1988-05-11

Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, three Newfoundland trawlers have been denied permits to fish inside the 12-mile zone around St. Pierre by the Government of France, in spite of a 1972 treaty with France that specifically allows them to do that.
This denial of permits comes after one Newfoundland boat was arrested, and is only the latest shot in the "cod war" with France, a war in which the Government has consistently shown itself to be lacking in courage and lacking in the responsibility to stand up and fight for the Newfoundland fishing industry.
It is a Government that has been accused by the Premier of Newfoundland of "regionalizing" the issue. I quote from a letter from the Premier of Newfoundland to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark):
It is most regrettable that in addressing this national boundary issue you have now regionalized this issue further and appear to suggest that the maintenance of jobs outside of Newfoundland is of greater importance than the maintenance of jobs in Newfoundland.
We in Newfoundland are equal Canadians, Mr. Speaker. We demand justice. We demand responsibility from this Government. We demand that the Government of Canada stand up and fight for our rights, because we are not "hyphenated" Canadians, or second-class Canadians; we are equal Canadians.


SUPPORT FOR BAN ON TOBACCO ADVERTISING
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on the introduction of Bill C-51, the Tobacco Products Control Act.
This Act will prohibit the advertising and promotion of tobacco products. It will include stronger, more visible health warnings so that consumers will be more fully informed about the serious hazards of using tobacco products.
The Canadian Cancer Society, with over 350,000 volunteers, the Canadian Heart Foundation, with some 300,000 volunteers, the Canadian Lung Association, with over 100,000 volunteers, the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association, with their hundreds of thousands of members, and School Principals' Associations all favour the prohibition of advertising and promotion of tobacco products.
For the sake of the health and welfare of all Canadians, I urge the Government to move this Bill on to report stage, third reading, and speedy passage through this House.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, those Members of Parliament who represent constituents who live in new suburban areas and who get their mail from the new so-called supermailboxes know how unhappy those constituents are. Their battle against the imposition of Canada Post supermailboxes has now been joined by another national organization. This time it is the Winnipeg based Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, which represents 15,000 disabled persons across Canada.
This organization has found that supermailboxes are especially difficult to get to for its members in winter, and their presence discourages the disabled from locating in new suburban areas.
Yet Canada Post continues to say that supermailboxes are the way of the future. The disabled reply that it is another step backward for them.

May 11, 1988
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we ask what is so "super" about supermailboxes? Is it that they are superfluous, or supercilious, or just superabundant? They are all of the above.


THE SEXES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, he or she who strays on to the field of battle between the sexes does so at his/her own peril.
When the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) told the Canadian Women for Political Representation that "men in politics are more confrontational and women work harder to reach consensus" one wonders whether she was thinking specifically of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). One also wonders just how hard the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) has worked to reach consensus with the tobacco industry.
Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher all conjure up visions of mild-mannered consensus seekers. Or do they?
In the battle in question, I personally prefer fraternization to confrontation, and therefore resolutely refuse to rush in where angels fear to tread.


JONQUIERE REGION STATISTICS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, a health study undertaken by the Departments of Community Health of Chicoutimi and Roberval shows that the number of deaths due to heart disease is 34 per cent higher around Jonquiere than in the rest of Quebec, that the incidence of lung and respiratory diseases is 78 per cent higher, and that the infant mortality rate is almost 40 per cent higher.
The number of deaths from cancer in the Jonquiere area is 43 per cent higher than the provincial average. Unfortunately, the study does not draw any conclusions as to cause.
Greenpeace, currently conducting a tour of the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes aboard their ship the Beluga, point the finger at pollutants from Alcan's smelter as a likely cause of the health problems. The smelter's stacks emit 600 tonnes a year of toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, known as PAHs. More than 100 current or former Alcan workers have been diagnosed as suffering from bladder cancer, one of the diseases linked to exposure to PAHs.
The people of Jonquiere would like to know what the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Epp) will do to protect them.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week the riding of Restigouche received some very distressful news from Canadian National Railways. We were informed that 38 jobs in Campbellton would be abolished. Sneaky public relations officers of this Crown corporation have assured us that the employees affected will have the opportunity to use their seniority in other regions, or they can accept a good compensation package. But what about the socioeconomic impact on the community?
CN is completely cold and uncaring when it comes to the cruel results of its austerity measures. The city of Campbellton served the purposes of CN very well for many, many years. But now the people of Campbellton have been discarded by an inconsiderate group of executives who are enjoying themselves in their big office towers in Montreal. Are Mr. Lawless and company saying in the words of Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake"? Well, may the hurt and economic hardship that we have been forced to endure in Campbellton over the past years be returned to you, Mr. Lawless, many times over.


ABORTION
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, like Members of Parliament, people in all parts of Canada hold strong, sincere, and conflicting views on the question of choice in abortion. They write letters, sign petitions, visit their Members of Parliament. They march and they demonstrate. This is the Canadian tradition of participation. It is not part of the Canadian tradition for members of the Ku Klux Klan to take part in such demonstrations while wearing their white hoods.
On Monday, unfortunately, Klan members, one of them hooded, attended a rally outside Calgary's City Hall seeking funding cuts to the Calgary Birth Control Association.
I believe all Canadians, whatever their views on the subject of choice in abortion, can only deplore and repudiate the presence of these white-hooded thugs on Canadians streets.
May 11, 1988

They symbolize bigotry, cowardice, and viciousness. They have no place in Canada.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, according to secret documents obtained by Canadian Press, senior officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have decided to deprive Native people of new social services by holding up the tabling of a Bill to grant them new subsidies.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) did not attend this secret meeting. Senior officials at Indian Affairs and Northern Development may have secret discussions if they wish, but they will have to abide by the provisions of the 1977 James Bay Agreement on financing, building new schools and a number of other demands made by the James Bay Cree and Inuit, and they should not forget the Algonquins and Attikameks in the riding of Abitibi.


FINANCE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec furniture manufacturers are very concerned about the new way of calculating federal sales tax that will become effective on November 1, 1988.
Mr. Speaker, this measure will mean an additional $34 million in taxes to be paid annually by Quebec furniture manufacturers. The measure will not close the gap that favoured imports and, in most cases, will make the gap even wider. Because it is so complex, this measure will result in substantial additional administrative costs. There is only one definition: What are the marketing costs and what are the distribution costs? How will small businesses be able to find their way through the fantastic amount of red tape created by this new way of collecting federal sales tax?
Furniture manufacturers feel this measure is a liability because of the lack of clarity as to the taxable amount. They also feel it is unfair to make the furniture industry pay for action taken by other industries. Considering that the Government is now in its second phase of consultations on tax reform, why introduce, at this particular moment, a measure that makes no sense at all and that discriminates against small
businesses in Canada by imposing this huge amount of red tape?


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. John A. MacDougal! (Timiskaming): Mr. Speaker, in response to comments in the paper today made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. MacMillan) on the Temagami wilderness area I say to the Minister, who seems to be in the dark on this issue, that there is nothing as precious to the residents of the Temagami area as the forests. As northern Ontarians, we have come to share our resources and use these forests responsibly with a view to the future.
The facts are that the Temagami forests have been a multiuse area for over 100 years. As for the road extension which is at the centre of the controversy, simply put, its construction will ensure future growth and stability to the entire Temagami area. The Minister of the Environment should start to listen to his colleagues in the area in which they are involved. He should listen and become familiar with the Government's forest sector strategy, and he should stay away from what is clearly a provincial matter.
Multi-use management of the Temagami forests has worked and will continue to work for years to come. The Minister should start listening to the people of Timiskaming and the Temagami area, and not his environmental lobby groups in Toronto and Ottawa.

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, here is the future for average Canadians under the free trade deal with the U.S. An advertisement inviting Canadian firms to shift operations to Georgia appeared May 9 in The Financial Post. The ad says "The cost of labour is among the lowest in the United States." As well, "fewer than two in 10 workers belong to a labour union". It also says "What's more, we haven't raised our corporate tax rate since 1969."
That is what is ahead with the trade deal, Canadian companies shifting to low wage, less unionized southern states like Georgia, with Canada having to cut its tax rates to match

May 11, 1988
Oral Questions
Georgia, reducing revenue for social programs for people here in Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to condemn the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the Prime Minister's Office, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and his office, for having failed to inform the Queen of the Netherlands that part of the Durham Report was unacceptable to French Canadians, especially where it recommended the assimilation of French Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is here in the House, and the Prime Minister must bear part of the responsibility for having failed to inform Her Majesty in advance that the Durham Report was not fully accepted by French Canadians in this country.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, it was with dismay that I witnessed the Liberal Members of Parliament vote against Bill C-103. This statute establishes the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which gives to Atlantic Canadians the opportunity to control more of the economic development efforts in Atlantic Canada.
This new strategy of regional development has been welcomed by Atlantic Canadians, but Liberal MPs voted against it. They also voted against establishing the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation which gives Cape Breton a separate Crown corporation for industrial development with a separate board of directors. Why did they vote against it? Because they were told to do so by a Member of the other place. Imagine, puppets on a string, swinging in the wind.
If Liberal Members were truly interested in ACOA, where were they when the hearings were held in Atlantic Canada? The Bill was studied and commented on by Atlantic Canadians, but the Liberals were not there to listen. That tells the story.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for two Ministers concerning the Prime Minister's trade deal with the U.S. I want to turn first to the Minister of Communications who has allowed Canadian cultural policy to be dictated by the wishes of a few Hollywood film moguls.
As she and the House know, the Hollywood studios have a stranglehold over distribution of films in Canada. They control 90 per cent of the Canadian Film market. As a result, a year ago the Minister sensibly announced that those huge Hollywood studios would no longer be allowed to distribute films in Canada which they did not make. Now she has backed down and allowed Americans to distribute independent and foreign produced films in Canada.
Why did the Minister change the policy she announced last year? What other reason could there be for changing that policy than to attempt to accommodate the Prime Minister's wish not to jeopardize the trade deal with the United States?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the position of the U.S. majors. They did not want legislation. They did not want a separate market for film distribution rights in Canada. They wanted a box office tax on Canadian filmgoers.
But we will have legislation, we will have a separate market for Canadian distribution of films, and we will not have a special tax on Canadian filmgoers.
However, I would like to say to the Prime Minister-the Leader of the Opposition-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the shortest-lived Prime Minister in Canadian history that the majors took a position when Francis Fox was the Minister of Communications. He was told to do nothing, and he did nothing. John Roberts was told to do nothing, and he did nothing. Mr. Faulkner was told to do nothing, and he did nothing. The Liberals were told to do nothing, and they did nothing. That was their policy, and that is their policy.
We are moving on legislation, to create a separate market for the distribution of films in Canada.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister will not be dismayed if I correct her history and advise her that a fellow Nova Scotian, Sir Charles Tupper, has the record. However, I recognize the Freudian slip of the
May 11, 1988

Minister and I want to assure her that we will take care of that.


OPPORTUNITY TO MAINTAIN ORIGINAL POLICY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, will she admit that she would not have had to waste millions of dollars in taxpayers' money to enable Canadians to compete with Hollywood, if she had stuck to her original policy and simply prohibited the Americans from distributing independent and foreign-produced films in Canada? Why didn't the Minister maintain her original policy and save Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars, instead of bowing to the demands of the free trade agreement initiated by the Prime Minister with the United States?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition knows something about film making. Perhaps he could expand on his role as a director of CFI. He may remember his role in Canadian Film Investments, a company which took advantage of the capital cost allowance to make films which used American actors and American themes.
That was the sort of film issue with which the Leader of the Opposition was personally connected. Perhaps he would like to explain to Canadians why that capital cost allowance was exploited at the cost of millions of dollars to the Canadian taxpayer to make films which were not Canadian.
We are putting money into distribution for the first time in this country. That is something which the film distributors welcome. We have put money into the making of Canadian cultural films which are winning awards around the world. The Leader of the Opposition might not like to acknowledge that, but we think it is a great thing.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that performance of the Minister was not an award winning performance by any means. I can assure her that our films, good or bad, were at least Canadian films, and she can take some instruction from that.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AGREEMENT IN UNITED STATES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister sold out Canadian culture for the sake of a trade deal. I almost feel sorry for her in trying to defend this policy because she knows, as I know, that it is a national disgrace for Canadian culture.
Oral Questions
My supplementary question concerning the trade deal is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he confirm that the White House concluded that a section on energy in the trade deal is unconstitutional and the United States wants to change the deal in order to accommodate the State of Alaska? If that is so and the deal is to be changed to accommodate Alaska, will the Canadian Government be open to changes suggested by Canadian provinces?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, we expect the United States to translate into their legislation the trade agreement as it stands now. If there is a constitutional problem in there, they will have to settle it down there.
As far as we are concerned, the free trade agreement stands and it will be put into legislation shortly.


FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, a year ago the Minister of Communications announced a film policy which was a fair solution to a serious problem in the Canadian film industry. But the Prime Minister, Ronald Reagan, and Jack Valenti sold her out while they were so busy designing a poor trade pact for Canada.
This new revised policy is a sham. The Minister knows that it is a sham, the industry people know that it is a sham even if they write her letters saying that they think it is-


Mr. Speaker:: I want to point out that yesterday there were some complaints that not enough Members were heard. One of the reasons is that preambles, when argumentative, invite a very long answer.


Mr. Rossi:: What about the answers?


Mr. Speaker:: I think I indicated that when preambles are overly argumentative they invite a very long answer. I want to co-operate with Hon. Members who have come to me because they are concerned that they are not getting a chance to be heard. The Hon. Member.


Sheila Finestone: Why did the Minister cave in, and break her promise to the film industry so that instead of having an effective increase in Canadian productions, placing this industry on a solid base, we have nothing really to speak of?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I listen to the whining of the Opposition and I understand why, since they did nothing for so long-


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked members of the Opposition to be more careful in their preambles and to put their questions

May 11, 1988
Oral Questions
more directly. I would ask the Minister to deal directly with the question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I quite understand why they are taking this stand. However, I want to say that I have heard from the Association of Canadian Film and Television Producers. They say to me: "You are to be particularly congratulated on advancing your distribution legislation to the penultimate stage".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: They go on to say: "No previous Minister of Communications has succeeded in addressing Canada's film distribution problems to the extent that you have".
I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that the British Columbia producers have also written to me. They say: "We believe that this new program is a major step forward in resolving the problems of the Canadian film industry". That is what the industry is saying. That is what is being said by the national associations and the regional associations.
I must say that, for an Opposition which did nothing about this for 40 years, I understand why they are still doing nothing.


Sheila Finestone: It is too bad that the Minister cannot read the editorials that do not seem to agree with what she just said.


GOVERNMENT FUNDING-MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, with the Minister of Finance having cut over $100 million from the private sector film money that was coming in, does the Minister not realize that she has engaged in a shell game when she tries to plug that gap with $29 million annually, which does not address the basic problem? Again, why did you cave in on this film distribution Bill, just to save your Prime Minister and-


Mr. Speaker:: I would also ask Hon. Members to address Ministers through the Chair, and vice versa. The Hon. Minister will respond.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will rely on the industry for advice in this difficult dossier. Certainly it has been extremely helpful. The independents in Canada have had a great input. They also gave me one message for the Opposition, for the Liberal Party. They said: "For God's sake, don't let them screw up this legislation like they are screwing up the copyright".


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


Mr. Shields:: Here is Shirley Carr's puppet!


Mr. Nystrom:: Twenty-eight per cent, Jack!


Mr. Broadbent:: I say to my caucus colleagues that I would just as soon have twenty-two letters, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FISHERIES
John Edward Broadbent: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Monday in the House, with reference to the serious situation in Newfoundland, with particular reference to the waters lying between St. Pierre and Miquelon and Newfoundland, the Minister said: "We believe that the traditional practices respecting the smaller fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador should be respected to the letter". The Minister said that on Monday. Yesterday the French responded by moving in the opposite direction. They denied access to these waters to three Newfoundland captains of trawlers. What is the Government going to do next?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that is not quite what happened, as the Hon. Member, I think, will determine when he looks into the matter. There was a decision taken by three trawlers to apply for a permit which, in the view of the Government of Canada, they do not require. There was an administrative response to that request by officials on St. Pierre and Miquelon.
About the situation with respect to French policy, I will try to be as precise as I can. There was an action taken in advance of the French elections. A protest was delivered to the French Ambassador. He indicated that French policy had not changed. There is now a new Government in France. It has in hand a formal protest from me, and it also has in hand an indication of our view that it is in the interests of fishermen from St. Pierre and Miquelon and fisherman from Newfoundland and Labrador that the pre-existing practices be respected by both sides.
That new Government of France took office and the Prime Minister was sworn in just this week. They have not yet had the opportunity to respond to us. We expect them to respond with urgency on that question.


FRENCH PERMITS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the Minister is saying about the new Government, and one hopes there is a shift in policy as a result of that. But I would like to ask him with respect to our own Government's policy, in that narrow body of water we are talking about between St. Pierre and Miquelon and Newfoundland, is it the Government's view that in terms of international law the
May 11, 1988

French have no right to be requiring or issuing permits for any part of that water?


Charles Joseph Clark: It is our view, Mr. Speaker, that it served the interests of both Canada and France, and the interests of the fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon and of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the practices that had been undertaken by both countries for a long time, practices that were broken in one instance by the French, that those traditional practices should be respected. We hope to be able to deal with the question on that basis. That is the position I have taken in the protest I have lodged with the Government of France. It is on that basis that we intend to proceed.
I should make it clear that while we have followed the practice, and intend to consistently, this important difference between our two countries should not be fought on the backs of small inshore fishermen. Obviously, the French will understand that if they intend to proceed with this variation in practice, we would have to reciprocate. We hope things would not reach that stage.


ACCESS TO TERRITORIAL WATERS-IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS BY FRANCE-MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the Minister correctly, he said that according to international law, the French have the right to impose this condition for obtaining access to their territory near St. Pierre and Miquelon. Is that true?

Is that correct?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the situation is as I described it. There was an agreement between Canada and France about giving notice of any change in this practice by either party. There was an agreement providing for at least three months' notice of any change in practice. We did not receive such notice from the French with respect to this traditional practice, and I repeat, our basic position is that the practice honoured by France and Canada is one that has served the interests of the people of Newfoundland and St. Pierre and Miquelon, and we feel that it is important to see that this practice is respected. That is what I told the French in our protest note, and we are now awaiting a reply from the new French government.


SITUATION OF NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERMEN
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs whose colleague, the Minister for International Trade, was in Labrador last week selling free trade while his Government was here selling out Labrador fishermen and Newfoundland fishermen. That is
Oral Questions
why the Premier of Newfoundland has called him a patsy and sent him this letter today, which is a stinging rebuke of government policy.
Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs really saying that the job of a Labrador fisherman is less important in this country than that of a man who works for Michelin, even if anyone were silly enough or stupid enough to think that Michelin Tire would really pull out of Nova Scotia? Is he saying that Newfoundlanders are hostages to Canadian fortune, that we are second-class citizens in our own country? Because, if he is saying that, we are going to roast the rear end of the Tory Party in Newfoundland in the next election.


An Hon. Member:: Right on!
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there is no question, in the view of this Government, that the people of Newfoundland, all of the people of Newfoundland, are first-class citizens of Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -but it is not enough to talk about that. It is not even enough to defend their interests vigorously when they are contested by foreign countries, as we have done. It is also essential to put in place a series of programs that will improve the economic lot of people who live in Newfoundland. That is among the reasons we have brought in major programs to encourage economic development in Atlantic Canada.


Bill Rompkey: Just give us the fish!


Charles Joseph Clark: Those measures were introduced yesterday, and Atlantic Canada will long remember that the Liberal Party voted against that initiative to help Atlantic Canada.


Bill Rompkey: Let me quote Marie Antoinette again: "Let them eat cake". We don't want the billion dollars; give us the fish. That is what makes us what we are. You can keep the billion dollars. Just give us the fish, okay?


Mr. Mazankowski:: You are getting in deeper.


Mr. Tobin:: Shut up and eat cake, that's what he is saying.


FRENCH PERMITS ISSUE
Bill Rompkey: I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs about the three trawlers that were denied permits by France, guaranteed under the 1972 agreement that this Party signed when we were the Government. Is he going to be a patsy on that one, too, or is he really going to do something? Is he going to stand up to the French this time and fight for Newfoundland fishermen?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one thing I am not going to do is take

May 11, 1988
Oral Questions
away from the people of Atlantic Canada $1 billion that could serve their interests.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Liberal policy is now abundantly clear. Not only are they against the agency we have set up to help encourage development in Atlantic Canada but they want us to cut federal spending in Atlantic Canada by $1 billion. That is their position. Well, we certainly do not agree with that position, nor do we agree with the kind of attitude that led to the signature of the 1972 agreement, a Liberal treaty that created this problem we are now trying to solve. We are trying to solve it on the basis of a particular incident that happened in a pre-election atmosphere in France.
I have delivered a strong protest to the Government of France. There is a new Government there. We expect them to respond to it urgently, and as soon as they respond, certainly we-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to return to the Minister of Communications and her infamous film Bill about which one Canadian distributor said: "Flora's film Bill has about as many teeth as one of my chickens, and they have more heart". So I want to ask her-
[Translation)
Since it is obvious the Minister has abandoned her film distribution and publishing policies because of the free trade agreement, when and why did she abandon these two essential policies?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, Ms. Marie-Josee Raymond, joint chairman of the task force on films and Chairman of the Sectorial Advisory Group on International Trade, stated: "The action taken with respect to films is a very important step and includes a set of measures beneficial to Canadian producers and distributors". That is what the joint chair of the task force on Films had to say.
The people in the industry support what we are doing. They support it in Quebec, they support it in British Columbia, and they support it in their national associations.
The Hon. Member from the NDP may wish to quote an exLiberal candidate in support of what he is saying, but I listen
to the voice of the industry recognizing what is being accomplished in this field. I am very happy indeed to have the support of the film industry.
I also say to the Hon. Member


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister can extend her next answer. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister. It is not what an ex-Liberal cabinet Minister said, but what the present Conservative Minister of Energy, the ex-Minister of Communications, stated, as reported in the Toronto Star yesterday. He said: "What we have is a lack of policy. If we develop good policy then perhaps we can generate some money". He was not referring to the Liberal Party; he was referring to the Minister of Communications' film and book publishing policies.
Given that even her own Cabinet colleagues do not have faith in her publishing and film policy, who forced her, and why did she change her previous film policy to sell out to the Americans?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I take some pride in my record as Minister of Communications. In the past year I have introduced a program of public lending right payments for 5,200 authors in this country, something which had been requested for 40 years and was never dealt with, and I brought it in.
We will be bringing in film distribution legislation and a $200 million support program. I have ensured the maintenance of the postal subsidy for our publications industry-


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


SIKH ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Thus far the Minister has refused to co-operate and participate with the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism which is conducting special hearings into a recent letter that the Minister sent to the Premiers in which he urged a political boycott of three Canadian Sikh organizations. This is a slap in the face to the parliamentary process.
Given that these hearings provide Parliament with an opportunity for a rational discussion on a very sensitive issue, and given that these hearings were approved by all three political Parties and their members, why is the Minister aggravating the situation by refusing to participate? Will the
May 11, 1988

Minister not do the honourable and responsible thing and come before the committee freely and voluntarily to discuss this most important and very sensitive issue?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, two very quick, brief responses to that question. First, with regard to the involvement of Parliament in the activities of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I certainly am prepared to compare my record with any of my Liberal predecessors. For example, on the question of statements in the House, during the brief Government of my colleague, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, and his predecessor with the long shadow, among other things-


John Napier Turner: You had one with a long knife, my friend.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition corrects me-


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Minister will complete his answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: His predecessor had the long shadow and the long knife. I apologize for only giving part of the answer.
Second, in accordance with my practice of responding to the wishes of Parliament, and in accordance with my schedule, I have accepted an invitation to discuss this question, which I regard as a security question, with members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, which deals with security matters.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the answer shows contempt for Parliament and abrogates the traditions whereby-


Mr. Speaker:: We have a long tradition of not imputing motives, and that is a pretty strong allegation. I know the Hon. Member can put his question in another manner.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister can freely go to a Committee of Justice behind closed doors and discuss the matter with CSIS.
I ask the Minister again, given the fact that his letter is at the centre of a parliamentary investigation, why is he afraid to come before that committee and either retract or defend that letter?
Why is the Minister willing to precipitate an unnecessary show-down that will force the Multiculturalism Committee to subpoena him as a witness?
Why does he not come voluntarily and defend or promote his letter, and stand up as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, rather than hiding behind closed doors?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is not my practice to hide. The Hon. Member will know that there was a motion introduced on that very question in the House of Commons. He should know it, because he introduced it. There was a debate on the matter. I put forward the position of the Government of Canada. It is a clear position to which we adhere.
With regard to the invitation to a committee, I am not going to a committee to talk to members of CSIS. I am going to a committee to talk to Members of Parliament. I am going to the committee that is charged by this Parliament with security questions. They have invited me to come to discuss an issue which I believe to be essentially a security issue. I am responding to that invitation as a reflection of my continuing respect for the practices of the House of Commons.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and it concerns the Government's multibillion dollar proposal to purchase nuclear powered attack submarines.
Yesterday, in a scathing attack on this proposal, the Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament insisted that the Government was naive to assume that the submarines would compel the U.S. Navy to respect Canada's Arctic claims; that far from contributing to Canadian independence they would integrate us even closer into the U.S. forward maritime strategy; and that they would devalue Canada's own credibility as an active proponent of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
In light of this damning indictment, will the Prime Minister now give his assurance that the submarine proposal will not be proceeded with?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Centre's position, just as the Hon. Member's position on this issue, are both predictable and not surprising in any way.
The position taken by the Government is that, after 20 years of neglect of Canada's Armed Forces, it is time that we develop the capacity to defend Canada adequately and to contribute to the collective defence of the West.
The Hon. Member and her Party do not agree with such policies, but that is the policy of this Government.


REQUEST THAT DECISION BE POSTPONED
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Prime Minister and

May 11, 1988
Oral Questions
the Minister of National Defence would have some respect for the very highly respected and expert Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament, and I am shocked at the Minister's reply.
I go back to the Prime Minister-


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Pauline Jewett: Well, he smirks. He always smirks.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put her question.


Pauline Jewett: I go back to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Given the grave implications of the submarine proposal, both for Canada's sovereignty and our solvency, and our credibility in the non-nuclear proliferation world, will the Prime Minister at least give his assurance that no decision will be made on this matter until the Canadian people have judged it in the forthcoming election?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we have respect for bodies that hold differing views.


Pauline Jewett: The Minister does not.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if Hon. Members could allow the Prime Minister to respond; it makes it a lot easier and a lot quicker if there are not comments floating back and forth. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Minister is most respectful of dissenting opinion. After all, he is a member of the Conservative Party, and we understand that from time to time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: But I should tell my hon. friend that we disagree with the statement that was put out.
We believe that this initiative is very much consistent with our obligation to protect the national interest and to assert the sovereignty of Canada.
The Hon. Member, having served long and well in this Chamber, will agree, I am sure, that one of the great moments of sadness for all parliamentarians was the realization that, after 20 years, the Government of Canada and the people of Canada were incapable of physically asserting sovereignty in our North.
This is an important part of the assertion of sovereignty that came about as a result of the White Paper, which I know will ultimately please a great number of the Hon. Members opposite.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. When he was Leader of the Official Opposition he said, and I quote:
It is a great injustice that the work of the homemaker is so undervalued in this society ...
But I assure you tonight of my personal conviction that a pension for this country's homemakers is both just and equitable.
That was March 3, 1984. His Minister of Health and Welfare said today that there will be no homemakers' pension under the Canada Pension Plan in this Session of Parliament.
I would ask the Prime Minister to explain to the House, and to Canadians, why it is he is refusing to honour his commitment of 1984 to the people of Canada? Or is this just another broken Tory promise?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows exactly what the Prime Minister, what this Party, and what this Government said in respect of a pension for homemakers. I quote directly from the policy book: "We encourage the provinces to agree to the introduction of a homemaker's pension in the Canada Pension Plan, along the lines proposed by the Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform."
The position of this Government on a homemakers' pension is very clear. We want one. We also know that, under the Canada Pension Plan, we need the agreement of the provinces.
Additionally, the Hon. Member should know that we brought in changes on RRIFs, on retirement pension plans, on the Canada Pension Plan allowing for credit splitting, and a spousal allowance for widows and widowers.
Every one of those changes could have been brought in by previous Liberal Governments, and they did not do so, and in most cases the Opposition oppose these changes even now.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
This Minister, and this Government, had almost four years to put in place a pension for homemakers, and all we hear is excuse after excuse.


An Hon. Member:: What did Monique Begin do for the
homemaker?


David Charles Dingwall: Does the Minister not recall the words of his own Prime Minister, on March 23, 1984, and I quote:
And I will personally urge our Party and the provinces to give their consent to a program resulting in a homemaker's pension.
May 11, 1988

When is the Progressive Conservative Party going to stand for a homemakers' pension and put it into place? When?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, this Party stood for a homemakers' pension in the 1984 election campaign, and continues to do so. I have just read again how the Canada Pension Plan can be used to accommodate a homemakers' pension.
That is where the Prime Minister stands; that is where this Government stands; that is where we all stand. And where do you stand? You had 20 years in which to do something, and nothing was done.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and concerns the very tense conditions at the federal prison for women in Kingston.
In recent days there have been many knife-slashings, attempted suicides, macings, a dog on the range, all resulting in some 20 women being currently in segregation and the head of the inmate committee, Gayle Horii, resigning in despair.
Will the Minister personally look into this very serious situation at the prison for women in Kingston, and will he take immediate steps to ease the tensions at that prison where, to quote from a letter written to me by Gayle Horii, "hatred in the air can be sparked off with anything now".


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member for Burnaby that indeed I am aware of the conditions at the women's prison in Kingston. I have had discussions with officials from the Correctional Service of Canada with respect to that situation. I am also aware of the need for additional facilities for women across Canada.
Indeed, while in British Columbia last week I had discussions with the Attorney General of that province regarding the possibility of building additional facilities in that province, to alleviate the overcrowding and its consequent problems at the federal prison for women in Kingston.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 would hope that the Minister will in fact look into the very tense situation at the prison for women in Kingston, immediately.


PROPOSED POST OF AUDITOR GENERAL FOR PRISONS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. A group of very respected Canadians, including Professor Israel Halperin, Pierre Berton, Yvon Beaulne, and Clarke MacDonald, have called upon the Government to establish the post of Auditor
Oral Questions
General for Prisons, which office would report directly to Parliament on prison conditions at places such as the federal prison for women in Kingston.
Why has the Minister refused to implement this very important and helpful suggestion, a suggestion that would open up the prison system to greater public scrutiny?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, we now that the Office of the Inspector General for Prisons, and we feel that have office is adequately equipped to look after the needs of the inmates in federal penitentiaries.
Indeed, I am now looking at establishing, in legislation, this particular office, setting out the rights and obligations of the office. In my view, that would adequately take care of the situation.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I would ask the Minister of Finance to explain to the House how it comes to pass that some 40 Canadians earning over $250,000 annually were able to escape the paying of income tax last year.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to review some of the figures that the opposition Parties made reference to yesterday.
From 1985 to 1986 there was a reduction in the number of those earning $250,000 or more and not paying tax, a reduction from 254 to 40, or 77 per cent. So, certainly we are making progress in dealing with this problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In respect of those earning more than $50,000 a year and not paying any income tax, I can inform the House that, in the last full year under the past Fiberal administration, the number of such individuals totalled 8,102, and that number is now down to 5,220, or a drop of approximately 40 per cent.
So, we are making good progress in this respect, and I think that is partly due to the fact that we introduced a minimum tax. It is also indicative of the fact that we have removed a number of tax shelters, such as the financing of yachts, the carve-outs that were used extensively by oil and gas companies, the scientific research tax credit, limited partnerships, MURBS, and so forth.

May 11, 1988
Oral Questions
t Translation]


SOCIAL JUSTICE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
After seniors were misled, we now know that 3 million Canadian women will not have a pension plan. I would like to remind the Prime Minister that he said on television that it was unacceptable and unfair that anyone in Canada pays no income tax.
Yesterday, Revenue Canada informed us that more than
5,000	people with annual incomes over $50,000 and even $100,000 did not pay a cent of income tax in 1986.
Could the Prime Minister explain to the old couples in my riding, for example the Doirons, whose Canadian Pacific pension income is $17,142 a year and who had to pay nearly $700 in income tax in 1986, how come the Prime Minister's proteges who earn $100,000 or more manage to pay no tax at all? Where is the fairness and why has the Prime Minister once again misled these people?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is the Hon. Member who is once again misleading the House.
Indeed, when he was a Member of the former Liberal Government and sat in the House of Commons, there were 8,102 people in Canada who earned more than $50,000 in 1983 and paid no income tax. Last year, this number was reduced to 5,220, a drop of nearly 40 per cent, thanks to the tax reform presented by the Conservative Government and the present Minister of Finance.
We thus see that it is progress in the right direction. Together we are plugging the loopholes that did so much harm to the couples mentioned by the Hon. Member for Montreal Sainte-Marie. With the number of people who pay no income tax reduced from almost 9,000 to roughly 5,000, we see already that we have more money to help the disadvantaged. And that is what we are doing.


EQUITY IN INCOME TAX
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, nothing but words, words, words! The elderly and our families don't believe them anymore.
I have another example involving income tax, and this one is not from Statistics Canada. Mrs. Perreault, who lives alone and is under 60 years of age, has an income of $5,591 under the Quebec Pension Plan and gets $3,497 in welfare payments. I am not talking about the wealthy, the Prime Minister's friends! She also has to pay income tax.
Could the Prime Minister explain to the House why someone whose income is below the poverty line for individuals who live alone, has to pay federal income tax, while someone with an income of $100,000, ten times the poverty line figure, manages to pay not a single penny?
Why does the Prime Minister tolerate this kind of thing? Why doesn't he ask the Minister of Finance, as he did in the case of the elderly, to impose a minimum tax on all Canadians, irrespective of their income?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking for an answer on behalf of a Mrs. Perreault in Montreal. I would be glad to oblige.
His question is about the poverty line. From 1982 to 1984,
317,000	Canadians fell below the poverty line, while between 1984 and 1986, 525,000 Canadians became better off and managed to get out of this frustrating situation.
This accurately reflects the second part-he asked me an important question and I am trying to give him the answer. The answer to the second question is that when he was a Member under the Liberal Government, in 1983, 178 people in Canada with incomes in excess of $250,000 did not pay income tax, and that number has dropped this year to 40, a reduction of 77.6 per cent. Social justice is spreading in this country!


DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Prime Minister of Canada. Could the Prime Minister confirm to the House that on May 2, the Department of the Secretary of State opened a temporary office in Alma, Quebec, in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean, and that this office is paid for by the taxpayers of this country?
Could he also confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the lease signed with Mr. Raymond Malenfant will expire on June 21, the day after the by-election in which the Secretary of State is running as the Conservative candidate in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there are two points I would like to make. The New Democrats will have to get used to the fact that in Quebec we operate the same as anywhere else.
Mr. Speaker, the candidate . . . The Department of the Secretary of State now maintains it happens very often and this is not a precedent an extension of the office or the Department of the Secretary of State outside the National Capital area, for the purpose of dealing directly with matters that concern the Department.
May 11, 1988

Petitions


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a right to receive services, and wherever those services are provided ...
Obviously, the Liberal Party has no candidate. It can't find one in this riding. As for the New Democrats .. .

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister may have noticed that the lease covers the period from May 2 to June 21, which coincides with the by-election in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean. Could the Minister inform the House whether the rent and operating costs for this office will be declared as election expenses, since the Conservative candidate happens to be the Secretary of State? Will these expenses be declared as election expenses?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, there are very strict rules on election expenses, and they will be observed. However, the Secretary of State has the right to maintain services for Canadian citizens, and he will continue to do so. The people of Lac-Saint-Jean hope you will find some worthwhile subjects to discuss during this campaign, but I think the New Democratic Party will have to change its tactics to convince Quebecers of its credibility. So far it has failed to do so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The time for Question Period has expired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that Thursday, May 12, and Friday, May 13, will be allotted days.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 10 petitions numbered as follows: 332-4244, 3324245, 332-4299 to 332-4301 inclusive, 332-4315 to 332-4318 inclusive and 332-4320.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister Responsible for Multicultur-alism):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State of Canada and pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I wish to table in both official languages the annual report of the Public Service Commission of Canada for 1987, together with a braille summary of the report.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, in both official languages. The fourteenth report deals with the selection of votable items pertaining to the twelfth draw which took place May 3, 1988.
May I note that pursuant to Standing Order 36(1 )(b), this fourteenth report is deemed adopted when laid upon the Table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings],


PETITIONS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present to the House today a petition on behalf of Canadian citizens who oppose the Memorandum of Agreement signed between Canada and the U.S.S.R. dealing with gathering evidence on alleged war criminals on the basis that the agreement pertains only to Nazi war criminals and not all war criminals, contrary to the government commitment in its response to the report of the Deshenes Commission of Inquiry.
The petitioners call upon the Government to renegotiate the agreement to reflect the prosecution of all war criminals.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 it is my duty and privilege to present to the House of Commons one of a number of petitions signed by residents of the federal constituency of Moncton regarding abortion.

May 11, 1988
Petitions
The petitioners are protesting the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. They urge the Government of Canada to introduce the necessary legislation to place limits upon abortion, thus protecting the rights of the unborn child.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to present two petitions from over 300 citizens of the City of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. The petitioners state that a majority of Canadians are appalled at the number of unborn Canadians killed by abortion each year. They therefore request legislation to protect the unborn from conception on, that a free vote be afforded each Member of Parliament and that no medicare funding be provided for abortion.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of New Brunswickers who say that the federal Government discriminates against residents of New Brunswick communities by not allowing them the tax deductions granted to isolated communities.
The signers of this petition come from Shippagan, Caraquet, Sainte-Marie-sur-Mer, Lameque, Le Goulet, Cap-Bateau, Evangeline, Inkerman, Savoie Landing, Petit Shippagan, Pointe-Alexandre, Pointe-Canot, Tracadie, Bertrand, Poke-mouche, Saint-Pons, Sainte-Rose, Pont-Lafrance, Pont-Landry, Allardville, Saint-Sauveur, Sheila, as well as from Sainte-Cecile, Chiasson Office, Saint-Raphael, Bas-Caraquet, Centre-Saint-Simon, Saint-lsidore, Grande-Anse, Maltempec, Pointe Brule, and also, Mr. Speaker, from Six Roads, Val-Comeau, Leech, Saint-Irenee, Four Roads, Losier Settlement, Saint-Quentin, Edmundston, Gautreau, Bathurst, and I continue, Mr. Speaker, from North Tetagouche, Paquetville, Clifton, Atholville, Balmoral, Pointe-Verte, Petit-Rocher, and furthermore, Mr. Speaker, from Robertville, Pokeshedie, Haut-Saint-Simon, Anse-Bleue, Rang Saint-Georges, Poke-shaw, Notre-Dame-des-Erables, Bas-Caraquet, Val-Doucet and from several other communities too, Mr. Speaker.
These people ask the federal Government to be fair with New Brunswickers regarding the tax deduction for isolated communities.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents. Since the Government had no mandate to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States, and since the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that any trade negotiations would not affect Canadian sovereignty, they demand that the Parliament of Canada dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the
proposed free trade agreement through a national general election.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition signed by Canadians living in Rockyford and Standard. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to immediately enact legislation notwithstanding the Charter of Rights to define within the Criminal Code of Canada specific penalties for the wilful destruction of the unborn from the moment of conception through to natural death. They ask that guidelines be enacted for the exclusion of medical payments from provincial health plans for the performance of abortions. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition signed by Canadians living in Crossfield, Calgary, Cochrane and other areas of Alberta. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to cancel Bill C-72 so that unilingual speaking people have a chance for a position in Government. As in duty bound, your petitioners will every pray.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present several sets of petitions. Most of them are from constituents of mine in Regina East and some are in the constituency of my colleague from Regina West. All of the petitioners ask the Government of Canada not to proceed with the free trade agreement it has negotiated between Canada and the U.S. They point out that this agreement infringes on Canadian sovereignty. They also point out that the fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty will be destroyed by this agreement. They say that Canada has not secured access to American markets and therefore they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement through a national general election. This is what the petitioners want and demand.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege, in conformity with Standing Order 106, to present on behalf of my constituents their petition to the House of Commons wherein they ask that Parliament provide a remedy to the unjust and inequitable application of the northern residents tax allowance by declaring that all communities within the so-called Tier 3 ridings be designated as eligible to receive that allowance.
May 11, 1988


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 302, and 303.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Mr. Howie: Has the Government established a timetable detailing the projected growth
in the (a) size of (b) spending on the Armed Forces Reserves over the next five
years and, if so, how does this forecast compare with changes in the Reserves
over the past five years?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Note: When using terms such as "Armed Forces Reserves" and "Reserves", it is important to acknowledge that one normally thinks only of the Primary Reserve. However, it should be noted that our "total force" structure will comprise approximately 25,000 Supplementary Ready Reserves as well as approximately 65,000 Primary Reserves. This response covers both types of Reserves.
1. Timetable. The staff in NDHQ are just finalizing the Canadian Forces Development Plan for the implementation of the 1987 white paper policies. It establishes how the Canadian Forces should grow and change over time to meet the assigned commitments. It proposes a timetable which synchronizes the personnel growth and training with the equipment acquisition program to ensure that the personnel are equipped, and the equipment is manned in the proper sequence and at the right time. It provides the models against which the actual funding allocations can be compared and decisions taken if the funding is different from that of the model.
(a) Projected Personnel Growth for Reserves. The Supplementary Ready Reserve is a new category within the over-all Supplementary Reserve. It is intended to create this element of
25,000	by recruiting approximately 13,000 qualified personnel by the end of 1989 and the remaining approximately 12,000 by the end of 1992. Over the next five years, the Primary Reserve is planned to grow at approximately 2000 personnel in each of the first three years and approximately 3,500 personnel in each of the remaining two years, for a five-year total of approximately 13,000 personnel. The actual personnel growth rates (Regular and Reserve) will be determined annually by the Department, based on financial and capability constraints. The figures presented here represent target growth rates and totals. Primary Reserve growth in the last five years has been approximately 230 personnel.
(B) Spending on Reserve Equipment. The Canadian Forces Development Plan has determined that spending over the next five years on the Reserve portion of the total force should be in
Question Passed as Order for Return
the order of approximately SI.9 billion. Actual funding may cause a different result. Suffice to say that all forces which share the same task, whether they are Regular or Reserve, will share the same equipment in the appropriate proportions. In the past, equipment was bought specifically for the Primary Reserve. A staff check reveals that approximately $200 million was spent for this purpose over the last five years.


Mr. Nickerson: Did the Department of National Health and Welfare sponsor an advertisement in the February 10, 1988, edition of The Hub of Hay River, Northwest Territories, the text of which read "Drunk, horny-and a perfect candidate for AIDS. Always use latex condoms with spermicide" and, if so, does it plan to continue to place such ads in family publications read by children?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Department has provided some of the funding for the AIDS Control Program for the Northwest Territories. However, the control of the content of the advertisements rests with the Department of Health of the Government of the Northwest Territories. In the future, if the Government of the Northwest Territories wishes to use the Health and Welfare logo, the content of the publication or advertisement will be approved by my Department in advance.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 283 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 283 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Dorin: Since September 4, 1984, has the Department of Supply and Services awarded contracts, grants or loans to individuals, corporations or nongovernmental organizations located in the constituency of Edmonton West and, if so, to which ones and, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?
Return tabled.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions


[Stage Direction]
May 11, 1988
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you call Motion No. P-9 in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is not in the House at the present time, so I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will move it at a later time.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: 1 am quite prepared to have it at a later time, however I thought there was to be an agent on hand for the Member. I understood there had been discussions and that had been arranged, but if that is not the case then I guess we have no choice but to wait until he is here or has named an agent.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior) moved:: That recognizing that "on average" - social and economic indicators for natives are among the worst for any social group in Canada, this House calls upon the government to revise its policies and programs for aboriginal peoples by:
(a)	taking concerted action now to reduce the huge back-log in housing needs in Indian communities;
(b)	ensuring quality education programs and facilities for Indian children with genuine Indian control;
(c)	cancelling its "capping" of the post-secondary education assistance programs since it is preventing many hundreds of Indian young people from realizing their goals in life;
(d)	facilitating Indian child care and family service programs with adequate resources to Indian agencies;
(e)	eliminating the obstacles to settlements in current claims policies, including treaty land entitlements;
(f)	repudiating its policy of restricting the creation of new bands and reserves;
(g)	reinstating constitutional funding to aboriginal organizations and making a constitutional amendment on self-government a priority;
(h)	instituting a self-government policy that recognizes self-government as an inherent right;
(i)	providing greater assistance for the development of the necessary economic bases for self-government; and
(j)	fulfilling its promise with respect to Bill C-31 that no band would be "worse off' and correcting the serious implementation problems with respect to the reinstatement of Indian people as a result of the legislation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the debate today on this motion is essentially a debate about justice. We are talking in the House about justice, fairness, and equity for Canada's first citizens, our aboriginal peoples; Indian, Inuit, and Metis.
Chief Justice James McRuer, who some time ago headed up the Ontario Commission on Civil Rights, said: "Justice is beyond definition, but the humblest citizen travelling the highways of life has a fairly clear idea of what injustice is in any particular circumstance".
1 submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no debate in Canada today about the conditions under which most of our aboriginal peoples live. They are, it is widely agreed, and in the main, deplorable. The social and economic indicators for native peoples are among the worst for any social group in Canada. Many Indians and other aboriginal peoples in Canada live at the level of Third World peoples, and sometimes even below.
The statistics to which I have referred in general are dramatic, alarming, and depressing in the extreme. Let me not throw numbers at the House today, but let me request that all Members acquaint themselves with the facts, which facts are easily acquired, related to the number of Indian children who are taken into protective care; the levels of education attained by our aboriginal peoples; housing, both the lack of and the conditions of the existing housing stock in Indian communities; income levels and the number of aboriginal people who depend entirely on social assistance; rates of unemployment; the percentage of our prison population who are natives; health standards and the death rate; causes of death related to accidents, poisoning, violence, and suicides; infant mortality; life expectancy, and hospital admissions.
In this great, humane, tolerant, wealthy, and rights-oriented Canada, we have a small minority of our people, less than 6 per cent of our population, the aboriginal people of Canada, who live daily lives of despair, destitution, rejection, and domination by a non-native majority and by powerful provincial and federal governments.
This serves as the background for some departmental discussion by senior officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which took place at Mont Ste. Marie at the beginning of 1988. These officials, meeting in a behind-the-doors conclave, agreed, according to the departmental papers which, by the way, were marked "secret", that "the relatively poor quality of living conditions on Indian reserves has been well documented, therefore, any policy to restrict Indian access to necessary services and facilities would appear callous".
Let us call these officials bureaucrats in order that we can distinguish them from public servants. All Hon. Members will know the difference between a bureaucrat and a public servant. A bureaucrat is one who will give you at least 100 reasons why something cannot and should not be done. A public servant, on the other hand, will energetically and enthusiastically endeavour to help to solve a problem. The difference is between an obstacle, on the one hand, and a facilitator, on the other hand. We are definitely talking about bureaucrats and not public servants.
May 11, 1988

Elaving admitted the seriousness of the problem, they go on to change gears in a way which baffles any mind with even an elementary knowledge of logic. They go on to say: "We should therefore carefully avoid expanding the scope of our responsibilities for aboriginal people". This, they say, applies not only to native proposals, that is ideas that come forth from the leadership of the aboriginal peoples themselves, but also to what might be called native implications of general programs. They go on to give an example. They say, "for example, on-reserve child care needs".
I am sure the Elouse did not fail to note that when the Government's child care policy came down, it was next to silent on the need for child care in Indian communities in Canada.
These bureaucrats go on to develop a strategy. This was a strategy meeting. What strategy did they devise? It was in essence to fashion a facade of fairness behind which lurks a cynical policy of containment and curtailment of programs and expenditures for Indian people. The mood and the spirit of this strategy is very much in keeping with another document which is familiar to Members who acquaint themselves with Indian Affairs policy. This strategy smacks of the Nielsen task force report on Indian programs. Incidentally, before that report became public it was leaked and had the code name "Buffalo Jump of the 80s". When that was revealed the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was quick to repudiate it, or so we were led to believe.
The Nielsen task force report called for, among other things, the capping of expenditures. That is happening. For example, there has been a capping of the expenditure program for financial assistance to Indian students who are seeking postsecondary education. When that cap was applied, I and those who work in my office made a concerted effort to find out how many individual young people were denied access to postsecondary institutions because of the capping.
We did what I thought was logical, we wrote to each regional director across the country and simply asked for the figures. That was too much of a hot potato for the regional directors, so they sent those letters back to Ottawa. After six months the Minister finally got around to replying.
By his estimates, taking only three provinces into account, because he denied that he could get the figures for the other provinces, there were well over 600 denied access to postsecondary institutions. Our own extensive research reveals that the figure is at least 1,000. Since last September 1,000 Indian young people have been denied access to post-secondary institutions.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is interjecting. 1 am quite prepared to share with him the research which led to the conclusion that at least 1,000 have been denied access to postsecondary institutions. A thousand young people with a thousand sets of dreams and hopes shattered. A thousand young people who could serve Indian First Nations in one capacity or another, tossed to one side.
Supply
I want the House and the country to know that the Liberal Party of Canada is on record as saying that a new Liberal Government would immediately remove that cap and open the opportunities for post-secondary education to any Indian young person who is qualified to enter one or another of those institutions.
The Nielsen Task Force Report also called for restricting the client group. I do not know who talks that way, but it means limiting as much as possible the number of people for whom you have to do anything at all.
To give these officials at least some credit, they did recognize, as the departmental papers reveal, that their proposed strategy which I just briefly sketched for the House was: "... unlikely to silence Indian and media critics who are seeking major funding increases to meet growing needs and backlogs in housing, elementary and secondary education, and economic development". In that one respect, these officials were certainly correct.
I want to ask the House: Where does our Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) stand in all of this? He is the man who, under the Constitution of Canada, has a very special kind of responsibility. It is called a trust responsibility, which means a great deal more than the way in which we ordinarily use that word "trust". It means much more than having a kind of vague confidence. Trust in this case can be very explicitly defined and, in fact, has been defined by the courts. I will leave that definition to another day, but it is precise and it is demanding.
Where does the Minister stand in view of this strategy that has been revealed in these departmental papers? The Minister's first response in the House is to deny that this is Government policy. That will come as a surprise to many Chiefs and Councils and First Nations across the country who are daily feeling the effects of this policy.
The Minister argued yesterday that departmental officials do not make policy, they only discuss. The Minister certainly has a right to defend himself, but I ask his Parliamentary Secretary to tell him that in making his defence please do not take Members on the Opposition side of the House to be entirely naive. After all, it is the Minister who sets the tone for his Department. It is the Minister who establishes the guidelines. They may have discussions of all kinds, but the tone, the mood and the guidelines are there. It is under that umbrella that they have these discussions.
Cabinet documents are prepared by officials as a result of these discussions. The theory of separation of bureaucracy and government, of officials and the Minister is, in practice, simply a way of dodging responsibility.
Second, the Minister defended himself in the House by saying that since 1984 expenditures in his Department increased by a whopping 40 per cent. Last evening, on the CBC national news, that figure was simply reported, blandly

May 11, 1988
Supply
and blindly, without question or comment. I say to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: So much for investigative journalism.
The Minister knows that the 40 per cent simply will not stand up to scrutiny nor to examination. The Indian people of Canada know it even better than I do because they feel it where it hurts the most, in the communities where they live and in the lives of their children. I challenge the Minister on this 40 per cent on three grounds. First, he fails to distinguish between nominal and real increases. The inflation factor must be considered.
Second, he fails to tell us that much of that increase is due to spending demanded and imposed upon him by the passage of Bill C-31, a Bill that allows for reinstatement of Indian persons who lost their status because of laws passed by this House. When this Bill was in committee, the Government promised that no band would be worse off because of these amendments to the Indian Act. Even that commitment has not been met.
Third, the Minister failed to mention that in the Indian community across Canada there is a baby boom and Indian leaders are facing the challenge of coping with a growing population. This growth creates major demands on education, on employment, on housing and for other services. If we account for inflation and the obligation imposed on the Minister by the House when it passed Bill C-31, we note that that 40 per cent increase since 1984 shrinks to less than 10 per cent. If we further take into account the increase in the number of Indian people, the increase in the population well above the national average, we note that the budget since 1984 has in fact remained flat. That is what Indian leaders across the country have been saying all along.
Those are the background circumstances under which senior Ministers today in Ottawa are meeting with aboriginal leaders to discuss yet once again the issue of constitutional recognition of their rights. Those talks are taking place against the fact that funding for aboriginal organizations for this constitutional work has been cancelled.
The Government continues to insist that recognition of the right of aboriginal self-government must be contingent upon negotiated agreements. It is strange that the Province of Quebec can attain recognition as a distinct society without any definition whatsoever, yet that same recognition is denied to aboriginal peoples. The Liberal Party of Canada takes the position that the right to aboriginal self-government is an inherent right and, in making that assertion, we recognize that there is a sovereignty involved that has to be accommodated within our federal system in order to complete the circle of confederation.
We believe that this can be done by way of negotiation, by way of reasonable exchange. But the Constitution of Canada must serve as the imperative for the kind of action that we want to see taking place. The aboriginal people in Canada do represent only a small proportion of the Canadian population.
Mr. Speaker, if the House would grant me another minute-and-a-half, I could conclude.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)):: The Hon. Member's time has expired, but is there unanimous consent for him to conclude his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: I thank the House for that courtesy, and I will be very concise. The aboriginal peoples of Canada represent only a very small proportion of the Canadian population. That we know. The officials in their meeting argued among themselves that their treatment is a highly visible test of federal-social policy both at home and abroad. One can only infer from a statement like that, that the compelling force for action of this Government in the field of native affairs is simply that of public relations, make it look as good as we possibly can, do only what has to be done in order to appear fair and reasonable. I say to you, Sir, that this is a cynical view of Government and it is having some undesirable effects across the country. It is creating suspicion, resentment, anger and hostility among the aboriginal people of Canada.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we need to turn the situation around and act instead on the basis of what is right and fair. That is why the motion before the House today calls upon the Government to revise its thinking. We are not today condemning the Government. We are just asking the Government to rethink its position and strategy. Later today we will vote upon the motion and I think that ought to be a compelling reason for all Members to vote in the positive.
We need to turn the situation around and that is the commitment of the Liberal Party of Canada to the aboriginal peoples of this country. It was Justinian in the 5th century, writing in his Institutes who noted that: "Justice is the constant and perpetual wish to render to every person their rightful due". Can we ask for anything less for the first citizens of Canada?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) who delivered a good speech, as he usually does. He has a good reputation for doing so. I would like as well to respond to the Member by giving him the apologies of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) because he is not able to be here today to respond directly. I am sure the Hon. Member understands that there is a very important meeting in progress at this time regarding a constitutional conference and funding. Perhaps an additional conference may be held. Indian leaders are in the capital today meeting with the Minister to discuss this very important
May 11, 1988

subject which is a priority of Indian leaders across this country. A conference on self-government is a priority of the Government and this meeting, I hope, will bring forward progress. That is the reason the Minister is not in the House today.
The Hon. Member put forward a good suggestion, one that is constantly on the minds of Members interested in this subject and Ministers who have responsibility for it. That is to continually rethink the way in which the Government of Canada responds to its trust responsibility and to the demands placed upon it by the aboriginal people. I have worked with the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for many years and 1 know it has been very consistent in offering that advice. As well, particularly in recent times, Indian leaders across this country are very vocal as to what their priorities are and what demands they place on the Government.
We all recognize that in our provinces and our territories examples can be given to the House where there is an inadequate response to the demands placed upon the Government with respect to the conditions of Indian people. I am going to have the same problem as the Hon. Member in going through the list he indicated today. We simply do not have sufficient time in 20 minutes to deal with it adequately. Hopefully, when the Minister is before the committee, the Hon. Member would put forward the list and ask for the Minister's response in detail. I can tell the Member right now it will not be wholly adequate because there is only so much a parliament can do in a brief period of time. However, if he looks at the last 10 years, I think he would agree that we have gone a tremendous way from the 1960s with respect to the conditions existing at that time.
Before I get into some of the detail, I want to point out that it is difficult when Members quote selectively. I know I can be guilty of that as well. However, I am concerned about quoting from the so-called leaked documents. When they are leaked, we all tend to have copies of them. The quote that was used by the Hon. Member was only part of a paragraph. Even though it is only a discussion paper from meetings held by public servants constantly in the Department, from time to time these discussion papers are marked secret, but I see a lot of documents on my desk marked confidential and I am surprised that so many people have them. I will not repeat what the Member quoted, but if one reads the whole paragraph, one will find it is not as ominous as the Hon. Member would like us to think. It goes on to say:
In fact, however, I would argue that the majority of any incremental funding of this type should go into meeting preventive child welfare costs for bands which have little or no access to such services, rather than into day care when unemployment is so high on most reserves. Or the choice could be left to individual bands and tribal councils.
We all know that the Indian people have made child welfare their priority. They are coming to the Government with this priority and asking that we put in place policies to allow them to take over child welfare. They have made it their priority
Supply
over day care. They have come and asked for it. In fact, we have concluded six such child welfare documents in Canada in recent months and are working on further cases which have been put before us. I am familiar with Alberta where they are beginning to get started, with some success. As we become more comfortable with the documents that have been signed, that success will be excellent, and they will accommodate the faith that has been put in them by the Government and their people to take over the responsibilities of self-government.
The other important point over which it is easy to become emotional, that is stating that 1,000 people cannot be educated because the Government has capped a fund, leaves the impression that they will never be allowed to go to university. That is not the case. I question the number of 1,000, but I am certainly open to the research. The number that was denied last time was more in the range of under 500. The policy is such that next year those people will be given priority to receive funding. The reason it is difficult to attach a definite number, and this applies across society, is that as people drop out of university or technical school, those funds become available for others to register. Therefore, the numbers are constantly going up and down. It is not only aboriginal people who sometimes have to put off post-secondary education for a year or two, there are many young people in Canada who first have to go out and find the funds before they can go to college, and they are usually successful in doing so. In this case, everyone will be funded. In some cases it will mean that they will have to wait for one year.
The other point made that requires an answer is with regard to the budget. The budget of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has risen by some 40 per cent over the last four years. The Member stated that there were no increases. We know that the population of the aboriginal people is increasing, and that has a draw on the budget of the Department. It is also a fact that the increase in the budget has gone from $2 billion in 1984-85 to $3 billion in 1988-89. Those figures apply to the Department of Indian Affairs.
Budgets of other Departments that are used by aboriginal people in Canada have also increased. The total increase has been some $900 million in those four years. Approximately $70 million of that is for Bill C-31. That may well be inadequate, and I know the committee is sitting on that very subject. It may bring to Parliament recommendations regarding the adequacy of that budget. To say that that is the entirety of the increase is not properly putting forward the debate on whether the Department is actively seeking funds beyond any other Department in government to assist people who have needs. That increase is for services. There are no cut-backs. If there are any cut-backs, they are in the institution itself.
When the Government came into power the Department had some 6,000 person-years. In the upcoming fiscal year the figure will drop to 4,600 person-years. The projection is that the Department will decrease its numbers beyond that in 1990

May 11, 1988
Supply
to 1991 to some 3,900 person years. That means that the number of public servants is decreasing in the Department of Indian Affairs. Why is that? The reason is that more and more aboriginal people are taking over the responsibilities that the public servants once put forth. If one looks at the overhead as a percentage of the money expended, one finds that it has decreased substantially. I believe that the overhead as a percentage of the total budget has decreased to 4.8 per cent. The per capita expenditure for on-reserve Indians is now some $9,000 per person. When we rethink, as we have been asked to do, and that is a very important part of what a Government should do at any time, the question is, how can we use this money more effectively? I know that the complaint is that so little of this money is reaching the people who have the need. There is a constant desire and need to rethink the manner in which the budget of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is spent.
For example, if one looks at education and post-secondary education, there are now some 14,000 Indian people who are post-secondary students. That is a tremendous increase over some 10 years ago. The Government is now providing a budget of approximately $130 million to support those students. That averages approximately $8,000 per student. Under the present rules any student can receive funds, whether they are rich or poor, or whether or not they live with their parents. Perhaps because some students are presently not receiving the support that they desire, if we look at the budget perhaps there are better ways that it can be spent. Perhaps there are ways that we can cut back on some to provide more assistance to others. That is a reasoned approach and it should constantly be discussed how programs can be improved.
Very soon the national organization will present a report on education across Canada. I expect within that report there will be some excellent points as to how the money can be more prudently spent and that more Indian people will achieve graduation from high school or university. That is a very important part of fostering self-government and continuing advancement across the country.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the situation in Canada regarding aboriginal people. There was a similar motion a month ago when we had the opportunity to discuss Indian conditions in Canada. We have been given the opportunity again today, and that is important because we seldom have the opportunity in the House of Commons to bring forward this type of debate.
Yesterday we had released the report of the Hall inquiry on the Westbank Indian band. That inquiry illustrated that, more and more, Indian leaders in this country are taking hold of the advantages, the opportunities afforded them. In the case of the Hall inquiry, we had an Indian chief who was eager to accomplish something. Perhaps, in his eagerness, he made a few mistakes; and perhaps the Department made a few
mistakes. But, things did go forward. It is an example of people taking charge of their own affairs.
It is important that we put this into perspective. Notwithstanding this list of concerns, there has been progress. We all know that there is an inability to have a quick fix-and that is probably not the way to go, in any event. There are no magic solutions. But, with determination, with openness, with good faith and through consultation, the solutions are within our grasp.
Looking at the trends, one can see improvement, and that improvement is coming about because of a combination of native initiative and determination, together with increased federal funding and support. It is encouraging to see some of the advances that have taken place.
By way of example, we can look at the statistics on housing. While band membership has been increasing dramatically, so, too, has the number of houses. Twenty years ago, fewer than half of on-reserve houses had electricity; only one in six had a safe water supply. Sewage systems were virtually non-existent. Today, two-thirds of the on-reserve homes have running water and piped sewage, and electricity is available in every community.
While there is still a long way to go, the situation has certainly changed over the past 20 years. This year, with the help of federal direct subsidies totalling $94 million and $66 million in loan guarantees, Indian bands will build some 3,000 new homes, and renovate an additional 3,000. Approximately 30 per cent of the current housing stock on reserves today has been built in the last five years.
Certainly progress is being made in the area of housing. The same is true of education. Today, there are some 243 band managed schools, serving 28 per cent of the on-reserve population. Only 20 years ago, most of the native people attended off reserve schools, most of which were church-run. There are now some 82,000 students of Indian descent enrolled in elementary and secondary schools, and 14,000 attending post-secondary institutions. I was recently in Alberta and had occasion to attend a function at which the Alberta Indian Investment Corporation was allotted some $8.3 million by the NEDP and the Department, which was expected to create 500 new jobs and 250 new businesses. A few months prior to that, we were working on the oil and gas regulations and the establishment of Indian companies that could take over control of that area. I have witnessed on the reserve in my constituency advances made in the taking over of the oil and gas regulations and the receipt for the Indian band of some of the benefits of the oil and gas resources.
I had occasion to participate in an Indian art expedition held in Los Angeles, California, and witnessed the great demand for Canadian Indian art. Unfortunately, there is not sufficient time to deal with all of the advances that have been made. I can only say, in conclusion, that the commitment to sustain these positive trends on the part of the Minister and this Government is clear. I believe this Government can be judged
May 11, 1988

by its actions. We are increasing the Indian Affairs budget steadily; we are acting to promote Indian self-government. I am pleased to be able to confirm to the House today that we will see that policy continue, with hopefully even greater successes in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), on questions and comments.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, of great concern to various bands in Saskatchewan has been the decision, or the apparent decision, by this Government to bypass an agreement that had been worked out in 1976 between the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada, known as the Saskatchewan '76 Agreement, whereby the 1976 population figures would be used as the basis to negotiate land entitlement rights.
The bands have been attempting to get a definitive word from the Government as to whether it will honour that agreement, or whether it will insist that the population figures that existed at the time of the signing of the treaties will be the figures used in determining land entitlement rights.
I would ask the Hon. Member, who is the spokesperson for the Government today, to rise in his place and make clear the intention of this Government in this regard. Will it honour the 1976 Saskatchewan Agreement, or is it looking at another basis for determining land entitlement?
The native people of Saskatchewan are deeply concerned with this matter. They are concerned that the Government might renege on the agreement that had been entered into between the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada, thus leading to yet another broken promise. The Indian people in Saskatchewan, and Indian people across this country, have seen too many broken promises. They are asking themselves today whether this is to be yet another broken promise.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, the 1976 "Saskatchewan Formula" is under discussion by the federal Government. The federal approach is to achieve the treaty land entitlement settlements, to the extent possible, under the established authorities, and to make headway wherever it can. That formula sets out some high goals, with some 300 per cent more land transfers than was actually the case under the treaty, and the authorities are attempting to meet that goal wherever it was established.
I know that the bands are considering court action in order to advance this matter, and I would hope that they would see that this may be premature at this time. The Cabinet is reviewing the issues on implementation, and is holding discussions with the provinces and the bands, and hopefully progress will be made on this very important issue.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Unfortunately, that answer is not good enough. It leaves the Indian people in exactly the same position as they are now, that being the position of not
Supply
knowing what the true intention of the Government is. The Indian people have been waiting for a long time for land entitlement settlements, and this Government is now saying that the data of first survey is the data that should be used, wiping out the agreement that had been reached in 1976 between the Government of Saskatchewan and the federal Government of the day.
With that agreement and that understanding, the Indian people had achieved some victory. To have that all wiped out again will set them back another 50 years. Surely the Hon. Member will agree that it would be grievous to do that to the Indian population of Saskatchewan. They are suspicious that the Government will not give them a straight answer until some time after the election. They feel that another agreement is being broken and they do not have the resources to go to the courts. What funding existed for land entitlement studies has been reduced by the Government, so the Indian people are caught in a catch-22 situation. In essence the Government is forcing the Indian people to go to court. Responses by the Minister in the House to questions by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), seemed to suggest that if the Indian people want the Saskatchewan agreement to remain in effect, they will have to get the courts to force the Government to do so. If the Government forces the Indian people to go to court to keep the 1976 agreement in place while cutting the funds enabling them to make a court challenge, then the Government is dealing very unfairly with the native people of Saskatchewan.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is trying to put the worst case scenario on his question. I do not think I indicated that that was the case. If I did, I apologize. The Minister is approaching Cabinet on the 1976 Saskatchewan formula. Authority to implement the formula was never established. That is what is under discussion. Existing authorities enable reserve additions and creations under certain circumstances. I am sure the Minister will be happy to share these circumstances with the Hon. Member. He is in active discussion with the provincial government and the bands regarding the very important question of entitlement. If we proceed case by case, that entitlement is under treaty, without prejudice to a band's position for more. Discussions are proceeding very well in this area. We hope it does not proceed so slowly that bands in Saskatchewan may feel they have to move to the courts for a solution because a negotiated settlement is far preferable.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that yesterday in the House the Minister and myself had a vigorous exchange relating to departmental strategy. In the course of the Minister's response I thought he threw in rather inexplicably and irrelevantly to the question the matter relating to Bill C-31, now an Act of Parliament, a particular section known as the death rule. It sounds ghoulish to speak about the death rule. The Parliamentary Secretary will know,

May 11. 1988
Supply
because we served together on the committee, it was never intended that Indian persons seeking reinstatement whose parents died prior to 1985 would be ineligible.
Apparently idle hands in Justice must have got tired of working on crossword puzzles or playing cribbage, picked up Bill C-31 and decided to cause some problems. We now have this death rule and the Minister says we are stuck with it. We in the Opposition, the New Democratic Party critic and myself, have agreed to co-operate with the Minister in amending the statute.
The Minister left the impression yesterday that somehow there was a problem on this side of the House. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether there is a draft amendment prepared. Is the Government prepared to take the opposition critics into its confidence so that we can take a look at the amendment? If we find it is workable and that it will solve the problem, I can assure the Government that we are prepared to deal with the matter expeditiously. We think this is an impediment in the Bill that was never intended and it ought to be corrected with haste. If the Parliamentary Secretary can help us on that issue, it would be appreciated.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the question was asked. This matter is being given very careful consideration. I agree with the Hon. Member. When we were in committee, as he knows, we worked overtime with witnesses to attempt to make sure that we did not miss anything. For some unknown reason, this slipped through our careful scrutiny. Because of that, careful consideration is now being given to the issue and the options that can be put in place. I take the Member's assurance that if we take the critics into our confidence, perhaps we can deal with this expeditiously in the House. With that, I will go to the Minister and see if we can do that quickly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin).


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this motion. I concur with the main intent of it, but we have to rethink what has been done. One can assume that the motion has at least in part been precipitated by the so-called leaked document which seems to indicate that we are not seeing a new vision and a change in the way things will be done. Despite the rather glowing report card which the Parliamentary Secretary gave, we have to consider why this matter generates so much discussion. If things have advanced as quickly as the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated to us they have, if things are as good as he has indicated to us they are, then why is it that none of us really has the time to explore the issues in the depth that we know need to be explored? There are so many problems and so many complications.
One thing about the document as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), said, there does not seem to be a thrust for substantive change in policy
but rather a sort of cosmetic better communications policy. In one section it says that the old ways have not worked. We know that. In another section it says that we are not seeking dramatic change. Why not, Mr. Speaker? The time is now for dramatic change if we have the political will to change the way we have treated aboriginal people in this country. I do not think we have yet seen a government that has the political will.
With all due respect to my colleague from Cochrane, whom I respect very much for the work he has done on aboriginal issues, his Liberal Government created much of this legacy. The 1969 White Paper of Jean Chretien proposed that the vision would be for assimilation. These are not new problems. I suppose in that sense I can be somewhat sympathetic to the current Government that it is having to deal with a situation which has gone on for a very long time and which neither the previous Government nor this one have taken in hand to address appropriately. It is sort of like the acid rain question. Lots of consultation. Let us consult some more. At the same time the problem keeps eroding our country. It keeps eating away at the respect that we have for one another, for the honour we have for all of our citizens.
I notice that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) today spoke about nuclear submarines and why we need submarines for our sovereignty. I beg to differ. Our sovereignty will not be defined by hardware in such things as nuclear submarines. It will be defined by our strength as a people. Nowhere in Canada does the way that we have dealt with aboriginal issues and rights exemplify our weakness as a people. If we look at other examples of sovereignty, we see in Vietnam that there was a lot of hardware and many troops but it was the will of the people who established sovereignty and won the war.
I want to give an example which I think exemplifies what we are really talking about. There are a lot of statistics, and they have been talked about today, but we are really talking about fairness and justice and correcting historical wrongs. One of my constituents is a man named Elijah Smith, a respected elder in the Yukon. He fought in World War II for his country, Canada. He returned home to the Yukon to establish the first native organization there because he realized that only by working together would any advancement be made. The native people could not wait for the rest of Canada to give it to them.
Fortunately, Mr. Smith did not have to give up his life for his country, but he did have to give up his Indian status, his definition as a person, in order to fight for this country. When the war was over he did not receive the same benefits, such as land, as many non-native members of the Armed Forces. When he returned from the battles he still did not have the right to vote in the country for which he had just fought. That is really what this is all about.
Today Elijah Smith and many like him still fight for their children and grandchildren, the Indian people. He is in the
May 11, 1988

forefront of such issues as land claims. Having fought in World War II for Canada, we really have to ask why Elijah Smith has to fight today for the rights of his people.
I suggest that if previous Governments and the current Government had the political will, we would not be seeing yet another document that talks about consultation. We would be seeing a document that talks about implementation, about what we are really going to do. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the question of land claims and the issue of aboriginal title.
As most people will know, the aboriginal people were not conquered. There were a number of treaties signed, but there were a number of areas where they were not signed, and that is the basis of the land claims negotiations. They were not a conquered people and therefore some compensation for lands assumed must be made. However, land claims is not just about land, it is also about how Canada's first people can regain the culture they have had taken away and destroyed. Let me give an example of that.
If you are a parent and your child is six years old and you are told it must go away, sometimes many miles away, to a strange place where they do not speak your language, where brothers and sisters will be separated and not allowed to talk to each other, you would be quite surprised. When you expressed some objection you would be told that you are doing something good for your child, something that will ensure your child's future, and that you have no choice. If you are the child and you are put on a bus and you said goodbye to your parents and went to a strange place where you are not allowed to speak your language and are told that two months of the year you will be allowed to go home, then you would see what we are dealing with today. We are dealing first with an attempt to destroy a culture. That did not work so then came an attempt to assimilate. That has not worked so now we are trying to find ways to settle it just a little bit better, but we are still not very serious about it.
This did not happen hundreds of years ago, as most people will know, but 20 years ago. If you wished to fight for your children, or study for a profession, or married a non-native person, you had to give up your Indian status, your definition as a person. Today of course that is quite inconceivable, but I want to mention some areas where this kind of philosophy continues in many of the policies we see today.
While there are other areas of the country where the same issues exist, I want to speak about my own area where I can do so most authoritatively concerning land claims. In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories the majority of the land, some 96 per cent in the Yukon, is controlled by the federal Government. Until land claims are settled no economic development can take place for native people or non-native people in a comprehensive way. It follows that no constitutional development can take place. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) has said until the
Supply
Territories can become economically self-sufficient, province-hood will not be a possibility. We are in a catch-22 situation. I believe very strongly that if there is a will to settle the land claims issue in a fair and just way, it will be done. I will give an example.
There is an excellent process taking place in the Yukon now where the three parties, the Indians, the Yukon Government and the federal Government, are negotiating. They travel from community to community so that people will understand what is taking place. After a lot of difficulty because the process is tough, they will come to a point where all three parties can agree. That agreement is then sent back to Ottawa to the bureaucrats, as my friend from Cochrane-Superior defined them, who know nothing about the experience or the history of this part of the country. They then start to assess and analyse the agreement and very often they assess it and analyse it right out of existence.
We have seen many examples of the negotiating process where there is certainly a non-political role. There is another role that very clearly is political. Clearly in this instance the Minister, in all of the land claims settlements, must say directly to his officials that he wants these land claims to be settled, that he wants the negotiation process to conclude in a fair and just way for everyone concerned. Yet we have this situation of agreements being made and then coming back to Ottawa where they are torn apart. This is not a helpful process. In fact, it is a very destructive process for aboriginal people as well as others.
The Lubicon land claim hardly needs to be repeated in the House. It is a legacy of 50 years where the claim still has not been settled, and there has been a refusal to appoint a mediator requested by the people. Why is there this kind of resistance? This is exactly the basis for the motion we are debating. It is the philosophy and the will to make a dramatic change and yet we have this leaked document which says no, we are not going to make a dramatic change. Dramatic changes are certainly needed. I would like to say a few words about the idea of self-government. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary stated that talks are going on right now about the issue of self-government and further constitutional talks.
Yet the document which the Hon. Member referred to today talks about how the Department has received some 60 proposals representing 228 bands to initiate negotiations on self-government. The response in that document is to talk about the lack of resources to handle the growing number of community requests posing a serious threat to a strategy of demonstrating that practical arrangements can be worked out at the local level without constitutional changes. This is not the first time where the consultation process has been undertaken and the outcome defined in another forum. Therefore, I think we can quite readily understand the concern, indeed the suspicion, of many aboriginal groups and those of us who are not aboriginal people that if these matters are not settled we will all suffer, not just the aboriginal people. The United Nations has already found that we have not honoured some of

May 11, 1988
Supply
our treaties and have shown discrimination. This is a shame to all of us.
I would like to touch on a few topics about which the Minister spoke as showing great improvement. Housing is one area in which he said some interesting improvements had been made. Figures in a report by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation of May, 1987, differ from those presented by the Minister who said that 20 years ago less than half of native housing had electricity. He said that two-thirds of the homes now have electricity available and that one-sixth did not have water supply.
However, according to this report, 36 per cent of on-reserve units are crowded as opposed to 2.3 per cent in the general population. We see that 43 per cent of the housing units are in need of major repairs as opposed to 13 per cent throughout Canada. Forty per cent do not have access to running water, indoor toilets, or bathing facilities, as opposed to 1 per cent across Canada.
Therefore, if we are to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's contention that housing has improved, it has certainly improved darn little. I am not sure that many aboriginal people would be able to accept that glowing report.
There are some rather ill-planned programs which exemplify the lack of a new political will and dramatic action. There has been an attempt, for a number of years now, to have joint funding for housing between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Canada Mortgage and Housing. In my area people have received notices in the mail recently that their rents will go up by some 30 per cent to 100 per cent. If this happened in Toronto there would be riots. The people of one community have decided that, with summer coming, they will live in their tents because they cannot afford this housing, this great program which was to solve this problem for Indian people.
In another community three people have had to move out of the housing. The band has to keep up payments for the housing and is trying to rent the housing to a non-member of the band in order that they will not lose it. This is an absolutely ludicrous situation.
With Bill C-31 and the reinstatement of people who lost their status-another bureaucratic decision taken without any reference to the culture or the way in which the community operated-we see an increased need for housing and an increased problem without a direct focus on an answer to this problem.
The whole question of who is an Indian and who is not an Indian relates very much to this motion. The Government, which is willing to spend $7 billion, $8 billion, or $16 billion on nuclear submarines, is not willing to spend the money to address this problem. We therefore try to redefine who is an Indian. Aboriginal people know who the aboriginal people are,
but the bureaucracy and Government decide to fool around with that and decide who is and who is not.
I referred to the loss of status for a variety of reasons. However, even when bands are attempting to constitute their membership, there are so many rules and hurdles about who is an Indian and who is not that it is ridiculous. It is the stuff of a good satire, but it is a tragedy for the bands which are attempting to build their communities and address the kinds of problems outlined in this motion. For example, band members are not allowed to transfer to another band. As the motion indicates, no new band can be created.
In my own constituency a band was amalgamated with another band in the 1950s by an Indian agent who thought that since they were all Indian people he could put them all together and it would not matter. Of course, that was totally ignorant of the culture and the way in which the band functioned. It has not worked, and the Government is not now prepared to separate those bands and redress that wrong.
Language defines a culture. The Tungavik of Nunavut, for example, want very much to have language included as part of their land claim. That may be a strange concept to some people. However, if one understands the culture one will understand the way in which we have attempted to destroy the language of a people that is absolutely key to their development. On that particular issue the Government has said no. However, the Inuit are very clear about the importance of their language, not just because it is all very interesting to have Inuktitut spoken, but because it is an essential part of their life.
As another example, the Secretary of State has said that we will have a national aboriginal language centre. Languages are regional, and it is very difficult for various areas to get funding for language development. The Six Nations Reserve, for example, which has one of the largest language programs in Canada, has been seeking five-year funding to get a really serious language program going. They cannot wait for 5 or 10 years. These languages are disappearing. Surely Canada must preserve the sacred trust of language.
There are many other issues including the need for band administration funding. Cut-backs, rumoured and real, continue and make it very difficult for the self-government and sound administration which we expect of the bands.
I am happy to support this motion on behalf of my Party. Tinkering with a few programs and making changes here and there is not the solution. The solution is a new vision and a political will to make sure, once and for all, that we institute the fairness and justice which aboriginal people deserve.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, would my colleague from the Yukon give us a sense of the major priorities which she feels a New Democratic Party Government would wish to put into place with respect to Indian communities after an election?
May 11, 1988


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, certainly the most crucial aspect is to have control over one's life. We see many instances in which people make decisions for other people and decide how they should live by them. Whoever defines the problem defines the solution. For many years non-aboriginal people have talked about "the Indian problem". Aboriginal people, on the other hand, have talked about "the white problem". There is something to be said in the definition of the problem.
The only answer for all people is to have a degree and element of control over their own life and their own decision making, whatever form that should take. That form should be decided jointly by the aboriginal communities, the territorial and provincial Governments, and the federal Government.
The very fact that, as this document says, the Department has received 60 proposals representing 228 bands asking to initiate negotiations on self-government indicates the priority for people, which is just plain common sense. Imagine that, as I said in my speech, people who fought for their country and wanted to become a doctor or marry a non-native had to become enfranchised or say "I am not a native person". That is ludicrous.
The priority for a New Democratic Government or any Government must be to facilitate the self-determination of aboriginal people on appropriate cultural terms, in band administration and development, in economic development, and in constitutional development.
If one does not have some control over one's life, one is left with what this document defines as the old ways. The old ways are our defining for others what they should do to make their life better, generally in a culture that we do not even understand.
A New Democratic Government will change that. Indeed, any Government must change that in order for there to be any justice at all.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her support for the motion, and I commend her for an excellent speech. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) will be familiar with the very important claim that is being negotiated in the North, in her constituency. It is the claim being negotiated between the Government of Canada and the Council for Yukon Indians.
The motion makes reference to aboriginal claims. We all know that the much heralded new claims policy fell well short of the recommendations contained in the Coolican report. Nevertheless, it is a new claims policy.
Does she believe this has facilitated to any degree at all the settlement of that claim? Can she tell the House, from her own knowledge, what exactly are the obstacles at the moment? So far only one claim has been settled in the North, with the Inuvialuit who occupy the delta of the Mackenzie River. It is the so-called Committee for Peoples' Entitlement Claim.
Supply
We have long expected a settlement in the Yukon but there seems to be delay upon delay. What are the obstacles that she has been able to detect?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the claims policy to which the Hon. Member refers certainly ran into a lot of deep water. It took two years to develop, which I find incomprehensible, given that the Yukon land claim has gone on for over 15 years. I think the issues were fairly clear.
My colleague referred to the impediment to the land claims settlement. I must reiterate what I said in my speech. There is a fairly open process now, with a lot of consultation with the communities. There is agreement on some major issues and there is still some outstanding disagreement, but of course I am not party to the ongoing negotiations.
The point I want to stress is that the Minister must convey to his Department the message that this land claim must be settled. There is the political will at the local level and there has been agreement on substantive issues. The problem arises when the strings are pulled from Ottawa, where there is no experience with what will work in the Yukon.
It is time we stopped working from the book and began thinking about what is practical, reasonable, and culturally appropriate for native people and non-native people in these land claims. Rather than formulate a bureaucratic, technically perfect document, let us look at what will work. We know well what has not worked, so there is a good basis upon which to settle the claims, if the Minister will make a strong statement to his Department that this must be settled now.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member on her speech. What are her views on the whole question of native child welfare? I believe I heard the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that native people are not interested in day care but want to give native child welfare a higher priority.
I believe I heard the Minister's representative suggest that money was going into this function. On the other hand, we have had complaints from aboriginal groups in Alberta and Manitoba that there is no funding going toward support services for families to help them strengthen families, provide their own foster homes, and care for their own children.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of child welfare, like the cultural and language issues, is very important. One way to destroy a culture is to make sure the children are estranged from it, so that they lose the language and are detached from the family unit.
Child welfare involves the same issue of control over one's life and destiny.
During my speech I referred to the leaked document and some of its aspects which are rather cosmetic and do not address basic issues. The Parliamentary Secretary will be glad to hear me refer to something that is positive and for which I will hold the Government accountable. It states that child

May 11, 1988
Supply
welfare is already identified as a first priority, and that the Government will be prepared to seek authority to lift the moratorium on new agreements and begin consultations in 1988. I hope that is true because the issue of child welfare is extremely important in aboriginal communities, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is very well aware.
The sad fact is that generations of children were separated from their families and did not grow up in a family unit where they had role models. It has been a tragic legacy for aboriginal people and a shame for this country.
After quoting some aspects of this document which are less hopeful, I believe this is a positive one that I look forward to seeing implemented.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, due to a meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I regret that I have not been here to listen to all the debate. I would like to have heard the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) who moved the motion, because as a member of the same committee I certainly know that he has dedicated much of his interest and concern to this subject.
I* heard the beginning of his remarks, which he began appropriately by talking in terms of justice and injustice. Certainly this Parliament must address injustice toward native people generally, not only in this debate but in a constant attempt to find equal opportunity to build upon the full potential of the native people of Canada. When speaking of justice or injustice in terms of dollars, no matter how we argue the percentages we see that this Government has made a particularly important financial contribution.
In fact it is a substantial greater contribution than was made by the previous Government in the four years from 1980 to 1984. I suppose there is a bit of irony that the Member who proposed the motion was part of the Government which did not see justice in terms of dollars because its commitment was a lesser commitment than that of the current Government. Justice, of course, is not found in terms of dollars. If in fact one is a victim of injustice, as so many native people seem to be, any form of natural justice seems painfully slow as native people find their potential in Canada.
If one is part of that 30 per cent of the native population which can be found in the Canadian penitentiary system, if one is part of that penitentiary population, there in part because of cultural differences or because of lost or missed opportunity, one finds that justice is indeed slow. Those living on the streets of Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal, broken down by drugs, alcohol or prostitution, cut off from their natural friends and relatives, are indeed victims of the system. We must address those very real, human concerns.
Those who are trying to find their way through the maze of Bill C-31 in order to find their status and dignity in that sense
indeed will find that to be a difficult procedure as well. Certainly we can look at it negatively, as the Opposition must, but we must also try to look at the record which shows that the Government has made an increasing commitment of funds and effort to try to bring about change.
It is very easy just to deal with the status quo. Any longterm bureaucracy, establishment, or business unit always resists change. The Government has tried to bring about change and correct injustice with Bill C-31. As a result, over 40,000 Canadians have found their status. Another 40,000 Canadians have gained medical, dental, and educational benefits as well. There is a very positive story with respect to Bill C-31 for those people who now have health benefits and improvements in educational opportunities.
I would like to put some of our programs on record so that we can see the positive side. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development deals with programs and services which cover the entire range of services any modern community has come to expect and demand. In the current year the budget for Indian services, capital, economic development, local government support, education, and welfare totals $2.1 billion. That is $2.1 billion of the funds of Canadian taxpayers. It is a 9.8 per cent increase over the previous year. I would have to say that it is a pretty good increase during a period of financial restraint and attempts to bring the deficit under control.
Those of us who serve on the Standing Committee of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and are particularly concerned about the Indian people would want to say that it is not enough. I am sure, when we come down to our report on Bill C-31, we will be advocating more to be done in many areas for the Indian people. I suppose when it does come down to the question of talking in terms of dollars-how much is enough-the answer is always "more".
Over the past 10 years there has been significant and continuing improvement in the ability of Indian Governments to provide the basic amenities and services to their people. I will give a bit of credit to the previous administration, because even it tried to improve the budget. In 1988-89 we are looking at a capital budget that totals $341 million. This is $341 million which will provide roads, sewers, water treatment plants, electrification, community buildings, and housing.
For example, one area about which I hear constant concern from native people is the area of housing. Sometimes one would think that nothing is ever done because we hear the complaints so often. However, in 1988-89, some $118 million will be used to assist Indian communities in meeting the household needs of their communities. It should be understood this is not an outright grant but a subsidy, the level of which depends upon the geographical location of the community. A contribution is made to an Indian band to assist in defraying the costs of construction of a house. Since 1979 there has been a requirement that these houses be built to the standards of the National Building Code. In addition, the band secures
May 11, 1988

additional financing above the subsidy level to complete the unit.
In the last five years, 14,000 new homes and over 17,000 renovations have been completed on Indian reserves. It is never enough, but that is 14,000 new families located in homes in which they can take a sense of pride and where their children can bring friends, homes where enduring family traditions can be built.
Let us look more closely at the situation of housing in Indian communities. The quality of Indian housing has improved and will continue to improve. The overcrowding problem has been reduced considerably. In 1977 there was an average of 5.9 inhabitants per reserve house. Today we are looking at a number below 5.0 inhabitants per house, in spite of an increase in the birth rate. Over the past 10 years there has also been a significant improvement in the number of Indian communities that have access to the normal electrical services most people take for granted. By 1986-87, 87 per cent of on-reserve houses had full electrical service. Today the majority of Indian communities are serviced by provincial electric grids rather than by diesel generated systems. That integration of systems has indeed helped.
However, one would still wonder what kind of a backward nation we are when 1 per cent, 2 per cent, 10 per cent, or 12 per cent of houses are not electrified in Canada today. I find it incredible when I travel internationally and see homes without electricity. Surely electricity is a basic requirement in the Canadian lifestyle.
There is also an important side benefit to the housing program in terms of its impact on the Indian community. Virtually 100 per cent of home construction and renovation is managed by Indian bands themselves using Indian labour and, where possible, Indian supplied materials. This provides needed jobs in the Indian community and helps to reduce dependence on welfare. It also provides an opportunity to develop skills such as those of electricians and carpenters, skills that are essential to the long-term health and vitality of the community.
During the 1980s there has also been a significant improvement in the number and quality of houses constructed on Indian reserves. Adherence to the National Building Code has meant that quality housing is being built that will last well beyond what was once considered the norm in Indian communities. In raw statistical terms, the current budget foresees in this year that some 2,700 houses will be built, and a further 2,300 units will be renovated. This is not every house and does not go anywhere near the demand, but it is not an insignificant contribution by the people of Canada to the native community of Canada to assist in approving the housing situation.
Whenever one visits an Indian community one is undoubtedly aware of how vital and important education is for the future. Healthy communities that are capable of directing their own
Supply
destinies require the skills and knowledge of modern education. This modern education system is evolving throughout Canada among native people. The Department currently supports more than 82,000 Indian students enrolled in elementary and secondary schools. Approximately 50 per cent of those students attend provincial schools, 28 per cent are in band operated schools, and the remainder are in federal schools.
Over 14 years ago the federal Government began transferring control of Indian education to bands. I noticed that even today when members of the Mohawk tribe appeared before the committee they stated that one of their major priorities was to gain full control of their own post-secondary and elementary education system. At the present time this process is being accelerated. In the past fiscal year a further 18 schools representing 2,300 students have been transferred. This year it is planned that a further 27 schools will be transferred. By 1991 it is anticipated that most Indian students will attend band or provincial schools. That is a pretty large sociological change over a brief period of time, and a tribute both to the previous Government and this Government that we should be accelerating that pace and measure of control.
The past decade has also seen an impressive school construction program. A significant portion of the capital budget has been allocated to this objective, resulting in a full 143 school facilities being built or renovated over the past 10 years. In 1986-87, there were 243 band operated schools compared with 135 in 1980-81. That is a 100 per cent improvement. The five-year, long-term capital plan foresees expenditures of approximately $290 million, comprising 1,800 school projects.
Perhaps the most dramatic evidence came last September in Manitoba. For years northern Manitoban Indian children have had to leave their communities and travel south, if they wished to carry on their education beyond grade school. It is often a traumatic experience, and we found that very few made it through to graduation. Last fall six new schools were opened in northern Manitoba. For example, the school at Cross Lake was a $16.7 million project, the largest capital project ever undertaken by a band and the Department in an Indian community.
New and modern educational facilities are a necessary part of any education system. However, quality represents a partnership between teachers, students, and the community. That is why the Government believes that local control and parental involvement are so important. Indeed, one can see the impact of those factors on the performance of Indian children in the schools today. More Indian children are staying in school longer, more children are graduating from high school, and more young adults are going on to post-secondary education.
In addition to those statistics, there are many other government programs such as the one 1 attended on Friday in my community. This was a manpower program that I assisted in starting, and here I found 12 native people aged from 19 or 20 to 40. The highest level that had been attained by those people

May 11, 1988
Supply
was grade 10, and anywhere from grade 6 to grade 10 they had dropped out of the system. They are now back, and in five months most of them will complete their post-secondary education qualification. They are now developing plans to move on to other post-secondary institutions.
There are many programs to talk about, Mr. Speaker. For example, the programs conducted in jails where 150 out of 18,000 people received their literacy this year. In one year we graduated 750 heading up to 1,800. There are also great opportunities in this area.
Clearly, there are many things that need to be done. I could go on listing the quality of the programs that we have established in education and those that are being developed. Suffice it to say, there are now more than 14,000 full and part-time Indian students benefiting from the education program. Currently more than 2,000 students are enrolled in special post-secondary programs including management studies, teaching, child care, health care, agriculture, and a whole range of studies that can be found at any university and in any school. We are very pleased about these accomplishments.
If time allowed, I could go on to talk about child welfare opportunities and the child care services that are being delivered. This is another new area being approached by the Government of Canada, and we will be focusing on those types of programs as we develop into the future.
In summary, it is clear that there is much to do in Indian and native affairs. It is clear that enough is always "more". Those of us who were on the committee will be pressing the House of Commons to identify not only the need of the native people of Canada but the potential of the native people of Canada and, as we identify that potential, to provide maximum opportunities in order that these people might find their rightful place in our society, as so many already have. Educated and confident native people appeared before the committee, and they gave great guidance to the committee. I look forward to working with the results of the final report. I thank the Hon. Member for bringing this issue to the House of Commons. It is important that it is debated, discussed, focused upon, and that the Government and the nation recognize the great potential of the native people of Canada.


B. Keith Penner: First, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) for participating in the debate today. We are colleagues working together in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I consider the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West to be the fourth ranking member from the government side on aboriginal affairs and northern development, following the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), the Minister of State, the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West who is the government spokesman on the committee.
Today the committee had a difficult time because this debate was being held in the House, and many Members who
ordinarily would have been active in that committee were engaged in this debate. However, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West was present, and I believe he listened to the testimony of the Blackfoot tribe of Treaty 7 in the southern part of the Province of Alberta.
He will therefore know that this tribe has a particular problem at the present time with the Government of Canada concerning a cattle claim settlement. A long time ago the treaty allowed for those people to receive a certain number of cattle. That obligation was never met. It is the history of Canada that, in the main, these treaties were ignored. But, in the life of the last administration, finally an agreement was reached. Instead of cattle there was to be a cash compensation. That money was delivered to the tribe and distributed among its members. To their utter amazement when they received their regular social assistance they discovered that the amount of money received by each individual was subtracted from the social assistance payment. This seemed to them to be a violation, and I share this feeling. It was a violation of a treaty obligation. It was taking from one pocket of government and putting it back into the other pocket. It is a Peter and Paul situation.
The Hon. Member heard the grievance expressed this afternoon. He probably is familiar with the problem. Therefore, I wish to ask him whether he proposes to take to the Government the request that this be dealt with in a just fashion. What exact steps does he intend to take or suggest that the committee take regarding the grievance of the Blackfoot tribe on its treaty rights?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, the committee is in fact studying Bill C-31 and its impact and effect. Like many pieces of information that come before the committee, this shows the scope of the problem with which we have to deal. While it does not deal directly with Bill C-31, it is indicative of an outstanding problem, and one that needs to be resolved.
I understand that meetings have been held with the Hon. Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Valcourt) and with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), and that a resolution is hoped to be found. Certainly any representation that is made to the committee will be acted upon.
The Indian people have been waiting for 107 years to have these matters resolved, and they should be resolved as quickly as possible. If the negotiation route fails to come up with a resolution, resort may have to be had to the courts. At any rate, the committee has been made aware of this problem, and it is something that was done in a positive manner. People come before the committee, not with aggressive demands, but with statements of fact. I will be taking those statements of fact up with the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, in an effort to bring about an early resolution.
May 11, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) on questions and comments.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has said that our responsibility is to define the potential of the aboriginal people. I should like to suggest that our task is to ensure that the Indian people have the resources to utilize their demonstrated skills, and not some vague "potential" that we are going to define. The Indian people should have control over the establishment of their own needs.
While there are many issues that have been discussed today, I should like to focus on two which relate to the manner of funding Indian bands and the extent of such funding.
The late receipt of funds by Indian bands leads to tremendous administrative problems. Payments are inevitably late, with the result that band staff cannot be paid. Often, the band has to draw upon a bank overdraft, or borrow funds in some other manner in order to discharge its obligations. Because bank charges cannot be included in band budgets, funds for such charges have to come out of yet another budget, thus putting tremendous administrative stresses on the bands.
In addition to addressing the matter of late payments, I would ask the Hon. Member to address the level of band funding in respect of administrative functions. In terms of the programs that have been discussed during the course of this debate, and the implementation thereof, Indian bands are carrying a tremendous load. They cannot afford to pay band staff salaries that are comparable to those available on the open market, with the result that staff is lost to employment that offers higher salaries and greater security.
Band administration is something that is very difficult, and I would be interested in having the Hon. Member's views on that.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The Government has embarked upon a program of education for band administrators. This is something that is done through native education centres and our universities.
In order to bring about greater efficiency, those handling the business transactions of the native communities need to be better educated. Toward that end, new educational programs are being developed, and existing ones expanded. That is something that is happening on a daily basis.
On the matter of the transfer of funds, hopefully that will improve as we move to more self-government, self-administration. The policy of this Government is to move toward selfgovernment, and self-government will mean an ever increasing portion of a band's budget being controlled and administered by the band itself.
As we proceed with the devolution of authority and power from the Department to the bands, moving more and more to self-government, the transferring of the dollars from the Department to the band will become a smoother process.
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton- Wentworth (Mr. Scott) on questions and comments.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, while in the vicinity of my riding there is the Six Nations reserve, I am unaware of having any Indian band member being resident in my riding. That notwithstanding, I was fascinated by the remarks of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), as well as those of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) and those of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman).
Canadians have always wondered about the legal and historical bases in respect of Indian land claims. They have also become very sympathetic in respect of such claims.
The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West has demonstrated in the past his sensitivity to those claims, and with that in mind I would ask him what advice he would personally give to the House-and through the House, to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight)-on the question of settling aboriginal land claims, on the question of the right of the native peoples of this country to land entitlement.
How soon does he think self-government will come about? That is something that is a matter of importance for all Canadians.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, self-government is moving forward at an accelerated pace, with the Indian bands gaining more and more control over their affairs with each passing day, and the policy of this Government is to continue that accelerated pace toward Indian self-government.
The Hon. Member made the point that there is no Indian reserve within his riding. That would be true for most Members of the House, and particularly those representing urban ridings. However, there are many individual Indians living in the core areas of our cities.
If I were to give the Minister any advice at all, it would be in respect of status Indians who, for one reason or another, choose to live off the reserve. There can be any number of reasons for their choosing to live off the reserve, including a lack of land, an inability to meet the band code, or perhaps simply a lack of employment on the reserve. Because these Indians are living in the cores of our cities, there is no means by which to deliver services to them.
As the functions and powers of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are decreased, with more and more power being transferred to the bands themselves, these people get caught in the middle.
We need to provide, for such individuals, programs on drug abuse, as well as educational programs of one kind or another. We need these in the downtown Vancouver core.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You are cutting funds.

May 11, 1988
Supply


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I hope the Elon. Member will ask a question. I would like to comment on the fact that these people really have no one to represent them. The bands are on the reserves. They keep contact as best they can. We have the EJnited Native Nations and others trying to build access. Access comes through the Department, but the urban status Indian is a very particular problem. Let me give Hon. Members an example.
I have nine young people enrolled in a native education program. Of the nine paid people, eight were recommended for funding by the bands. The ninth person, a status Indian but not registered with his band, had to work to raise his own money. He ran out of funds at Christmastime and had to drop out. He had a limited route to gain his right to education support which the others had gained through their band.
Who will look after that urban status Indian? Who will reach those who are on the streets and need to be helped off the streets and into treatment programs, not the traditional treatment programs but treatment programs that are devised by the native people themselves? We found the success rate of natives working with natives is so much higher than the success rate of natives being pushed into the mould of contemporary systems. Certainly, if I had some concern to direct, it would be to the urban status native most of us do not recognize in our own ridings throughout Canada who is not on a reserve but struggling to find a place in our communities. Members could help by getting to know the people, providing access for them, and helping them find their status. It certainly would be something that every Member could do to assist.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the House give unanimous consent to allow for two short questions from the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) and the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am told by the native people that I have the largest reserve in British Columbia in Vancouver East. I agree completely with the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). There are many, many people on the streets and off the streets in Vancouver. There are excellent Outreach programs. The native education centre in my riding has a wonderful reputation with about 25 or 30 years of experience. It is doing terrific training in administration, modern skills, and child care for people who come off the streets.
Would the Hon. Member visit that centre, if he has not already done so, because it is an inspiration to anyone? Would the Member personally intervene with the Minister because the federal Department is cutting funding completely from that centre?
The very programs the Hon. Member has mentioned which are so important in achieving self-government, as well as in achieving more education and development for urban native people, are being destroyed by cuts in funding. It seems very
sad that devolution means taking from programs like that. It is quite unrealistic to expect that bands will pay for the full cost of operating that program.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I have been to the native education centre in the Hon. Member's riding. It is an excellent institution, and it is oriented toward programs that native people themselves want to develop. The institution is teaching the kinds of programs which it thinks are important. Certainly I approve of that kind of facility very highly.
As we decentralize there are some basic questions to be answered. Can we turn control totally back to bands? Could we reach the absolute situation? No, we cannot. That is why there will always have to be a Department of Indian Affairs to find the balance and protection required for those who need it in settings like this. There will have to be concerted efforts by bands, as well, to find and identify their members and recognize that there will have to be services provided on and off reserves. As money is provided by the taxpayers of Canada to the bands, the bands, in turn, will have to recognize that there are people, to some degree, living off reserves as well. It is not an option.
The Mohawk Indians were before us in committee this afternoon. They told us they had 167 new people registered to their tribe as a result of Bill C-31. I asked them how many of the 167 had applied to register to come back to the reserve. They told us about six. The rest are living in off-reserve settings yet they have a right, a desire, and a need for basic services. They indicated that the new 167 members had probably received their medical benefits, their dental plan, and their educational opportunities, but that their contact was limited. They did not know how many would come back or would want to come back. We identify in the process of devolution a very important problem, namely, the urban status native whom I covered in my earlier response.


Mr. Gormley:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to touch briefly on the whole subject of constitutional reform and self-government. As one who represents a constituency with 19 Indian reserves, and after the next election 24 Indian reserves, clearly the issue arises on a regular basis about what has happened to the constitutional reform process with respect to self-government.
I think it has been suggested by certain native leaders-I do not think it is helpful to name them-that there is an opportunity in the Meech Lake constitutional process to start the movement to negotiate a constitutional self-government right for Indian people. I am not sure that that is entirely fair to the process.
Four First Ministers' Conferences have been held between 1983 and 1987. In 1985 we were within a whisker of reaching an agreement through the personal intervention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). There has been a series of ongoing discussions. I noticed just this week a group of native leaders has been meeting with the Ministers of Justice, Indian Affairs,
May 11, 1988

and Federal-Provincial Relations to forward a joint proposal for work on a constitutional amendment.
While this is all rather preliminary, I want to make both a statement and pose a question to my colleague about where he sees the constitutional reform process presently moving toward. I think it is important that the Member reinforce, on behalf of the Government, that the door has not swung closed on constitutional amendment, that it has not closed forever. I wanted to sound the Hon. Member out on that particular point.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, one of the great things about the Minister we now have is his unending patience and his willingness to try again. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) set up a complicated system of dialogue, discussion and reform which seems to have broken down. I know that right now, in fact, the Minister is very concerned and says that the door is not closed. He is working very hard with the Prime Minister and others to try to find ways to open the doors again to that negotiation and dialogue.
I thank the Hon. Member for the question. The door is certainly open, and a new process must be found and initiated as soon as all Parties can find agreement on that process.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, constitutional reform would be a good place to start, but first let me thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) for bringing forward this motion today. I think it is a very timely and important motion. Let me thank him also for the work that he has done for native people over the years, particularly in this Parliament, and for the work that he has done for our Party.
Recently he was instrumental in organizing a forum on aboriginal and First Nations issues which brought together native people from all across the country to focus for several days on important policy issues. For us as a Party it is important to revisit the fundamental problems that native people face, and the Member is also to be congratulated for that.
This motion today covers a number of important issues with regard to the native community in Canada. As I said, let me start with constitutional reform. We have just heard the suggestion that the door has not swung completely shut and that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is trying to open it again. However, I think we have to admit as politicians on both sides of the House that we have not been very effective in advancing the cause of constitutional reform on behalf of native people.
It seems to me that if Meech Lake is approved as is, with no change at all, then it will be more difficult in future for native people to obtain constitutional change. Surely that is where power rests in the country. Where do native people get power?
Supply
They get it from having enough money, from having enough local control over their own lives. They get it out of the Constitution of Canada and from political will. Yet if Meech Lake goes through unamended it will be more difficult, rather than less, for native people to bring about change in the future.
Reference was just made to a conference that came within "a hair's breadth". We all know what the "hair's breadth" was. We know there were certain parts of the country, certain people, certain politicians, who refused consent to a resolution which had widespread support. Yet those same people and politicians and areas are going to have more power in future, not less, to stop any kind of constitutional change like that.
It is not enough to say we are trying to get the door open again and get the consultation process going specifically if Meech Lake goes ahead with no change, because I do not see and native people do not see where there will be an effective constitutional opportunity for them to advance their cause in future. We have to recognize that and recognize it now because Meech Lake is coming up again and we will focus on that. That is one of the serious issues we have to deal with, and we have to demand some changes in order that that might come about because those changes are very important.
Where do many native people live? They live in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Some of them live in my riding. I have two Indian bands there. The Labrador Inuit Association has several thousand members and the Labrador Metis Association has about six to eight hundred members. I think I understand what they want. However, the great majority of native people live in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. Apart from the effect on native people living there, those areas will themselves find it more difficult in future to achieve self-government. That is where they are going to get political power. That is an advancement of political power. Therefore, these issues are important to us when we come to discuss Meech Lake.
The other items listed in the motion are important. First, quality education and facilities for Indian children with genuine Indian control. That is so important. Look at language alone. If we do not take steps dealing with not only funding but curriculum to preserve the language, the culture will die. When the culture dies, the community is quite a different community; it is not the same at all. French Canadians have gone through that battle for many years. It is a battle over language. Why is language so important? It is because bound up in language is the essence of culture. The same thing is true of native people. If we do not put in place the proper funds and proper curriculum for native schools, if we do not emphasize native language and native culture, that will be a weakness in the process of self-determination and advancing their cause.
In my own province it is a little more difficult because we do not have any status Indians. In 1949, when we joined this country, it was agreed that funds for native people would be transferred to the province on a per capita basis. The same amount would be transferred as would normally be given to

May 11, 1988
Supply
native people in other parts of the country on a per capita basis. That is what happened and a block of funds is transferred to the province. Native people in my province want some control over how that money is spent, but they do not have that either. They do not have easy access to those funds. Decisions are still made by the two levels of government without enough control by native people in the province. It is more difficult for them to get a handle on money for education.
The whole question of education is very important. Why? It is because in any country, not just this country, it is well known that the kind of job one has, and therefore the kind of salary one makes, is directly related to one's amount of education. There is a direct correlation between the two. That is the reason we have to emphasize education for native people. I am talking about secondary education, but let me go on to another important point.
I think one of the most tragic things the Government has done is to cap the amount of money available for postsecondary education. That is exactly what has been done. I want to read a letter from the Labrador Inuit Association which says:
I understand through various media reports that you were very concerned that at the radar construction sites at Saglek, Labrador, only one position out of a possible 150 jobs was filled by a local resident.
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from the regional Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. This letter is informing the Labrador Inuit that funds are no longer available for any vocational training programs in Labrador. Without financial assistance for occupational training the employment situation in Northern Labrador cannot be expected to improve.
Let me put that in context. I remember going to the Northwest Territories with the Standing Committee on National Defence where we heard representations concerning the North Warning System. That system was a good idea, and it needs to be done. Native people have no problems with putting it in place. They say: If you are going to come up from the south and do that, fine, but are we part of it? What are we going to get out of it? What is it in for us"?
It is in that context that I want to read that letter. It says only one position out of a possible 150 jobs was filled by local residents. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? It is because local residents do not have a lot of training. That gets us back to the issue that I raised concerning the amount of money available for post-secondary education for native people. That amount has been capped. The Government is building the North Warning System and putting 150 jobs in the community, but it is saying to local and native people, "that is fine, but we are capping the amount of money available to you for postsecondary education. We know it is the only way you are going to get those jobs, but we are capping those funds".
I know that in government the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. I know there is no central planning agency. Yet all the native people are asking for is reasonable opportunity. I do not think that is too much to ask for. I do not think it is too much to ask that they be able to get training so
that they can get jobs in this, one of the greatest countries in the worlds with unlimited resources. In 1988 that is not too much to ask. I really believe that if the Government has any sympathy at all, any compassion, any understanding of what needs to be done, it will reinstitute the program of postsecondary education with full funding.
Eliminating the obstacles to settlements in current claims policies, including treaty land entitlements, is another case in point. Let me start from the North Warning System again. In my area not only is the North Warning System going in, but we have low level flying in the same areas that people are hunting and fishing. I think these things can be carried on together with some safeguards, but all these activities should happen within the context of land claims.
The important thing is that native people want to deal with the North Warning System, low level flying, and industrial development in the context of land claims. The important thing for them is land claims because, unless they have some way of controlling their own lives and their own futures, they cannot deal with these issues.
Yet there is a continuous hold up of land claims. I do not think the land claims are unreasonable. I have not heard any native group say that they want complete, absolute, and utter control over what goes on in this area. They are not saying that. The Labrador Inuit Association is saying that it wants some say in the over-all future of a certain area and municipal control where people live which has to be fairly absolute. They want some input into policy at the provincial and federal levels, and they want some compensation. They want some natural resource rights.
That is not unreasonable. It is not separating a block of territory from Canada. We are not talking about an absolute Government but a reasonable approach to a reasonable degree of self-government. Unless that happens we cannot deal with the changes that are going on.
I have another letter from the Labrador Inuit Association telling me that the Memorandum of Understanding that had been agreed to by the Province of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada has now been washed down the drain. The Cabinet of Canada has rejected the Memorandum of Understanding which has been signed for a year. The Government of Newfoundland signed it a year ago, the federal Cabinet has just thrown it out, and we have to start again from square one to negotiate land claims in Labrador. The Labrador Inuit are completely frustrated and do not know where to turn.
That is a fundamental issue. Unless we are prepared to exercise the political will that is necessary to start those claims-not to settle them, just to start them, which will be a fairly long process-we are not giving the native people the power they need to determine their own future. Therefore I completely agree with the clause of the motion with regard to
May 11, 1988

eliminating the obstacles to settlement in current claims policies, including treaty land entitlements.
I dealt at the beginning of my speech with reinstating constitutional funding to aboriginal organizations and making a constitutional amendment on self-government a priority. It is essential that we do that.
I see that you are indicating that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker. As I said in the beginning, I am pleased that we had the opportunity to debate this today. I congratulate my colleague from Cochrane-Superior. I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of reinstituting these programs now in the context of the forthcoming debate on Meech Lake.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today has been a very important day in the House of Commons. We have heard a number of excellent speeches on the challenges and concerns facing native people. Unfortunately, we only had a chance to hear five speakers. I know that Standing Order 9(4)(a) would normally enable us to continue sitting beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment. I know that you are also aware that the Standing Orders require this debate to conclude at the ordinary time.
Therefore, I wonder if I could seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow the debate to continue until ten o'clock tonight, with the vote deferred until tomorrow, to allow those Members who have indicated an interest to speak on this important issue that opportunity.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member is not aware that this is one of the most important nights in the life of the Canadian Parliament. It is what we call the Baltic Evening. Many of us are committed to represent our constituency to the Baltic community. I do not think it would be fair of us to allow the House to continue to sit.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I take the remarks of the Member seriously. I would not want him to think that we are trying to prevent him from going to the Baltic Evening. However, I could give the undertaking that we will not call quorum and, on behalf of those of us who would like to participate, perhaps the House would see fit to accept the motion of the Hon. Member. Indeed, I would second that motion if possible.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point raised by the Hon. Member in terms of the importance of Baltic night. However, the issue which we are discussing today in the House of Commons applies directly to hundreds of thousands of Canadians of native origin. If we agree not to call for a quorum count, only three or four members of the government Party would be required to stay in the House of Commons to speak in the debate. That would allow 207 Members to attend the Baltic night on behalf of the Government.
I am simply seeking unanimous consent to allow this important debate to continue for another few hours.
Supply


Mr. Caldwell:: Mr. Speaker, parliamentarians are very busy. This is also a very important evening for the young people of Canada. Many of us have to attend Adventures in Citizenship tonight. Young people from many of our ridings have come a long distance to meet with their Members of Parliament, and I am looking forward to meeting the young people of my constituency.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member's proposal?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 82(9).

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being 6.17 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.17 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, May 12, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers