in attempting to rewrite history. The joint report of Drew Lewis and William Davis, the Special Envoys on Acid Rain reported that the amount of S02 emitted in 1983 represents a 28 per cent decline from the peak level emitted in 1973. Electric utility S02 emissions declined by 19 per cent between 1973 and 1983 and industrial emissions declined by 46 per cent. There was a lot of action under the previous Government which has not been continued under this administration.
My question relates to the fact that the Prime Minister has thanked the President for a giant step backward. In fact, even American Congressmen are criticizing our Prime Minister for undermining their efforts in the Congress to proceed toward emission control. Why has the Prime Minister backed away from his position of last year when he insisted on immediate emission controls?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, progress has been made and if the right hon. gentleman would read the press release from Washington it makes clear reference to the fact that three major steps, consistent with the envoys' proposal, were being adopted and acted upon. Surely that is a clear indication not only of the commitment made south of the border but indeed of the progress being made
Oral Questions
which will be the subject of the bilateral talks to take place at the summit early in April. I know that the Right Hon. Leader has to play the role of being an opposition spokesman, but certainly when you are in opposition you have to have a little credibility.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Check with Dalton.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The credibility that he and his Party have with respect to the actions they took on acid rain certainly does not give them much credibility and credence for the position they are taking right now.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is a hell of a lot better than yours.


REQUEST FOR EMISSION CONTROLS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I say this in a kindly way to the Deputy Prime Minister. He is not adding to his credibility by being a mouthpiece for his neighbour the Prime Minister of Canada.
Every school child knows that smokestacks and cars are a source of acid rain. Yet the President of the United States is thanked by our Prime Minister for conducting more research into the sources of acid rain. When will our Prime Minister tell the President of the United States, "We have the research. Let us get on immediately to emission controls"?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is so sure we have all the research, why didn't he and his Government act prior to 1984? They did absolutely nothing. They walked away from the bargaining table. They refused to talk to the Americans. Within six months of taking office, with the co-operation of the provinces, we agreed to reduce emissions by 50 per cent. Through the efforts of the Prime Minister we have been successful in getting the U.S. discussions back on track. We have had very productive discussions and productive commitments. Those talks will continue at the summit.
The right hon. gentleman should acknowledge, as the Leader of the NDP did yesterday, that progress has been made. I am really surprised that the right hon. gentleman is so jealous of the progress that has been made.


UNITED STATES PRESIDENT'S PRESS CONFERENCE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, two hours ago in Quebec City the Quebec Government and the Government of Canada signed an acid rain agreement which is part of the process that was initiated by the Liberal Government in 1984, just to inform the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last night on television we heard President Reagan at his press conference saying the following:
We have found that the further we've gone, the more complex the issue of the
source of acid rain becomes.

March 20, 1987
Oral Questions
It does not seem to me that this is a statement by a person who is ready to act with acid rain clean-up programs. This is a stalling tactic. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realize that the President has taken a stalling tactics approach?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, who is a former Minister of the Environment, should refrain from selective quotations to try to present a weak case. If he read further he would learn that the President said:
We've made some progress in learning things that can be done and we were
ready to make this move. There are others probably yet to come. We're still
investigating this.
I think that is a pretty positive statement.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly our point. The progress that has been made in the mind of the President of the United States is that it is no longer volcanoes and ducks. That is the progress that has been made.


NEGOTIATION OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TREATY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is a solid position common to all three Parties in this House that procrastination is not helping Canada. Therefore, will he make representations to the Prime Minister urging him to push for a North American acid rain agreement with deadlines, percentages and targets? Can he tell us when Canada will be protected by such a treaty?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to make representations to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He has clearly shown leadership and made progress in this regard. More leadership will be demonstrated at the summit and more progress will be made.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Next Thursday there will be a major meeting of First Ministers and the aboriginal peoples of Canada to discuss aboriginal rights. The Minister knows that the federal Government has left leadership, with regard to documents that will be discussed, to the provinces which will determine the substance of the meeting.
At this late stage before the meeting starts next Thursday will the Government of Canada undertake to make public its position on the crucial issues to be discussed at that meeting?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the question asked by the Leader of the New Democratic Party
because it affords me the opportunity to restate once again the very great priority which the Prime Minister gives to this important meeting coming up next week.
I believe that impartial observers of this process will agree that throughout the consultation process and period the federal Government has consistently given leadership in terms of rolling drafts, in terms of stating the position of the federal Government up front, and in terms of trying to move the parties toward a constitutional amendment.
We are determined to arrive at an agreement if possible but it will require movement on the part of participants in these meetings. I call upon those who are participating to come to this meeting with an open mind in order that we may bridge the gaps which now exist between the parties in order to serve the true and legitimate interests of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, when you work your way through that fog you conclude that the federal Government is not prepared to state its position openly and therefore take a leadership role.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: I would like to quote what the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had to say on this and then ask the Minister to deal with the question. In the House on March 11 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said:
There has not been a proposal put forward in the meetings that has not been
supported by the federal Government when it came to trying to bring
consensus from all sides of the table.
The Minister is saying that the federal Government has not taken the lead. It is prepared to follow the lead of others and maybe get a consensus. Will the federal Government now show some leadership and, before next Thursday's meeting, publicly release its views, particularly on the crucial question of aboriginal self-government?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the position put forward by the Leader of the NDP is patently absurd. The fact is that the federal Government has come a very considerable way and has tried to bring the participants along and make progress on the issue. We have taken a position with respect to the right of self-government which is clear and unequivocal. We are unequivocally supportive of the right of self-government. We want to, and on this all participants agree, determine the process by which self-government will be instituted in a constitutional way. We are the first Government to put forward our views with respect to financing and every other critical issue to be discussed at that meeting. There is no secret about our position. We are the leaders in putting our position forward.
March 20, 1987


AGENDA FOR FIRST DAY'S TALKS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is just unfortunate, and I will not go into the details now, that the leadership of virtually all the aboriginal peoples have been quite critical of the federal Government for failing to do precisely what the Minister claims it is doing.
I want to ask the Minister another question which came out of a House committee meeting last night. It has been suggested that the federal Government is now making changes in the proposed agenda for the first day. As the Minister knows, the first day was supposed to be allocated to discussions of the question of self-government. The suggestion now is that the federal Government is proposing a much more general discussion on the first day about a variety of aboriginal matters. Will the Minister clarify this situation? Is the Government still proposing to go ahead on the first day and deal with the very important matter of self-government?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the agenda is under discussion now. The Prime Minister has written to the Premiers and leaders of the aboriginal groups represented at the conference. The federal Government cannot solve this matter unilaterally. A constitutional amendment is required. Not only the federal Government but seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population must support it. It is not possible to have movement unless we have the support of the provincial Governments. I say to the Hon. Leader of the NDP that we have been giving leadership and striving mightily at the Ministers' meetings to bring about that kind of consensus on the best possible level so that the aboriginal peoples will be able to achieve self-government and realize their expectations in the Canadian confederation.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Next Monday, in Montreal, I am having a meeting with older workers to explain the decisions announced this week and what should be done to defend the rights of early retirees.
Could the Minister explain to the House why he decided to continue to discriminate against older workers who have company pension plans, as opposed to the older worker who has a registered retirement savings plan? Why is the older worker who has a company pension plan not entitled to full
Oral Questions
unemployment insurance benefits, while the worker who is getting money from a registered retirement savings plan is entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits? Why the double standard?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in November 1984, the Minister of Finance identified a set of rules dealing with the issue of simultaneous income from pensions and unemployment insurance. In these rules, the Minister of Finance considered that private pension plans were eligible and public pension plans were not.
At his meeting next Monday, I think the Hon. Member will have to make it clear that the Government has always maintained the same principle. There has never been any change in the Government's position in the way it deals with early retirees. However, for considerations of justice and equity in implementing the measure, the Government has decided to consider a refund for people who formally applied for unemployment insurance before 1986, but that will not be the case for those who applied after that time. I think this position is quite clear, and it will remain entirely in line with what was announced by the Minister of Finance in November 1984.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The fact remains that the Minister has yet to explain why some older workers are treated better than others. The purpose of my supplementary is to get some information for these people. Could the Minister inform the House whether a person who on October 10, 1985 agreed with his employer to take early retirement and who because of separation payments and accumulated sick leave was not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits until February 10, 1986, is considered to be a 1985 retiree and thus eligible for the refund or will that person be penalized if he failed to apply at the time of termination of employment?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement I made in the House the day before yesterday was quite clear in this respect. I said that people who formally applied for unemployment insurance benefits at a Canada Employment and Immigration Centre before January 1986 would be considered. There are a number of special cases. The staff at the employment centres has a certain amount of leeway, and the usual mechanisms that exist at employment centres should people decide to protest the Government's procedures are in place and will apply in these instances. I want this to be quite clear. I repeat, people who formally applied for unemployment insurance benefits before January 5, 1986, will be considered.

March 20, 1987
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Deputy Prime Minister and the issue of acid rain. The President of the United States, at his press conference, when asked about it, said "We are still investigating this". The President has some fine qualities, no doubt, but he is not known as a quick study. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister not to tell us about what the Liberals did in the past or anything else. I want to know whether the Canadian Government was satisfied with the President's response at that press conference yesterday?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly satisfied with the announced initiative and will, I am sure, be satisfied with the results of the continuing discussions which will take place between the Prime Minister and the President when they meet here in early April.


MINNESOTA CONGRESSMAN'S STATEMENT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 think most people in Canada think that acid rain is the key environmental issue in North America. They are really disappointed with our leaders on both sides of the border for their responses. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that a U.S. Congressman from Minnesota said this morning that our Prime Minister's dealings with the President on acid rain are retarding congressional efforts to deal with acid rain? Will the Government stop retarding the efforts of the anti-acid rain lobby by pretending that the President is doing something significant on acid rain when he is not? Would it not be better for the Government to work with congressional leaders against acid rain instead?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I guess there is nothing wrong with different points of view being expressed in the U.S., just as they are expressed in Canada, on this very important issue. I remind the Hon. Member that there has been considerable progress not only on acid rain but on other fronts as well. For example, on February 4, 1987, Canada and the U.S., along with Ontario and New York, signed a declaration of intent which, coupled with the Niagara River management plan, will see a 50 per cent reduction of loadings of persistent toxic chemicals into the Niagara River by 1996. There was, in the fall of 1985, a joint declaration of intent regarding transborder control of hazardous wastes. There was a Memorandum of Understanding creating contingency measures for dealing with accidental and unauthorized discharges along the inland boundary.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That was not the President.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There was a Memorandum of Understanding concerning research and development for areas of common interest in science and technology. The latest initiative, reinforced by the President, is also good news.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Good news? That is good news?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why do Members opposite always chastize the good news and the progress being made?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions concerning regional development of importance to the Atlantic provinces. However, in the absence of the Minister responsible I will put my first question to the Minister of Transport. The Minister knows that the announcement by Canadian General Electric that it does not intend to locate in the Moncton area, coupled with the stated intention of CN to close the Moncton shops, represents a double devastating blow to the citizens of Moncton. So far all the Government has done is allocate $4 million to assist laid-off workers. The Minister knows that amounts to $3,300 for each of the 1,200 workers, while the yearly pay-roll of those shops was some $32 million. Does the Government of Canada really believe that $4 million is a sufficient response?
[DOT] ("40)
In light of the Canadian General Electric announcement that it is not locating in Moncton, would the Government consider ordering CN to maintain its shops in the city of Moncton and to transfer work back to that community?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see the Hon. Member back in the House after going to Newfoundland to unseat the provincial Liberal Leader. In fact it is rumoured that the hon. gentleman is going to run for the leadership there and we all wish him well. If he is successful, it will certainly lead to a quieter House of Commons.
With respect to Moncton, the first thing the Government did to assist was to encourage CN to find another employer to take over part of the works. It did that with Canadian General Electric, but unfortunately two of the international unions operating in Moncton refused to go along with the arrangement which was made. As a result, a further 303 people are now unemployed who could have been employed in Moncton.
We then encouraged CN to participate with the Government in a $4 million fund to help Moncton find other industries to go in to help the situation. In addition, our payroll this year in the Moncton area-
March 20, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: -of CN will be over $90 million. There is a new multi-modal terminal in operation which cost-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: You don't want to hear what we are doing for Moncton. The question was what are we doing, and I am trying to answer it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the only Newfoundland Member of Parliament who has a well deserved reputation for salivating unashamedly whenever the word "leadership" is mentioned is the Hon. Member opposite who, of course, has run for two of the three Parties so far, and I would advise the Hon. Member for Oshawa to watch his back.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: No, no, we are safe.


Mr. Speaker:: At least it is a family argument.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Brian Vincent Tobin: My
other question of regional development importance to Atlantic Canada has to do with Pictou County, Nova Scotia. Hon. Members are aware that an announcement has been made that the Trenton car works will be sold or closed. Of course, yesterday Members of the House heard the Prime Minister respond to that grave crisis in his former riding of Central Nova.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the current Hon. Member for Central Nova, who preceded the Prime Minister and who followed the Prime Minister, that is, the Minister of National Revenue, is quoted as saying yesterday: "If I was a Hawker Siddeley worker, or the son of a Hawker Siddeley worker, I would be pretty cynical about the Government's response too". When is the Government of Canada going to come clean and keep the Prime Minister's commitment to the people of that community to ensure prosperity and continuity of work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, you not only heard an answer to that question yesterday from the Prime Minister, you heard it from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I invite the Hon. Member to reread the answers and maybe he could enlighten himself.
Oral Questions


FREIGHT CAR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and also concerns the sorry state of the Canadian freight car industry and the fact that jobs are being lost in Montreal, Hamilton, and Trenton. Hawker Siddeley is now on the sale-block. Yesterday the Prime Minister promised action, but the Mayor of Pictou says they have had so many promises they are now calling it the promised land. Yesterday the Prime Minister promised he would work with Canadian National presumably to cause CN to use Canadian instead of American freight cars. Which policy is the one we can depend on being implemented, the Prime Minister's policy or the Minister's, which was no interference with CN?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in case of any difference there might be, and I am not aware of any, between my views and those of the Prime Minister, my guess is that the Prime Minister's views will overcome. With respect to this particular question, the railcar manufacturing industry has had grave difficulties in the last several years because circumstances in both the United States and Canada have dictated that the railroads are not purchasing railcars in their normal volumes because of the reduction in the amount of goods they have had to transport and circumstances like that. There is a problem and it has been looked at by the Department of DRIE.
With respect to Nova Scotia, there has been a tremendous contribution, I believe $1.4 billion, in development assistance from this Government to Nova Scotia in the two and a half years since September of 1984. That is $1.4 billion to help overcome these kinds of situations, and we will continue in that gigantic effort, no matter what the difficulties are.


USE OF AMERICAN FREIGHT CARS BY CANADIAN RAILWAYS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will the Government act to stop the use of American freight cars by CN? And will it change its own tariff regulations to encourage the use of Canadian cars rather than American cars by CN and Canadian rail industries?


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not
know how protectionist the hon. gentleman can get. The New Democratic Party has to decide. Does it want an efficient, economic and effective Canadian transportation service or not? This is a very complicated-


John Edward Broadbent: We want jobs in Nova Scotia, fellow.


John Carnell Crosbie: We will have no jobs in Canada at all if that Party, led by the Hon. Member for Oshawa, the hon.-I won't call him that name.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Watch it.

March 20, 1987
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Many of my constituents are very upset with the tardy mail service of Canada Post. To cite a typical example, Mr. Kasner of Pinnacle Road called recently to say he receives his mail about seven or eight o'clock at night. It often takes a week for a letter to arrive from downtown. He has not had a regular mailman for over two months.
Is service really the number one priority at Canada Post? And if it is, when are we going to see some results?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, some of the mail apparently gets through. In February I received 3,000 letters of complaint. As the Hon. Member will know from the Marchment Committee report, there is a lot wrong with Canada Post, going back some two decades, as a result of political interference and other things. I think the Post Office is on the right track. It is making the right moves. There is the intent, and indeed it is in place, to have outside auditors on a quarterly basis measure the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of service of Canada Post so that the public will know from an independent source whether in fact these improvements are occurring according to the plan. I have all my fingers and toes crossed that by February next year my letters of complaint will be down significantly.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In the fall we learned the Government was making massive cuts at the National Research Council to pay for its space plan. Now we learn it is cutting $40 million from regional development programs. When is the Government going to tell us where it plans to find the rest of the money? And could the Minister tell the House and Canadians what he meant when he said he could not provide us with details because: "It might cause my colleagues at the other Departments unnecessary problems"?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as I recall that question was answered yesterday. It is quite true that the resources that will be required to carry out the comprehensive space program which was announced last May will come from existing programs. It is not true that regions which have had resources identified for their use will be deprived of those resources.
However, should some of the space activities be carried out in those regions, obviously it would be prudent to use the resources that have already been identified for them.


SELECTION CRITERIA FOR SITE OF FUTURE SPACE AGENCY
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister ought to give guarantees there will be some kind of space industry in the Gaspe and in Mauricie. I challenge him to do
so.
Mr. Speaker, so far, the Minister has also refused to reveal the selection criteria for the site of the future space agency. Could the Minister inform the House today what definitive criteria will be used to determine the site of this agency?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the comprehensive space program is a national program. There is keen competition from several regions in the country for the head office of the agency, which is not in itself a job-creation effort. It will involve about 40 or 50 people. The location of the agency will be decided in the best national interest.


FINANCE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance and deals with the subject of credit card interest rates. Yesterday, the Bank of Canada rate fell to 7.14 per cent, a drop of 4 percentage points over two years, while interest rates on most credit cards have remained unchanged, that is, about 19 per cent at the banks and 29 per cent for the department stores. Is the Government prepared to take the necessary steps to ensure that credit card interest rates are brought down to reasonable levels?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for raising this important issue, an important issue which not only he raises but which has been raised by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West over the last year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Beatty:: The NDP is slow but they catch up after a while.


Thomas Hockin: The Hon. Member suggests a reduction of interest rates on credit cards. I think the goal should be not only to do that, and to do it right away, but to act across the
March 20, 1987

whole range of needs. First, we should act in terms of better disclosure and in terms of better and common methods of reporting. This range of issues is being looked at by the standing committee whose report we will receive shortly. With that report we will be able to act very quickly.


ROLE OF BANKS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Minister's statement that he intends to see action taken right away. Will he assure the House that if the banks and retailers do not act to bring their credit card rates down, as the Toronto Dominion Bank did about four weeks ago, the Government will introduce legislation which will impose ceilings on credit card rates and ensure that the benefit of lower interest rates will go to credit card users and not to the banks?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to look at that Major Douglas Social Credit solution to the problem-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: -as well as other ways to get those interest rates down.


AIRPORTS
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. For months people have found it easier to fly into Toronto International Airport than to drive out of it. Often, limousines, taxis and buses are simply not available. When entrepreneurs are eager to supply additional services, I ask the Minister what action he plans to take to solve this problem?


Sheila Maureen Copps: We have a great airport in Hamilton. Come on over!


An Hon. Member:: We would but you're there.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we can always put the Hon. Member for Hamilton East there to act as a director.
Because of the popularity of Toronto, which city's popularity is unbounded-it used to be known as Hogtown, but no longer-there has been a problem at Toronto Airport after 11 p.m. when a number of charter flights come in together. There have not been sufficient ground facilities in place there. However, certain steps are being taken during the March break weekend.
Oral Questions
We are assigning additional ground transportation inspectors, commissionaires, and RCMP to be on duty. We have told the public that the arrivals level of Terminal One will not be available to private vehicles after 11 p.m. during this weekend when many people are returning. We have warned all the airport taxi and limousine vehicle operators that they will be expected to be at the airport to provide service during these peak times. If the taxi-cab and limousine fleets become depleted, outside taxis and limousines will be called in to provide service.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


John Carnell Crosbie: In other words, we are taking every reasonable precaution. We anticipate that the problems should be met.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


John Carnell Crosbie: In addition-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In a letter to me the Minister stated that the Government:
-has reached a preliminary understanding to purchase a 25 per cent share of the new James Clark Maxwell Telescope being built by the United Kingdom and The Netherlands on Mauna Kea in Hawaii.
How can the Minister place Canada in the disgraceful position of being the first country in the world ever to close down a major telescope, a world-class telescope, the Algonquin Radio Observatory, and then turn around and pay out millions of dollars elsewhere to remove science and technology from Canadian soil?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, as you know the Government relies on a council of the most eminent people we can find to help us allocate scarce resources in the best interests of the country. It was a decision of the National Research Council to participate, with other countries, in the establishment of a world-class leading-edge telescope in Hawaii. This is a millimetre telescope compared to the centimetre telescope that is in place in Algonquin Park. Far be it from me to question that decision. It was merely made to stay on the leading edge of this particular discipline of science.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister has just done is not only abdicate

March 20, 1987
Oral Questions
his own responsibility but he has abdicated the responsibility of the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Is this the Government's new science and technology policy-made in Britain and made in The Netherlands and located on American soil? Why is the Government returning the country back to its colonial days? Has he no pride in the Canadian record in science and technology, the best in the world?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the reason the council made the decision is because the telescope being established in Hawaii is simply the best in the world. Incidentally, we are already partners with a number of other countries in this telescope. We shall assure that we and future generations will be with the best in the world on the frontier of science. We will even drag, kicking and screaming, the Hon. Member along with us.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. With the inception of the new Bank Act in 1980 most banks began to charge farmers on a weekly floating rate of interest even though the signed notes that they held were for lower fixed rates. Since the banks floated their rates as high as 22 per cent and 24 per cent, and since there now appear to be several judgments showing these extra charges to be beyond the legal power of the banks to collect, will the Minister instruct the banks to review all such files and have them make restitution for the overcharges to farmers?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take a look at that issue and report back to the House next week to see whether the suggestion the Hon. Member is making can be followed or not.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mississauga South.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-WITHHOLDING TAX ARRANGEMENTS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for organizing trade and financial services as part of our bilateral arrangements with the United States. I want to inform the Government that at the Finance Committee, Alexander McKie indicated that the major problem in our financial services and banking with the United States was withholding tax arrangements that do not apply between the United States and Britain, between the United States and Germany, or between the United States and Holland. Is that matter being addressed by the Government in these negotiations?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member would not want me to negotiate that issue with the United States in Parliament at this time. He has a very tantalizing theory about withholding tax. At some point he should make that clear to members of his committee because I believe it is a very important theory for these negotiations.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind Hon. Members that Question Period is drawing to a close. I will try to recognize more Members, but they should make the questions short.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I hope the answers will be short as well.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. On several occasions I tried to get the Government moving with respect to the Official Languages Act amendments. Today's newspapers report that the situation is worsening and that people are exasperated at the Government's snail pace when it comes to the introduction of these amendments. They even indicate that the Member for Charlevoix and Chairman of the Standing Committee on Official Languages has stated that the delay was due to barbarian and dinosaurian reactions, as he put it. In all likelihood, he was referring to his Conservative caucus colleagues who have seen the proposed amendments, but we certainly did not see them.
Can the Minister assure the House today that, to prevent leaks and so that at long last we might deal seriously with this matter, the Government will soon set a firm and specific time
March 20, 1987

frame concerning appropriate amendments to the Official Languages Act?


Benoît Bouchard: When I was Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to launch the official languages policy review process. Surely my colleague will recall that last fall he deplored the lack of sufficient consultations with organizations directly involved in this process, among others the Federation des francophones hors Quebec. The process has been initiated, and I should think that the Government is committed and will take action soon in this session. As I see it, everything must be in place before we can recommend the best possible course to follow with respect to revamping the Official Languages Act.


NEED TO END SITUATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice because he is responsible for this matter.
Today, for instance, we have learned that Federal Court and Tax Court of Canada judges are exempt from the need to understand what is being said in court, in other words, the language of the accused. Once again to avoid the possibility that people might begin to question the seriousness of the Government and its willingness to correct the problem, can the Minister not rise in the House and put an end to this painful and probably very dangerous situation by stating today that the Government will bring forth its Bill, thus enabling people to conclude that this is what the Government wants to do?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer categorically that notwithstanding what the Hon. Member refers to as leaks, the Government has been involved in a very extensive process of consultation with a wide range of people who are most interested in the question of official languages across our country. We do not regard that as being the wrong approach. I know that when the Hon. Member was in the previous Government he did not think much of consultation, but we think it is important to develop our official languages policy on the basis of consultation.
I think the Hon. Member is completely out of luck with respect to his allegation concerning the judiciary and that so-called leak because it simply is not true. I have negotiated on behalf of the Government of Canada with respect to a number of provincial jurisdictions and the provision of trials in both official languages. Presently, 1 am trying on a voluntary basis to have the accord of all provinces on this basis. But I have put the provinces on notice that 1 will proclaim the provisions of the Act which will provide for trials in the French language where they are not now provided in the provinces. I intend to proceed with that initiative.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I advise Hon. Members that this will be the last question. I want to apologize to the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre. I did not mean to cut him off. I will try to make it up to him on another day.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister for International Trade. The British Columbia Budget that was brought down yesterday only allocates $36 million in new money to silviculture and reforestation from the estimated $360 million to $400 million that British Columbia will receive from the federal export tax on softwood lumber. Less than 10 per cent will go to silviculture and reforestation. Was this the understanding that the Minister for International Trade had with Premier Vander Zalm? This was not suggested at all in her remarks in the House on February 5. Is that allocation of less than 10 per cent acceptable to the Government?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade made it clear in the House many times that it was her hope that the moneys realized from the tax on softwood lumber-money that was kept in Canada and did not go to the United States-would be used for silviculture, reforestation, and adjustment for displaced workers. I remind the Hon. Member that these are provincial resources and the funds being channelled to the provinces are money that they can use as they see fit. That was a provincial Budget on which I do not care to comment. It is for the people of British Columbia to comment on the Budget. However, it is the Minister's hope that moneys derived from this tax will be spent in the forestry industry in a way, I might add, that does not negate the Memorandum of Understanding we have with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member. One last question.


PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE QUERY
Pauline Jewett: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that these are federal moneys and that some performance guarantee should have been arranged? Why was it not arranged, and why is the Government allowing itself to be conned by Premier Vander Zalm?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a matter of Premier Vander Zalm conning anyone. These funds are derived from a provincial resource and the agreement was that the taxation, with the exception of a small amount for

March 20, 1987
Ministers' Statements
administration, would be channelled to the provinces. At the same time the provinces are considering various ways of adjusting that tax, by stumpage fees or other means. Therefore, it would be foolish for the Government to dictate to the provinces how this money should be expended. We can make suggestions but we should not be dictating-


Pauline Jewett: It is federal money.


John Horton McDermid: Maybe the NDP would dictate to them. We will not.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to two petitions, Nos. 332-771 and 332-993.



AGENCY FOR CULTURAL AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, last March 9 the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) rose in this House to observe Commonwealth Day. Barely a few days later we are proud to mark the anniversary of the creation of L'Agence de cooperation culturelle et technique (the Agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation) on March 20, 1970 in Niamey, Niger, particularly in this year of the Quebec City francophone summit.
Canada, with Quebec alongside as a participating Government, was one of the founding members of the ACCT. New Brunswick joined the agency in 1977. Still today the ACCT is the most important Francophone intergovernmental organization.

Its initial vocation being the promotion of co-operation among member nations, through a common means of communications, the French language undoubtedly contributed to create the climate which led to the first meeting of heads of states and heads of governments held in Paris in 1986.
Indeed we can only be pleased that the growing number of Canadian representatives within the Agency for Cultural and
Technical Co-operation has paved the way, through such summits, for a formula which made it possible to invite the Premiers of Quebec and New Brunswick to attend these deliberations.
Before the Paris meeting, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) stated in Montreal that:
-Canada's collective prosperity cannot be dissociated from the economic development of the Third World, industrial co-operation between countries and access to international markets.
He went on to say that:
-la Francophonie is a window on the world. It gives Canadian Francophones, whether they are from Quebec or any other province, the unlimited scope that those who speak English already have in the English-speaking world.

In 1987 Canada will host two major international meetings which will bring here representatives from more than 90 countries. Canada is one of the few countries which can claim to be a part of such a large international assemblage. In La Francophonie, as in the Commonwealth, most of Canada's partners are Third World countries. Our common interests require a greater measure of dialogue and co-operation in the face of the challenges before us.

The Quebec Summit, like the summit in Vancouver, will help enhance co-operation and understanding between countries and between heads of state of varying political affiliations and cultural origins, who nevertheless are able to converse in a common language. Canada, after ensuring that two of its provinces were allowed a degree of participation consistent with this country's constitutional framework, will spare no efforts to make this event a success that will ensure the further development of La Francophonie, an institution that reflects our most fondamental interests.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, I would like to join the Minister in drawing the attention of the House to this anniversary of the Agence de cooperation culturelle et technique. It is indeed a fact that Canada and Quebec have been a part of the ACCT since its inception in 1970, and perhaps I may recall some comments that were made at the time by the former Secretary of State of Canada, Mr. Gerard Pelletier. In fact, his remarks were made in February 1969 at the first conference in Niamey, prior to the creation of the ACCT. Mr. Pelletier said, and I quote:
That the Francophones in our country, taking part in a structured Francophonie is not only natural but fulfils a vital need. After three centuries of living in French in North America, French-Canadians feel they need the support of the entire francophone community to develop their full potential.
I would also like to mention one of the objectives of the ACCT that is particularly important:
c) To provide the means for securing the broadest and most efficient dissemination of information among all members in the areas of science, education and technology;
March 20, 1987

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I feel that our participation in the ACCT is further proof of one of the specific advantages this country has, namely, our two official languages: French and English.
I think this is one more opportunity to recall how our two languages enable Canadians to take part in both Englishspeaking and French-speaking international organizations. This makes it possible for Canada to have considerable influence throughout the world, and it is part of the heritage and the resources of this country.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: On behalf of our Party, Mr. Speaker, I endorse the Minister's statement. As he said, today is the anniversary of the creation of the Agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation. This organization was founded in Niger on March 20, 1970
Mr. Speaker, La Francophonie is the world's most important intergovernmental organization, and the first summit of the heads of government of this organization took place in Paris in February 1986. Canada is proud to play host to the organization's second summit in Quebec next fall.
Mr. Speaker, we are lucky to have as participants not only the Government of Canada, but also the Governments of Quebec and New Brunswick. As an English-speaking Member from western Canada, Mr. Speaker, I can only say how proud I am of the fact that we should belong to both La Francophonie and the Commonwealth, because we are now members or the world's leading linguistic communities, and we can make a great contribution to both the Commonwealth and La Francophonie.

It is also as important for English-speaking Canadians that we participate in La Francophonie, in terms of what we can do in the world, as it is for Francophone Canadians to remain active members of the Commonwealth.

Because, Mr. Speaker, La Francophonie is very important to French-speaking people and for the worldwide advancement of the French language. It is also very important to the ACCT. And do not forget that French is the language spoken in 18 African countries, Mr. Speaker, such great countries as Zaire, Senegal, the Ivory Coast, Niger, the North African countries of Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, and so on. Both the ACCT of La Francophonie and the Commonwealth are outstanding organizations.
The other fact is that, just as is the Commonwealth, La Francophonie is important for economic development, a driving force in the Third World.
And something else, perhaps we could do something against apartheid in La Francophonie as the Prime Minister is trying to do in the Commonwealth. I realize that South Africa is not part of La Francophonie, being a former British colony, but perhaps, Mr. Speaker, with so many African countries in La
Committee Reports
Francophonie, we could do something for the liberation of Blacks in South Africa.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister, and I wish those participating in the Francophonie Summit in Quebec City next fall the best of luck, and today, we are proud to celebrate the anniversary of the Agence de cooperation culturelle et technique.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixteenth report of the Striking Committee. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.



REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth and fifth reports of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments in both official languages.



FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in both official languages in relation to interest rates charged on credit cards and charge cards.
We are in a plastic age where paying bills with a credit card is the common way transactions are handled. The committee deals extensively with that matter. It deals with disclosure of the terms and conditions of credit cards in Recommendations Nos. 1, 2 and 3; in the standardization of the calculation of interest charges and other charges in Recommendations Nos. 4 and 5 and in the question of fairness of rates in Recommendations Nos. 6 and 7.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]

March 20, 1987
Petitions


PETITIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadian citizens who are calling upon this Parliament to enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board, independent of a refugee commission; universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and a fair chance to arrive in Canada to present their claim. It is an important issue. These people feel strongly and I am honoured to present the petition on their behalf.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition under Standing Order 106 that calls upon the House of Commons to enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and a fair chance to arrive in Canada so they can present this claim.


Mr. Anthony Roman (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present 24 petitions signed by 714 of my constituents in support of Motion M-37 that would amend The Constitution of Canada and protect the life of the unborn by the Charter of Rights. My constituents petition and humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support M-37.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions, both of which have been certified correct according to form. The first one reads that because of the killing of thousands of unborn Canadian babies each year for reasons of convenience, and for such babies capital punishment exists for the crime of being unwanted, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support Motion M-37 and allow unborn babies to be protected by the Charter of Rights.
The second petition Mr. Speaker, reads that all human beings are deserving of legal protection from unjust attacks upon their lives, that the present law regarding abortion does not provide such protection, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code so that the unborn human beings are protected by law from abortion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several hundred Canadians from Air Canada in Toronto who are calling upon the Government of
Canada whereas the shift changes imposed on Air Canada aircraft maintenance employees at Pearson International Airport will severely affect quality of work, family life and social life; and whereas the strain of these imposed shifts are already having adverse effects on the family unit, the health of the employees physically and mentally, and the deterioration of the maintenance of aircraft safety; and whereas the imposition of these shifts are a ploy by Air Canada to have its employees vote away their paid statutory holidays, wherefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demand Air Canada to direct management at Pearson International Airport to return to an equitable system whereby its employees will have some weekends off to spend with their families, and as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.
I am sure a number of Government Members in the Toronto area will certainly want to support this petition.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my humble duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of citizens of Canada who, although they recognize that the refugee status determination of Canada has been well developed, are concerned it is unfair to certain people and call upon the Parliament of Canada to enact legislation which would require complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission; universal access to such hearings to every claimant and also the right for a fair chance at least for claimants outside of the country to have these hearings performed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps my hon. friend might tell us briefly which Member presented the petition for certification?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo)?
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here from a number of Canadians concerned about the refugee determination process. Although it was originally a good process it is now breaking down under the strain of the increased number of refugees. It points out that a recommendation for an improved process has been put forward by the Standing Committee and endorsed by a number of organizations throughout Canada. It calls upon Parliament to enact legislation that will embody the principles
March 20, 1987

Order Paper Questions
of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and a fair chance to arrive in Canada to present this claim.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member provide the House with the name of the Member of Parliament who had the petition certified?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member wish to respond? No response. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the City of Toronto who point out that the committee of Parliament has recommended an improved system for refugee determination procedure which has been supported by the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and other groups and individuals and, therefore, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission; universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and a fair chance to arrive in Canada to present this claim, and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions that I am honoured to present today, all on the same subject. People are very concerned about the Government's legislation to change the Patent Act and the impact this will have on drug prices, and state that it will hurt elderly Canadians particularly and those who need prescription drugs. They call on this House to rescind the legislation. The petitions are from Surrey, Langley and Clearbrook, British Columbia.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would my hon. colleague be able to give the date of certification of these petitions?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Not necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). No response.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that I will be raising a point of order with respect to the petitioning of the Crown and Government on Monday next.



STRIKING


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I would like to move concurrence in the sixteenth report of the Striking Committee presented earlier this day.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 57 will be answered today.


Mr. Nickerson: 1.	Did the post office in Fort Good Hope, N.W.T., run out of 34 cent stamps three times between August and the end of November, 1986?
2.	Is there a restriction on the number of stamps that a post office, such as the one at Fort Good Hope, may order at any one time?
3.	Are stamps shipped from a regional office in the south to northern post offices, such as Fort Good Hope, only on one day per month and, if so, if a stamp order arrives late will it have to wait until the following month to be filled?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
affairs): 1. Yes. The post office in Fort Good Hope, N.W.T. did run out of 34-cent stamps on three occasions between August and November, 1986, as a result of problems the Postmaster was having in anticipating demand. The Field Support Postmaster for the area has provided guidance to the Postmaster which should prevent a future occurence of the incident.
2.	The only restriction on offices of that size is that the value of the stock on hand does not exceed $1,800.
3.	Routinely, orders are processed once a month. However, stamps may be ordered at any time. There is neither a time limit nor a restriction on the frequency or orders to the Vancouver depot. In addition, any order received by the depot, either in writing or by telephone, which is identified as being "urgent", "special" or "late" will be processed as quickly as possible, often within an hour.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

March 20, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Boudria


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the Minister's statement, today's sitting will be extended nine minutes.

I should advise the House that before beginning Orders of the Day there is a point of order by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). I will hear the Hon. Member now.


PRIVILEGE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly raise a question of privilege of order with you regarding the long-standing practice of this House as explained to us in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Section 647, which reads as follows:
No act done at any committee should be divulged before it has been reported to the House.
This is a long-standing principle. It has also come to our attention through Erskine May's Twentieth Edition, on page 153, which reads as follows:
By the ancient custom of Parliament "no act done at any committee should be divulged before the same be reported to the House''.
Upon this principle the Commons, on 21 April 1837 resolved, "That the evidence taken by any select committee of this House, and the documents presented to such committee, and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any member of such committee or by any other person.''
On January 27, 1987, I apologized to this House for having accidentally released one line from a parliamentary committee report prior to it coming to the attention of the House of Commons. Today there are three newspaper articles alluding to the fact that the Standing Committee on Government Operations will be tabling a report on Monday. Those reports very accurately divulge the contents of the report. There is a further newspaper article on a similar issue involving the parliamentary committee dealing with day care. Yesterday there was a similar breach of parliamentary privilege, in my opinion, regarding another parliamentary committee dealing with unemployment insurance.
I want to close by asking that you investigate these matters and report to the House. I believe they could be breaches of our parliamentary privileges. All Members of this House have a right to be protected, otherwise we could all divulge the contents of these committee reports.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I appreciate that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) wishes to speak to his opposition motion. I would not want to delay the debate.
I would simply say that this happens from time to time. The Hon. Member used the word "alluding". I think the accuracy of the reports can be judged by the fact that in one article my friend from Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) was referred to as being a Saskatchewan Member of Parliament and he took great umbrage at that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Order!


Philip Derek Lewis: I think we should take it at face value.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I chair the committee on which the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) sits. As you may recall, I stood up in this House on a question of privilege, after the first report, on this very problem. We once again find ourselves in the very unfortunate situation where the media alludes to our report before it is tabled in the House. I object to that and ask for your guidance on what we can do in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is very aware of the problem. I will consider the matter and report back to the House. At this time I can say only that if Hon. Members feel they cannot deal with each other in confidence, that gets very close to putting them in great difficulty in carrying out their duties. The Chair is very concerned about that. I thank the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) for taking the position they have. I thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for his intervention.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: That this House affirms its support for the aboriginal peoples of Canada in their endeavour to have recognized in the Constitution their inherent right to self-government, and further instructs the Government of Canada to assume its leadership role and fulfil its Constitutional obligations to protect and guarantee the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and specifically directs the Government of Canada to abandon its insistence that the right to self-government be contingent upon negotiated agreements.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to urge the Government to correct what we believe is a historical injustice to the aboriginal people of our country. Before I proceed I want to pay tribute to the Hon. Member for
March 20, 1987

Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) who will be following me in the debate from our side.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: He has been and continues to be a great friend of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. I think it is conceded that he is the leading authority in this House of Commons on the subject. It is thanks in large measure to his skill and persistence that this Party, both in Government and in opposition, has taken a leadership role on this issue.

And I am proud to lead the party that presided over the patriation of our Constitution and enshrined therein the rights of our aboriginal peoples. I want to pay tribute to the endeavour and perseverance of the aboriginal leaders who obtained constitutional recognition of their rights, and I salute their sustained efforts and determination to translate this recognition into a new framework for their relationship with Canada.
Finally, I had the privilege of meeting with Chief George Erasmus, and as I said to him at the time, we in the Liberal Party acknowledge that the right of our aboriginal peoples to self-government has existed for centuries. In fact, that right existed well before this continent was explored and colonized by the Europeans.
We believe that this right to self-government is inherent and has always existed, having never been extinguished. It exists today and should be recognized, therefore, in the Canadian Constitution.
At our convention last November this Party approved a resolution calling for the entrenchment in our Constitution of the right of our aboriginal people to self-government.

The Liberal Government led by my predecessor, Mr. Trudeau, also recognized that right. The Penner report, named after the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior, which recommended working towards the inclusion of aboriginal selfgovernment in the Constitution, was ordered by the Trudeau Government. Subsequent to this report, the same Government also introduced legislation to provide self-government for Indian nations.

As a result of that report, Mr. Trudeau also introduced a constitutional amendment to include aboriginal self-government in the Constitution. Mr. Trudeau's Government brought forward framework legislation for self-government for Indian nations. Aboriginal rights were included in the Constitution of 1982 along with the guarantee that those rights apply equally to men and women.
Supply
There was also recognition of the existence of rights acquired through both future and existing land claims agreements. Several land claims agreements were also negotiated including the self-government of the Cree-Naskapi in the James Bay area. Also included was the accord binding the federal and provincial Governments to hold three more conferences; one in 1984, one in 1985, and the conference next week, to reach agreement on this very critical issue for the aboriginal people of Canada.

We do not deny the complexity of this issue. We recognize the concerns it may raise for provincial Governments. However, we believe the federal Government should exercise its leadership to provide for aboriginal self-government, and in our opinion, the present Government is not exercising that leadership.

The issue turns on whether those rights should be included in the Constitution first as a general statement and affirmation of the rights of the aboriginal people which we consider to be inherent, never having been extinguished, or that all the details of every application of that right be worked out first and only then have the right included in the Constitution. It is the latter position which has been taken by the current Government of Canada. We believe it is the wrong one. The Government is attempting to make the right to self-government contingent upon the negotiation of successful agreements.
In his response dated March 18 to my letter of December 23, 1986, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in which I requested that the Government pursue this matter, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) stated that the principle of self-government "would be enforceable in accordance with the terms of negotiated agreements in order to ensure the necessary certainty as to the potential scope and effect of aboriginal government jurisdiction".
In his telex to native leaders outlining the program for the upcoming conference the Prime Minister says they will not even discuss specifics. They will only chat about the concept of self-government and hope that possibly the lawyers can draft something they can all agree on-maybe. I quote from that telex as follows:
The first part of the conference will focus neither on the specific constitutional language nor on specific proposals.
That telex indicates that the Government is not only stepping backwards, but represents, I believe, an insult to the aboriginal people of the country. Let us remember where we were three years ago. I quote Mr. Trudeau at the First Ministers Conference in March, 1984, as follows:
The Government of Canada remains committed to the establishment of aboriginal self-government. . . .We are not here to consider whether there should be institutions of self-government, but how these institutions should be brought into being: what should be their jurisdiction, their powers; how they should fit into the interlocking system of jurisdiction by which Canada is governed.

March 20, 1987
Supply
In effect, the current Government is turning back the clock to before 1982. It wants to start all over again. How can our Government expect the aboriginal peoples to trust it? In our view this is simply not acceptable, not to the aboriginal people and not to the Party 1 represent today in the House of Commons, nor should it be acceptable to the other Members of the House of Commons.
We in the Liberal Party support a constitutional amendment which recognizes the inherent right, the historic right never extinguished, of the aboriginal people to self-government. The question for the Prime Minister and the Premiers next week is whether their vision of Canada is great enough to include the aboriginals' right to self-determination or whether they will once again insist on calling the shots.
Our First Ministers must demonstrate faith in the ability of the aboriginal peoples of this land to make their own decisions. It is not the time to take refuge in the security of what they may believe to be a status quo, that status quo having served the aboriginal people of this country so poorly in the past.
Not only must we have an acceptable amendment, we must also have a commitment from the Government subsequent to that amendment to negotiate and to provide the fiscal resources necessary for the effective exercise of self-government and a commitment to negotiate the necessary agreements and infrastructure. Our point is that the agenda should be, enshrinement of an existing right as a constitutional amendment to our constitutional position in 1982, then the infrastructure, then the agreements, then the financial underpinnings.
This is the last scheduled conference on the issue of aboriginal rights under the terms of the Constitution Act, 1982. Time is running out. I believe that we must move forward in the process started by my colleague, the Member for Cochrane-Superior, and continued by the last Government. The current Government cannot abrogate its responsibility to complete this historical and, I believe, essential change to our Constitution.
I am glad the Minister of Justice is here to respond. I understand his sincerity, but we believe that he ought to persuade his Government and the Premiers that this is the last constitutional opportunity under the law of 1982 to achieve that breakthrough. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens of aboriginal status awaiting his answer and looking forward to one last chance at that conference next week. We are counting on him, from our quarter of the House, to exercise on behalf of the people of Canada the leadership which I believe is overwhelmingly sought by Canadians everywhere and from every origin.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). I would like to thank him for his participation and initiation of this very important debate. Is the position of the Party of the
Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that inherent right to self-government on the part of the aboriginal people involves sovereignty of aboriginal peoples?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think we understand the interdependence of these rights and the fact that these rights were historically linked to a land base and must be considered in accordance with the land base. I think that the background work has been sufficiently explored so that the full ambit and parameter of those rights is already known. The Minister's officials in the Department of Justice have explored this for the last 10 years. I think there is enough precision and certitude to the ambit of those rights to draft that constitutional amendment with little difficulty. We are asking that those historical and inherent rights which preceded the arrival of our ancestors on this continent be enshrined in the Constitution as already described, and that the aboriginal peoples of this country be invited to join our confederation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get a more precise response, if 1 might. I am asking whether it is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada that the inherent right to self-government involves actual sovereignty, or is it the position of the Liberal party of Canada that self-government should be only in the context of confederation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think we are talking about self-government within our Confederation, linked to that historical land base. If the hon. gentleman would refer to the United States Constitution, he will see in that Constitution that the word "sovereignty" has a flexible enough meaning to recognize the aboriginal peoples under the United States Constitution within that context as well.
I urge him not to confuse the issue by setting up a definition of "sovereignty" beyond what the historical inherent right would imply.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this will be my last question because I want to have an opportunity of elaborating on what I think is a very excellent position of leadership taken by the federal Government with respect to this matter.
I just want to refer back to the remarks of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition when he addressed, a week ago last Wednesday, the gathering on Parliament Hill which was sponsored by the AFM, representing the Indian peoples of Canada. At that time the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition supported what he referred to as an explicit right of selfgovernment. He did not at that time, and I have a copy of the transcript of his remarks, endorse the concept of an inherent right. I ask the hon. gentleman what has caused him and his Party to change their position since a week ago last Wednesday?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my position was quite clear that we wanted to state explicitly what was implicitly already an inherent right. So there is no conflict at
March 20, 1987

all. I did not state a precise position, as 1 am able to state in the House of Commons, before a public meeting where the Indian peoples were calling for some response from the Government of Canada. In the absence of the Government, I went out and met with them. The Minister may have had-


John Horton McDermid: The Minister has been meeting with them all along.


John Napier Turner: Where was the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on this issue? Our motion is clear and consistent. 1 am going to read it to the Minister. We moved that this House affirms its support for the aboriginal peoples of Canada in their endeavour to have recognized in the Constitution their inherent right to self-government. Nothing could be clearer and the Minister will have an opportunity to respond to it in clear terms. What is more, the aboriginal peoples of our country are going to be listening to him very carefully.


Mr. Hudon:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Right Honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). If he is proud of the patriation of the Constitution, why did he overlook the province of Quebec?


John Napier Turner: As you know, this is not relevant to the situation today, and the Hon. Member is as aware as I am of the history of our patriation. But he should pay particular attention to what we are here for today, namely, to remedy an injustice, and 1 give his colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) an opportunity to take a stand.


An Hon. Member:: Where are the Quebec Francophone members?


An Hon. Member:: You don't have enought guts to rise.


An Hon. Member:: Traitors!


An Hon. Member:: Why don't you go back to your riding.


An Hon. Member:: There is not even one Quebecer present. [English]


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) on questions and comments?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question, if I may. I want to commend the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), if that is in order, for putting this motion before the House today. It is a very important issue. The aboriginal people of this country have rights and those rights should be enshrined in the Constitution. 1 agree fully with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I want to ask him a question which is very difficult for all of us. What is the policy of the Liberal Government now on Metis and nonstatus people? There are a lot of them in Saskatchewan. 1 do not have the simple answers to it. I wonder if the Right Hon.
Supply
Leader of the Opposition could enlighten the House as to what the position of the Metis people should be in terms of the Constitution of Canada? 1 am not asking this question in a critical sense. It is just a very difficult issue that we are going to have to deal with some day.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is right, and he has returned the House to a serious tone.
I have met with the Metis people of Canada through their federation. They are anxious that this constitutional agreement be achieved in the terms as we described it this morning so that they can proceed towards some sort of constitutional recognition by way of agreement of the rights they may have under our Confederation. We would be in favour of advancing that position.

I will just reply to the noise coming from benches opposite, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the reason why the Quebec Tory caucus is so sensitive today is because they have no Constitutional position to respond to Mr. Bourassa's initiatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: They have nothing. The Liberal party's position since November is quite clear, quite concise and quite constructive, to quote Mr. Bourassa's own words. Even the NDP which is not so comfortable in Quebec has a position, but the Conservative caucus has a big zero to offer the Quebec people.


Mr. Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, when we hear pandemonium in the Opposition benches, it's business as usual. I have a question for the Leader of the Opposition. Although his answer to my colleague for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) was absolute Liberal hypocrisy, I would like to ask him, if he is so conscientious, Mr. Speaker, as to grant the right to self-government to the native people, how does he explain that Quebec is absent from those negotiations and does not want to take part? If he has such an awareness of the provinces, especially Quebec, Mr. Speaker, when we know that his own party dropped Quebec, his own party stabbed it with the Ouellets and others.


An Hon. Member:: They murdered it.


Mr. Blais:: Where are the Members from Quebec? There is not a single one of them.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What about Allmand? Is he not a Quebecer? What about Berger. Is he not a Quebecer?


David Berger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: French-speaking Quebecers, there is not one of them.

March 20, 1987
Supply


Mr. Speaker:: 1 see the Hon, Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) is returning to his seat and 1 understand he is raising either a point of order or a point of privilege.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Conservative Members have just insulted part of the Quebec people by suggesting there were no Quebec Members among the Liberal Members today. I want to tell him that anglophone members from Quebec are definitely Quebecers and Canadians, and it is about time Members in that party recognized the multicultural and pluralistic nature of our Canadian society-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Once upon a time there was a rule of relevance in this Chamber. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) referred to it earlier, something for which the Chair is grateful. The Chair will exercise that ancient rule. 1 will now hear the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid).


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the right hon. gentleman.


An Hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise Hon. Members, as 1 did a few moments ago, that because of the ministerial statement and replies the House will sit until 1.09 p.m.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a serious question for the right hon. gentleman. His friend who is now sitting to the right of him, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), will reinforce the feeling that I have a very genuine interest in this issue as I was a spokesman for our Party for one year while we were in opposition. One of the things that has been bothering me somewhat while these negotiations are going on is the leverage that is being used by the Premier of Quebec in bringing our native peoples into them and their position vis-a-vis the Constitution. 1 am wondering if the right hon. gentleman will use his good offices and ask the Premier of Quebec that he not use the native peoples of Canada as a leverage-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Like you did with Sterling Lyon.


John Horton McDermid: Boy, you are ignorant!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are arrogant!


Michel Champagne: You are Liberal!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I should bring to the attention of all Hon. Members that yesterday during a question and comment period when i was not in the Chair, but when the Acting Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mrs. Champagne), was in the Chair, there was, as Hon. Members will note if they look at Hansard, or if they were here, an unfortunate and lengthy exchange of comments that took place back and forth across the Chamber. I remind all Hon. Members that that was viewed by thousands of people who watch this place. I can also say that the comportment of all Hon. Members has been-and I think the Chair can say this- generally of a very high quality for a long time now. However, I would ask Hon. Members not to take advantage of the question and comment period. It was introduced, as some Members who are in this Chamber will know, and when I was their colleague as a private Member, in order to create more debate, and more relevant debate, arising out of the comments made by Hon. Members. It is not an excuse for Members to send messages, if I can put it euphemistically, to each other verbally. I would ask all Hon. Members to constrain themselves.
The second thing I want to say is this. There are obvious differences of opinion on this subject in the Chamber. It is not for the Chair to comment on them. I think the Chair can almost take judicial notice of the fact that the matter raised here by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is a very serious one. It is treated just as seriously by the New Democratic Party because of the calibre of the Members who are here for this debate. It is also being treated as seriously by the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and other Members who are here.
I would ask the Right Hon. Member to respond to the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown. Since we are close to the time of adjournment for lunch, I know that the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party, or the Minister of Justice, whoever wishes to speak next, might want to start after lunch so that his comments will not be interrupted.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 want to withdraw my remarks which I aimed at the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). I feel very passionately about this particular subject and 1 was asking a very serious question. I apologize for the comments I made earlier.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair thanks the Hon. Member. Perhaps the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will respond to the question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the last comment of the Hon. Member also. We held him in respect on this issue when he was critic. Thus I will treat his question with the gravity it deserves, and I thank him for it.
I hope that the Premier of Quebec will see it within his priorities to attend the meeting.
March 20, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: In earlier days his Government was a leader in moving toward self-government and the autonomous rights of our aboriginal peoples when the James Bay project was constructed. In order to make that a meaningful operation he had to obtain the consent and the cooperation of the people in northern Quebec. He did so with a great deal of imagination, skill and enlightenment. As a result of that, there was the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Flowing from that was a federal statute, the Cree-Naskapi Act. In light of the history of the enlightened treatment the Premier of Quebec has shown for our aboriginal peoples, I hope that he would bring those skills to the table at the conference next week.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the order of speaking which seems to have agreement in the Chamber is that the Minister of Justice will speak next. I am inviting the Minister of Justice to indicate to me whether he would prefer to return at two o'clock. There are but a few minutes left until we adjourn.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think this would be an appropriate time for us to adjourn. I can then deliver my remarks in total at two o'clock, even though they would be equally compelling if I were to divide them before lunch and after lunch.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 1.09 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1.09 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House rose at 1.09 p.m., the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) had the floor.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part, on behalf of the Government of Canada, in this important debate.

Earlier today, the Leader of the New Democratic Party asked me to restate the position of the federal Government with respect to the very important issue we are debating today. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to participate in the debate so that I can state the federal Government's position on the matter of constitutional amendment on behalf of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Let me point out at the beginning that the position of the Government has been consistent since taking office. In fact, it
Supply
has been consistently better than that of Members opposite when they were in Government.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is asking us to recognize an inherent right of self-government for aboriginal peoples. The previous Government refused to so in 1984. I am at a loss to understand why there should be such a blatant inconsistency on the part of the Official Opposition on this very important issue.
Indeed, I pointed out during the question and answer period with the Leader of the Opposition that, not only were the Liberals inconsistent between 1984 and today, they have been inconsistent between one and a half weeks ago and today.
It should be clear that the position of the Assembly of First Nations has been consistent throughout. From the very beginning they have insisted on the so-called inherent right to self-government. That certainly has not changed. The record will show, however, that that was a position they placed before the First Ministers' Conference of 1984, which everyone knew.
Let us look at what the Government of the day, many of whom are sitting in the Opposition now, said in response. In fact, I would like to quote from the federal proposal that was tabled at that conference. I refer to a particular provision from their proposed constitutional accord. It states:
The aboriginal peoples of Canada have the right to self-governing institutions that will meet the needs of their communities, subject to the nature, jurisdiction and powers of those institutions, and to the financing arrangements relating thereto, being identified and defined through negotiation with the Government of Canada and the provincial governments; and The Government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to participating in the negotiations referred to in paragraph (B) and to presenting to Parliament and the provincial legislatures legislation to give effect to the agreements resulting from the negotiations.
That provision merely offered self-governing institutions and, moreover, it contained no guarantee that self-government arrangements would be constitutionally protected. The proposal then envisaged delegated powers that could have been revoked at any time by Parliament and the legislatures concerned.
So unsuitable was the Liberal Government's proposal that it prompted a caustic observation by a scholar and specialist on the subject of aboriginal constitutional rights. I want to quote from a recently published book by Dr. Bryan Schwartz of the University of Manitoba Law School, First Principles, Second Thoughts. He says:
The Federal Government's 1984 proposal on self-government was a brilliant public relations stroke. It was utterly vacuous; it contained no ideas on what self-government would look like in practice, no commitment to adequately fund them, no clarification of the federal-provincial division of powers and responsibilities in dealing with them. It was designed to be legally unenforceable. It might have prejudiced constitutional gains that aboriginal peoples had already made.
It would almost certainly have impeded their progress towards substantive constitutional assurances on self-government. Yet the impression created for the public was that the Federal Government had unveiled a bold new picture of aboriginal self-government.
What does that represent? Is that an inherent right? I do not think so. Is it a substantial acknowledgement of the right

March 20, 1987
Supply
in some way? I suggest that the answer is no. The proposal of the Liberal Government at the time was no more than a right to delegated legislation. It was not a constitutional solution. The negotiating climate established by the Government was so poor that even with this proposal it was only able to win the support of three provinces and, of course, none of the aboriginal associations. That record does not accord with the kind of proposition I hear from across the House today.
1 want to speak about our record in connection with this matter. When we took office we inherited an extremely polarized and very difficult situation. We moved immediately to reconcile two opposing points of view. On one hand, the aboriginal associations were insistent on an inherent right to self-government. On the other hand, many governments did not want to recognize any right of the aboriginal peoples to self-government in the Constitution. Instead, most governments preferred to proceed by non-constitutional means of defining self-government. They were led by the Liberal Government and the same Prime Minister whom the Leader of the Opposition now embraces, lock, stock and barrel. Mr. Trudeau's position was that he would give self-government but it would be delegated. It would be legislated rather than constitutionalized.
I know the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) will agree that that proposition was patently absurd and unfair. While I thought he would have rejected it at the time, 1 did not hear him do so.
In December, 1984, my predecessor introduced a proposal that was designed to bring these two sides together in a spirit of compromise and negotiation which, I suggest, is the preferred way to work at constitutional development in our country. The polls indicate that this is what Canadians want. It is the preferred position of the aboriginal peoples. The proposal of my predecessor provided for the right of selfgovernment to be recognized in the Constitution subject to its detailed right being defined in agreements concluded by the governments and aboriginal representatives. That proposal marked the beginning of a new era in negotiating the right of the aboriginal peoples to self-government.
This has been a lengthy process involving numerous multilateral meetings at the ministerial level and at the level of officials. All parties worked together building upon this essential idea and identifying the components which they considered necessary to reach a workable agreement on a selfgovernment amendment.
As a result, the federal Government was in a position to table at the 1985 First Ministers' Conference a substantive and improved proposal for a constitutional amendment on aboriginal self-government. That proposal will have constitutionally committed Governments to negotiate self-government agreements with representatives of the aboriginal peoples. It also proposed and provided for the right to self-government set out in the agreements and that those rights would be given
constitutional protection. Despite its subsequent modification at the insistence of the Government of Saskatchewan, the proposal was supported in principle by seven provinces around the constitutional table and by two of the four aboriginal associations.
That represents the progress of the former Government and the present Government in constitutional amendment on behalf of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. I ask Hon. Members, particularly those who have put forward this proposition, to compare the two records and understand the progress which has been made.
The level of support from aboriginal associations for the proposals was not sufficient for Governments to proceed with an amendment without giving aboriginal peoples the opportunity to consult further with their constituents. However, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was not ready to give up. Instead, he asked aboriginal leaders to reconsider their positions and instructed his Ministers to convene a subsequent meeting to deal with the outstanding contentious items. The meeting took place, but the necessary support was unfortunately not forthcoming.
Since then the Government has been tireless in its efforts to pursue a constitutional amendment. It has convened and led numerous ministerial meetings to identify the necessary components of a workable agreement on the self-government amendment. It has also explored a number of options which might bring us to a compromise.
Throughout this very lengthy process we have attempted to strive for compromise, which is the essence of constitutional change. 1 have been a part of the process since July of last year and have participated in a series of not only multilateral meetings but a huge number of bilateral meetings with participants, with the purpose of seeing whether or not we could in fact establish appropriate wording for a constitutional amendment. The intervening period has been a productive one. We listened. We consulted. We negotiated and have been able to define, in my view, the essential shape of an agreement which will give us an amendment on self-government.
Let me be clear that the federal Government is prepared to support proposals which provide for the explicit recognition of the right of aboriginal peoples to self-government. We take the view that we must be equally explicit in ensuring that selfgovernment be implemented through agreements negotiated by Governments and the representatives of aboriginal peoples living in communities or regions, agreements tailored to the particular circumstances of aboriginal peoples which would encompass a broad range of matters.
We established a process of negotiation among aboriginal peoples and Governments to define and implement that right; to permit aboriginal control over matters that are directly affected and applicable to all aboriginal peoples; to ensure that the rights already recognized and affirmed in Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 are neither diminished nor expanded; to permit the reasonable accommodation of the
March 20, 1987

interests and concerns of other Canadians; and, finally, to ensure that aboriginal peoples have access to the basic protections and privileges available to other Canadians.
1 want to review the approach of the Government. The Government supports an explicit statement, as I indicated before, of the rights of aboriginal peoples, and it would be implemented and exercised through a process of negotiations.
The recognition of the right would respect the aspirations of aboriginal peoples without compromising their position-and it is shared by most Governments-regarding the unacceptability of an immediately enforceable and inherent right to selfgovernment.
This position is based upon the strongly held view of Governments that the establishment of aboriginal selfgovernment should be achieved through negotiation. I suggest that the entrenchment of an inherent right could leave details of content and exercise to be decided by lawsuits and countersuits. Because these details of content and exercise refer to such complex items as the nature of the institutions of selfgovernment, their powers and jurisdiction, and financial arrangements, and because the arrangements resulting from negotiations could affect in many ways the lives of all Canadians, the Government and most others as well believe that they should be defined through negotiation.
Furthermore, the Government believes that a key purpose of self-government negotiations under an amendment is to develop new relationships between the two orders of government and the aboriginal peoples, thus establishing their rightful place in Confederation. The entrenchment of an inherent right and the inevitable litigation to define its content and exercise would not meet this goal.
The federal Government favours a process of negotiation to implement self-government. 1 think it is important to understand, however, that once agreements have been concluded, it believes that aboriginal self-government rights should be given constitutional protection. This is not a matter of passing legislation giving delegated self-government which can be revoked at the whim of any subsequent Parliament. This is constitutionalized self-government which has been arrived at by equal negotiation on the part of aboriginal peoples and the respective levels of Government. It would be constitutionalized and put out of the reach of subsequent Parliaments and the whims of subsequent legislators and subsequent governments, whether they be federal or provincial.
Constitutional protection of the rights contained in the agreements would safeguard them from unilateral amendment by Parliament or provincial legislatures. Having their rights thus recognized and affirmed is of special significance to Canada's aboriginal peoples.
Although it recognizes that in 1985 only six provinces were prepared to support it, the Government continues to believe that the commitment to negotiate self-government agreements should be placed in the constitutional amendment rather than in a political accord. This approach respects the aboriginal
Supply
belief that only a constitutionally mandated commitment to negotiate will guarantee the integrity of the process over a period of time and through changes of governments. While some governments have feared that a constitutionally mandated commitment would result in aboriginal groups resorting to the courts for rulings which would prescribe the terms of agreements where negotiations had failed, our view is that the commitment would simply require governments to negotiate in good faith.
We support the principle that the evolution toward and the financing of aboriginal self-government is a joint responsibility of both orders of government. Although we believe that the costs of self-government can only be determined on a case by case basis in the context of the powers and responsibilities which an aboriginal government would assume, we are of the view that neither level of government should off-load financial responsibilities as a result of self-government, and that both levels of government should share in any new costs resulting from the negotiations which would take place.
I have a couple of minutes left in which to deal with some very important issues. I hope the House will allow me a few minutes to conclude my remarks and entertain questions.
The position on the joint responsibility of both levels of government reflects a conviction shared by all governments that provincial participation is a practical necessity, given possible effects on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Provincial Governments have sought an active role in negotiation of selfgovernment agreements in order to ensure consistency by aboriginal self-governing communities with the standards and regulations in adjoining regions.

The Government supports the principle that Parliament and provincial Legislatures have a role to play in the constitutional protection of rights contained in their negotiated agreement.
[DOT] (M20)

A provision embodying this principle would require approval by the provincial legislature as well as Parliament in any case where rights set out in negotiated agreements were to obtain constitutional protection. This approval requirement reflects the positive role provinces are prepared to take in the negotiation and realization of self-government arrangements.
The Government is, however, willing to consider alternatives that do not involve provincial legislatures in the protection of rights contained in certain types of bilateral agreements. Certain of these alternatives have been advanced during the consultative process, primarily to the effect that provincial approval might not be required where their legislative jurisdiction or other interests were not affected.
We support the inclusion in an amendment of a nonderogation clause to ensure that new constitutional provisions could not be construed so as to derogate from any existing

March 20, 1987
Supply
aboriginal or treaty rights aboriginal peoples may have. Such a provision would guarantee that any new constitutional amendment would not prejudice the rights of aboriginal peoples that are now constitutionally recognized. At the same time, the amendment should ensure that existing rights are not expanded, except through a process of negotiated agreements.
The process that has led to this final conference has challenged the resourcefulness and perseverance of Governments and aboriginal associations alike. Although the search for constitutional change through negotiation has been a difficult one, the Prime Minister in his opening address to the 1985 First Ministers' Conference expressed confidence that:
The inventiveness and creativity that Canadians have always shown in
developing their democratic institutions-
-would stand participants in good stead.
The Government believes that significant tangible benefits would result from the federal approach to the constitutional recognition of aboriginal self-government rights. This approach would provide for self-government based on aboriginal peoples taking responsibility for their own decisions rather than having decisions made for them; based on self-reliance rather than dependence; based on pride and a sense of selfworth. This, indeed, is the Canadian way.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 hesitate to interrupt the Minister but perhaps by unanimous consent the House will allow him to conclude his remarks?
Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence. I will not be very long. I just wanted to put on record the full context of the background and the position of the federal Government for the benefit of Members and for the benefit of all Canadians.
If participants can achieve the level of agreement required for a constitutional amendment on aboriginal self-government, the federal Government believes that the door will have been opened to translating into reality the dreams of Canada's aboriginal peoples. In this sense, the Opposition's motion is not helpful as it is clearly not of a nature that could produce agreement to proceed with a constitutional amendment.

However, Madam Speaker, the Canadian Government's approach does not stop at that. Recently, we introduced a list of basic rules governing the financing of aboriginal governments.

Let me summarize what our approach does, Madam Speaker. First and foremost it asks that the aboriginal peoples of Canada give us none of their rights recognized within the Constitution. There are no risks in this regard for them. We
recognize those rights which are at present acknowledged by our Constitution.
Second, it provides for a solemn, indeed a constitutional commitment by governments to the aboriginal peoples that they will enter into negotiations aimed at concluding selfgovernment agreement.
Finally, it provides that the right to self-government identified in those agreements would be given constitutional protection. Let me stress what that means. It means protection in the highest law of this land.
Our approach would result in self-government arrangements based on negotiation and compromise. I think that is the route to follow in adjusting constitutional arrangements. I have to ask the question, and this, of course, is the nub of what we are talking about today: what does inherent right to self-government mean? Does it mean that we are going to dedicate the resolution of constitutional self-government to the courts and to a series of litigation by a variety of aboriginal peoples across Canada?
We have at the present time a very delicate and intricate jurisdictional relationship in Canada. It is appropriate and necessary for us to have a system which involves both levels of government in our country and the aboriginal peoples. Any amendment that would provide for an adjustment of those jurisdictional relationships must be formulated to ensure that that delicate balance is not thrown awry. The only way that I know of is through a process of doing it, what I call the Canadian way, through negotiation and agreement; a commitment to negotiate, a commitment with the aboriginal peoples enforceable in the courts of this land but nonetheless a political accord arrived at between the aboriginal people and the Governments of our country.
I agree with those who say that at the First Ministers' meeting we have a historic obligation no matter who we represent in those meetings to arrive at an agreement to set the basis for progress in the years ahead, to meet the legitimate hopes and aspirations of aboriginal peoples and to do it in a way which will ensure progress and ensure that the aboriginal peoples will realize self-government at the earliest possible moment in the most equitable way and in a way which will win the approval, not only of those peoples but of all peoples of Canada.
I thank you, Madam Speaker, for your time and for the indulgence of the House and I look forward to any questions that may be asked.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the motion condemns the Government for not showing the kind of leadership needed in this upcoming constitutional debate which has been taking place at the ministerial and official level for some time. The Minister has asserted everything the Government has been doing.
Could the Minister tell the House what chance does he think the conference will have of succeeding? Does the Minister
March 20, 1987

believe that it will result in an acceptable resolution of the situation, a recognition by the federal Government and of the provinces of the right to self-government in a way that will be acceptable to the aboriginal peoples of Canada? What chance does the Minister think the conference has of succeeding?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, 1 think I should answer that question in two parts. First, very often in negotiations there is a pre-occupation with items in which there are differences between participants. It tends to overshadow very substantial areas of consensus which have been developed over the course of the last month. I say to the Hon. Member that I regret very much that we were not able at the ministerial level to come forward with specific wording that we would recommend as being acceptable to the First Ministers to take forward, to finalize and to approve. I had hoped to be in that position after the substantial number of meetings but, regretfully, that was not the case.
Having said that, I know the federal Government looks forward to going into this meeting with a view to concluding an arrangement. It will require movement on the part of all parties. As has been pointed out many times, in order to amend the Constitution it is necessary to have concurrence of the federal Government and seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. We are going to work as hard as necessary to achieve success. That is our commitment. I hope the parties to this issue will show the necessary flexibility which will result in an amendment that will meet the hopes and aspirations of aboriginal peoples. That should be and is our commitment. The alternative is unacceptable.


Mr. Penner:: Madam Speaker, all Members recognize the need for provincial consent. What troubles Members on this side and the aboriginal leaders is the lack of leadership shown by the federal Government. I want to ask the Minister why the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) would suggest that the first day of the meeting be given over to a discussion of issues in a general way and that they not get down to specifics? It leaves the impression there are no specifics to be discussed. I believe what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is proposing in his motion today is similar to the Nova Scotia proposal which has a free-standing right in Section 35(5)(a). It stands on its own. It then goes on in Section 35(5)(b) to say the scope of the right shall be set out in agreements. That is quite different from the federal position which at the very outset wants to make the right contingent.
My second question is to ask why the Minister wants to raise this smoke-screen, along with other attorneys-general across the country, that a recognition of the right to self-government is going to mean a headlong rush to the courts. Surely the Minister is now well enough acquainted with aboriginal leaders to know that it is not in the courts that they wish to seek a remedy but through negotiated agreements. If they wanted to use the courts, Section 35 gives them all the scope they need. There has been precious little of that except in the
Supply
Province of British Columbia which has been so reluctant to do any kind of negotiating at all.
Finally, I want to come back to the question the Minister put to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition regarding what is meant by "inherent" and where the concept of sovereignty comes in. Would the Minister not agree that when we talk about sovereignty in the modern context, we are talking about a definition or description of jurisdiction? How do you define or describe jurisdiction? Surely the Minister would agree it is done by way of negotiation and agreement. Is that not what we want when we recognize an inherent right and then want to proceed from that recognition to agreements embodied in the Constitution?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his questions. I should preface my remarks by acknowledging his very sincere interest in this matter over a long period of time. I do listen with interest and sincerity to his representations.
His first question dealt with the agenda. Reference has been made to a general discussion. I think that is taken out of the context of the Prime Minister's telex to the provincial Premiers and leaders of the aboriginal groups. There is specific reference to the draft proposed by Nova Scotia which is draft number three with an appendix. This document in itself has been the subject of discussions and it touches on all the salient and essential ingredients which have to be considered in coming to an agreement.
What we must do at the meeting and what the Prime Minister is interested in doing is having a discussion to resolve in a conceptual way some of those areas in which we can come together and bridge the gaps which have existed up until this point in time. I think the format will be helpful in arriving at a specific and detailed discussion so that an agreement can come out of the process.
The second question dealt with what is meant by inherent right. The Hon. Member puts forward the proposition that somehow the reason we are discussing the question of a process involving negotiations is that we are concerned that under the status quo, or indeed under an inherent right proposition, there will be a headlong rush, I think were his words, to the courts. With all due respect, 1 think this is a misunderstanding of the position we have put forward.
If you want to be quite candid and frank about the federal Government's position, this enhances the right of aboriginal peoples to go to the courts. It gives them an additional dimension, what I call a constructive and positive dimension, inasmuch as in the amendments put forward by the federal Government we include a commitment by the Government to negotiate. If we are simply silent or talk about inherent right or have some general reference to inherent right, that will fall far short of providing guidelines or any assistance to the courts to define what self-government really is. I ask the Hon. Member, and I referred to this the other day during Question Period, does he think that the courts are the appropriate forum

March 20, 1987
Supply
in which to have these matters resolved? I think not. In his remarks he indicated that he would prefer, as do I and as do the aboriginal peoples, to have a negotiated arrangement. That is the mature political way in which we accomplish things in Canada. It is a recognition of the equality of status of the aboriginal peoples in this country that they are able to negotiate with different levels of government.
What I am saying to the Hon. Member is simply this. What I am looking for is to convince people that we should have the determination and will to look for creative wording. This is a constitutional document. Whether we like it or not, his view and mine of just what sovereignty is becomes academic. If we have a concept of sovereignty in this constitutional document, the courts are going to interpret it. Sovereignty in a legal sense is quite a different proposition from that of the Hon. Member with respect to self-government within Confederation.


Mr. Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on his fine speech. I think all Members agree that he spoke with the sensitivity we have come to expect from the Minister of Justice.
In his motion, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) asked the Government to assume a leadership role on this issue. That is somewhat surprising for those of us who have participated in the Thirty-Third Parliament, because I think most fair-minded individuals would acknowledge that the Government has taken a very strong leadership role in this area ever since it was elected in September, 1984. In any case, I would like the Minister to comment on the level of effort he has put into this issue and, in doing so, comment on whether it is true that he himself has chaired a number of ministerial meetings with aboriginal leaders since last fall?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I have spent a very considerable amount of my time as Minister of Justice on this important issue. Shortly after I was given the opportunity to serve in this portfolio, I was asked to chair the meeting of representatives of the aboriginal peoples and the provinces at the ministerial level. We moved ahead and obtained the participation of the AFN. That group came back into the process and I was very grateful because it was a positive act. We then moved on and had a number of ministerial meetings, I think four in all. We have had a host of meetings of officials. In these meetings we have shown leadership in terms of enunciating, on a rolling draft basis, the proposition that could be considered by all the participants. We have tried to assist in many ways, financially and otherwise, aboriginal peoples to deal with matters related to the constitutional process. We funded the AFN's examination of treaty rights. Each of the aboriginal associations were given moneys with which to pursue their research into constitutional amendment.
I met bilaterally with all of the groups. The Prime Minister has given me a special responsibility for the Metis people of
Canada which I take very seriously. I have met with representatives of those people on an ongoing basis. I think that we have an obligation in this country to recognize that there are legitimate hopes and aspirations. For a long period of time aboriginal peoples have not had the same opportunities to share in the kind of life which many Canadians have had. The Government is trying its level best to understand and to react positively and sensitively to aboriginal peoples to give them a plateau upon which they can build, become self-sufficient, and reflect their very rich cultural traditions.
I hope the meeting will be successful and determine to have an amendment. I ask all Members of Parliament to use whatever influence they have on the participants of this meeting to ensure that we go forward in partnership to a successful meeting.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) for presenting this motion which our Party fully supports. Indeed, it is very similar to a motion presented a little over a week ago by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry).
The motion is:
That this House affirms its support for the aboriginal peoples of Canada in their endeavour to have recognized in the Constitution their inherent right to self-government-
The motion calls upon the Government to assume a leadership role "and specifically directs the Government of Canada to abandon its insistence that the right to selfgovernment be contingent upon negotiated agreements".
In debating this we should begin with the recognition of the need of aboriginal peoples to have control over their own lives, communities and futures. It should have become abundantly clear to every Canadian and North American that the aboriginal people of North America do not want to be absorbed into the general population. They want to retain their special identity as individual peoples. They have all paid a very high price to maintain their identity as a people. They have paid the price of poverty, inadequate housing, exaggerated rates of unemployment, poor health, inadequate education and loss of their traditional economic base in their attempts to hold on to their identity as a people.
It is important to realize that these negative features which are so large in the lives of so many aboriginal peoples are not an essential part of aboriginal life and should not be associated with aboriginal peoples at all. I believe they result from two groups of factors which must be considered in combination. We have no real control over one of these groups of factors, but do have control over and responsibility for the second group.
The negative features of aboriginal life associated with poverty and loss of traditional base must, in some sense, be attributed to four centuries of economic and technological change. This change has affected all peoples on the face of this
March 20, 1987

globe, but it has particularly affected them. It has swamped their traditional economy and technology. The second constellation of factors which is important here is the failure of successive governments; British, American and Canadian, to protect the rights of aboriginal peoples even when they have recognized those rights.
Those rights were recognized as long as two centuries ago. In the Royal Proclamation of 1763, King George III provided that Indian nations were not to be molested or disturbed on their traditional lands. In 1787 in the United States the Northwest Ordinance gave the same kind of protection to Indians there. Article III of that ordinance says:
The outmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty they never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity shall, from time to time, be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.
Even where there was recognition of these rights, there was not a protection of these rights flowing from that recognition. This failure to protect the rights of aboriginal peoples combined with the economic and technological changes led to the complete over-running of their lands and the swamping of their traditional economies. As an example we can consider what happened in the 19th century to the Indian peoples on the Canadian and American prairies when the railways were built and the buffalo were destroyed. The effects of the coming of settlers varied from place to place but, in the worst instances, people were reduced to being paupers in their own land and they had to depend on government handouts-the seeds of socialism!.
In 1881 Helen Hunt Jackson, as part of the ongoing celebrations of the American centennial of the 1776 revolution, published her epoch-making book, Century of Dishonour. This book detailed the dishonourable way in which the American Government had treated American Indian people. That was 100 years ago. Today that dishonour continues to afflict both Canadian and American Indians. It continues to stain the peoples of both the United States and Canada.
In Canada there has been a deliberate and systematic attempt to subvert and supplant traditional Indian leadership. For example, the Protestant missionary, William Duncan, who in many ways was one of the greatest of the missionaries, went to Metlakatla, British Columbia, in the late 19th century. He had a view that in that so-called model village of Metlakatla there were to be no chiefs but Duncan. Potlatch laws were introduced to attempt to destroy the traditional religion as well as the whole system of government, exchange of property, validation of title and everything else. The potlatch was made illegal by the Canadian Government. In their zeal some missionaries burned potlatch items; rattles and masks. Other missionaries with a little better eye for commercial value collected some of these items and shipped them off to museums. Indian people are still trying to get some of these items back. We had an Indian Act passed which stated that Indian people had to have permission to go to Indian dances or
Supply
to rodeos. It was an Indian Act which, in the 1920s, made it illegal for Indian people to collect funds for organizations which were advocating aboriginal land claims. There was unworkable racist and sexist legislation in the Indian Act regarding band membership and Indian status. There was discrimination against Indian women. Two years ago with Bill C-31 we attempted to correct some of the worst of those abuses but it is very hard to correct history in this way. The federal Government has had a trust responsibility for managing Indian properties which has been carried out in an abominable way. Indian lands have been sold or leased at far below market value.
We cannot be responsible for the kind of economic and technological changes which have affected Indian peoples over the last four centuries. However, we are collectively responsible for the second group of factors, including the failure of governments and of Canadian and American peoples to recognize the rights of aboriginal people. Over the last few years we have seen a growth in recognition of aboriginal rights. There has been a growth in understanding of aboriginal rights among aboriginal peoples themselves, and that is most significant. We have seen that growth among federal politicians. In the short time I have been in this House, I have seen a development in all Parties in terms of recognition of what aboriginal rights mean. We have seen a growth on the part of the Canadian population as a whole and now we have polls which indicate a majority of Canadians want to see aboriginal self-government.
The modern recognition of aboriginal rights owes a great deal to two events in our time. First, there was the 1969 White Paper which was basically an assimilationist document. At first blush, it was accepted by all Parties in the House of Commons. It followed a series of consultations which had taken place with Indian people and Indian leaders all across Canada. At those consultations the Indian peoples stated their demands to have their historic rights recognized, their hunting and fishing rights, their land claims and their treaty rights. However, the White Paper ignored these demands.
Perhaps the best statement of the way in which the Government ignored those demands came from former Prime Minister Trudeau when he spoke on August 8, 1969, in a very celebrated speech in Vancouver. Mr. Trudeau said that the Government had two choices, either retaining the traditional conventional way of administering to Indians "by adding bricks of discrimination around the ghetto in which they live", or by moving towards eliminating all special status and having Indian people the same as everyone else. He said:
We will recognize treaty rights-we will recognize forms of contract which have been made with the Indian people by the Crown. And we will try to bring justice in that area. And this will mean that perhaps the treaties shouldn't go on forever.
It's inconceivable, I think, that in a given society, one section of the society have a treaty with the the other section of the society. We must all be equal under the laws and we must not sign treaties amongst ourselves and many of

March 20, 1987
Supply
these treaties indeed would have less and less significance in the future
anyhow.
With regard to the question of aboriginal rights he said:
Our answer is no. We can't recognize aboriginal rights because no society can
be built on historical "might-have-beens".
The Indian people across Canada did not accept the White Paper. They did not accept the assimilationists' philosophy and began to organize. There was a great awakening of the Indian people all across Canada. People from the Nisga'a, the Cree, the Mohawks, the Micmacs, discovered that they had a great deal in common and began to build a truly Canadian Indian movement which would fight for them. They awakened to a new understanding of their rights, to a new pride in their culture and to a new determination to regain basic control over their lives.
The second event is very closely related. The refusal of the Government to acknowledge aboriginal claims led the Nisga'a Indians on the Nass River in northern British Columbia to take their historic land claim to the Supreme Court. More than any other aboriginal nation in Canada, the Nisga'a had fought for recognition of aboriginal title. It was a fight that went back to the days of Queen Victoria. They have never given up that struggle and they are still struggling. Taking their claim to the Supreme Court resulted in a split decision. Former Prime Minister Trudeau in 1973 said: "Perhaps there is more to aboriginal rights than we thought". I think it is to his credit that, having denied the very concept of aboriginal rights, when the Supreme Court came down with this split decision he recognized there was something there and he was prepared to move on it. As a result a land claims policy was set up. It is a policy which has not worked very well so far for the aboriginal people, but it has at least made people aware of aboriginal rights and that growing acceptance has been indicated by the polls.
In 1980, 1981 and 1982, when former Prime Minister Trudeau was working on patriating the Canadian Constitution, one group of people who took that whole patriation process very seriously was the aboriginal peoples of Canada. They fought very hard to have recognition of their aboriginal rights included in that Constitution. After a hard fight it was included. It was then taken out but it was put back in in a weakened form. When they put back, in a weakened form, recognition of existing aboriginal treaty rights, they were given the promise of First Ministers' Conferences which would further define those rights. A lot of hope was attached to these First Ministers' Conferences, but so far they have been exercises in high frustration. There has been a lot of grandstanding and posturing, but where are the results which affect the average life of the Indian person living on a reserve, a Metis person living in one of their settlements or an Inuit person living in an Inuit village in the Northwest Territories?
The process which was set out in those First Ministers' Conferences has continually been frustrated on the one hand by the intransigence of some provinces, particularly in the past
by Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Unfortunately, the Province of Ontario seems to be joining the ranks of that intransigence for the current round. Second, that process has been frustrated by a failure of the federal Government to give the kind of leadership which is needed to rally the Canadian people around this whole issue.
Perhaps that failure of leadership is exemplified by the statement made in the March 11 debate by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight).
He said:
There has not been a proposal put forward in the meetings that has not been
supported by the federal Government when it came to trying to bring
consensus from all sides of the table.
We recognize that the Government would like to have a consensus. We recognize that the Government has good intentions. However, basically what it is doing, and what the Minister said it was doing, was following. When other governments presented proposals, the federal Government would say: "Let us see who supports that. Who is willing to go along with this?" Where did the federal Government stand in providing the kind of leadership which was necessary to create a total Canadian consensus around this issue which would result in action?
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in his speech pointed out the view that recognition of inherent rights leaves the Government open to lawsuits. A right is a right. We are talking here about a right of the aboriginal peoples which was never surrendered. Before the coming of non-Indians and nonaboriginal peoples to North America, these people had the right to govern themselves. Historically, they did govern themselves. They have never surrendered that right. Therefore that right is still intact.
Why does the Government take the position which says in effect: "We are prepared to give this to you as a privilege, only if you are prepared to accept that you do not have a right to it"? The people have a right-they insist on that right. They will not bargain it away for the few chips that the Government thinks it can give to them as a privilege.
Our Party wants the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to show the type of leadership that Prime Minister Trudeau showed in his great project of patriating the Constitution, for example, or the type of leadership that the present Prime Minister is evidently now prepared to give in his own pet project to sell free trade to the Canadian people. Why does he not give that type of leadership to the question of entrenching the rights of aboriginal people to self-government?
I urge the Government to catch a vision of what selfgovernment can do for Canada, as well as for the aboriginal people. Instead of a grudging concession to the needs of aboriginal people, why not take a positive step which the Government can see as doing something for all of Canada so that to be Indian, Metis or Inuit will no longer be synonymous with poverty or with being off in the margins of Canadian life
March 20, 1987

but, instead, at the centre of Canadian life. In this way they will be a part of Canadian life, something about which everyone can be proud, rather than perpetuating the system that was typified by the phrase "a century of dishonour". Let us instead have a century of pride and dignity for our aboriginal peoples.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the Hon. Member for a very thoughtful speech. It was another demonstration of his continuing interest in this area. Before asking my question I want to say at the outset that I share the same concerns, as does the Government, with respect to the history of injustice to aboriginal peoples in our country.
Having said that, I want to make a very important correction to the interpretation the Hon. Member gives to my remarks. I want to reiterate the fact that nowhere have I said, or what I have said could be interpreted to mean, that I think that the aboriginal peoples of Canada should be restricted, denied or refused access to the courts. Indeed, in response to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) I tried to make the point that what I am trying to do is to assist the aboriginal peoples in some of the suggestions being put forward to give them even more compellable legal remedies in the event that the negotiation process is not successful.
So that I can be clear in my own mind I ask the Hon. Member if he would not agree with the proposition that I have been putting forward, that is, it is far more preferable to have a process under which there is a negotiated political agreement which is constitutionalized than it is to have a document which simply states that the courts will decide what constitutes selfgovernment. Does the Hon. Member not agree with the proposition that under the present circumstances, in terms of their excellence and in terms of their membership, knowledge and so on, the courts are simply not the appropriate forum within which self-government should be determined and that the Canadian way would be to have a system or process which involves negotiation between the aboriginal peoples and the Governments of our country?


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, certainly all parties in this matter, especially the aboriginal peoples, would like to see a negotiated approach to this question. They know how difficult it is to move through the courts. There has already been too great a need for aboriginal peoples to go to the courts. There are a number of court cases pending now in British Columbia because the whole system of land claims is moving so terribly slow. What I am saying is that we cannot use the desire for a negotiated settlement to deny to the aboriginal peoples the right that they have inherited to self-government. It is incumbent upon us to recognize that that is a right that has always existed. It is a right that has never been extinguished. We must recognize that that should be the basis for negotiation. If we recognize it as a basis for negotiation, I do not think it will lead to increased appeals to the courts. If we are not prepared to recognize that basic right, then I think there are a number of aboriginal groups which will indeed go to the courts
Supply
because they believe that they have a very good legal case and they will want to test it in the courts.


B. Keith Penner: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) if he agrees that what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has just proposed, that is, an either/or situation, is not at all fair to the concept of having an inherent right entrenched in the Constitution. In his question the Minister left the impression with the House that we had to go one way or the other, either we fight it out in the courts, if it is believed that there is a freestanding inherent right in the Constitution, or we move to negotiated settlements. In fact, what has been proposed by the Assembly of First Nations, which has been supported by other aboriginal leaders, and what has been proposed by Nova Scotia, incorporates both. It is not a case of either/or. Nova Scotia sets the right out, as the Hon. Member wants and as the motion we are debating today wants, and then goes on to say that the scope of the right shall be set out through negotiated agreements. Will the Hon. Member not agree that the Minister is not being fair in stating the two approaches by making it an either/or proposition?


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, absolutely. As I said earlier, I do not think that the aboriginal people generally want to have to rely upon the courts. They are looking for this recognition. Following that recognition they are looking for a negotiated settlement. They realize that there has to be give and take on both sides. But with respect to the basic fundamental question of justice, they have a right which they are not prepared to negotiate away. They believe that it is a right which they have inherited from their ancestors. It is something which they have to be able to pass on to their children. It is not something which is negotiable.


Mr. Tupper:: Madam Speaker, I wish to compliment my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), on his thoughtful presentation this afternoon and on the sincerity with which he presented his case before us. Something I have been interested in for quite some time as we move toward self-government and in the resolution of the land claims aspect for our native peoples is the ownership of the subsurface rights in the lands that are in question. If we look at our Constitution relative to this matter we will see that these subsurface rights are inherently owned by the provinces. Will the Hon. Member clarify for us the position of his Party with respect to this issue of whether subsurface rights, that is, mineral, hydrocarbon and water rights, are in fact contingent with surface rights?


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the people who signed the historic treaties in Alberta understood at that time that they were signing a treaty for the use of the land, a treaty that extended to the depth of a plow furrow. They were not signing away the land itself.
If we are looking at the question of aboriginal self-government then we have to take seriously the need of aboriginal

March 20, 1987
Supply
people for a proper economic base. This is why one of the agenda items has to be the whole question of resource sharing. Again, this is something that has to be decided upon by negotiation. There are reserves in western Canada where the aboriginal peoples have subsurface rights. There are others where they do not have those rights. It is important that they have a right to share in the resources of their historic lands.


B. Keith Penner: Madam Speaker, I wish to begin by commending the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) for proposing this motion. I think it clearly demonstrates, along with other of his actions, the strong leadership position he is taking with respect to the recognition and the elaboration of aboriginal rights in Canada.
Not only has the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition proposed this motion today, he was the only leader of any national Party who spoke to the aboriginal peoples' rally on Parliament Hill recently. He also issued a strong statement which was read at the summit of the aboriginal leaders held in Toronto just a few weeks ago.
I also want to thank all Hon. Members for their interest in this debate. 1 am pleased that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was able to be here for part of the debate. 1 thank the Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) for his contribution. I look forward to the words from an ally and strong supporter in this area, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
Very recently I had the opportunity to appear on a television program. Unlike many, this was a live program on the subject of aboriginal self-government. Before the interview began, the young interviewer coached me a little. She said: "You are a politician and we only have 12 minutes. Could your answers to my questions be brief?" I assured her that they would be, but she made me promise again. She said: "Please be brief'. When the interview began, her first question was: "What is really meant by aboriginal self-government?" 1 said: "Emancipation". She blinked her eyes and asked me to elaborate. The elaboration is simply that the aboriginal people of Canada are seeking emancipation through our Constitution.
First, they are seeking emancipation from the Indian Act, which is a totalitarian Act of this House. It controls and regulates every aspect of an Indian person's life. No other citizens of this country would allow themselves to be dominated by an Act of Parliament such as the Indian Act dominates Indian people.
Second, Indian people are seeking emancipation from the overbearing, constant direction, superintending, and overseeing of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Again, there is no Department of Government that controls every aspect of the lives of other Canadians the way this Department controls Indian and Inuit communities in Canada.
Third, aboriginal people are seeking emancipation from a dominant society, which, as my hon. friend from Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands pointed out, continually seeks to assimilate these people and make them like us in the belief that somehow our industrial commercial system is the one we should all follow in order to be considered a success.
The Special Committee on Indian Self-Government was an all-parliamentary committee. The recommendations of that committee were unanimous in every case. When that special committee set out to do its work, we first had to steep ourselves in some little-known history of this country. It is not a history that is usually taught in the elementary or secondary schools, or even universities of Canada. However, if a person were to go to a college like the Saskatchewan Federated Indian College, that person would get quite a different kind of education regarding the early history of this country.
When the Europeans arrived in North America to explore and later to settle, what they encountered were various tribes and nations. That terminology comes directly from the Royal Proclamation of 1763. They saw different cultures, and economies in existence, and people speaking different languages. This was not a vast empty land; there was activity going on. People were interrelating and they were recognized by the British explorers and the British colonists as being tribes and nations. A government-to-government relationship was established in order for there to be accommodation and agreements. That was the modus operandi established by the Royal Proclamation. While it is a colonial document and we do not want to make too much of it, it has been recognized in our Constitution as being an important document on which to proceed.
The debate about negotiating and reaching agreement is not one that is being questioned. That is the way to proceed. What is being questioned is whether we begin with the right and then proceed to the negotiations and the agreements, or do we say that there are only rights if agreements can be negotiated? If we do it that way, I ask the House: Where will be what I call the constitutional imperative to begin those negotiations? If we do not have a constitutional imperative, once again we must rely on good will and co-operation.
I know that there is a lot of co-operation and good will in Canada, but I also know that there is a very bad history in this country of not negotiating in good faith and of not honouring agreements once they are made. A constitutional recognition of an inherent right seeks to change the direction we have been following for such a long time.
We must go back a long way in our history to see when this direction began to change. Early British policy did recognize sovereign self-determining nations. However, it was not long before that began to change and there entered a system of domination, of paternalism, and eventually assimilation, about which a whole history could be carefully documented and described for Hon. Members.
March 20, 1987

The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has very often been the instrument or manifestation for this kind of control. For example, it is under the Indian Act, which the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development administers, that the band council form of government was set up. According to the wisdom of the Parliament and Government of the day, these were the only kinds of government aboriginal peoples could have.
However, we know what those Governments were. They were agents of the Government. They were not self-governing bodies, making decisions for their people and being answerable or responsible for their people. They were agents of the Government in Ottawa. Regulations, directives and guidelines issued from Ottawa were carried out by those band councils as if they were somehow Indian agents. That is what we are seeking to change when we introduce the concept of selfgovernment.
Recently in The Globe and Mail, a columnist whom one might not expect to be a spokesman for self-government nevertheless wrote a piece which I thought was very appropriate to the theme of self-government. I am referring to Richard Needham. He wrote as follows:
The desire to heckle and hassle and harass other people, to possess and control
and manipulate them, to change them into something different from what they
are-this desire is surely one of the oldest in history. It's born right into us.
What we must learn, and painfully, is to let go, to let the other person live
according to his or her own pattern.
That is what self-government for aboriginal people is about. It is about letting go.
When our special committee was in Yukon we heard very telling testimony from a small band. My hon. friend will remember the Mayo Band. They had a truly remarkable brief which contained a reference to a short piece written by Leo Tolstoy in 1886. I do not know how they discovered it. I never ran across it before, but it was submitted as part of their brief. Quoting Leo Tolstoy, it said very simply: "I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am sorry for him and wish to lighten his load by all possible means, except by getting off his back". That is what self-government is all about.
There are a lot of well-meaning people in the Department of Indian Affairs and in Canada who want to do good things for Indian people. However, there is the suspicion that really what we want to do is to make them like us, to deny their culture, to deny their way of life, and to deny their right to make decisions, manage, control and direct their own affairs. It is a foolish and academic debate to talk about whether or not this represents sovereignty.
We all know that we live in a very interdependent world and that sovereignty nowadays is always hedged in by all sorts of provisions, agreements, and conditions. The aboriginal people of Canada are quite prepared to accept that. They want to
Supply
negotiate so that they can fit into, not pull out of, our Canadian Confederation.
We should listen, for example, to John Amagoalik, Cochairman of the Inuit Committee on National Issues. Recently before our standing committee he said:
The vision of aboriginal self-government is one that sees aboriginal peoples maintaining their own distinctiveness by running as many of their own affairs as is practical in a modern, culturally diverse and interdependent federal state. In my view, this is a vision that can be shared by most of the political leaders taking part in the upcoming conference.
What could be more reasonable than that? I want Hon. Members to know that in this whole issue-and let us call it a public policy issue because that makes it so respectable-there is another aspect which is rather disturbing. The Department of Indian Affairs, after having wandered around in a political desert for decades, has now discovered a new raison d'etre. It has discovered something which gives it a brand new lease on life, and it is called self-government. It has embraced the policy of self-government like someone who is meeting a long lost love. However, if we look at it carefully-and we have done this in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; we cross-examined the department officials when they appeared before us-we discover that they are not promoting self-government at all. They are using the language, the terminology, and the phraseology, but they continue to deny the substance.
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands and the Hon. Member for Notre Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East will remember that when the special committee was sitting we anticipated that this would happen. We made it very clear in our report that we could not look to the Department of Indian Affairs to be the leader in bringing about aboriginal self-government in Canada. I quote just a small part of that reference in the report itself. It reads:
The past history of the federal-Indian relationship has left a legacy of distrust and suspicion that would seriously impair the capacity of the Department of Indian Affairs ... to act as the federal instrument for developing a new relationship.
We said that that Department should get off the stage. We proposed that it have five years to get off the stage. It is still around. It is still manipulating, controlling, regulating, and dominating, only it has a brand new set of words by which to do that.
I should like to give an example to help Hon. Members understand how it works, because it is a little subtle. I take my example from education. A policy exists which is called Indian control of Indian education. What could be more reasonable than that? Almost anybody could accept it as being a fair and acceptable proposition.
However, there are two approaches to it. First, to the First Nations, local control of education is an area of their jurisdiction based on treaty and aboriginal rights which falls under the purview of self-government. Indian First Nations understand control to be the establishment of philosophies, goals, and objectives, and the administration and management of

March 20, 1987
Supply
educational systems which reflect fundamental attitudes and values of Indian and aboriginal culture and tradition. Of course it does. What Hon. Member would debate, argue, or take exception to that? None of us, because it is what controlling education is about.
How does the Department of Indian Affairs interpret Indian control of Indian education? The Department has interpreted it to mean the administration of funds for certain aspects of education managed under federal guidelines and regulations. That is quite different. The implications of that may escape many. However, if they are seeking to control their own educational system, which is a way of enhancing their culture and giving it new life, that difference takes on a very great magnitude.
Recently I had the opportunity to go to Queen's University in Kingston which has an Institute on Intergovernmental Affairs. It sponsored a day-long workshop on aboriginal selfgovernment called "The Search for Accommodation". As I participated in the workshop, it crossed my mind that one of the problems of those of us in Canada who are non-native Canadians is that we have not fully understood or appreciated the magnitude of the accommodation which has already been made for our patterns of settlement and development. For example, the question about natural resources posed to my hon. friend fits clearly into that category. We have not comprehended the magnitude of the accommodation which has been made for us. However, as we move toward the First Ministers' Conference at the end of next week, we have the opportunity to reciprocate and respond to that accommodation.
We can do it by putting into our Constitution a recognition of a right, which was never relinquished or given up; a right which could easily be accommodated in our federal system; a right which would give aboriginal people of the country a new meaning, a new sense of their own destiny, and a new control over their future which heretofore they have not had.
The special committee agreed unanimously that there must be in the Constitution a recognition of the inherent and inalienable right of Indian people and aboriginal people to be self-governing.
We cannot put that right in the Constitution and immediately hedge it in on every side, limit it, and confine it. However, that is the proposal which is being put forward by the federal Government at the present time. Even the Province of Nova Scotia, in its participation, has seen the folly of this. All aboriginal leaders find it to be unacceptable.
For example, the federal proposal indicates that the right to Indian self-government exists, but that it can only be recognized in accord with or subject to negotiated agreements. Madam Speaker, you know all about your rights and Canadians know all about their rights under our Charter. Would any of us allow our rights to be contingent rights? Would we say that our rights of conscience, religion, association, and assembly, those fundamental and democratic rights, are
contingent rights and that they only exist if we can negotiate agreements with Governments, and that only once we have negotiated those agreements we have those rights?
The argument that if we have a free-standing and inherent right of aboriginal self-government in the Constitution, the courts will be plugged with aboriginal people seeking a definition, seeking substance, and seeking an order to impose self-government, is a false fear. I suggest, further, that it is a big lie. Aboriginal people do not want to go the court route. They want to negotiate self-government, jurisdiction, financial agreements, and resource sharing. If they had wanted to go to the courts, they would have gone a long time ago under Section 35. It is a powerful section. They could have had all kinds of settlements out of Section 35. Only in British Columbia has that route been followed because the province refused to negotiate with aboriginal people there.
If we succeed next week in having a constitutional amendment that recognizes aboriginal self-government, we do not need to worry about people rushing headlong to the courts. But if we fail next week, there will be no other recourse. What our leaders fear most, namely, court action after court action, will take place because we will have failed at the First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal rights related to self-government.


Mr. St. Julien:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) is a staunch defender of Canada's aboriginal people and 1 commend him for his dedication.
Earlier this week 1 sent a telegram to Quebec Premier Bourassa to urge him to be in Ottawa next March 26 and 27. When it comes to defending the interests of Quebec and aboriginal people, I think that Mr. Bourassa is an outstanding negotiator. Quebec's aboriginal people need him personally at this conference.
Quebec seems to be content with standing on the station platform and watching the train go by as last minute preparations are being made for the constitutional negotiations on aboriginal issues. Native leaders in Quebec and the rest of Canada are very concerned and disappointed that Mr. Bourassa should take such an attitude. Native people seek to have their political power within the federation enshrined in Canada's Constitution. Why stay away from this conference? More than anybody else, Quebecers are dutybound to speak up for the first inhabitants of Canada.
That was a preamble, Madam Speaker, and now here is my question. The greatness of a nation is measured in terms of respect for its minorities. Quebec Government officials must confirm their Amerindian and Inuit policy under which they should actively participate in the constitutional conference and attempt to convince the reluctant provinces that Quebec native people do have legitimate claims. Would the Hon. Member tell me whether the Leader of the Liberal Opposition has done
March 20, 1987

whatever may me required to convince the Quebec Liberal Premier to attend the conference? And, as you see it, what are the repercussions of Mr. Bourassa's absence at the conference?


B. Keith Penner: First, Madam Speaker, let me say that the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St. Julien) has been far too generous in describing me as a defender of the aboriginal people. The aboriginal people do not need any defenders. Their own leaders are perfectly capable of doing that. My role simply is to work with legislators and Governments in the development of public policy and with non-native Canadians. The Hon. Member has been too generous. I like it, but it is not fair to the aboriginal leaders.
The Member's question about the participation of Premier Bourassa was asked by the Hon. Member for Brampton- Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). I thought it was a relevant and fair question. It is important that Quebec be there. Most important of all would be for Quebec to be a signatory to the Constitution and a full participant at all times. I, for one, hope that this will happen in the near future. Even though it has not happened yet, there is an important reason for Quebec to be at the conference table. As my hon. friend knows, there is aboriginal self-government now in effect in the Province of Quebec. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine Est will perhaps describe that later in his comments. I simply repeat what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said that, yes, the Premier of Quebec should be there. Quebec has much to contribute and without Quebec it will be a lesser conference than it could otherwise be.


Mr. AUmand:: Madam Speaker, why does the Hon. Member think there is so much hesitancy on the part of provincial Governments in Canada and of the federal Government to accept completely the proposal for aboriginal self-government when after more than 100 years of governing them through the Indian Act and the Department of Indian Affairs we have made such a complete mess of things? For example, in a 1980 report it was pointed out that the life expectancy of Indian people was 10 years less than non-Indian people, that the infant mortality rate was 60 per cent higher than the national rate for all Canadians, that the unemployment rate ranged from 50 per cent to 90 per cent, that income was two-thirds of the national average, and that in 1977, less than 40 per cent of the Indian people had running water, sewage disposal or indoor plumbing and 19 per cent had two or more families in their homes.


John Horton McDermid: Who was the Minister during that time?


William Warren Allmand: With that kind of mess after 100 years of Government by many political Parties-


Miss MacDonald:: You are absolutely right.


William Warren Allmand: What I am reading is from a report published in 1980, and I think it reflects on all of us.
Supply


John Horton McDermid: Especially former Ministers.


William Warren Allmand: No, it reflects on all Parties. 1 do not say this in a partisan way. I hope the Hon. Member does not understand me to say that. I am saying that on behalf of Liberals, Conservative and NDP Governments, and I meant to say it that way.


Finlay MacDonald: 1 agree.


William Warren Allmand: If that is the case, why is there a hesitancy not to agree to Indian self-government with that kind of record?


B. Keith Penner: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member asks an extremely difficult question. We want to get now at the issue of motivation. What is it that motivates people either to block something or to do something? For what it is worth, and I can certainly be challenged on this by any Hon. Member and his or her answer would be as good as mine, 1 believe there exists among political leaders in Canada a fear of the consequences of sharing, on the one hand sharing wealth, and on the other hand, and probably more important, sharing power. It is an unknown. Entering into an unknown area can be very threatening, very challenging and very destabilizing.
I would simply say that, having been associated with aboriginal leaders for a very long period of time, I would think the quote, going back to the 1930s of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, would be appropriate, that really there is nothing to fear but fear itself. There is no fear in negotiating these agreements, Madam Speaker. What we require at this First Ministers' Conference and what we will all be watching for is whether those people who have been elected as Premiers of provinces and our own Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have the kind of vision that Mr. Amagoalik referred to and which my friend, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands mentioned. A need for vision is what is required to get over this obstacle of fear, of moving into what for many Governments in Canada will be a new area. I would encourage them to make a leap over that gap of fear and move into this new realm. It is very promising for our Confederation. The whole world is watching us expecting that we can get some answers for the indigenous people.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I could not help but think back to the time when we were all involved in the constitutional negotiations in one way or another and, as the Hon. Member was speaking so eloquently, I thought of two other areas of rights that were being negotiated at the same time, both of which came out quite differently. Can the Member explain to me and others why the difference? First, regarding the equality rights for women, there was no question that these were not contingent rights. Rights were established first and, after being clearly established, various programs are still being negotiated.
Second, with regard to linguistic rights, the right to two official languages was established clearly first, and then programs were established afterwards. There were fears

March 20, 1987
Supply
attached, certainly to loss of jobs, in both areas. Why in the case of the aboriginal rights to self-government was this not accepted as a basic right and why has it been left to the amending formula? It seems so different. We are dividing things up that should be basic human rights.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). May 1 remind him that there is very little time left.


B. Keith Penner: Madam Speaker, all I can say to the Hon. Member is thank you. In future speeches on the subject, I am going to incorporate those two aspects. Neither linguistic rights nor women's rights are in any way contingent. She is perfectly correct that the definition and elaboration of those rights followed. Why aboriginal rights should be different still puzzles many of us. We heard the answer from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and it was not a very good or complete answer. He said that somehow they are going to rush off to the courts. I have not seen a great deal of court action in the two areas mentioned by the Hon. Member. There has been some, but usually court action follows when there is an unwillingness to negotiate, when negotiations get bogged down. I think the courts could play a useful role in getting the parties to bargain in good faith, but not to describe the content of those negotiations.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak on a very important question. Aboriginal peoples' rights are not a new issue in Canada. Indeed, it was an arduous and, some would argue, long overdue accomplishment to include them in the Constitution Act, 1982. But as of then, our Constitution recognized and affirmed existing aboriginal rights without defining them. However, it went on to establish a means to do that. It provided in Section 37 for a future constitutional process on aboriginal matters, which has become known as the "Section 37 process". Section 37 included the following provisions: A First Ministers' Conference was to be convened within one year-Section 37(1); the conference agenda would include the definition and identification of aboriginal rights, to be included in the Constitution and, representatives of aboriginal peoples would participate in discussions on agenda items affecting them-Section 37(2); elected representatives of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories Governments were to be invited to participate in discussing agenda items affecting those regions-Section 37(3).
It is also important to note that, from the outset, there were different interpretations of the purpose of the Section 37 process. The aboriginal associations viewed the process as one in which their rights would be clarified and affirmed rather than given or restored. Many Governments on the other hand viewed the Section 37 process as a means of identifying and
protecting aboriginal rights which would be recognized in the future.
The March 1983 First Ministers' Conference was preceded by extensive consultations among the provinces, the Territories and the aboriginal representatives. It resulted in an accord signed by the federal Government and all the provinces except Quebec. As participants in the process, aboriginal representatives and leaders of the territorial Governments also signed the accord. The 1983 accord called for a resolution containing the following amendments to the Constitution which were ultimately proclaimed in June, 1984, after being endorsed by the House of Commons, the Senate and nine provincial legislatures. These provisions were: The protection of "treaty rights" in the Constitution was extended to include rights arising from land claims settlements; aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in the Constitution were made to apply equally to male and female persons; the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was required to convene two further conferences of First Ministers each having in its agenda "constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada"; the conferences were to take place no later than April 17, of 1985 and 1987 respectively; and no amendment to Sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, or Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, could be made without first discussing the proposed amendment at a First Ministers' Conference to which aboriginal representatives must be invited as participants.
The accord also gave formal recognition to the agenda for future conferences and provided that future conferences must address the items that could not be discussed in the time available. The agenda was a list of "constitutional matters" identified for ongoing review in the Section 37 process and included: Charter of Rights of the aboriginal peoples; amending formula revisions; self-government; amendments to Part III; and ongoing process. The accord also provided that there should be a subsequent First Ministers' Conference by March of 1984, and established a mandatory and continuing preparatory process to be undertaken by Ministers and aboriginal representatives. Specifically, it required that a multilateral ministerial level meeting had to be convened at least annually by the Government of Canada in preparation for the required First Ministers' Conferences. The Section 37 process was intended to be one whereby the rights of the aboriginal peoples would be identified and defined so that they could be included in the Constitution. The 1983 accord was intended to give practical effect and commitment to that intention.
The difficulties inherent in this process emerged early on. The rights to be so identified and defined fell into the broad category of "existing aboriginal and treaty rights" referred to in Section 35. It was not surprising that there were quite divergent and varied interpretations of the nature and scope of these rights. Mutually agreeable definitions eluded the parties, yet, for Governments in particular, a clear definition of these rights was essential if the process of constitution-building between Governments and the aboriginal peoples was to
March 20, 1987

remain one of practical political discussion rather than one of the judicial interpretation. Eventually self-government emerged from the ministerial level preparatory process leading up to the 1984 First Ministers' Conference as the pivotal issue, although the items dealing with equality rights and Section 35 issues were also explored intensively.
At the 1984 First Ministers' Conference, it was evident that the aboriginal representatives considered self-government to be the only acceptable means by which all of their other aspirations could be dealt with. There emerged, from their statements and positions, a firm perception that the right to "selfgovernment" would clear away the major impediments to a better life for aboriginal peoples. Various participants at the First Ministers' Conference proposed a range of options to deal with the self-government issue, from the constitutional recognition and entrenchment of an inherent and unqualified right to aboriginal self-government to recognition of the right only after its full definition. It was out of this range of options that the challenge emerged to find a workable consensus. For its part, the federal Government presented a draft resolution to the conference which was aimed at a constitutional amendment of a non-justifiable nature which would commit Governments to the establishment of institutions of aboriginal selfgovernment.
The conference failed to resolve any issues. The aboriginal representatives sought immediate entrenchment of selfgovernment as a right. A majority of the provinces refused to consider the entrenchment of an undefined right that they considered could have unknown consequences and that might eventually have to be interpreted by the courts.
When this Government assumed office, in the fall of 1984, our position on aboriginal self-government was already on the record and we moved immediately to place it high on the national agenda. Since assuming office we have worked diligently in our efforts to reach consensus on constitutional change for our aboriginal peoples. An intense preparatory process was undertaken leading to the 1985 First Ministers' Conference. Four ministerial meetings and four meetings of officials were held. It was clear to us that the wide diversity of aboriginal communities, coupled with the concerns of provinces about a general undefined right of self-government, called for a flexible process that could be tailored to reflect individual community aspirations while providing for substantive participation by the provinces.
Accordingly, in December, 1984, among Governments and aboriginal leaders at a ministerial meeting, the federal Minister of Justice made a proposal which became the core of the federal proposal tabled at the 1985 First Ministers' Conference. Under this proposal the rights of the aboriginal peoples to self-government which were set out in agreements negotiated between Governments and the aboriginal peoples concerned would have received constitutional protection.
Supply
The proposal contemplated that these rights would not be justiciable in the absence of negotiated agreements but would receive constitutional protection, along with a possible list of elements to be negotiated, such as the nature of institutions and powers and jurisdiction. Under the proposal, each level of government would negotiate within its own authority under the Constitution and any resulting agreements with representatives of aboriginal communities and groups which would have had the same constitutional status and protection as land claims agreements.
In the federal Government's view, many different forms of government would be possible under this proposal and were indeed necessary. It had become clear that in most cases the appropriate unit of self-government would be the community or band, and this fact itself would likely lead to great diversity. Some communities, especially those that are very small, would wish to join with others in a regional, tribal treaty or other group. This, too, would be possible as long as all communities involved consent. Some forms of government would be based on aboriginal membership, some would not. Under its proposal the federal Government indicated a willingness to consider a wide range of possibilities in working with aboriginal peoples and other Governments.
At the meeting in December many Governments argued that the parties should be working on practical issues that would benefit the aboriginal peoples. The federal Government agreed with that but believed that a constitutional amendment recognizing self-government subject to definition through negotiations would lead to a measured approach and pave the way to practical community level discussions.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) convened a First Ministers' Conference in April, 1985. The focus of the meeting was on aboriginal self-government and on a specific federal proposal for a constitutional amendment and accompanying political accord. The Prime Minister expressed the Government's view that "it is through self-government that a people can maintain the sense of pride and self-worth which is necessary for productive and happy lives".
He also stated that "constitutional protection for the principle of self-government is an over-riding objective because it is the constitutional manifestation of a relationship, an unbreakable social contract between aboriginal peoples and their Government.
There were moments in the course of the conference when agreement appeared close and, although such agreement was ultimately not achieved, an unprecedented level of consensus was reached. Seven provinces appeared ready to support a modification of the federal draft proposed by Saskatchewan if a majority of the aboriginal associations at the table agreed. Two did not.
The Assembly of First Nations stated that it could accept nothing less than recognition of an inherent and unqualified right to self-government. The Inuit Committee on National Issues withheld its approval because of its concern about

March 20, 1987
Supply
provinces having a mandatory role in the negotiation and constitutional protection of self-government agreements.
A subsequent ministerial meeting in June, 1985, was not successful in achieving agreement on an amendment. For its part the federal Government stated that despite the failure to achieve consensus on a constitutional amendment it intended to proceed, within its existing authorities, with community level negotiations aimed at providing concrete examples of self-government in practice.
Since June, 1985, four multilateral meetings have been held at the Minister's level and seven at the officials' level with bilateral discussions with participants continuing throughout. During the first year, June, 1985, to June, 1986, the federal Government had two main goals. The first was to re-establish a positive climate for the discussions and negotiations. The second goal in this period was to ensure a full hearing and thorough discussion of all perspectives on the full range of constitutional issues with a view to ensuring greater understanding of, if not agreement on, the positions of the participants.
This process resulted in considerable clarification and detailing of positions and rationales and led all participants to conclude that self-government continued to be the focal issue for the 1987 First Ministers' Conference. The challenge has continued to bridge the range of views which still exist on this issue.
The aboriginal associations continue to argue for recognition of an immediately enforceable right to aboriginal selfgovernment. Some provinces are still not prepared to accept recognition of a right which is not free and fully defined. The federal Government has listened to the concern of the aboriginal associations and has reflected this in its proposals. We have attempted to meet the concerns of provinces by proposing an amendment which leaves the task of defining the right, in practical terms, to a political process rather than to the courts.
I would like to take a moment to review the Liberal record. Very briefly, what does the record show? For example, what was the Liberal Government's response to the parliamentary Special Committee on Indian Self-Government? Its response was Bill C-52, a legislative approach to accommodating selfgovernment through delegated powers. Bill C-52 provided:
An Indian nation may not seek recognition unless:
The Indian nation meets the criteria established by regulation for eligibility for recognition.
Was this the recognition of an inherent right? No. In fact, the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicated clearly in his response to the parliamentary report:
The Government, therefore, is prepared to acknowledge that effective movement toward self-government will require substantial restructuring of the current relationship between Indian people and the Government of Canada. Changes are clearly needed. However, it is important for us to recognize that any change in the relationship will affect not only the federal Government and Indian people but also provincial governments and others.
Because the effect of changes in the relationship are likely to be wide-ranging, long-lasting and profound, they cannot be undertaken lightly. Each step toward self-government must be carefully considered through joint consultation to ensure that progress is steady and sure.
The Government recognizes, as the committee has, that self-government can be furthered through non-constitutional as well as constitutional means. Indeed, if the principle of self-government were constitutionally entrenched tomorrow, the challenge of making self-government an effective and vital reality would remain. Effective government, as the Prime Minister said at the First Ministers Conference on the Constitution in March, 1983, will first be judged by how it impacts upon the daily lives of its constituents.
Does this, Madam Speaker, sound like a policy in support of a right immediately enforceable in the courts? It does not. It speaks of a Government treading very carefully into new territory. Subsequently, at the 1984 First Ministers' Conference the then Liberal Prime Minister put his proposal on the table. Did it call for an inherent right? No, Madam Speaker, it did not.
The approach underlying that proposal was a pragmatic approach to negotiating self-government agreements. Let me give you some examples of the Government's position. The then Prime Minister, speaking of the 1984 First Ministers' Conference, said:
I reject full independence or absolute sovereignty as a basis for aboriginal peoples relationship with any Government within our federation.
Mr. Trudeau went on to make his Government's position crystal clear. He said:
Interpretation of our Constitution and its application in various situations could be left to the courts. That will always be open to us in any event.
My own judgment, however, is that we should be looking at concepts and formulations which lead to political rather than legal solutions.
What does the present Government record show? We have gone far beyond the debate on whether aboriginal peoples should have a right to self-government and, unlike the Liberals, we have taken pains to make sure that we do not leave the provinces behind. Constitutional change is not a federal prerogative. It is a collaborative effort.
What we are discussing now, and have been for years, is not whether the right exists but how it should be exercised. In this, Governments seem to be clear. Any aboriginal Government must sit within the Canadian Confederation. Indeed, it was the Liberal Prime Minister who said:
Aboriginal governments, in whatever form or model, will have to fit into the constitutional system. It should fit smoothly, comfortably and effectively. The complexity of jurisdictional issues is at once obvious and formidable. It can only be addressed through careful negotiations, based on full and frank expression of aims and needs and a determination to get a set of intergovernmental relationships that will work well for the benefit of all concerned.
Governments today continue to share that view and, as representatives of all Canadians, it is the elected politicians' responsibility to ensure a smooth transition from the status quo to new constitutional arrangements with aboriginal peoples. Whether the aboriginal peoples' right to self-government is already contained in Section 35 as an inherent right will ultimately be a question for the courts. Whatever the courts
March 20, 1987

decide, the exercise of self-government rights would have to be negotiated. To do otherwise would result in legal and institutional chaos for which we would all be responsible. 1 cannot believe that this is the intention of any Government or aboriginal representative around the constitutional table. This Government's record clearly shows that whatever the nature or source of aboriginal peoples' right to self-government, we are prepared to negotiate with them on how those rights could be exercised.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member who just spoke for his comments on another aspect of self-government, namely, the Cree-Naskapi Act which incorporates the self-government of the Cree-Naskapi people. Under Section 158 of the federal legislation, there is a requirement for the federal commission to look at it. The report, which was brought in a short time ago, stated:
-the federal Government has failed in particular to respect the formal
financial agreements for the implementation of the Act, and has thus placed
the implementation of the Act in jeopardy.
The Government of Canada has decided to repudiate the report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission which was set up in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 1 wonder if the Hon. Member could say what that repudiation of the commission's report-which details the federal Government's failure to live up to financial commitments-indicates about the Government's total attitude towards aboriginal self-government?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member at this time is well aware, because it was discussed earlier this week in the House in questions to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), that that subject is now before the courts and it is improper at this time to pass any judgment on it.


Mr. Hicks:: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate the Hon. Member on his very genuine interest and his great depth in matters of the aboriginal peoples of Canada? I know they are extremely well represented by his hard work on the standing committee. Reference has been made on several occasions today to the negotiated process and litigation which would result in solutions imposed by the courts. I wonder if the Hon. Member would clarify for the House his feelings as to which of these methods would be best for aboriginal peoples? Does the Hon. Member feel that litigation would improve in any way the relationship between Canada's aboriginal peoples and Canadians? I might add that this is a relationship which all Canadians are working hard to build.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying I certainly thank the Hon. Member for his comments. Not only today, but for five years as a Member representing a riding in northern Ontario, I have had great concern for our aboriginal Canadians and I want to ensure we do address their concerns on an ongoing basis. As my colleague knows, this year, last year and the year before, the standing committee has always tried to take the view of working with our aboriginal Canadians to make certain we address their concerns. This
Supply
morning I had a meeting with representatives of the Ontario Chiefs. I always feel the best approach is to be able to sit down and negotiate. I think this is the approach our Government and our Prime Minister has taken since we came into office in 1984. We feel it is much better to be able to sit down and negotiate. As we well realize today, the dollars it would take to be put into the court system are much better spent in regards to enhancing and helping the native people of Canada, whether in regard to health care and education or in helping them to achieve self-government. I think negotiations are what we have to continue. We know there are 17 different groups with which we have to negotiate. That is the way we have operated until today, and we will continue to do so.


William Tupper: Madam Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague, the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall), on his presentation this afternoon. My colleague represents a very valuable but difficult constituency in northern Ontario. He represents a community which makes a substantive contribution to our mining industry. The Hon. Member also has a very substantive component of our native community. I was particularly pleased this afternoon to recognize his understanding and appreciation of the problem which not only confronts his native people in Timiskaming but native people all across Canada. I particularly compliment him on his analysis of the alternatives of self-government which could be made available to the native people. I think that clearly demonstrates the breadth and depth of the Hon. Member's understanding and awareness, not only of the problem but of the solutions.
As I was listening to the Hon. Member's presentation about those alternatives, I was reminded about some of the poll results which have come to my attention recently. More than 60 per cent of all Canadians favour negotiations involving the federal and provincial Governments to implement selfgovernment arrangements for aboriginal peoples. At the same time, similar polls indicate that nearly 80 per cent of Canadians favour a constitutional amendment, recognizing the right of aboriginal peoples to self-government. This polling indicates very strongly where Canadians stand on this issue. I would like to ask the Hon. Member how these findings relate to the position of this Government and his own position on this matter.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) for his comments. I do come from the northern part of Canada and we do rely on the resource base industry as vital. I should mention that in one area of the mining sector, about which I know my colleague is very interested, we have been able to work with a mining company to enable the native people of the area to train for aspects within the mining sector. It just shows how both groups can work together in order to come out with an enhanced program which allows employment for the native people of that region.

March 20, 1987
Supply
One other area I should mention is the way that cooperation and working together means so much to all our native people. In the Moosonee area we were able to put in a cable system which is going to be owned and operated by native people. This shows me their dedication and how they are able to take that step forward. What we are really dealing with here is giving native people the ability to operate at all levels of government and to sit down and come out with an enhanced program that will enable a system of self-government. This is something which we all want to see happen. It is something which 17 individual groups have to work toward.
I am pleased with the way our Prime Minister and our Minister of Justice have been able to work in co-operation with the provinces and the native groups to enhance what 1 believe will be a very successful two-day conference next week.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, on March 26 and 27 of next week the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Premiers and representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada will meet in Ottawa to consider the constitutional entrenchment of aboriginal selfgovernment. I say the "constitutional entrenchment of aboriginal self-government". This means, not to create the right to self-government, but to recognize a right that has existed inherently for centuries. I said that the Prime Minister and the provincial Premiers will come together with representatives of the aboriginal peoples to do this. However, I am saddened to say that one of those provincial Premiers may not be present. 1 refer to the Premier of Quebec. At this time, as a Quebecer, I plead with my Premier, Mr. Bourassa, to change his view on this subject and to attend this important conference.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: As was pointed out earlier in the debate, when the James Bay situation arose a few years ago and the Bourassa Government was developing electricity in the James Bay region of northern Quebec, it was obliged, as a result of a court decision, to negotiate with the Cree and Inuit of northern Quebec. Once they started to negotiate, they began to learn a few things, as all of us have done over the years, and an agreement was finally reached. At that time, the Province was fortunate to have with it a man who is still in the Government, the present Minister of Energy for the Province of Quebec, and who represents Mont-Royal and who at one time was the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs here in Ottawa. He is a man of great experience with Indian and Inuit peoples. I am sure that with Mr. Bourassa he can make a positive contribution at the conference and help the federal Government and other provincial Governments to come to an agreement on these important matters.
This is the fourth such conference held for this purpose. The first two were under Liberal Governments in 1983 and 1984. The third was under the present Conservative Government in
1985. These conferences took place as a result of Section 37 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which states:
A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada within one year after this Part comes into force.
The conference convened-shall have included in its agenda an item respecting constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including the identification and definition of the rights of those peoples to be included in the Constitution of Canada, and the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite representatives of those peoples to participate in the discussions on that item.
As I have said, we have already had three of these conferences, and the one coming up will be the fourth. This is the last one that is provided for in the constitutional provisions. The section which obliged the calling of a conference to deal with these matters was inserted in the Constitution because several years before the new Constitution of 1982 the aboriginal peoples of the country, through their organizations, had campaigned long and hard to have their aboriginal rights recognized by Governments in Canada at all levels, as well as to have them recognized in the Constitution.
When the Constitution Act, 1982 was passed by the provinces and the federal Government, a complete agreement had not been reached with respect to aboriginal rights. Some agreement had been reached. It was agreed to put into the Constitution an obligation to sit down with aboriginal leaders and to complete the job. That is what we are still trying to do.
Some progress was made in the Constitution of 1982. After a great deal of lobbying and a great deal of bargaining the aboriginal organizations were able to have inserted in the Constitution Section 35 which states:
The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada arc hereby recognized and affirmed.
Many aboriginal leaders believe that the section includes all aboriginal rights, even though it is in general terms, including the right to self-government. However, they want it more specifically defined. That is why at this conference next week the Government will be discussing with them the possibility of specifically entrenching in the Constitution the aboriginal right of native or aboriginal self-government.
Just after the new Constitution was adopted, the Government of the day set up a special committee on Indian selfgovernment to look into all aspects of Indian self-government, but the principle could apply as well to aboriginal selfgovernment. The committee was set up in December of 1982 under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior (Mr. Penner) who spoke earlier today. I had the honour to sit on that committee, as did the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), the present Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle), and a few other Members who are still in the House. I might say that when we started the exercise, there were several of us on the committee who not only did not understand what was meant by Indian self-government but who were not ready to accept it. After a year of hearings and of intense work on the subject we came out at the end with a unanimous report. The
March 20, 1987

committee was made up of Liberals, Conservatives and NDP Members. The committee recommended that the federal Government establish a new relationship with Indian First Nations and that an essential element of this relationship be the recognition of Indian self-government.
The second recommendation was that the right of Indian peoples to self-government be explicitly stated and entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It was stated in the report that the surest way to achieve permanent and fundamental change in the relationship between Indian peoples and the federal Government is by means of a constitutional amendment. Further, we recommended that the Indian First Nation Governments form a distinct order of government in Canada with their jurisdictions defined.
It is very clearly and precisely set out in the report. It is that recommendation of the Committee on Indian Self-Government which is still before Parliament, the Government of Canada and the provincial Governments, since it has not yet been accomplished.
Many Canadians ask what aboriginal rights are and how one defines them. Aboriginal rights are all those rights that the aboriginal peoples on this continent had before the Europeans came here in the 15th and 16th centuries. Their aboriginal rights were everything that dealt with their way of life, including language, culture, religion, and self-government. If these rights were never given up and never bargained away, they still possess them.
During the Second World War the Government of Nazi Germany overran certain parts of Europe. If it continued to occupy The Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, France and so on, we would not recognize that the occupation of that territory by the Nazi Government would have terminated the rights of those people who live in those countries. By the same principle of justice, we can never recognize that the rights of aboriginal people were terminated simply because the Europeans came to this country and occupied it for some 200 years. The aboriginal peoples never gave up certain rights, they simply disappeared because we occupied land that they previously had. It would be contrary to the principles we hold and for which we fought a war. A right that has never been relinquished still exists.
Let us consider who holds these aboriginal rights in Canada. There are over 300,000 status Indians in Canada and over 700,000 non-status and Metis people. Many non-status Indians are becoming status Indians as a result of new legislation. There are more than 50,000 Inuit living in Canada's North. Aboriginal rights affect one million out of 25 million people in Canada. Those one million people make up about 500 communities or nations.
If self-government is one of the aboriginal rights, what does self-government encompass? The report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government set out in great detail
Supply
what Indian self-government would encompass and how it would be implemented. I recommend that report. Although it was published four years ago we can still learn a great deal from it.
The best way to describe Indian self-government is to refer Members of Parliament to the example in northern Quebec where the Grand Council of the Cree and the Inuit form two separate regional aboriginal Governments. I was the Minister responsible for introducing and passing the legislation with respect to those two aboriginal Governments. While the structure and the provisions for those types of self-government are not perfect and much more could be done, they are an outstanding example of a type of aboriginal self-government in Canada. The Cree Regional Government in the north of Quebec includes some eight communities of Cree. It has a system of government whereby they run their own education system, health and welfare system, economic development programs, local government, and justice system. As a result of the agreement that was passed by this Parliament and the National Assembly in Quebec, they are taking greater control over the operations of government from the provincial and federal Governments. It is an outstanding example of Indian self-government.
Today the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) criticized the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) for stating in the resolution before the House that aboriginal self-government was an inherent right that had not be extinguished. He said that he was surprised by that position of the Leader of the Opposition because in 1983 or 1984, the Liberal Government of the day had not gone that far. That might be correct.
When I first came to this Parliament, very few Members of Parliament from any Party recognized aboriginal rights let alone self-government. That recognition has increased significantly over the years because we have been educated on the subject by aboriginal people and their organizations. I admit that if it was not indifference, I had great suspicion and doubt with respect to aboriginal rights and Indian selfgovernment. However, the more I was informed and educated on the subject as a Member of Parliament, the more I recognized the justice in their argument.
Similarly, I believe that the process which members on the Special Committee for Indian Self-Government followed in studying the matter for over a year led us to an improved position at its conclusion. We need not apologize if the Liberal Party has a better position today than it did in 1983. It certainly has a better position than it did in 1965 when I first came here and there was no position at all. In fact, many Parties had no position on aboriginal rights. I must say to the Minister of Justice that I respect his good faith in this matter, and if his position is improved I will certainly not criticize him but simply suggest he is going through the same process as we all are in recognizing a right we should have recognized long ago.
I believe the Hon. Member who spoke before me would readily admit that the position of the Conservative Party today

March 20, 1987
Supply
is much better than their position and that of the Liberal Party a number of years ago. We would regret seeing any slippage in the progress that has already been made. It is the opinion of many aboriginal organizations that there has been some backtracking in the federal Government's position. That is not my statement as an opposition Member, but the opinion of many aboriginal organizations.
The constitutional entrenchment of aboriginal self-government is necessary because it would prevail over all other federal and provincial laws. If there is any contradiction between an ordinary federal law or a provincial law, the Constitution would prevail. Its entrenchment is also important because no succeeding Government could change that provision recognizing aboriginal self-government without a constitutional amendment. If aboriginal self-government were simply recognized in an ordinary piece of legislation, it could be changed by an amendment in the House of Commons by a political Party with a great majority. That cannot be done if it is entrenched in the Constitution.
Next week, in order to achieve that entrenchment, we will require the consent of the federal Government and of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the Canadian population. I hope the provincial Governments and their officials, the Ministers of the federal Government, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will recognize some of the points raised in the debate today and move forward with it.
As long as we have the Indian Act and as long as we have the Department of Indian Affairs, we have a system of colonialism. There is no other way to describe it. We may not have recognized that for a long time. However, now we are sensitive and we know that it is a system of colonialism. It is a law which non-Indians passed many years ago to deal, as my colleagues said, with every aspect of the lives of aboriginal people. It is also a system of paternalism. It says that we know what is best for these other people and we will run it through the Department of Indian Affairs and the Indian Act.
As I said earlier, it is strange that we should hold to that view, because over the 100 years or so that the Indian Act has been in effect and the Department of Indian Affairs has operated, there has certainly been no improvement in the position of our aboriginal people. The levels of poverty, sickness, and illiteracy have become much worse rather than better.
Surely they can do it better themselves than we can. Any people can run their lives better than another people a long distance away. People cannot live with justice and dignity without self-government.
I know my colleague referred to the Leo Tolstoy quotation used in Mayo, Yukon by Indian people before the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government. It ended up by saying that we must get off the backs of these people who we have
been trying to govern for 100 years and let them do it themselves. Hopefully that will be done next week.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. friend. The comments I want to make will be delivered in a non-partisan way, and I know that he will understand that.
I know his genuine interest, being a former Minister, and that he has maintained it over the years. In his remarks he said that the Cree-Naskapi Act is "what we have in mind for selfgovernment". To whom was he referring when he said that phrase? Is he not in fact dictating to our native peoples what we have in mind for Indian self-government as opposed to what they have in mind for Indian self-government?
I will ask two questions if I might, Madam Speaker. I am a little concerned about the Hon. Member's closing comments when he said that Indian or native people are far worse off today than they were in years gone by.
In my experience I do not find that to be so. I agree entirely with his remarks about the Department of Indian Affairs and the method of handling problems over the years. If one's hindsight were 20-20, one would see that it has been disastrous. I agree with him whole-heartedly.
However, I think he is being somewhat an alarmist in saying that health on the reserves is worse. I know we still have monumental problems on a number of reserves, but I also know, for example, that we have some 7,000 native peoples in universities now, whereas a very few short years ago we only had 100 or 200. There has been some improvement, albeit not as much as any of us as Canadians would like to see. It is not a record of which we can be proud, that is for sure. The Hon. Member may wish to comment on my two questions.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, in respect of the Hon. Member's first question, if I stated it as it was put by him, I certainly apologize. I did not mean to refer to the Cree Regional Government in northern Quebec as an absolute model for everyone else. I was simply saying that it was an example, for Canadians who are not familiar with Indian selfgovernment, of the type of thing that has been put into place.
Some people are very vague about Indian self-government. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, a great percentage of Canadians who live in cities have never been to Indian communities. When we talk about Indian self-government, they really do not know what we are talking about.
I used that regional Government in northern Quebec as an example. When I said "we", I did not use it in the possessive sense; I was speaking extemporaneously. Perhaps I sometimes do not use the exact word, but it is an example of regional Government run by Indian people. I would not say for one minute that it should be the model accepted by other Indian people in Canada. They have their own particularities, cultures, and so on. They may want to do it in a completely different way. However, to non-Indians in Canada we can say that it is something that is being done. They are running their
March 20, 1987

justice, educational, and health systems, and it is working. Things are improving.
Turning to the second point raised by the Hon. Member, he may be quite correct in that there are individual Indians and Inuit today who are doing very well. There are certain communities, bands, or nations that are doing very well. However, as an entire people, as aboriginal nations, before contact or at the time of contact, when Europeans first came to this country they were self-sufficient, strong nations or communities.
Since that time and under the Indian Act and the Department of Indian Affairs, they have been subject to a terrible shock treatment by the overwhelming number of Europeans who came to this continent. We took away their best lands in many cases. We took away their rights. We did not respect many of their ways of doing things.
As nations I think they are worse off today than they were then, even though, as the Hon. Member pointed out, there may be 7,000 individuals in universities and so on.
I do not suggest for a minute that the Hon. Member was making the following comparison. However, we often hear from the South African Government, when it is attacked for its apartheid policies, that we must compare the blacks in South Africa who have better educational systems and health care with the people in neighbouring countries. Sometimes that is true, but they do not have the right to govern their own affairs. They do not have the right to make their own mistakes. They do not have the dignity and justice of being in complete control of their own destiny. The fact that some of them in South Africa may have better educational and health care systems never compensates for the lack of the other freedoms. I guess that is what is important to people who are struggling for self-government in Canada and in many other places in the world.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) spoke he said that the position of the Government was to recognize the right to aboriginal selfgovernment as a contingent right rather than an inherent right. He said that to recognize it as an inherent right would open the way to all kinds of court actions, which I think all of us wish to avoid; we wish to see some kind of negotiated settlement.
Not being a lawyer myself, I would really like to have a second opinion on it. Would the Hon. Member who is the lawyer give us his opinion whether or not the recognition of an inherent right would lead to a great number of court cases?


William Warren Allmand: I do not think so, Madam Speaker. I do not see how the recognition of Indian self-government as an inherent right, or aboriginal self-government as an inherent right of the aboriginal people, will lead to more litigation. If anything, it will lead to more negotiation. We have had and have now too much litigation between Indians and provincial
Supply
and federal Governments. We have cases in the courts all over the place. We have some even now. I have a press release today where the Cree of Quebec, to whom I have just referred, are taking legal action against the federal Government, and I think the Quebec Government as well, because there have been certain breakdowns in that agreement between them and these Governments. I personally believe the Member's colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), pointed out very well that when we entrenched language rights, equality rights and women's' rights in the Constitution we did not spell them out in detail. We recognized these things in general terms. That was important. We are asking that the same thing be done with aboriginal self-government, and I think it will lead to negotiation, not to a lot of litigation.


Henry Davies Hicks: Madam Speaker, during the Hon. Member's comments he alluded to an inherent right. He made reference also to remarks by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) who earlier today made reference to an inherent right. To see if we are all on the same wavelength, would the Hon. Member attempt to define an inherent right for us?


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, by that I mean, and I believe the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the aboriginal people themselves mean, that they existed as nations with languages, culture et cetera on this continent before the Europeans ever came. They had their own economies and institutions. Among those institutions were systems of selfgovernment. We know they differ from one nation to another. The Iroquois, who are close to me, had one system of the long house which was different from those of the Objibway and the Cree. The Prairie Indians had other ways of doing things, but they had self-government and systems of self-government which they possessed as nations. Since they possessed them, we feel that this is a right they had that cannot be taken away.
I have tried to give an example of the fact that we fought in the Second World War because we did not believe that the Nazi Government of Germany had the right to overrun other countries and impose the Nazi way of living or government. Those countries, whether Belgium, Holland, France or Poland, have the inherent right to govern themselves in their own way as they had done for generations and generations and had the right to change it in their own way as they wished. That is what I mean and what others mean is an inherent right to Indian self-government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I think we have had a very positive debate in the House this afternoon on a most important issue to Canada and to our original Canadians, the aboriginal peoples. As the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine Est (Mr. Allmand), the former Minister of Indian Affairs, said, the Indian people were in this country many years before the Europeans came along. There are many different Indian nations from one part of Canada to the other.
I want to say a few words this afternoon as someone who represents many Prairie Indian people. My riding has eight

March 20, 1987
Supply
different Indian reserves. There are many Indian reserves in Saskatchewan and there are many urban Indian people in my province as well. We must never forget that the Indian people were the first people of Canada. We often talk of two founding peoples or two founding nations, but the Indian people were the pre-founding nations, if you want to use that term, of Canada. There were many nations, languages and cultures from one part of what we know is Canada today to the other part of this great country. I believe very strongly, and our Party passed a resolution in 1973, that Indian self-government, Indian rights, must be enshrined in a positive way in the Constitution of Canada. I want to support as strongly as possible that position on behalf of my constituents and our Party in this debate today. That argument was put forth very forcefully and positively by the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). It is also important that those rights be enshrined in such a way as to protect the traditions of the Indian people across Canada.
I want to quote one passage from a book entitled Pathways to Self-Determination

The Canadian Indian and the Canadian State. This book is edited by Leroy Little Bear, Meenno Boldt and Anthony Long. In talking about the Indian people we read:
They do not want merely a European-western model of Government that is run by Indians; rather, they want an Indian Government that operates in accordance with traditional principles and customs, one that rests on a spiritual base and emphasizes group, not individual, rights. They want a Government that will restore the relationship with the natural environment rather than trying to assimilate them into a dominant society.
It is a way of life that Indians should have the right to have enshrined in the Constitution of Canada. We will do whatever we can in this House in our Party, and I am sure other Parties will as well make sure that that happens very shortly. The constitutional conference comes next week, and I call upon the Premiers of every province to co-operate fully in recognizing the rights of the Indian people of Canada.
I do admit, for reasons I have already mentioned but also because I think we have treated Indian people in a very disgraceful way as a Canadian society over the past 100 years of our history, that Indian people have been discriminated against in very overt ways, economically, scholastically and in almost any way you can possibly think of.
Let me outline a few things and perhaps personalize it to my own province. I have eight Indian reserves in my riding, the Cote Reserve, the Keeseekoose Reserve, the Key Reserve, the Fishing Lake Reserve, the Peepeekisis Reserve, the Okanese Reserve, the Little Black Bear Reserve and the Starblanket Reserve. As I travel around these reserves I see a tremendous amount of poverty and a large number of children who do not get proper education and who are going hungry, I see a lot of young people dying, I see violence, crime, alcohol and drug use. As I travel into the City of Regina where many Indian people live, I see the same kind of thing. Many young people do not have jobs, are tied to alcohol, drugs and prostitution. They are involved in breaking and entering because they do not have opportunities and are leading a pretty listless life. We
are to blame as a white society for not giving these people the proper opportunities from one generation to the other.
Let us look at some of the facts of being an Indian in Canada to understand why the problems are so grave. For example, let us consider child welfare. The proportion of Indian children in care has risen five times the national average. Five times more Indian children are in care than the national average. In education, one in five Indian children graduates from high school, or 20 per cent. The national average is 75 per cent. On income, the average income of Indian people is one-half to two-thirds of the national average. Unemployment averages 35 per cent of the working age population of native people, compared with about 9 per cent or 10 per cent for the country as a whole. In some areas it goes as high or higher than 90 per cent. In my own riding there are some reserves where 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the people are unemployed and on welfare. They have nothing to do. On some other reserves, of course, in my riding the unemployment rate is much lower than that.
A meaningful statistic for me is that of housing. Nearly 19 per cent of on-reserve Indian homes have two or more families living in them. Most of those homes are very small. Indian families are on average a lot larger than the average nonIndian family. In many cases you have 10 or more people living in a very small house. That is not conducive to proper rest for children who attend school and so on. Back in 1977, only 10 years ago, fewer than 40 per cent of Indian homes had running water and sewage disposal. At that time, over 90 per cent of Canadian homes had indoor plumbing. If you look at violent crime, the violent death rate is three times higher for native people than the national average. Infant mortality, for infants up to four weeks of age, is 60 per cent higher than the national average. Life expectancy among Indian people is much lower. If, for example, an Indian infant survives its first year, it can expect to live 10 years less than a non-Indian. Putting it the other way around, the Canadian average is 10 years longer than the Indian average. The average length of life for an Indian woman is 66 years. For an non-Indian women it is 76 to 77 years. There is a tremendous difference in life expectancy. Hospital admissions for Indian people are more than double that of the non-Indian population.
I have given you just a few of the statistics covering the tremendous hardships faced by Indian people. We as a society must do whatever we can to try to right these wrongs. I realize that history has left us with many wrongs. This has happened over generation after generation after generation. We are not going to snap our fingers and write those wrongs in a single day, single year or single decade. However, I remind the House that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I hope that next week this Parliament will see the First Ministers come back from their conference with a positive decision to enshrine in the Constitution self-government for the Indian people of this country. If that happens, we will be
March 20, 1987

taking another step towards the completion of that journey of a thousand miles.
I do not want to go on very much longer. 1 have mentioned the disgraceful treatment of Indian people over generations. I mentioned the economic situation of Indian people across this country, including my province and my riding. In addition to enshrining self-government for Indian people, we must make sure that we give them the tools with which to do the work, in other words, money for economic development. When they have that, I hope we devise a system where decisions can be made by Indian people themselves so they have local control over projects in their communities and on their reserves. That is very important.
I remember an experience in my own riding on the Cote Indian reserve. When I was first elected in 1968, over 90 per cent of the people there were unemployed and on welfare. The crime rate was one of the highest in Saskatchewan. There was a very high rate of violent crime, drug abuse and alcoholism. After a few years, probably about 1970 or 1971, a newer and younger chief was elected. His name was Tony Cote. He believed, with some of the newer councillors on that reserve, that there should be more self-government and more of an effort of Indian people to look after their own lives and destiny. He campaigned to that effect. After a while that reserve became one of two in the province to get the chance to administer its own welfare. It made its own decisions. After a while it had an Indian policeman. It started to drive its own school buses, opened up its own laundromat, grocery stores and service station. It ran these places itself and put a few people to work.
I worked on many of these projects with them. I remember one project in particular. It was called the Cote fence post project. They would manufacture fence posts. Saskatchewan has a lot of ranches and farms in need of fence posts. Nothing was more logical than having such a project on this reserve near Kamsack, which is near the forest area of Saskatchewan. The province is not all flat; it has forests as well. They sent many of their men into the forests, cut the trees, brought them back, cut them into fence posts, treated them, stored them and sold them. That provided jobs for Indian people on that reserve. I also remember being involved in helping them set up a band farm. I remember Albert Cote, one of the elders on the reserve, who ran that farm. He gave leadership in having Indians run the farm themselves rather than renting the land out to white farmers. That provided more jobs for Indian people. I remember the arenas and community centres which were built so that young people had a place to go for recreational activities on the reserve rather than going five or six miles to the Town of Kamsack and hanging around poolrooms, getting beer from the pub and getting drunk in a back alley or somewhere else.
Supply
Those were positive contributions made at that time by a council and chief who wanted to take their destiny into their own hands. I think they were able to do that in this case without a great deal of help from white society, the Government of Canada, or the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Of course the officials in that Department in most cases co-operated as much as they could within the parameters and restrictions they faced.
I believe we can do a lot of things if we trust people to look after themselves and make the decisions affecting their own lives. I know that they, like us, will make mistakes. Look at the mistakes made by white politicians and white Governments of all three political Parties across this country. There is not a single political Party which has not made mistakes, suffered scandals, or had embarrassing things happen to them. Of course Indian people will make mistakes. You only learn by doing something for yourself.
1 do not think there are any greater experts in this country than those living in a community with the right to make the decisions affecting that community itself. It is the worker in a plant who knows how to run the plant and make a product. It is an Indian on a reserve who knows what to do on the reserve. It is the farmer on the land who knows how to farm the land. This country must move more and more towards decentralization of the economy. Local people must have control over the local economy and the kind of jobs they want to produce. That is the direction in which we have to go. If we do this, I really believe we will have a much better society.
In conclusion I want to say that it is very important that we respect the treaty signed between the Indian nations and the Queen's representative many years ago. I remember in my riding once again, on the Keeseekoose Indian reserve, talking to a former chief. He told me a short time before he died how important it was for white politicians never to forget the treaties we signed with the Indian nations many years ago. We must never forget how important they are to Indian people and their future.
I see you are about to rise, Madam Speaker. I just want to say one more thing. This has been a good debate. I hope this positive attitude will be carried into the constitutional conference next week. We should remember, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should remember, and the Premiers should remember, that in the long run a society and country is judged on how it treats minorities. In the final analysis, when history is written, there can be no better way of judging Canada than by how we treat our aboriginal people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 5 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 82(12) the proceedings on the motion have now expired.

March 20, 1987
Supply
The House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


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

Monday, March 23, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers