1988-06-02

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 of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to three petitions numbered as follows: 332-4373,3324375 and 332-4474.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] [English]


Mr. Speaker:: I might interrupt Routine Proceedings to advise the House that Hansard has been delayed. However, it is now being distributed in the Chamber.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of routine motions that have been reviewed with the opposition Parties. I think Your Honour will find that the House will be content to hear them and pass them immediately.
The first motion concerns Bill C-131 which was introduced yesterday. I move:
That the order for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-131, an Act to amend the National Transportation Act, 1987, standing on the Order Paper, be changed to reading second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister of State have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but that was the last motion I had in my group. I am still checking with our critic on whether he agrees with this motion. Perhaps the Government could hold it for a few minutes, until we have a chance to speak to our critic.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I did not hear the Hon. Member. Is he referring to the motion that has just been proposed by the Minister of State, or to one of the motions which the Minister indicated that he will be proposing?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the motion respecting the order for second reading of Bill C-131, an Act to amend the National Transportation Act, 1987, is the motion to which I am referring.


Mr. Speaker:: I propose to stand this motion down. I would ask the Minister of State to address the House on the other motions to which he referred.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is fine, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you could ask the page to return the original copy of the motion with my notation that it has the clearance of the other Parties so that I could have it for my files.
Actually, the note says: "Liberals tentative only, get back to us at 11 a.m.". It is stood properly.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have now had time to consult with my critic and I would like the Government to know, through its Minister, that he can change the note on his sheet and read it properly. We will authorize and agree with the committee reference on Bill C-131.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we can take it as proposed. Does the Hon. Minister of State have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I can assure my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this last motion, that it will be the last time I get a copy that says "tentative". I am sure that has been recorded elsewhere, too.

June 2, 1988
Motions


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Standing Order 89(3) be amended by deleting paragraph "(b)" and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) Scrutiny of Regulations, to consist of eight Members."
That Standing Order 96(4) be amended by deleting paragraph "(b)" and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations shall include, among other matters, the review and scrutiny of statutory instruments which are permanently referred to the Committee pursuant to the provisions of section 26 of the Statutory Instruments Act;" and
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister of State have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the next motion is with respect to visits to the House of Commons of two foreign dignitaries. I move:
That notwithstanding Standing Order 3(1), on Thursday, June 16, the House shall meet at two o'clock p.m.; and
That, for the operation of the Standing Orders, such sitting shall be deemed to be a Wednesday, except that Private Members' Business shall be taken up between five o'clock p.m. and six o'clock p.m.; and
That, the address of the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany to be delivered in the House Chamber on Thursday, June 16, 1988, at eleven o'clock a.m., before Members of the Senate and House of Commons, together with all introductory and related speeches, be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates of that day and form part of the records of this House; and
That, the Chancellor's address, together with all introductory and related remarks, be made available to the media for transmission in the usual way by the House of Commons broadcasting system; and
That, the address of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to be delivered in the House Chamber on Wednesday, June 22, 1988, at twelve o'clock noon, before Members of the Senate and House of Commons, together with all introductory and related speeches, be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates of that day and form part of the records of this House; and
That, the Prime Minister's address, together with all introductory and related remarks, be made available to the media for transmission in the usual way by the House of Commons broadcasting system.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister of State have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties with respect to today's business, and I think you will find consent for the following proposal that would see the House concur in the Senate amendment to Bill C-102, and for Bills C-73, C-115, C-122, and C-123 to all receive second reading and reference to committee before the conclusion of Government Orders at 5 p.m. this evening.
We have rearranged, after discussion with the critics, the order of business to read as follows: first, the concurrence in the Senate amendment to Bill C-102 and then, in the following order, Bills C-l 15, C-122, C-123, and C-73.
I also have a motion that would allow the Bills to be referred to the same legislative committee, which reads as follows:
That, when the motions for second reading and reference to a Legislative Committee of Bill C-73, an Act to provide for the implementation of an agreement respecting Indian lands in Ontario, Bill C-l 15, an Act to amend the Indian Act and another Act in consequence thereof, Bill C-122, an Act to amend the Indian Act (by-laws and membership rules) and Bill C-123, an Act to amend the Indian Act (minors' funds and surviving spouse's preferential share), have been adopted, the said Bills shall stand referred to the same Legislative Committee; and
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 93(5)(a), the said Committee shall remain in existence until each Bill has been reported back to the House.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, generally, speaking for the Official Opposition, we agree with the arrangements indicated to the House by the Minister of State. Certainly we do with respect to the order, that is, that we begin with Bill C-102, then proceed to Bill C-l 15, Bill C-122, Bill C-123, and end with Bill C-73. We also agree that, if the way is clear and there are no procedural difficulties, all the matters go to the same legislative committee.
There is only one difference with what the Minister of State outlined, and that is with respect to Bill C-l 15. There have been discussions among the Parties that we would deal this morning with Bill C-l 15 and take it through second reading. There is also agreement that this afternoon, when the Minister returns to the House, we would ask that Bill C-l 15 go into Committee of the Whole so that we can deal with all stages of Bill C-l 15, through to the third reading stage, this afternoon. Therefore, that Bill would not be included among the Bills that go to the legislative committee. If that is acceptable to the Government, we can then proceed on that basis.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on the Minister of State, perhaps I should hear from the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).
June 2, 1988


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm what my friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior (Mr. Penner), has said. I am not sure why we need Bill C-102 to go to the legislative committee. I think it will simply go on out of this place. Just to make it clear, it is complete; We are only changing a very small technical part of it. It will not go to a legislative committee. It will go out of here so that the enrolment procedures for the Inuvialuit can take place.
With respect to Bill C-115, I just want to confirm that I have an agreement with the Minister, and I spoke to the Parliamentary Secretary this morning, that we will start with the motion on Bill C-102, deal with it, deal with second reading of Bill C-115, complete that, and, if we have time, go on to Bill C-122. When the Minister is available after three o'clock this afternoon, we will revert and do all stages of Bill C-115 with the Minister present, and then complete either Bill C-122, Bill C-123, or Bill C-73, what is left of those. Bills C-122, C-123, and C-73 are the three Bills which will go to the legislative committee. Bill C-102 goes out of here, and Bill C-115 will have been completed and will go to the other place.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for rising again, but I would like to seek some direction from the Government with respect to the point raised by my friend, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). Bill C-102 is such a simple matter, a technical matter. I would like some direction from the Government on how we can can deal expeditiously with it through all stages and on what the procedure will be, because obviously there is no need for such a Bill to go to the legislative committee.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned Bill C-102 in my opening remarks, but when I got to the draft motion there was no reference to Bill C-102 in it. It will be handled first in order of business and then we will concur in the amendment made by the Senate.
With respect to Bill C-115, naturally I am pleased to see the degree of co-operation we have received, and we will leave it on consent of the Parties to amend the House order as proceedings go on this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister of State have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Petitions

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have six petitions signed by Canadians from the City of Regina and the communities of Regina Beach, Quill Lake, and a few others in Saskatchewan.
The petitioners state that whereas schizophrenia is a major illness in Canada affecting about 1 per cent of the population and costing Canadian society more than $3 billion annually in direct health care and other support costs, and whereas the research effort in Canada dedicated to schizophrenia is extremely limited and not commensurate with the burden the illness imposes on Canadians, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts related to schizophrenia will, in future, be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness in Canada.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions signed by residents of Winnipeg and of other towns and cities in Manitoba.
The petitioners state in part that whereas the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States, and whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, your petitioners 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 during a national general election.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition signed by a number of constituents, particularly from the Town of Riverview in my constituency.
They are concerned about the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass immediately legislation to protect innocent unborn children.


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by residents of my constituency in the towns of Wheatly, Cottam, Kingsville, Leamington, and Ruthven. They humbly pray and call upon the Government to pass into law legislation that will protect the life of the unborn child from conception, and at all stages of development, with the exception of the extremely rare situation in which an abortion is performed to save the life of the mother.

June 2, 1988
Order Paper Questions CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to table a petition from a number of citizens of Windsor. It is a petition which has been properly certified by the Clerk of Petitions in conformity with Standing Order 106.
The petitioners state that whereas the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States; whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised; and whereas the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from the United States, therefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Question answered orally is indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 328 will be answered today.

DOT-GRANTS AND/OR LOANS WITHIN METROPOLITAN TORONTO


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of Transport make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, to which ones and, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Yes, grants only. No loans were made.
(a)	Grants for transportation research to universities, other organizations, university students and other individuals. Toronto/York University-Downsview $450,000
(b) Grants to institutions assisting sailors Mission to Seamen-Toronto $1,200


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Monique Landry (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: the second reading of, and concurrence in, an amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-102, an Act to amend the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the accommodation of the other Parties regarding the Bills that are being put forward today, particularly Bill C-102. There was an error in printing by the Department and the Minister. It was not discovered as it went through the House the first time. The Senate dealt with this error.
The original documents tabled with the Inuvialuit were correct. It was simply the legislation on which the dates were not correct. We are hoping that because of this we can deal quickly with the Bill, concur in the amendment, and send it on for concurrence by the Governor General so that it can become law very quickly.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, of course if the Official Opposition concur in this motion. I just want to indicate to the House that the substance of this Bill has already been fully considered. We dealt with it in all stages at an earlier time.
The agreement between the Government of Canada and the Western Arctic Inuvialuit represents an important step forward in settling claims. The changes that we passed earlier were primarily of a technical nature. When we did so, no one picked up the fact that there was an error in the drafting of the legislation with respect to the date. That is what we are now correcting. It causes no problems at all.
However, I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the Senate for having detected this error. It is not a serious one, but there have been other occasions when bad drafting has led to some very serious repercussions.
I would simply draw to Your Honour's attention a piece of legislation called Bill C-31 wherein bad drafting resulted in a regulation now used by the Department of Indian Affairs to prohibit a significant number of people from applying for the reinstatement of their Indian status. This is what we now refer to as the infamous death rule. The Department of Justice looked at the statute and discovered that there was a difficulty
June 2, 1988

with it. Because there was a difficulty, it is now being applied in practice and affecting people's lives.
1 simply want to draw to the attention of the House and to the attention of the country that we around here can sometimes be a little too lax in legislative committees and, in certain cases, in standing committees, or if we are dealing with matters in Committee of the Whole. We need a kind of expertise so that these errors in drafting will not get away from us.
I just want to repeat that we cannot take it for granted that we can proceed on the basis of good faith that those who draft legislation for us always do it right. That is why we have to be continually vigilant.
I repeat that with this case it is not a serious error. It is just a small one. We can deal with it very easily. That, of course, is the intention of the Official Opposition.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have an opportunity to speak for a moment to the amendment to Bill C-102. I spoke to senior people in the Department who are aware of how this came to be on page 2 in the first clause at line 13. The date, April 11, 1987, happened to be put in there. The actual document was typed with that date, as I understand it, at the top of the page, and the actual date of signature was put in, in ink, at the bottom of the page. When the draftspeo-ple were putting in a date, they in fact used the most visible and obvious typed date rather than the appropriate one, which is May 11, 1987.
I am assured that this is simply a technical change that resulted from a small error. It is not some other agreement or whatever, although I know that many first citizens in the country are deeply suspicious of what the federal Government does most of the time, if not all the time. They have every right to be given the assurance that it is not a change in any other way than to put the proper date on the document.
I want to remind Hon. Members about how long it has taken for us actually to get this done. The Inuvialuit, or as their negotiating arm was known, COPE, entered into the agreement with Canada on June 5, 1984. It was tabled in the House on June 19, 1984. It was passed by the House on June 26. That is almost four years to the day that the agreement was put in place. It has taken us four years of procedure to get to where we are today. It can go very quickly to get Royal Assent in order that, perhaps, it could be fully implemented by next week.
The Inuvialuit final agreement contained 18 principal points: 35,000 square miles in title fee simple absolute, full subsurface rights to 5,000 square miles, to roughly a seventh of the land, and on the other 30,000 square miles the Crown holds the rights to certain minerals, natural gas, oil, and so on.
The compensation was arranged at $44 million in 1977 dollars. Approximately $12 million was borrowed by the
Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act
Inuvialuit and their negotiators to complete the process of negotiations. At present, the full amount in inflation protected dollars is $152 million, of which $73 million has been put out and there is approximately $73 million permitted yet outstanding.
I am pleased it is passing through this place today because the enrolment procedures for the Inuvialuit are being held up. They had planned to complete that this month. If the Governor General moves quickly, hopefully they may be able to complete that this month, or certainly by next month. I am pleased that after only four years of delay both Chambers have managed to patch things up and get the deal concluded.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: If you will recall, Mr. Speaker, what Bill C-102 did was to correct no less than 14 pages of drafting errors in the original Bill or in the agreement that formed the schedule thereto. In my remarks today I wish to echo the comments made by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) that we must do a better job of drafting. These things are going backwards and forwards like a yo-yo between this place and the Senate in order that these corrections can be made. Professionalism within the various government Departments, in this case the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and presumably also the Department of Justice, ought to exist in order that that does not happen in future.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mrs. Landry, for Mr. McKnight, moves that the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-102, an Act to amend the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act, be now read a second time and concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) on a point of order.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: For clarification, Mr. Speaker, as I understood it, you called for second reading. We would like this to pass directly through the House. If you could accommodate us, we would be very happy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion has been adopted and it now goes back into the Senate, so there is really no problem with that. That is the usual procedure.
The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).


B. Keith Penner: We were seeking clarification from the Chair that, if we dispose of it at this stage, that will be the end of it

June 2, 1988
Indian Act
and the Inuvialuit will know that there will be no further procedural matters related to the changes to their agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion has been adopted. It will go back to the Senate and then it will come back after Royal Assent.


INDIAN ACT
Monique Landry: that Bill C-115, an Act to amend the Indian Act and another Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this Bill, one which is being presented for second reading today. Hopefully, by agreement, it can move through the House today by way of Committee of the Whole and third reading. We wish to do this because of the significance of the Bill.
It has been brought forward by the Indian people. We are looking for an amendment at their request. This Bill was given extra direction at the conference held in the City of Edmonton where the Assembly of First Nations met and passed a resolution supporting this legislation. The band that initiated the Bill that we are discussing is the Kamloops Band of British Columbia. They began the process in January, 1985.
By the end of that year, well over 100 other bands from across the country had formally communicated their support of this legislation to the Government. In July, 1986, the General Assembly of First Nations endorsed the Kamloops proposal, as they did again in the last couple of days.
On March 16, 1988, the Confederacy of Nations of the Assembly of First Nations examined Bill C-115 itself and endorsed it in principle. The Assembly of First Nations requested only one small amendment to the text of the Bill, and this is included in the motions that have been prepared.
I also wish to speak to the opposition critics on four very minor amendments that must be proposed to this legislation, and we hope to do that in Committee of the Whole. Those amendments are prepared and hopefully will be endorsed by all of us.
Over the last several years Chief Clarence Jules of the Kamloops Band, when we should commend for his diligence and hard work in this area, has travelled extensively throughout the country explaining this proposal at countless meetings to any band or organization that wishes to listen. He has also been very diligent in his work on Parliament Hill with those of us who are interested in Indian matters. Indian people
understood what he was proposing and they supported him. I hope we will also do so today.
Chief Jules' attitude is one I share: as long as the Indian Act is with us, until such time as it is superseded by a higher and better law, then we should make the Act work for Indian people and not against them. Whatever gains we make in this way can be retained for the future in other legal expressions yet to come.
There are two main purposes to this Bill: first, to clarify the legal status of Indian lands; second, to establish the legal foundation for property taxation by band councils. These two purposes are closely related. I do not need to remind the House that land is one of the most vital and sacred concerns of Indian people. The lands that are set aside for Indian people must be under Indian control, and they must be legally disposed of in such a way as to provide maximum control and economic benefit to Indian communities.
One of the principal means by which Indian bands can benefit economically from their land is through leasing, both to Indians and in many cases to non-Indians, until such time as they have sufficient control, whether it is in farming, timber, or mining, to take over those apparatus themselves. The lease makes possible modern financial and contractual arrangements. Some bands may not wish to use their land in these ways, and that is their choice, but many bands wish to use their land base as a source of wealth and employment for their community, as well as underpinning their economic development. They must have that opportunity.
The great advantage to leasing arrangements is that the ultimate Indian interest in the land can be retained and the land is not lost from the reserve. At the same time, the lease provides the legal basis for the economic use of the land.
In order for bands to lease their land, the Indian Act requires that the land must first be surrendered to the Crown, which is then authorized to enter into the lease on behalf of the band. This is obviously an indirect and very complicated process. However, it has historical roots which touch on the basic nature of the relationship among the Crown, Indian land, and Indian people.
In this proposal to amend the Indian Act, Indian people have not asked that the surrender process be changed or removed. Such a step may come in the future, but only after much consideration has been given to the consequences for the Indian-Crown relationship. However, within the present context of the surrender process, the fundamental difference needs to be clarified between an absolute surrender of land for sale and a surrender for lease. At present this difference is merely mentioned in one line of the Indian Act. It is not clearly set out nor worked through the relevant sections of the Act.
June 2, 1988

The Bill before us will establish that a surrender may take one of two forms-first, an absolute surrender for sale which would remove land completely of all Indian interests and take it out of reserve, which is extremely rare, and, second, a surrender for lease or some other restricted purpose, in which case the land remains part of the reserve. Setting aside part of a reserve for leasing is not a surrender, nor is it a release of the Indian interest in the land.
In order to facilitate and strengthen the distinction between these two types of surrender, land surrendered for lease would be termed "designated land" and the process of such nonabsolute surrender would be termed "designation". This terminology is obviously far superior to the word "surrender", and the symbolic importance of this change is of great value.
As a result of these amendments Indian communities will be able to set land aside for development without fear of losing the Indian status of the land. The rights they obtain through the Indian Act will continue to apply, such as voting rights in band elections, protection of cultural property, and the power to govern the land through by-laws.
The last point is very important. At present it is not at all clear in the Indian Act whether the word "reserve" includes surrendered land of any type. There is, therefore, a risk that when land is surrendered for lease it might cease to be defined as part of the reserve and the by-law powers of the band council could not govern the land. This is a totally unacceptable loss of Indian jurisdiction and control of Indian land. It would also mean a very serious vacuum of local jurisdiction over leased Indian land. This has taken place in many instances across Canada and is why the band at Kamloops requested the change. This situation cannot be permitted to continue.
One of the most important by-law powers that bands need is their power to tax use of the land. That brings me to the second purpose of these amendments, which is to establish clearly that band councils have the power to tax any interest or use of reserve lands in order to defray their costs as the government of that land. Such taxation power is obviously indispensable to any form of modern government. Some bands may not wish to use this power, but it must be there for bands which wish to exercise it.
In fact, Section 83 of the Indian Act has provided a taxation power for band councils since 1951. It is possible, however, that the power might apply only to Indians. It may not, as presently worded, apply to non-Indian leaseholders. The amendments will make certain that non-Indians are covered.
Section 83 is being brought up to date in other ways as well. Bands will no longer need to be declared to have reached an advanced stage of development before they may pass money by-laws. This provision is offensive and pointless.
The enforcement powers of band councils needed for their tax systems will be strengthened. Band taxation by-laws will be required to include appeal procedures to ensure equity for
Indian Act
taxpayers. A general federal regulatory power is provided. Although no regulations are proposed at this time, the purpose of any future regulations would be to minimize ministerial discretion in respect of the exercise of band powers. If rules are necessary, they should be explicit and objective.
There is one final aspect of the Bill which I want to touch on in these remarks. There are certain sections of the Indian Act which create exclusively Indian land holdings in a reserve in which non-Indians cannot participate. The word "reserve" cannot include "designated land" for the purposes of the sections, since designated land is designed to include nonIndian participation. These sections are enumerated in the new definition of reserve, but Section 89 of the Act creates a special consideration in this context.
Section 89 protects Indian real and personal property on a reserve from any form of seizure or mortgage. It is a mixed blessing for Indian people. On one hand it protects their property, but on the other hand it prevents them from offering security for loans.
The question arises on how the concept of designated land should apply to Section 89. After all, the purpose of designated land is to allow leasehold interests to enter the legal and economic mainstream while protecting the underlying Indian interest in the land.
With this in mind, Section 89 is proposed for amendments so that leasehold interests in designated land would be made mortgageable. This will mean that an Indian person holding a lease on designated land would be able, just as a non-Indian is, to use the lease as security for a loan. There would be no risk to the ultimate reserve status of the land nor any possible loss of the ultimate Indian interest. Only the lease would be at risk. Of course, such leasehold interests would also remain under band council jurisdiction. This change should be a major breakthrough for the Indian economic use and benefit of reserve land.
The tendency in arguing for amendments to the Indian Act is either to do away with it entirely or to amend every section. Neither option is proposed here. Indian people have suggested a limited change to the Act. I believe these amendments are necessary and extremely helpful to Indian aspirations at this time, and I am pleased to be able to bring them to this House.
I want to add in closing that in August of 1987 the Department released an information booklet explaining these proposed amendments in detail. Over 6,000 copies of that booklet were distributed, including two separate mailings to all chiefs. Members of the House and the Senate were also sent copies, as were all provincial Governments and major associations of municipalities. These amendments have been developed in a very open process. Indeed, the content of this legislation has been developed in close consultation with Chief Jules, its main proponent from the Indian community.
I think the way in which this process has been undertaken shows that government and Indian co-operation on legislative

June 2, 1988
Indian Act
change is possible and can produce substantial and positive results. I hope we will see much more of that type of cooperation as we continue to make changes in the years ahead.
In conclusion, it is very important that we continue this kind of process to encourage the self-government movement toward which many of us in this House have worked so hard. This is one small change in that direction.


B. Keith Penner: Nations' right to their lands and the waters and resources on those lands.
Bill C-l 15 has to be seen as part of the ancien regime, a part of the old order. You may remember from your history classes, Mr. Speaker, about the ancien regime in France prior to the French Revolution. At that time, it was necessary for a local congregation to come to the Estates General to get permission to repair the roof of the church. Bill C-l 15 is not very much different from that. We are participating in an action under the old order, an old order that simply must change in time.
It is regrettable and unfortunate that it is still necessary for Parliament to give First Nations the permission to tax nonIndian interests on their own lands, on lands they have designated for development or leasing. In the process of so doing we also have to make it clear, are the legislation does, that tax exemptions on purchases and incomes made on these lands are applicable as they are on so-called reserves.
It has become customary, when we amend the Indian Act, to go through some manner of consultation. The Parliamentary Secretary made it clear that there had been a consultation process, and in this case it has been a satisfactory one. The Assembly of First Nations, in 1986, adopted a resolution endorsing the position taken by Chief Manny Jules of the Kamloops Band. However, at the same time, I think this House ought to be aware that the Assembly of First Nations and other native organizations in Canada remain highly critical of this Government's reluctance to move forward with more vigour in the recognition of aboriginal self-governments.
I have to tell my colleagues in the House once again how distressed I am that the important work done a number of years ago by the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government in Canada has resulted in very little that is positive. I regret that the Department of Indian Affairs has chosen to use much of the vocabulary of this report but to go on denying the essence and the reality of what was recommended in that document.
In Indian-Government relations in Canada, there has been much betrayal by successive Governments, both federal and provincial. Since there is such a long record of broken promises, there remains a deep concern that revenue that will be raised on these conditionally surrendered lands, these designated lands, will in future offer the Government a reason for reducing the normal or regular financial support for band administration, for economic development, for housing, and for other ongoing programs which in reality constitute a part of the federal Government's obligations under treaty or other aboriginal rights.
I hope that will not happen. I hope that the Government will not tell a band that raises revenue in this manner that now that it has some money from its own lands it does not need the other programs and that it will give them to someone else.
That approach has been tried as a result of the settlement with the James Bay Cree. It was done with one particular band
Indian Act
in the southern part of the Province of Alberta, a band which received compensation from the Government for a cattle claim. When those moneys were disbursed, immediately the Government sought to reduce social assistance to the members of that band. That is the kind of betrayal that Indian people are concerned about. I want to make it clear that we will be watching carefully to see that, as a result of Bill C-l 15, this does not occur again.
Meanwhile, Chief Jules has made it clear that nothing in Bill C-l 15 will cause Indian bands to lose any jurisdiction on leased reserve lands, on these designated lands.
I conclude simply by saying that because the days of this Parliament are obviously and rapidly drawing to a close, Chief Jules wants to see this Bill become law and not die on the Order Paper. As the spokesperson for Indian and aboriginal affairs for the Liberal Party of Canada, I want to assure the chief of our complete support for and co-operation in dealing with this Bill. That is why the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister, my colleague from the New Democratic Party, and I have agreed that when the Minister returns this afternoon we will deal with all remaining stages of this Bill, so that before this Parliament comes to an end Chief Manny Jules will have the legislation he so desperately wants, the legislation he worked so hard to attain.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today, and I guess we can call it this afternoon now. I know that so long as the cable system in Edmonton, your hometown, Mr. Speaker, is still working, Manny will be watching with great interest this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like the Hon. Member to know that they were watching at 12.30 this morning, and we are back again 12 hours later. I am sure they will be watching you also.


James Ross Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that sometimes this is good watching, particularly right now, of course. A scintillating debate is about to take place.
I want to make clear for the record the agreement we have. It is an agreement that seems to have become somewhat clouded over the last few days. The Minister approached the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and I on Monday, in writing, regarding the Bills for today. We collectively struck an agreement some 48 hours ago that Bill C-l 15 would go through the House in all stages today so that it can get off to the Senate and get Royal Assent before the end of this Parliament. By getting our job done today, we are giving effect to the long and hard work that Chief Jules and many others have done, not only in British Columbia but right across Canada.
I know that Chief Jules, in Edmonton yesterday, was carrying on his discussions with George Erasmus, Joe Mathias, George Watts, Conrad Sioe, and many others in relation to this Bill because some concerns were expressed by some in relation to the nature of Bill C-l 15. I think that is quite

June 2, 1988
Indian Act
natural in that it is viewed by some as being a bit of a municipal change to the Indian Act, something that many First Nations avoid. Such a change has an odour that many First Nations do not like to have persist in the atmosphere around them.
Quite frankly, Bill C-115 is not and should not be viewed as some major advance in self-government, nor should it be ruled out as simply some kind of added municipal order. The amendments proposed here have limited but valuable impacts for those bands that wish to use them. The amendments are not some kind of imposition by Parliament on the over 500 bands and the many reserves of Canada.
As my friends both from the government side and from the Official Opposition have said, this is about the right to tax non-Indian interests on conditionally surrendered, or as they will be known, designated lands. Perhaps there is the most urgency coming from British Columbia because of the present tax structures affecting places such as Chief Manny Jules' own home in Kamloops.
B.C. is a little different from most other areas of the country. Other than Governor Douglas' 14 very small treaties on Vancouver Island, and Treaty 8 in northeastern British Columbia and northwestern Alberta, there are no comprehensive settlements in British Columbia and the reserves are very small. We have to reflect on the fact that here we are in the middle of 1988 discussing providing the mechanisms which will allow those very small and impoverished communities to actually tax. This debate should have taken place a century ago. However, we have to compliment the very hard work done by Manny Jules in getting it this far, through second reading this morning and, when the Minister is available this afternoon, through third reading and on to the Senate.
I want to spend a moment on an analysis of Bill C-115 done by a Vancouver lawyer. The analysis was produced in March of this year and makes some interesting points. It says that one must recognize that the amendments do not address all significant areas of Indian concern or the antiquated system of the Indian Act. The amendments do not fundamentally change the land holding system under the Act, nor do they represent any major advance to self-government. The proposed amendments must be thus considered in their context as having the following limited purposes: (a) clarifying the legal characterization of lands which have been surrendered for lease so as to confirm that these lands remain part of the reserve; (b) expanding the powers of Indian Governments to raise revenue on their land from band members as now exists and to include non-Indian businesses on leased land; (c) modifying Section 89 of the Indian Act which protects the property of an Indian from seizure and has the inadvertent consequence of making financing of Indian businesses difficult- that is a point I can certainly confirm from my experience in northwestern British Columbia-and (d) repealing a provision of the Veterans Lands Act.
That is a matter which we are of course going to be dealing with by amendment this afternoon. As I understand it, the original drafters wanted to do it for consequential reasons in relation to other legislation, and in fact an amendment will be moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to delete, I believe, Clause 13 from the legislation.
It should also be noted that these amendments were developed by the Department of Indian Affairs in consultation with and on the initiative of the Kamloops Indian Band. The provincial Government of British Columbia assesses property tax on non-Indian leaseholders of conditionally surrendered lands. The Kamloops Indian Band had faced particular hardship under the existing legislation as it conditionally surrendered some of its lands to create an industrial park and had several non-Indian lessees.
While the province claimed substantial property, school, hospital, and other taxes from those leaseholders, over $7 million in B.C. two years ago, studies show that few services are provided to Indian lands in return. Indian communities such as Kamloops, seeking to develop their lands or lease a portion of these lands, were often required to pay for services to these lands, and the province is acute for all First Nations in B.C. as it is the only province assessing occupiers or lessees of Indian lands.
There is, of course, the Leonard case of 1985 which decided that the personal property tax exemption in Section 87 of the Indian Act applying to income tax, sales tax, tobacco and gasoline taxes, among others, did not apply to transactions occurring on conditionally surrendered lands. This of course created further economic disadvantage for Indian communities that developed lands involving surrenders for the purpose of leasing.
There are some other major applications, but one other which I think should be put on the record concerns Section 87(b) and income tax. An important issue here concerns Indians working for businesses on conditionally surrendered or leased lands. Interpretation Bulletin IT-62 from Revenue Canada considers conditionally surrendered lands to be part of the reserve for the income tax issue. Bulletin IT-62 looks to where the services were performed to determine whether the Indian's income or personal property was situated on a reserve as Section 87 requires. The Supreme Court of Canada case, Nowegijick v. The Queen, decided that an Indian's income or property is situated where the employer is located and where they are paid. This effectively overturned Bulletin IT-62 and it has now been withdrawn. While the Indian remission order continues to recognize the tax exemption for Indians working on reserves, its definition of reserves does not include conditionally surrendered or what is now known as designated lands.
It would therefore appear that an Indian employee, one, working for an employer based on conditionally surrendered lands and working there, or, two, working for an employer based on conditionally surrendered lands and working off reserves, or, three, working for an employer off reserve but
June 2, 1988

doing work on conditionally surrendered lands, will under present law not be able to take advantage of the income tax exemption in Section 87. Under the Bill before us today, however, in all these situations the Indian employee will not be liable to pay income tax because conditionally surrendered lands to be known as designated lands will remain part of the reserve and Section 87 will apply. Those are interesting and important opinions.
The document that was alluded to by the Parliamentary Secretary dealing with proposed amendments to the Indian Act concerning conditionally surrendered land and band taxation powers has, I understand, been made widely available.
I do not agree with all the language, but I think some parts of it are worth putting on the record because its implications, certainly for B.C. bands and others right across the country, are important. I think Hansard may be the best way for that kind of information to be transmitted because it is available in libraries and elsewhere.
The opening page points out that in 1985 the Kamloops Indian Band, led by Chief Manny Jules, made a proposal to amend the Indian Act and a year ago, when this was put out, over 115 band councils had passed resolutions in support of the initiative. The Kamloops Band first became concerned about the question of taxation and conditionally surrendered land in the early 1960s when it established an industrial park on a section of the reserve near the City of Kamloops. The costs of developing the land and providing such basic services as roads, water, and sewage were and continue to be paid by the band. Yet provincial property taxes have always been levied on the park residence. They were therefore put in the position of having to pay service charges for roads, water, sanitation, and the like to the band in addition to property taxes going to the province. This situation inhibited the band in setting lease rates, providing services, and generally in competing with other industrial parks. This is basically a situation which might be described as double taxation.
After many years the band concluded in the early 1980s that it should assert its own powers to levy taxes. In attempting to do so the band encountered basic deficiencies in the Indian Act respecting conditionally surrendered land. Taxation was not the only problem. The band was also concerned about its ability to zone and regulate the land it developed.
It is important to look at the Bill for a moment. While it appears to be quite lengthy, in fact it is not really a terribly complicated piece of legislation in its intent. It amends the definition of "reserve" by adding a definition for "designated lands". It says:
"designated lands" means a tract of land or any interest therein the legal title to which remains vested in Her Majesty and in which the band for whose use and benefit it was set apart as a reserve has, otherwise than absolutely, released or surrendered its rights or interests, whether before or after the coming into force of this definition;
That is really the key part of the Bill. If one then looks at the following pages, one sees that the amendments are consequential for page after page, adding words like
Indian Act
"absolute" or "designation". These kinds of consequential amendments are required in law to make sure that it is clear and consistent throughout. Right through to pages to 4, 4(a), 5, and so on, there are consequential amendments in relation to land and to the definitions of "taxation" and "process".
Those groups that have expressed concern need not worry that it is legislation which brings a massive, broad sweeping change to the Act. It is very limited in its scope and has specific beneficial consequences for groups like the Kamloops Band and many others.
Let me return to the publication which was made broadly available across the country, certainly to municipal and provincial authorities in British Columbia. It went on to state:
In the February 1986 Budget Speech the announcement was made that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would bring forward amendments to the Indian Act to enable bands to levy their own local taxes.
Shortly thereafter, the Honourable David Crombie, together with Chief Clarence Jules of the Kamloops Indian Band, issued a press release and wrote to all chiefs and the provincial governments to explain the Budget announcement further, and to launch a process of consultation.
It should be clear for the record that Manny Jules and the Kamloops Band have certainly gone to great lengths in attending meetings of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and in getting information out to other bands. That is evident from the number of positive supporting resolutions. Certainly they have been keeping anyone who is interested, including myself, the Hon.Member for Cochrane-Superior and I am sure the Minister, informed of the importance of getting this through all stages today, perhaps on to the Senate tomorrow, with Royal Assent perhaps by next week.
The document went on to state:
Consultation with Indian leaders was led by Chief Jules, while the Minister and the Department consulted primarily with provincial governments. A number of themes became clear.
First, band taxing powers are an inevitable part of the growth of Indian government. This seemed to be an idea whose time had come.
Second, the status of conditionally surrendered land should be fully clarified such that no other rights are affected or transferred except as necessary to give effect to the wishes of the band in the surrender process. There should be no accidental loss of band jurisdiction or legal rights under the Indian Act.
Third, non Indians on Indian land would be subject to band taxation without having the ability to vote in band elections. Confidence that band taxation would involve appropriate procedures to ensure fairness would be very important.
Fourth, developing good working arrangements with other governments would be important to bands' success in operating taxation and regulatory regimes.
Chief Jules has demonstrated that all those matters have been vigorously and vigilantly pursued.
The document then posed some questions that I believe some people in the House and others across the country might ask:
What is surrendered land?
Under the Indian Act, Indian reserves are held by the Crown for the 'use and benefit' of Indian bands. Bands must 'surrender' their rights in reserve

June 2, 1988
Indian Act
land to the federal government before the government can give possession of it, by sale or lease, to non-Indians.
Again, certainly in British Columbia, it comes back to the real, legitimate, and constitutionally required and prescribed need to settle the comprehensive claims in British Columbia. Obviously this would be pursuant to the full box of Section 35 of the Constitution which recognizes and affirms aboriginal rights and treaty rights in Canada.
There is beginning to be some clarification in British Columbia, through the Gitksan Wet'suwet'en case before the Supreme Court, and, without question, from the famed Nisga-Calder case that went before the Supreme Court of Canada some 16 years ago. The Justices of the Supreme Court unanimously recognized the continuing existence of aboriginal title.
It is only a matter of getting some kind of positive maturity from the Government of British Columbia to move forward and seriously settle the outstanding comprehensive claims in British Columbia. As anyone can see, the land rights provided under the Indian Act, as reserves in British Columbia, provides few benefits indeed.
Let me return to the document. It continued:
From the first version of the Indian Act in 1868 to today, except under certain restricted circumstances, no part of an Indian reserve can be leased or sold on behalf of a band unless it has first been 'surrendered'.
The next question posed in the document was: What is "conditionally" surrendered land? It stated:
In apparent recognition of this fact, the 1951 version of the Indian Act included a new reference to the old concept of surrender. Section 38(2) says, 'A surrender may be absolute or qualified, conditional or unconditional'. Nothing more was said as to how a 'conditional' surrender should be applied throughout the rest of the Act. The vitally important difference between conditional and unconditional surrender was recognized but not defined.
Subsequently, the Courts decided that land conditionally surrendered for lease retains a fundamental Indian interest. It remains 'land reserved for the Indians' under Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. This means that Parliament has the exclusive power to pass laws affecting such land. Provincial laws or by-laws of municipalities which are land-related cannot be enforced on conditionally surrendered land, even against non-Indian leaseholders. Property taxation is an exception to this general rule for certain reasons-
I will now touch on those reasons.
The next question asked in the document was: What is the problem with conditionally surrendered land? As we deal with this debate, we realize that the rights provided to aboriginal people all across the country, certainly in British Columbia, is extremely limited. That has been the historical problem in raising funds to develop a business on reserve, to get a mortgage to build a home, or to use any of the kind of acquired rights that almost any other Canadian would find when one has title fee simple, whether to a small lot in the city or to a piece of land anywhere else in the country.
Even a lease or almost any other kind of title will provide a much greater potential financial instrument than the reserve situation as it has been allowed to rest since 1867.
The primary benefit of conditional surrender is clear: It enables land to be leased without losing its status as Indian land. This should mean that Indian bands can develop their land through lease arrangements without having to give up their underlying 'ownership' of it, their local government powers over it, or their special rights on it; all of which are fundamental to reserve land status. The only rights that are affected should be those that are necessary to the purpose and conditions of the surrender and the terms of the lease.
I encourage those who are interested in looking at the sections dealing with tax and tax power to obtain this document. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would be pleased to provide it to anyone who wants to write to him.
Section C asked why bands needed jurisdiction over their land and indicated:
A regulatory vacuum.
One of the most important court decisions concerning jurisdiction on Indian land was a 1970 decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal ('Surrey v. Peace Arch Enterprises Ltd.) The Court decided that reserve lands conditionally surrendered to the Crown and then leased to developers for an amusement park were not subject to municipal zoning and other by-laws and regulations specifying building, water service, sewage disposal and other requirements with respect to the land and the way it could and could not be used. The lands remained 'lands reserved for the Indians' under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
The Committee asked, 'who can control the planning and development of Indian lands in British Columbia?' Considering the Peace Arch case and the deficiencies of the Indian Act, the answer appears effectively to be-no one except Parliament itself.
We must ask ourselves how this is possible not only in terms of the Kamloops Band which has helped to bring this proposed amendment to the Indian Act forward. Again, this leads to the argument my friend from Cochrane-Superior did not want to enter today, that the real debate which should be taking place on the floor of the House is in terms of self-government and devolution.
It is frankly impossible, with over 590 bands in Canada and with the kinds of decisions that have been taken by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Superior Courts, the provinces, and the territories, right across this land, on issues such as the one before us today. We are tinkering today-and it is important tinkering in that it is going to provide some small tools-but there is a more fundamental and much more highly principled debate that will soon take place in providing all the broader government rights to aboriginal people. Therefore, I am pleased to have participated this morning and this afternoon in second reading. Shortly after lunch, I understand, I look forward to completing Committee of the Whole and third reading stages and sending the Bill on to the Senate so that Chief Jules knows when to turn that TV back on in Edmonton and see the success.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of Indian
The document continued:
June 2, 1988

Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my understanding that consideration in Committee of the Whole take place later this day, by unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Monique Landry: that Bill C-122, an Act to amend the Indian Act (by-laws and membership rules), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, you are moving us right along today in your usual good way. I am pleased to speak to Bill C-122, which amends the Indian Act in order to help address the issue of enforceability and validity of enacted band by-laws and membership rules. As Hon. Members know, this Government is firmly committed to the concept of Indian self-governmemt. We have taken several important steps in this respect since coming to office, including passing self-government enabling legislation for the Sechelt Band in British Columbia. The Cree and Naskapi Bands in Quebec are also operating under a system of self-government, and discussions are ongoing with other bands on the development of new and unique systems of selfgovernment.
Canada's Indian people are also assuming more control over their day-to-day lives through the process called "devolution", which is the transfer to Indian communities of authority for local programs and services. In many cases, the bands are using this process as a stepping stone to broader self-government arrangements.
Despite our commitment to increased Indian autonomy and the clear self-government aspirations of native people, the fact remains that most bands will continue to be governed by provisions of the Indian Act into the foreseeable future. We must, therefore, ensure that the processes by which the bands develop and implement by-laws and membership rules will be sensitive to native concerns and at the same time will not be adversely affected by the enforceability of by-laws and membership rules. Bill C-122 achieves that by simplifying those processes which safeguard the right of band members to be informed of membership rules and local by-laws.
Indian Act
I would like to take a few moments to provide Members with some brief background of this legislation. Under the Statutory Instruments Act, by-laws and membership rules of Indian bands must be examined, registered, and published in the same manner as other federal regulations. This means that they must be published in The Canada Gazette. While the federal Government has an important role to play in ensuring that the band enactments meet the criteria set out in the Statutory Instruments Act, we do not wish to restrict unduly the ability of elected band councils to establish membership rules and pass by-laws necessary for the good government of their communities.
On March 20, 1987, the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments presented its fifth report to the House of Commons and Senate. In this report, the committee outlined the difficulties encountered in discharging its mandate in relationship to by-laws made by Indian band councils. The Standing Committee also detailed its concerns over how by-laws are dealt with by federal Government and Indian bands.
The Standing Joint Committee concerns are well founded. I would like to commend its members for bringing these problems to light. The committee's recommendations were given careful consideration in the development of the Bill before us today. I am confident that this Bill will satisfy the committee's concerns. Under the existing provisions of the Indian Act, there is a very real possibility that by-laws and membership rules, passed prior to June 28, 1987, did not conform to the applicable requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act and could be declared unenforceable. It is for this reason that we require quick passage of Bill C-122.
This legislation strikes a balance between two important considerations. First, it ensures that band councils will have the authority to develop and enforce fair and valid by-laws and membership rules, but, just as important, it ensures that these by-laws and membership rules will be widely available for scrutiny by band members who are affected by them.
Not every band member receives The Canada Gazette. I do not know how many of us actually read it every day, and I am sure many of them do not. That is why this is so important. Requiring bands to conform to the stringent provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act complicates the process of band decision making, and it is seen by many bands as a unwarranted interference in their affairs.
Bill C-122, therefore, amends the Indian Act to exempt band membership rules established under Section 10 and bylaws made under Sections 81, 83, and 85, subsection 1, from examination, registration, and publication in The Canada Gazette. This will not provide by-laws and membership rules from public scrutiny. As I stated earlier, Bill C-122 contains important provisions regarding notification to band members. Band councils will be required to publish a notice of the band's membership rules in a local newspaper or post the notice in a conspicuous place on the reserve. The notice must include a

June 2, 1988
Indian Act
summary of rules and indicate a location on the reserve where the full context of the rules can be found for review or purchase by anyone interested.
The legislation also requires band councils to publish a notice of all by-laws in a local newspaper. Bill C-122 also repeals and replaces Section 86 of the Indian Act. This amendment will enable a superintendent or secretary of the band to issue true certified copies of by-laws and membership rules, will allow certified true copies to be received in evidence without proof of signature, and will ensure that by-laws and membership rules are not invalid by reason of any defect in form.
Finally, Bill C-122 amends the Indian Act to ensure that existing by-laws and membership rules are not declared invalid simply because they were not processed in accordance with provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act. These amendments will not be considered retroactive for cases now before the courts.
Bill C-122 calls for simple but important technical amendments to the Indian Act. The legislation reflects this Government's themes of progress, fairness, and keeping its commitments to native people.
This House has previously demonstrated its support for Indian concerns and aspirations. I am happy to see that we are moving this Bill into committee today so that we can have a further detailed study of it to ensure that it is acceptable and, hopefully, to put it in place for Indian people in the near future.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, it will be my intention in participating in this debate to indicate to the House that this Bill, Bill C-122, is far more than merely some technical amendments to the Indian Act, and that there are some far-reaching and undesirable consequences of it which will make it unacceptable to myself and to this Party.
Let me begin with some background and lead up to my objections to Bill C-122. The raison d'etre for this legislation, says the Government in its communique giving the background to this Bill, is to "advance and promote Indian self-government". The Government argues that it does not want to restrict unduly the freedom of democratically elected band councils to pass local by-laws that are necessary for the good government of their communities. So says the propaganda. The Government of Canada does not want to interfere unduly in how such by-laws are enacted or implemented. The objective of the legislation is to exempt the band councils, in the case, for example, of their membership rules and other bylaws, from the application of the Statutory Instruments Act.
On the surface that may appear to be technical. In due course I want to show that it is much more than technical. At the same time this Bill provides what are considered to be
guarantees that proper notice will be given to all persons likely to be affected by such band council enactments.
A couple of points must be made in dealing with the principle of this Bill. The first point is that it is pretentious, pompous, even misleading of the Government to make the fatuous claim that Bill C-122 in some way advances or promotes Indian self-government. I reject that as a claim. I reject that as being in any way a principle of this Bill.
The Special Committee on Indian Self-Government made it very clear that amending the Indian Act can never be a route to self-government. I quote from that report which states: "The antiquated policy basis and structure of the Indian Act make it completely unacceptable as a blueprint for the future".
Piecemeal changes to the Indian Act can never achieve the self-determination which Indian people are seeking. So the question must be asked: Why, today, is the Government tinkering again with the Indian Act in terms of what is proposed in Bill C-122? The real reason is the Government's past failure to comply with the Statutory Instruments Act with regard to the registration and the publication of band membership codes brought into being by virtue of Section 10 of the Indian Act.
The Government sought to end run or get away from the obligation under the Statutory Instruments Act by issuing an Order in Council on June 25, 1987, purporting to exempt band membership codes from the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act. When the Native Council of Canada discovered this, it regarded the action in this Order in Council to be potentially invalid and certainly undesirable.
The interesting thing is that on closer examination the Order in Council did much, much more than simply exempt the band membership codes from registration and publication under the Statutory Instruments Act. It in fact exempted all by-laws passed by band councils from the registration, the examination, and the publication requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act.
Thus at first the Government tried to get away with it. Then it tried to circumvent the law by Order in Council. In both cases it failed to live up to the legal requirements of good government. Now, to clean up this mess it has decided to legislate, and to do so in Bill C-122.
The Minister advised bands and the aboriginal people's organizations that this was going to be done. They were asked to respond by a certain date, that is, February 28 of this year. They were asked to respond on February 28 in a letter that was dated February 15. Those of us who are aware of the postal service in Canada will know that those letters did not reach a large number of bands until the end of February, or in some cases early in March.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that in Canada the word "consultation" when it comes to dealing with Indian people has become a dirty word? I am sure the Minister would argue that consultation had taken place. The Native Council
June 2, 1988

of Canada, which has a very special interest in band membership by-laws, because so many of its members are pursuing reinstatement under Bill C-31, were not even notified at all of the Government's intentions.
I want the House to know that Bill C-122 has been mishandled. If that were all there was to it, we could be forgiving because Governments by definition mishandle almost everything they touch. It is not the mishandling that I am so distressed about, although it is bothersome, but that this legislation is wrong-headed. It cannot be supported.
Bill C-122 will place new responsibilities on bands to publicize new by-laws. This Bill will require bands to post notices about new by-laws in a conspicuous place, to have the by-laws available to the public for examination, and to place notices in local newspapers.
Some lawyers quite rightly argued and pointed out that if the band is not extremely careful and most scrupulous in this obligation their new by-laws may in fact be null and void. They may have great difficulty enforcing them.
There is a more serious matter than that. That more serious matter is the Bill's provision to exempt all band by-laws from registration as statutory instruments. Bands do not want the legal status of their by-laws to be diminished in that manner, and that is the key point I want to make in explaining why Bill C-122 is unacceptable to us. It is not as innocuous as it seems at first blush. It does something quite detrimental to the nature of all band by-laws. The chiefs at the Assembly of First Nations meeting in Edmonton yesterday passed a resolution totally rejecting the Bill. They did so because the Bill exempts all band by-laws from registration as statutory instruments, as well as exempting them from examination and publication under the Statutory Instruments Act.
The exemption from registration appears to imply that all band by-laws from now on will not be considered as statutory instruments. That is serious. Indian bands have won some very important fishing cases in courts in this country because the courts have said that their fishing by-laws are statutory instruments which therefore supersede provincial legislation and regulations. If their by-laws lose their status as statutory instruments, as Bill C-122 proposes, then the legal status of bands and the by-laws that they pass will be diminished.
In the past, by-laws have been exempted from examination and publication. This Bill goes further by exempting future bylaws from registration. The Native Council of Canada opposes the Bill for its exemption of membership by-laws from examination or publication. The Assembly of First Nations opposes the Bill for taking away the statutory instruments of their by-laws.
Finally, when this Bill goes to committee, as it certainly will because the Government dominates the House with its majority, it will be seen whether or not the First Nations
Indian Act
object to the process of passing by-laws contained in this Bill. The process is very much on the municipal model. Most First Nations negatively view the concept that they are no more than federally recognized municipalities. The report of the special committee made it clear that Indian government, aboriginal government in this country, is a distinct order. It is not federal, it is not provincial, and it is not municipal. It is a distinct order of Government and must be so recognized.
The Assembly of First Nations in Edmonton have rejected Bill C-122. They are concerned that the Bill would mean that by-laws would no longer be considered as statutory instruments. I have explained to you, and to my colleagues in the House, the legal importance of that when there are court cases pending with respect to fishing rights and other aboriginal rights.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when you put the question to the House, I will ask that Bill C-122 be carried on division. I want it to be clearly indicated that I and members of my Party, the Official Opposition, do not support Bill C-122.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member for Skeena wish to speak longer than five minutes?


James Ross Fulton: I will attempt to keep my remarks to one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
Like the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), I have extremely serious concerns about Bill C-122. For those people who are watching or listening to this debate, it should be made clear that, in bringing five Bills before the House today, it is a bit of a grab-bag routine. One gets the good, the bad, and the ugly. Bill C-122 is what I would describe as ugly legislation.
Earlier this morning we dealt with Bill C-102 which clearly was required. It is supported by the Inuvialuit and I am sure by all First Nations. Bill C-115 is broadly supported by First Nations across the country. This afternoon we will be debating Indian lands in Ontario. There are two sides to the debate, but again it has broad support and enormous implications for more than 200,000 acres of land that have been in a grey area of title since 1867, and similarly since 1924.
Bill C-122 is ugly in that it is Trojan horse legislation. If one was solely to read the media pulp coming out of the Minister's office, one would think that what the Government is doing is saving the complicated procedure of having to mail in by-laws, published in The Canada Gazette, and scrutinized by the Joint Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments of the two Houses. By publishing them in local newspapers and posting them in an open and visible place in local communities, that is somehow cutting back on a bureaucratic problem.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) who just spoke, pointed out that there are extremely fundamental legal issues associated with this proposal. I am sure the witnesses we hear before the committee will make it clear that this Bill should be amended down to zero.

June 2, 1988
Although a few months ago the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Statutory Instruments filed a lengthy report that I would encourage Members to read, the facts of the matter are that the Opposition put forward a resolution by the Assembly of First Nations in Edmonton yesterday based on good foundation. My friend referred to by-laws. I know only too well of some of those by-laws that the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development passed that became tied up in the courts in relation to the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en by-laws on the Skeena.
There are many fishing and other cases that have succeeded based on the existing structure, albeit rife with problems as identified by members of the standing joint committee, but not simply to tear up the existing section of the Indian Act and amend it in this manner. One need only look at the multitude of press releases that come from the Minister, and information circulars and so on which make it seem that this is a nice way of tidying things up. That could hardly be further from the case. Even some publications make it sound as though it is only getting rid of some red tape and some localized problems in relation to alcohol by-laws, and so on. Nothing could be further from the case, even as is admitted by the members of the standing joint committee.
I wish to read a couple of brief quotations from their fifth report:
The Statutory Instruments Act subjects all by-laws made under the Indian Act to review and scrutiny by your Joint Committee in accordance with the statutory reference set out in section 126 of the Act. From 1982 to 1985, the Joint Committee examined by-laws made pursuant to sections 81 and 83 of the Indian Act on a regular basis. The Joint Committee's general findings as to the degree of conformity of many by-laws to its scrutiny criteria are recorded in the correspondence reproduced in Appendix 'B' to this report. Your Committee concluded that its scrutiny of by-laws made under the Indian Act serves a limited practical purpose at best, and that it would not henceforth review these on an individual basis.
Here we have a committee and statutory instruments based on law passed by this Parliament in 1972 that are not being scrutinized by the joint standing committee. They do not want to have to keep looking at it. They point out problems with bylaws made under Section 81 of the Act which can only come into force 40 days after a copy of the by-law is forwarded to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), unless the Minister declares it to be in force before the expiration of that period. They certainly outline problems found with the procedures.
I could not say it more strongly, Mr. Speaker, that all Members of the House should oppose Bill C-122. I certainly oppose it in principle, and in terms of how it is laid out, in terms of how it is portrayed to the nation and to the first nations. I oppose it, my Party opposes it, and I am sure that when we hear witnesses before the legislative committee we will find that it will necessarily be amended to zero and not see the light of day.


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


B. Keith Penner: On division.


James Ross Fulton: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion is adopted on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the week of June 1 to 7 has been declared Flower Week by the municipalities across the country. Flower Week is the one time each year we are asked to remember those of our fellow Canadians who have been diagnosed as having a progressive degenerative disease called ALS. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, often called Lou Gehrig's disease, causes paralysis, loss of speech, and difficulties with breathing and swallowing. Life expectancy is only three years after diagnosis. What a terrifying thought that is.
ALS strikes as many people as multiple sclerosis yet we hear so little about this debilitating disease. During this Flower Week volunteers will be fanning out across Canada asking for our support and offering the traditional corn flower which is the national symbol of the ALS Society. This money is truly needed by this worthy society as they are attempting to raise funds for research into the cause of this killer disease and possibly to find a cure.
I urge all Members and all Canadians to support this deserving cause. Wear a corn flower and, as Lou Gehrig would say, help strike out ALS.



NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT WEEK


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is National Environment Week. It is appropriate
June 2, 1988

and timely, therefore, to review the preliminary results of a study released by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
The backdrop to this study is the declaration of intent signed by Canada and the United States which commits both countries to cut in half by 1996 the levels of persistent toxic chemicals in the Niagara River. This is a positive step forward. However, a new study indicates that, despite clean-up efforts, highly toxic chemicals from the United States continue to seep into the Niagara River.
Environment Week reminds us that we must continue to be vigilant and remind our American friends that they have a responsibility for completely cleaning up the mess they have made.




Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago I visited a small community on the outskirts of Lima, Peru. Fifteen years earlier families had moved onto the area as squatters and built shelters out of woven mats. Gradually they replaced the mats with brick, but they had no water and had to purchase it by the barrel, which was both expensive and unsanitary.
Later the community dug an 80 metre well and put in basic plumbing, and Canada provided a pump. When Ambassador Keith Bezanson pressed the button and a four-inch stream of water began to flow, rusty at first but later clearer, everyone cheered and danced. This wasn't just a pump, this was water.
One hundred years ago Ludwig Feuerbach talked about the material basis of life and said: "Therefore let bread be sacred for us, let wine be sacred and also let water be sacred".
During this Environment Week when Ottawa hosts the World Congress on Water Resources we need to remember the importance of water for our cities, our farms, our fisheries, and our forests, for all the peoples of the world. For us let water be sacred.



CELEBRATION OF THE REPUBLIC

Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, Buona Festa to all our Italian friends! Forty-two years ago, Italy became a republic, and will celebrate this anniversary next Sunday.
We have a commonality of ancestors and cultures that goes back to the conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar, which is probably why we seem to have much in common with the millions of Canadians who are of Italian origin.
On behalf of my constituents in the riding of La Prairie who are of Italian origin and on behalf of all Canadians, we wish to offer the President of the Republic of Italy, Mr. Francesco Cossiga, and the Italian government and the people of that wonderful country, our best wishes on that important day.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you know, Greenpeace is a great Canadian institution. It has served the environment well at home and abroad since its inception in Vancouver in 1971. Right now its ship, the Beluga, is touring the Great Lakes. Joyce McLean, the Greenpeace Great Lakes campaign co-ordinator, explains why. She says:
Our purpose-is to support local anti-pollution efforts... We believe the
public is frustrated with the lack of restrictive legislation concerning ongoing
industrial pollution.
Clearly there is a big gap between the declaration of intentions in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the daily reality.
The Beluga has identified many instances where serious pollution is caused by industrial and domestic waste and by human activities. Greenpeace deserves the support of Canadians and the full co-operation of governments at all levels. In identifying the causes of pollution Greenpeace plays an invaluable role in the cleaning up of the Great Lakes.



MARINE TRANSPORT


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, recently several articles have appeared in West Coast newspapers implying that Bill C-52 will severely damage the cruise ship industry on the West Coast.
Bill C-52, which has been passed by this House and is currently before the other place, reserves the carriage of goods and passengers from one port in Canada to another port or the same port in Canada to Canadian ships. When no suitable

June 2, 1988
Canadian ships are available, a flag waiver will be given so foreign ships may offer the service.
In recognition of the economic benefit to Canada of the cruise ship industry, particularly on the West Coast, cruise ships having overnight passenger accommodation of 250 or more have been specifically exempted from the provisions of Bill C-52. This means that they do not have to apply for a flag waiver but may carry on their business freely.
Press reports state that Bill C-52 will impose new duties and taxes on these ships. This is not so. All duties and taxes are imposed by tax legislation, and all decisions about what moneys are to be collected on these ships are made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Bill C-52 does not amend tax legislation.
The B.C. Members of Parliament have not let down the people of British Columbia.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the City of Hamilton recently endorsed a resolution condemning the Government of Canada for its supermailbox program. The resolution calls for an immediate halt to the installation of supermailboxes and for the restoration of home delivery to all affected residences.
I rise today in support of this resolution. Supermailboxes are often mud splattered, prone to vandalism, and frequently surrounded by discarded junk mail. They are inaccessible to the disabled and can be quite some distance from people's homes, making it difficult for seniors and others to collect their mail.
The supermailbox program is an affront to the citizens of Canada and a violation of Canada Post's mandate to "provide a standard of service that will meet the needs of the people of Canada". The program effectively makes second-class citizens of urban dwellers by forcing them to accept this type of inferior postal service.
I join with the citizens of Hamilton in condemning the Government for its supermailbox program. Hamiltonians call for the immediate abandonment of Canada Post's corporate plan and the reinstatement of home delivery to all urban residences.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Kitchener I would like to congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) for her recent amendments to the immigration regulations.
Effective July 8, the current policy of permitting family-class sponsorship of only those unmarried children under 21 years of age will now be expanded to allow the sponsorship of never married children of any age. Also, never married children of any age will be able to accompany immigrants in any category as dependants. Other changes will further assist married sons and daughters and sisters and brothers applying under the assisted relative category.
This new policy is consistent with Canada's approach to family reunification and genuine refugees, and its effectiveness will be greatly enhanced with the passage of Bills C-55 and C-84. These two Bills are designed to prohibit the abuse of our immigration system by phoney refugees and queue jumpers. As a result, Canada's immigration policy will be both compassionate and fair to those who respect the process, and tough and decisive on those who do not.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-PRINTING INDUSTRY

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, every day we hear of more and more Canadians who will lose their jobs and be casualties of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) trade deal.
Yesterday I received a letter from the Canadian Printing Industries Association concerning the effects of this deal. The Canadian Printing Industries Association has recently commissioned and received a report prepared by the prestigious Montreal consulting firm of Samson, Belair which says:
The industry will lose 3,000 jobs as a result of the free trade agreement unless the Government puts in place adjustment programs dealing with some of the structural weaknesses identified.
The sad reality is that under this lousy trade deal adjustment programs are not even provided for and may even be countervailable as an unfair subsidy.
More and more we find out that this deal is bad for Canada and for Canadian workers.
June 2, 1988



NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT WEEK


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development has concluded that the world, in order to safeguard the environment which is the ultimate base of all economic activity, must work to attain sustainable development. All Canadians can work toward this goal during this week, National Environment Week, and throughout the year in a small but significant way by recycling and reusing as much as possible the 500 kilograms of garbage each of us disposes of each year at a total national cost of $1.5 billion.
O)
The Brundtland Commission has warned that our environment cannot sustain single-use throw-away products. Hundreds of items in our everyday garbage are indeed recyclables, including paper, glass and other items. Environment Week is a time to bundle it up. It is up to all of us to keep Canada clean, to keep Canada prosperous.
 * *




Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, reading the daily newspapers can really put one off celebrating Environment Week. For example, there is one story today about the 27 nuclear facilities around the Great Lakes, the lakes from which roughly 40 million Canadians and Americans get their drinking water.
An accident at any one of these nuclear reactors could be disastrous for that number of people. However, what does the nuclear industry say? It says that the storage is safe and that a little bit of tritium will not do us any harm.
There is also a story today about the fact that more toxic chemicals are showing up in the Niagara River than previously, despite the existence of an agreement on clean-up and the beginning of clean-up in some areas. Clearly the clean-up programs in place are inadequate right now and far more of these sites need to be cleaned up. Canadians would prefer to celebrate Environment Week with real clean-up and action and not a public relations program.



FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, last night Canadians had the opportunity to hear 21 individual
speeches made in the House of Commons on the fur industry in Canada and the importance of 105,000 individuals who work directly in this $600-million-a-year industry.
I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), the Hon Member for the Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin), the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) because, together with other Hon. Members, we have definitely sent a sound, straight answer to the British Parliament and to the Prime Minister of Britain that Canada will stand behind the fur industry and the 105,000 people involved in it.



KAHNAWAKE

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, since yesterday there have been some dramatic incidents at Kahnawake, and I want to condemn the Government and the RCMP for having provoked the kind of situation we are now seeing in this area.
We know that the so-called emergency was a fabrication, because the Indian reserve had been selling cigarettes and advertising the fact on billboards for three years, and now 200 RCMP officers have been used to arrest seventeen convenient-store clerks!
Mr. Speaker, I think this matter should have been settled through negotiations instead of this show of force that provoked a reaction from members of the reserve, so that now the entire population on the South Shore is being inconvenienced.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Government should have acted immediately, and that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) should act responsibly and settle this matter before matters get even worse.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-TORONTO STAR REPORT

Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, The Toronto Star is not known as the Government's greatest supporter. However, when public support for the Government's free trade initiative is overwhelming, even The Star falls into line with praise.

June 2, 1988
Oral Questions
In today's article on the front page of the business section, we read the following:
-no significant expectation of plant closings, layoffs or divestitures...
Business believes that scaling back tariffs on both sides of the border will
lead to increased profitability and more jobs-the vast majority of businesses
support the trade deal-
The only people remaining out of line and out of step with Canada are the federal Liberal and NDP Leaders, and they, Sir, will pay for their folly at the polls.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-HEALTH SERVICES

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Minister of Health in Ontario announced the introduction of the Independent Health Facilities Act. This Act will give the Ontario Government the right to discriminate in favour of not-for-profit and Canadian operators in the provision of health services in the Province of Ontario.
We have heard time and again from the federal Government that the free trade deal has absolutely nothing to do with health care services, but according to the federal Government's legislation we cannot discriminate in favour of non-profit and Canadian operators in the provision of health care services because the deal says we have to give national treatment to health care services. You must have non-discrimination. This potentially violates clauses on services and investment.
I challenge the federal Government to lay it on the line. It should drop this section of the free trade agreement dealing with the ability of Ontario to promote non-profit health services. We want non-profit health services in Ontario. We want to support the Ontario Government's Bill. Yet the trade deal may prevent that.
Wake up, Canadians, the health of your children is on the line in this deal. The federal Government should drop health care services from the free trade agreement.



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, for years Saskatchewan boasted of having the lowest or second lowest rate of unemployment in the country. Succeeding Governments have been proud of this record of achievement. My province has now added a second place rating in another
level of economic statistics. However, this time we do not take any pride in it.
The facts are that one in five people in Saskatchewan now live in poverty. Newfoundland is the only other province with a worse record. There, 22.8 per cent of the population lives in poverty. In Saskatchewan, 16.4 per cent of all families live in poverty. What is more disturbing is the poverty level of children. In our province more than 25 per cent, or 64,600 children, live in poverty compared to 26 per cent in Newfoundland. The national average is 17.6 per cent.
What a terrible legacy considering that Conservative Governments at both federal and provincial levels have always said that the family is their number one priority. That is great rhetoric but it is no consolation to the families or children of Saskatchewan.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services and concerns matters arising out of leaked Paramax internal documents, a complete copy of which I provided to the Minister just before Question Period, and to the RCMP today.
Mr. Arthur Nightingale, President of Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd., confirmed this morning in an interview in New Brunswick that Paramax was in default of its contractual timetable obligations. He also indicated that Saint John Shipbuilding, and subsequently government security personnel, were made aware some time ago of the information contained in the documents made public yesterday. He said in The Telegraph- Journal:
The company was aware of a brown bag circulating and had advised Government security departments of same.
My question is straightforward. Exactly when did the Government first become aware of the material contained in these leaked Paramax documents, and what action did it take to ensure that contracts for the frigate program were being administered in a timely, efficient, and proper manner?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, because of the fact we have the most comprehensive audit and verification system anywhere in the world we are made aware of every issue-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Today it went wrong.


Otto John Jelinek: Nothing went wrong at all. The only thing that went wrong is that the Hon. Member had some information
June 2, 1988

yesterday he said he would give to the RCMP. He held it for 24 hours, so he could grandstand. That is what went wrong.
Because of the most comprehensive audit system that exists in the world, we are made aware on a regular basis of any difficulties when they arise. We knew of this package which the Hon. Member has been handing around for the last 24 hours some two months ago. As a result of that-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Shame!


Otto John Jelinek: The big mouth from Hamilton East should listen and she might learn something.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister can complete his answer.


Otto John Jelinek: Because we have that system steps were immediately taken to rectify the situation. I talked to Mr. Nightingale as recently as this morning and he assured me that any differences that existed between Saint John Shipbuilding and Paramax have been resolved in a business-like fashion at no cost to the taxpayer. I do not know where the Hon. Member is coming from, except to say that what he is coming up with is misleading, wrong, and untrue information.


PARAMAX-AWARD OF CONTRACTS TO U.S. AFFILIATES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, this Hon. Member called the RCMP yesterday and the inspector in question was not available until this morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: The documents now in the Minister's possession, of which he admits the Government had possession two months ago, make clear that Paramax awarded contracts worth in excess of $100 million, without tender or a competitive bidding process, to affiliates of its U.S. based parent company, Unisys. Why has the Government approved of such an uncompetitive process that would eliminate competition and therefore eliminate potential savings to the taxpayer?
Will the Minister tell us what his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, meant when he said yesterday that the single source system is now under review by the Government? Will he tell us what prompted that review?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to check Hansard he will see that the Minister of Public Works did not say anything of the kind yesterday.
Second, the parent company in the U.S. about which the Hon. Member talks was a company responsible in formulating Paramax Electronics in Canada, which became a great success story for Montreal East, Quebec, and all of Canada with the creation of some 700 jobs. As a matter of fact, because of the subcontract being a fixed contract, nothing went outside the rules and regulations of the contract with the primary
Oral Questions
contractor, Saint John Shipbuilding, in any way, shape or form.
We on this side of the House are proud of Saint. John's Shipbuilding and proud of Paramax. So is the Canadian public.


ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO SUBCONTRACTORS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the issue today is not the Canadian frigate, the quality of the frigate, or the pride Canadians feel in a job well done. The issue is how well the Government manages taxpayers' money in a multi billion dollar contract.
The Minister has the documents in question which outline a series of advance payments made by Paramax to subcontractors in advance of any work being done or any cost being incurred by those subcontractors. Government regulations, of which the Minister is aware as Minister of Supply and Services, stipulate that such advance payments can only be made if they were first approved by the Department of Supply and Services and if the Government of Canada is credited with the interest earned on the advance moneys being paid out.
Will the Minister assure the House today that all advance payments made by Paramax have been approved in advance by his Department of Supply and Services and that all interest earned on advance money paid out was subsequently returned to the Government of Canada?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I confirm today that all contracting has been done in accordance with the rules and regulations of Supply and Services and the Government of Canada for the benefit of the taxpayers of this country. Frankly, I am getting sick and tired of irresponsible questions which lead to irresponsible headlines like this one which states: "Questionable Frigate Dealings have Cost Canadians Millions of Dollars", which is not true because this biggest contract-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell.


LEASE OF CAR FOR U.S. COMPANY PRESIDENT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services and also pertains to the frigate contract. Even if the Minister pretends to be angry, Canadians still want answers.
According to an inter office memo, the President of Paramax in the United States is not carried on either the Paramax or SOSC payroll, two of the companies involved in the construction of the frigates.
Will the Minister responsible for the approval of the expenditures surrounding this contract explain to the House why the Government authorized the lease of a car garaged in

June 2, 1988
Oral Questions
New York City for the U.S. President of the firm, using Canadian taxpayers' money?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: In other words, will he explain what a limousine in Manhattan has to do with building ships in Canada?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea, nor do I care what mode of transportation the president of a company in New York, who set up Paramax for the benefit of Canadian job security and for Canadian productivity, uses.
What I do tell the Hon. Member is that every cent of this contract from the Government of Canada to the primary contractor Saint John Shipbuilding is being utilized to the best of its capabilities. Those capabilities are one of the best in the world. In fact, this major contract is the biggest and most complex contract in Canada's history and is going to win the world championship in being on time and on budget above any other military shipbuilding company in the world. We are proud of that success.


LOBBYING EXPENSES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, everyone is in favour of having contracts completed on time and providing Canadian jobs. What we want to know is did this Government act properly.

I have the following question for the responsible Minister. Internal documents from Paramax indicate that the company's management was very concerned about the fact that lobbyists' fees had been added to the cost of the frigate contract, which, according to them, was against Treasury Board and departmental rules. Could the Minister give the House the assurance that no lobby fees were paid by the Government of Canada in connection with this contract?


Some Hon. Members:: You go home!


Don Boudria: You can't prevent me from asking an intelligent question.


Mr. McDermid:: You wouldn't know an intelligent question if it hit you in the face.


Mr. McKenzie:: Now tell us about the Bonaventure and the hydrofoil, you great contractors.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member is not listening to the answers because I already said that the subcontract is a fixed
contract. So any of those expenses would obviously come out of the profit of the company and not the utilization of additional tax dollars. If we are talking about spending, I should remind the Hon. Member that he leads all the Members of Parliament in spending expenses as a Member of Parliament. Why doesn't he learn how to run a tight ship? Why doesn't the Liberal Party learn to run a tight ship-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance.

A few minutes ago, the Bank of Canada announced an increase in the bank rate of one-third of a point. This kind of decision will have a negative impact on our exports because of its effect on the Canadian dollar. In the past, the Governments of Quebec and Ontario have taken a stand against this policy, and recently, the same kind of stand was taken in Western Canada. My question is this: why does the Government of Canada support the Bank of Canada's policy, which has a negative impact on Canada's economy?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend remembers back to November, 1981, when this country had interest rates over 20 per cent. That is why we are supporting the Bank of Canada's policy. We do not want interest rates to get out of hand here in Canada.
Let me tell the Hon. Member what has happened. Business intentions for investment are at an all-time high. Demand is very, very strong. Profits are good. Housing starts are at near record levels. We have a very, very strong economy with strong demand. We do not want this to get out of hand. So what has happened is we have all this heat running through the pipe of the Canadian economy. We do not want an explosion of huge, huge inflation and interest rates at the other end. That is why we support the Governor of the Bank of Canada.


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES ON TAXPAYERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, spoken just like the Chairman of the Royal Bank or any of the other chartered banks. I can tell the Minister that the Premiers of all the western provinces, the Premier of Ontario, the Premier of
June 2, 1988

Quebec, as well as the Manufacturers' Association, and the Association of Agricultural Producers-almost every group in every section of the country-are against the Government of Canada's policy in support of the Bank of Canada.
Since the Minister of Finance at the time of his Budget announced-


Mr. Shields:: What about free trade, Ed?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


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


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been courteous, if not his colleagues, in answering the question. I would like him to deal with a second question.
The Minister of Finance in the budget documents stated that a 1 per cent drop in interest rates reduces the charges on the Canadian debt paid by the Canadian taxpayers by $1.4 billion annually. If these interest rates continue to go up and there is a 1 per cent increase will this amount to a roughly $ 1.4 billion increase to the Canadian taxpayers in terms of paying charges on the Canadian debt?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question fell into two parts. First, he asked me about the regional impact of interest rates. I do not know whether the Hon. Member is suggesting that we have a monetary policy for Quebec, and another monetary policy for a different region of Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: They're all in agreement.


Thomas Hockin: What is very interesting-and I hope that the Hon. Member will listen carefully to me since I listened to his question-is that if we had in this country a monetary policy based upon southern Ontario, Oshawa, London, Toronto, and places like that, interest rates would be much higher. Instead we base monetary policy in this country on national statistics, national demand, and national supply. The interest rate policy as a result of that is more moderate than it would be if it were based on southern Ontario alone.
The second point which is important to realize is that commodity prices in this country-pulp and paper, raw fish, zinc, copper, aluminum-all of which affect the regions of Canada outside southern Ontario, are also high. Thus the whole country wants us to have a moderate interest rate policy, and that is what we have.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just acknowledged that there is a significant difference, in his opinion, between the different regions in terms of the interest rate policy that would be appropriate.
Since I have a communique from the western Premiers who have joined Premier Bourassa of Quebec-
Oral Questions


Jack Wendele Shields: Who all supported free trade.


John Edward Broadbent: -and Premier Peterson of Ontario in unanimously calling for a lower interest rate policy, and considering that we in the Opposition have done the same, as have manufacturers and farmers, why does the Government not do what the people of Canada want instead of what the Bank of Canada wants?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is very careful when he quotes those Premiers. When they support free trade he is not in favour of what they say.
When these Premiers ask questions about interest rates, we listen. We make sure that we have a monetary policy based for all of Canada, not just Oshawa, Toronto, or London, Ontario.


FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the proposed resolution before the British Cabinet on labelling of fur products from Canada. An all-Party House of Commons committee reported to the House in December of 1986 stating: "Steel-toothed leghold traps are no longer used by Canadian trappers and have not been manufactured in North America for well over a decade."
The Government is having no results whatsoever in dealing with the British Cabinet. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the House last night:
-the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs ..., raised the matter at recent talks in London ... I also raised the subject in the course of bilateral discussions with Sir Geoffrey Howe... The Prime Minister-discussed the matter during his conversations with Mrs. Thatcher, who said she wanted to obtain more information on the subject.
What more information does Margaret Thatcher need? Or is this just another example of this Government's problem in communication?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House once again the participation in the debate last night of all three political Parties.
In answer to the Hon. Member's question, the discussions between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Sir Geoffrey Howe, and other officials, have had some effect.

June 2, 1988
Oral Questions
I would like to inform the Hon. Member that since the notification that is necessary to move this legislation in the British Parliament has not taken place, there is now a delay, a delay that we feel is important to Canada so that we can make our case once more. I believe that everyone would recognize that, rather than proceed as it could have with this piece of legislation, a delay is a good sign for Canada.


CANADIAN POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister will agree that if the British Cabinet passes this resolution then the next logical step would be to outlaw leather shoes, leather briefcases, or leather clothing, and certainly the consumption of meat products. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the British doing without roast beef and Yorkshire pudding, or steak and kidney pie?
If the British Government is intent on destroying the Canadian fur industry with false labels and information, is the Government prepared to tell the British that we will cut back on our business with them, and that they can take their nuclear submarine and sink it?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member is concerned about leather-that includes leather lungs.
What we have to understand is that it is not only the Canadian Government that recognizes that Great Britain does business with Canada. The trappers and aboriginal people in Canada recognize that certain companies such as Marks & Spencer, Boots Drugs, and Cadbury's, do business in Canada. They are prepared to take action and ask other Canadians to join them which I, as an individual am prepared to do, as I am sure is the Hon. Member.
What one has to understand is that we cannot settle this in Canada. It has to be settled in the Parliament of Great Britain. That is why the Prime Minister has taken an interest in it, as has the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and why all Parties in the House last evening took part in a very historic debate.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TRANSMIT CANADIAN PARLIAMENT'S MESSAGE
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. Can he indicate to the House after the 21 speeches last night if his Department is prepared to carry forward the message that was delivered here last night to the British Parliament to ensure that Canadians from coast to coast will be able to have the same economy and the same jobs in the industry for years to come?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. I would like to take this opportunity to
compliment the Hon. Member for Timiskaming for initiating the emergency debate last night, and for his contribution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Secretary of State for External Affairs will be forwarding through the Commissioner, Mr. McMurtry, the videotapes and the complete text of the debate last evening to the British Parliament which will allow them to see the feelings of the people of Canada expressed through their elected Members. Those tapes and that Hansard are to be used in public relations addressing this problem in Great Britain.
It is a positive step. The Members who took part last night should be proud of their activities.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Over the past couple of years Canadian consumers have paid something near the cost of production for products which contain wheat, such as pasta, bread, and other products. With the Government's announcement yesterday of the elimination of the two-price wheat program beginning April 2, consumers should see a measurable drop in the price they pay for wheat based products such as bread. What measures will the Government take to ensure that these savings are in fact passed on to the consumer?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 certainly appreciate the question of the Hon. Member and, indeed, the thrust and thinking behind it.
I think it was very obvious that my colleague, in making the announcement on the two-price wheat issue yesterday, signalled the high expectations that, when phasing out of the two-price wheat system comes into effect after the next crop year, one would fully expect that the savings would be passed on and definitely be reflected in consumer prices.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CONSUMERS WILL RECEIVE FULL BENEFIT
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister responsible for Consumer Affairs. Canadian consumers know that generally prices go up and hardly ever come down. With the drop in the domestic price of wheat, we can calculate almost exactly what should be the reduction passed on to the consumer.
June 2, 1988

Would the Minister assure consumers that they will definitely receive the full benefit of the elimination of the two-price wheat program?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I have the legal and constitutional authority to do that. I can assure the Hon. Member that my Department will be watching bread prices very closely, and using whatever authorities are available to ensure that the consumer receives the full benefit of any reduction in the cost of wheat that goes into making bread.


ELIMINATION OF TWO-PRICE WHEAT SYSTEM-ONE-YEAR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Canadian wheat growers have been receiving some $280 million per year benefit from the two-price wheat system. Now that this is being cut out due to the Prime Minister's trade agreement with the United States, why will the Government only provide an adjustment program for one year when the United States is increasing its support to its producers under the Export Enhancement Program and other programs, and we are cutting out this benefit subsidy announced yesterday by the Minister of State for Grains after only one year?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is not in possession of the facts when he attempts to make a connection between the phase-out of two-price wheat and the FTA.
I must make it perfectly clear that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between the Government's decision to phase out the two-price wheat system and the FTA.
The decision was under consideration long before the discussions or negotiations began between the two countries with respect to the FTA. The decision was taken to ensure the financial viability of the Canadian domestic industry.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, surely no one believes that the Government is cutting out the two-price wheat system for any other reason than because of the Prime Minister's trade deal with the United States.
What we want to know is how many other agricultural industries, for example, poultry, dairy, or the fruit and vegetable industry will be similarly destroyed? Will they only receive adjustment assistance for one year? Surely the adjustment should be for many years, if the Government is determined to destroy an industry like this, rather than cut it out after only one year.
Is this grant that the Minister announced yesterday just a cynical gimmick because there is an election coming up?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I will try once again and indicate to the House that there is
Oral Questions
absolutely no connection between the phase-out of the two-price wheat system and the FTA.
In respect of the Hon. Member's other reference to the impact of the FTA on Canadian agriculture, the Hon. Member should recognize that that will have very positive effects on Canadian agriculture.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: One supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: My question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and concerns the Old Port in Quebec City. Is the Minister aware of the growing opposition of the people of Quebec City to the Conservative Government's plan for privatizing a substantial part of the Old Port, and more specifically, for the sale of Pointe-a-Carcy to a developer, Rocois Construction?
Since Quebec City has been registered by UNESCO on its world heritage list, why does the Government refuse to say how it will protect the heritage character of this part of the Old Port? Why did it decide to privatize this important location before setting up a plan for the preservation and development of the Old Port?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the Old Port of Quebec Crown corporation called for proposals for development of the lands in question referred to by the Hon. Member. There were public hearings held over a period of months to give organizations and residents of the area the opportunity to air their views on the pros and cons of the development. After those public hearings were concluded an award was made to one of the developers.
A poll of people in the area indicated that 93 per cent of Quebecers in that area approved of the plan and the development that was eventually chosen.


THE COALITION-REQUEST THAT PLANNING COMMISSION BE CREATED-MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware of the fact that a coalition has been formed of thirty organizations representing about 40,000 Quebecers, including the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste, Laval University's school of planning, the University of Montreal's planning faculty, and so forth? Is the Minister prepared to accept their request for a meeting as soon as possible? And will the Government agree to let a planning

June 2, 1988
Oral Questions
committee prepare a development plan for federal property in the Old Port before any sales to the private sector take place?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, when 40 community groups indicate that they have some reservations about a plan, obviously we will review their position to see what alternatives are available and what we might do.
I have asked my Department to explore the reasons for the opposition, and whether an adequate opportunity was given to voice their opinions. We will take another look. The Hon. Member has to bear in mind that the developer who was given the contract also has rights.


BUREAU OF REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The McLaughlin Report that was released one year ago indicated that the federal Government, through its various Departments and agencies, is one of the largest land holders in Metropolitan Toronto.
I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board if one of those mysterious arms of the Treasury Board, that is, the Bureau of Real Property Management, would be prepared to release and make available some of that land in Metropolitan Toronto for badly needed housing. If so, would the Bureau also be prepared to authorize the leasing rather than the sale of that land in order to try to ensure that any housing built on that land remains affordable?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Pat Carney (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Hon. Member is aware that this issue is being given serious consideration by the Bureau. The Hon. Member is also aware that our policy does permit the sale of land surplus to government needs, and that this can be used for housing, if that is the appropriate use.
The Hon. Member may be advised that such land is usually offered to municipal authorities before it is offered to individual developers. The matter is being given consideration.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Immigration and it concerns last week's attempt to smuggle a boatload of people into Canada who were intercepted by police in West Germany.
We now learn that through investigating this incident the West German police have uncovered an elaborate human smuggling ring that includes a Canadian connection and Canadian context.
Given that the Government has already failed to act on similar operations from Portugal, Turkey, Brazil, and Lebanon, can the Minister now outline what information the Government has in its possession about this latest West German affair? What action is the Minister taking to prevent and stop the illegal and criminal activities involved in the business of human smuggling?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that we will soon be introducing our response to the Senate on our immigration Bill which, he will recall, in its original form contained some considerable deterrence.
This is something I take very seriously and I think the Hon. Member knows that. We will be actively pursuing all means at our disposal, both nationally and internationally, to ensure that these people are brought to justice.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister ignores the fact that these activities are contravening existing laws and our existing Criminal Code. Her provision to turn back boats will not punish or penalize those smugglers, and the Minister knows that.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY RCMP
Sergio Marchi: In the absence of the Solicitor General I will direct my question to the Minister of Immigration again. The West German police found that many of the 269 would-be passengers were carrying documentation and correspondence from Canadian universities, Canadian language schools, and Canadian government agencies, and that passport alteration was possibly done in this country.
In view of that will the Minister be asking her colleague, the Solicitor General, to order an RCMP investigation immediately into the illegal immigration network which is obviously operating in this country which contravenes our existing law and our existing Criminal Code in order that these culprits can be found and prosecuted at once?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have already discussed with the officials in my Department the best approach we can take to
June 2, 1988

this. Clearly, it will involve investigation by other Ministers. I think the Hon. Member knows that I take this seriously. I have said that before.
We do not know that there are violations here but we do know that allegations have been made which we should explore, and we intend to bring this to a halt.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The National Film Board's distribution network is gradually disintegrating. Distribution centres in Chicoutimi, Rouyn-Noranda, Sudbury, Calgary, Victoria and thirteen other cities will soon be closed. Could the Minister explain the whys and wherefores of this decision?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to have a full explanation given to the Hon. Member by the National Film Board. I would like him to understand that what is being put into place is a new system of distribution which will be electronically run and will offer much wider distribution to centres all across Canada than we presently have.
That will mean that there will be some changes to the present system, but it will not mean that there will be any diminution of the services.


PROVISION OF SERVICES IN SMALLER CENTRES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that the Government has cut the budget of the Film Board by 15 to 20 per cent in real terms and that in fact it is imposing user fees? In fact, the Minister is so scared that she will not even table her new film distribution legislation.
Is it fair that Canadians can only watch NFB films in the larger centres now and that the people in the smaller centres like Chicoutimi, Kingston, and Sudbury are in fact deprived of the services? Is that fair? Why is the Government doing that?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I must advise the Hon. Member that, as usual, he is way out of date with things. The system is being changed because there has not been adequate distribution or possibility of using National Film Board films in the smaller centres across the country. That is what is being addressed, that is what is being changed.
When the Member says that the budget of the National Film Board has been reduced, he might take a look at the
Oral Questions
additional moneys which were just put into film and video distribution. Some $200 million was announced last month and $25 million of that will be going to the National Film Board.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. British Columbia's Alaskan cruise ship industry alleges that it is in danger of being wiped out by the imposition of duties and taxes to which it was not previously subjected. This industry brings in $70 million a year for B.C.'s economy.
Does the Minister know about what is going on out there, and is he doing anything about it?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend for his very important question. He knows that in 1987 the cruise industry in British Columbia travelling to Alaska paid no duty or taxes.
I am happy to confirm that it will be paying no duty or excise taxes this year. An interdepartmental committee is examining this whole matter and we hope to put a program in place for the future as well.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. In its new corporate plan, Canada Post continues to close rural post offices, it refuses to provide door-to-door mail delivery in new urban developments, but it will continue to increase postal rates by as much as 30 per cent.
Is it true that in March 1988, the Minister recommended that his Cabinet colleagues approve this plan? Was he aware of its contents? And if so, how could he force this kind of injustice on Canadians? Will he withdraw this disastrous plan?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that plan, which was released to the public at a press conference on May 12, contained all the information about rate changes for first class letters which is the most important rate for ordinary citizens. The price is proposed to go up 1 cent next January, which is less than the rate of inflation. Therefore, in terms of constant money the price is actually going down.

June 2, 1988
Oral Questions
The Hon. Member continues to make the false accusation that post offices will be closed. If he reads the corporate plan he will see that in fact over the course of the next five years there will be 5,000 new postal outlets opened, 2,000 of which will be in rural Canada. Therefore, they are opening new offices, not closing offices as the Hon. Member says.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister doesn't know that there is a caravan travelling across Canada right now collecting letters and petitions from rural Canadians against the Post Office closing rural offices. Maybe the Minister should get acquainted with what is going on around the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APPROVAL OF CORPORATE PLAN-MINISTER'S POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, whatever the Minister says, he approved the plan which increases postal rates up to 30 per cent. Will he now admit that he made a mistake in approving this corporate plan, and order Canada Post to scrap it immediately?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member obviously has not read the plan or he would not be making such silly statements. He talks about the caravan complaining about privatization. It appeared in Alberta and in Saskatchewan. A reporter talked to the people in the town of Tantallon, Saskatchewan, where they transferred the post office to the local general store. One of the residents, Miss Val Hamilton, said: "A lot of people think it's the best thing that ever happened".
The fact is that the union does not like it. In Manitoba a poll was taken in three towns where the post office had been changed. Eighty-six per cent said the service is either the same or better than it was before.
The Hon. Member should stop listening to the union leadership which is giving him false information. Talk to the people who recognize that service is getting better.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The Elk Falls Pulp Mill in Campbell River has recently had four major spills of green liquor and sulphuric acid. Last week more than 80 tonnes of 100 per cent caustic were pumped into the Straits of Georgia.
Will the Minister ensure a solid investigation of these spills and ensure that that company puts settling ponds and treatment ponds in place so that this will never happen again?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member that the problem is serious with the most recent spill falling on the heels of previous ones that were at least as environmentally dangerous and threatening. The idea of a settling pond, for example, to prevent future spills is a worthy one. I will explore it with my scientific and environmental advisers and some of the legal people to see whether, in fact, the Minister of the Environment for the federal Government has jurisdiction to make such a requirement.
I know the employees of the mill themselves have played an exemplary leadership role here in monitoring the situation and drawing it to the attention of the public, to the Member, and through him to me. I salute them for their leadership and I will explore ways in which their committee could be given more formal recognition.


EMPLOYEES' ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, in almost all of the pulp mills on the coast of British Columbia there are contractual requirements for recognition of environmental committees.
Will the Minister attempt to set up some formal mechanism between his Department and those environmental committees of the employees who are loyal to both the company and concerned about it but are also serious about protection of the environment? Will he look into the possibility of setting up a formal working relationship with these groups?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think the idea is a good one. During this Environment Week, I can think of no better time for the Minister of the Environment to commit himself and the Government of Canada to working with employee groups such as the one to which the Member has made reference in his question, and I give him that commitment now.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He is aware of the situation that now exists in Kahnawake, a situation that, I believe, was provoked by the undue use of force by persons under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General. I would like to ask the Minister the following question: Now that they have made trouble on the reserve and the population of the South Shore is caught in the middle, does the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development intend to wash his hands of the situation or will he help
June 2, 1988

his provincial colleague, Mr. Savoie, who is on the reserve again today to try and settle this question? Will the Minister act responsibly and co-operate with the provincial authorities in order to clean up the mess they made?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am standing in for the Minister of National Revenue and wish to respond to the Member's question.
The Hon. Member knows that warrants were issued yesterday under the Customs Act and the RCMP advised Customs and Excise that an enforcement operation was under way on the reserve.
I understand from officials that the barricades placed in the way of traffic are in the process of being removed and that removal is expected within an hour. As well, I wish to acknowledge the good work that has been done by provincial officials in this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan, a single question.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the two Transport Ministers.
Earlier this year the Canadian Wheat Board promised the Port of Thunder Bay that 7,000 grain cars a week would be rolling into our city. As of next week we will have only 2,700, resulting in lay-offs of 600 to 700 grain handlers followed, I am sure, by seafarers and people in the ports downstream.
What action will the Government take to ensure that the promise is lived up to that Thunder Bay would not be a residual port? When will we get some action to protect these jobs?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's continuing interest in the Port of Thunder Bay. While I cannot give him a precise answer today, I will certainly try to get an answer for him. I am sure though that the actual statistics are quite a bit better than the Hon. Member has suggested.
We undertake to look into the matter and I will get back to the Member as soon as I possibly can.
Privilege-Mr. Boudria PRIVILEGE


CORRECTION OF COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in answers earlier today, the Hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Jelinek) may have, I am sure inadvertently, led the House to believe that he had information relating to my expense account as a Member of Parliament. Although you, Sir, are in possession of such documents if they exist, you know that they are confidential only to you and not to other Members of this House, even cabinet Ministers.
Perhaps the Hon. Minister could correct the record and also table the document he has, which may have something to do with the fact that I was once a Member of the Legislature. In that legislature the Government refused to provide translation services to francophone Members.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I was about to rise to speak prior to the Hon. Member. I would like to correct what I said during the exchange earlier in Question Period. When I said "Member of Parliament", I should have said that it was the former Member of the provincial Legislature who led all Members' expenses at that time. I am quite certain, Mr. Speaker, that his spending habits have not changed since then!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: At the same time I would like to table the documents from which I was quoting. They call him "Don the big spender".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, some Members on the government side may find this very funny but I do not find it amusing at all. What the Minister just did-


John Horton McDermid: I understand it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Just a minute. I know why you understand it, because knowing from where you come and knowing your background you would understand the Minister's bad habits.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria), as it turns out, quite properly raised a matter in which an answer given by a Minister was incorrect. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell had every right to raise the point. The Minister in turn has given an explanation. 1 think the Hon. Member-


Mr. Nunziata:: There should be an apology.


Mr. Speaker:: -for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is rising to remark on whether or not that explanation was

June 2, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Boudria
satisfactory. I think Hon. Members ought to give him the courtesy of listening to him.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I thank you for your understanding, Mr. Speaker.
In this House of Parliament translations are commonplace if you are dealing with a constituency where that requirement is essential. There are many colleagues in my caucus and I know many Members on the government side who constantly, normally, and very justly use translation services. It is a fait accompli in the Parliament of Canada and that I think is a good thing.
When the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) was a Member of the provincial Legislature, there were no translation services allowed to its members. I want members on the government side to understand that. There were no translation services allowed and, therefore, dealing with a constituency which is close to 90 per cent Francophone he had to use a great deal of translation. For that, Mr. Speaker, we thank him because he rendered a good service to the constituents of his riding.


Otto John Jelinek: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the Whip of the Liberal Party is dragging this matter down to a lower level than it should have been.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are standing on your head.


Otto John Jelinek: There is the big mouth from Hamilton East.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are the king of sleaze yourself.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was $8,000 for translation.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps what we need is a little bit of calm. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has raised a complaint; it may not be a question of privilege, but it is a complaint. The Hon. Minister has responded and, while there may be some complaint the Hon. Minister ought not to have said what he said, he has explained the context in which he said it.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has risen, as he certainly is entitled to do and as I think Hon. Members would expect him to do, given the fact that he is the Whip for that caucus. He has come to the defence of the spending of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell in another place and on another occasion. I think the situation has been made clear. I do not think it is to the advantage of order in this place to carry on with the discussion, so I am closing off this particular matter of order unless there is some compelling reason to continue it.
I will hear from the Hon. Minister, and then I will hear from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the attention of the House, very calmly, I believe there is a compelling reason for me to rise again because the Whip of the Liberal Party, inadvertently I am sure, misled the House when he said that the expenses were for translation. In fact, the document which I just tabled very categorically shows that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) in that year spent some $89,000, only $8,000 of which was for translation. The rest was-


Some Hon. Members:: Table it!


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that this is now becoming a debate on a lot of facts that are completely extraneous to this place, and I do not think it is in order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the reason I think it is up to the Chair to decide once and for all that the libelous statements that continue to be made about my hon. friend, the Member for Glengarrry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), should stop, statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister, is that we clearly saw in this House that the Deputy Prime Minister was circulating documents listing the expenses incurred by the Hon. Member when he was a Member of the provincial legislature. I myself am a former MPP and I know that at the time, the Conservative Government of the Province of Ontario did not provide translation services, which put an additional financial burden on Members who had to make use of such services. At the time, the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell represented the riding with the largest number of Francophones outside Quebec. If the Deputy Prime Minister continues to suggest, as he has done several times before, that MPPs do not have the right to declare translation expenses in provinces where services are not provided in both official languages, unlike the situation here in the House, I am sorry, but this means the Conservatives are denigrating both the excellent translation services available in this province and the province's Francophone Members, and that I cannot accept. I therefore demand an apology, not only from the Minister but also from the Deputy Prime Minister who passed these documents around several times.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the debate is getting well beyond the original complaint. I will hear from the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, very briefly.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be helpful and put a conclusion to this. As a former Member of the Legislature and as a Member of the House, I do not apologize to anyone for having served my constituents by phoning long distance, no more than federal Members from British Columbia, according to the Public Accounts of this year, would have to apologize for having the highest travel bills. It was a fact of serving my constituents, just as it is a fact as indicated on page 12-14 of Miscellaneous Information in the Public Accounts of Canada. I am proud of having served my



June 2, 1988

constituents, as I am sure the Conservative Members who have the highest expense accounts in Ottawa would be as well for serving their constituents.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the co-operation of all Hon. Members in allowing this matter to close.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that we were here to dissect what has been public information for a long time. It seems to me that we are not serving our constituents well with this kind of thing.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate if I were to ask the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) to give the usual statement of government business for the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue the second reading debate on Bill C-129, the Air Canada privatization Bill, followed by consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-55 and Bill C-84. If we do not finish that consideration tomorrow, we will then deal with those matters also on Monday.
For Tuesday, we are trying to put a package together which would involved Bill C- 111, the National Housing Act, and would hope to get second reading on that Bill and send it to committee, followed by report and third reading stages of Bill C-93, the multiculturalism Bill. This would be followed by Bill C-131, the amendments to the National Transportation Act, and we would send that off to committee as well.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the House business question to ask a question of the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis). Apparently, there were some discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankow-ski) and representatives of handicapped groups this past Sunday or Monday with regard to components of the Election Expenses Act.
As we know, that particular piece of legislation is in limbo right now. Apparently the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that there might be a willingness to carve out from the Bill the access components of that legislation, as well as the components dealing with opening up the number of electors who will be allowed to vote in terms of the mentally handicapped. I appreciate that the Minister of State may not be in a position to respond immediately, but I wonder if he could take that under advisement and check with the Deputy Prime Minister. We on this side of the House would be pleased to give consideration to such a proposal. It is a national week respecting
Indian Act
special needs, so if the Minister could check on that matter, we would appreciate it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very helpful suggestion. I will take it up with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and see what we can do in that respect.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.
House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-115, an Act to amend the Indian Act and another Act in consequence thereof-Mr. McKnight-Mr. Danis in the chair.


Marcel Danis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-115, an Act to amend the Indian Act and another Act in consequence thereof.
Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 10-Advice based on personal information statements, etc.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Chairman, in amendment to Clause 10 I move:
That Clause 10 of Bill C-115 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 19 to 21 on page 6 and substituting the following:
"(2) An expenditure made out of money raised pursuant to Subsection (1) must be so made under the authority of a by-law."
(b)	by striking out line 31 on page 6 and substituting the following:
"Regulations not consistent with this section respecting the exercise of the"
On the first amendment, subsection 83(2) is being reworded in a positive rather than negative way for greater certainty in providing band councils the authority to expend tax revenues under a by-law.
In explanation of the second amendment, the phrase "not consistent with this section" is being added to ensure that regulations are consistent with the purposes of Section 83, which is to enable bands to pass taxation by-laws.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if I can get some clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister. I thought there were two earlier amendments that were going to be dealt with, one in Clause 10 at page 5 and one in relation to page 1, the title.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Chairman, I also want to move an amendment to Clause 10 on page 5 which is:

June 2, 1988
Indian Act
That Clause 10 of Bill C-115 be amended by striking out lines 43 and 44 on
page 5 and substituting the following:
"taxation for local purposes of'
That phrase is removed by this motion and refers to by-laws subject to regulations under Subsection 83(5). The phrase is redundant since Subsection 83(6) requires that by-laws be consistent with any regulations under Subsection 83(5).
Perhaps I might reverse the order in which I moved them so they are consistent with the way we deal with Clause 10.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions for the Minister. In some cases they are of a fairly broad nature. I waited for the right moment in the Bill to raise these questions, but in order to facilitate the proceedings this afternoon this may be as good a place as any.
First, I wonder if the Minister could give the committee an idea of how much so-called surrendered, or now, more appropriately, designated, land is affected by C-115? I can understand if the Minister does not have it, but perhaps it could be sent along at a later time. I am also interested in what potential revenue this may mean for bands and that information may be in the same category. It may need to be communicated later.
I would also like to have some information from the Minister about the position of the Government of British Columbia regarding Bill C-115. There is a lot of concern about the role of that Government and its relations with Indian people. I am wondering whether, for example, the municipalities of British Columbia have in any way lobbied the Government with respect to this legislation and what has been the effect of that lobbying endeavour on the attitude of the Government of British Columbia.
While we are talking about the province, perhaps the Minister could clarify an issue raised with me over the role of the province in taxing additionally non-Indians on surrendered lands. Is there still a taxation power retained by the province in this regard? I am sorry to throw it all at the Minister at once. I could have done it in a series of questions, but I want to move along as quickly as I can so that we can deal with other Bills related to Indian affairs.
My final question has to do with a concern raised by the Assembly of First Nations. Other chiefs have brought this to my attention as well. Once bands begin to enjoy the revenues from this taxation power being extended to them, is it likely that the Government will use this as a reason for cutting back on what may be described as normal or regular programs? I know the Minister wrote to Chief Georges Erasmus on May 16 and said on the second page, second last paragraph: "Please be assured that it is not the Government's intention to reduce financial support available to non-Indians because of their own tax-raising activities."
I am sure the Minister means what he says and it is not the Government's intention. However, knowing the record of
relations between not only his Government but many Governments over a long period of time with Indian people, sometimes intentions are just not enough. I wonder if there is some way the Minister can strengthen that. Is there some kind of guarantee that First Nations are not going to see cut-backs in normal and regular programs because they have acquired this taxation power?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I do not believe it would benefit anyone to provide a guarantee. All Governments need to operate on revenues and grants. Municipal Governments operate on revenues and grants.
I cannot think of a way to guarantee what would be a policy decision. I cannot see the benefit that would arise from such an action by any Government. Indeed, it would discourage Indian Governments from taking the very action that the legislation is allowing them to take, which is long overdue. It allows them to tax their own assets. I cannot see why anyone would want to reduce those revenues.
As I say, all Governments operate on a form of grants and revenues. The revenues that are provided in this case would come from Indian assets. Grants would flow as they do to other forms of government. I do not know how to assure my hon. friend that that could not happen, except that I do not believe it would because it would be totally counter-productive.
He asked if there is the ability for taxation by the province on a non-Indian resident residing on designated land. I believe the answer is yes.
I cannot give him the exact acres with respect to his first question, but there are about 100 bands that have designated lands at this time. We are undertaking to find out how much and what the usage of that land is. I cannot inform the Hon. Member of the outcome of that endeavour at this time.
With respect to how much revenue, I can talk about British Columbia where I believe 60 per cent of the designated lands are located. The revenues on those designated lands are about $5.5 million annually. It is a very small percentage of the municipal revenues in the Province of British Columbia, bearing in mind that there are some municipalities where the proportion of revenue from these lands is much higher than the average in British Columbia.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the Government's good will in the future regarding regular or normal programs, the Minister is attempting to assure the committee that the kind of thing we mentioned is unlikely to happen, that it is counter-productive. I want very much to believe that.
Of course, the James Bay Cree discovered to their dismay that when they made a settlement with Canada in exchange for vast tracts of land that could then be utilized by the Government of Quebec and Ontario Hydro, they in fact did suffer on certain regular programs. They had to use what were
June 2, 1988

described as compensation funds for community infrastructure.
The Grand Council of the Cree often reported that Indian Affairs officials in the Quebec region told them that since they had done rather well, there is only so much money and the Department had better look after somebody else.
In fact, the Tait Inquiry drew attention to the fact that in many cases they were short-circuited on regular and normal programs because they had made a tripartite agreement with Canada, Quebec and themselves.
Then there is the case in southern Alberta, the Blackfoot cattle claim, where there was an outstanding settlement. When it was decided to negotiate that claim and accept compensation moneys in exchange for cattle, and when the band dispersed those moneys among its members, they found to their dismay that the social assistance was accordingly cut back.
The Minister justified this on the basis that this was the way it was done in the province and he had to follow provincial guidelines.
My point is simply that in the past these kinds of situations have happened. It is easy to understand why bands, in attempting to improve their position, are nervous that there may be some rearguard action that will give on the one hand and take on the other. Therefore, how does one make any progress or get out of the treadmill situation?
The Minister asks me the rhetorical question: What kind of guarantees can be offered? Let me suggest to the Minister that when agreements like this are reached, what is wrong with signing a memorandum of understanding between the Government and the bands that they will in no way be jeopardized in regular or normal programs because they have gained revenue on their own designated lands through taxation?
The Minister admitted that the province will continue to have taxation powers on these designated or formerly called surrendered lands. Will the Minister elaborate and explain to the committee what is the nature of this taxation? What kind of taxation powers are they? Is it a concern of any of the chiefs that these provincial taxation powers will continue?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, the Member referred to the James Bay Agreement. I draw his attention to the active involvement in the catch-up phases of construction of schools over and above the way they were scheduled, and over and above the way they were scheduled in the region of Quebec.
With respect to the Blackfoot cattle settlement, the band was informed that rather than distributing cash, if it distributed benefit in kind to its membership it would not be doing anything that will cause the Government of Canada to use the provisions of social assistance that apply to other citizens of Alberta.
Indian Act
That being said, the taxation of non-Indians is a concern to some of the bands and chiefs. At this time, we have been unable to find a constitutional way of removing the Province of British Columbia from exercising that opportunity.
It is a concern, but it is my understanding from my discussions with Chief Jules and other chiefs who will be involved that although it may not be perfect, they are willing to see it proceed in this manner.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, it is always good to see my cousin in the Chair. I think the Minister is aware of the Supreme Court ruling on the Nowegijick v. the Queen. Once Bill C-115 becomes law which, hopefully, if not today will be no more than a couple of days, there are three situations under which Indian employees will not be liable to pay income tax, those working for an employer based on conditionally surrendered lands and working there, or working for an employer based on conditionally surrendered lands and working off reserve, or working for an employer off the reserve but doing work on conditionally surrendered lands. I wonder if the Minister would confirm that those three situations will in fact somewhat expand the horizon and definition of not having to pay income tax in relation to Bulletin IT 62.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to inform my colleague that that is accurate. It adds, I believe, to economic opportunity and again it would certainly be inconsistent with the action being taken by the House at this time to add to economic opportunity.
I should draw to the attention of my friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), that the Province of Ontario, I believe, has moved away from taxation in the area we discussed, the ability to tax non-Indians on designated land. Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta do not exercise that opportunity. Hopefully, British Columbia would be consistent with the actions taken by other provinces where conditionally designated land is found.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Chairman, I have just one other question. I think the Minister may have missed it in my list at the beginning of questions. It had to do with British Columbia municipalities, some of which are currently taxing on surrendered Indian lands. In preparation for dealing with this Bill, I was in communication with the Minister's office and was advised that municipalities did have some concerns. I think it might be of interest to the House if we knew what those concerns were.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, the concerns expressed are that of how to share in the costs of servicing those designated lands, how they will be arrived at, the municipal infrastructure that is presently there, how that will be compensated for. I really believe that the move we are taking today will allow us, over a period of time, to find our way through that. The establishment of the Indian Taxation Advisory Board, I

June 2, 1988
Indian Act
believe, will be very beneficial in allowing us to step slowly to a resolution.
I believe that when municipalities can benefit, respond and co-operate beside one another, there should be the same opportunities for municipalities and designated lands to be able to co-operate in infrastructure and the use of public buildings and gathering places, those utilities that are provided around designated land and on municipalities.
It is a concern. Chief Jules has discussed that concern with some individual urban mayors in British Columbia. We have discussed it extensively with the British Columbia Urban Municipalities Association. I believe there are actions we can take once this Bill is moved to establish a process where we will all be able to learn as we progress. Chief Jules and those other chiefs who have designated land are certainly not lacking in knowledge about the concern. They and I and, I am sure, other members of this House feel it can be addressed.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Edwards):: Moved by Mr. Schellenberger that Clause 10 of Bill C-115 be amended by striking out lines 43 and 44 on Page 5 and substituting the following: "Taxation for local purposes of'.
Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Moved by Mr. Schellenberger that Clause 10 of Bill C-115 be amended (a) by striking out lines 19 to 21 on Page 6 and substituting the following: "(2) an expenditure made out of moneys raised pursuant to subsection (1) must be so made under the authority of a by-law", (b) by striking out line 31 on page 6 and substituting the following: "Regulations not consistent with this section respecting the exercise of the".
Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Shall Clause 10, as amended, carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Shall Clause 11 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 11 agreed to.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Shall Clause 12 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 12 agreed to.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Shall Clause 13 carry?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Chairman, we would ask that Clause 13 be deleted. I move that Clause 13 be deleted.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Are there questions?


B. Keith Penner: Just an explanation, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I ask that Clause 13 be deleted and the title be changed. It has to do with the Veterans Lands Act, which we feel was legislative housekeeping, and removing a section that really expired in 1977. The amendment to the Veterans Lands Act is not necessitated in this Bill and it is not consequential as a result. Therefore, there is no need to have it in. We would like to remove that clause and also change the title in order that it not be a part of this legislation.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Chairman, I certainly accept the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation. I think members of the committee, however, would be interested in knowing why it was determined initially that this was a consequential amendment. Why was it there in the first place?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Chairman, it was proposed by the drafting committee of the Bill as a legislative housekeeping matter, but after looking at it, it was decided we should not move at this time with that amendment. As well, Chief Jules as well has asked that we not do so, and we agree. As a result, we would like to have it deleted from the Bill.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, can I just get it clear, then? Has Section 46 of the VLA already been repealed somewhere else in 1977?
Mi Schellenberger: It expired.


James Ross Fulton: It expired in 1977. So I take it this was an attempt to use this Bill to shotgun it out of an existing statute.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: The Hon. Member has answered his own question.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: That is efficiency. I would indicate to Members that a negative vote on the carrying of Clause 13 will have the effect of deleting it from the Bill.
Shall Clause 13 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Clause 13 negatived.


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall the title carry?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Chairman, we would also, as a consequence of the amendment we just moved, have the title as well amended. Therefore, I move:

Indian Act
That Bill C-115 be amended by striking out the long title on Page 1 and
substituting the following:
"An Act to amend the Indian Act (Designated Lands)"


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Is there agreement to the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Shall the title carry as amended?


B. Keith Penner: I am sure there is a simple answer to this question. I listened with interest when the Parliamentary Secretary introduced the Bill this morning. I had the impression from what he said-unless I misunderstood him-that we would henceforth be talking about designated Indian lands, that we were going to get rid of the unfortunate phrase "surrendered lands". "Surrendered lands" and "extinguishment" is very bad vocabulary. It has been around for a long time. We were going to clean up our act and start talking in a new way. But here it comes up in the title of the Bill. Why not call it "an Act regarding designated lands"? Why call it "surrendered lands"?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Chairman, do not ever let it be said that we are not convinced by the arguments of the Hon. Member. I would be happy to withdraw the term "surrendered" and substitute the term "designated" therefor. That seems consistent. It is a good suggestion, one which we should adopt.
Therefore, I move:
That Bill C-115 be amended by striking out the long title on page 1 and
substituting the following:
"An Act to amend the Indian Act (designated lands)"


James Ross Fulton: I have one quick question, Mr. Chairman. I know that we are just about to complete committee of the whole and move on with the Bill. I am wondering whether or not the Minister might give his assurance that he will do whatever he can to make sure that this gets quickly through the other place.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member realizes that I usually only make commitments that I can keep. I will talk to my colleagues, if he will talk to his, in the other place.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Shall the title as amended carry?


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


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Shall the Bill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that the Bill C-115, an Act to amend the Indian Act, (designated lands), as reported (with amendment) from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that Bill C-123, an Act to amend the Indian Act (minors' funds and surviving spouse's preferential share), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to rise in debate on this Bill, one that my constituents in the constituency of Wetaskiwin have been asking for for some time.
The bands at Hobema use their trust accounts to assist the parents of children to raise minors. This has been the practice of those bands for some time. However, in the last number of years the Auditor General has raised some questions as to the manner in which Parliament is allowing this to take place. So it is indeed a pleasure to see this legislation before us today. Once and for all we will no longer have this practice being questioned by the Auditor General and Members of Parliament as to whether or not it is in fact in order.
One of the primary goals of the Government is to return to Indian people control over their lands, over their lives and over their funds, moneys that have been gathered either through resources, through the Bill which we just finished debating, or in other business activities on the reserve. The manner in which they use those funds should well be within their jurisdiction.
Since coming to office we have moved steadily forward in this regard. We are doing so again with this legislation today. We are giving new impetus to the whole area of devolution, encouraging local decision-making and Indian participation in the development and delivery of a wide range of programs.

June 2, 1988
Indian Act
The Bill before us today is an important step for all Indian people. The key element of Bill C-123 is that it will provide Indian bands with an opportunity to take an active role in the release of funds to Indian minors, to parents or guardians of such minors, which is presently the sole responsibility of the Minister.
Indian people have the ability to direct their affairs and those of their children. The legislation before us today is very progressive in that sense. In fact, it has been in practice for some time.
As I have said before, serious concerns have been raised by the Auditor General concerning the way that the Department discharges its trust responsibilities. Accordingly, many of those concerns are now being addressed through a major review of the Department's plans, revenues and trust functions. As a result, this Bill, Bill C-123, deals almost exclusively with minors' trust funds.
Presently under the Indian Act all moneys derived from the sale or lease of Indian lands and resources are held in trust by the Government of Canada for use by the bands. As well, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) is authorized to direct the expenditure of those funds for the benefit of the bands concerned.
The Indian Act also authorizes him, with the consent of a band, to arrange payments to individuals or individual band members. The total amount distributed in this way cannot exceed 50 per cent of the band's capital moneys derived from the sale of surrendered lands. These lands are generally surrendered for resource exploration purposes.
Distribution payments to minors are held by the Government of Canada in individual trust accounts and released to minors when they reach the age of majority. The Department now maintains about 19,000 of these accounts worth more than $145 million. The vast majority are held on behalf of resource-rich bands in Alberta, or other bands of a resource nature in British Columbia.
One of the difficulties that I have noted over the years with respect to holding trust accounts until the age of majority, particularly in the oil-producing bands of Alberta, is that when these funds are released to a person who reaches 18 years of age there is a great feeling that these young people are not yet capable of investing, in some cases many tens of thousands of dollars, at that age. They often use that money to their personal detriment. Perhaps they buy a new car, which we are all susceptible to doing when we receive some money, and then go out on a bit of a celebration because of the windfall that comes at 18 years of age. I have spoken to the chiefs about this issue, and together we should consider a way in which this money can be sent out to the person after the age of majority, not all at once but in payments over a period of a number of years. That is an aside, but is relevant to what is happening and to this Bill.
In 1981, Indian bands in Alberta asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to make payments from these trust funds to parents or guardians of Indian minors to help provide for minors. A departmental directive was subsequently developed, and has been used for the last five years. Upon receipt of a band council resolution, the Department will pay up to $3,000 annually from the distribution made on behalf of minor band members directly to the parents or guardians of all such minors, in the band.
However, there are no specific provisions in the Indian Act authorizing the Minister to make payments to parents or guardians of minors, on a minor's behalf without a specific request for that money, and also establishing the need for that money. The Auditor General has suggested that the Minister is bound by provincial trust laws, common law practices and principles of trust.
Bill C-123 is designed to incorporate the basic principles of the provincial regimes governing moneys held on behalf of all minors in Canada, while still accommodating the particular needs and circumstances of Indian minors. In this manner, it strikes an important balance between ensuring that Indian communities can protect the interests of their minors, and providing for the lawful release of moneys by the Government of Canada to those who are entitled to them.
Specifically, Bill C-123 amends the Indian Act to provide the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with express discretionary authority to make payments from a minor's trust fund to a parent or guardian for the maintenance, advancement, or benefit of the minor.
The legislation further amends the Indian Act to provide band councils with the authority to direct the Minister to pay all or part of per capita distributions owed to an Indian minor to a parent, guardian, or the council for the minor's maintenance, advancement, or other benefit. Under this amendment, the council itself may assume responsibility for distribution to a parent or guardian. The amount payable will be the lesser of $3,000, or the amount of the annual per capita distribution paid to members of the band.
Bill C-123 also amends the Indian Act to enable the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to pay all moneys owing to the minor at age of majority in a series of payments over a period of not more than three years. This is what I mentioned before, Mr. Speaker. In some cases, perhaps three years is not long enough, but it certainly is an improvement over what was allowed in the past.
A request to make payments in this way must be made in writing to the Minister by a parent, guardian, or the council of the band to which the minor belongs. This provision was included at the request of concerned Indian parents who were becoming increasingly alarmed at the tragic loss of their children's heritage through their inability to manage large sums of money at the age of majority.
June 2, 1988

These amendments are important from both a legal and a practical point of view. From a legal standpoint, they ensure that the Minister has the authority to discharge his trust responsibilities. From a practical standpoint, they ensure that at least some of the minor's trust money is available for his or her maintenance, advancement, or benefit.
The Bill also provides for one other important amendment to the Indian Act. This one is unrelated to minors' trust funds. Subsections 48(1) and 48(2) of the Indian Act will be amended to increase a surviving spouse's preferential share in the estate of an intestate from $2,000 to $75,000. This brings the Indian Act in line with the most progressive provincial legislation in this area.
Progress, fairness, and keeping commitments are what this Bill is all about. I know that all Members from all Parties are concerned about this, and hopefully this Bill can be moved along relatively quickly.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly)-Health-Pulp mill outfalls-Dioxin levels in crabs/Example set by Swedish pulp mills; the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar)-Unemployment insurance-Canada Packers-Closure of Winnipeg plant- Workers' unemployment insurance benefits/Difference in treatment of salaried employees and wage earners.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McKnight that Bill C-123, an Act to amend the Indian Act (minors' funds and surviving spouse's preferential share), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, this is not an extraordinarily complicated piece of legislation, by any means. It simply clarifies the Minister's trust responsibilities for moneys held by Canada on behalf of an Indian person who has not yet reached the age of majority.
The Bill amends the Indian Act to provide the Minister with express authority, as indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary, to make payments to those who have not reached the age of
Indian Act
majority on the request of a parent, guardian, or the band council in order that a child's maintenance and advancement or other benefit may be looked after.
Anyone tuning into this debate may wonder why it is that we are amending the Indian Act, and why it is necessary for us to do so. The answer is that in 1986 the Auditor General raised concerns about the trust accounts for Indian children held by the Government of Canada. They are called the minors' trust accounts. As the law now reads, the Minister of Indian Affairs must maintain trust accounts for Indian children until they reach the age of majority.
This is all part of what I consider to be the outdated but still lingering paternalism in this country which still characterizes the relationship between the Government of Canada and Indian people generally. I cannot imagine any other Canadian allowing such interference by the state in his or her personal financial matters and concerns.
Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that, pursuant to the Indian Oil and Gas Act, all the royalties from oil and gas reserves held by Indians and that come from Indian lands are held in trust by the federal Government on behalf of the bands concerned. I do not know what message that communicates to you or to my colleagues in the House, but to me the underlying supposition is that somehow these bands cannot, by themselves, be trusted to handle and disburse their own revenues. That flies in the face of self-determination, to which I will return in a moment.
Trust accounts for minors must be held by the Government until they reach the age of majority. There are some 14,000 such trust accounts at present, with a value of approximately $100 million. Despite the obligation to hold these moneys until the child reaches the age of maturity, it has in the past been the Department's practice to release annually around $3,000 on request for a child's education, maintenance, or benefit. That is to say, this money could be released to the child's parent or guardian.
Here comes the rub. There is fear about the Minister's liability in doing this. That is to say, the Minister might at some time in the future be sued for breach of trust by an Indian person whose trust moneys were disbursed while he or she was still a minor.
We have to be very frank in this House of Commons that what we are doing this afternoon with Bill C-123 is not something for Indian people, despite what the Parliamentary Secretary would like us to believe. What we are doing this afternoon is something to protect the Minister. We are trying to keep the Minister from being sued for breach of trust.
The Auditor General noted that in order to make these payments from a minor's trust account there really ought to be, according to the various trust acts in the provinces, a court order. Obviously, every time $3,000 was granted to a parent or guardian the Department of Indian Affairs did not want to get

June 2, 1988
Indian Act
a court order. That would be a bureaucratic nightmare. If we do not want to go the court route, Section 52 of the Indian Act must be amended to give express authority to the Minister to advance such trust funds for the maintenance and education of Indian minors. That is what we are doing with Bill C-123. Therefore, this is a simple Bill to help out the Minister and his successors.
However, this problem of liability does not just dissipate and go away. We have transferred liability from the Minister to the band council. Band councils which make a determination that money is needed and request the disbursement of funds for a particular child themselves become liable and may find themselves at some time in a breach of trust situation.
Neither I nor my Party want to stand in the way of this Bill in any way. We will not hold it up at all. We want the Minister to have the protection he is seeking. As long as the Government of Canada has the enormous power and control, which is almost totalitarian in scope, over Indian people, a Bill like C-123 will be necessary.
It ought to be demonstrated through this legislation to Members of the House and all Canadians just how far we in Canada still are from recognizing the right to self-determination of Indian people. The failure to recognize the inherent right of aboriginal people to self-government in our Constitution continues, day after day, year after year, to compound our problems.
The sad thing is that we came so close. We almost made a breakthrough. We stood at the very edge of a major decision to complete the Canadian federation by inviting aboriginal people to come in, not as wards of the state, but as partners of our Confederation. However, at the last minute at the last of those First Ministers' Conferences there was a hesitation. I do not at all place all the blame on the present administration. There was provincial hesitation as well-hesitation and withdrawal. The political will failed. The vision which was seen for a moment faded and courage folded.
We are now at the point where a new generation of Indian leaders is rapidly losing patience. I have marveled, in the many years in which I have been involved in the House of Commons with aboriginal affairs and Indian rights, at the degree of patience which has existed among the leadership of the aboriginal communities. However, Chief Erasmus in Edmonton this week alluded to the fact that that patience is beginning to dry up, it is beginning to run out.
I raise this in the House of Commons because I think Members of Parliament from every political Party ought to be concerned. I do not believe that Chief Erasmus was threatening anyone, I do not believe he was sabre rattling. I think he was simply reporting on a reality which is becoming more and more apparent to him. The situation in Canada is deteriorating and statesmen like Georges Erasmus may not be able to control the situation unless they get co-operation and understanding from members of the administration and all Members of Parliament.
In his book written in 1976, I believe, entitled Across the Medicine Line, C. Frank Turner quotes Sitting Bull, Chief of the Sioux, who at one time explained to Inspector Walsh of the Northwest Mounted Police why he had left the United States of America to enter Canada, which he did in the year 1876. Sitting Bull said: "The grass in Canada is not stained with blood".
Members of the House may know that the civil rights activist Rap Brown once said that violence in the United States is as American as cherry pie. Well, that is not the tradition in Canada and it must never become the route to problem solving. Violent action is always, inevitably, a no-win situation for everyone. If anyone doubts that, all they need do is to look at Beirut or Belfast.
There exists in Canada today the most vital need to establish a new working relationship between aboriginal peoples and the Government of Canada. This new relationship must be established on two pillars, the first being the full recognition of aboriginal rights, including that of self-determination. The second pillar is fair, honest, and open negotiating in order to settle and resolve differences, disputes, and problems.
Until this is done we are going to go on and on tinkering with the Indian Act. We will continue to see matters like the Lubicon claim in northern Alberta mushroom into an international issue. We are going to continue to see police raids such as the one on the Kahnawake Reserve on the Mohawk people where, I am told, some 200 RCMP officers in three buses descended with loaded automatic rifles. Why? Because there is a problem there, a dispute, a misunderstanding, about the importation of cigarettes and the taxation of those cigarettes as they are sold. It seems to me that a problem like that can be resolved if reasonable people sit down around the table to try to solve it. In fact, I am advised that negotiations were in progress at Kahnawake on this matter.
I ask the House and the Government, where are we going when we send in 200 police officers with loaded automatic rifles to solve a problem like that? This is not the Canada that I thought we lived in. It seems to me when we do things like that we are on the very verge of becoming some kind of police state. It is time to call off that kind of action and proceed in a totally different way. Until we do, Mr. Speaker, there will be more and more grievances. The list will get longer and longer and the situation will become increasingly more tragic. This does not have to happen. There is a reasonable, informed, talented and capable leadership with the aboriginal communities of this country, but it does not feel that it has access to problem solving. The leadership feels that it is being manipulated, pushed around and used.
I am asking Parliament and the Government of Canada, for God's sake come to your senses and stop. What we need here in Ottawa is the kind of political leadership which is strong enough to say that the kind of paternalism that has gone on in
June 2, 1988

this country for so long has to come to an end. Confrontation has to stop whether it is between police officers and band members or whether that confrontation is in a court of law. Why can matters not be resolved by way of negotiation? No finer a Canadian than the Hon. E. Davie Fulton said that the problem at Lubicon could be resolved. He gave a recipe for the resolution and he agreed to become the mediator. His recipe, his plan and volunteering to be a mediator were all rejected. The Minister decided instead to throw the whole issue into a court of law based on well defined premises laid down ahead of time by the Government of Canada. It is not the way to proceed, Mr. Speaker. It will not work. It will simply compound our problem.
I thank you, Sir, for your patience, but I want to make a plea once again. We have to begin today to establish a new working relationship with the aboriginal people of this country, a relationship between the Government of Canada and the aboriginal people, a relationship that will work, will yield understanding and goodwill, rather than have the situation that we see at present.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as my friend just said, Bill C-123 will do what it is designed for. It is a legal bandage for the Minister and for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
I had an interesting conversation earlier this week with some senior people from the Department regarding the five Bills we are dealing with today. I was not shocked but I was not amused to hear from them. I am not sure what code names they use. People who are senior in the Department use code names now. The one I am speaking of is probably "S", although I am not sure. I know he is probably watching the debate. I was not amused to learn that there is extensive, widespread law-breaking taking place right now by the Department in relation to the very issue before us today. It has been going on for many years and at great length. It was a point finally driven home, I suppose, by the Auditor General.
As is often the case in aboriginal matters in this country in recent years, matters seem to be resolved, at least in part, in the interests of Canada's first citizens by rulings by the United Nations as we saw in the Lovelace case, and ultimately by Bill C-131, which I said yesterday is like a balloon that has been heavily perforated with all kinds of legal problems.
The five Bills we have before us today I described earlier as being the good, the bad and the ugly. The ugly Bill C-122 we dealt with just before lunch. It deals with changes proposed by the Government to by-laws and the procedures affecting bylaws. This one I describe as bad. My friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) touched on some of the reasons why many Canadians and Members of Parliament consider this kind of an approach to be bad. Where is the commitment to self-government when one looks at Bill C-123? Where is the consultation? Where is the imagination in dealing with what I was advised about yesterday in terms of the total? The minors' trust is about $100 million, but if you
Indian Act
look at the total amount being held by the Government of Canada, it is around $900 million. Where is the imagination to deal with funds of this amount? They are sitting in the Consolidated Revenue Fund drawing interest the same as a Treasury bill. There are sufficient funds to do all kinds of things in terms of leverage, banking proposals, in setting up tourist industries et cetera. Where is the imagination? There is no imagination in this Bill. All it is is a big roll of Elastoplast bandage to protect the Minister from being sued, from being in court, from having his bureaucrats charged with all kinds of offences. The officials admitted to me the day before yesterday that there is rampant law-breaking going on, and I am talking about very senior officials in the Department.
My friend from Cochrane-Superior asked, how does the Government respond to a treaty issue under negotiations at Kahnawake with the federal Government? How has it responded there? A para-military troop of 200 police officers has gone in with machine guns. This is the importation of violence. Whoever in Canada made this decision must have been watching Rambo I, Rambo II and Rambo III back to back a little too much lately. That is violence, Mr. Speaker. That is violent activity by the state against a group of peaceful people who have been operating this kind of a commercial transaction for years in full view. It is not hidden. It is not some kind of underground operation. The federal Government should hang its head in shame for the way it has been responding to this issue here in the House and outside in the last 48 hours.
The Auditor General in 1986 asked certain questions about whether or not the Minister had the authority to make payments out of trust funds for minors. The second part of this Bill is the distribution of estates, a problem that has been chronic in some cases. I do not know any other identifiable group in Canadian society that has had to put up with such things. Some payments in relation to estates have been held up for 20 years under the existing bureaucratic regime set up by the Department.
I talked earlier today about the kind of political pulp that comes out of the Minister's office every once in a while on Bills like Bills C-122, C-123 and others. It is basically propaganda trying to paint a nice face on legislation that is coming forward. Here is how it was covered by the press:
The federal government has set out rules to ensure Indian bands, parents or guardians don't raid trust accounts set up for young native people.
That is a nice way to put it. It continues:
Under a bill tabled in the Commons this week, a band council would have to give 14 days notice that it intends to take money out of a minor's trust account, and would have to hear any objections from band members at a general meeting.
Withdrawals would be limited to $3,000 a year and would have to be used only for the benefit of the child, such as paying education expenses.
Guardians who want to get at the cash would have to apply directly to the Indian Affairs minister, stating in writing how the money will benefit the minor. There would be no cash limit on the amount the Minister can approve.

June 2, 1988
Indian Lands Agreement (1986) Act
What is this Parliament up to? This kind of paternalistic attitude, I suppose, is best revealed. I do not think it is a political philosophy per se, I think it is an attitude, perhaps most rampantly and repugnantly revealed in the remarks of someone who is in Cabinet in British Columbia. Stephen Rogers, when he was commenting on South Moresby, said, "Wouldn't it be wonderful, the Haidas could act as so-called living exhibits in South Moresby". There is a revelation by someone in Cabinet thinking, "Aboriginal people. They will attract tourists. We will have them as living exhibits in South Moresby". This is a living exhibit of the same kind of mentality. It is not an attempt to deal realistically with extensive sums of money that should be flowing more appropriately to settle estates of someone whose spouse passes away. Right now one can get $2,000 automatically, and here in Ontario, there is a case of a family that has been waiting 20 years for the Department to settle the estate. That is preposterous. I am not sure that this Bill will speed things up.
Let me carry on with this story:
The accounts, for which the minister is a trustee, are created when a share of royalties from oil and gas revenues on Indian lands must be distributed to band members younger than 18 years.
The federal spending watchdog, Auditor General Ken Dye, criticized the department in his 1986 report for automatically releasing $3,000 a year from all minors' trust accounts without the written request of the parent or guardian and regardless of need.
The Minister has been automatically releasing funds without any justification as to whether the minor needs it or not or whether it is ever spent on a hockey glove, a bus pass to get to school or the fee to join an orchestra. What is proposed here is nothing better.
If we are to really move toward self-government, and I think the will to do so exists in Canada and, if properly mobilized, even exists here in this Chamber, we should close down the Department of Indian Affairs. This Bill sets up a whole new bureaucracy. As quick as we can rub one out, another one is built, another great dream castle to deal paternalistically with those people.
Of course, this violates laws. As I said, senior bureaucrats admit that there is widespread law-breaking going on, but I do not see any charges being laid by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) or by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Perhaps that is the way this should have been dealt with, rather than with this legal Elastoplast.
The publication continues:
And an 11-page legal opinion for the department by University of Victoria law professor Donovan Waters warned that the current system violates provincial trust laws and should be changed.
We did not hear from the Parliamentary Secretary or from the Minister yet whether or not that will continue to be the case. Obviously, this is a good reason why this piece of legislation should go to a legislative committee for proper hearings. To continue:
The opinion-argued that no money should be released without evidence of need.
The bill, an amendment to the Indian Act, aims also to cut into the backlog of cases involving the distribution of the estates of deceased natives.
Dye's 1986 report noted long delays in the department's handling of estates, partly because of poor staff training. In Ontario alone, there were about 600 such cases awaiting settlement, some of them more than 20 years old.
Under the proposed legislation, up to $75,000 from an estate could be automatically given to the surviving spouse. The current limit for automatic payment is $2,000.
Departmental officials and Dye agreed in 1986 that the higher limit would reduce the estate-settlement workload.
A spokesman for the Assembly of First Nations said the bill was put together without consulting native groups and that it barely touches the huge financial mismanagement problem at the department.
"They got stung so they're scratching in one spot, ignoring the rash on the other side of the body," Ted Montour said Thursday.
I will not spend any more time on this Bill. I am looking forward to getting it before the legislative committee. I do not know that we can amend it in the direction of the principle that should have driven it, the principle of self-government and providing control of trust funds with those they are for. Surely that should be an underlying principle that all parliamentarians could agree on. I do not think there is a Member of this House who would agree to this kind of a Bill which would affect his or her children, grandchildren, cousins, nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts, fathers or mothers.
As I said earlier, this Bill falls into today's category of bad legislation. It is not ugly like the one with which we dealt a little earlier nor is it good like two of the ones with which we have already dealt today.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that Bill C-73, an Act to provide for the implementation of an agreement respecting Indian lands in Ontario, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it may be convenient at this time to ask if the House could ignore the clock. I know that one of our
June 2, 1988

colleagues is anxious to leave. I would like all of my colleagues to have an opportunity to participate, and if we should by some chance go past a certain hour, I wonder if the Chair could ask Members at this time to ignore the clock for a very short time so that we could conclude these remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: The Hon. Minister has proposed that the clock be ignored, with the proviso that Private Members' Business be given the full hour. Is there unanimous consent for that?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope it will not be necessary, but I very much appreciate it.
Bill C-73, the Indian Lands Agreement (1986) Act, basically brings into play discussions that have gone on for several years regarding Indian lands in Ontario. It will provide a mechanism to resolve the question of control over unsold surrendered Indian lands and the royalties derived from mineral rights that are now being held.
By providing for a means to negotiate these issues, the 1986 Indian Lands Agreement could lead to the return of unsold surrendered lands to Ontario Indians and to their full entitlement to the mineral royalties on reserve lands. This will in turn contribute to the economic development in some communities and to the establishment of infrastructure that is indeed needed to support Indian Government.
The Governments of Canada and Ontario attempted to resolve a series of post-Confederation court decisions which established that title to surrendered Indian lands and the mineral resources on them be passed to the provincial Government. Among other things, these decisions cast doubt on the legality of past federal sales of surrendered Indian lands. This situation occurred in 1984, and the agreements were designed to give the federal Government the right to sell surrendered lands and to transfer the proceeds to the appropriate bands.
Despite the good intentions, the agreement was ambiguous in wording and brought into question whether it applied to lands surrendered before the agreement was signed. Moreover, under the 1924 agreement, Ontario retains 50 per cent of all mineral royalties on the lands.
As a result of this ambiguity, several million dollars in royalties are now being held in suspense accounts. Efforts have been ongoing since the late 1950s to resolve the problems that were found in the 1924 agreement. It was not until March, 1986 when the Indian Lands Agreement was approved by the Ontario tripartite council of federal and provincial Ministers and Indian association leaders that the agreement we are talking about today was finally reached.
Naturally, there are two sides to this. The 1924 agreement was ratified by Parliament and by the provincial legislature, and further legislation is required to amend the terms and conditions. On the federal side, that legislation is Bill C-73.
Indian Lands Agreement (1986) Act
Similar enacting legislation will have to be introduced in the Ontario Legislature.
The Indian Lands Agreement (1986) will allow the federal and Ontario Governments and individual Indian bands to negotiate specific agreements regarding the future control of the lands and minerals in question. It confirmed the federal Government's right to retain and administer land sale revenues for Indian bands.
In Ontario there are some 2.5 million acres of reserve land which has been surrendered by Indian bands. Not all of it has been sold. With the passage of this important legislation, the reserve land base of Ontario will have a potential to increase by as much as 12 per cent or 200,000 acres. We also anticipate that as part of specific agreements Ontario will relinquish its interest in existing mineral royalties which are now being held in suspense. Those royalties are worth today some $4.3 million.
The future value of mineral rights is, I think, even more important. Over the next 15 years royalties which could be worth several millions of dollars will flow to the bands in question. There is also provision for a separate agreement to ratify federal letters patent, some 33,000 of which have been issued to non-Indians for title to Indian lands. As I say, the expanded land and resource base resulting from this Bill will contribute to economic development in Ontario.
The impact will be favourable on a number of Indian bands in Ontario. Some 30 bands will eventually be involved in negotiations arising out of Bill C-73. Sixteen bands have already started the process. An example is the Nipissing Band which is negotiating agreements involving some 34,000 acres and Sarnia, which is negotiating for royalties of some $4.3 million now being held in trust, and six bands are involved in negotiations for the land at Manitoulin Island.
As we go forward we are prepared to assist Indian bands as much as possible during this negotiating process. My Department will be offering financial assistance to bands who undertake these negotiations. I would like to assure Hon. Members that this Act will in no way prejudice Indian rights in Ontario. In fact, I believe it will advance those rights by providing Indian people with a greatly enhanced opportunity for economic development. Neither will this Act affect third parties. I believe that as we look to where occupied lands cannot be returned to reserve status, other methods of compensation must be explored.
In conclusion, there are two features which have to be stressed. It is important to note that the agreement is between the Governments of Canada and Ontario, but there is strong support from most Indian bands in Ontario. I think that reflects a commitment by all three parties to resolve a longstanding issue so that the development of Indian lands and resources can proceed.

June 2, 1988
Indian Lands Agreement (1986) Act
The second point is that the lands agreement is an opting-in agreement. That means the bands who do not wish to enter into any specific agreement will continue to be governed by the 1924 agreement. This is in keeping with the policy of proceeding with changes according to the timetable of Indian bands.
I want to point out that there are many bands in Ontario who are eager to proceed quickly with Bill C-73 so that they can accelerate the vital task of economic development for bands in Ontario. As we proceed we will both be able to clarify an outstanding problem and again benefit all people in Ontario by causing economic development to take place.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if you would recognize my friend from Skeena to speak first from this side of the House because of a flight he has to catch very quickly.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend from Cochrane-Superior and also the Minister for keeping his remarks brief so that I can get into the air to British Columbia.
Bill C-73 is supported by most groups in Ontario, so I am advised. I also understand there are some who are opposed to it and I can understand why they might well be. However, I think by having this legislation go from here to a legislative committee an opportunity will be open for the chiefs of Ontario who have requested that the legislation be studied in committee to make their views known, as will groups such as the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians who have expressed concerns about the legislation. They will be able to air their views once it is in committee.
The one point I do not think can be passed by today is that we have to send a signal to the Legislature at Queen's Park in Toronto that they must reintroduce the parallel legislation that was before their Chamber two years ago but lapsed after the Legislature was dissolved. It has not been reintroduced. The fact we are dealing with it today in an expeditious manner may well be a sufficient signal. However, it may well be that Members participating in this debate and who are concerned about this issue will have to take additional steps to get the Government of Ontario to move to bring in the parallel legislation necessary to implement the tripartite process we are moving on today.
The problem is an old one. It started in 1867 with respect to most of the land. In fact, just 100 years ago, in 1888, there was the famed St. Catharines Milling case, which of course is part and parcel of what we are dealing with here today. It involves about 30,000 properties, if one were to look at the individual titles in Ontario with letters patent from the federal Government, but letters patent that are not really what one could describe as full title or title in fee simple. There are technical legal problems with how the land was ceded, and that is in part what we will be dealing with in Bill C-73.
About 200,000 acres are affected. Sixteen bands have expressed direct interest in proceeding and, as the Minister said, and I am sure my friend from Cochrane-Superior will
restate, it is certainly our view from reading this legislation that it is an opt-in situation. Those who wish to stay outside of this process can continue to operate under the 1924 lands agreement.
It is a situation somewhat different from that in my home Province of British Columbia. We have only 14 very small treaty areas on Vancouver Island that were dealt with wisely by Governor Douglas a long time ago, and Treaty 8 in the northwest part of the province. The matter of land and a land base in Ontario is somewhat more complicated, to say the least. There is not what one could describe as the comprehensive claims settlement process that will ultimately deal with the land question of British Columbia. It is more a situation of specific claims.
Sadly, there are now almost 500 specific claims backed up in Canada, many of them here in Ontario, and only a few of them can be dealt with by the passage of Bill C-73 as it stands or as it may well be amended in the legislative committee when it goes there after today's debate. Therefore, I look forward to having this go through second reading today.
I know there are some in the country, as I said earlier, and some in Ontario, some first citizens and First Nations, who oppose this kind of approach to dealing with individual parcels of land. Certain people have a very much different relationship to land per se than do many other cultures and civilizations. However, I think at least in a small way, perhaps somewhat like Bill C-115 which we dealt with earlier today, this is a tool that will be effective and valuable to some bands and some individuals who will be able to make use of it once it passes through here and in a parallel fashion through the provincial Legislature in Ontario so we can get on with the process of returning at least those 200,000 acres which have been tied up in this rather bizarre legal problem with respect to deeding and patenting of the land.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, it should be understood by anyone observing this debate on Bill C-73 that, strictly speaking, we are not legislating anything. Through Bill C-73 we are ratifying an agreement that has already been reached. This Bill implements an agreement respecting Indian lands in Ontario. The purpose of Bill C-73 is to confirm and ratify a bilateral agreement between Canada and Ontario.
That agreement is known as the 1986 Indian Lands Agreement. That agreement is appended to the Bill as a schedule.
While the 1986 agreement came close to being ratified by the Legislature of Ontario, an election interfered and we are still waiting for the Legislature to ratify the agreement. However, we are ratifying the agreement in the House of Commons this afternoon.
June 2, 1988

The agreement to which I am referring makes it possible for three parties-Canada, Ontario and any Indian band or group of bands-to negotiate regarding certain lands and resources in Ontario.
These lands became alienated from the Indian people at some point and passed over to the Province of Ontario as a result of an earlier agreement between Canada and Ontario that was signed in 1924. This agreement passed over to the Province of Ontario complete beneficial interest in any surrendered Indian land and any federal Government control or administration of those lands seized.
Furthermore, under that 1924 agreement, Ontario was able to retain 50 per cent of all mineral royalties arising from the sale of minerals underlying those Indian lands.
It must be clear for those who follow such matters that Bill C-73 is not altering the 1924 agreement at all. It is providing for three-party negotiations regarding land and natural resources that have become an issue through this process of alienation.
The Minister has already given us the figures. We are talking about some possible 200,000 acres which could be added to the reserve land base of Ontario Indians. It may never happen, but it is possible that that much land could be at stake. As well, through these negotiations, the province may in time relinquish its interests in Indian mineral royalties, and these royalties are potentially worth many millions of dollars.
It has to be understood by the House that there is no guarantee that this land and these royalties will in fact be returned. A procedure will be put in place whereby these lands and these resources may be obtained if the negotiations are successful and if there is a settlement. However, there can be no settlement until we ratify the agreement of 1986. That is what we are doing now.
The Minister mentioned that there has already been one settlement, the Nipissing Band. As soon as the agreement is ratified they are in a position to receive some 34,000 acres. The Sarnia Band could receive something close to $5 million, which is Ontario's share of revenues from the sale of minerals underlying the Sarnia reserve.
Again, my colleague, the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), and the Minister both mentioned that there are another 16 bands in Ontario who are seeking to obtain specific agreements.
I repeat that no agreement can become effective until this Parliament and the provincial Legislature of Ontario complete the ratification process.
There is some opposition to the 1986 agreement between Canada and Ontario by some Indian leaders in Ontario. There are some who object to the idea that they have to negotiate with the provincial jurisdiction regarding Indian land and mineral rights.
Indian Lands Agreement (1986) Act
I want people to try to grasp a principle that is strongly held by many Indian leaders. The principle to which they hold dearly is that when they relate to the Crown, that Crown is with the federal Government and not with the provincial authorities. Therefore, many Indian leaders insist that the relationship always remain bilateral in nature and that negotiations be bilateral negotiations.
It has also come to my attention that Ontario is insisting that any renegotiation of the 1924 agreement has to be done on a quid pro quo basis. I have not been able to get more information about that, but I have carefully examined the agreement which is part of the schedule and I do not see that there.
When the Bill goes to the legislative committee we will have to look very carefully at what Ontario means when it talks about renegotiating on a quid pro quo basis. There are certain chiefs in Ontario, with whom I agree, who find it unacceptable and highly objectionable to be called upon to give up something in return for the correction of a past injustice. That would make no sense at all.
If that does somehow reside in the agreement that we are now ratifying, we will have to be sure that we take it out and make the negotiations open and clean and that no such prerequisite is established.
Bill C-73 basically provides nothing more than a legal framework to allow negotiations with the province to get under way. No Indian band is obliged to negotiate. Where negotiations do occur, leading to agreement, there is another aspect of the Bill which will have to be studied at the clause by clause stage. There is a clause that carries with it the tones of the old extinguishment problem that we have in our land claims process at the present time.
Members will want to look carefully at Clause 6 which says that all existing and future members of any band, and the council of that band and all its successors, are bound for all time by any such agreement that is negotiated. It is a very binding agreement on the band members and the band council.
Is it not strange that there is no such binding obligation imposed upon the federal or provincial Governments which enter into this agreement? The Government is insisting that this clause be there to prevent any future legal obligations, but what is there in the agreement to prevent the Government of Canada or the Government of Ontario from reneging on its obligations? There is nothing there at all.
Of course, if one wanted to write the history of Canada from the perspective of Indian people, it would be a history of reneging on agreements, of breaking promises, ignoring treaties, of backing away from obligations and trampling on rights. That is a history that is not taught in the schools. It is a history that is known by some but not widely dispersed by way of textbooks.
There is some controversy about Bill C-73 among Indian leaders in Ontario. These differences of opinion must be aired

Patients' Rights
when Bill C-73 goes before the legislative committee. Perhaps in some respects we may be able to satisfy all the parties if appropriate amendments are introduced to allay concerns about the Bill and its effect. If that is the case, I ask the Minister if he would be willing to co-operate with the legislative committee if we want to make necessary changes based on the testimony we will receive? I conclude on a note about parliamentary reform. The Hon. James McGrath served this Parliament so well by establishing through his report that legislative and standing committees ought to be a check, a balance, against the powers of the executive and the administration and they ought to be able to exercise their authority based on testimony, consensus and agreement. So far these reforms are in the letter but have yet to be realized in the Parliament of Canada fully in their spirit.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on todays Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   HEALTH SUGGESTED DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES ON PATIENTS' RIGHTS
James Douglas Manly: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of participating with the provinces in the consideration and development of policies in the field of patients' rights, including the right of patients to have access to their files and the obligation for doctors and hospitals to keep patients' records for at least fifty years, and to encourage the enactment of provincial legislation on such matters.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments in support of my Motion 114 relating to the question of patients' rights to access to their medical records and their rights to have those records retained by doctors and hospitals.
The issue of patients' rights was first brought to my attention by a constituent's letter a year ago. Since then I have written to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) a number of times, and I have raised it in statements in the House of Commons. What this motion does is to urge the federal Government to work with the provinces to try to implement a scheme by which patients' rights would be recognized, including the right to have access to their files, and to have their records retained for a period of up to 50 years be enshrined in legislation.
I am sure all Members, after they have had an opportunity to think about the issue and have had a chance to look at the facts, will want to agree with the principle. I hope we will have agreement on this motion so it can be referred to the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare for study. The problem, of course, is not with the principle but rather with the implementation. I think an hour is plenty of time for this House to agree on the principle involved, but it will take officials from the federal, provincial and territorial Governments many hours, indeed, days, weeks and months, to agree on some process for implementation. It is something like the federal Government trying to get 13 clocks of different brands all ticking at the same rate.
I want to say a word of appreciation to Ruth McVeigh, my research assistant, for initiative and hard work in developing this issue, for contacting the provinces and getting information from them. The need for patients to have access to their own files was shown by a letter sent by a constituent-who first raised this matter with me-to the Minister of Health in British Columbia, the Hon. Peter Dueck. I would like to read extensively from that letter. It says:
Dear Mr. Dueck:
As you may be aware there are currently actions being taken against the A.H. Robins Company due to damages caused by their I.U.D. Daikon Shield, which was fitted in many women in Canada in the early 1970s. These damages include infections, infertility, septic abortions and deaths.
My wife was fitted with a Daikon Shield in 1974 in Montreal, Quebec. Many of the records concerning the fitting, and subsequent hospitalization due to complications were lost or destroyed between then and 1985 when we first tried to get these records. Acquiring the hospital records that were left took several letters, phone calls, and ultimately a trip to Montreal. This proved frustrating and time consuming, but we were finally able to acquire some records while keeping costs below $ 100.
Recently my wife's law firm requested proof of the surgery and other treatment she had recently with her current OB/GYN here in Victoria. These treatments relate to the damages the I.U.D. caused. When she went to see her OB/GYN about getting copies of her medical records, she was informed by her OB/GYN that he would not release the records to her, and in fact would not release the records to her lawyers either without a payment of $222 plus photocopying and postal costs. Although the law firm representing her offered to pay for medical record fees from her award settlement, her OB/GYN refused to provide a copy of her records unless he was prepaid.
This has created quite a snag in our case. Neither my wife nor I can afford the kind of fees for medical records being requested. We are working with the lawyers on contingency because we cannot afford to hire a lawyer at salary. Also, there is the possibility the courts may request another copy of her medical records directly from her OB/GYN, new records may be needed to update the file at a later date if the case continues to be delayed (it has already taken 2 years), and my case is separate from my wife's, which may mean I need separate copies of the records. This could end up costing over a thousand dollars just for the file from one of her doctors. Also, after all these costs my wife still would not have a copy of the records to review for accuracy. There is a possibility that errors exist in her file, since she speaks with a strong accent...
June 2, 1988

There is even a greater issue at stake in this matter. As I understand it, the B.C. Medical Plan pays doctors for the time it takes them to write up the original medical record (as part of the office visit fee), the plan pays for the diagnostic lab reports and tests, the plan pays for hospital and surgical reports, and so forth. The discretionary $222 fee (plus photocopying fees) the B.C. Medical Association suggests be charged to patients for the service of sending a copy of medical records to lawyers, insurance companies or others is actually a type of double billing since most of the time involved in creating the original medical record has already been paid for by the B.C. Medical Plan. Doctors regularly provide this copying of medical records and summary sheet to other doctors as a professional courtesy, free of charge. Obviously, the time involved is not that great. My G.P., who believes patients have the right to retain copies of their medical records, often provides me with copies of my records for the cost of photocopying. This $222 charge suggested by the B.C. Medical Association to its members is a bit like going to a car mechanic to have one's car checked, paying the mechanic for the tests, and then having the mechanic tell you that if you want copies of the test results, or his opinion of what is wrong with your car you'll have to pay an extra $222.
I can understand a doctor charging a nominal fee for the time it might take to have the records photocopied or for the cover letter (hospitals typically charge between $15 and $35 for this service, and it takes much more time for the hospital to locate all the records of one patient, than it would for a private physician, since hospital records are often in several locations throughout the hospital), but the $222 fee is certainly well out of line. Also, I would think it fair that any record that would be sent to third party sources, such as courts, lawyers, insurance companies, etc. should also be provided to the patient to review for accuracy. Anyone can see and correct their confidential financial credit rating, so why not their medical record?
Lastly, I seriously question the policy of not allowing a patient a copy of their medical record, including lab test results, diagnosis and prognosis. In this mobile society, people often change doctors and locations, and medical records are often not retained beyond a few years. With the emphasis on medical history as a diagnostic tool, with slow developing environmental and occupational illnesses, with viruses which do not manifest for up to ten years, retention and access to medical record is becoming more and more important to the health of the patient. I am sure many less misdiagnoses would occur if doctors had better access to longer term medical histories.
The importance of record retention is becoming increasingly apparent. This is important in a number of ways. It is important in tracing the pattern of a single individual's illness from the time when the first symptoms appear and to show how it develops. It is important for being able to trace genetic disease.
Last fall, we had the very interesting story of the Attorney General for Oregon, David Frohnmayer whose two daughters suffer from Franconi's anaemia. Mr. Frohnmayer brought them to a small town in Nova Scotia, Musquodoboit Valley, to try to contact relatives who would have the bone marrow that might be compatible for a bone marrow transplant. It is this type of genetic tracing that can become extremely important.
Again, it is important for us to know of what disease did my grandfather died, and what is the pattern of heart disease, cancer or diabetes in my family. Individuals could find information like that extremely helpful in dealing with their own health.
It is also important for the statistical studies of disease. For example, we have a great many industrial diseases. It might be helpful if we had access to the medical records of workers in bleach plants in the pulp mills across Canada to see how that impacts upon their health. Or we could look at the way in
Patients' Rights
which anti-sapstain application in lumber mills has affected health.
Statistical studies of disease are becoming increasingly important. We just have to look at the effects on children who grow up in families where there is a great deal of heavy smoking; or we can look at the effects of children who live on streets where there are heavy traffic patterns and lead impacts on the environment. There are any number of issues in which environmental concerns that have important impacts upon an individual's health could be examined statistically if these records were available.
There are those who when they hear of this problem of retention of records talk about the cost. I think that we have to balance the cost of retaining these records against the cost of having to repeat tests. We have to balance the cost of retaining records against the value of having access to knowledge that can help to reduce costly disease.
The amazing thing about this situation is that records are not being kept now. We made inquiries of the different provinces in this regard. It is astounding that there is absolutely no pattern across the country as to how long the different provinces keep records.
Newfoundland agrees that retention is worth while, but has no regulations in that regard. Prince Edward Island keeps records for 50 years, if microfilmed, 20 years following discharge or five years following death. Nova Scotia keeps records for seven years, and New Brunswick for 21 years. Quebec keeps records for five years and Ontario for ten years, and this is under review. Manitoba keeps records for 30 years. Saskatchewan is aware of the growing concern and cited cost as a problem. Alberta keeps records for ten years, and British Columbia for six years. The Yukon keeps records for 25 years, while the Northwest Territories understands the benefits of record retention but has no regulations.
In other words, in the whole field of provincial regulations in what other area would we find such a complete hodge-podge where there is absolutely no pattern whatsoever, no rhyme or reason? There is an important role here for the Minister to play. Unfortunately, when I wrote to the Minister he replied that this is under the responsibility of the provinces and territories. We know that. Fie stated: "Thus, it is now up to my provincial/territorial counterparts to bring the matter up for discussion. As I have stated, I will be pleased to respond to any issues or any questions they may wish to raise in this regard." In other words, the federal Government has not indicated that it is willing to take any initiative, in bringing the different provinces together on this issue but that it would be happy to discuss it if one of the provinces chose to raise it.
That is not a good enough response to a serious problem. It is a national problem, not simply a provincial one although health falls under a provincial jurisdiction. People move from one province to another. They move from Prince Edward Island to British Columbia and from Saskatchewan to the Northwest Territories and back to Quebec and so on.

June 2, 1988
Patients' Rights
There is a need for a national initiative and a national coordination. In addition to co-ordination the federal Government probably has a role to play in providing financial help to make this possible. It also has a role in terms of providing storage and access facilities for records after a certain period of time when it would be difficult for hospitals or individual doctors to retain them.
The modern methods of storage, retrieval and transmittal of information encourage this kind of centralized facility. Whenever we talk about centralized storage of personal records and centralized retrieval we pose some problems with regard to civil liberties. Certainly, that is true with medical records.
This is a sensitive area. Perhaps it is one of the areas that the committee should be studying. However, I suggest that the centralization of medical records does not pose a more serious question for civil liberties than does the centralized storage of income tax records and other kinds of sensitive information.
The committee should look at the experiment of some United States insurance companies which give their clients a medical record card which is kept up to date by coded material of test results and doctors' records. This card remains with the patient so that if they change doctors of if they move from one location to another their medical records go with them.
There are possibilities here. In the 20th century and the 21st century, which will soon be upon us, we have to have access to medical records in a way that our present regulations give us absolutely no guarantee of happening. I urge all Members to think about this matter. I hope that they will agree that it is important. I hope that they will agree that it is desirable that there be some national system of retaining records, that there be a recognition of the rights of patients to have access to their own records, and that they will accept this motion.
[ Translation]


Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, recently, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Mala-hat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to take steps to provide for a uniform policy across this country on the preservation of, and access to, medical files.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, under the Canada Health Act all matters connected with medical or hospital files necessarily come under provincial jurisdiction, as do municipal files, for instance. Consequently, until the provincial ministers express an interest in the matter, the Minister of National Health and Welfare of Canada cannot take steps to introduce legislation to that effect. Although in most cases, access to such documents is provided without any problems, free of charge, the fact remains that this Government is sympathetic to the difficulties encountered by some Canadians when they try to obtain access to their medical files.
Mr. Speaker, that is why our colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is seriously considering the possibility of initiating consultations and talks with the provinces and a number of national health organizations, in order to reach a consensus on legislation concerning medical files, whether the files are kept by health professionals or by a hospital.
For instance, the matter could be submitted to the Advisory Committee on Institutional and Medical Services, whose next meeting will be held in November 1988. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the terms of reference of this Committee are to consider and discuss, at the interprovincial and federal-provincial levels, matters of interest or mutual concern relating to health services or institutional medical services, and include preparing recommendations as appropriate. Matters of interest or mutual concern may be generally understood to include any matter relating to medical files Committee members may decide to discuss.
For your information, Mr. Speaker, the Committee's membership includes senior public servants representing each of the provincial and territorial Governments and the federal Government. If the Committee should express the need for such a policy, the Minister of National Health and Welfare of Canada would be willing to act in such a way as to encourage the creation of uniform policies across this country for the preservation of and access to medical files.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this is a matter that falls under provincial jurisdiction. I also wish to mention what has been done by certain provinces to deal with this problem. For instance, in 1984, the Province of Quebec adopted Bill 65 and created the Information Access Commission. Under the legislation, everyone is guaranteed the basic right to access to his own medical files. In Ontario, however, attempts to introduce amendments with the same purpose in mind were unsuccessful. That was the case in 1980, when the Province made an indepth study of this question, as reported by the Krever Commission.
On October 15, 1987, the federal Government tabled a document entitled: Access and Privacy: The Steps Ahead, its response to the Standing Committee's report on access to information and privacy protection.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes the fact that Canadians must have access to a wide range of information, including personal information. However, it is also absolutely necessary to protect the vital interests of Canadian citizens, so that the right balance is struck between the two. The Access to Information Act guarantees the public's right to information. By definition, this includes all medical information.
Mr. Speaker, it also means that the medical files of over two million Canadians which are now the property of the Minister of National Health and Welfare of Canada, are available to them without charge, except for the cost of photocopying the files.
June 2, 1988

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands for raising this very important issue.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) on his decision to bring this motion to the attention of the House. This is a very important matter.
In his motion, the Hon. Member says:
... the government should consider the advisability of participating with the provinces in the consideration and development of policies in the field of patients' rights, including the right of patients to have access to their files ...
He goes on to recommend that doctors and hospitals have the obligation to keep patients' records for at least fifty years, and to encourage the enactment of provincial legislation on such matters.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is not a federal matter as such. However, I think this House has the right to express its common wish and desire to see the provinces establish a system, as they see fit, that would provide for a uniform policy across this country with respect to the disclosure and preservation of patients' records.
Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner's Annual Report for 1984 mentioned a complaint about a medical report. This is what it says:
An Ontario man, refused a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan, complained to the Privacy Commissioner that he was denied access to the report which generated the refusal. The complainant had authorized Health and Welfare Canada to obtain proof of his disability from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Commission provided the report but refused to give it to the applicant when he was refused a pension.
This is an example of a Canadian who was denied access to his own medical record.
Mr. Speaker, I already had the honour and privilege to sit in the Ontario Legislative Assembly, as the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Jelinek) pointed out earlier today in this House, and as an MPP, I often had to defend cases where work accidents were overlooked, where workers had been injured on the job or in the workplace. And many times I had to call doctors and hospitals to get medical reports for my constituents from them.
Interestingly enough, it was often the constituent who went to the hospital for his or her medical record and was refused. If the MPP called, he was given the file. One wonders why! In many cases, the constituent could have defended his own case for worker's compensation if he had had access to the document in question. And I find it quite wrong that the patient should be refused what the MPP could obtain. Of course, when I as MPP had the file, we both got together around a table, the constituent and I-and I am sure that most MPPs still do-to share the information in order to better defend the accident victim's claim.
Patients' Rights
It is sometimes hard to understand why there is that reluctance on the part of the medical profession to make available to patients their medical records.
I have a newspaper article written by Mr. Arthur Schafer, the Director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba. Mr. Schafer refers to an article from The New England Journal of Medicine in which an American doctor says that there is sometimes a reluctance on the part of the medical profession to make medical records available because patients could potentially find out about mistakes made by doctors. The article reads in part:
Dr. Hilfiker recounts, for example, how he relied upon negative results produced by the standard pregnancy test when deciding to perform a dilation in curettage-on one of his patients. Had he ordered an ultrasound examination before he scraped out her uterus, he would have discovered that she had a viable pregnancy. He relied too heavily upon one kind of test, and was insufficiently skillful in determining the size of the uterus by pelvic examination. The result of this error: "Nothing can obscure the hard reality:
I... killed their baby."
That also gives the doctor's position on abortion, one with which I concur. However, the point I am making is that it is obvious that in a case like this the doctor would not have had much to gain by giving that information to the patient.
I do not want to accuse all doctors of making it difficult for medical information or medical reports to reach patients for similar reasons, but it is, nevertheless, the view of the author of this article that there are occasions on which the medical profession is hesitant to provide information because the information in question could be detrimental to the practitioner.
I suppose there are other reasons for this as well. Sometimes medical practitioners make notes in the file to which a patient reading the note would take offence. There are occasions, of course, on which a patient may have a disease, the news of which must be broken to the patient in a specific manner.
If a patient is terminally ill the doctor may have to inform the patient of this in such a manner as to ensure that the patient will not go into an immediate depression or some other medical condition. Physicians know how to break such news although I would not, obviously. If the patient requested his or her file that very day and it was provided, the patient could be negatively affected I suppose. Therefore, I recognize that there are occasions on which a physician would have to use proper judgment and not provide information immediately.
When defending a worker at the Workers' Compensation Board I ran across a case in which a medical practitioner had indicated in the file that the claimant's difficulty in readjusting to the workforce was due to the fact that he was, in the view of the practitioner, somewhat deficient in terms of his mental ability. I imagine that had the claimant seen that, he would not have been too happy with the physician who did not have specific training in that field. This was a general practitioner,

June 2, 1988
Patients' Rights
not someone who had done a thorough mental examination of the patient. Obviously, had the patient seen that, he would have been offended by the doctor describing him as suffering from mental retardation, which I believe was the actual term used in the medical note in that file.
Therefore, I realize there are circumstances which could cause medical practitioners to be reticent to have patients view their files. However, in my opinion that is not generally an excuse for not providing that information to the patient. If it is the file of the patient, in my opinion it is the patient's file.
The medical profession, together with the provinces, could probably adopt an ethical way of releasing the document. If it is sensitive at a particular time a specific delay may be invoked in certain cases for certain medical reasons, but simply to refuse to give it out either to protect the physician or to cause less expense for the physician or hospital is not satisfactory.
Having defended workers at compensation hearings in the past I know it is difficult to get that information, or at least it was in the days when I was a member of the Ontario Legislature. It was not impossible, but it was difficult, and, in my opinion, unnecessarily so.
It is my opinion that if we had a uniform system across the country established by the provinces, of course, perhaps with input and assistance by the federal Government, such a system would be helpful to injured workers and other people needing access to their medical files for whatever reason.
I am pleased to support this initiative. I do not want it to be interpreted that we intend to impose this on the provinces. That is certainly not the way I read the motion. The motion does not propose to impose it on anyone. It proposes a process of consultation and assistance to the provinces in establishing this. That is the way I see it as well. Given that that is the tone of the motion as I read it, I am happy to support it.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House this afternoon. It is a very interesting and important matter and although, as the Member correctly points out in the motion, most of that with which we are dealing lies within provincial or territorial jurisdiction, it is quite properly a matter for debate in this House.
I notice that the motion is really divided into two parts, the first deals with patients' rights in general, and the second deals with access to records and a proposed standardized period of retention of records of some 50 years.
I want to address most of my remarks to the first part of the motion, one that has not really been dealt with yet. When one enters a hospital, a person undergoes a radical change in status. When you are on the outside, you are very much in control of your own affairs. You do what you want to do and
when you want to do it. Once a person passes through hospital doors and is admitted, life is much different. When you are on the inside you are told when to go to sleep, when to get up, what you have to eat, when you have to eat it, what drugs you have to take and what kind of needles have to be stuck into you. It is an entirely different social situation in which you find yourself.
It has never really happened to me, but I have studied other people who have had the experience. The situation must be pretty difficult to take. Most of us do and accept it because we know that it is in our own best interests. The tendency in a hospital is to be treated like a thing or a number. Perhaps it is more akin to being treated as a child rather than an adult. But the situation is almost unavoidable. Hospital personnel try very hard and most, I am sure, do the best they possibly can to be as humane as possible to patients, but there will always be certain exceptions.
I do not know whether we can legislate in this area. We can obviously legislate things such as criminal negligence and so on, but perhaps what each and every hospital should adopt is some form of a patients' bill of rights, something that can become part of a particular hospital's policy, something with which the administration of a hospital could make sure that its staff and physicians are familiar and something the staff can keep foremost in their minds when dealing with patients. Maybe this bill of rights could be posted in a conspicuous place in several locations around a hospital for the benefit of the staff and the patients. Maybe when an accreditation committee makes its rounds periodically the presence or absence of a patients' bill of rights should be something which it could take into account when making examinations. Included in a bill of rights could be a mechanism to deal with any complaints and any recommendations patients may have.
One of the problems that we have in medicine today-it is one of the prices we pay for what is generally a good system of socialized medicine in Canada-is that you lose that "client" relationship between a patient and a doctor or a patient and a hospital because someone else is paying the bill. Sometimes you get the impression that hospitals may not be quite as nice to a patient as they should be because they know it is not the patient who is paying the bill but a third party.
The second part of the motion deals with medical records. I agree wholeheartedly with the position taken by the proposer. I have never been able to understand the reluctance to allow people to see their own medical records. It seems to me that it is an elementary right that should be available to anyone. I do not agree with the argument sometimes used that medical records are couched in technical language and people are not able to understand them. You can get legal records about yourself, but most people have difficulty reading those.
I remember many years ago trying in a provincial House to amend the law to give people access to medical records made as a result of examinations by workers' compensation physicians. We were unable to do that. I could not then and cannot
June 2, 1988

now think of any reason why somebody should be refused access to records made by workers' compensation physicians. It is interesting to note that those people who opposed my proposal at that time were people generally of a socialistic leaning. I am unable to understand that either. Surely when we have dealt with access to information in general terms and we have passed access to information legislation in this House, that access should be equally applicable to medical records. Of course, the other side of the coin is privacy.
Medical records should, of course, be private. You have something of a built-in conflict between the two as we have between the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. One might want to make some kind of distinction between medical records on the one hand and what might be described as doctors' notes on the other. I know that doctors might be reluctant to have made available hand-scribbled notes which they have made on the spur of the moment. Similarly, a Member of Parliament would have no objection to giving anybody a copy of any letter that he or she has ever written, but I do not know that I would want to hand out transcripts of notes or doodles that I have made when answering the telephone. I can understand the reluctance of certain physicians to hand out information. It might very often be wanted in connection with a malpractice suit or something like that. It seems that very often medical records are easily interchangeable between physicians and government Departments and agencies thereof, such as workers' compensation boards, and this is done with considerable ease. The only people who are not able to get in on this and not able to get copies of records are those most intimately involved, namely the patient.
With respect to the proposed 50 years suggested time for retention of records, at first blush that seems a little bit long. Fifty years is certainly longer than the working career of most physicians. In the days before the computer, if we had insisted on the retention of records for 50 years, we would have used up all doctors' offices and surgeries for the storage of paper in no time flat. With the coming of the computer it might make longer term retention a lot simpler. Certainly, as the Hon. Member pointed out, it would be very useful for medical research to have statistical studies to look into hereditary type diseases.
There is a wide variety of practices from one jurisdiction to another. Surely we can work toward a more standardized system right across Canada. I am advised of the existence of a committee called the Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee on Institutional Medical Services, which is a creature of the Conference of Deputy Ministers of Health. It would seem to me to make a good deal of sense, and that committee may have done so in the past, for that committee to take this matter under study so that eventually we could come up with a systematic national system.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your kind attention, and once again I thank the Hon. Member for Cowichan-
Patients' Rights
Malahat-The Islands for bringing to the attention of this Chamber such an interesting topic.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise today in strong support of the motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). It is an interesting and quite an important proposal. It is nice to know that Members on all sides of the House support it.
The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of participating with the provinces in the consideration and development of policies in the field of patients' rights, including the right of patients to have access to their files and the obligation for doctors and hospitals to keep patients' records for at least fifty years, and to encourage the enactment of provincial legislation on such matters.
I know, after talking to the Hon. Member and looking at some of his background materials, that his preparation for this motion has been very interesting. He has contacted all the different provinces and has documented the kind of recording procedures that exist at this time. I know that the Hon. Member referred to this in his remarks.
At the present time, there is no federal legislation which regulates the length of time medical records must be retained, nor is there any legislation requiring doctors or hospitals to release medical records or test results to patients. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has indicated that such legislation and regulation is in the provincial jurisdiction and it is up to his provincial territorial counterparts to bring the matter up for discussion. I rather question this position, because under the principle of medicare, the federal Government is supposed to ensure a system that is universal, with universal access and portability among provinces.
We are told that if the provinces do bring this matter up for discussion, the Minister has said that he would be pleased to respond to any issues or questions they may wish to raise in this regard. I am pleased that my colleague has been in touch with the provinces, and I hope that this will stimulate some action on the part of provincial Ministers to put this on a common agenda with the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
As is the case when matters lie within provincial jurisdiction, the provinces and territories tend to respond in different ways with different approaches. On the matter of the retention of medical records, responses have varied from that of Prince Edward Island, which keeps them for 50 years if microfilmed, for 20 years following discharge or for five years following death, to those of Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories which have no regulation to keep them at all. That seems to be a very strange policy. Of course, other provinces have varying regulations.
The other part of the problem lies with the fact that patients have no rights of access to their own medical records. I agree with the previous speaker who said that we should have a statement of patients' rights to which the medical profession

June 2, 1988
Patients' Rights
and hospitals should adhere. At this time, neither doctors nor hospitals are under any obligation to share medical files with patients, and whether or not they do so is entirely up to their own judgment.
Further to the difficulties of obtaining patients' files, the cost of obtaining copies of files is also discretionary to the doctor. The B.C. Medical Association, for instance, suggests that there should be a charge of S222 for this, plus photocopying fees. This seems to be ridiculous since we do have a medicare plan which surely should be able to cover such expenses.


James Douglas Manly: Double billing.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Double billing, as my colleague has said, quite correctly.
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands has written to all the provincial Ministers of Health urging them to initiate discussions with the federal Minister of Health so that patients' rights will be met in a consistent manner across Canada. This is a basic principle of medicare. The Hon. Member wrote them in October of last year, and unfortunately there has been no action other than the supplying of the information to which we both referred.
I strongly concur with my colleague that it has become incumbent upon the federal Minister of Health to take the initiative to put this matter before the provinces for discussion. This Minister, repeatedly, on many different issues, has preferred to take a laissez-faire approach, sometimes deliberate and perhaps sometimes through neglect, when he should have been taking a leadership role. He has the right and the obligation to assume a leadership role in ensuring that there is a good quality of medical records, and that relates to a good quality of medical procedures across Canada.
There are some very good reasons for keeping good medical records and for providing fair and equitable access to them for all Canadians in a standardized way. Obtaining accurate medical histories is essential to moving our health care system away from its focus on curative methods only toward a more preventive approach. The Minister of National Health and Welfare himself has endorsed this direction for Canada's health care system in his document Achieving Health for All: A Framework for Health Protection.
As we know, some conditions and diseases are hereditary or genetic. Access to medical records would allow the transfer of correct information to offspring and other relatives. It also provides data for research into genetic diseases.
I understand that Canada already has better access to records for research purposes in some instances than countries which do not have a public medicare system, and that is very good. Certainly, however, longer and more consistent case histories that cover a period of a family's history would be very valuable, not only to the patient involved but to medical researchers.
Canadians are very mobile. We move between provinces and territories all the time. This is another reason for such a system, and other colleagues have mentioned this as well.
In the case of liability suits and legal matters, access to medical records can be essential to victims. An example of this is the harm done to the victims by the Daikon Shield or Thalidomide. As well, women whose mothers took the chemical DES may be subject to developing cancer.
There are many reasons for adopting this motion, and I have many more which I do not have time to present. In view of the time limits with which we are faced, I would like to move:
That this motion be accepted by the House.
I would like as well to call for a vote on this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: I regret that the Chair cannot accept the motion.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak on this motion. The reality is that our time is expiring, but I would still like to say a couple of words.
As the motion before the House suggests, one important aspect of the broader issue of patients' rights relates to the patients' access to medical records. The federal Government is currently involved with native and inmate health care. However, any consideration of access to medical records at the federal level would not be complete without reference to the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act was given Royal Assent on July 7, 1982, and was proclaimed into force on July 1, 1983. The purpose of the Privacy Act is set out in Section 2 as follows:
The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws of Canada that protect
the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about
themselves held by a government institution and that provide individuals with
a right of access to such information.
As this important provision suggests, the Act has two basic objectives. First, it is intended to protect an individual's privacy. Second, it is intended to provide individuals with a right of access to information about themselves which is under the control of government institutions. Both these objectives are relevant to any discussion of patients' rights.
The focus of the Privacy Act is personal information. This term is defined by the Act to mean information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form including information relating to the medical history of the individual. Thus, it seems clear that a patient's medical records would fall within this definition as long as the patient could be identified therefrom.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

June 2, 1988



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
HEALTH-PULP MILL OUTFALLS-DIOXIN LEVELS IN CRABS/EXAMPLE SET BY SWEDISH PULP MILLS.
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, on May 17 I raised with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) the question of dioxin testing around pulp mills in Canada, particularly in British Columbia. As you know, dioxins are the most dangerous substances known to humanity. They do not break down when they are released into the environment. Rather, they accumulate. Therefore, this is an extremely important question concerning our health.
In the last number of years we have become aware of the fact that our pulp mills produce dioxins. Therefore, this testing process was very important. As a result, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), and the Minister of National Health and Welfare released a press statement saying that there is no problem, nothing to worry about. I quote from the statement:
The results of analyses of fish samples in these surveys have been evaluated by Health and Welfare officials. They have indicated that the levels of dioxins and furans found in the edible portions of fish samples are not considered to pose a health hazard to consumers.
Relatively higher levels of dioxins and furans have been identified in a few samples of prawns and crabs, particularly in the digestive gland (hepatopan-creas) of dungeness crabs, taken near pulp mills in Port Mellon, Woodfibre and Prince Rupert, British Columbia.
Health and Welfare has recommended that further samples from these three sites be analysed to assess whether these recent findings are representative.
The elevated levels of dioxins and furans found in the digestive gland of crabs are not unexpected as this organ concentrates ingested materials including contaminants such as dioxins and furans. Since this portion of the crab is not normally eaten, the levels found do not pose a hazard with respect to consumption of the edible portion of crabs.
Following that statement we had headlines such as "Pulp Mills Said No Threat To Fish Eaters", and "Dioxin In Fish No Threat: Govt. Test" and "Level Of Dioxin In Fish No Threat, Siddon Says". I think those headlines and the press release are belied by the facts released along with the press statement.
Background information points out that of three samples of oysters taken near Crofton, there were findings of 31, 12, and 14 parts per trillion respectively of dioxin in those three samples. There is a tolerance threshold of 20 parts per trillion. Therefore, one out of those three was much above that 20 part per trillion threshold, with 31 parts per trillion. They point out that there is no problem there because the area is already closed because of other forms of pollution. However, the fact is
Adjournment Debate
that the oysters there are at risk and people who eat them as they are, are also at risk.
Then they talk about crab hepatopancreas. Residues of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD, that is dioxin, in the crab hepatopancreas from several different areas ranged up to 100 parts per trillion. We must recall that 20 parts per trillion is the tolerance level. However, three samples, one each from Port Mellon, Wood-fibre, and Prince Rupert contained 662, 356 and 487 parts per trillion 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD respectively.
The other less toxic dioxic congeners ranged from non detectable to 1,514 parts per trillion in crab hepatopancreas with the exception of the three samples from the above noted sites where a maximum level of 4,682 parts per trillion was observed. Residues of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDF ranged from non detectable to 2,605 parts per trillion, except in the case of the three samples for Port Mellon, Woodfibre and Prince Rupert where residues of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDF ranged from 18,890 parts per trillion to 24,968 parts per trillion.
That is a frightening statistic. First, we do not know what we are talking about. The Government does not have any level of equivalency for these other toxins to equate it with dioxin. Yet there are some very high levels.
The Government does not explain what the equivalency levels are because it does not have equivalency levels established. It has said that the hepatopancreas is not normally eaten, but the fact is that it is considered a delicacy by some people.
The serious nature of this issue is shown by a study of the great blue heron colony near Crofton which forages on the flats near the pulp mill. Last year, of 57 nests, not a single egg hatched. When they studied the residue of the eggs, they found that there had been a threefold increase in the level of dioxins in 1987 from 1986. This is a serious problem, and the headlines that say there is nothing to worry about do a disservice to Canadians.
The Government should take action in four areas. It should forbid all fishing in the immediate area of pulp mill outflows. There should be more rigid monitoring and enforcement of pollution control. Twenty-one out of 22 pulp mills in British Columbia are in violation of federal pollution standards but nothing was done about it.
The Government should bring in tough new regulations that will force pulp mills to reduce dioxin levels as is done in Sweden and West Germany where those levels have been cut by 80 per cent. Finally, it should encourage the production and consumption of unbleached and semi-bleached pulp products, rather than continuing this fetish with totally bleached white products that are doing us and the environment great damage.


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) must be

June 2, 1988
Adjournment Debate
congratulated for continuing in his interest in this very important environmental area with respect to the fishing industry and shellfish in particular. The class of chemical substances known as dioxins has been described in the media and elsewhere as being the most toxic chemicals known to man. Certainly, this Government does not in any way take away from that recognition. Consequently, any reports of dioxins being present in the environment, and particularly in the food supply, understandably evoke a great deal of concern in all of us and in the Government in particular.
I want to assure the Elouse that the Government is not only concerned about dioxins and toxic chemicals in mollusks and fish in general. I believe Canada has the safest fish products anywhere in the world reaching the market-place. For instance, in Atlantic Canada every body of water used for harvesting of mollusks and other shellfish is being tested on a regular basis to ensure that the products are safe for consumption. There is a very rigorous examination and standard to ensure that the fish consumers are eating are safe. As I indicated, it is the safest food we have available to us at the present time.
However, it is important to know some facts about these substances before arriving at any conclusions about the possible hazards associated with their presence in fish and shellfish. The term "dioxin", for example, does not refer to one compound but rather to a whole family of 75 related chemical compounds. These 75 compounds are also often associated with another family or organochlorine compounds known as furans. There are an additional 135 related, yet individual, compounds in the furan family.
One might question the significance of all of this to the assessment of dioxins and furans in fish and shellfish with respect to any potential hazard to the health of the consumer. Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that based on the available information relating to these compounds, it is known that the toxicity of the individual members of the dioxin and furan family varies significantly. The most toxic is 2,3,7. 8-TCDD, or 2,3,7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin for which a limit has been established under the Canadian Food and Drug Regulations of 20 parts per trillion in fish. The other dioxin and furan isomers have not yet been studied as intensively as 2,3,7, 8-TDCC, but on the basis of the available data they are considered relatively less toxic.
The reported levels of up to 25 parts per billion of these substances in shellfish relate to levels of individual furans in the digestive glands of crabs from one specific location. Such levels in the digestive glands of scavengers like crabs, taken near a waste disposal effluent pipe, are not unexpected since this organ concentrates many types of ingested substances. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, while there have been anecdotal reports of consumption of the viscera of crab, consultations with officials in the British Columbia Ministry of Health have not confirmed these reports. Clearly, it is in everyone's best interest to minimize exposure to toxic chemicals such as dioxins and furans. But let us proceed in a rational and orderly
fashion based on sound information so that we can ensure that consumer products are safe for the fishery.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-CANADA PACKERS-CLOSURE OF WINNIPEG PLANT-WORKERS' UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS/DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT OF SALARIED EMPLOYEES AND WAGE EARNERS


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on an issue of fairness. When I raised this issue in the House on March 30, the then Minister of Employment and Immigration agreed that the problem was serious enough to warrant a very thorough investigation. I am talking about the closure of the Canada Packers Plant in Winnipeg.
In December of 1986, Canada Packers announced that its plant would be closing and 660 workers in the Winnipeg plant would lose their jobs by early 1988. In April 1987, a collective agreement was amended to provide allocation of separation payments to a one week period following the closure.
Then, on April 5, 1987, the unemployment insurance regulations changed to require that separation payments be considered earnings as per the regular week's salary, regardless of collective agreements. This would delay unemployment insurance claims by the number of weeks represented by severance pay earnings.
The reality of the situation is one-half the workers who were laid off on April 10, 1987, received their severance pay which was seen to be one week's pay. They were allowed to collect their unemployment insurance.
This year what has happened is that the rest of the plant closed. Over 300 workers were laid off. They were told that because it was after the unemployment insurance amendments had taken effect that they would not receive their severance pay as representative of one week but that it would be taken as a week for each week of salary earned. Unfortunately, it was older workers who were laid off latterly. We know it takes older workers longer to get back into the workforce. We also know that there was a number of older workers who have not been able to get back into the workforce. They are now seen as people who are not participating.
We have to take into account as well that these older workers have depended on their Canada Pension and retirement plans for their existence. Certainly, in many cases it is not a very lucrative existence after the age of 65. All the years that they do not pay into these plans is depleting them of what they will receive at age 65. The fact is that they have had to spend their severance pay at a time which could have been included as part of a retirement plan. They are now excluded from doing that.
To make the matter even more unfair, what has happened is that when the doors of the plant were closed, the salaried workers were exempted. These are workers who very often receive a much more generous settlement for all sorts of
June 2, 1988

reasons, such as their salary or their status in the company. They were allowed to look at their severance pay as one week of pay after which they could collect unemployment insurance.
This gross unfairness is something that even the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) addressed in Winnipeg. He said he was very concerned about it and that he wanted to look into it. He did look into it. He reviewed the situation when he was in Manitoba.
Strange as it may seem, after the Manitoba election the Prime Minister said that there was no justification for them to have an exemption. Surely there is a justification. Both groups of workers were working in the same plant. They knew at the same time that the plant would close. To add insult to injury, one group of workers which left the plant on the very same day had an exemption made for them. We are not only talking about a very unjust kind of policy. We are talking about a Government which promised to do something for older workers.
The Government announced in 1986 that it would do something for older workers. It still has not done anything. It announced that $125 million would be made available. Yet it has not implemented anything.
In my riding of Hamilton Mountain there are many older workers who have not been able to get back into the workforce. Those between the ages of 50 and 65 are certainly looking at a much reduced income in terms of pension. Over and above that they are having a very difficult time trying to find employment.
It is very clear to me, and I do not know why it is complicated for the Government, that this is a very unfair situation. We are talking about people from the very same plant who work for the same number of years and in many cases who were friends. Very often the ones who are being deprived are ones who taught others their skills. It seems clear to me that the Government should make an exception in this case and rectify the injustice which has gone on. Not only would an injustice be rectified but a great deal of comfort would be given to families which are suffering very much at this time.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Ms. McDougall) I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar).
First, I want to say that I was disappointed in the way she framed her question on March 30, a question which she ended by stating that this was a case of discrimination. That is probably the easiest accusation to throw around nowadays. It does not matter what level of Government or what agency wants to provide help, benefit, or a program for any group of citizens deemed to require help. The group that is just beyond the fringe of receiving that benefit cries discrimination. It is unfortunate that the Hon. Member used that word. The Act
Adjournment Debate
and the manner in which the Act has been applied is not discriminatory.
The Hon. Member comes from a rich experience of city administration and now represents a riding which is very active in union work, and union and collective agreements. It is not correct for the Hon. Member to suggest that there is a difference between salaried employees and hourly paid employed employees. If she asked a second or third question about the problem about the question she would know that it has nothing to do with whether or not they are salaried or paid by the hour, but it has everything to do with when the collective agreement was arrived at.


Marion Dewar: They are all the same.


Benno Friesen: No, they are not. The collective agreement for the salaried people was pre-1985. The collective agreement for the hourly workers, at least one part of it, came into force in June, 1987. That triggers an entirely different response on the basis of the Act. If the Act is applied fairly and legally for both groups, one cannot say that it is discriminatory. At the time the collective agreement was arrived at, the Act was already in force, and the workers knew that.
I wish to say to the Hon. Member that I understand exactly what she means when she talks about the distress, particularly of older workers who have a difficult time finding employment again, especially if they have been in that one location for 30 years and have perhaps not done any other type of work since they were teenagers. It is not easy. It is very difficult.
The other factor not included by the Hon. Member is when one is dealing with a collective agreement, one of the most important ingredients is seniority. I know that the Hon. Member would not want anybody to infringe on the seniority rights of the employees. When the first group of employees became unemployed or were laid off, naturally it was those who had not worked so long at the plant. Those who stayed on for another few months were the senior members.
In this case, it worked to their disadvantage in terms of reemployment. It probably would not have made much difference in terms of the space between the two periods of lay-offs. But in this case, seniority worked against the senior workers. I think the Hon. Member understands that. She has pointed that out and elaborated correctly in her remarks.
The Hon. Member also pointed out that in the legislation which was adopted in 1985 there was a factor which was used by the labour management people to balloon all of the severance pay into one week, thereby making the unemployment insurance provisions trigger more quickly. This was deemed to be an avoidance or circumventing the effect of the UI regulations. The Government is bound by that. It was changed by an amendment passed on April 5, 1987, and that amendment was passed before the next collective agreement came into force.

June 2, 1988
Adjournment Debate
I understand the Hon. Member's concern for the workers, and I have some of those workers in my constituency-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: I regret to inform the Parliamentary Secretary that the time has expired.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, June 3, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers