1987-03-11

[Stage Direction]
36 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
INDEX ISSUED IN A SEPARATE VOLUME	LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT CANADA 1988 04 1 3 BBUOTH&ilJE DU PARLEMENT
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada KIA 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 11, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the answer given the Quebec Minister of Finance by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), an answer which all Quebec residents can only describe as being quite insulting and arrogant. Referring to the attitude of Canada's Minister of Finance, this is the third negative answer of the Conservative Government to Quebecers. As we recall, the Minister of Cultural Communities sought financial assistance to cope with the ever increasing number of refugees coming into Quebec, but the answer of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) was a flat no. Then Environment Minister Cliff Lincoln asked the Minister of Environment (Mr. McMillan) for financial support to clean up the St. Lawrence River, and again the answer was no. Once more this Government's answer to all Quebecers was no.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that henceforth Quebecers will say no to all Conservative Members just to get rid of them.


TOURISM
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, the Niagara Peninsula has experienced its best tourism year in 15 years. Year end travel figures released by Statistics Canada reveal that the number of international visitors to Canada was up by 18 per cent over 1985, the highest level since 1972.
Long-term visits to Canada by Americans rose to 14.1 million, representing an increase of 17 per cent, and overseas visitors to 2.1 million, representing an increase of 25 per cent. Expo 86 was a big draw, but it was not the only attraction. Visitors to Ontario increased by over 5 per cent from 1985 and that includes increases in the number of winter tourists as well.
A major factor in this increase was Tourism Canada's awarding winning advertising campaign "Canada: The World Next Door". The same theme will be used this year. All of us in Niagara look forward to another record-setting tourism year in 1987.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, we need a new deal on family re-unification in immigration. Although in 1986 immigration increased to nearly 99,000 it still fell more than 6,000 below the minimum level of 105,000 set for that year by the Minister which, in turn, is far below the level needed to keep our population from shrinking. We need 150,000 to 200,000.
The Government has failed to achieve the level of immigration it recognizes as necessary to maintain Canada's population and economic potential. This failure is mainly due to neglect of family reunification. In family class, immigration fell 3,390 short of the Government's proposed level. In assisted relative class, it fell almost 21,000 short, even 2,364 below 1984.
The Government failed to clear up red tape delays in overseas visa offices and the Government also brought in a new restrictive point system that discourages the majority of prospective applicants.
I call on the Government to open its promised conversations with Canadian immigrant groups about a new deal on family reunification.

March 11, 1987


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, today an entire region was disappointed by the news that the President of the CBC, Mr. Pierre Juneau, has decided that the people of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean will not get a televised news bulletin. Once more, the President of the CBC is hiding behind the facile excuse of budgetary cutbacks. I get the impression that the President of the CBC is taking these people hostage. Giving the region a televised news bulletin does not sound like a frill, when we have yet to receive full services.
Mr. Speaker, through you, I want to say this to Mr. Juneau: As the President of the CBC, you will get no glory if all you do is manage to maintain existing services according to what your budget allows. You will be remembered for the extra service provided where justified. What has to be done is already clear from the Caplan-Sauvageau report on our region.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, last month in the Budget we found out that the Government was going to make no commitment of funds for the new crop year for grain farmers. Last week we learned that grain prices this year will be 20 per cent below last year, well below the lowest price in real terms in the 1930s. Tens of thousands of farmers will not be able to get credit to plant their crops this year. Others will lose their farms.
I call on the Government to make a commitment now that farmers will get at least as much financial returns this year from their crops as they did last year.
In the same Budget there was no commitment for farmers facing a farm debt crisis, many of whom will lose their farms this year when the moratorium on farm credit loans is lifted. I call on the Government before the Government lifts that moratorium on farm credit loans to bring in a new program of assistance to farmers facing a desperate loss of land.


ABORTION
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, 1 was very pleased last week to meet with representatives of the Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association who travelled to Ottawa to present a brief to Saskatchewan Members. These people are very concerned about the millions of dollars in federal government grants being given to support organizations that require their members to hold a pro-abortion point of view in order to gain membership.
As we have heard in this House many times over the last few months, federal grant money does not seem to be available to organizations that hold a pro-life point of view. The Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association is a provincial organization representing the pro-life groups of Saskatchewan. I am pleased to report on the success of their education programs dealing with fetal development, the truth about abortion and the prevention-based sex education program, "Teen Aid". The abortion rate in Saskatchewan has dropped steadily over the last several years due in large measure to the excellent work being done by Saskatchewan pro-life groups. I commend them, Mr. Speaker, and urge them to keep up the good work.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of a proper redress for the dispossession and relocation Japanese Canadians suffered during the 1940s continues to await action by the Government. The present Minister responsible for multiculturalism has consulted with the National Association of Japanese Canadians as well as with others regarding redress. He has indicated that he intends to seek cabinet approval for a redress proposal, but he has not declared that the process he seeks is based on negotiation with the National Association of Japanese Canadians.
An honourable redress, one that will be acceptable to the Canadian people, is one that is negotiated with the national representatives of Japanese Canadian communities. It is one that encompasses the principle of individual compensation for losses of property and income. I call on the Minister responsible for multiculturalism to ensure that the redress process incorporates these principles. Canadians of many communities are watching anxiously to see how the Government removes this long-standing blot on our human rights record.
March 11, 1987


PUBLIC WORKS
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I received a telegram from the people who were expropriated at Mirabel, and the Canadian Press reports that Ottawa will be reviewing their case.
Mr. Speaker, since the visit by Government officials to Sainte-Scholastique may have caused some confusion owing of the kind of questions they asked and their attitude to the memorandum signed by the former Minister of Public Works and representatives of those who were expropriated, today, I would like to give my constituents the assurance that I will never agree to any changes in the memorandum of agreement unless they are made to upgrade conditions for farm support.
The expropriated people at Mirabel and those who are tenants on their own land have suffered and are still suffering as a result of the absurd expropriation program implemented by the Liberals at the time. I was quite shocked today when I noticed some criticism of the settlement negotiated by our Government, which has contributed to the prosperity of Mirabel.
Finally, my constituents can rest assured that 1 will keep a close watch on this matter. In fact, I already have the unconditional support of all Members of the Conservative caucus from Quebec.


LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Last Monday, Mr. Speaker, we witnessed dissension among the Liberals concerning the cruise missile tests.
The Members for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), Davenport (Mr. Caccia), Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and York South (Mr. Nunziata) rose to vote against their leader and endorsed the motion of the socialists.
Picture the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East now associating with the socialists: a hazardous approach to collaboration with the Soviet Union.
As to the complete about-face of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) in this House last Friday, it attests to the kind of stuff he is made of. As well, the silence of the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith)-former Liberal caucus chairman-in this House Friday reflects the weakness of their Party. Will the Leader of the Liberal Party clarify the position of the rebellious members of his caucus? Will the time ever come when the leader will say something, when he will have something to say?
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, was the Liberal Party's internal conflict so deep and so emotional that the leader was absent for the vote?
*
* *
* *


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, Canada today is positioned to lead the world in the affirmation and accommodation of the rights of aboriginal people. Canada can take this lead later this month by recognizing and defining within our Constitution the inherent right of this country's aboriginal peoples to self-government. Around the world the rights and claims of indigenous people are receiving increased attention and support. The questions are profound, the problems complex, but here in Canada the means of resolving these issues are ready at hand.
The rights of Canada's aboriginal people are rooted in history, a history that predates the arrival of European explorers and settlers by many thousands of years. Fundamental among those rights is that of self-government, a right which was never relinquished or extinguished. By recognizing this right and by providing for its effective implementation, we will not be locking aboriginal people into the past, we will be ending a system which excludes them from the present and the future.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, for those who have been waiting for the Government's long-promised policy on youth, we now have their answer: the Hot 100. It is a seductively coloured booklet described as a quick guide to what the feds are doing for youth. Its function is to make the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) look good and, my God, he does, in a full-page glossy photograph right on the first page. Go beyond that distraction and there are indeed some good programs listed and tips given which will be useful. Unfortunately, there is a lot that is not.
[DOT] (M15)
Curiously, the book includes programs which are not run by government at all, such as the Canadian Federation of Students Work and Travel program. The Missing Children Program, OHIP, Canadian Assistance Program, and Community Futures, surprisingly and creatively, turn out to be things the Government is doing for youth. Not too surprisingly, as

March 11, 1987
Oral Questions
CBC's lan Parker found out when he called some of the telephone numbers listed, because of under-funding some of the programs appear not to exist at all.
At a cost of $370,000 this most ambitious effort by the Minister is doubtless eligible for the MOGA prize which is also listed in the book. That is the prize for the Most Outrageous Group Activity.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, last week in Edmonton I was proud to have had the opportunity to meet again with Rick Hansen during his Man in Motion tour. This courageous young man has travelled through 33 countries and raised more than $7 million towards his goal of $10 million. It is a tribute to Edmonton and the Province of Alberta which have played a vital role in achieving his goal.
The people of Edmonton have raised more than $500,000 and the amount is growing. In total Albertans have raised almost $2 million and the final figure will be matched by the Alberta Government for a grand total of $4 million. The money raised by Rick Hansen will go towards spinal cord research and the assistance of disabled people. The matching funds from the Government of Alberta will be used for spinal cord research within the province. I commend the strength and tenacity of this young Canadian, and wish him the best as he moves towards the successful completion of his journey.


COPYRIGHT
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House received a gift copy of a gold record of Canada's centennial song-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: -sent to them by the Canadian Music Publishers Association.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that things cannot be displayed in support of a statement. I ask the Hon. Member to make the statement and not make any display.


Sheila Finestone: The Minister of Transport did it with his flyer the other day.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Marchi:: I know what he should do with it.


Sheila Finestone: Besides showing it to everyone in this House.
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the partisan Members across the floor, everyone received a copy of this Canadian record which gives us a sense of pride. Little did they know that if they had been the author of that record they would not have received more than one cent for each one sold. That is because we have very poorly conceived copyright legislation in place. 1 would like to recognize in the gallery today representatives of various industries-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Sheila Finestone: -who are internationally known. I recognize Randy Bachman, Burton Cummings-a household name to most Canadians-Jim Valance-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has brought some excellent Canadians and their work to the House's attention but I regret to advise her that her time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I direct this question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canadians want to know what is on the negotiation table in the free trade discussions with the United States. They also want to know what will be on the table this evening when the Prime Minister meets with his provincial colleagues-and I am not referring to roast beef. I want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals the Prime Minister will be making to the provincial Premiers this evening. Can he give us some details?
[DOT] (M20)


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, this is a regular meeting of the Prime Minister and the Premiers. They will be reviewing the new areas of investment, intellectual property, and services. They will probably be discussing trade irritants and they will be working toward the
March 11, 1987

completion of the negotiations for a comprehensive free trade agreement between us and the United States.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT PROCESS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will pose another question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government uses its own trade negotiators to leak information on a selective basis. It is also mounting a massive glitzy publicity campaign costing taxpayers $12 million to sell whatever it is the Prime Minister is trying to sell to the country.
Instead of wasting millions and millions of dollars, will the Prime Minister not tell us what the Canadian Government has already given away in its negotiations with the United States, and what type of approval process it has in mind with respect to the provinces?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Right Hon. Member's question. I think he is aware and would agree that this is a very important issue upon which we place a great deal of importance, as do the Premiers of the provinces. The level of consultation and the co-operation which existed with the provinces during the course of discussions on the comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States are really unprecedented in Canadian history. He should recognize that. Nothing has been given away.
If the Member is interested in more of the details, he will certainly have an opportunity to hear them in full scale when we debate this issue next Monday. We will certainly be interested in the position of his Party and in how many positions it has.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, all this Parliament has gotten from the Prime Minister in a year and a half of these negotiations is a 15-minute speech on generalities.


Some Hon. Members:: That's right!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Parliament is always the last to know what is happening in the free trade negotiations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: Shame.


PRIME MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH PREMIERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is going to be frank with the provincial Premiers this evening, will the Deputy Prime
Oral Questions
Minister give an undertaking that he will tell us what propositions he is making to the provincial Premiers? Will the Prime Minister be stating clearly in the House of Commons what is on the table, what is not on the table, and what the approval process is? Will the Deputy Prime Minister give us the undertaking that the Prime Minister will be here to face the House?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has already pointed out that these matters will be fully debated on Monday. We are all waiting to find out which of the many positions of the Liberal Party will actually be presented, and whether the Leader of the Official Opposition will even take part.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to stay on the subject of federal-provincial relations, and in the absence of the Prime Minister, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could answer my question.
During the past fifteen months, the Government of Quebec initiated a number of meetings with the provinces to discuss the constitutional question and approval by Quebec of the Constitution Act, 1982.
At the last meeting held here in Ottawa, attended by senior officials, representatives of the federal government were also present. I therefore would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to inform the House and Canadians what the federal Government's position was, as expressed by its officials, at this meeting.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course those discussions are continuing. With respect to the Government, the Hon. Leader of the Senate is leading these discussions, and those negotiations will continue. I am not sure whether the Hon. Member is trying to drag the constitutional position of the Quebec Government into the trade debate, but it is quite clear that the Prime Minister spoke very succinctly when he said on February 17 that on matters of international treaties and negotiations of this nature, the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada will speak on matters of such a nature which fall within federal jurisdiction.

March 11, 1987
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question was not loaded. It was quite straightforward, and isn't the Government always forcing the Opposition to take a stand on various issues? It is now two and a half years since this Government came to power, and we have yet to receive any information on the Conservative Government's position on the issue of Quebec and the Constitution. When is it going to make its position clear?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, unlike the previous Government which acted unilaterally on these kinds of issues, these discussions are continuing. When a decision is taken on this, hopefully it will find favour with the Government of the Province of Quebec. And it will be announced in the appropriate manner.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, given the paramount importance to the aboriginal people of Canada of the recognition of their inherent right to selfgovernment, and the difficulties that the Minister of Justice knows have been encountered in the preliminary talks, will the Minister of Justice advise the House if the Prime Minister will take the opportunity of his meeting with the Premiers tonight to impress upon them the importance to aboriginal people and all Canadians of reaching agreement at the First Ministers' conference?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question because I share with him his position on the importance of having an agreement between the aboriginal peoples, the provinces, and the federal Government at the First Ministers' meeting to be held at the end of this month. I believe it is fair to say that the federal Government has taken leadership in trying to arrive at an agreement to recognize the right to self-government of the native peoples of our country and articulate that on the basis of negotiated agreements. Recent public opinion polls have indicated that the vast majority of Canadians want a system by which these selfgovernment arrangements are negotiated. That is a position shared by the aboriginal people of Canada.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Does the federal Government accept, and will it indeed
promote and endorse the concept that the right to selfgovernment of aboriginal peoples is not something that is just dependent on the consent and agreement of the federal and provincial Governments, but derives from their status under the treaties that their forefathers made?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the First Ministers' meetings and the preliminary meetings that have taken place until now is to define aboriginal rights in the Constitution. We are dealing in a constitutional context. The Hon. Member will understand that it is absolutely essential in this process that we have the federal Government and seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population to attain constitutional change.


Mr. Riis:: What is your position?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We have articulated our position over and over again. We have given leadership. As a matter of fact, a very distinguished journalist, Mr. Peter Trueman, stated recently: "Few Canadian Prime Ministers have so strongly supported aboriginal rights or worked so hard for them". Our Government's record is clear.


GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is very long on generalities, and I agree with them, but is very short on specifics. What exactly is the Government doing besides letting Ministers say that it will be too expensive?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very unfair statement on the part of the Hon. Member. There is no question that we have put in countless hours. We have had bilateral meetings. The Prime Minister has met bilaterally. We have had an opportunity to meet with our provincial counterparts. We have had officials' meetings going on and on. We have been tireless in our desire to give the leadership which will result in an amendment to our Constitution. That is something for which I hope I will have the support of the Hon. Member and his Party and, indeed, of all Members of the House of Commons.


ROLE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice on the same subject. Mr. George Erasmus, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, has charged, regarding plans for the forthcoming First Ministers' conference, that the federal Government is not playing a leadership role. He said: "In former years, the federal Government was a major ally of the native people. Now we have some of the provinces taking a lead". Can the Minister of Justice explain to the House, and to the country, why he and his Government are being so wishy-washy
March 11, 1987

on their obligations under the Constitution towards aboriginal people? Why has he created a leadership vacuum on this issue of aboriginal rights so that the Province of Nova Scotia has had to come in and vainly try to fill the void?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to apologize for the position taken by this Government and by the Prime Minister. I repeat, the observations made by Mr. Trueman I think are shared by any independent or impartial observer of the political scene in Canada. The fact is that if the Hon. Member and his Party had all the answers, I do not understand why we have not already had this great constitutional amendment. They had lots of time to make a constitutional amendment and they did nothing. It was only through the efforts of this Government and this Prime Minister that strides forward have been made, and we are going to work as hard as possible in order to make sure that agreement comes about.


SUPREMACY OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he does not honestly think that constitutional rights can never be contingent upon agreements which are signed with Governments? Does he not believe that constitutional rights, including aboriginal rights, must stand on their own and can never be compromised? Does he not accept that?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that constitutional rights which stand on their own have to be defined in some way. The Hon. Member will understand that. Is it the position of the Liberal Party that the courts should determine the extent and nature of self-government? Or does he share the view put forward by all the aboriginal representatives, indeed, by all provinces, that the method of determining aboriginal self-government rights should be by political negotiation? I think the Hon. Member, if he considers and reflects on this, will decide that this advice is the best advice to take, and that is what I am taking.


BRITISH COLUMBIA LAWSUITS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Justice. The Supreme Court of Canada split three-three on the landmark Nisga'a-Calder case 15 years ago. Now the British Columbia courts are addressing the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en case. The Federal Court is addressing the Kaska-Dene case, the Sparrow case, Haida sovereignty on Lyell Island, Meares Island, and the list goes on.
Negotiation has been replaced by lawsuits. Is that the route that the Minister and his Government wish to pursue in affirming aboriginal title in British Columbia? If it is not, why are there no active negotiations between the federal Government and the aboriginal people in British Columbia at this time?
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member has been following this particular matter very closely. He will know that this litigation originally took place between the Indian peoples to whom he referred and the Province of British Columbia. We were only brought into the litigation by an application on the part of the Province of British Columbia. Accordingly, we were not any part of initiating or being a party to that litigation. We are now in that litigation. The matter is before the courts, Mr. Speaker, and you will have to determine whether or not it is appropriate for us to comment on it. However, I think the Hon. Member has indicated already, as far as I know, that he thinks the position being taken in that litigation by the federal Government is a reasonable position to take.


MINISTER'S POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the Minister, on behalf of the Government, state unequivocally whether it recognizes and affirms, and intends to affirm, aboriginal title in British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks an important question. However, when he refers to those jurisdictions, the ability of the federal Government to act unilaterally is now placed in jeopardy when we cannot enter into negotiations. We can only affirm where we can negotiate. If we cannot negotiate, as my colleague, the Minister of Justice has put forward, then we are in court. That is not where this Government would like to be, but that is where we are. We hope to be able to negotiate and come to conclusions where we are not forced into having courts make decisions which should be made by negotiation.


IMMIGRATION
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Although the hunger strike started by the Chileans in Montreal is rather drastic and the Government should not act as a result of such action, the case of three Chilean women, one of whom is seven and a half months pregnant, who are being held in Buenos Aires is something I find particularly distressing. Could the Minister give some special consideration to the case of these three women and take steps to have them join their husbands in Canada before the pregnancy precludes flying for one of these women?

March 11, 1987
Oral Questions


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: I have said many times that a Government cannot afford to give in to demonstrations and occurrences of the kind that are being used in Montreal to challenge Government decisions, otherwise it may be faced with this type of situation on a regular basis. However, we have given a great deal of thought to the issue raised by the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau, and I think that Canada has a tradition of considering that in cases like these, the family as well as the individual aspect should be examined. The Hon. Member's point is well taken, and I intend to ask my officials at the Department of Employment and Immigration to issue immediately permits allowing these three women who are-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this is very important, the entry of the three women whose husbands are in Montreal. This does not in any way prejudge a decision on whether or not they have refugee status. This is merely to reunite the family, the father and mother and there are a few children involved as well. Once again, the decision on whether or not they have refugee status will be made in accordance with other criteria. We are, however, allowing them to come to Canada right away.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister in charge of Canada Post. The Minister, appearing before the Committee on Government Operations, stated that Canada Post had no plan for nor any list of rural post office shutdowns. But, yesterday afternoon, Mr. Jack Van Dusen, spokesman for Canada Post admitted that the Foothills, Alberta, plan to shut down 200 post offices across Canada this year is exactly that. Who speaks the truth, the Minister or Mr. Jack Van Dusen?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, what I said in committee yesterday stands, that in fact there is no list of 200 or 20 or 2,000 post offices which are scheduled for closing. What 1 said in a letter to all Members of Parliament, which the Hon. Member should read, is that when a postmaster quits, retires or wants to leave, or we lose the lease on the post office, and so on, it will be examined to see whether, in view of changing demographics and circumstances, that type of service continues to be appropriate. Over the next five years we will be increasing the number of outlets by 6,000, not decreasing them.


QUERY CONCERNING ALLEGED LIST
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, if there is no list, as the Minister says, how can he give 90 days' notice to consult Canadians? Why does the Minister not tell Canada Post to make the list public so that Canadians can have the necessary time to consult and to decide whether or not they want the post office the way it is now or a new post office which would be just a stand at which stamps are sold, something which is now being offered to them? Will the Minister come clean with Canadians?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that the only way I can stop the repetition of these questions is to fabricate an imaginary list and give it to the Hon. Member so that he can run around the country scaring people. There is no list. I am sorry, there is no list.
V *	*


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-INVESTMENT ISSUE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister for International Trade has said today that the Prime Minister wished to discuss investment as an issue in the free trade talks with the Premiers, even though Simon Reisman has no mandate to negotiate this matter. Will the Minister confirm that this is because the United States has asked for greater freedom for its investors as yet one more concession in the free trade talks?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we have made no such concession to the United States. The Hon. Member is correct when he says that the Cabinet has not given the negotiators any mandate in this area beyond, of course, trade-related investment, which is what was specified in the original proposals between the Prime Minister and the President. The purpose of tonight's discussion is simply to hear the views of the Premiers on this matter because no mandate has been struck by Cabinet for the negotiators. The whole process of consultation with the Premiers, the private sector, and the provinces is an exercise in collecting and listening to all of the groups, all of the players and all of the people of Canada who have an interest in the free trade discussions.


Steven W. Langdon: Frankly, one wonders. Why collect views if the subject is not on the bargaining table?


ROLE OF PROVINCES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a supplementary question on a
March 11, 1987

second and somewhat related area. Will the Minister herself guarantee on this question of provincial participation in the trade talks that there will be no agreement signed with the United States without clear provincial approval in the key areas which might affect them?


Harvie Andre: Robert Fulford is right.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble following the Hon. Member's point.


An Hon. Member:: Who wouldn't?


Pat Carney: I again refer to the fact that this has been the most extensive consultation ever undertaken by any Government on a national issue. There have been 12 meetings of provincial officials alone, in addition to the First Ministers' meeting. There have been meetings of Trade Ministers. There has been discussion and identification of issues for more than a year now. I am surprised that the Hon. Member does not seem to be aware of this. We have 15 sectoral groups which are meeting constantly with us and with officials in the TNO. Ministers and I will be meeting with SAGITs this week-and I meet with them regularly.
So at the end of the day we will have to find out what is going to be in an over-all agreement before we can identify whether it is federal or provincial jurisdiction which applies. I point out to the Hon. Member that the negotiation of international treaties is a federal responsibility.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Canada Post said yesterday before a standing committee:
This year 20,000 Canadians will have heart attacks. It would save the rest of us a lot of anxiety if we had a list of those people.
Does the Minister not realize that Canadians do not expect him to list 20,000 Canadians who will be suffering from heart attacks? What millions of rural Canadians want to know, in order to relieve their anxiety, is will the Minister now stand in his place and say that no rural post office in any community will close without the permission of the people in that community?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if one tempers some of the extreme language, in essence that is what I said. I can no more predict when there will be a circumstance in which the postmaster will quit, retire, resign, or a building will burn down than I can predict who those 20,000 Canadians are who will have heart attacks this year. In those circumstances we will look at the
Oral Questions
situation and, if appropriate, there may be a change in the postal service. But it will be with the consultation of the Member of Parliament and the people affected. It will have to be a change that is reasonable to reasonable people.


RETAIL SERVICES
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, in his letter to MPs, the Minister said that Canada Post plans to place the majority of its retail services in rural areas in the hands of the private sector. Yesterday, before the committee he said:
McDonald's Restaurants are able to predict how many hamburgers Canadians will eat and where its customers are likely to live over the next five years, the period covered by the latest Canada Post plan.
I ask the Minister what in heaven's name has McDonald's Restaurants to do with Canada Post? Are we to expect that under the present Government rural post offices will operate out of McDonald's Restaurants soon? Rural Canadians do not want their post offices changed; they want them to stay where they are. Is the Minister suffering from a serious "Mac attack"?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am always delighted to receive a question from the Ronald McDonald of the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, indeed, the plan is to look at privatization because we feel the public would get better service, for example, if there were post office outlets in retail outlets that operate for 12 hours a day as opposed to a post office that operates from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. We think there is an opportunity for giving better service to the public by privatizing which, incidentally, will save some money. Perhaps we may be able to save enough to buy one of those Muppet Babies from McDonald's for the Hon. Member. Gonzo might be appropriate.


THE JUDICIARY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, in the absence of the Prime Minister.
Recently, the Quebec Minister responsible for Intergovernment Affairs, Gil Remillard, asked that the Prime Minister

March 11, 1987
Oral Questions
consult with the Province of Quebec before appointing a justice from Quebec to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Can the Minister ensure Quebecers that the Quebec Government will be consulted before that important appointment is made?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. There are two elements involved here. One is the discussion that is going on with my colleague, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, and Mr. Remillard, on the constitutional question and the whole range of options being put forward in that discussion which will involve consultation with all provincial Governments as well.
The other question now is with respect to the appointment of a new Justice for the Supreme Court of Canada under the present regime. The Hon. Member might be interested in knowing that I have already had one chat with my provincial counterpart, Mr. Marx, in this regard. However, we will not be making a constitutional change on the basis of precedent with respect to this particular appointment, if that is what the Hon. Member is asking.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, we hope that it is not the same kind of chat which the Minister had with the Attorney General of Manitoba before appointing Sterling Lyon.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Why don't you slander out there so that somebody-


An Hon. Member:: Harvie, be nice.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby.


REQUEST THAT SECOND WOMAN BE APPOINTED TO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Since the Supreme Court of Canada has only one woman member, the very distinguished Justice Bertha Wilson, and since there are many woman lawyers and justices in Quebec who are well qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, will the Minister appoint a second woman to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the New Democratic Party breaches every rule of fairness and principle to attack a member of the judiciary. It is an ongoing thing, and I think it is malicious and absolutely unacceptable. The fact of the matter is that we are considering a wide range of candidates for the Supreme Court of Canada. We are
looking at everyone who has the qualification to serve on the highest court in our land. I think it is a matter of some personal pride that, while I have been Minister of Justice, I have been involved in the appointment of a higher percentage of women to the bench, the elevation of women to the bench, of which the Hon. Member is fully aware. I think the role of women in the judiciary-


John Napier Turner: I would challenge that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should not get involved in this debate. The fact of the matter is that the Government's record in respect of the appointment of women to important judicial and other positions is precedent setting. We intend to improve on our present record.


COPYRIGHT
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, very few of us are aware that each time a song is composed and recorded in Canada, our Copyright Act requires the song writer to split a royalty of only two cents per song with the publisher. This is the lowest royalty rate in the world. My question is for the Minister of Communications. Will the Minister introduce a simple Bill abolishing this antiquated and outdated two cent ceiling, so that Canadian song writers and publishers will receive a fair return for their creative talents? It has been two cents for too long.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, and as I have told her in committee on a number of occasions, the revision of the copyright law will be introduced in the House very shortly. I will look forward to having the support of the Hon. Member and her Party for that revision when it is introduced.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows full well that we have had two reports on this particular article in the Bill and that both of them have recommended the abolishment of Clause 19. In the meantime, while we go through the whole process, we do not have a copyright for song writers in Canada; we have a "copywrong".


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTRODUCE BILL TO ABOLISH COPYRIGHT ACT SECTION ADVERSELY AFFECTING COMPOSERS
Sheila Finestone: My question is also directed to the Minister. Does she have the political will to introduce a Bill that would abolish that section of the Copyright Act that is harmful to music composers? Two cents is a shame!
March 11, 1987


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as most Canadians are aware, the copyright law was written in 1924 and it has not been revised since that time. Since 1984, when this Government was elected to office, we have introduced a discussion paper on copyright. We have listened to presentations from groups and organizations, including song writers, from all across the country. We have listened to the subcommittee's report on copyright. However, what I want to emphasize is that we are taking action, whereas the Liberal Party, for 50 of the years since 1924, did absolutely nothing about revision of the copyright law.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. As the Minister knows, the former Liberal Government failed to enshrine property rights in the Charter. I raised the same question back in September, 1985. Again I ask the Minister when will he be discussing this very important oversight with his provincial counterparts in an effort to correct this grave injustice?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member, having a great and abiding interest in this important topic, will know that the Conservative Party has long supported property rights. Indeed, the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights specifically provides for the right to enjoyment of property. There is in fact a group of Attorneys General working on this particular situation now. It is on the second tranche of constitutional matters which will be discussed after we conclude our discussions in respect of the Quebec matter. We will be pursuing the matter, and I thank the Hon. Member for his continuing interest.


COPYRIGHT
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. It also deals with the very long-standing injustice to composers over royalties. Will the Minister tell song writers and all other Canadians that in the copyright legislation she will be bringing into the House this long-standing injustice will be remedied? Will she tell them that it will be in that first lot of legislation, given that there is a great deal of anxiety that she will bring in only some technicalities, not important bread and butter issues such as compulsory licensing?
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, in response to the subcommittee report the Government agreed with that recommendation. All I can say to her now and to those who are interested in this point is that the Government will be dealing with that issue when it revises the copyright law.


Lynn McDonald: That is rather sad news, indeed. It is nice to know about the principles, but the Government's response to the copyright report was equivocal.


COMPULSORY LICENSING QUERY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for a very clear answer from the Minister. Will the abolition of compulsory licensing be in the first lot of legislation which she brings in? Will important bread and butter issues, such as exhibition rights, performers' performances, stiffer penalties for pirates, dealing with blank tapes and cassettes, and the need to get more money from those directions, be in that first important lot of copyright legislation?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, what I am very impressed by is the interest of the Hon. Member in so many of these issues. We have been trying to further this revision of legislation. I want to ensure that she is as adamant in committee and in the House when the legislation is introduced as she is now. I look forward to the support of her Party.


AIDS DISEASE ADVERTISEMENTS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns his lack of leadership on the AIDS advertising issue. Why did the Minister not tell the House yesterday that his Department received a Telex on February 28 which made quite clear that advertisers and private broadcasters had no intention of running those ads? Why did he not seize the opportunity at that time to meet personally with private broadcasters to let them know the importance of getting out a public message on the killer disease, AIDS?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have shown leadership on this question. 1 do not accept the charge which the Hon. Member makes. I think it is pretty ridiculous that in January of this year the CPHA put forward ad examples when, for example, we were told that a female actor in an ad could not use exercise clothes but that they must be sweat-suits. If that is the level to which we must come down in terms of this killer disease, if that is lack of leadership, and if the kind of allegation she is throwing around is that I have not looked at it

March 11, 1987
Oral Questions
pretty carefully, I think it is ridiculous, and I hope that the advertisers reconsider.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET BROADCASTERS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am not making an allegation, I am making a statement of fact. On February 28 the Department of National Health and Welfare was telexed. If the Minister had chosen at that time, he could have shown leadership and personally set up a meeting with the broadcasters to let them know that they should join the 20th century. Is the Minister prepared today to set up a meeting with the broadcasters to let them know that they should run these ads to let the public know that this deadly disease AIDS has to be fought across the airwaves? We have to get the message out, and we need the Minister's leadership. We do not need his platitudes.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the country does not need the Member's allegations or sensationalism. When the CPHA had submitted the ads in January, changes were made in February with respect to some of the problems that the broadcasters, had such as the one I already mentioned, and the visual use of packets of condoms. That was all changed. I believe with respect to those changes we were trying to meet the broadcasters request as much as we could.
I have said to the broadcasters publicly that I hope they will reconsider. Just today at one o'clock, for example, at the International Conference on AIDS in this city the various ads being used in various jurisdictions were being shown. I think as people look at what is happening in other jurisdictions and as they are looking at what our ads are like, a second opinion might prevail and they might show those ads.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I think all grain farmers appreciate the very difficult task which the Government has in responding to the special needs of the grain industry today. However, I think the Minister has a responsibility to be as clear as is humanly possible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask when the time for Question Period is coming to a close that Hon. Members would pay attention to the clock and make sure that their preambles are short, concise, and their questions are to the point. The Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: In view of the cloudy answer the Minister gave me yesterday, Mr. Speaker, will he indicate clearly that there will, indeed, be special assistance for the grain industry in the next crop year? Even if he does not give the specific details, will there be assistance available?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I must indicate that it was not a cloudy message that I gave the Hon. Member yesterday. It was a very clear message. It was a message that initially 55 farm leaders joined with me last Thursday. The Hon. Member should understand that it would be quite inappropriate for us at this point to give any indication that would influence the farmers' decision to plant the 1987 crop.
I would refer the Hon. Member to words in the Speech from the Throne where it states that the Government will spare no effort. I refer him as well to the language in the Budget which mandated the Canadian Wheat Board Minister and myself to continue meeting farm leaders to work out some type of useful, common sense and effective program to assist Canadian farmers in their time of difficulty.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister then indicate that there will be money available next crop year which will be at least as much as there was last year since we know the price of grain will go down at least 20 per cent?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious at this point in time that I cannot give that indication. I can indicate that the Government has always placed a high priority on agriculture. I ask the Member to examine the record. Our Government recognizes the difficulty in the grains and oil seed sector and we have signalled every intention to work with the farm leadership of this country to map out some type of a program that will be of assistance in their time of difficulty.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that the time for Question Period has expired.
I think it is appropriate for the Chair to hear the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) in the continuation of the question of privilege originally brought here a few days ago by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the intervention yesterday of the Hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret).
I also want to give notice to Members that I have notice of a point of order on behalf of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and I will hear the Hon. Member when the first matter is completed.
March 11, 1987


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for suspending the debate on the question of privilege raised in this House by my hon. colleague for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on March 9, 1987. I have told you about my own concerns regarding the rights and privileges of Members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, in his capacity as employer of the Public Service of Canada, the President of the Treasury Board objected to the motion passed by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration to swear in the four Unemployment Insurance Commissioners.
It was clear in my own mind and that of my colleagues of the Committee that this resolution was passed because one of the commissioners-not the one who was mentioned by the President of the Treasury Board-accepted with reluctance our invitation to appear before us and requested that the meeting be held in camera, which we judged unacceptable under the circumstances.
The Members of this House and of its committees are masters of their own destiny and nothing must hinder their work as Members of Parliament or of a committee, especially when they are only following the rules and procedures of the House and its committees.
Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with what the chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), said in the House yesterday, as well as with the intervention of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt the day before.
Mr. Speaker, the servants of the state, technocrats, bureaucrats and senior public servants, who work tirelessly for their country and fellow citizens, deserve our respect and admiration. Most of them do a superhuman job and give priority to the interests of the state and the Government over their own. I can only congratulate them and encourage them to persevere so that my Government can always be reelected. As for those who would be tempted to bring about maliciously the defeat of my Government, I would like them to take note of my vigilance and my determination to stop any such attempt.
The Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration, Mr. Gaetan Lussier, must not feel that he was the personal target of a general motion to swear in all the Unemployment Insurance Commissioners. Just as the Hon. Members for Calgary West and Nickel Belt, I believe that he has accomplished miracles with the small resources at his disposal. As an Officer of Canada, our youngest senior public servant has served his country extremely well and with ability as well as professionalism.
Point of Order-Mr. Robinson
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that Mr. Lussier will never dash out of the room of a committee of the House of Commons and that he will remain at the disposal of the democratically elected members of this House to give an account of the most important spending sector in this country, namely unemployment insurance.
Mr. Speaker, the gesture of the President of the Treasury Board to defend his employees is quite laudable. However, the members of the Committee must protect their rights and privileges as parliamentarians and account to the Canadian people for the activities they are asked to monitor.
Mr. Speaker, let us reassert our rights and privileges immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Laprairie (Mr. Jourdenais) for his intervention. However, the Chair will have to reserve its decision for now, perhaps until next week.


POINT OF ORDER
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a brief but important point of order arising from the a written answer to a question on the Order Paper of February 20 last.
Recently it has become apparent that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has adopted many of the trappings of the Head of State of Canada. It was with considerable concern that I read the written response of the Prime Minister's own Parliamentary Secretary to a question asked recently in which in his response he referred to the Prime Minister as the Head of State of Canada. I refer to page 3655 of Hansard. At that page, in response to a question by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint Marie (Mr. Malepart) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Gustafson) answers as follows:
1. & 2. As Head of State, it is a longstanding practice for a Prime Minister
and/or his wife to give hospitality-
While we know the Prime Minister has great delusions of grandeur and has enjoyed the trappings of the Head of State, surely it is appropriate that the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Secretary set the record straight by saying that the Government does not view the Prime Minister as the Head of State of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should indicate to Hon. Members that although I will hear Hon. Members, it seems to me it would strain the Chair a great deal to establish the entire matter raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby as a point of

March 11, 1987
Tabling of Documents
order. Unless someone can persuade me of that pretty quickly, I think that is the end of it.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) knows that the wording of the answer to Question No. 54 was correct in one official language and wrong in the other official language. We took steps to have it corrected in Hansard. Our House Leader dealt with the House Leader on the other side to have it corrected and the Hon. Member for Burnaby is just up to mischief.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has indicated that this does not seem to be a point of order at all, but I will hear the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this matter was brought to our attention. I entered into discussions with the House Leader of the New Democratic Party and the House Leader of the Liberal Party. I pointed out that it was in error in English but correct in French. I then wrote the following letter to Hansard:
The English translation of the answer to question No. 54 as provided by Mr. Len Gustafson, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, contains an error. It now reads "As the Head of State" whereas it should read "As Head of Government".
I have discussed this correction with Mr. Herb Gray, House Leader of the Official Opposition and Mr. Nelson Riis, House Leader of the New Democratic Party, and they are agreeable to the change being made in the final version of Hansard.
Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.
I do not know what more we can do when an honest error has been made but correct it after discussions with our colleagues. To have this kind of nonsense come along a lot later is an abuse of the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, a long explanation is being made here. 1 must say that on February 20 when we received Hansard, a number of Members brought to our attention that there had obviously been an interesting slip made. A number of Members asked if it was proper to refer to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as Head of State. Indeed, it did cause us some concern.
A number of days later, probably two weeks later, the Parliamentary Secretary came to me and asked if, for the official version of Hansard which takes effect a number of days after the fact, it would be acceptable to have this clarified. I said that it had caused some concern to a number of my colleagues that the Hon. Member used the term "Head of State", but for the official record that correction might be appropriate. As the Parliamentary Secretary has clearly indicated, we had agreed to the change in the official record. Perhaps the Government should change its mind and clarify it.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, the House might be interested to know that the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) met me in the hallway and asked me the specific trap question:
"Who is the Head of State", and I answered him by saying: "The Governor General of Canada". The Hon. Member knows he is up to mischief. If I have caused any embarrassment to anyone by signing something that I did not read very carefully, I apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: As the Chair indicated, the Chair had some doubt as to whether or not it was a point of order, but the Chair has no doubt when recognizing an apology. 1 think perhaps it is time to go on to something else.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report and recommendations of the 1986 Commission of Inquiry on Judges' Remuneration.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C), 1987-88
[Stage Direction]
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (C) for the financial year ending March 31, 1987, was presented by the Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House today that I am introducing legislation which will renew the Equalization Program. There are few government programs which are as important as equalization and I think all Hon. Members would agree with that.
At $5.3 billion this year, equalization provides major federal financial support for the less wealthy regions of Canada. Without this assistance, the lower-income provinces would be unable to provide to Canadians residing in these regions the basic services enjoyed in other parts of Canada. In particular the provinces of Atlantic Canada, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, rely on this support. Equalization is also important for Quebec and
March 11, 1987

Manitoba and for Saskatchewan which recently became eligible for these payments.

In keeping with our constitutional obligation, this Government has respected a firm financial commitment with respect to equalization, and we did so despite the financial restraints dictated by our own situation.

Accordingly, the legislation I am tabling calls for the renewal of the present Equalization Program. This is expected to result in substantial growth in payments in the years ahead. This growth will be further enhanced as a result of improvement to the program's revenue measures to be phased in over the next two years. Total equalization entitlements under a renewed program are expected to increase to about $5.6 billion in 198788, and to about $5.9 billion in 1988-89. This means anticipated annual increases of about $300 million each year, or over 5 per cent annually.
This legislation, which will also extend and update other parts of the Fiscal Arrangements Act, was preceded by an extensive process of consultation with provinces which began in the spring of 1985. As Members may be aware, the preliminary 1986 consensus released in January indicates that some provinces, the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Saskatchewan, have been overpaid by about $270 million in equalization payments for the past two fiscal years. By law, the federal Government would expect to collect this amount next year as part of the normal process of adjustments to payments, both up and down, which takes place on an ongoing basis as a result of changes to data. The long-established rules are clear. If changes in data mean the federal Government owes provinces money, we pay the full amount. If they mean provinces owe the federal Government money, we recover. It is important that transfer payments continue to be based on the latest population data if the system is to remain fair and accurate. We cannot ignore the new census. However, we are conscious of the difficult financial situation of the lower-income provinces. We would like to do what we can to help, bearing in mind the federal Government's own financial problems.
Therefore the legislation also provides for forgiveness, on a net basis, of amounts owed to the federal Government under equalization in respect of the last two fiscal years as a result of the census. That is to say, the amounts due the federal Government as a result of the census will be forgiven to the extent that they exceed future increases in equalization entitlements, for those same two fiscal years, which may arise as a result of changes in other financial and economic data relevant to the equalization formula.
Our action respecting these recoveries is not something we have to do. There is no obligation on us, legal or otherwise, to forgive amounts owed to us. We are taking this step because we want to be helpful and because we understand the difficult
Statements by Ministers
circumstances faced by the provinces receiving equalization. We know how important federal support is to them. We are determined to provide that support within the limits our own difficult fiscal circumstances allow.
The actions I have announced today are part of a pattern of strong support which this Government has been providing to the lower-income provinces through equalization over the past two and a half years. Our concern and support began with the provision of supplementary assistance in 1985 amounting to $285 million. It is continuing with renewal and enhancement of the present equalization program. It is reflected in the forgiveness proposal I have just outlined for equalization overpayments owed to the federal Government as a result of new census data.

I would suggest that the considerably increased funding stemming from our proposals bear witness to the federal Government's respect for the equalization principle.

I know Parliament will want to consider the fiscal arrangements legislation carefully. I know it will also bear in mind that authority to provide equalization payments expires March 31, 1987, and that our collective interest is in ensuring that these vital payments to the less wealthy provinces continue uninterrupted.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, eight days ago, more specifically on March 3rd, in this House I directed a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in which I said in part:
As a result of the 1986 mid-decade census, the Federal Government will recuperate a windfall gain of nearly $600 million from its equalization payments to the provinces, and for post-secondary education and health care.
Therefore, I raised this important issue which comes up as a result of the mid-term census and creates for the administration of provincial public affairs a problem which is sometimes positive and sometimes negative.
In the announcement he made today the Minister of Finance is doing is what had been done in 1981-82 by the Liberal Government of the time. The present Minister is following exactly the same route making it possible for the provinces to benefit from variations in their equalization budget as a result of the census. The problems resulting from the mid-term census are always difficult because that particular census carried out every five years lacks the precision of the others. Following the decade census, quite often we realize that a population readjustment is closer to the estimates, thereby creating serious problems.
The Minister of Finance, therefore, has met the expectations of the provinces and, following a suggestion of the Liberal Opposition, he has implemented the same program which had been followed in 1981-82 by the previous Liberal Government

March 11, 1987
Statements by Ministers
and applied it to the provinces which would have been penalized by a correction that was unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has announced that he will refund $270 million. Clearly, if I understood him right, this will not affect equalization payments. Established program financing is also affected by population changes, but the Minister did not mention it in his statement, so that the provinces may loose between $170 million and $175 million because of this population change which may prove to be wrong when the next decade census comes around.
I therefore urge the Minister of Finance to consider this other aspect very closely, namely the losses likely to be incurred by the provinces because of this mid-term census which will affect the financing of Government activities, especially in the context of Bill C-96 which had cut nearly $8 billion in the payments which the Federal Government should have normally made to the provinces within the next five or six years for the financing of post-secondary education, health care and Medicare.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about $270 million, but the Government of Canada is saving much more than that with this complex demographic assessment, for the Minister only takes into account losses incurred during the two previous years. If current provincial losses were added in fiscal year 1987-88 as well as other provincial losses due to that demographic variation incurred in health and hospitalization programs as well as in post-secondary education programs, the federal gain and provincial loss would exceed $600 million.
The Minister of Finance has decided to hand back $270 million. Following that operation, he still has a rather interesting net profit.
Coming back to the problem which I have raised in the House, I would suggest to him that he could perhaps correct the discrimination suffered by Quebec in previous years.
Finally, Mr. Speaker . . . you are indicating that I have only a few seconds left but I would like to remind the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that transferring part of the federal deficit to the provinces, as he has done with Bill C-96 and with an operation which has enabled him to realize a net profit of some $370 to $400, due to a demographic variation, will not help him to solve the problem of public indebtedness in Canada. He is merely tranferring it to the neighbours, and I mean the Finance Ministers of all our Canadian provinces.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when the Government came to power it talked about national reconciliation as being one of the major objectives of the new Government. The announcement now that, despite the opposition of the provinces and the failure of consultation with regard to equalization with the provinces, the Government is going forward with this particular project represents a major failure
in its efforts, if it still believes in it, to seek national reconciliation and, in particular, to ensure justice for the poorer provinces and regions of the country.
In 1982 equalization equalled 1.3 per cent of the GNP of Canada. It will be equal to about 1 per cent now and that proportion will tend to decline over time with these proposals.

We welcome the Government's decision not to recover equalization overpayments for the last two years. However, provinces like the province of Quebec will suffer in the future, as the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) commented, because of the reduction, and the tax problem, the problem in terms of lack of economic potential compared with the rest of the country will continue to exist. We are therefore not happy at all with this proposal.
Mr. Speaker, 1 could also mention that the Government said it does not intend to recover equalization overpayments for the last two years, but in return, it is asking the province of Quebec and the other provinces to abandon their attempts to claim supplementary payments. The federal Government's decisions in the past have given them no reason to be optimistic. For Quebec, we are talking about $97 million for fiscal 1985-86. Their request for this amount was turned down, and today, to be "excused" from recovery of overpayments, they have to give up their claims.

I remind the House that last fall the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) quite specifically indicated that the additional amounts coming from the technical changes in equalization, which amount to $175 million, would be added on in a year. He said that publicly and to the press. We now note with regret that he has spread that over a period of two years. We are particularly concerned that the Government has failed to address the fundamental weaknesses and inequities with regard to equalization and the equalization formula. The provinces have been cut in respect of the Established Programs Financing Act. We have learned from interviews as recently as today that the Government intends to abandon completely its program of regional economic development. It will speak of industrial development which will go to the regions which have, and less and less will be done for the have-not regions. They will be left to hang in the wind.
On equalization the Government pushed through what it wanted to do in the absence of an accord with the provinces and has held to the five-province standard which, by any stretch of the imagination, is now inadequate. 1 have reminded the House on several occasions that in seven provinces of Canada, despite five years of economic recovery, the unemployment rate is higher today than it was in 1981-82. The Premier of Newfoundland says that his province may face bankruptcy in two years if effective action is not taken to help the province establish a more sound economic and fiscal base. Newfoundland has a sales tax of 11 or 12 per cent. The sales taxes in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are
March 11, 1987

comparable. In other words, the fiscal efforts being made in those provinces are much greater than those being made in other provinces. In Alberta, which has substantial problems, there is no sales tax at all.
I remind Members of the House of the Constitution which was passed in 1981 and came into force a year later. Section 34(2) reads:
Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as the Quebec Minister of Finance just wrote to the Minister of Finance of Canada, here in the House, that is no longer the case for Quebec or any of the other provinces that are disadvantaged. And in fact, as Mr. Levesque said in his letter, Quebec cannot afford a level of public services reasonably comparable to that of the other provinces unless it places a tax burden on its taxpayers that is far heavier than the average level of taxation in Canada, or else goes deeper into debt.
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Minister of Finance believes that Quebec will owe $1.4 billion more in 1985-86 under the existing equalization formula. It is a fact that the existing formula which the Minister of Finance of Canada wants to maintain does not live up to the solemn commitment contained in the Canadian Constitution. These are the facts. We are creating two classes of provinces in Canada, the wealthy provinces and the others, those which receive equalization payments and cannot provide substantially the same level of Government services because of the weaknesses of the existing equalization system.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to make specific comments on the bill, but generally speaking, the Government has forgotten the commitment made by the Conservatives during the 1984 electoral campaign to work for national reconciliation. They are no longer working to reach this goal and this is a serious mistake. It shows a marked lack of concern.


PETITIONS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present to the House today 19 petitions bearing the signatures of over 1,000 Toronto residents stating their opposition to the Exodus Link parole privatization contract which would locate dangerous ex-convicts in Park-dale-High Park. The petition calls for the Solicitor General
Fiscal Arrangements Act
(Mr. Kelleher) to terminate immediately funding to Exodus Link until an alternative location outside the boundaries of Parkdale-High Park has been found. I want to add my full and complete support to their petition.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present several petitions signed by residents of Winnipeg and some towns in Manitoba. The petitioners suggest that the Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They feel that the proposed measure will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They, therefore, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in presenting this petition on behalf of 155 Canadians, most of whom live in Alberta. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to restrict the Department of National Defence from using, utilizing, purchasing, leasing, or in any way establishing a military base on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains of Alberta, and in particular the Highwood River Valley area abutting the Kananaskis Provincial Park. This is the three hundred and forty-first petition that has been presented and there are scores more on the way. A certificate is attached.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: for leave to introduce Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal-Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
March 11, 1987
Motions
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83, I move, seconded by the Hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret):
Thai the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987, laid upon the Table earlier this day, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
Because the list is rather long, and there is a detailed allocation of the Supplementary Estimates to the Committees, if it is agreeable with the House, I ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read. I also point out that copies of the list have been provided to both Opposition Parties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows-.}
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 6c, 15c, 21c, 30c, 40c, 45c and 50c.
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture, Votes 15c and 55c.
To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Communications, Votes 1c and 70c.
To the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Votes 14c and 15c.
To the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry Environment, Votes 15c and 20c.
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and
International Trade External Affairs, Votes lc, 10c, L17c, L18c, 20c and L45c.
To the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs Finance, Vote 15c.
National Revenue, Vote 15c.
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans Fisheries and Oceans, Vote lc.
To the Standing Committee on Government Operations Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Votes 10c, 11c and 12c.
Governor General, Vote lc Privy Council, Votes lc and 5c.
Public Works, Votes 25c and 51c Supply and Services, Votes lc and 5c.
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General Justice, Votes 5c, 15c and 40c.
Solicitor General, Votes 5c and 10c.
Privy Council, Vote 30c.
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration Employment and Immigration, Votes 15c, 20c, 21c and 25c.
Labour, Votes lc, 5c and 10c.
To the Standing Committee on National Defence National Defence, Vote 10c.
To the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare
National Health and Welfare, Votes lc, 10c, 20c, 25c, 35c, 50c, 55c, 60c and 75c.
To the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion Regional Industrial Expansion, Votes lc, 10c and 40c.
To the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology Science and Technology, Votes 5c, 15c, 20c and 30c.
To the Standing Committee on Secretary of State Secretary of State, Votes 5c, 10c and 25c.
To the Standing Committee on Transport
Transport, Votes lc, 2c, 10c, 20c, 25c, 26c, 31c, 36c, 38c, 40c, 42c, 45c, 60c and 65c.
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs, Votes lc and 30c.
That Parliament Vote 10c be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Parliament; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motion stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, this day's sitting will be extended by 20 minutes.
March 11, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Edmund Parry: That this House condemns the government for its timid and unimaginative approach to the advancement of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, for its continuing failure to offer long term, fair, and just responses to the social, cultural, economic and political aspirations of Canada's First Nations, for its unwillingness to recognize and affirm the inherent rights to Aboriginal selfdetermination, and for thereby impeding the improvement of the health, heritage and economic well-being of present and future generations of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising today to address this Opposition Day motion, I can say that I am proud of the record of the New Democratic Party in bringing to the House the concerns of the aboriginal people of Canada. That is a commitment of which today's Opposition Day motion is only part, and I want to start by talking in terms of what this motion is and what it is not.
I do not see this motion as one that is narrowly partisan. 1 will not make a speech that is interlarded with references to the Government's stubbornness, incompetence, or other faults that are real or imagined. However, I believe that in consideration of this motion it is essential that we recognize we are not talking of a particular government at a particular time but of a cumulative failure for which all of us in some measure bear a very real share of the responsibility.
This motion could have been presented in this Parliament at another time. It is my sincere hope that such a motion will not be necessary in the next Parliament. It could have been a motion moved in a provincial legislature now or at another time. After all, we are talking about the cumulative impact of the deficiencies of governments in Canada to which this Government, while it bears a measure of responsibility, is simply an heir and perpetuator.
While we question the record of governments, we also acknowledge the responsibility of Canadian society as a whole. I stress to my colleagues in the House that I do not consider this as a doom and gloom motion. It is not brought forward to say that progress has not been made, nor is it presented on the hypothesis that there is no willingness to make progress. The purpose of the motion is to point out the paramount importance of this last hurdle on what could legitimately be called the trail of tears, as the aboriginal people of Canada struggle to recover those rights to self-determination and self-government which they never renounced but which have in numerous ways, settings and circumstances, been gradually taken from them.
Ours is not a society that should bear a burden of guilt upon our collective back. However, it is a society that should be fully cognizant and understanding of the need for us to act individually and collectively to reverse the history and turn away
Supply
progress in Canada from the objectives which it has unconsciously but so effectively been pursuing.
When I talk about ourselves as a society, I do not say that aboriginal people are not integrally a part of our society, because they are. However, as much as they are integrally a part of Canadian society, so they are also integrally a society unto themselves, as, indeed, are each of the hundreds of aboriginal nations in Canada a society integral and entire unto themselves. Canadian society must recognize the extent to which all the parameters, the framework and structures of society are determined by the settlers and their descendants, by immigrants like myself, and are determined in a framework which until recently has discarded, devalued and derogated the contribution of aboriginal people to Canadian society.
This motion and the debate is not about the Department of Indian Affairs. That might disappoint some of the 59 bands of the Nishnawbe-Aski nation and the Grand Council Treaty Three in my riding who, by virtue of the isolation of their communities- including approximately 20 that do not have road connections- have suffered neglect and do not have access to any of the sort of services which most Canadians are fortunately able to take for granted.
This debate is not about the large sums that have been expended by the Department of Indian Affairs and the modest temporary results from those expenditures. The debate is not about the department as an instrument. It is not about the welfare syndrome in which Canada's aboriginal people have been enslaved by virtue of the unthinking, but not uncaring operations of Canadian society through that department.
It is not even about the terrible record of trusteeship with respect to the lands of aboriginal people, and it is not about the performance of the present Minister. This debate is not about the practice articulated in the secret Liberal Cabinet document in the last Government as a strategy of throwing dollars at problems in the hope that aboriginal people will be quiet. These are failed approaches, and what we are talking about in this motion is the future. It is future oriented and it is about change, about the changes which our society and, indeed, our Governments will have to undergo to validate and bring about the fulfillment of the needs of the aboriginal societies.
This debate is about extensive change. It is about change in fundamental attitudes and about recognizing that the so-called Indian people of Canada are not a single people but are many people, diverse and with great differences between them. It is also even about our own legends and the myth of the two founding peoples of Canada at which we have to look very seriously in the light of the aboriginal people's presence in Canada before the settler societies came. It is about changes, of course, to our Constitution, of which more later.
The stark facts about being an aboriginal person in Canada today are not attractive. The proportion of Indian children in CARE is five times the national average. Twenty per cent of

March 11, 1987
Supply
native children graduate from high school as compared to 75 per cent nationally. The aboriginal people have an income of approximately half the Canadian average and unemployment, insofar as the very deficient measures of Statistics Canada are concerned, is at least four times that which is prevalent amongst the general population, and up to 90 per cent in some areas. Nearly 19 per cent of on reserve homes shelter two families. I think we should bear in mind the mortality rates amongst native people in Canada. They have a violent death rate of three times the national average. Infant mortality up to four weeks of age is 60 per cent higher than the national average and life expectancy is some 10 years less than that of non-Indian people.
Why do these stark facts relate to the lives of aboriginal people in Canada today? Is it isolation? Is it simply a matter of lack of proper services in many communities? Is it, as some would have us believe, the result of over-indulgence in alcohol and tobacco? Is it something to do with the physiological or psychological make-up of aboriginal people? It is not. These are only symptoms. They are only the outward manifestations of the anime and sense of lack of purpose which has been inflicted upon the aboriginal people of Canada by their exclusion from the mainstreams of society, whether deliberately, accidentally or with complete ignorance of such exclusion, and by the unfortunate relegation of aboriginal people in past years to the level of irrelevancy to our society. These are only symptoms of the results of treaties dishonoured, provinces which exercised jurisdiction over areas to which the aboriginal people had never ceded that control or admitted that jurisdiction. These are also symptoms of the approach of pushing, pushing, pushing aboriginal people back, not only physically and geographically but culturally and economically.
In saying this, I do not deny or attempt to subtract-indeed, I wish I had time to proclaim-the achievements of aboriginal people in spite of the regime under which they have been forced to labour. There have been achievements in the areas of health care, education, industry and the professions. There has been the very significant achievement of the unity which they have been able to forge as a response to the constitutional positions of some governments in Canada. These are very real achievements registered by aboriginal people in every area of human endeavour.
The New Democratic Party and myself continue to support the First Nations of Canada in their continuing struggle for constitutional recognition of their rights. Our Party first called for that recognition in 1973, a full nine years before the signing of the Constitution Act. In fact, we refused to give our final support for patriation until aboriginal rights were restored to the Government's proposal. Now it is time to move forward. We believe the legal right to self-government is inextricably linked to the moral right of aboriginal peoples to survive and to flourish as distinct and unique societies. We cannot rely upon the lowest common denominator approach by the provinces in providing what passes for leadership in this situation.
The Government's record-breaking mandate for change has raised the expectations of aboriginal peoples as it has of all Canadians. It is the First Nations of this country who should ultimately decide on the form of this constitutional amendment. We understand that Canada's aboriginal people have been patient, that they proposed a fair set of workable solutions and that native people cannot and should not be blamed for failures which may occur in these talks.
The situation of aboriginal peoples in Canada today has everything to do with identity. I was privileged to be at our New Democratic Party caucus meeting this morning when the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, George Erasmus, came to us and for 20 minutes riveted more than 20 practicing-professional politicians to their seats by a concise, clear and profound exposition of the identity of Canada's aboriginal people and the central importance that that identity has not only to their future but to the future of this country.
I recall as a young man, some 19 years of age, that I learned a lesson in regard to identity. I was a substitute teacher and I had a headmaster who was a Welshman. He had been making his living in England for some 30 years. I recall at one point in the staff room making a disparaging remark about the Welsh, although I myself bear a Welsh name. He turned on me and told me that when one denies a people's identity, one effectively denies that they are people and that they exist.
Why do aboriginal people continue to identify as aboriginal Canadians despite their history? It is, of course, not only because of their tradition but fundamentally because this is the only identity they have as a result of their upbringing, which was not in a society of fast motion, technological dominance, the imperatives of schedules, but rather in a society that functioned differently, was organized differently and had values which we, if we looked at them sincerely and frankly, would have to believe are superior to some of the values which underpin the city-oriented urban, technologically dominated society.
The importance of treaty identity to aboriginal people is, of course, their connection to the Crown which made those treaties. The strength that aboriginal people have used in expressing this identity has never better been portrayed than in the response to the 1969 White Paper when they stood four square and firm against the concept of assimilation which had been held by Canadian society so long, but never better articulated than in that document. I myself, as an immigrant to this country, can appreciate, perhaps with the views of one who started in Canada as an outsider, the importance of that identity to the Indian people, the aboriginal people of Canada, and the strength with which they and their Inuit cousins assert that identity. We know the very limited and minimal effects of the enfranchisement policy which was exercised for several decades by the Department of Indian Affairs. It was essentially a system of bribery to people to give up their native identity. We know how few native people took that particular bate. We know that identity is what makes martyrs and we hope that the present process will have no martyrs.
March 11, 1987

I have to refute the "one Canada" view that I have heard expressed, the idea that in a democratic society we are all absolutely the same and equal. All of us have special rights or status of sorts as men, as women, as heirs. Obviously, one who does not inherit wealth is at a disadvantage compared to someone who does. Democracy does not suppress dissent. It does not suppress dissent at the level of opinion, and it should not suppress dissent at the level of tradition.
In the context of asserting their identity, the aboriginal people of Canada through the Assembly of First Nations have passed several resolutions this week. They are the following. They will not accept any amendment that would prejudice existing treaty rights. They will maintain their legitimate demand for inherent rights. They will pursue an amendment calling for adequate financing. The candles be lit in every aboriginal household across Canada on the eve of the First Ministers' Conference. They endorse the fundamental principles on treaties as an integral part of their constitutional amendment proposal. When none of the 484 treaties ever renounced the right of aboriginal societies to structure and govern themselves, why should the aboriginal people ever consider giving up their effort to reclaim that fundamental right?
There are several principles that are worth putting on the record in the House that have been enunciated by the AFN. They are that the First Nations made treaties with the Crown as sovereign nations; that the treaties provide acknowledgement by the Crown of the sovereignty of the First Nations; that they were made on a nation-to-nation basis and thus have the status of international treaties; and that the rights contained in those treaties are not subject to federal or provincial legislative override, or any other form of unilateral change. In order to fulfil the spirit and intent of those treaties a constitutionally entrenched process for the re-examination of them has to be established.
What support do the aboriginal people have? The evidence is that, contrary perhaps to public and government belief, there is overwhelming support for the rights of the aboriginal people of Canada. According to the results of a recent poll some 84 per cent of Canadians believe it is important for Canada's political leaders to come to an agreement on aboriginal selfgovernment. Some 77 per cent support entrenchment of aboriginal self-government in the Constitution; and 61 per cent believe that both federal and provincial governments are equally responsible for negotiating and implementing selfgovernment agreements over the next 10 to 20 years.
The Government's actions to date do not augur well. There has been minimal attempt to enlighten Canadians as to the significance of these discussions. There has been little public knowledge of any attempt to exercise the Government's leadership and influence, that should be there, on the western provinces of B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan which have apparently stood against the entrenchment of the rights, and also on the Province of Ontario which appears to be back-
Supply
pedalling. Instead, we have had-and I agree with them as mere statements-pious platitudes from the Government in the House. Justice demands that these rights be in the Constitution. Paternalism has failed. The aboriginal people are willing and able to accept the responsibility.

I wish to translate the aspirations of our native people in terms that Quebecers can understand and associate with the fact that our native people want a government in their own image.

So much flows from this because those who cannot learn from the errors of the past are forever condemned to repeat them. I must warn the Government, and all Canadians, that the repetition of these errors would be many times more numerous, many times more expensive in every term, and many times more shameful to Canada than they have been in the past.
The aboriginal renaissance awaits us. Where there is no vision the people perish. The aboriginal people of Canada seek not to be wards but partners in the future of this confederation which has, if we take the right steps, the potential to confer on Canada glories that can far outshine both the achievements and the failures of the past.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) on debate.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this debate I want to begin by commending the Flon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) for proposing a motion which all Hon. Members can readily support. I certainly find its wording and its concepts to be very helpful coming as it does in this month leading up to the First Ministers' Conference on Aboriginal Rights. So it is a motion that I can happily support, and one which my Leader can certainly support. The aboriginal people who heard my Leader speak at noon today to their rally on Parliament Hill will be able to confirm that. It is certainly a position which my Party can support. That is well demonstrated by the important resolutions on aboriginal rights that were approved at the recent policy conference held by the Party of which I am a member.
Most important, this is a motion that would find support with the Canadian people. My hon. friend has already referred to the important Canadian attitude study which was commissioned by the Inuit Committee on National Issues and carried out by Decima Research which indicates that an overwhelming 84 per cent of Canadian people believe that it is very important, or important, for Canada's political leaders to come to an agreement on the issue of aboriginal self-government. The results of the study show that an equally large majority of

March 11, 1987
Supply
Canadians-some 77 per cent-said they support the entrenchment of aboriginal self-government in the Constitution.
Elaving said some nice words about the useful and helpful motion, I am also pleased that my hon. friend decided to be as non-partisan as he was. He indicated that none who are outside the aboriginal community of the country can take any pleasure or delight in the past record. Even the New Democratic Party is not clean and clear in this regard. No one would want to examine all that closely the Barrett administration in British Columbia with respect to aboriginal rights and title. No one would want to look too closely at the Schreyer Government of Manitoba, especially in terms of the flooding of Indian lands. No one would want to look too closely at Mr. Blakeney's position regarding aboriginal rights in the Constitution. So we will keep it non-partisan as much as we can.
But the motion is not as clean as all that. I mean that the motion puts the Government on the spot. It says that the Government is timid and unimaginative, which is another way of saying that it is not demonstrating the type of leadership that we would expect from a government, any federal government which, in fact, knows that it has a constitutional obligation for aboriginal rights.
The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations has said that in his view, at least to date-and I continue to believe that at the First Ministers' Conference there may be a creative relationship and significant progress made-leading up to that conference, Chief Erasmus has said that the federal Government is not playing a leadership role. Returning to the Decima Research poll, Canadians tend to feel that way as well. At least 55 per cent of Canadians think that the federal Government has done a poor job handling aboriginal efforts to gain greater control over their own lives.
It has certainly given me some pause to consider what has gone on in these many meetings leading up to the First Minister's Conference toward the end of the month. It seems to me to be unusual that the Province of Nova Scotia is at the present time desperately endeavouring to find an accommodation for the recognition of the right to aboriginal self-government.
I certainly welcome the efforts of Nova Scotia. The people of that province should be proud of those efforts. All of us in the House should take some pleasure in the fact that one of our provincial administrations is trying to give that kind of leadership. However, the peculiar aspect of it is that the constitutional obligation rests largely, mainly, and principally with the Government of Canada.
My hon. friend mentioned the number of treaties which have been signed in North America since the days of early settlement. He mentioned that there were in excess of 400. Those treaty obligations were accepted by the British Crown under the policy elaborated in the Royal Proclamation of
1763. Those obligations have not dissipated into air. They have not disappeared somewhere. They are still obligations but they are now transferred to the federal Government of Canada, which has accepted in our Constitution the Crown obligations stipulated in the treaties. Therefore, the federal Government cannot duck, weave, squirm, or wiggle its way out of its responsibility. All too often we have the impression that that is what motivates the Government of Canada. How can it restrict, limit, and confine its obligations under the Constitution?
Section 91(24) clearly indicates that Indians and lands reserved for Indians are our responsibility. All the best legal testimony which 1 have been able to read puts the broadest possible interpretation on it and indicates that Indian people include the aboriginal people of Canada. We cannot refine and restrict it. It must be interpreted in the broadest possible way.
I join with the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River in urging the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to demonstrate strong leadership at the First Ministers' Conference on March 26 and March 27. I do not believe that it is a last ditch stand or that if the conference fails all is lost. There are many other avenues and approaches which can be taken by aboriginal leaders to achieve their rights.
Let it be clearly understood that the recognition of aboriginal rights and their clear definition are inevitable. At some point in our history they will be written into our Constitution. The real question is, will the Government at this time take the leadership and work with the provinces to make that a possibility.
I ask Hon. Members what we really have to fear. What is there to fear in this process? I am reminded sometimes of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who said, when he was fighting the great economic depression, that we did not have anything to fear in trying to beat that economic beast except fear itself. Yet, I am suspicious that there is an attempt from time to time within the ranks of the Government to create a certain measure of fear.
For example, why would the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), who is present this afternoon, say that the recognition of aboriginal self-government and the putting into effect of aboriginal self-government would cost billions upon billions of dollars? That is a fear tactic.


Mr.   de Cotret@: I never said that.


B. Keith Penner: It is a fear tactic. It has been denied by the Assistant Deputy Minister for self-government and by aboriginal leaders.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: And by the President of the Treasury Board.


B. Keith Penner: We know that billions are being spent now but that they are not being spent in a very cost-effective way. There is a sufficient number of case studies. The Hon.
March 11, 1987

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), who is also present, knows that those case studies demonstrate beyond any doubt that moneys used in a selfgovernment situation are in almost every case much more cost effective than what we have at the present time.
We also know that too much money is being spent now, filtered through the bureaucracy the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which is paying for monitors, overseers, processors, and auditors who do not even know how to audit. Yet, we know that our Indian communities continue to suffer from a very low level of services.
Parliament approves money, for example, for the Native Economic Development Program, yet moneys under that program are allowed to lapse. Why is that? Why is it that the Department of Indian Affairs much prefers to spend billions on social assistance over years and so little in terms of economic development? Is it, as some people think, that the policy is to keep the aboriginal people of Canada as wards of the state? Is that really what we want?
Many people in Canada-and it is in the same study to which I have been referring-believe that we are not spending our money well. The majority believe that giving aboriginal peoples more control over economic programs will result in more effective use of federal funds in the medium term, reducing reliance over the long term. Is that not what all Hon. Members want to achieve? I know that it is what the Minister of Indian Affairs wants to achieve, because he has so testified before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
What is desperately needed at the moment is something apparent to get the process of self-government moving. Under the Department of Indian Affairs it is moving, but at an intolerably slow rate. What we really need is a constitutional imperative to get it moving at a much more rapid rate.
Some of the Attorneys General who attend these conferences, or so I am led to believe, have expressed fear and concern that if there is recognition within our Constitution of the right to aboriginal self-government that right will become enforceable in the courts. I would say to that that of course any right can be enforceable in the courts. If a right is not realized, there must be a remedy. However, Hon. Members on all sides of the House must realize that the aboriginal people of Canada are not seeking some measure by which they can rush off to the courts. They have said time and time again that the way in which they want to proceed is by way of negotiation. It is the preferred route. It is the way they want to go.
I suggest to the House that a false fear has been raised in the country that recognizing the right to self-government will cause our aboriginal people to go to the courts in order to obtain for themselves a definition or even an order for establishing self-government. It is clearly not so. Aboriginal people want to negotiate and they want the Constitution-this is really the answer I would have liked to have given back to the Minister of Justice during Question Period-to contain an
Supply
obligation to negotiate self-government. They want the Constitution to describe broadly the general terms which are to be negotiated leading to agreements. If aboriginal people wanted to use the courts exclusively, if that were the intention behind their desire to get a recognition of aboriginal selfgovernment, they could have already done so.
Section 35 of the Constitution which recognizes aboriginal rights is a very powerful section. However, there have been very few cases based upon Section 35. Instead, aboriginal people have patiently tried to seek accommodation through the political process by making use of First Ministers' Conferences on aboriginal rights. These conferences have been ongoing for a five-year period. Does that not demonstrate a great deal of patience?
If the constitutional approach runs on to the rocks, I suggest there may be no other way except the route of litigation. I would also suggest to Canadians that the results of litigation based upon Section 35 may be much less pleasing to them and much less satisfactory for national unity and the health of the country than proceeding through negotiation leading to agreements. All Hon. Members would agree that that is the preferable route to go. After all, this country of ours was created more by political forces than any other kind of forces. It was Mr. Justice Macfarlane of the British Columbia Court of Appeal who put forward a view that questions of aboriginal title are best dealt with in the political rather than in the legal forum. He was presiding over a particular case. In giving his judgment, he made this comment:
This-is but a small part of the whole process which will ultimately find its solution in a reasonable exchange between Governments and the Indian Nations.
That, Sir, is what the First Ministers' Conference is really all about. It is a reasonable exchange. I want to suggest to the Government of Canada that if it is to be a reasonable exchange then it cannot go to the conference table with a very hardened position or an inflexible position. What is true for the Government of Canada is true for provincial administrations as well. There has to be some give and take and some creativity. There has to be a reasonable exchange. I want to repeat that if the Constitution imposes upon Canada an obligation to negotiate these agreements, we really have nothing to fear at all. There is no threat to any of us.
Let me quote, if I may, former Prime Minister Trudeau who travelled, by the way, a very long, long distance with respect to aboriginal rights. There was a time when he denied categorically, in a speech in Vancouver, that they even existed. He travelled that route to giving some of the most forceful directions to the First Ministers at those conferences that have been given to date. At one of those First Ministers' meetings he said:
There is nothing revolutionary or threatening about the prospect of aboriginal self-government. Aboriginal communities have rightful aspirations to have more say in the management of their affairs to exercise more responsibility for decisions affecting them. These functions are normal and essential to the sense of self-worth that distinguishes individuals in a free society.

March 11, 1987
Supply
Listen to George Erasmus, one of the leading aboriginal chiefs in this country. He said:
What we are after is power where it is possible and in as many cases as is logical and reasonable for the First Nations to control their own lives without influence.
Listen to Dorothy Wasbisca, Vice-President of the Native Council of Canada. She said:
Self-government includes the right to have a meaningful say in our day-to-day lives.
Even more recently, John Amagoalik, Co-Chairman of the Inuit Committee on National Issues speaking before the Standing Committee 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 practicable in a modern, culturally diverse and inter-dependent 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.
I have only just begun my remarks but you are already signally me that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I cannot believe time has gone that quickly. Let me conclude by introducing just a very brief international note in the hope that it will be of some guidance and inspiration to our leaders at the First Ministers Conference at the end of this month.
Since 1982 there has a been a United Nations working group on indigenous populations meeting once a year in Geneva to formulate standards for the treatment of indigenous populations. In 1985 Madam Erica Daes, Chairperson of this working group, speaking in Quebec City said that in her opinion:
-the principle of the self-determination of peoples applied also to indigenous populations, although it did not include the right of secession.
I have attended many international gatherings where indigenous populations were being discussed and the latter part of that remark has never ever been an issue. It is not a question of secession. More accurately, and I conclude on this point, what we are talking about was well expressed I think by Thomas R. Berger in his report of the Alaska Native Review Commission, Village Journey, that I recommend to Hon. Members. He writes:
If governments continue in their efforts to force native societies into moulds that we have cast, I believe they will continue to fail. No tidy bureaucratic plan of action for native people can have any chance of success unless it takes into account the determination of natives peoples to remain themselves. Their determination to retain their own cultures and their own lands does not mean they wish to return to the past, it means they refuse to let their future be dictated by others.


Mr. Gormley:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). I have a question on the area of self-government. It has been a fundamental premise of those who have dealt with native communities, particularly the case of this Government and our present Minister when dealing with Indian communities and native groups, that one respect their aims and aspirations, that we do not dictate or force or pressure anything upon them. I know in discussions on self-government, for example, that we have been dealing at the pace which the individual native
communities have established for themselves in these discussions. I know the Hon. Member knows about the signing, for example, of the historic self-government agreement already in place in two provinces and working on a negotiated basis in other areas.
I find it interesting that the Hon. Member would perhaps criticize the Government about pace and direction. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that the Government set the pace and direction, as was done in the past by many Liberal Governments? Or is he suggesting that we continue as we are, which is respecting the integrity and the pace of the native communities which they themselves have set?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member makes a valid point with respect to pace. Yes, the pace must be determined by aboriginal communities and the various aboriginal groupings that want to enter into negotiations leading to selfgovernment agreements. Certainly the pace must be theirs. The problem is not who will determine the pace, the difficulty is putting in place the process, of getting the process going. There are two ways in which you can do it, broadly speaking. One is the process that the Department of Indian Affairs, of community-based self-government, is presently launching. It is not totally unsatisfactory. It is not totally unacceptable by any means. There has been some progress in that direction.
I am suggesting to the House, and the aboriginal leaders in the country more importantly are suggesting to the country, that what is required in order to move this forward more rapidly, to get negotiations going, is a constitutional imperative, but this will be the driving force to get the negotiations going. I suggest that if we are to follow the pace that the Department has in mind, it will be a very slow one indeed. It may be as much as a century before the aboriginal communities of Canada enjoy self-government. We need something more to motivate governments and aboriginal communities to sit down at the negotiating table. I suggest what is needed is that constitutional recognition of the right, which would then act as the imperative desperately needed at the present time.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend, having joined him the other day at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Rights. At that time, we heard a witness from the Department who gave evidence on the question of the comprehensive land claims settlement policy.
Today the Hon. Member has been speaking of moving the self-government process forward and of motivating people to get going. Certainly his comments with respect to some form of entrenchment in the Constitution are comments with which the Government agrees. That process is under way at the present time.
As I recall, throughout the spring and early summer of 1986, native people across Canada were hailing a report that
March 11, 1987

had been made by Mr. Coolican on the subject of a comprehensive land claims settlement. They were hailing it particularly because the report contained a reference to the fact that there would be no extinguishment of native rights in arriving at these settlements. Native people across Canada were pressing the Government to adopt this and, as I recall, the Hon. Member was pressing the Government to adopt it as well. In fact, that is just what the Minister did. As a result of that action taken by the Minister, the Hon. Member was delighted and thrilled. He felt that this would be a motivating force that would help move the process along. I wonder if the Hon. Member could confirm for us that he was pressing the Government to adopt the Coolican report and that he is enthusiastic about it and very grateful to the Government and the Minister for adopting that particular report which does motivate the process of native self-government.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may have been present in the House the day I responded to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) on the new comprehensive claims policy. This new policy includes the possibility for negotiating self-government. Like all policies, however, it must get off paper and become a motivating force. That is what we are now waiting to see.
I would ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who is present and will probably speak, how soon it will be before the Council for Yukon Indians receives its mandate to negotiate its claim. It is still anxiously waiting and its members have been visiting Parliament Hill, making representations to Ministers and calling on officials. If the new policy results in the settlement of comprehensive claims before the mandate of the Government expires, I would be the first to rejoice.
A policy is one thing. I have seen many fine reports produced by Members of Parliament on a wide range of subjects. I have heard many Ministers of different administrations express that which they had hoped to achieve. In the final analysis, however, judgment is based on what actually takes place. We are still waiting for something to happen. The Minister is due to appear before the standing committee shortly and we will be anxious to know what definite concrete steps have been taken based on the new policy he announced. I would not use all the adjectives used by the Hon. Member, but I certainly recognized that it was an advance over what we previously had.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to say a few words about the motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). When I first read the motion, I wondered what tone the debate would take. I very much appreciate the tone on which the debate started and I think it will continue on the same tone.
There is one thing that those on all three sides of the House-if I could call it a three-sided House-must recognize,
Supply
and that is that everyone involved in this issue wants to make a contribution and is involved for reasons that do not usually translate into large electoral victories or change the face of a constituency overnight. Everyone involved in native, aboriginal, and Indian issues is involved for several different reasons. While the reasons I just mentioned are not dishonourable, I would suggest that the others are more honourable.
We do recognize the shortcomings in the ways previous Governments of Canada have dealt with aboriginal people. We also recognize that while Governments were perhaps not the motivators for change and were not putting forward policies that provided for change at a rapid pace, and while we have been talking about, worrying about, and discussing selfgovernment, the aboriginal people have been moving forward and making changes. They have been the initiators of the improvements we see today.
The Sechelt and Cree-Naskapi agreements for aboriginal Governments which control the daily lives, the economic development and the very existence of aboriginal people would not have been envisaged 35 years ago when the Indian Act was reviewed for the last time. Parliamentarians of the day would not have been able to envisage this ever happening to aboriginal people in Canada, yet it did happen and the reason it did happen was the leadership shown by aboriginal people.
When we look at national and community-level leadership of Indian communities today, we see a vital and evolving leadership, one that is shaping the way this Government will deal with Indian and Inuit peoples across Canada. Indeed, it is shaping the way we will go together into the 21st century. Over the years, dramatic changes have been made. Again, I do not attribute all of those changes to actions of the Government of Canada either now or in the past.
As we look around and see that there is the acquiring of skills and of technical abilities and the acquiring of educational and professional skills that will be needed to build the aboriginal communities of the future, we should have some hope and feel confident as Canadians that there is a future. Aboriginal leaders have an enormous task in keeping the values of the past which have been passed down by elders while at the same time creating a vision of the future that can fit into the 21st century. Native Canadians are already acquiring greater control over their lives and over an opportunity for a strong future.
This Government is giving or returning control over their own affairs to aboriginal people. It is not doing so, as my friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), suggested, at a pace which would startle anyone or cause one to see dramatic change, but we are returning something which should have been in existence on an ongoing basis. If the keys to the future of the aboriginal people in Canada are self-government and economic development, then the changes are being made by the aboriginal peoples themselves. Self-government has become a priority. Why? Because the Indian people have made it a priority.

March 11, 1987
Supply
As a Minister I am involved with my cabinet colleagues in a yet to be written chapter of Canadian history, an amendment to the Constitution dealing with Indian self-government. Over the past weeks and months the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and I have attended a series of meetings with provincial and territorial officials and leaders of aboriginal groups where we were able to prepare for the upcoming First Ministers' Conference. I want to draw to your attention, Sir, that the Government of Canada has provided financial and technical support as well as a motion and a rolling draft all through the 1985 meeting on aboriginal self-government. If we all looked back to the role played by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in trying to bring the provinces and the aboriginal groups together on an amendment, I do not think anyone could question the sincerity and dedication of the Prime Minister and the Government in showing leadership towards acquiring constitutional protection for aboriginal self-government.
We started with a federal framework which was arrived at with the idea that it could gain support from the aboriginal groups and the provincial Governments. Regardless of what my friends on the other side of the House say about what should be put forward by the federal Government, we cannot legislate or ratify self-government for aboriginal people single-handedly. We need the approval of 50 per cent of the population of Canada as represented by seven provinces.
It is not offensive to this Government that after we put forward amendments and rolling drafts, and the aboriginal people put forward an amendment proposal, a province such as Nova Scotia would come forward and draw from both in order to gain consensus. If that does not work, I am sure Members on all sides will say that we hope another province or aboriginal group will be able to take a draft, roll it together, consult, have it accepted and ratified as the Constitution requires. Everyone in this House, including the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), and the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent), support the entrenchment of self-government in the Constitution. It is not how it is done and who supports it that counts, it is when it is done. As my friend from Cochrane-Superior said, we hope it is done this time but we do not necessarily have the time to wait, and we have been waiting.
The concept of community-based self-government, which has been mentioned in this debate, is something we are looking at on a case-by-case basis. We are looking to individual communities with tribal councils to develop a proposal through which they can present their ideas. I firmly believe, regardless of the outcome of the meetings on March 26 and March 27, that we will continue to work on some of those proposals. It may happen that if we are not successful, there will be more energy needed to speed up the process, to drive it harder. However, regardless of the outcome, there will continue to be discussions on community-based self-government. I feel confident that within the next 12 months there will be several
aboriginal self-government proposals outside of the Indian Act. However, as my colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake mentioned, you can and should proceed only at a pace acceptable to the Indian band, tribal council or Government with which you are dealing. I know that in areas of the Hon. Member's riding there are bands who want programs they have received from the Government under treaty delivered by the Department of Indian Affairs. That will not change until those people wish to have it changed.
When we look at economic development I am not so naive as to think that we can share all the obstacles to economic development among the native people of Canada. However, as Canadians we can make a start. We are doing that now together with the aboriginal people. We are making a start at removing some of those obstacles. It cannot happen overnight and it will not benefit only the aboriginal people. It will benefit all Canadians to have this segment of Canadian society benefit economically.
Just last week in Edmonton we had discussions with over 100 bands who have some form of oil and gas potential on their reserves. That meeting was the culmination of over a year's work by Indian leaders and departmental officials in putting together a more efficient and responsive management regime for the owners of the resource. I am pleased to say there was substantial progress and substantial consensus on the changes which will be needed so that the development of the resource will benefit its owners, the Indian people. As Hon. Members know, this will require legislation. We will need to have changes to the Indian Act. I think we can accommodate those changes.
Looking at the already impressive degree of local administration by Indian bands, and if we can go forward with the management of programs and services being transferred to the Indian leadership, we believe Indians will continue the process of taking over jobs which have been filled by government employees. I do not think that is a bad situation at all.
One of the problems which people address with regard to Indian and federal government relations is that the federal Government provides Indian educational services, child and social welfare, housing, policing and sewage services. In fact, most of the programs and services which are provided to other Canadians by provincial and municipal Governments are provided to Indian people on reserves by the Government of Canada. We hear criticism almost on a daily basis. We hear that the federal Government is not providing sufficient funds to meet the needs and that the Government is trying to evade its obligations to Indian people by transferring its responsibilities to other institutions or Governments. On the other hand, we hear from some critics that the Government of Canada is providing too much money to Indian people.
The criticisms in those three areas are the same criticisms put forward in other areas for which the Government of Canada is responsible. They can be put forward with regard to
March 11, 1987

seniors, and they are. They can be put forward with regard to farmers, and they are. They can be put forward with regard to transportation, and they are. The criticisms which I have mentioned, underfunding, overfunding, and evading responsibility, are things that I do not shy away from. I do not believe them to be an attack on myself, on the Government, on programs, or on Indian people because I can see that the same criticisms are made in other segments of society.
Over the past decade there has been substantial growth in the amount of dollars distributed. My colleagues know the numbers. There has been substantial growth for two reasons. Successive Governments of Canada have recognized more of their responsibilities. Over a number of years the number of Indian people for whom the federal Government has responsibility has grown. Departmental expenditures over the last while have outstripped inflation and the growth rate of the Indian population. Since the election in 1984, the expenditures of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have increased by nearly 30 per cent.
Speaking of dollars, 80 per cent of the dollars of the Department are spent on transfer payments to territorial Governments for education, social development, capital expenditures on reserves, and for health, safety, and economic development, which are also priority areas. From time to time additional funding is required for emergencies. One emergency which comes to mind is Winisk, a community which was wiped out by recent floods.
It is not only a question of how we spend, but how effective it is and whether it meets the needs of the individual communities. Who would be in a better position to say whether we are spending it properly and actually to spend it properly than the native communities themselves? The increases must be made with Indian control over the expenditures. This is not new. We started 30 years ago to transfer responsibility to Indian people for the handling of the dollars which they can best handle. It has changed. In 1972 only 20 per cent of the Department's program expenditures were handled by Indian people. In 197980 it increased to 39 per cent. Today the figure is 59 per cent, and I hope that by 1990 it will reach 70 per cent.
Before I close I would like to say that the devolution plan, which was authorized by the Treasury Board, should decrease the number of employees in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development from 6,200 in 1985-86 to 4,200 by 1990-91. This means that we will have to transfer the dollars for those person-years to Indian Governments. That is where those dollars will be expended in the most proper and efficient fashion to benefit Indian people.
In conclusion, as significant gains are made by Indian Governments in gaining control over their daily lives, the Indian Governments will have more responsibility. The more responsibility they have, the more they will have to be responsible to their electorate. We presently have two keys, one key that the Department turns and one key that the Indian Governments turn. As the Department hands a key to the Indian Governments, it also hands the responsibility to those
Supply
Governments. That is something that the Government of Canada and the Members of this House do not shirk from. We look forward to doing more in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have been given notice of a point of order by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion among the Parties with regard to this motion and the timing of it. I appreciate the indulgence of the House to allow me to move it. I move:
That the Sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Agriculture studying the tobacco growing industry be authorized to travel to Tillsonburg, Ontario, from March 25 to 27, 1987, inclusive, and to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and Montreal, Quebec, from March 29 to April 1, 1987, inclusive, to hold public hearings relating to the Sub-committee's ongoing study, and that necessary staff accompany the Sub-committee.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.