1988-03-17

Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Canada who are concerned that without any mandate from the Canadian people the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has negotiated a bilateral trade deal with the U.S. In spite of his promise that sovereignty would not be compromised, the proposed trade deal threatens the fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty and our ability to establish economic programs to our own benefit. It also fails to secure access to the U.S. market, the stated goal of the negotiations.
Therefore, 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. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition, certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 106, from a large number of British Columbians who are concerned that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade agreement with the U.S. Since the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, and since it is now clear that it has been; and since the trade agreement negotiated by the Government threatens Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Government of Canada to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, or equalize opportunities between the regions, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the Canadian people to determine the course of Canada in a general election.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition signed by many residents of Canada in different provinces indicating their opposition to the
Government on the free trade deal. They believe the Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade arrangement with the U.S. They believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. They believe the actual agreement negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of the people of Canada, and also prevents us from equalizing opportunities between the regions. They believe the agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the U.S. They also believe the Government did not succeed in acquiring secure access to the U.S. market, which was the key government objective.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement through a national general election.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition which is in order pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petitioners would like to present a common grievance. They say that indexed pensions for all Canadians are essential so that pensioners can protect the value of their pensions from the adverse effects of inflation. They say other employers and Governments recognize the need for indexation and are therefore negotiating and legislating inflation protection for pension benefits.
[DOT] (mo)
The petitioners say that Bill C-33 will remove the legislative provision of full inflation protection from all federal public service employees' pension benefits earned in future in spite of the fact that these employees have contributed and will continue to contribute 7.5 per cent of every dollar earned toward their pension benefits including full inflation protection. The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain legislative full indexing of the federal Public Service, Canadian Armed Forces, and Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension benefits.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a grievance on behalf of

March 17, 1988
Order Paper Questions
residents of Barrie, Ontario; Whitehorse, Yukon; Edmonton, Alberta; Sarsfield, Ontario; Nelson, B.C.; and Toronto, Ontario.
These petitioners denounce the fact that more than 100,000 Canadians were homeless last year, that an increased number of young people, women, and entire families are without a roof over their heads, that the amount of affordable housing is constantly dwindling, and that the Government has not yet introduced any new measures to help the homeless.
For these reasons and many others the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to act immediately and establish the necessary measures to ensure that Canadians live in adequate and healthy housing and also have access to rehabilitation programs in order to reintegrate our Canadian society in dignity.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have a duly certified petition pursuant to Standing Order 106. This petition was presented to me during a meeting of the Mushkegowuk Tribal Council in Attawapiskat just a week ago.
The petition is signed by 100 Indian people of the Fort Albany First Nation located on the western coast of James Bay. The band school, Ste. Anne's, has been closed because it is a fire trap. Therefore, the signatories call upon Canada to fulfil its fiduciary and treaty obligations and provide safe school accommodation on Sinclair Island.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present, for the attention of the House and the Government, three certified petitions. Two of them deal with the refugee legislation, Bill C-55. The petitioners come from the communities of Maple, Scarborough, Rexdale, Brampton, Mississauga, and Toronto. They are petitioning essentially for the elimination of the two stages in the refugee determination system, the first of which we call prescreening and the second, the safe third country concept.
Canadians who have signed these petitions are urging the Government to have a fair and expeditious refugee system, but certainly emphasize the word "fair". Therefore, they urge the Government to eliminate these two stages which essentially build a barrier for any individual who wants to access the refugee determination system in our country.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Canadians living in Brampton, Georgetown, Downsview, and Toronto. The petitioners complain about the Government's actions, and in particular those of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), in closing the Canadian Embassy in Equador.
The closing has caused hardship in that people must wait six months to get an appointment at our Embassy in Bogota, Colombia, which is the closest embassy. The petitioners request the Government to reconsider its decision and to reopen an embassy which provides an important link to Canadian families living in Canada.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present today two petitions from residents of my constituency of Calgary South and from residents of the entire Province of Alberta. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to cancel Bill C-72 so that unilingual people have a chance for a position in government. The petitioners state that it sets a dangerous precedent to ban unilingual Anglophones and people of other cultures. They pray that Bill C-72 be disregarded for the benefit of the whole country.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Who sent that out, Dan McKenzie? Did Dan McKenzie sign that?


Mr. Speaker:: I point out to Hon. Members that Hon. Members are asked to present petitions on behalf of Canadians who send these petitions to this place. I do not think it is appropriate to remark on the motivation of those Canadian citizens who sign a petition and send it here.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to correct the record of yesterday. Yesterday I laid upon the Table the Government's response to 37 petitions presented to the House between March 2 and March 9. Unfortunately, I misspoke myself and said that it was the responses to all petitions that had been presented in the month of March. That is not correct, Mr. Speaker. It is
March 17, 1988

certainly a large majority of them but it is not all the petitions. I simply want the record to be correct.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. I wish, in the interests of the decent usage of the English language, that we would take the word "misspoke", put it aside, and never use it again. It is an Americanism, if I can put it that way, which has no place in this fair land.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29 MILITARY ESCALATION IN CENTRAL AMERICA

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I sent to Your Honour a request for an emergency debate based upon the very disturbing news which was registered this morning about the increasing military escalation in Central America.
Canadians on both government and opposition sides of the House have joined in very strong support of the peace process which was initiated over a year ago by President Arias of Costa Rica. We have watched, with some encouragement, the developments. The events of last night and today are major set-backs. Not only do they register a danger to the nationals of that area, but there are many Canadians involved in that zone. There is a real possibility that conflagration could occur.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the opportunity for debate so that we would be able, not only to get a full rendering of what is going on from government sources but also to give Members of this House an opportunity to express their very deep concerns about the events which are taking place in that part of the world.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry has raised a matter which I think all Members, regardless of political persuasion, would agree is serious.
As Hon. Members will know, and I think it is important for the public to understand this also, when the reform committee recommended reforms of Parliament it was suggested that in applications for an emergency debate the Chair not give reasons as to why it decides either for or against it. I think that that is probably sound advice because we otherwise get into the situation of setting up a sort of mini-jurisprudence as to when and under what circumstances an application should be accepted. Most applications for an emergency debate are serious, as is this one made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.
I have given this very careful consideration and my decision not to proceed with an emergency debate at this time is no reflection upon the importance with which I think this House views the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry.
Supply
I will break from the recommendation of the reform committee somewhat and indicate that there is presently a committee of this House which has been formed to investigate and look into that very part of the world about which the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is concerned in his application. That committee has been formed and, while it is not for the Chair to tell that committee what to do, it may very well be appropriate for that committee to address that, given the events.
There are some other opportunities open to the Hon. Member and his Party, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to bring this matter before the House. At least for today, however, I must say to the Hon. Member that I am not persuaded that we should proceed with an emergency debate. Having said that, it does not take away anything from the importance of the matter the Hon. Member raises.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Rodney Edward Murphy: That this House condemns the Government for its failure to address the needs of the aboriginal people of Canada, including:
(a)	the right to self government
(b)	the provision of adequate shelter, health care and educational facilities,
(c)	basic water and sewage treatment facilities,
(d)	adequate employment and training opportunities, and
(e)	the financial resources to fully develop the economic and human
resources of aboriginal communities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I presented this motion on behalf of the New Democratic Party today because 1 have found in travels around my riding and other parts of the country that we are creating an increased sense of frustration among our aboriginal Canadians. There has been an increased sense of frustration because many of our first people feel that they are being left out of the government process.
Part of their concern arises from the fact that the meetings that were held between native leaders and our First Ministers failed to include any explanation or definition of aboriginal rights and self-government within our Constitution. The decision in the Meech Lake Accord not to place any extra emphasis on the rights and concerns of our aboriginal people also increased the frustration that exists among them. There is also a concern that government priorities do not address the concerns of native people.
As our motion indicates, we talk not only in terms of housing and shelter, but in terms of education, basic water and

March 17, 1988
Supply
sewage facilities, employment, training opportunities, as well as economic and human development.
The Government did all it could to prevent a UN study of the condition of aboriginal peoples. I believe it did so because it is ashamed of the situation that exists in many parts of our country. Unfortunately, unless someone dies in a fire or someone is beaten, raped or murdered, unless there is a tragedy that appeals to a certain sense within the media, the problems of our native people are not addressed on an ongoing basis.
Those of us with large native communities in our constituencies and those of us who have travelled with committees or on other Elouse business into native communities know the dire straits in which those people live.
This is a very affluent country, but it has a large population that is denied even basic services. There are communities in my riding that have no water supply, no sewage treatment, a school that is condemned and 95 per cent unemployment. There is a basic feeling that the Government is ignoring their concerns.
We are not saying that all the problems are new and can be blamed on the present Government. Many of those problems existed for many years and continue to exist because we have a quickly growing native population.
It is also a situation where the traditional way of life, if not dying out, is certainly unable to sustain the increased population. Unfortunately, the Government and previous Governments, in spite of spending billions of dollars on native concerns, have not spent enough to meet the needs of these people.
It is no surprise to many people in this room that there is a backlog on schools for native people. The projections of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development may deal with building a school on a particular reserve in five or ten years. However, they only take into consideration what the population may be in three years as opposed to what may be needed further in the future. That has been the philosophy of the department, not only under this Government, but with the previous Government as well. As a result, by the time the schools are built in these communities, they already need extra classrooms.
The treatment of young people in these communities is one of the most tragic elements of our dealings with native people. They grow up in dilapidated houses with neither water nor sewage. They go to inadequate schools because less money is spent per capita for the operational costs of the schools than would be the case if they were provincial schools.
In spite of all those disadvantages, these young people are told to compete in our society. Their culture is different from that of the majority of our society. While that may be a benefit in many ways, it makes it very difficult for them to compete in a basically white society. They are expected to live in dilapidated houses with no heat, get up in the morning when it may
be 40 degrees below zero, and attend an overcrowded school. We expect them to be educated in a school system that has less money per capita even though the cost of living is higher because these are remote communities. We expect them to be educated in schools that do not have enough money to stock books in their libraries. They are then expected to go out and face the future.
I am not suggesting that no money is spent on native education, but that not enough money is committed to native education, native housing and its infrastructure for such things as water and sewage.
I brought this motion to the floor of the House today because I believe it is important that members of all Parties have a chance to address these problems. I do not believe we have instant solutions but I believe the House of Commons, and especially the Government, must put much more emphasis on ensuring that the youth in our native communities have a future.
It is not good enough to say that we have spent the entire budget and will only be able to give them a school five years down the road. Those children are growing up now. Each year we delay putting a school into one of these communities makes it that much more difficult for those native people to compete in the future. While it is difficult for us to deal with the problems that many native young people face today and while it is difficult for us to create jobs for a lot of the young adults in native communities, we are just creating a long-term problem for ourselves if we do not guarantee adequate educational facilities and resources for those people who are growing up at this time.
I am often ashamed to be a Canadian as I travel around the native communities in my constituency, not because the Government has not tried but because the commitment is not high enough. Some people will say that the native people can do more for themselves. That is probably true. However, we make it very difficult for them to do so. Anyone who has dealt with the Department of Indian Affairs and Treasury Board knows how hard it is to get something out of those Departments and knows that the process we have to use to have major projects approved is a very difficult and tedious process. A project can be in place two, three or four years before the Government finally gets around to approving it.
There is a great desire among our new native leadership to take control of their own destiny. They recognize that they have to contribute as much as they can to that future. They recognize they have an obligation to build their own future. But we must recognize that they cannot do it without financial resources and without a commitment from the Government.
I find, like many Members of Parliament, that dealing with the Government at the best of times is frustrating, but dealing with the Department of Indian Affairs is the most frustrating process of all. Dealing with the Department of Indian Affairs
March 17, 1988

is an almost impossible task for Members of Parliament, so you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, how difficult it is for a young native leader of 22 to 24 years of age when he or she tries to deal with that bureaucracy. We all know of the political shenanigans that have taken place within the Department of Indian Affairs.
I have often met with Indian leaders who believe they had a commitment from a Minister of Indian Affairs to do something. The Minister of Indian Affairs flies into Winnipeg and meets with some of the native leadership, flies back to Ottawa, and the native leaders believe they have a commitment, only to be told that there is no money in the regional budget or that the programs really do not meet their goals or that some Treasury Board regulation would have to be changed or that this is not what the Minister really meant. We are building more and more frustration. We have made the process so difficult because we do not recognize that these needs have to be met at this time.
Members of all three Parties have spoken in this House in the past about the need to take the decision-making away from Treasury Board and from the Department of Indian Affairs and give it to the bands themselves, the tribal councils and those others who are involved with native economic development within the community. We have had the constitutional conferences on self-government and meetings between the native leadership and government officials in terms of passing over some of those responsibilities. However, the process is taking far too much time. After those First Ministers' meetings with the native leadership, there was still a feeling among native people that there is no commitment in our general society to entrenching aboriginal rights. They went to those meetings, first with former Prime Minister Trudeau chairing and, more recently, with the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) chairing, and each and every time those conferences broke down because the western Premiers refused to budge. These western Premiers had been saying for years that they did not know what Indian self-government and aboriginal rights were all about.
Those Premiers have been coming to conferences for many years. Obviously, they do not spend their time and resources looking at this problem until national television is focused on them. So we are in the situation where these Premiers are saying: "We do not know what it is all about", but how much energy have they really spent trying to resolve the issue of selfgovernment and aboriginal rights? Not that much.
One of the most bitter things for native people is that after all those years of conferences on aboriginal rights, where people could not come to an agreement, especially the western Premiers, the Meech Lake Accord could be agreed to so quickly and that modifications to the Meech Lake Accord could be agreed to just a few weeks later. There are some very important concepts in the Meech Lake Accord. We have all welcomed the inclusion of Quebec into the constitutional family of this country. However, there was a political will at Meech Lake and at the Langevin Block to deal with the
Supply
problem. Very difficult concepts were dealt with quickly, but aboriginal rights take years and years and have still not been resolved.
After the Meech Lake Accord was agreed to, many aboriginal people welcomed Quebec. They expressed their belief that that would also help their cause, as the Prime Minister himself has indicated. But look what happened when the native people asked for simple amendments to the Meech Lake Accord. They asked for a simple guarantee that they will be put on the agenda of the first meeting of the First Ministers', meetings that will now been entrenched in their Constitution to take place on an annual basis.
We have guaranteed in the Meech Lake Accord that fish will be discussed at that meeting. We have guaranteed that the Senate will be discussed. Why not at least show some commitment to the aboriginal people of this country? Why not show the commitment and ensure that at that meeting we will also commence our discussions on aboriginal rights? The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have risen in this House and said, "Yes, we will meet sometime on aboriginal rights", but there has been no commitment. I do not believe there is a Premier across this country, or the Prime Minister, for that matter, who would dare say no to the inclusion of the topic of aboriginal rights, along with those other topics of fish and the Senate reform in the next meeting on the Constitution. The failure of the Prime Minister to take the lead, as was suggested by my leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), and at least canvass the Premiers to see if they would agree to have aboriginal rights included at the first conference is a signal that there is no political will involved.
If I can become partisan for a few seconds, I would say that they are also not impressed when they see that the Conservative leader in Manitoba, who was elected leader of that Party for a number of years, now says that he does not know what self-government is all about. Before he was leader of the Party he was a cabinet Minister in the Conservative Government of Manitoba. Yet he does not know what self-government is all about. The last thing the aboriginal people of the country need is another ally of Premier Vander Zalm, Premier Getty, and Premier Devine. Those three by themselves have effectively prevented aboriginal rights from being included in the Constitution.
We are told that if we accept Meech Lake we will have Quebec on side as an ally with respect to some improvements to the definition of aboriginal rights. We do not need a fourth western Premier saying, "No, I do not understand it. It is something that is too complex and I do not want to have it in the Constitution at this time". The failure of the Government to take the political lead when it was possible this spring, when there was a mood in the country to try to resolve a great many problems that existed with our Constitution, may haunt us through 1989 and in the future.

March 17, 1988
Supply
In the few seconds that I have remaining there is one area in the motion with which I would like to deal. I would like to see some commitment from the Government. I have already talked about the problems with general education. However, I have not seen an adequate program for the post-secondary training of native people. There is some training done at the present time, but it is not nearly as comprehensive as it has to be. The number of native people being trained in apprenticeship programs is almost nil. The amount of affirmative action training for native people so that they can enter trades training and apprenticeship training is simply inadequate. In areas in which the provinces try to develop these programs there is a resistance from the Department of Indian Affairs to help pay for them. There is a growing lack of interest on the part of the Department of Employment and Immigration to fund pretrades training and upgrading training for native people.
I spoke earlier about the fact that the educational system guarantees failure for many young native people. Yet later on in their lives when they decide they want to go back to school or want to go to a community college in order to qualify to build their own homes, their own sewer systems, their own water facilities or their own construction programs in their own communities, they are told, "I am sorry, we do not have a program for you". It is time that in all these areas the Government put in place a real program for our native people.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).


Ms. McDonald:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. He made reference in his motion to water and sewage problems. He talked very briefly about these matters and the need for programs in these areas. Can the Hon. Member comment on the federal Government's federal water policy, which also refers to guidelines regarding water quality? These are merely guidelines, they are not legislated. In the water policy it states that the federal Government will continue to consider legislation to ensure the safety of drinking water within areas of federal jurisdiction. Of course, areas of federal jurisdiction include Indian reserves.
Does the Hon. Member see this as a helpful way for Government to stop considering the question but actually proceed to legislation so that we would have some real pressure to clean this matter up?
Has the Hon. Member heard the rumours within the federal Government that the reason we have not proceeded to legislation is that the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. McKnight) is afraid of being shown up? Knowing how bad water quality is on Indian reserves and how much money would be required to rectify the situation if there were real legislation with standards and not merely guidelines the federal Government would be required to act. Yet the Minister of Indian Affairs is holding up good legislation because he knows that the consequences would be very severe.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) brings up a very good point. I wish that I had more time when making my speech to deal with water and sewage, because they are real problems in our communities. Each spring as native people go out to get their water, quite often from the nearest lake, there is salmonella poisoning and other bacterial problems which they face.
The Hon. Member is correct when she says that if we were to apply the laws of the land with regard to common safety and with regard to construction codes concerning our reserves, then there would be court case after court case in which the federal Government would be found in contempt of its own laws.
That is why I suspect the Minister of Indian Affairs as well as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) have always taken the attitude not to legislate what is required in terms of buildings, water and sewage on our reserves. It is not a matter of cruelty by the Government. It is not a matter of neglect. It is just that it does not know that the standards in which our native people are made to live are far beneath those that would be accepted in any other part of our population. It is amazing that the native population has stood it for so long.
If the same situation existed in our towns and cities one could bet that there would be a national outcry. The Journal would have a feature on it. One could bet that the appropriate Minister at the federal or provincial level would promise immediate legislation to solve the problems. However, there is the feeling that if this happens on a reserve then, well, it cannot be helped. It is true that it is very difficult to provide some of those facilities in remote communities. But some reserves are not that remote. Some are next door to white urban communities or right across the river from such communities and they are not receiving these services.
It is true that once provincial Governments are involved quite often services in terms of water, sewage, housing and protection of the law are in existence. There can be a Metis community under provincial jurisdiction, and not just in the Province of Manitoba, such as there is at Cross Lake, which has water and sewage and better housing, and across an imaginary line called the reserve line one finds that there are none of those things.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) who of course has a great background of experience in this matter of the condition of the native people of Canada and the manner in which they are neglected. I would like to ask him if he would say a little bit more about the matter of housing.
A few weeks ago at a committee meeting I heard that there has been no increase in the amount of money budgeted for native housing for four years. I understand that the same dollar amount is all that is available now as was available four years ago. Further, mortgages often run for 25 years, whereas
March 17, 1988

the house, because of construction faults under Canada Mortgage and Elousing Corporation, often lasts only 15 years.
I was wondering if the Hon. Member could comment on the administration of the money provided or meant to be provided for housing as it falls between the Department of Indian Affairs and Canada Mortgage and Housing?


Rodney Edward Murphy: I realize that I do not have time for a long reply on this answer, which is unfortunate. I would like to thank the Member who attended the Standing Committee on Government Operations to hear from the chiefs from Manitoba, including Patsy Turner, the head of the MKO, and also the Chief of the Grand Rapids Band.
At that meeting, the native leadership themselves spoke much more eloquently than I could about the problem. There is not enough money for native housing. There is also a strategy by the Government to take away responsibility for housing from the Department of Indian Affairs and to attempt to make CMHC pick up some of the backlog. This forces people on the reserves to throw up their hands with regard to the housing provided by the Department of Indian Affairs and state that they cannot live in those places because they are terrible. That forces those people, often who do not have an adequate income, to take housing from CMHC.
One of the major problems is that CMHC does not feel that it has a responsibility to provide reserve housing. Many of its rules, regulations, and rent requirements are designed for the cities of Toronto or Winnipeg and are quite appropriate in those communities. The 25-year mortgage is a good indication of this. A 25-year mortgage on a house that will last 40, 50, or 60 years in the City of Toronto is a fairly good investment for many people. But it is not a very good investment for someone who knows that, because of the other problems in the community, the nature of where the houses are built, and the lack of other infrastructure facilities, those houses will disappear or be run down in 10 or 15 years. There are no carpenters available, there are no federal government programs for maintenance, and as a result there is a built-in failure into the system that is in place.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, if I did not know better, I would almost think that, in bringing forward this motion today, the NDP is co-operating with the Liberal Party of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: That accusation has been made before.


B. Keith Penner: I say that because this evening the Liberal Party opens a policy forum respecting aboriginal peoples and First Nations. I want to say to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) that in bringing forward this motion the timing is perfect. It fits in very well with the forum which begins this evening. I begin my remarks by thanking the Hon. Member most heartily for using one of the NDP Opposition Days on this important motion.
Supply
I also wish to say, Sir, that we will want to have another Opposition Day on the same subject next week after we have heard from aboriginal leaders and groups respecting current concerns, problems, issues, and the agenda for future action.
To a very significant extent the issue of aboriginal rights, of aboriginal title, questions of justice and equity for Canada's indigenous peoples is a question of human rights. In fact, I would consider it to be the oldest yet unresolved question of human rights in the world today.
I always listen with interest and concern in the House of Commons when Hon. Members raise matters of human rights violations around the world, and I always sympathize with them. For example, violations of rights in the Soviet Union, the massive violations against a majority by a vicious white minority in South Africa, violations in Chile, East Timor, Sri Lanka, and those violations against the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip of the Middle East. All of those are reprehensible and deserve our condemnation and our outrage. But right here on our very own doorstep is one of the major human rights issues in the world today. Yet we in Canada regularly in one way or another attempt to cover it up, disguise it, or gloss over it.
For example, not too long ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) circulated to all Canadian embassies around the world the document which tried to give the impression that all is well with the Lubicon Lake Indian people. Yet we know that a way of life there has been destroyed. Disease, poverty, despair, and alcoholism haunt the community. Why would we have the world believe it to be otherwise? The Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the House that he is not responsible for everything that his officials write. But he refused to withdraw the document and he refused to issue an apology to the aboriginal people of Canada.
As well, when the northern Quebec Cree worked hard day and night to get through the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations certain resolutions that were important to the indigenous people of Canada and to the indigenous peoples of the world, Canadian officials were active in lobbying against those resolutions. I have information that they hinted to certain African nations that Canada's aid programs may be reduced; that they hinted to other African nations that our position on apartheid may be less firm if they supported the resolutions as they were drafted.
Here in the House of Commons the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have had us believe that what Canada wanted to do was to broaden and expand those resolutions. In fact, all of the evidence is to the contrary. What was attempted was to water down, postpone, and to soften the resolutions. Why? Because we fear that Canada's record regarding its native peoples may become revealed to the whole world.
When our aboriginal people needed strong support for the maintenance of the fur industry, the trapping of fur being a very important part of the subsistence economy for many

March 17, 1988
Supply
aboriginal people, support from the Canadian Government was, at best, gentle. Embassies and high commissions did not want to get mixed up with the animal rights activists, and they feared facing this lunatic fringe in British and European society. The British Government and the British Parliament have insulted Canada and its indigenous peoples by the act of imposing a labelling regulation on all garments that have been made from furs from trapped animals.
When it comes to foreign aid, which I support of course, we accept the notion that a percentage of the gross national product is the way to go. We never quite reached the United Nations goal, but we always talk about striving for it and aiming to reach it. Yet in Canada the concept of an economic rent to aboriginal people and First Nations, a percentage of the gross national product for housing, education, economic development, community infrastructure, and health, with all of those matters and the policy formulation related to them and the control of those matters being in the hands of aboriginal peoples themselves, all of this is considered to be far out. It is considered to be unacceptable, unworkable, and unachievable.
We continue with the present system of not many changes from year to year. The backlog of Indian housing persists. The program for funding Indian young people in post-secondary institutions is capped. This year, at least 1,000 have been denied access to higher education. Poverty, disease, and a high suicide rate continue to be issues in Indian communities.
Here is the message which the Grand Council of the Cree of northern Quebec delivered to the United Nations Human Rights Commission:
As a group of all the inhabitants of Canada the indigenous peoples are the
poorest, have the worst health, the least education, the highest unemployment,
the most insufficient and dilapidated housing, the highest infant mortality, the
lowest expectation of life.
Of all cabinet portfolios of government, probably the one considered to be the least desirable is that of Indian Affairs. Even National Revenue is preferable. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, having to go home to your constituency and telling your supporters that the Government of the Prime Minister has just made you the nation's chief tax collector; I think that is one weekend you might want to stay here in Ottawa.
Indian Affairs is still at the bottom, and for very good reasons. Sam Rayburn, a past Speaker of the United States Congress, used to say to new Members of Congress: "If you want to get along here, you had better go along".
If a Minister of Indian Affairs wants to survive, he or she must go along, go along with departmental bureaucrats who basically dislike their clientele. He must go along with his cabinet colleagues who consider the Indian vote to be insignificant and, therefore, why bother putting money or new programs in that direction.
Occasionally in Canada we get a Minister who seems ready to listen, to learn, to understand. When the signal is given, the
Indian people sigh another deep sigh and begin instructing the new Minister all over again. The patience of Canada's aboriginal peoples is simply enormous. When this Minister becomes sympathetic, or better still when he achieves a certain degree of empathy and wants to translate it into concrete action to produce positive results, he is quickly replaced.
The mandate of the most recent Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. McKnight), as a way of illustration, is to dampen down the expectations, to follow a policy of containment, to control the situation as much as possible, to introduce expenditure reductions wherever they can be done, and to implement the so-called Buffalo Jump report from the Nielsen task force.
The same Minister is given another assignment, as if being Minister of Indian Affairs were not enough in itself. At the same time he is given another assignment which clearly conflicts with his constitutional obligations as Minister of Indian Affairs, his trust responsibilities. He is made Minister of the Western Diversification Program, which, by the way, has within it no component for the assistance of Indian people. This is the Minister who hands out $9.5 million to a Japanese pulp company and, when asked about it in the House of Commons, expresses surprise that the timber to be cut by this pulp company is on land claimed by the Lubicon Indian people. He says he does not know anything about that. It seems to be a rather careless way to handle taxpayers' money.
To help the Minister in the House of Commons, the Government appoints a junior Minister of Indian Affairs. He has not been able to describe even what his duties are. However, I think it is quite obvious that he is expected to be a mouthpiece for the Indian Affairs bureaucracy which, as I said earlier, deeply dislikes its clientele. If one wants to go beyond dislike to outright hostility, then one might become a senior bureaucrat in that Department.
Recently I spoke with a young man who had worked briefly in the Department of Indian Affairs. He said to me, with some puzzlement on his face: "You know, the Indian people actually believe that the Government owes them something". Well, if someone were to come into my house and shove me out into the backyard where I would end up living somewhere between the doghouse and the garbage tins, I too might feel that there was a debt obligation to me.
I know of Indian communities which are located in swamps, where the people have to move from house to house on boardwalks, and if a child were to fall off a boardwalk in the spring of the year, he would disappear forever in the swamp. I know of Indian communities located on flood plains, on the most infertile land imaginable-barren, isolated camps on the fringes of Canadian society. Yet, when these people hunt, when they fish, when they shoot game for their own survival, they are harassed by police and provincial game wardens. Often these people are surrounded by hundreds of thousands of unoccupied square miles of land, yet their land base can never be expanded.
March 17, 1988

The present Government has a policy-no new bands, no new reserves, unless there is a clear obligation imposed upon us. No new bands and no new reserves if the spending of any money is involved. I have a letter before me at the moment concerning the Blackwater Indian Band in northern Ontario. It has been told in a letter signed by the Minister that under current policy for new bands and new reserves the Department can only consider requests for band status where it can be clearly demonstrated that such action will not result in additional funding requirements.
There are Indian people who dwell in very beautiful valleys like the Stein Valley of British Columbia. Even there the exploiters of timber cannot be kept at bay. They must have it all.
What we have today in Canada regarding our aboriginal peoples is a crying shame. They have rights on paper in the Constitution, but it is impossible to get those rights off the paper and into the lives of the people where they are needed, where they live.
Four First Ministers' conferences have failed to give the aboriginal people the rights they are seeking. However, on just one weekend we were able to accommodate the constitutional goals of Quebec. I can never judge a society by deals made among the powerbrokers, by the trade-offs between a monarch and his barons. The way we judge society is how we treat the least powerful elements. I think the whole world ought to realize that this benevolent, this welfare state of Canada, where words like justice, equity and fairness drip off our tongues like hot honey, is among the worst violators of any code of human rights in existence in the world today. The sooner we face up to it, the sooner we cease the cover-up, the excuses, and the better off this nation will be.
The aboriginal people of Canada must have a fair share of our resources, a reasonable percentage of the gross national product, an adequate land base and genuine control of their own lives, real self-determination and not that nonsense being advocated by the Department of Indian Affairs called community-based government, which is nothing more than passing over a few administrative responsibilities to these people with all kinds of strings attached, holding back funds and replacing the old colonial Indian agent with a new yuppie bureaucrat called a monitor.
I support wholeheartedly the motion before the House today. I support any others like it from any source. I would like to end on a note of hope or optimism, but I cannot. I feel nothing but depression, despair and dismay over the entire situation. I do have one brief message for the Government, for this House of Commons and for the nation, that is, until justice is achieved in Canada for aboriginal peoples, this nation cannot and will not be whole. We can never escape our own sorry past, and never would I defend one day of that sorry
Supply
past. Surely we can all try to fashion a better future for the first citizens of this country.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). It is evident to all of us present in the House, and I am sure to everyone at home looking at television, that the Hon. Member spoke from his heart and from his head. I sometimes wonder how a person like this Member, so dedicated to the cause, can even sleep at night and stay to fight more and more. I can assure Members of this House that this fight is not only when the Member is in the House of Commons, but it goes on in caucus. He is heard loud and clear by all of us.
I want to congratulate him on behalf of the members of the Liberal Party and to thank him. I would like to give him some time to add more because I know he has a lot more to tell us.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, that is a marvellously open-ended question and I thank my colleague for it.
I would add one note which has to do with the concept of aboriginal title. My hon. friend, the Hon. Member from Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is in the House and deeply involved with the subject of aboriginal title. For the Government of Canada and for the Department of Justice to suggest that aboriginal title is no more than a lien, no more than encumbrance or a shadow on the Crown right, is not only insulting but downright stupid. Such a notion from my point of view is based on the outdated concept of the divine right of monarchs. If I read my history correctly, that concept was battled down during the so-called Liberal revolutions of 19th century Europe. It was swept aside then with utter disdain. For some reason, in Canada the concept lives on. It lives on here as a weapon that we continue to use against indigenous peoples to limit the extent of their claims.
In the Province of British Columbia they even consider that aboriginal title has been extinguished, and yet no one can say precisely when this happened or how, nor can they bring forward one single document that would indicate that at any point in history the extinguishment of that title took place. The Nisga people who are visiting Ottawa this week are even unable in that province to get a fishing agreement, although they have accepted, in general, terms proposed by the Government of Canada. The Government backed off on its own terms, because, as best I can conclude, it fears the powerful nonnative fishing lobby in British Columbia.
When the Calder case was before the Supreme Court of Canada, the justices divided equally three for and three against whether extinguishment had taken place in British Columbia. All six of them admitted that aboriginal title under our understanding of British law had existed. Three said it was extinguished and three said it still exists today. I want to say that the Government of Canada and this House of Commons ought to insist that that matter go back to the Supreme Court for final decision. We cannot go on in this deadlocked situation

March 17, 1988
Supply
and leave the aboriginal people of British Columbia bearing the consequences of that deadlock.


Mr. Speaker:: At the disposition of the House, I would hear the Hon. Member for a few comments. We are a little bit over time. If the House is prepared to agree?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) on one of the finest speeches I have heard in this House in a long time. Too often we hear nothing but rhetoric and posturing. It is so nice to hear a speech that is meaningful, very much needed and, as my colleague before me said, the Member's comments came from both the heart and the head.
I was distressed by a great deal of what he had to say and unfortunately it is a sad commentary on the Government. I think the problem was exemplified when the Member spoke about the department not really appreciating its clientele and the Government not even being considerate enough to want the support of the native people, just purely writing them off. As Members of this House realize, the Government has again in its budget set up a slush fund this year as it did last year.
Does the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior have any idea of the utter urgency of the need that exists among the native people and the treatment they are getting in this country? They should expect so much more. This so-called emergency fund set up last year and again this year under the Budget, how much of that fund has been designated to the native people?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, as best we have been able to determine, that is those of us who sit on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, the budget for Indian Affairs has remained constant, whereas government expenditures have gone up. Almost all departments have received increases in excess of the rate of inflation. The Indian Affairs portfolio has remained flat. It is my impression that the Government has determined that this is one area where effective expenditure control can be successful. I think they have come to this conclusion because we are dealing with a small minority. The cost of meeting the needs outlined in the speech by the Hon. Member for Churchill is enormous. It seems to me that this is an area where there ought to be increases. This is where we ought to be considering more expenditures.
I cannot help but be bothered when the Government talks about wanting to build nuclear-powered submarines to maintain our sovereignty in the North when that sovereignty has been well established by the Inuit people. Why would we want to spend billions on these war toys when we should be investing our money in the first citizens of this country, who delivered so much and made the present prosperity of Canada really possible, if you want to analyse the facts objectively and fairly?


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and comment on this motion. Before I begin, I cannot let the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior's (Mr. Penner) last words stand on the record. The facts are entirely the opposite. The budget for Indian and Inuit affairs this year has increased by some 9.7 per cent, almost double the average increase for other departments across the board. That amounts to $181 million more, and the federal budget is now over $2 billion in this field. I am not saying that it is totally adequate, but to say that it has remained the same is just not the way I read the Department's Estimates for the year.
The Hon. Member also said that employees of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs are not sympathetic to their clientele. I know that each of the Departments concerned can probably find some individuals who fit that category. However, by and large that is just not the case. I would use Mr. Dennis Wallace, the Regional Director in Alberta, as an example. Unfortunately, he just accepted a position in another department. The bands in that province are very unhappy about his leaving. They have called me in great numbers over the last couple of days quite concerned about his move. They came to know him well and realized that he has worked diligently and hard on their problems.
The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior and I go back a long way in our fight for better conditions for the aboriginal people of Canada. We have worked together for over 16 years on the Standing Committee on Indian and Northern Affairs as it was called, now the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. When we began, what he said in his speech today was certainly the case. However, to say that after all those years of hard work nothing has really changed surprises me a great deal.
As Chairman of the committee and as a member of the Liberal Government he had successes in making changes in policy and conditions. For example, when we noticed the manner in which European countries were dealing with our fur industry, particularly our aboriginal peoples, we worked together and produced a report that changed the attitude of the departments, the Government, and produced funding to allow the aboriginal people to go to Europe to defend their rights. As well, we have an excellent position in the British Museum, where people can see the manner in which our aboriginal people trap fur. There is much more to do. Hopefully this policy which resulted from the report we produced will continue.
I have made speeches in this House, in opposition and in government, with respect to the conditions of aboriginal people in Canada compared to ordinary Canadians. I can find examples similar to those brought forward by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior. I had intended to talk a little bit about that. However, because of the gloomy picture painted here today I want to take a different tack. It is important for
March 17, 1988

us to show that Indian leaders in this country have not been sitting back anticipating that Government is going to solve all their problems. I know for a fact that I have not. By looking at the picture over the last 10 or even 20 years we can see substantial changes in the political and cultural direction in the native community as well as in Canadian society at large.
Canadians are now far more willing to open their hearts to the problems faced by aboriginal Canadians. Budgets have changed to the point that the fastest growing budget in the Government is the Indian and Northern Affairs budget. I will go through these case by case because I think it is important.
Dramatic changes have taken place in housing conditions, education, and in the manner in which the Indian culture is preserved. What I found a little disturbing in the previous two speeches is the lack of balance. I say that not because I am speaking on behalf of the Government but because I believe there is a more balanced picture that can be put before the Canadian people.
I do not believe that the Indian or aboriginal people of this country feel that Government is going to provide them with all their wants, needs and desires. We now have leaders who are going to tell us what they think is important for them in the next decade or into the next century. They do not believe they are totally dependent upon the federal Government. They do not believe the Government is going to provide their shelter and the manner in which it is built. They do not believe the Government is going to provide employment, develop the human and native communities and resources in this country, or provide them with self-government. Absolutely not.
That became very evident when we went through the four national conferences where Indian, Metis and Inuit people communicated directly with the federal and provincial Governments on what they think ought to be in the Constitution with respect to native self-government and native rights. Anyone who knows native people in this country knows that they are not sitting back and waiting for the Government to provide the answers. Indians, Inuit and Metis are more and more taking their future into their own hands. Indian political leaders and ordinary community members are building selfgovernment. The right to self-government is every Canadian's birthright. Unfortunately, it is going to take a little longer for that to be put in place by the Indian people, but they are no exception. It will come and it will be satisfactory to the aboriginal people. I am convinced of that.
Indian entrepreneurs are building businesses and creating employment across this country. We all know that selfgovernment has to have an economic base. You cannot be dependent upon others. That is happening now. Recently I spoke in Alberta as the federal Government assisted new native ventures in that province, contributing upwards of $9 million to the Indian Association of Alberta. They put before us that night numerous examples of successful ventures which have already taken place. They look forward to a great number more as this assistance is being made available. We see
Supply
examples of this across the country from the Sumas Clay Products in Vancouver, which has just opened, to Econobois in Huron Village. We are also seeing native elders taking a larger role again in society as the youth look to them to rebuild the culture, pride and dignity which was so evident in so many communities. The loss of that has been the greatest problem for the youth, resulting in alcoholism, higher death rates, and so on.
Health is more than pills and hospitals. We talked about drinking water. I have not heard that in any way any of our Ministers are holding up legislation with regard to safe drinking water, but we all know that the problem will not be solved by legislation. The important part of health, as I see it, is sound lifestyles.
As an example, in Alkali Lake in British Columbia the chief, council, and elders, viewing a tremendous alcohol problem, took upon themselves the responsibility to solve the problem in their own community. It was not Government or a federal nurse that came in and solved the problem. The community itself said that it had a problem and took the decisions and had the courage to deal with the problem. The results are significant and have been shown to us by the CBC.
Let us not insult aboriginal Canadians by portraying them as passive wards of the state, because they are not. That era of total dependence is behind us. It has taken a long time and there is much more to be done, but I believe and am thankful that it is passing into history.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Government does have an important role to play in native development. As I have said, the social indicators are still there as enunciated by the two previous speakers. Indians generally do face worse living conditions than other Canadians. As an example, life expectancy for male and female Indians is about 10 years shorter than the Canadian average. Death by suicide is about three times more common among Indians than it is in the general Canadian population. Death from injury and poisoning is four times more common. The employment rate of on-reserve Indians, that is, the percentage of the population 15 years and older which is employed, is around 50 per cent of that of other Canadians. Those facts are undeniable. They represent unfinished business, as all of us in this House acknowledge.
However, we cannot continue to put before the House a litany of negativism. We should take heart in the stunning progress that has occurred over the past generation, and particularly in the last 10 years. I have lived through and witnessed that. The historical perspective is there, as we all know. We have heard it in this House and it bears repeating. However, there has been progress.
Since 1960, Canadian society has opened up to Indian people politically, economically, and socially. Indian leaders have acted with initiative and determination. All Canadians saw that when they viewed the constitutional conferences.

March 17, 1988
Supply
Although they failed actually to write something into the Constitution, their greatest success was in showing all in Canada the capacity and capability of our aboriginal leaders.
Federal government programs and budgets which have benefited aboriginal people have been expanding rapidly and the result has been a generation of advance. The Member for Churchill said that it is frustrating to deal with the Department of Indian Affairs, and it is. As we all go through our ridings, particularly those in the northern parts of the country, we can see the need for change. We come to Ottawa and ask that the changes be made. However, we all recognize that Parliament only votes so much money. Even though the budget of the Department of Indian Affairs is the most rapidly increasing of all budgets, it is still not adequate for all the conditions which we can point out.
Even so, this year we opened six new schools in Manitoba at a construction cost of $55 million. There is a submission before the Treasury Board for $88 million to provide water and sewage programs for five northern flood bands in Manitoba. In 1986-87 the Department of Indian Affairs spent $300 million in actual expenditures in Manitoba. That will increase by $8.3 million this year.
Even with all of those expenditures we will not meet all the needs. However, that does not mean that no advances are taking place. Communities are in fact finally getting the schools and the sewers and water for which they have waited so long.
Until 1961 Indians in Canada did not even have the right to vote in federal elections. Today, only a little over 20 years later, they participate in Canadian political life at all levels. They have served in this House of Commons and in the Senate. They are appointed as our representatives and are, by and large, running their own programs. They have participated directly in four constitutional conferences, as we pointed out ought to be the case in our report on Indian self-government.
In 1960, most Indian communities were still directed by Indian agents. It is hard to believe that it was such a short time ago. These were officials appointed by the federal Government. Today those agents are long gone, they have disappeared. Today band councils chosen directly by their communities administer more than 64 per cent of the funding provided by the federal Government, and that percentage is increasing as rapidly as is possible, as rapidly as the chiefs and councils are willing to accept new responsibilities.
Some bands, including the Cree and Naskapi in northern Quebec and the Sechelt in British Columbia, have sustained their own self-government structures, they are outside the Indian Act. I hope that many others come forward with similar demands to the federal Government. Several more are in the final stages of negotiation.
In the 1960s, Indians had little role in their education. Many students were sent to church-run schools. They were taken away from their homes, and their language and culture were
discouraged. They were cut off from their families and communities. Today there are 243 band-managed schools. The best examples of Indian people taking control of their education are in Manitoba.
There was criticism by the Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) about Government not responding to the demands of Indian students. Although until recent times less than a few hundred made it to post-secondary schools, today some 13,000 Indian students are attending post-secondary schools. Many others are being assisted by training programs of the Government to go to the technical schools. Enrollment since 1981 has increased by over 225 per cent. We are now spending $110 million to assist, in non-returnable grants, Indian students wishing to go to post secondary school. Even with that amount of money some 500 have to wait a year before they can get assistance.
Some 30 per cent of the current housing stock has been built in the last five years alone, and some 35 per cent of that renovated.
The health conditions which we discussed earlier have improved. The situation is much better. I could go on and deal with economic development, but you are pointing out that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I just want to conclude by saying that while we can all make the kinds of speeches like those before mine, I believe there has been significant change on the part of Government, aboriginal leadership and Canadians as a whole. I look forward to this increasing in the future.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that the speeches which preceded him lacked balance. We did not lack balance in our speeches, we only shared the frustration of native constituents and others across the country.
An example of the cause of that frustration was the speech given by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is the same type of speech we heard from the Liberals and their Parliamentary Secretaries when they were in government.
I regret that with two Ministers responsible for Indian Affairs, neither could rearrange his schedule in such a way as to address this issue. I recognize that they have busy schedules, but this is an important matter. Opposition Members made arrangements to speak. The Government received proper notice, and I think an arrangement could have been made.
Today, the Parliamentary Secretary gave us the example of a water and sewage project for five communities in my riding that are affected by a flood agreement. I heard that same commitment in 1984 by the then Liberal Government. It is another example of the frustration that we experience. We are hearing the same promise for the same communities in 1988. They are tired of waiting and tired of hearing politicians make that same promise.
March 17, 1988

The Parliamentary Secretary said that natives want to control their own future and not just rely on Government. I think the speeches from the Opposition made it clear that we understand that.
One way for that to happen in Manitoba is for the federal Government to agree finally to sign the land entitlement treaty. It is an agreement to which the native chiefs have agreed, to which the Province of Manitoba has agreed, and one that the federal Government was negotiating and had agreed to until March, last year. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, after the tripartite negotiations had taken place and the parties had come to an agreement, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) raised many new questions. I have a copy of that letter from the Minister. It essentially scraps the whole agreement and challenges each and every premise of it.
Land entitlement is fundamental to economic development of the reserves in northern Manitoba. If they do not have that resource they cannot develop their communities as they want. For one year the bands in Manitoba have been trying to get the federal Government to sign this agreement. It has refused to do so. It has refused meetings. There has been no action by the federal Government, other than to say it might discuss it again.
It is that type of unacceptable behaviour which explains the frustration and the type of problem that native people in Manitoba are facing at this time. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to get up and tell me what change took place between January, 1986, and March, 1986, that resulted in the federal Government refusing to sign that land entitlement agreement.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Churchill knows that $18.9 million has already been advanced for system design construction of water systems in that area of this province. He is not correct in saying that there has been no action, because that money has already gone out. Let us make sure we have those facts straight.
The same is true for the Member who commented on the Lubicon situation. He said that the Government is basically not doing everything that is being asked by the Lubicon people. I should note that this is the first Government that has decided their claim is valid and has been trying to settle it. It has been negotiating in an attempt to have a reserve delineated in the province. The Government has taken action on longstanding problems.
The Hon. Member stated that the Ministers should be in the House. I know that they wanted to be here and they will be speaking in the debate. We heard of this motion last night at six o'clock. They must attend cabinet meetings that are also important for the aboriginal people of Canada. Today there are on the docket for Cabinet some very important decisions that will deal with aboriginal people. It was impossible for those Ministers to extract themselves from those important
Supply
meetings, after waiting several weeks to get those items on the schedule. I do not think we should leave the impression that they feel this debate is not important enough for them to be here.
I know that I am supposed to be fully briefed on all subjects, but as far as land entitlement is concerned I do not feel adequately briefed about the reasons that there has not been movement in that area. 1 know that further negotiations have been requested, but it would not be fair to ask me for details at this time because I do not have the full information on that area.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) that past administrations do not have much to be proud of when it comes to achievements towards aboriginal rights or solving problems for aboriginal people. I would only expand the list to include the Barrett administration in British Columbia and the Schreyer administration in Manitoba.
Let me return to the Parliamentary Secretary and ask him why he took time in his speech to erect this strawman of passive recipients. I do not remember anything that the Hon. Member for Churchill or I said that suggested that aboriginal people wanted to be passive recipients or wards of the Government. It is quite the contrary.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the concept of economic rent and all that is entailed in that involves a direct transfer of payments to be controlled by First Nation Governments themselves, that they become the policy setters and become those who establish their own priorities?
Specifically, I have four questions I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary. First, does he believe that the capping on post-secondary education assistance will be dropped? Can he tell us that by the time this Parliament comes to an end the current housing backlog will be reduced by even one house? He made reference to the Lubicon Band. Is he convinced that the Lubicon Band will be granted additional land beyond the 25 square miles agreed to in the 1940s when the population was much smaller? Finally, does the Parliamentary Secretary believe that the freeze on the creation of new bands and reserves will be lifted?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, that is a long list of questions and I will deal with them one by one. I believe $110 million is now being spent for post-secondary education. Some 500 students who applied last year were unable to go to university directly in the year they applied. They will be added to the list this year as first in line. It would be nice in a budget, as I say, that is increasing at the most rapid rate of any budget in the Parliament of Canada, to add additional funds so that everyone can go to school on a grant, non-repayable. That would be nice. I know everyone here would like to see that. However, we have all these other demands which are being put

March 17, 1988
Supply
forward by Members today. The Minister has to make decisions on how he will split the budget up.
There is no decision to make on some of these items, for example, welfare assistance for Indian people. While the amount of money will increase for post-secondary education this year, I do not believe at this time that the "cap", so called, will be removed. Many Canadians cannot go to university in exactly the same year they wish. Many must go out and work for a few years to get sufficient funds to go school. In this case, a very small number of aboriginal people were not able to get funding this year, but they are put first in line on the list for the following year.
With respect to the current housing backlog, we all know that the birth rate in reserves across this country is the highest in the land. Because of Section 31, there are people asking to go back on the reserves and are asking for houses as well, increasing even more the demand for housing. In fact, the budget for Section 31 will be increasing by 116 per cent this year in order to try to meet that need.
I cannot say to the Hon. Member that we will reduce the backlog. What I did point out in my speech is that since 1981, I believe, some 30 per cent of the housing on reserves is new housing, and some 35 per cent of the housing since 1981 has been reconditioned. Budgets have increased. I think two or three years ago we increased the budget by some $50 million. That has remained in the budget in the last number of years. Again, work has been done to attempt to deal with this very serious problem.
As far as the Lubicon band is concerned, the Member himself mentioned the difficulties we have with the Constitution and provincial lands being set aside. The Government, as I understand its process, is asking for, without prejudice, a reserve to be set aside. Then negotiations will take place for additional land, or services, depending on how the negotiations go. I think that is a reasonable position to put forward. The federal Government is taking the lead finally in this area.
While discussions do not always go in the manner we wish between the band, the province and the federal Government, at least progress is being made. People are talking and negotiating. In the last month or so an advancement has been put forward and it looks as though it might be a fruitful advance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired. Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent for one more minute to complete his answer?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: The policy of the Government will not change on new bands. I am not speaking for the Minister but on my own behalf. This question can be put to him as well. However, given the restraints of the Indian Affairs budget, a budget which is growing very rapidly, the Minister felt that a policy had to be put forward regarding the creation of new bands. It is not fair to aboriginal society and to Canada as a
whole to say that these bands can be created without any financial basis. So the policy, as I understand it, will remain as it is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is now three minutes to one o'clock. The Chair intends to recognize the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), but the Chair would leave the option to the Hon. Member to start his speech after Question Period.


James Ross Fulton: I will begin, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the motion of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) seconded by the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin). I think it only appropriate to begin by reading Part II, Section 35(1) of Canada's Constitution with respect to the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. It reads:
The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada
are hereby recognized and affirmed.
I think I can demonstrate in the moments provided to me that the Government of Canada is not living up to the Constitution of this country.
If one is to take the opportunity, as I have, to look at the budget of aboriginal affairs over the last 10 years, or even over the last four years, one can see the essential increase in the elements. The Parliamentary Secretary talked about an increase greater than that of other departments in the Government. The reason there is any increase at all is in relation to a ruling of the United Nations not by any sudden burst of interest by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or by his Cabinet. It was the Lovelace ruling on Section 12(l)(b) with respect to sexual discrimination that has brought about the essential increase in the budget.
One can go through the essential elements of the budget and demonstrate that, which I intend to do this afternoon. It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the Government of Canada is intentionally implementing Buffalo Jump in the 1980s, the famous document by the former Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Erik Nielsen from the Yukon. He and Mr. Collison developed a document on how to bring about the forced assimilation of the aboriginal people of Canada. The constitutional route has been closed off. Funding has been closed off for resource development impact studies. Funding for litigation has been closed off, except at the appeal level.
I intend to demonstrate this afternoon when I carry on with my remarks why all the people of Canada should be concerned regardless of their political persuasion. I think we can demonstrate, as the Hon. Member for Churchill and the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) have done, and the Hon. Member for the Yukon will do this afternoon, and adequately and properly sustain an argument, that the Government of Canada is presently launched on a process of forced assimilation. Certainly, if one speaks to the aboriginal
March 17, 1988

leaders, it can only be described as bare-faced cultural genocide. I intend, with your agreement, Mr. Speaker, to carry on the bulk of my remarks immediately following Question Period at three o'clock.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, while the Conservative Government is busy tarnishing the reputation of the Canadian Sikh community thanks to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister's Department is now extending this dangerous game to Canadians of Armenian descent.
An Assistant Deputy Minister from the Minister's Department has written to the Ottawa Board of Education requesting that the subject of the Armenian genocide not be part of the school curriculum because, in the Government's eyes, the genocide did not occur, and the course would impact negatively on the Government of Turkey. Not only did the Government break its campaign promise of July 23, 1984, of recognizing and condemning the Armenian genocide before the United Nations, but the Conservatives are attempting to rewrite history as well.
In addition, like the Sikh issue, the Government will go to the ends of the earth to please foreign Governments, even if that means hurting and demeaning Canadian citizens here at home.
I call upon the Minister and the Government to retract and immediately to recall this letter to the Ottawa Board of Education, to refrain from attempting to hide certain human rights violations while championing others, and immediately to stop being coerced into writing foreign policy which may please the world and foreign Governments but which is completely unacceptable for domestic consumption here at home.
This is no longer an isolated incident, it is a-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, the Hon. Member's time has expired.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting with people in the 40-55-year age group who are very disappointed in the Conservative Government because they would have liked the Government to start thinking about their needs and concerns.
They would have liked the Government to introduce genuine pension reforms, provide for broader participation in private pension plans, establish a form of indexation for private pension plans, enable three million women working in the home in Canada to contribute to the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan, provide for increased portability of private pension plans, maintain early retirement programs, and eliminate the discrimination against early retirees that consists in cutting off their unemployment insurance benefits.
I have almost finished, Mr. Speaker. I want to give these people the assurance that on April 15 and 16, at the Liberal Party's convention in Quebec City, we intend to discuss these issues, and on March 26 as well, at the Montreal East Seminar.



ARCTIC WINTER GAMES


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the Biannual Arctic Winter Games this year are being successfully held in Fairbanks, Alaska. A thousand young athletes from the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, Alaska, and a contingent from northern Alberta are competing for the Golden Ulus. In the past northern Quebec has participated. We look forward to Greenland joining in to give the Games an even more international flavour.
This showcase of northern sport, culture, and international friendship touches on nearly everyone who lives in the North. It is a continuing success and fully worthy of the $250,000 contribution by the Government of Canada.



HIGHWAYS


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to alert the House to a tragedy that may be taking place as we speak. This week there are several Conservative Members of Parliament in the Yukon trying to sell the trade deal. If that

March 17, 1988
is not tragedy enough, I certainly hope that they are not travelling by car or we may hear that some of our esteemed colleagues are languishing in a three-foot pothole on the Alaska Highway.
The Alaska Highway, a federal highway, is the only transportation link to the south. Since 1982 there has been a 42 per cent cut in maintenance and operating expenditures. Staff has been cut by half.
The Minister of Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) said that the North must become more self-sufficient if we are to gain constitutional development. At the same time the Government is cutting back on major essential services such as this highway.
The pleas of the Yukon Government, local municipalities, local business, and hundreds of residents who live along this highway have gone unheeded by the Government.
I call on the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes), the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Crosbie), and the Minister of Northern Development to restore funding now before new meaning is given to the term "spring breakup".



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to the Ottawa Police Force on its decision to release the photograph of a man who donated AIDS contaminated blood.
AIDS is a terrible disease which must be dealt with by harsh measures, if we are to protect all Canadians. Any individual who would knowingly put others at risk loses the right to privacy.
Photographs should be released, nation-wide if necessary. Photographs will act as a warning to the public that these individuals are a health hazard.
I do not propose to invade the privacy of those carrying the AIDS antibody. Only those individuals who knowingly spread this disease, lacking thought for the innocent, should be subject to this kind of scrutiny.
In addition, I would like to urge the Government to amend the Criminal Code to deal with the wilful spread of AIDS. The common nuisance charge currently being used does not adequately address this issue.



THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak out against the new policy of the Department of External Affairs of denying the Armenian genocide, and requesting the Ottawa Board of Education to deny it also. It is reported that the Board of Education is being asked to withdraw student course materials about the Armenian genocide. The reasons given by the Department of External Affairs are because of a request from Turkey that it gives Turkey a bad image, and because of millions of dollars of possible Canadian trade with Turkey.
This is a despicable Canadian policy which is beneath contempt in a free and democratic country like ours. The Armenian genocide is a tragic historical fact, whether or not the Governments of Turkey and Canada like it. Our Government should be protecting Canadians and Canadian institutions like the Ottawa Board of Education from the pressures of foreign Governments. Lately, our Government has made itself the enforcer of foreign Governments like Turkey, and India which wants to constrain the Sikh community groups and is getting help from the Department of External Affairs to do so.
I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to get a Secretary of State for External Affairs who values free speech in Canada and who respects multiculturalism.



SOCIAL CONSCIENCE


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) is involved in preparations for the National Access Awareness Week for disabled persons, from May 29 to June 4, 1988, which is intended to draw the public's attention to the needs of the disabled.
The objective is to create "Five Star" communities where five basic services, namely, accommodation, employment, transportation, recreation and education will be accessible to everyone.
Each community will assess its ability to provide all members of the community with access to these services and will be encouraged to make improvements before next year's Week in order to get a better score.
During the same Week, the Secretary of State will sponsor a seminar on the concerns of disabled women.
Mr. Speaker, municipal authorities must be properly prepared for this event.
March 17, 1988



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that the Government rejected the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs to stop the irradiation of food in Canada. The committee feared abuse of this technology since there is no way of identifying whether or not food has or has not been irradiated, or to know the dosage.
Recently the United Kingdom decided it is necessary to ban irradiated foods. What stirred British politicians to action? Freshwater shrimp which had been imported to the United Kingdom and cold stored for two months was sent to the Netherlands to be irradiated to freshen it for reintroduction to the British market.
Such activities are illegal and against the guidelines established by WHO, FAO, and IAEA, but there is no way of monitoring or testing to see if the guidelines have been met or breached. Surely the safest route is to refrain from the use of irradiation for food processing until the questions raised by the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs are answered.



CORRECTIONS CANADA


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the current controversy over half-way houses in this country, I wish to commend the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) for his response to the Pepino Report. The Minister has already taken action, and has also accepted the 32 recommendations made by the inquiry board, but still much has to be done to ensure the protection of society as well as proper transition for halfway house residents.
This type of leadership is what Canadians desire, especially in the area of corrections. The Solicitor General is acting with justice and compassion on an issue that is very sensitive today. 1 encourage the Minister to make sure that public safety will continue to be foremost in his actions.
As we continue to search for right answers and just solutions, we must pursue action that is beneficial to all Canadians. The Solicitor General has heard the pleas of Canadians and is responding.



THE LATE YVETTE ROUSSEAU

Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, it was with great sorrow that we learned of the decease of Senator Yvette Rousseau last night. I would like to recall, for the benefit of all Members, the considerable accomplishments of Mrs. Rousseau, not only as a Senator, but also in her family and professional life. She raised eight children. She focussed all her energies on defending women's rights, especially within the labour confederations. She chaired the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women and published a book on the circumstances of women who worked the night shift in factories. She was dedicated to defending the status of women in Canada and to the emancipation of her sex.
Speaking on behalf of my colleagues in Quebec and of all Members of this House, I wish to extend our sincere condolences to Mrs. Rousseau's family, to her children.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS FEDERAL ACTIONS TO ASSIST BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual in Canada for provincial Governments to grumble about how much money or how many contracts they receive from the federal Government. It has become kind of a national sport and, as we have seen this week, British Columbia is no exception.
However, I would ask the people of British Columbia to consider that the good news this Government has brought for B.C. cannot be measured in grants or contracts alone, although those have been ample, but in actions such as keeping our West Coast ports open, eliminating the container clause, promoting an international banking centre, free trade, increased foreign investment, and record lumber and paper exports.
Perhaps upon reflection Premier Vander Zalm might like to reconfirm what he said to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) last fall at the First Ministers' meeting: "You have shown a greater desire to strive for fairness and equality than any of your predecessors".
That is the hallmark of this Government-to treat all regions with fairness and all Canadians as first-class.

March 17, 1988



MERCHANT MARINE


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, as another federal election draws near, the Bobbsey Twins of Bay Street can be seen at play again. Their latest game concerns encouragement of a Canadian deep-sea fleet.
This is actually a very old game. When successive Liberal Governments had failed to take action on a Canadian deep-sea fleet, the last Liberal Minister of Transport decided to appoint a task force to give it another kick. He took care, however, to load the task force with people concerned about cheap shipping rates.
The last Liberal Minister also appointed the task force in April, 1984, more than four years after the previous election. The task force, quite naturally, did not report until June, 1985.
The present Conservative Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has not waited quite as long. His Government is only 3.5 years old. He is excited about the possibility of tax exemptions for those owning and working Canadian-owned and crewed vessels. However, shipping is a service industry and he seeks the reaction of the shippers.
The Minister of Transport has called for a report from the industry and the government Department within six months. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that a general election will occur before the report is released? Truly, plus fa change, plus c'est la meme chose!



GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to accompany Canada's Grains Minister to the recent meeting of the Cairns Group in Argentina.
Canada is a leader in this group of countries which has placed agriculture at the top of the agenda in the latest GATT round. It is crucial to maintain the momentum to end trade distorting behaviour in farming. The European Economic Community, the United States, and Japan must be persuaded to accept the Cairns Group formula for restoring order to agricultural trade.
Over the past seven years world-wide agricultural subsidies have increased from $100 billion to approximately $300 billion. As subsidies rise, more of Canada's farm families are placed in jeopardy.
The Government will continue to pursue the agricultural trade issue in the present multilateral trade negotiations. We
believe that the future of prairie farmers is too important for us ever to stop pushing.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, today I should like to read to the House a letter which I received from a concerned citizen of Morrin, Alberta. It reads:
At a recent public meeting held in the Morrin Community Flail on February 11, Canada Post officials advised us that our local post office is going to be privatized because of the upcoming retirement of our postmaster.
We were led to believe from the Canada Post officials at our meeting that it costs more for door to door service in the city than it does-to have our rural post office.
Not only is Canada Post closing rural post offices but it is also not delivering the mail door to door. The people in rural Canada believed that it was closing the rural post offices because it was delivering mail in the cities, but it is not.
Why is Canada Post pitting Canadians against each other, rural Canadians against urban Canadians?
Canada Post is not living up to its mandate of delivering mail, giving good service. With labour management relations the way they are, how can Canada Post deliver the mail? Is the Minister going to do something once and for all?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) made his calculations on the provincial share of stabilization payments for the 1985 potato crop for Prince Edward Islanders, he excluded the 104,703 metric tonnes of potatoes put through the diversion program for Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick potatoes. This is wrong.
These calculations should have been made on the total amount of potato production from Prince Edward Island, which would have been 613,502 metric tonnes. The Minister, by using those figures, has shortchanged the farmers of Prince Edward Island $800,000. In other words, the per acre payment under the stabilization program for the 1985 crop year will now be paid out at $56.13 an acre. If the proper calculations had been made, Prince Edward Island farmers should receive something in the order of $70 an acre. I do not think the situation is fair, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture
March 17, 1988

will reconsider the stabilization program for 1985 and get on with the job of getting the cheques out and correcting the inequity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question today for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In recent days and weeks we have had news of trouble all over the world. We have had the senseless tragic slaying at the funeral in Belfast, the problem of the control of Panama, the conflict in the Middle East, and the oppression in South Africa.
I want to ask the Minister specifically today about the situation as he sees it in Central America. I know that the Minister met last evening with members of the special House committee who desire to advance, as they can, the peace process in Central America. Does the Minister have any further information that he feels he can share today with Members of the House? Would he give us the Government's current information about the state of hostilities on the Nicaragua-Honduras border? What action has the Government of Canada taken to help reduce the level of those hostilities?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate particularly the very careful tone in which that question was put, and I will provide all of the information that is available to me.
I think it would be agreed by all in this House that developments recently in Central America are regrettable and are not at all helpful to the peace process that Canada supports and which an all-Party committee of the House will be visiting the region to help advance.
It is not clear what has happened on the border between Honduras and Nicaragua. It is not clear whether there were troop incursions of the kind that had first been reported or whether there had been the equally serious threat of significant shelling. What is clear is that those events and the response to them are moving us back into a military situation and away from the peace process.
Our very able Ambassador, Stan Gooch, was in Managua yesterday. He was in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, today. We are seeking information from him, and I will certainly report to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and to other interested Members of the House as soon as we have it.
Oral Questions


REPORTED DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES TROOPS TO HONDURAS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for that answer, and I would like to pursue it a bit.
Has the Canadian Government been in touch with the Government of Nicaragua, the Government of Honduras and, indeed, the Government of the United States? What position does our Government take with respect to the deployment today of American troops to Honduras? Would the Minister advise us whether he or the Prime Minister have been in touch with President Arias of Costa Rica or any other of the leading advocates of the Central American peace plan? Would he advise us-he mentioned his Ambassador-what instructions he has given to his special Ambassador to Central America as to what action he should undertake?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the three Governments mentioned, those of Nicaragua, Honduras, and the U.S., seeking information on this matter. We do not have the kind of information that could lead us to make a representation at this stage or indeed give instructions to Ambassador Gorham, who has special responsibilities in Latin America. We are seeking that information and certainly intend to use again all of Canada's influence to encourage the peace process.
We have not been in touch recently with President Arias, although that is a very useful suggestion and may well be a contact that would be quite helpful to the process for Canada to make quickly.


ARRIVAL OF AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES IN HONDURAS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not mention the reaction of the Canadian Government to the arrival of American troops in Honduras.
Does the Minister intend to raise the matter at the United Nations in a constructive attempt to support a reduction in military operations between Honduras and Nicaragua, and in Central America? Does the Minister agree that we would be well advised to ask for international monitoring, in no way related to the various charges and counter-charges with respect to the situation along the border between Honduras and Nicaragua, and could Canada play a leading and constructive role as member of the international monitoring team?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we need more accurate information on the current situation before I can respond to the specific questions of the Right Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We might be well advised to raise the matter at the United Nations.

March 17, 1988
Oral Questions
As to the reaction of the American Government, all I can say for the time being is that the situation in Central America is not encouraging. I think this is a step backward, a step towards military confrontation, something which might undermine the peace process. Right now I am not in a position to point a finger at anyone because we are not aware of the latest developments in the Honduras-Nicaragua border zone.
With respect to monitoring and a possible role for Canada, this is a suggestion we are entertaining. The potential problem is the strength of the Arias plan, and that is rooted in the region. It has been proposed by the five countries ...


John Napier Turner: If we are invited?


Charles Joseph Clark: If we are invited Canada will be ready to respond. But under the circumstances I would suggest that the best thing we can do is refrain from taking any kind of action which might make the situation even more complicated than it is already.


THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A few weeks ago the Minister wrote a letter condemning Canadian Sikh organizations in order to preserve the Government's good relations with India. Yesterday a senior official in the Department of External Affairs stated in a letter to the Ottawa Board of Education that the Board is wrong to call the documented massacre of hundreds of thousands of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire genocide. The extraordinary reason given was that this would have "a negative impact on Canada-Turkish relations", and that it would "jeopardize millions of dollars" in trade contracts."
I ask the Minister on behalf of Canadians of Armenian origin, is it the policy of the Government to ignore the documented historical reality of the Armenian genocide in order to preserve good trading relations with Turkey?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the short and direct answer to that question is no. The Hon. Member, inadvertently I am sure, misconstrued and misrepresented the letter which I sent to various Premiers with regard to the activities of three organizations representing a tiny minority of the Sikh population of Canada.
With regard to the letter to which he referred, I first saw this letter shortly after noon today after my attention had been drawn to news reports in The Ottawa Citizen. The letter
should not have been sent. This is a world in which people make mistakes, and it was a mistake to send this letter.
If there are to be representations on behalf of an embassy in Canada regarding its particular interests to a Canadian body, those representations should be made directly by the embassy. The Department of External Affairs should not have been involved.
[ Translation]


ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER'S GAFFE
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to question the Minister's statement that he heard about the letter only a few moments ago.
However, I would like to ask the Minister, since we are not talking about some third secretary but about an assistant-deputy minister responsible for the Common Market, if I am not mistaken, is the Minister prepared to rise in his seat and apologize on behalf of the Government to the Armenian community in Canada for the kind of treatment it received from a senior official, especially when we realize that in 1985, Canada voted on and supported a resolution to recognize the Armenian genocide as such, and when we realized that the Conservative Party promised in its election platform to give public recognition of this fact-
Is the Minister prepared, here and now, to apologize to the Armenian community in Canada for the action taken by a senior official in his Government?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as far as the basic issue is concerned, the position of the Government of Canada is well known and it has been stated in this House.
As for the letter, I understand the concern of the Armenian community in Canada. I regret the letter was sent. It was a mistake. Now, officials and Members can make mistakes, but this is something I deeply regret.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which follows up on questions which the Minister was answering earlier.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs will know, Nobel Peace Prize winner President Arias said recently, with regard to American military support for the Contras, that this is "the main problem and not the solution" to the problems in the area.
March 17, 1988

Today an American politician said that recent action by the Reagan administration is "an irresponsible involvement of American troops in the conflict in Central America and an unwise escalation of tension in that region".
Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs agree with both of those opinions?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, part of the strength of the Arias plan has been the very significant personal leadership that has been shown by President Arias and his determination to be evenhanded and frank in his references to the activities not only of the United States but also the influence of the Soviet Union in that region.
It is the policy and the practice of the Government, and I believe this is a matter on which there is all-Party agreement, actively to encourage President Arias and his Government.
With regard to the American action, as I indicated earlier, we do not have available to us sufficient information as to what is happening along the border between Nicaragua and Honduras to be able to cast a judgment of the kind apparently made by a public figure in the United States.


ACTION TAKEN BY UNITED STATES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs in general for his approach to the problems which have emerged in the region. However, with respect, I would ask him to be a little more specific in the present circumstance.
Whatever the precise nature of the border problem, there have been attacks and violation of international law by Honduras from Contras coming into Nicaragua. There has, in turn, been reciprocal, if you like, chasing of Contra troops back over the border. There have been a number of incidents.
However, what we are now talking about is superpower involvement, whether by the Soviet Union in this region at times in the past, or elsewhere. Today we are talking about an escalation of superpower involvement by the United States.
Will the Minister be clear with the House about that? Does he think that this recent action by the United States is counterproductive and a step toward further military approaches to a solution rather than peaceful ones? If he does believe that, as I am inclined to think he does, will he say so publicly?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, to be as clear as I can on the basis of information I have available to me now, what is and has been happening in recent days in Central America is highly counterproductive. It runs against the success of the Arias Plan which is the best possibility for peace in the region.
Oral Questions
I cannot judge, on the basis of the information available to me at this stage, the nature or the motivation of the action by the United States Government. I do not think anyone in this country can do so on the basis of the information we have available now.
There has been a change in the information coming to us regarding what has been occurring on the border. If we have information which would lead us to be specifically critical of anyone, including the United States, I will certainly be specifically critical of any Government that is taking an unusual role in creating problems for the Arias Peace Plan in that region.


John Edward Broadbent: Regrettably, one has to say that the usual role of the Reagan administration, to make a distinction between that and the administrations of others in the region, has been to support military action. The whole world knows that President Reagan recently lost an important vote in the U.S. Congress where the American Congress made it clear that it does not favour military intervention.


NICARAGUA-CALL FOR ON-SITE INSPECTION OF EVENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was in contact with the Costa Rican Embassy and the Nicaraguan Embassy. The Nicaraguans have categorically denied the American description of what has taken place at the border. Furthermore, the President of Nicaragua today called for an on-site inspection under the auspices of the Secretary General of the United Nations and the President of the OAS. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs join with the President of Nicaragua in an appeal for this impartial, independent assessment of what is actually taking place there?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, all I can say at this stage is that I will certainly seriously consider that.


CLOTHING INDUSTRY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, in response to a question I raised concerning the position taken by the clothing industry of Canada that they had been given an offer of a $200 million relief package to compensate for the damage that would be done by the proposed trade agreement with the United States, the Minister denied that any such discussions had taken place.
I have a copy of minutes which include as participants at the meeting, the Deputy Minister of Trade, senior officials from the Department of Finance and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, and in which the industrial leaders point

March 17, 1988
Oral Questions
out that the industry would suffer job losses from 35,000 to 50,000 unless remedial action is taken.
The minutes go on to say that the duty remission program commitment from Ministers has been $100 million for the apparel industry, $50 million to the apparel industry for garments, and $50 million to the textile industry. I suggest that is fairly strong evidence that the Government has been making a specific offer to the industry to provide for compensation for the major losses it will suffer as a result of the trade agreement. Why is the Government reneging on this commitment?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no reneging on any commitment. What we have indicated to the industries, both the clothing and textile industries, is that we are prepared to discuss with them a package of initiatives that will help them adjust to the free trade environment. The Hon. Member should know that a substantial duty remission scheme for the clothing industry has the effect of bringing in low cost products to Canada which are competitive with the Canadian textile industry. It is for that reason that there has to be a balance between the various sectors of the apparel industry and the textile industry so that an action that might help one segment of the industry does not undermine the competitive position of another segment of the industry.
That is the balance we have been trying to find in the consultations that we have been having with the various segments of the industry. As I have indicated in the past, we are coming close to a resolution of this and I believe we should be able to make an announcement on it shortly.


EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is the Government of Canada that has put both the textile and clothing industries in the dilemma they face by signing an agreement with the United States that puts them at a disadvantage. It is up to the Government to find a solution based upon a minimum commitment.
Yesterday two garment manufacturers in the city of Winnipeg, Gemini and Tan Jay, both said they would be forced to close their plants and move south to the United States because of the trade agreement unless they get the minimum assistance of the $200 million package that was originally offered, as these minutes clearly prove. Will the Government stick to its compensation package that will amount to a minimum of $200 million so that those plants in the city of Winnipeg will not have to close down and the workers be without jobs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first, I think there are some great opportunities for both those companies as a result of the free trade agreement. I believe those two gentlemen would acknowledge that they have some
very good opportunities to take advantage of as that market opens up into the United States.
They are businessmen and obviously are speaking from a certain degree of self interest because a very high duty remission scheme can help their as two companies. At the same time as we help them we do not want to undermine the textile industry which is represented by a number of colleagues in this House. There are textile manufacturers in Winnipeg as well. There are textile manufacturers in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should be concerned about this.
We do not want to undermine the textile industry of this country.


Lloyd Axworthy: You signed the agreement. You caused the problem.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says that I signed the agreement. I did sign the agreement. Not only did I not cause a problem, I created great opportunities. This Government has created great opportunities for that industry.


SUBSIDIZATION OF AMERICAN WHEAT EXPORTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, we learned today that the United States Department of Agriculture forecasts that soon 60 per cent of American wheat exports will be subsidized and that the American share of the world market will have gone from 30 per cent to 41 per cent. Much of this will have been accomplished by big sales to the Soviet Union and China, traditional Canadian markets, through the use of the Export Enhancement Subsidy Program.
My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who told me and other Members of the House in October, 1987, that in his view the American use of this Export Enhancement Subsidy Program was inconsistent with the spirit of the free trade agreement. What is the Government prepared to do, given the increasingly effective use of this program by the Americans to undermine Canadian sales in traditional Canadian markets? What is it prepared to do about this for the sake of Canadian farmers?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, let me make two or three points in responding to the question. First, the figures to which the Hon. Member referred are a recommendation which was made by the subcommittee, not a decision by American officials. Second, the implications for Canada are very clear, and demonstrate the continuing importance of moving toward freer liberal trade agreements amongst all nations of the world, including Canada and the United States.
March 17, 1988

Third, and most important, the Hon. Member should recognize the tremendous success of the Canadian Wheat Board which, in the face of the Export Enhancement Program, has succeeded in increasing Canadian exports from 19 per cent to 23 per cent during the course of the last year.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs would see his way clear to respond on behalf of the Government of Canada. After all, it was he who said in this House that it was inconsistent with the trade agreement.
The Canadian Wheat Board may well be doing the good job the Member says it is, but the Canadian Wheat Board should not have to work in spite of efforts by Americans to do what they are doing with the Export Enhancement Subsidy Program. How long is the Canadian Government going to put up with this kind of action by the Americans? Are we just going to continue to roll over and play dead? Or is the Secretary of State for External Affairs going to get up and say something on behalf of Canada and Canadian farmers?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I could not be more eloquent or more effective than my colleague, the Hon. Member for Brandon- Souris, who has put on the record the context in which these matters have to be seen.
The Member knows the complexity of the problem. He also knows, because we have discussed it, that senior Ministers in the United States administration are as unhappy about this program as we are. He will know that it was mounted in the context of a conflict between the European Community and the United States, in which Canada is a potential principal victim. He will also know that, as a result of representations made by this Government and others, most recently by the Prime Minister when he met with Jacques Delors, the President of the European Commission, there has at last been some movement back in some of the subsidy programs of the European Community.
That does not provide us with the immediate relief we need now, but, as my colleague, the Member for Brandon-Souris, (Mr. Clark), has just indicated, the actions and effectiveness of the Canadian Wheat Board mean that Canada is continuing to sell effectively and aggressively abroad while we are making progress in trying to iessen the consequences of the conflict between the European Community and the United States on agriculture.
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BRITISH MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to Members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Right Honourable John MacGregor, Member of Parliament, British Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTER OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AND JOB TRAINING
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to Members' attention and, of course, to the attention of members of the Government, the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Stanley Hagen, the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training of the Province of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Mr. Foster:: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we could get better answers from the Minister of Agriculture of the United Kingdom than we are getting from this Government opposite.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Bring him down.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I may advise the visiting right honourable gentleman that he will not be asked any questions. Will the Hon. Member put his question?


Maurice Brydon Foster: We are going to invite the gentleman to our committee on agriculture later this afternoon.


UNITED STATES SUBSIDIZED WHEAT EXPORTS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The report out of Washington clearly says that the United States is going to use the Export Enhancement Program for 60 per cent of its sales to countries such as Russia, China, Algeria and other countries which are our traditional customers.
The most disturbing part of this whole report is that 40 per cent of all the export enhancement increase has taken place since last October, since the free trade deal was initialled.
Does the Minister believe that this action by the United States, and the plan for the upcoming year, are a clear violation of the free trade agreement, the standstill provision, and the provision which says that Canada's interests will be taken into account in using the enhancement program?

March 17, 1988
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think that is in effect the same question that was asked earlier. My answer to that question, replying to it as it was precisely put, is no. But we very much regret the use of the Export Enhancement Program. We share that regret with American officials and we believe that it is going to be important for us to make progress in the GATT, progress in bilateral negotiations and elsewhere to solve this problem.
I should take the opportunity to say, since his presence has been drawn to our attention, that among the people who have been most effective in trying to work for a more rational approach to these questions is the Right Hon. Secretary of State for Agriculture of the United Kingdom.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECT ON CANADIAN FARMERS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder how the Minister expects Canadian farmers to survive. Last year our grain prices were reduced by 25 per cent and this crop year they are reduced by 19 per cent. We now see the United States breaking the agreement, providing massive subsidies. It increased its share of the world grain market by 10 per cent this year. How does the Minister believe Canadian farmers can survive with these continuous decreases in prices, with the United States pouring billions of dollars into subsidies for its exports and that kind of program not available to our farmers?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact in Canada that the which Canadian grain farmers, particularly western grain farmers, have faced these last two or three years is the worst since the 1930s. What is fortunate is that Canadian grain farmers have been governed at the same time they faced this crisis by a Government which has done more for Canadian agriculture than any other Government in Canadian history.
As the Hon. Member knows, even though he may shake his head to the contrary, our financial assistance to Canadian farmers increased by some 400 per cent during the four years we were in power. As a result of that, and because of some of the good things that are happening elsewhere in the world, I think we have a good future.

[ Translation]


CULTURE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications
who is responsible for culture. The problems at the National Arts Centre and at Telefilm Canada indicate that there are at least two consequences of patronage in cultural agencies: first, the cultural agencies are not properly managed and, second, nobody springs to the defence of the artists. I want to ask the Minister what she intends to do to correct this situation.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: First, Mr. Speaker, I should tell the Hon. Member that I do not expect the cultural agencies to take an example from his appointment as critic for the New Democratic Party because, first he was in as a critic, then he was out as a critic; then he was in as a critic, and then he was out again as a critic.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Now he is back in again.


John Edward Broadbent: That is your Government, Flora. You were in and out and in, and you will be out again.


An Hon. Member:: You will never be in.


John Edward Broadbent: What do you want to bet?


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


Ian Gardiner Waddell: At least it's better than Jean Sirois.


GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR ARTISTS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: I want to ask the
Minister a supplementary question and I would ask her to take the question seriously. I know she has been kissing the Blarney Stone a bit today but I want her to take my question seriously.
Will she not agree with me that the cultural agencies have to do two things, first to manage themselves well and, second, to act as an advocate for the Canadian artists vis-a-vis the Government of Canada? Would she agree with that? And would she say to Canadian artists that we are going to put an end to these outrageous patronage appointments to the cultural agencies in Canada?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the need for representation of artists and their interests in the cultural agencies. I am sure the Hon. Member would want to acknowledge that in the last number of months, there have been several such appointments. Fifty-four per cent of them have gone to women. They have included such people as Shirley Thompson, who is now the Director of the National Gallery of Canada, Mary Pratt from Newfoundland, Edith Butler from the Maritimes, Martha Henry to the Canada Council. I can give the Member any number of these examples and can also assure him that future appointments will be of that calibre.
March 17, 1988


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM THAILAND LED BY DEPUTY INDUSTRY MINISTER
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of a Thai delegation led by the Deputy Industry Minister, Korn Dabbaransi.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TARIFFS
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In connection with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, manufacturers in the textile and apparel industry and Government officials have been meeting and consulting regularly for over two months to find an acceptable solution for duty remission on imported fabrics.
Could the Minister find a reasonable compromise, especially since in on a trip in September 1985, a group consisting of Members from both sides of the House observed that nine manufacturers out of ten already exported very substantial amounts to the U.S.? Such a compromise would enable the industry to continue to prosper and not lose 1,500 jobs annually as it did under the Liberals.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, officials from my Department and I have had meetings with representatives of the textile and apparel industries to try and reach a compromise on the subject of duty remission and other aspects, as part of a package to strengthen the competitive position of both industries. I said it was very important to have a balance between the parties to the compromise, in order to encourage both the textile and the apparel industries and help them enter the new world of free trade with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind Hon. Members that there is not that much time left in Question Period. I would ask that questions and answers be shorter.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, Montreal's economic situation has come to a standstill under this Conservative Goverment. After the Government's failure to act on the situation in Montreal East, its failure to set up a genuine banking centre as it promised, it failed to act on the space agency, the development of the Vieux-Port in Montreal, the Soligaz project and the shipyards, now Montreal's southwest area is in trouble.
My question to the Minister of State (Immigration) is as follows: The Emergency Committee for Southwest Montreal wants the federal Government to become financially and actively involved in a committee to revive the economy of Southwest Montreal. Is the Minister prepared to give a positive answer to this request, and when does he intend to make an announcement in this respect?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I see quite clearly that the renewal process has already started. When we look at the unemployment rate in Montreal in February 1988, it was 8.8 per cent, a drop of over 4 per cent. The number of jobs created in February 1988 in Montreal was 132,000.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), on a supplementary, but a very short one, please.


DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRACTS-REQUEST THAT CRITERIA BE MADE KNOWN
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary concerns another issue: the space agency. Yesterday, Mayor Dore of Montreal said he would not budge and that he could not accept ... if the Minister of State (Science and Technology) could sit down?
Yesterday, the Mayor of Montreal said he would not budge and that it was unacceptable that Montreal should be penalized on the issue of the space agency. The Mayor of Montreal would like to know what criteria the Minister decided to apply to the division of contracts connected with the space agency's programs, since he allocated only 35 per cent to the province of Quebec, when he knows perfectly well that 80 per cent of the research is done in Quebec? What were the criteria for making this decision?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, nothing is carved in stone. The industrial consortia that will be acting as the contractors for the space program has been given targets that are designed to develop some national distribution for some of the research and development work associated with the space program.

March 17, 1988
Oral Questions
What we have taken is the traditional work that has gone to the various regions such as Ontario and Quebec. We have asked that any incremental or new funding go to these regions in the same proportion, but that some new work be used to develop some critical mass in the Atlantic provinces and in western Canada as well.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-PRICE OF ELECTRICITY
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last month Maritime Electric included in its monthly electrical bills to customers from one end of P.E.I. to the other a notice advising them that because of proposed deregulation of the electrical energy industry the price of electricity to P.E.I. may go up substantially. As a result of this notice and the added convenience of a mail-in card to Members of Parliament, I have received thousands of cards informing me that Islanders do not want their electric rates to go up. I do not want electric rates to go up either.
My question to the Minister is this. What are the plans for deregulation? Can the Minister assure myself and all Islanders that deregulation will not unfairly affect electrical rates to Prince Edward Islanders?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's information is correct. The Government is reviewing its policy on electric power in Canada, and a few weeks from now, I will be in a position to submit a proposal to Cabinet.
The Government is well aware of the problems encountered by the people of Prince Edward Island, and my Government colleagues have kept me very well informed.
We are very sympathetic to their plight and are seeking solutions that would enable the people of Prince Edward Island to have rates comparable to those prevailing elsewhere.
I firmly believe that co-operation between the provinces and the people responsible for the various power systems would be very helpful to both the Government and the people of Prince Edward Island in their search for appropriate solutions.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. He knows that in August of last year we passed Bill C-85, an Act to order people back to work on the railways. In that legislation in order to ensure that people went back to work the Government incorporated very stiff fines for those people. Those people went back to work.
Now Canadian Pacific is saying that if the people honour any other picket lines with regard to other railway unions they will take the workers to court and use Bill C-85 as a bludgeon against them. These people are being doubly jeopardized by Bill C-85. They obeyed the law when it was passed and now Canadian Pacific is using it against them again. I would like the Minister to explain why they are put in this position.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, the Minister of Labour is consulting with provincial colleagues at this time. The question he puts forward is an important one, and I will take it as notice.
I also suggest to the Hon. Member that what Canadian Pacific says, as he is well aware, sometimes is not totally accurate when it comes to being enforced.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill on a short supplementary question, please.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the Minister's thoughts on Canadian Pacific. However, the Minister has been away all week and I want to ask this question.
The point is that at this time the workers are being threatened. I would like a definite government statement, and I would like to know when we can have it.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Government cannot give a specific statement at this time. The Minister of Labour has been away this week, as the Hon. Member is aware, consulting with provincial colleagues on a program for older worker adjustment, something which I know the Hon. Member and his Party support.
March 17, 1988


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, in June 1985, the Government and Canada Post decided to stop home mail delivery to communities of 2,000 households or more. A group of 174 communities has been affected by this unfortunate decision which is costing $360 million not $1.3 billion as the Minister keeps repeating daily.
My question is directed to whomever would like to answer, since the Minister responsible for Canada Post is not in the Elouse. Is the Government prepared to examine other prospects for increasing the revenue of Canada Post without increasing the price of stamps, so as to provide home mail delivery to communities of 2,000 households or more?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Canada Post has previously replied to the Hon. Member and other colleagues on that very same question. I do question the economics that the Hon. Member is using to come to this conclusion.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret this but given the time I will stay with single questions. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East.


ABORTION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health. The Alberta Minister of Health is allowing rural hospitals to retain therapeutic abortion committees, despite the Supreme Court ruling that these are unconstitutional. Since to continue federal funding under those circumstances is to share in the violation of the Charter, what does the Minister intend to do to require compliance?
Would he also look into the matter of preventive programs that Alberta has taken off the medicare plan, such as IUDs, tubal ligations, and vasectomies, and see what can be done about having those available in order to reduce the need for abortions?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have previously answered the second half of that question in the House. It goes back to the scope of the Canada Health Act and the function of the province to conduct and manage its health care system. That is the first point that I wish to make.
The second point is that the delivery of health care services is a provincial responsibility. The manner in which provinces will deliver abortion services in regard to the Supreme Court decision, I think all of us recognize is still evolving.
On the matter of the Supreme Court decision, as I have said on other issues, the Government of Canada obviously expects the provinces to obey the law. As has been stated before, I think that is only as far as I can go until the federal Government comes in with other legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke North.


NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE
Robert Pennock: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. The Minister knows that the National Arts Centre has been seeking a new director unsuccessfully now for two years. With yesterday's resignation of the chairman of the board, Mr. Boutin, the problem has been compounded. It is important that the new director and the chairman of the board work effectively together.
1 know the Minister shares this concern with myself and other Members of the House, and I wonder if the Minister can tell us the timeframe under which she is operating to put a new chairperson in place?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge publicly the work and the commitment of Pierre Boutin to the National Arts Centre and to the performing arts in general during his term as chairperson of the National Arts Centre.
I would like to assure the Hon. Member and all Hon. Members that the announcement of a new chairperson for the National Arts Centre will be made very shortly. The first priority of that person will be to see that an executive director is put in place. I am sure that the Member recognizes that, by law, that responsibility rests with the board itself. It is not a Governor in Council appointment.

March 17, 1988
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Government House Leader to give the usual statement on government business.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be an allotted day, as will Monday, March 21. On Tuesday, March 22, we intend to call for second reading resumption of debate on Bill C-93. I am going to ask in an informal manner whether the other Parties would consider an extension of hours that evening to allow us to complete debate on that very important Bill. I am saying that because we have arranged Wednesday as a day in which we would consider certain legislation respecting Indian affairs. Thursday will be the last allotted day in this trimester. On Friday, there is assorted legislation that we would like to put through. If it is not possible to finish Bill C-93 on Tuesday, we would call it again on Friday.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard of the Government's offer of extended hours on Tuesday for consideration of Bill C-93. Obviously, I will have to consult with our critics to see what the status of the Bill is. I will get back to the Deputy Government House Leader.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will also have to take counsel with respect to the Government's proposal on Bill C-93, and I will get back to the Deputy Government House Leader.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Murphy:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to address the needs of the aboriginal people of Canada, including:
(a)	the right to self-government,
(b)	the provision of adequate shelter, health care and educational facilities,
(c)	basic water and sewage treatment facilities,
(d)	adequate employment and training opportunities, and
(e)	the financial resources to fully develop the economic and human resources of aboriginal communities.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock p.m. the Hon. Member for Skeena had the floor.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate in today's debate to have with us in the gallery a very notorious Canadian and British Columbian, Mr. Frank Calder, who served with distinction as the first Indian to be elected to a
legislature in Canada. He was elected in 1949 and served with distinction for more than 30 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: Many Canadians will know that Mr. Calder brought before the Supreme Court of Canada the first major landmark decision on aboriginal title, which resulted in a tie decision before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1972.
I wish to spend a moment talking about part of the history of British Columbia which brought about the remarkable Calder case and a reversal of federal government movement in terms of comprehensive claims.
As some Members of the House will know, the first contact between the Nisga people, most aboriginal people in British Columbia, and the non-native global population was when Captain Vancouver came with his expedition to Observatory Inlet and Salmon Cove and contacted the Nisga at that time.
In looking back, it is interesting to note that in 1858 the Hudson's Bay Company conducted for the colony of British Columbia what could be described as a census of some sort. They could very easily come up with the number of non-native people in British Columbia; there were 400 whites in Victoria at the time. They estimated that there were 63,000 Indians in British Columbia. Recently historians have pointed out that there may well have been in the neighbourhood of 400,000 Indian people living on the coast of British Columbia and in the Pacific northwest prior to contact. Many people who are here today will know that it was as a result of smallpox that more than 90 per cent of the aboriginal people in British Columbia were decimated during the 1860s and 1870s.
In British Columbia the aboriginal population enormously outnumbered the non-native population according to Hudson's Bay Company records, of 63,000 to 400 only one century ago, and we found that that was the case throughout most of Canada. It was through very important alliances that were formed that this country came into being and successfully fought the War of 1812 and other major sovereign battles in which this nation was involved over the last several centuries.
The shoe is now on the other foot. There are now 25 million Canadians. One need only look at the documents tabled by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) to see how things have changed from an enormous native population and important military and economic alliances for the fur trade and for the forest and mining industries. We now find the non-native population enormously outnumbering the native population.
According to government records, as of December, 1986, there were 387,829 status Indian and Inuit in Canada. During 1986, 10,844 more were reinstated as a result of pressure brought on Canada by the United Nations via the Lovelace case to change Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act, which had sexually discriminated against Indian women for a better part of the century. Between June, 1985 and May, 1987, 24,708
March 17, 1988

individuals were reinstated, but only $25 million was provided, about $1,000 per person, to assist those who were returning to their home communities. The Government estimated that some
56.000	would be reinstated, but we know that more than
100.000	have applied so far and only half have been properly reinstated.
Earlier today we heard the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary say that if one looks at the social indicators of the plight of the aboriginal people of Canada, every Canadian must shudder to realize that aboriginal people face the highest infant mortality rate in Canada; the lowest life expectancy in Canada, some 10 years less than any other minority; the highest rate of unemployment, the highest rate of suicide, and the lowest standard of living, to name but a few of the social indicators.
There are 592 bands in Canada ranging from populations as small as 2 to an excess of 11,000 members. There are 2,263 separate parcels of land with a burgeoning population of whom a full two-thirds are under the age of 25 years.
The Government of Canada has launched an attack which we have not seen since the White Paper of Jean Chretien back in 1971. This Government has gone further, as we learned with the Buffalo Jump of the 1980s, the document prepared by Erik Nielsen in his task force study on how to assimilate and eliminate aboriginal people in Canada.
We have now seen the Prime Minister close off the constitutional route. In my view he intentionally failed. We can discover how far the Government is prepared to go in blocking constitutional evolution and devolution by simply looking at the Estimates which were tabled just a few weeks ago by the Minister. If one looks under policy and the Constitution, we find a cut of 30 per cent in funds under Section 2-31 of the Estimates. Staff has been cut in that area by two-thirds since 1986. On self-government negotiations there has been a cut of 25 per cent, and the staff has been cut by 50 per cent since last year.
These kinds of cuts are absolutely indefensible. When I started speaking just before one o'clock I tried to remind Hon. Members and Canadians generally what was in Canada's Constitution Act, 1982, a very recent document which indicated: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed". "Recognition" means that Parliament and legislatures must recognize what aboriginal rights are, whether they be aboriginal rights to land, to fish, to hunt, to trap, or to carry on cultural activities.
We have had a miserable track record for more than a century in banning the Potlatch, a traditional Parliament which I am honoured to attend often in my own constituency where enormously important legal and constitutional matters take place. "Affirmation" means that the comprehensive claims process, the specific claims process, must be accelerated
Supply
to meet the constitutional objectives put before the people of Canada a short six years ago.
If one looks at some of the other cuts, one gets an idea of where the Government is going on what has been described by many, if not most, of the aboriginal leaders in Canada as a path leading to cultural genocide. Loans on comprehensive claims have been cut by over 20 per cent or by $10 million. One finds that in the Estimates under Section 2-36. Human resource development has been cut by over 50 per cent since 1986, according to Section 2-42 of the Estimates which were just tabled. There has been a cut of $24 million and a staff cut of 60 per cent. If we are not to be involved in the development of human resources, where is the Government intending to go? Renewable resource development was cut from $30 million in 1986 to $4 million. This is a cut of $26 million, as well as a cut from a staff of 28 to a staff of 4.
As I said earlier this morning, the only realizable increase in the budget of the Minister responsible for aboriginal affairs is a result of the intervention of the United Nations on the Lovelace case. We find paltry sums attached to new housing, post-secondary education, and some additional medical costs.
Let us take a look at some of the other cuts-a cut to selfgovernment from $13 million to $11 million; on comprehensive claims, from $78 million to $73 million; on economic development, from $82 million to $66 million; and on lands, reserves, and trusts, from $48 million to $41 million. In all key areas of development we find the Government cutting back enormously on the amount of funds available.
Let us take a look at the example of one part of a department, litigation funding and support for environmental protection, lands, funds, estates, and so on. We find that of the $41 million allocated-and I am quoting from the Minister's own Estimates-51.3 per cent relates to personnel costs. Over half is eaten up by the department itself. Some 22.9 per cent relates to other operating costs, so it is eaten up by the Department or by consultants to the department. Therefore, only 25.8 per cent is actually transferred on environmental protection, litigation support, specific claims, membership in band Governments, lands, funds, and estates. We find that only a quarter of the funds actually voted by Parliament reaches aboriginal peoples in their home communities.
I ask Hon. Members to reflect upon the following. While we found that the federal Budget has effectively tripled in the past decade, funding to aboriginal affairs in 1981 fixed dollars has remained effectively frozen. I asked the Parliamentary Library to go through all the documents-the Estimates, the actual expenditures, Treasury Board documents, and so on. Therefore, I realize that the funding to aboriginal people has effectively remained flat for a decade, whereas in almost all other areas of government expenditure it has doubled, tripled, or better.
We are finding aboriginal people frozen out of the constitutional process, frozen out of resource development impact funding, frozen out of litigation funding unless it is at the

March 17, 1988
Supply
appeal level, frozen out of funding for housing, and frozen out of economic development. It is a very sad state. I do not think any Canadian who has taken a close look at the reality of what is happening to aboriginal Canadians could in any way support a Government which continues to pursue that.
Over the past few months I had an opportunity to attend a meeting with Miles Richardson, President of the Council of the Haida Nation along with the Minister responsible for Indian Affairs. After an hour Miles Richardson finally put perhaps the most poignant question that has ever been put to the Minister in his political career. He asked him point blank: "What is your responsibility as the Minister of Indian Affairs to the Haida people?" The Minister responsible for aboriginal affairs, with me present, said nothing. He did not speak, indicating that his responsibility to aboriginal people such as those of the Haida Nation was nothing. It does not exist, yet he has a $2 billion budget, a huge Department over which he governs, and he rides around in a limousine.
The Nisga are here. Frank Calder is here. He has attempted to meet with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and with the Minister responsible for aboriginal affairs for more than a year by letter, by telephone, and by telex. They have arrived here and have spent five days waiting for even five minutes to meet with either Minister. They were categorically refused meetings with the two Ministers who have the most direct responsibility to them.
In the area in which I live I represent the Haida, the Nisga, the Tsimshian, the Haisla, the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en, the Tahltan, and the Tlingits, probably the most dense and most significant aboriginal populations south of the 60th parallel, amounting to well in excess of 25,000 aboriginal people in northwestern British Columbia.
I should like to spend a moment referring to the motion before the House. It condemns the Government for its failure to address the needs of the aboriginal people of Canada on self-government, shelter, health care, educational facilities, and so on. One need only look at the remarks of the Minister of Indian Affairs a couple of weeks ago in the House when I put a question to the Prime Minister about comprehensive claims. I asked where the Government was going and why the Prime Minister had never taken the opportunity to come to British Columbia and say: "Yes, it is the constitutional and legal responsibility of the Government of Canada to negotiate treaty settlements in British Columbia". There is only Treaty 8 and the Governor Douglas treaties of which there are 14. The rest of British Columbia must be involved in comprehensive negotiations with the first citizens of the area.
We have records in my own area in northwestern British Columbia on the Skeena, written records going back 10,000 years regarding trade on the Skeena, the Nass, and other systems in that area. Too many Canadians are unaware of the enormous, refreshing, and beautiful cultural and individual histories of the aboriginal people of this continent.
We can look internationally and find Convention 107 of the International Labour Organization. The Government, under the direction of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is arguing for assimilation of aboriginal people rather than standing up for them as persons and individual identifiable indigenous groups within Canada. It prefers to talk about them as minority populations in Canada. Fighting against that is the largest coalition of aboriginal groups in Canadian history, the Indigenous Working Group, which has fought long and hard.
More recently, before the United Nations subcommittee on human rights we found the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his officials in Geneva arguing against a study to look into treaties in Canada and for other indigenous populations around the world, well known, well identified, as the people on this planet the most at risk. Why would Canada be on the forefront of fighting against a study of treaties? One need only look at Mr. Nielsen's Buffalo Jump of the 1980s, the budget cuts, the refusal to move on comprehensive and specific claims, to see why. On specific claims, Mr. Speaker, 32 have been dealt with so far out of 428. We see specific claims funding cut from $30 million to $1 million between 1986 and this year. No government Member can travel around this country and tell any aboriginal person that there will be movement under Brian Mulroney-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


James Ross Fulton: -on comprehensive or specific claims if one looks at the funds voted before this House.
Let us look at another example in which the Minister has been involved in Alberta with the Lubicon. The committee, composed of a majority of government Members, voted to have E. Davie Fulton brought before the committee, voted to have E. Davie Fulton attached to the Lubicon negotiations as a mediator. The Minister categorically refused even though it was a majority vote that reported to this House. The Minister has refused to take the views of all Members of this House into consideration in appointing who, I might add, was John Diefenbaker's Minister of Justice, a renowned and respected Supreme Court Justice of British Columbia who was appointed by the same Government to look into the Lubicon situation. Instead, what does the Minister do? He provides $9.5 million to the Daishowa Paper Corporation, and the Alberta Government gives over 11,000 square miles of Alberta untendered, without an initial environmental evaluation, contrary to the Cabinet's own order. The Cabinet required an initial environmental evaluation for a pulp mill that will be immediately outside of the Wood Buffalo National Park. This is a pulp mill that will affect federal lands, not only a national park, and that will affect the aboriginal people who live within Wood Buffalo National Park, to say nothing of the impact that it has had on the Lubicon people.
March 17, 1988

I could go on at even greater length but I think the figures and the facts that I have placed on the record today sustain the argument that this Government is hell-bent on the cultural genocide of the aboriginal Inuit and Metis people of Canada, and it should be ashamed of it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to engage in this debate, especially in following the lead of our colleague, the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), and his contribution to the debate. He has distinguished himself over the years that he has been here with his knowledge of Indian affairs and the future of Canada's native people. It is a special pleasure to be following him in this debate.
My purpose this afternoon is to set the record straight on the question of the health of Canada's original people and to bring Members up to date on the services which the federal Government provides through the medical services branch in my Department, a purpose which is to improve and maintain the health of Inuit and Indian people.
May I say at the outset that the Indian and northern health services work closely with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and that consultation with Indian leaders and Indian communities on issues affecting their health and health services is fundamental to the process of program development and implementation. I want to remind the House that in 1979, the Conservative Government restructured the federal Indian health policy. That short period of time we were in office resulted in that work.
This document, which was drafted by the now Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) for this Government, cast aside what we thought at that time were the restrictive and penny-pinching policies which the former Liberal Government has pursued. The Indian health policy recognizes for the first time the traditional relationship of the native people to the federal Government. Anyone who has studied constitutional law and that relationship comes naturally and inexorably to that conclusion. It also recognizes that there is but one system of health care in Canada consisting of federal, provincial and community or local elements as well as acknowledging that the health services provided for a native people are inseparable from the development of the community. In discussions with the AFN as recently as the last seven to ten days ago, that point has been made very clear again. I have been pleased to see how those discussions have been taking place and how a transfer of health policy is very much being seen as a model by the leadership with respect to a further move toward taking control of their lives and self-government.
The Indian health policy establishes the absolute need for increased active participation of Indian and Inuit communities in issues and programs affecting their health and well-being.
As a sign of good faith, in 1979 the Conservative Government withdrew the restrictive 1978 guidelines which had governed the provision of non-insured health benefits and
Supply
made medical transportation, prescription drugs, glasses, dental care and other items not covered by our national health insurance program available to all Indians and Inuits who required them. I find it, and I know this is not usually done in this House, passing strange that the Auditor General would have remarked in one of his reports that the expansion of those programs should be examined, namely, that expenditures are higher than normal expenditure increases in other departments. The reason was a large gap having to be filled, and that is what has been taking place. Perhaps the most important aspect of this policy is the Government's recognition of the special health needs of the native people. It is this recognition that has provided this Government with the incentive to increase funds for Indian and northern health services and to strengthen the programs needed to ensure that the health of our native people does not suffer unduly.
What about the health of the Inuit and Indian people? In the few moments I have I would like to quote statistics on the status of their health but before so doing, let me give you, Mr. Speaker, a few facts taken from Statistics Canada publication entitled Canada's Native People, published in 1979. I think it demonstrates how the Indian people suffered from years of Liberal neglect.
For example, at that time, when changes were made on those policies, over half of the status Indian population living on reserve had never gone to high school. Only about 42 per cent of Indian men and 22 per cent of Indian women living on reserve were employed. Almost one-quarter of on-reserve houses were in need of repair. Over 50 per cent did not have central heat, 32 per cent were overcrowded and 30 per cent lacked bathroom facilities.
All of us who represent native people and see what is happening on the reserves know that we still have a long distance to go, but I am pleased, at least in the 15 years I have been here, to see the changes that have taken place on some of those reserves. Local leadership has been taking control and by the use of government and private programs to my mind have made the progress that we see to date. We should commend those advances to other members of Canadian society rather than commending the stereotype we see so often which then colours, in my mind, a picture which is not true to the reality taking place. Data for the Inuit, I would think, would tell a similar story, so for lack of time I will not go into that at this stage.
The Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin has already advised this place of the steps that are being taken by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to improve conditions on reserves, improvements, may I say, that are long overdue. It is, however, this legacy which my Department must strive to provide or arrange for the provision of health to almost 600 Inuit reserves located in the 10 provinces and two territories as well as more than 50 Inuit communities across the land.
Let us look as a House what the status of health is of our native people. There are positive indications that health status

March 17, 1988
Supply
is improving, but the Indian and Inuit people still-I have said this in the document Achieving Health for All-have a long way to catch up to the level of health enjoyed by the majority of Canadians. We could also relate this to economic status. I think Members who represent native people also understand that.
In the more than 40 years which the medical services branch of the Department has provided health services to the native people there has been a marked decline in the rate of many infectious diseases, improvement in maternal, infant and child mortality rates. Remote and isolated communities have better access to hospital and medical services and to arrange preventive health programs. 1 think as well it should be stated that many people who have served in those communities, often very isolated, have been performing services as members of those communities in a manner which all of us should commend. From time to time we forget about that. When I visit the health stations, especially seeing the nurses in those stations and the community health representatives, the CHRs, I am always impressed with their dedication. It should also be said to Members of the House that some CHRs and native people have had service to their community and the department extending well beyond 10 and 15 years. That service has been given at the local level as well.
However, to my mind, the health status of Inuit and Indians still remains unacceptably low when compared with that of other Canadians. For example, from 1982 to 1985 the post neo-natal mortality rate of Canadian Indians was 10.9 per cent per 1,000 live births. That compares very unfavourably with a rate of only three per thousand for non-Indian infants. Life expectancy for Indian males is 62.4 years compared to 71.9 years for the Canadian male population as a whole. Indian women have a life expectancy of 68.9 years compared to 78.9 years for the Canadian female population as a whole.
The leading causes of Inuit and Indian death are accidents, violence and poisonings. Deaths from injuries and poisonings are at least three times higher than the corresponding rate for the general Canadian population. Infant mortality, and I think all of us would be pleased at this, has declined, but from a rate of 39.6 per 1,000 live births in 1974 to about 17 per thousand today. While this is commendable, I would point out that the infant mortality rate for Indians and Inuit is still almost twice the national rate and, therefore, unacceptable.
Suicide in all circumstances is tragic, but for the Indian people of Canada it is catastrophic. In the 15 to 19 age group, the rate is almost seven and a half times higher than national rates for young people. Between the ages of 20 and 24 the rate is almost five and a half times higher. For the Inuit in 1985, of a total of 224 deaths from all causes, nine were suicides. They were all people under the age of 34. The causes of suicide are broken homes, lack of employment opportunities, alienation, and inability to achieve expectations. While never fully addressed, I believe people in the community, Canadians who
are serving in various departments, are trying to address these most complex and difficult issues. However, it will take time to undo the years of suffering and neglect which have characterized the way of life of Canada's aboriginal people.
These major health problems are related to social and environmental conditions. Improvement in health status cannot be achieved by medical technology alone. In fact, sometimes the easiest thing to deliver is medical technology. However, it is the social, psychological and economic foundations that are so difficult to change. More emphasis must be placed on health promotion and disease prevention strategies which respond to the social, economic and environmental realities of Indian communities and which give those communities control over the planning and delivery of relevant health programs.
I think I have been very forthright in stating the issues. I have not tried to colour them in any way. However, the Government does recognize the disparities that exist between the health and well-being of the Inuit and Indian people with that of Canadians as a whole. I would like to take just a few minutes to inform my colleagues in this place of a few of the initiatives under way to ameliorate conditions and reduce these disparities.
The 1988-89 Estimates recently tabled in this House include almost $46 million for the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program, or NNADAP. It supports Indian and Inuit community alcohol and drug prevention programs, including community awareness, alcohol and drug abuse counselling services, in-patient and out-patient facilities for detoxification, and rehabilitation. That includes monitoring and continuing treatment. Of course, NNADAP provides training for counsellors and others working in the field of alcohol and drug abuse.
I have a NNADAP facility on one of the reserves in my riding. I asked an elder in that community why are there so few people from the reserve attending the program. It is not that the program is not full, but it is not full of members of that community. I thought he put it in a very practical way, and we have a lesson to learn here. So often we like to bring in programs for Indian and Inuit people which are different from the norm in the rest of Canada. He said if you built an alcohol and drug rehabilitation centre on the main street of any one of your towns, would the local townspeople come to the front door for treatment? I think he pointed out in a very practical and succinct way the kinds of problems we face. I opened a NNADAP centre not long ago in Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan. They are trying to unite the very best techniques we know of in alcohol and drug abuse rehabilitation with native workers and the spiritual history of native people.
The NNADAP program has been working well, but I am concerned that some of the beds, for example, cost almost as much as hospital care and we are not getting enough rehabilitation. However, those are the administrative realities of these programs and something we have to be vigilant about. We have to bring it back to the goal of rehabilitation rather than
March 17, 1988

looking at it, as some like to do, as economic development for a given region.
I spoke earlier of the Government's commitment to consultation with the native people. I should also bring to your attention some of the steps being taken to involve Indians and Inuit more thoroughly in the control and provision of their own health care. A modest but important program is the Indian-Inuit Professional Health Careers Development Program. This is part of a more comprehensive strategy designed to coordinate the education and training in health needs of the native people so that they can acquire the education and skills to become health providers to their own people. Over $2 million and 28 person-years have been allocated to that important thrust.
Through the Non-insured Health Benefits Program, qualified native people now receive prescription drugs, we think good dental care, and eyeglasses to correct visual defects. Transportation to medical care is also an important feature of the program and many Indian bands and Inuit settlements now run their own transportation programs to take their people to hospitals or medical clinics. Just to show you the scope of the program, in 1987-88 over $200 million was spent on these benefits. Native people living in isolation in northern parts of the provinces or territories are evacuated by air to hospitals in the larger cities or in the south. There is no question of their being denied access to the best of health services and care that Canada can provide.
I know there is criticism from time to time that the evacuation should not take place and we should have more health facilities in the regions. We are building a hospital at Yellowknife right now, for example. I see the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) here and she will probably want to talk about the Whitehorse General as well. Those are the kinds of initiatives taking place. However, we always have to keep distances and isolation in mind when we try to address some of these questions.
Where, in earlier days, mothers had their babies at home or at nursing stations, today over 95 per cent of native births occur in hospital. Maternity mortality has been virtually eliminated. Mortality in the one to four age group continues to decline and I am confident the rate will be no greater than the national rate within a short period of time. However, as you may have learned from my remarks, the health of Canada's aboriginal people is a major concern of the Government. We are attempting, with the co-operation and participation of native people and their leaders, to implement new initiatives for Indian and Inuit health. One area of the utmost priority to my department is the transfer of health services to Indian management and control. For example, responsibility for the delivery of health services in the Northwest Territories will be transferred from Health and Welfare to the territorial Government in April of this year.


Dave Nickerson: Hear, hear!
Supply


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We would also like to do this in the Yukon and are ready to do so any time the Yukon Government wants to enter into and finalize negotiations.
In North Battleford, The Battlefords Indian Health Centre runs the Indian Health Program for reserves in that district. The Nisga's Tribal Council in the Nass Valley of northern British Columbia has established a health board that will be responsible for providing for the health of all residents in that area. I hope we can move in some of those south of sixty as well.
These examples are merely the tip of the iceberg. In the 1988-89 fiscal year the federal Government expects to spend some $90 million on grants and contributions to Indian and Inuit communities and associations to provide for programs which they themselves will run.
Finally, we recently transferred the Baffin from the department to a local hospital board representing the entire region of the Baffin. We put forward a proposal to the people of the Baffin, centred in Iqaluit to demonstrate that this could work. I cannot put it in any better bureaucratise than that. It was my argument that it would work. As a former member of a local hospital board, I have always been a great believer that you deliver services best at the local level.
It did work, Mr. Speaker. People in the area were deeply concerned about their health care system. We have transferred the Baffin and are now going to transfer the entire Northwest Territories. In 1979 I thought that the Yukon would be first, but the NWT will be first. We are also negotiating south of sixty.
Why is health important? I am sure that my colleague who reports to this House for the Post Office might not like this, but all polling indicates that of all the services which Canadians receive from various levels of government health care rates nearest the top in every survey, even higher than services regarding the Post Office.
However, in all seriousness, in the 15 years that I have dealt with health care as a former Minister of Indian Affairs and now as Minister of Health, there has been tremendous progress made. We have some distance to go yet, and I fully recognize that, keeping in mind the isolation of Indian and Inuit communities.
However, let us celebrate the things that are working well. Let us work at changing those things about which none of us are happy. I still have not addressed, for instance, the matter of health with regard to status people off the reserve. That is an entire area for which I have not time today.
I believe sincerely that the progress which we have seen has been largely due to two things; one, local community leaders taking control of the health situation in their communities, cajoling government and others to move forward on agendas which they have put forward for so many years and, second,

March 17, 1988
Supply
dedicated workers. I will stand on any platform and commend the people whom I have seen in these communities delivering health care, native people and non-native people. If the system is working, it is largely due to them.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time you have given me in the House to put some of these matters on the record.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments and a question or two for the Minister. I would like to start by thanking him for joining the debate which I, on behalf of our caucus started earlier today. I agree with him in some of his concluding remarks. I believe that local leadership has made a vast difference in the last 10 to 15 years. I also believe that the facilities offered by the federal Government indicate a vast improvement over the last 10 to 15 years. I will credit both of the two previous Governments for that. I also agree with the Minister that there is a long way to go.
However, one area in which there has been a constant, chronic shortage is in the supply of nurses to the remote areas. The Minister himself has spoken about that in the past. The concern that I have raised in this House with the Government and previous Governments is that we never have a large enough pool of nurses available. That means that when there are one or two nurses in St. Theresa, or other parts of the Provencher riding which will soon be part of the Churchill riding, they are overworked. The stress and various other problems result in a high turnover. Many of those people are very dedicated and would love to stay in the North for a longer time. I spoke only a month ago with the last nurse who left. She just could not handle it anymore. She was not getting relief. She was not allowed to go out when she was scheduled to go out. She was on call on an almost continuous basis.
I hope that in replying to me the Minister will indicate that there will be some increase in the pool of nurses in order that the situation of the last eight years, in which there is always a shortage of nurses in northern Manitoba, and I am sure elsewhere across the country, will not continue.
I also hope that in the Minister's reply he will deal with the need for nursing homes. A number of the larger reserves would like to have nursing homes. There are no facilities for seniors in the communities. Oxford House is one community which is concerned about this. This is especially important because there are not proper water, sewage, and other facilities in these communities for individuals 75 or 80 years old. To live in houses heated by wood which have no other facilities is very difficult. I am also concerned about developing a better home care program for people who would like to stay in the communities.
As a final point, I believe that there should be some minimal legislation with regard to water and sewage in these communities. Any other municipality would fall under provincial or some other regulation and I believe it is necessary to have, not only guidelines but a legal requirement for the federal Government to maintain minimum standards.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Members of the House will be surprised that I agree with many of the things which the Hon. Member has raised. We have worked on some of them together. With regard to nurses, the Hon. Member is correct about the shortages. There is a turnover in all places but there does not seem to be as much turnover in the Northwest Territories as there is on some of the reserves south of sixty which, in some ways, are more difficult to get in and out of than are areas further north. That does not apply in all cases but does apply in some.
I was given a very good reception in Thompson not long ago. I talked to my staff there about the nursing shortage, the turnover, and relief help. I would like to build up a pool as well. We are advertising for nurses, not only in the Canadian context but abroad as well. Some people argue that that is not the best way, that we should be training more native nurses. I agree with that but, on the other hand, many areas have been served very faithfully by people who came to Canada, went into some of the remote communities, and became very valued members of those communities. Therefore, it is a balancing. I would indeed like to have a pool of nurses, as suggested by the Hon. Member, in order that we can administer the provision of services better than we are at the present time.
With regard to nursing homes, extended care, and home care, I mentioned in my speech that there are gaps and that we have some distance to go in order to catch up with the rest of Canadian society. We have done some of that work. Through CMHC we now have some housing for seniors on reserves. It is still a matter of how much personal care we can provide. The argument is that the elders of a community must leave their community and live their last years outside of the community of which they have been members all their lives.
With regard to water and sewer, I have a list of projects. I will not use the time of the House to discuss them other than to say that the Roseau River Reserve in my riding is now getting a water and sewer project which I am sure the Hon. Member and others would like to commend.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister outlined the education programs of his department as far as the consumption of alcoholic beverages is concerned. He probably knows what I am about to ask him.
What is his opinion of the daily television advertisements encouraging people to drink beer? For instance, there are sports advertisements suggesting that if one wants to become a race car driver one should drink a particular type of beer, and if one wants to become a great ski jumper, drink a Blue Light or something like that. The Minister knows that you do not learn any of these things by drinking beer. Of course, people, including children, are influenced by these outrageous commercials. Not only are they lies, they have an incredible impact upon people.
March 17, 1988

Two provinces in Canada have provincial legislation with respect to the advertisement of alcoholic beverages. One can see a beer commercial on one side of the border, while it is blacked out on the other side. When will the Minister take similar action with respect to those commercials as he is trying to take with regard to cigarettes? When will he take concrete action to ban the advertising of alcoholic beverages on television? That will do more than all the education programs he talked about.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. I am sure he had it cleared through the Liberal caucus first, and that there is full agreement from the Liberal Party on the proposition he makes. But I do not want to be facetious in an area like this.
My position with respect to cigarette advertising is that cigarettes used exactly as directed create illness and death. The Hon. Member may be surprised at my comment, but in respect of alcoholic beverages that is not the case. When they are used in moderation and under proper conditions, there is not the same result as there is with cigarettes.
I, as Minister of National Health and Welfare, appeared before the CRTC when it was considering the removal of preclearance of ads. The Hon. Member is correct when he states, for example, that there are certain laws in respect of the advertising of beer products in certain jurisdictions. I asked at that time that the advertising be reduced and that the CRTC seriously consider that. Second, I asked that it retain its work of pre-clearance of ads and, third, that a certain amount of money be directed to alternative advertising.
I have been meeting with the beverage industry and, while one can always improve over what is happening, I want also to be fair. The industry has begun some alternative advertising. Let me give some examples to the House. I think the Labatt's advertisement about the taxi and the homing device is good. General Motors' advertisement concerning drinking and driving during the holiday period was good. The Distillers of Canada promotion in terms of moderation and responsible drinking has been a good response. I would like to see more, but I think it is the way to go.
Finally, we have a drug and alcohol program. We have changed the Criminal Code. Education must continue because the reality is that there will always be new drinkers. I believe the advancement of those programs is the better route to take than the one suggested by the Hon. Member.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at
Supply
the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Official languages- Acquired rights of Saskatchewan francophones-Request for assistance in translating laws/Translation of Saskatchewan statutes-Request for federal assistance; the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mrs. Dewar)-Canada Health Act- Equal access-Minister's position/Administration of Act; the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)-Immigration-Appeal Board hearings-Federal Court of Canada ruling/ Request that Bill C-55 be amended.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Murphy:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to address the needs of the aboriginal people of Canada, including:
(a)	the right to self-government,
(b)	the provision of adequate shelter, health care and educational facilities,
(c)	basic water and sewage treatment facilities,
(d)	adequate employment and training opportunities, and
(e)	the financial resources to fully develop the economic and human
resources of aboriginal communities.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens).


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to deal with the opposition motion moved by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) condemning the Government for its failure to address the needs of the aboriginal people of Canada. The subject which interests me most is item b) dealing with shelter and health care.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleague the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) for his tireless interest in the Indian Affair issue, the excellent speech he made in the House this morning, and especially for his dedication to the Liberal Party caucus. As a result of his efforts and interest, the future of our native poeple seems a little brighter.
In his wisdom, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 1987 as the International Year of the Homeless and an important conference was held here in Ottawa, from September 13 to 16 of that year. During this conference, we learned that in 1987, 100,000 people were homeless in Canada, many of them are natives and the majority come down to the cities of Winnipeg and Vancouver.

March 17, 1988
Supply
In 1988 the homeless are different from those of the 1930s. Their faces have changed. These are no longer older men. These are no longer tramps. These are young people, some of them women, and we can see entire families sleeping in parks, tents or trucks.
Last year, in 1987, the average age of homeless men and women was 34 and 33, respectively. Six months after the international conference the Government has yet to make arrangements to solve the problem. The consequences are serious, particularly among native people where cases of tubeculosis are increasing alarmingly, even among children. Most native people live in small overcrowded accommodations-sometimes four, five to a room-in unhealthy and cold tenements.
So what are the results, Mr. Speaker? The results are problems of mental health, alcoholism or drug abuse which, as we all know, lead to emotional, physical or sexual abuse. Young Indians living in such conditions become school dropouts, they grow careless and irresponsible, and they are a burden to society.
I recall that when I sat on the special committee on the handicapped we went up north to listen to testimony, and all chairs in the front rows were occupied by young people, most of them between the ages of 15 and 20. My curiosity was aroused and I asked for an explanation. The native spokesman explained that these young people took their skidoos, their radio-cassette players and large quantities of alcohol, and organized parties. As they were too drunk to drive their skidoos safely back, they often had accidents. What is even worse, is that, while the dog teams always brought them back home, skidoos are prone to mechanical problems and the young people do not have the knowledge or the means to repair them. They sometimes wake up the next morning with frozen hands and feet. Whose fault is it? I believe that the Canadian Government has a very large part of the responsibility in that.
The first solution would be to ensure that Canadian native people have decent and adequate housing. What does decent housing mean? To help Hon. Members understand better what I mean, I shall describe the house of a native family which I saw with my own eyes in Goose Bay, Labrador. The streets were winding and in bad repair. Garbage was stored on scaffolding to prevent the animals from getting at it. Shingles were missing from the roof. There was electricity, but no running water. There was a bed in the kitchen, which shows how cramped the living quarters were.
I was a member of the Committee on the Handicapped, and after this visit, we were driven over a bridge. We found ourselves in another world. The streets were clean and well maintained. There was no garbage and the whole atmosphere spoke of success. This is where the white people lived. Just imagine the child who comes back from school to a house like the one I have just described in Goose Bay, Labrador. This
child has no chance in life. His whole environment is negative, without mentioning the emotional problems related to such an environment.
Mr. Speaker, to break out of this never-ending vicious circle we have to begin at square one, and that is to make sure that all our native people have a solid and decent roof over their heads. But what are the conditions? There are conditions, if we are to solve the problem. As housing critic for the Official Opposition I learned that 80 per cent of all housing units on Indian reserves have been built since 1961. Given the fact that Indian homes are not expected to last much more than 16 to 20 years, no wonder many of them have become woefully inadequate and in need of major repairs. Be that as it may, independent government surveys have shown that 73 per cent of all housing units on Indian reserves are inadequate. In addition, these units are rapidly deteriorating because of overcrowding: 7.5 per cent of all native single-family housing units are home to more than one family, whereas the corresponding figure for non-native families is 1.4 per cent.
It has been estimated that only 3 per cent of non-natives exceed the average of one person per room, while the comparable figure for Indian on reserves is 35 per cent, which means that slightly more than one third are over that average. The incidence of overcrowding is particularly acute among Western Canadian natives. To put it in a nutshell, I would say that native housing units are 21 times more likely to be overcrowded than non-native units.

Statistics from a study conducted during the International Year of the Shelter for the Homeless demonstrates further the poor living conditions in Indian housing. The proportion of dwellings on reserves requiring major repairs is 23 per cent, with 37 per cent having inadequate bathroom facilities and 37 per cent having no bathroom at all. The number of dwellings lacking central heating is estimated to be more than 50 per cent of all reserve dwellings.
About 34 per cent of Indian dwellings lack a piped waste disposal system or septic tank and 18 per cent have no kitchen sink. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, living in a house with no kitchen sink? If we were talking about non-Indian housing, we would be describing a slum.
We must also take into consideration the fact that the average personal income for Indians is only 50 per cent of the non-Indian population. Personal income among the young and elderly is below the Statistics Canada poverty line. One can imagine the situation for Indians with no income at all. Eighty-three per cent of the Indian population have an annual income [DOT]which is less than $10,000 per year. Only 4 per cent of the Indian population earn more than $20,000.
I am especially saddened by the effect of this situation on Indians. The average death rate for Indians from infections and parasite diseases is higher per 100,000 than the Canadian
March 17, 1988

average. Bad sanitary installations, when there are any, are partly responsible for this situation.
Bill C-31 adds to the overcrowding on reserves. Although this Bill is very positive and necessary, it has its drawbacks. More people are returning to the reserves, and funds needed to meet this influx are not sufficient. This adds to the already existing backlog in housing units. Ninety-five thousand people have filed claims to return to the reserves of Canada and most of these claims have come from women. Further, Indian women and their children who are trying to return to the reserves are having a lot of problems. They cannot have access to housing on reserves until the existing backlog of houses has been dealt with. Once again, the women of Canada are paying the price. Indians are among the very worst served and most needy of all Canadians.
At a recent meeting of the Committee on Government Operations dealing with Native housing, officials from the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs told us that funds earmarked for Native housing have not increased in four years. Indeed, taking inflation into account, there has been a reduction in the amounts allocated for the construction of houses on Indian reserves.
Natives who appeared before the Committee have confirmed their extremely serious situation. Management criteria for those programs and obligations imposed on Indian bands are too complex.
I should point out to Honourable Members of this House the nightmare lived by the Fairford Indian band. Beside all the money problems with various government authorities, they experienced right from the start humidity condensation problems in their "new" houses.
The chief of the Fairford band told us that the clothes of the children and grown-ups living in these houses smelled damp and that the smell was pervasive inside their homes, rain or shine.
This morning I heard the first Conservative speaker say that the aboriginal people were going ahead without waiting for the Government to act. What the Hon. Member fails to understand is that we have erected barriers that prevent aboriginal people from becoming full-fledged citizens. The most striking example as far as housing is concerned, is the fact that aboriginal people on the reserve do not have access to mortgages. This means they cannot own their own homes. The Crown owns the land on which their homes are built. This causes problems, not just for the aboriginal people but also for construction contractors, because if there are any money problems as a result of bureaucratic red-tape, they often do not get paid because the band does not have enough money or for any number of bureaucratic reasons.
Supply
I agree that the circumstances of aboriginal people have improved, but not enough to make them entirely satisfactory. I pointed out earlier that the aboriginal people are the neediest in our society, and much remains to be done before I could consider their situation a thing of the past.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of success stories, but these are the typical result of political will on the part of aboriginal and non-aboriginal governments.
In Quebec, for instance, we have examples of aboriginal companies such as Air Creebec, Cree Yamaha, the Wemindji hydro-electric dam, Cree Construction, the New-Quebec cooperatives, Air Inuit, and of course various businesses set up by the Mohawks of Kahnawake and the Hurons of Lorette-ville. Similar examples may be found in other parts of the country. However, this does not mean all problems have been solved. These groups still have to put up with conditional subsidies and with the complexities and delay caused by bureaucratic tape, and so forth.
The experiment initiated by the CEGEP in Sept-Iles which set up a curriculum adapted to the needs of Native people is unique. But how many of these programs do we have in this country? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are far too many obstacles to be overcome before any more projects like the ones I just mentioned can be considered.
What seems to be lacking is the political will. There is also not enough co-operation between Ministers and the various departments involved in seeking solutions. I asked the parliamentary committee how many times a year the Ministers and senior officials of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, National Health and Welfare, CMHC, Employment and Immigration and Treasury Board actually met? There are problems with all these departments, which keep passing the buck, and meanwhile, the aboriginal people have to wait.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I want to say that I hope the Government will have the political will to take action very shortly.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and, indeed, an honour to take part in this debate today on the question of addressing the needs of native people in Canada. I speak as a Member of Parliament for a north and western Saskatchewan constituency which has 19 Indian reserves and many other so-called non-status Indian communities. The most recent census shows that over one in five of my constituents are identified as being of native ancestry.
The issue of native rights, native housing, economic development and the right of native people to pursue determination for themselves are some of the most compelling issues that face many western Canadian communities today. It is therefore a real pleasure for me to take part in this discussion this afternoon in the House of Commons and to address a few

March 17, 1988
Supply
thoughts on the motion that has been put on this very important question of the status of the Indian person in Canada today.
I begin by cautioning not only the opposition critics who have spoken, but many of the viewers of this debate either in the gallery or at home through television, that we should examine the place of the native person in Canada today by way of a general overview. Every one of us who lives in a native community recognizes all too clearly the difficult plight facing Canada's native people. They have higher than the national average infant mortality rates, lower life expectancy than non-native Canadians and problems with alcohol, drugs and substance abuse that are indeed endemic in many native populations. These are all too clearly chronicled.
I wish to attempt in this debate to take a more constructive bent on the discussion by asking the following questions. Where are we moving? From where have we come in the past few years?
The problems facing many native communities have been present, at least in my area of the country, since the very day that many of the treaties were signed. In our area many of those treaties were signed in the period between 1875 and 1878. Thus we are not dealing with simply the modern urban contemporary problems, we are dealing with the problems of often dispossessed people that have vexed Canadian Governments for the past 110 years.
I have the sense that like all communities, the native population of Canada is in many respects in a time of transition. There are now native communities that are indeed far ahead of the planners, the developers and the bureaucrats and those in the Department of Indian Affairs and those so-called experts on native issues who examine the way that they would like to see native communities develop. Indeed, there are some of these communities that are as advanced in our area of Saskatchewan as many non-native communities. However, unfortunately, there are a greater number of communities that are still struggling with many of the basic questions of community organization.
I wish to say that it is not all as gloomy, as dark and as hopeless as certain people throughout the debate today have described the whole question of native life in Canada as being. In fact, I often invite critics from other Parties who perhaps do not live and work in native communities to come to a large area of western Canada in Saskatchewan, Alberta, or Manitoba to see those communities that are the success stories. We know as well that there are many communities which are indeed sad failures to date.
As fundamental to the development of a people as any desire or goal is the question of pursuing the ability, the right and determination to govern oneself. I wish to address my remarks this afternoon to the subject of native self-government. It is all too infrequent that we have the opportunity as Members of Parliament to address this important issue. I take considerable consolation that all three Parties in the House of Commons
have agreed with the basic direction being taken by the Government on the policy of Indian self-government.
It was in 1983 that an all-Party committee of the House of Commons, well chaired by the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior (Mr. Penner), the Liberal Member of Parliament who spoke earlier today, highlighted self-government as an appropriate goal and a valid response to the political aspirations of the Indian people. Self-government was recognized as the element of a unique relationship between Indian people and the Government of Canada, a relationship that would enable Indian people to take charge of the decisions that affect their lives. It would also help break the cycle of dependency that has for too long characterized the relationship between Indian communities and the federal Government.
It has only been in the past 20 years that Governments have begun to abandon the old paternalistic policy which was used when they dealt with native people. It was during the 1970s that the Government's initial response was to transfer the administration of various programs and services directly to Indian bands. Unfortunately, there have been some unsuccessful efforts to enact comprehensive or framework legislation that would be related to self-government.
I should note that significant promising developments in structural change did not begin to happen until only three years ago when this Government established as a priority the changing way in which we should deal with the relationship between native people and the federal Government. Early on in the mandate it became very clear to our Government that the top down, single, monolithic approach does not work. Aboriginal communities are far too diversified to be squeezed into one model of self-government. Since the start of our mandate in 1984 we have taken significant measures to support the development of initiatives for self-government. Our policies recognize the vital role that Canada's aboriginal communities play in the development of this Canada. Our actions express our commitment to further developing a relationship with Indian people which is built on mutual trust and confidence.
I would like Hon. Members to consider for a moment the different routes that the Government has taken to support the development of self-government for Indian people. The federal Government remains committed to the objective of selfgovernment for aboriginal people entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. This is the surest way that we can achieve permanent and fundamental change in the relationship between Indian people and the federal Government.
The federal proposal which was presented to the First Ministers in March, 1987 is still on the table. This amendment would recognize an explicit right to self-government to be implemented through a series of negotiated agreements. There has not been an agreement on this amendment, but as a Government we are not deterred by the failure of consensus. We are still open to the possibility of renewed constitutional
March 17, 1988

talks when the chances of an agreement look reasonably promising. In the meantime, we are determined to support the development of self-government to the greatest extent possible within the existing constitutional framework.
This Government has established a process for negotiating self-government agreements with Indian communities which provide the chance for those communities to move beyond the present limits of the Indian Act. The response to this policy has been very encouraging. We have received 60 proposals from more than 225 Indian bands, and are actively working on approximately 40 proposals at the present time. These proposals represent a wide geographical, historical, social, and cultural set of economic circumstances. In addition, the Government has implemented some new financial relationships with a number of Indian bands under self-government legislation and under what are known as alternative funding arrangements.
At this point, I wish to relate a story that is moving and encouraging. It involves one tribal council in the area in which I live in Saskatchewan. It involves the Meadow Lake Tribal Council which is a group of 10 bands that work together in a tribal council area and are presently negotiating a selfgovernment agreement with the Government of Canada. The Meadow Lake Tribal Council is a testament to what ingenuity, conviction and hard work will do for Indian communities. Some of the reserves in the Meadow Lake Tribal Council have suffered great economic difficulties and are still struggling to find their sense of identity and development.
Conversely, there are several bands in this tribal council area that are indeed the anchors to making this system work. For some time this tribal council has entirely managed its own education system. It is now moving into full health care administration. The entire infrastructure of local government is under control of the tribal council. This group, under the direction of its executive director, Ray Ahenakew, and Chief Percy Derocher, Chief Richard Gladue, Chief Fred Martell, and other chiefs within this vast area of northern Saskatchewan, is showing what working in a unified way can do to bring full development to native communities. I am exceedingly proud of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council and what it has done to work with the Government in planning a self-government agreement. I am confident that in the coming months we will be able to effect some type of workable long term solution to the question of self-government. It is only a matter of time for this tribal council, because it is an organization that is working to develop a very promising future for economic and political self-government.
Across Canada the path to self-government and selfsufficiency is not without some tough challenges. I believe that those challenges can be met. The cycle of poverty and dependence faced by many native communities can be broken. The federal Government, and where appropriate the provincial Governments, must work together with native communities at the local level. For Indian communities it means dedicating the
Supply
energy, the ideas, and the initiatives to establish local institutions that reflect local circumstances. For Government, it means that our policies, legislation, and resources, should enable the Indian communities to develop the types of structures and economic base which satisfies the needs of the community, and we hope that ultimately it will fit in with the Canadian constitutional framework.
The self-government policy of this Government is guided by the following basic principles which I wish to enunciate at this point. The policy must substantially increase local control and decision-making capability. It must be flexible enough to recognize the diverse needs, culture, and tradition of Indian people. The policy must lead to greater accountability of Indian leadership to their own electors rather than to a federal bureaucracy.
The process that we are striving for and indeed succeeding with native communities must be community based and supported by native communities. Self-government must be conducted at a measured pace. It must have a practical focus. In all cases, it must be tailored to the specific circumstances of the Indian community involved. Thus far, our policy has responded to specific needs. It can take into account circumstances such as the geographic location of the community, the availability of services, and the strength of the resource base in the area.
For a moment, I wish to consider Bill C-93, the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act which this Parliament passed into law last year. Hon. Members will know that this Act is an enabling piece of legislation which has established the Sechelt community in British Columbia as the legal entity with a power to borrow money and hold property. The community received fee simple title to its land and it is now able to manage those lands according to the band's constitution. In short, the Sechelt people now have a Government which is accountable to the electors of the area and not to a remote bureaucracy in Ottawa.
If there is one part of the Mulroney Government's community self-government policy in which I can take particular pride, it is the consultative nature of the process. I recall well our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) saying during the 1984 election a very simple statement: "First you listen, then you act". That is a truism to most of us. Unfortunately, all too often in the process of government that does not become evident. I am pleased that our Government in this selfgovernment policy believes that individual native Canadians know best and can define best what they need and indeed what they must have.
We did not sit down in Ottawa and draft our views on what natives should do next. We asked Indian people, and we did it by saying: "We are open to you. Come to us with your ideas of what you want to do". That is what we have done, that is what native people have done, and I submit, in a large part, it is now beginning to work.

I salute the Minister for his untiring efforts and his dedication to ensuring for the families and children of Canadian native communities a potential future which will see them into the mainstream of Canadian society with all the rights, privileges, and ability to raise their families secure in the knowledge that a bright future awaits them.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the motion before us. It is certainly an extremely important matter in the Yukon and in other areas of the Northwest Territories and across Canada. It is an issue in which I have been very much involved for a number of years. I feel very strongly and passionately that it requires much more debate in the House of Commons.
We clearly have a sad history in terms of the treatment of our aboriginal people. Neither the Liberal Government nor the current Tory Government has addressed the issue in a way which fundamentally facilitates the self-sufficiency and independence of Canada's first nations. We have a responsibility as politicians to deal with the mistakes of the past and to plan for the future. I suggest that this issue of all issues in Canada stands out as a shameful failure on the part of Canadian politicians and Canadian people.
In my view, much of the problem stems from the fact that we have taken a very colonialist attitude in coming to Canada and taking over the lands of aboriginal people. Aboriginal people, as some Canadians may not remember, were not a conquered people. This is why there have been many treaties with our aboriginal people. We did not win a war with them. We came. Treaties were made, sometimes under rather dubious circumstances so that we could use their land.
The basis of many of today's discussions and of the discussion of the previous speaker on the issue of self-government- and I will expand on it later for a few minutes-is the principle of aboriginal rights. It is something that many Canadian citizens have some trouble understanding and, in some instances, accepting. I think it is important to begin this discussion by establishing that this is a right which has been accepted in Canada by all political Parties. It is an established right based on a claim of first priority, that aboriginal people were the first citizens here. They were not a conquered people. From that flow a number of rights to them which take the form of certain programs, perhaps the self government question and a number of other treaty rights.
The problem has been that no government, as I said earlier, has taken these rights seriously by honoring them in a way in which a government should. This is not, I suggest, a result of some malevolent plan. It is not a result of people being unfair or mean spirited. It is a result of fundamentally not understanding both the historical reality of aboriginal rights and the reality of a different culture. Certainly as the adage goes, whoever defines the problem defines the solution. We as nonaboriginal people have been defining solutions for far too many
Supply
years. We see by the programs that they are very inadequate solutions.
There are a number of examples of how historically we have begun to look at the question of aboriginal issues in Canada. First, when we as colonists came to this country-and historians I am sure will agree with this-we thought the Indian and the aboriginal people would simply die out. But they did not. In fact, despite disease and many other factors, they have continued to flourish in our society and have a very high birth rate.
Then there was the hope that the aboriginal people would assimilate into the greater society. Then there was the traumatic establishment of residential schools where children, without parental permission, were taken where they would learn English and learn to be useful citizens, as it was defined at that time. They were punished for speaking their own language. Most of their schools were closed only in the late 1960s, but we still see the extremely traumatic results of attempting to eradicate a culture. That policy did not work.
From 1969 up to the famous Chretien White Paper and the strong reaction of the aboriginal people to that, there began to be some funding of aboriginal organizations. They became much stronger and much more forceful advocates for their own distinct interests. Part of the policy that I referred to in changing views of aboriginal people, within the context of Canadian society, was how people could lose their status. It is hard for most tourists to imagine a situation where you could be one day an Indian and the next day, if you had gone to war to fight for this country or you had become a doctor, a lawyer or, if you were a woman and had married a non-Indian, you were not an Indian. Most of us would find that rather difficult to accept. Of course, it was patently unfair and we are now dealing with the results of that kind of policy.
Bill C-31 referred to by other speakers is an example of where we have tried to redress some of this discrimination by restoring status to Indian women and their children who married non-aboriginal people and lost their status. We have seen some of the problems emanating from that. Mopping up history, Mr. Speaker, is an expensive business. We have done it as a society with decided reluctance rather than with a sense of fairness and justice, as should have been the case in a democratic society.
I would like to give a few examples relating to the motion before us in the House today. Sections in the motion around the housing and education programs and so on are examples of the failure to take seriously the commitment of addressing historical realities. For instance, funding of aboriginal programs. If you look closely at the funding, you will see what we have done is predicate it on a welfare basis so that people, groups or organizations receive just enough to keep alive, but rarely enough on which to flourish and develop. I could give many, many examples.
There are very few programs that have permanent funding. Often it is annual funding, sometimes five year funding but

March 17, 1988
Supply
rarely permanent funding so that a plan can be made and security for staff for a fundamental change. This is the point about the lack of serious commitment to aboriginal issues. You ask about examples of the kinds of programs of which I am speaking, Mr. Speaker. There are the friendship centres, about 99 across Canada, which offer many programs and employment for aboriginal people. They have just finished a five year funding cycle. We do not know what is going to happen. They do not know what is going to happen, yet they provide a useful service.
Communication societies across this country include native newspapers, broadcasting and so on. Native newspapers have not received any increase in funding in the last six years in order to hire staff and get the ordinary cost of living that all of us, including all of us in this House, expect every year. What about funding to band councils and band governments? Then there is education and training. My colleague from Skeena talked earlier today about the decrease in funding for land claims, economic development, housing and the devolving of programs.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) this afternoon spoke about the devolution of programs to native peoples. I believe this Minister sincerely has tried very hard to work on that issue. However, sincerity is not enough. The money has to go with it. What has happened, if you look closely at the record, Mr. Speaker, is that what the Government and the previous Government did was say:, "Fine, we will let you run the program. We will give you the rule book. It will be our rules, not your rules. We will not give you any administration money but we will give you the program dollars and you can run it". That is characteristic of the way we have dealt with aboriginal people. We have said: "You play by our rules, do it our way or else we will not help you in your community".
I think the issue of land claims is where we must clearly see the philosophies and attitudes prevailing. In my view, particularly in my own riding of the Yukon where there have been ongoing land claim negotiations for 15 years which have not been resolved, for a two year period from about 1984 to 1986 the Government withdrew from negotiations and said that we had to come up with policy. So we are working on the policy. We now have a policy with extremely narrow guidelines and negotiations are under way again. Everyone has heard of the Lubicon situation where in order to get justice the Lubicon Indians had to take advantage of an international event, the Olympics, in Calgary. This surely is not the way to give justice to aboriginal people.
As I mentioned, in the Yukon with the ongoing negotiations, we are beginning to see that less funding is available for research by native bands into land claims negotiations. This is not just in the Yukon, but elsewhere, and they cannot be expected to do the kind of research necessary in order to take their negotiating positions in a meaningful way with decreased funding. That is happening over and over again.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) has not been actively involved in these negotiations. He has not taken the interest to see that they are settled. It is crucial that these claims be settled. It is detrimental to the aboriginal communities and to the non-aboriginal communities to see, as in the Yukon, land ownership tied up until we can settle what land quantum will be given to Indian peoples or will be negotiated by Indian peoples. I believe strongly, and we have some examples such as the Inuvialuit agreement, that with political will land claims can be settled. Negotiators need to have a mandate which means that they can negotiate at the local level, not run back to Ottawa every five minutes to get some agreement on it. A politician in the Yukon once said that much of governing in the North is like driving a team of horses with reins 3,000 miles long. It does not work and is not working in land claims, which is an extremely important example of a lack of commitment to seriously deal with aboriginal issues.
I would like to now talk about self-government to which the previous speaker referred. Self-government is an essential part of land claims. Land claims is not just about land, it is about economic development and control over one's life. The history of the treatment of aboriginal peoples has been one of someone else defining how things will be done. It has not worked.
It was interesting to hear the previous speaker talk about self-government and government policy. It was instructive to hear him outline how the Government had listened to aboriginal people and is interested in listening. I will tell you that probably no other people have been listened to as much as the aboriginal people. We have had numerous task forces, the Penner report on self-government, the Cooligan report, as well as many others with many recommendations which have never been implemented. Aboriginal people are probably the most over-listened-to people in Canada. They probably come next to the poor, I guess, with all the poverty studies. What has not happened is action resulting from all that listening.
The previous speaker referred to individual definitions of self-government and how the Government had listened to what aboriginal people had to say. Why have they not listened to aboriginal people who have said entrench self-government in the Constitution? That is what aboriginal people are asking for. We have First Ministers' Conferences that go on for four or five years and the issue cannot be resolved. Yet in one day or one night the First Ministers sit down and change the character of this country through the Meech Lake Accord.
What we have is not, as is often referred to, an Indian problem. We have a problem with non-aboriginal people who refuse to look at the situation in its cultural context. They refuse to give up a shred of power to Canada's first nations and implement the kind of fairness that should be a hallmark of this country.
March 17, 1988

In that same vein I would like to talk about the lack of recognition of the traditional life-styles of aboriginal people. Yes, we like moccasins and handicrafts and feel that is pretty neat when we come to define Canada. Look at our travel brochures. We show moccasins and Indian handicrafts. However, when it comes down to things like the Constitution, whether there will be low-level flights which disrupt the Inuit in northern Quebec or Labrador, or whether we will protect trapping, hunting and sealing areas, then we are not so cute. Then we say that is just tradition, not a real economy.
There is a real aboriginal economy that has never been recognized. That fact reflects the kind of disregard and lack of respect we have shown for aboriginal people. We are missing a tremendous resource of scientific knowledge on the part of aboriginal people, whether it be the Inuit in the high Arctic or Indian peoples across Canada. They have a knowledge of the land, of our renewable resources, of patterns of climate and environment which we disregard because somehow it is not seen as scientific. Again it is because we choose to look only at aboriginal people from our cultural bias. We have decided what is right and we will tell them what is right.
Arctic sovereignty is in the news a lot. What we need to do is get more submarines up there! Maybe we should have military bases. More troops. Sure, we will put a military base in Nanisivik and to the Inuit we say: You can be the janitors. That is not good enough. We have had a presence in the North for thousands of years. We have a legitimacy in the North through the occupation of the Inuit and aboriginal peoples.
Then we have native economic development programs. We have a four-year program involving S345 million, but just as it is nearly over, they can spend only 40 per cent of the funds. Yet look at the statistics on unemployment and training.
I would like to close with one other very important issue, that of justice and things like the Marshall case and the killing of J. J. Harper in Manitoba. Many of us have known for years the statistics concerning the over-representation of aboriginal populations in our jails. This really means we must address national problems with national solutions. In both economic development and justice we must have a national focus and an inquiry into these issues and why they remain.
Finally, many statistics have been given here today about high unemployment, mortality rates and so on. I will not repeat them but I will say there is a strength in the aboriginal community from which we can learn and which we have rejected by our cultural blindness through our rejection of Canada's first culture. We can do much better, and I strongly support this motion and say to the people of Canada and this House that with the political will we can have justice for aboriginal people on aboriginal terms that will work for aboriginal people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her comments on the life of the aboriginal people, particularly as
Supply
she knows them in the Yukon. As she pointed out, it is a national question.
She made reference to several things that I would be interested in having her explain a little more fully. She referred to land claims and the policies and procedures worked out for handling them. I think she suggested they were too narrow and that she would like to see them widened.
She also referred to the transfer programs that were part of the move toward so-called self-government and the rules imposed upon the Indian bands. She implied that some of those rules may have been inappropriate.
I would like her to explain further about the land claims guidelines and the rules for the transfer programs.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague because it is a very complex matter. The question of land claims and transfer of programs relates to the whole question of self-government and control over one's life.
First, the narrow mandate of land claims. Certainly there are basic issues in land claims such as self-government, land quantum, and cash compensation in certain instances. Of course, it is a negotiating process, and I am not suggesting that it should not be, that the aboriginal people tell you what they want and you say that is fine. It is a negotiating process. However, why in 15 years, in the case of the Yukon and many other land claims across Canada, has there not been a resolution of the problem? We have for good or ill, most of us think for ill, a trade agreement with the U.S. That did not go on for 15 years. When there was a will to get a trade agreement, we got a trade agreement. We can do the same thing in land claims. It simply means widening the mandate to some degree to allow the negotiators to negotiate on specific items and simply give them more latitude.
These negotiations require the giving up of some power. Ottawa cannot continue to control Indian peoples. Everyone at every level is simply going to have to realize that. We will be a healthier and stronger country when aboriginal people have control over that.
With respect to the programs, I will just give an example because I referred to it in my speech to some extent. An example is the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program. This is an extremely important program with a number of teaching, treatment, and counselling programs. In my area, and indeed nationally, native people have been negotiating with the federal Government to have control of this program. However, the Department of National Health and Welfare continues to run the program. It pulls the strings and says: "You will do it our way".
Well, "our way", and in that I include myself and my culture, has not worked. It concerns me that we continue to repeat the mistakes of history, whether in the transfer of child welfare services to aboriginal people or the transfer of other

March 17, 1988
Supply
programs. We insist that doing it our way works. We have heard numerous statistics today that indicate that doing it our way does not work. We must begin to take a more realistic view and accept that there is a cultural dimension.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the motion before the House and perhaps highlight one of the issues raised in this debate, the problems associated with it, and why it is mentioned by the mover of the motion. If outlining the problem does not get too boring, I would like to give a solution to the people who read Hansard and are involved with the federal programs which are referred to in this motion.
First, this is a very fine motion. It involves not only aboriginal people of Canada but all people in Canada. When you point out that the Government has not done enough for the provision of adequate shelter, health and educational facilities, basic water and sewage treatment facilities, adequate employment and training opportunities, and the financial resources to develop fully economic and human resources, that would cover more than half of Canada. It would certainly cover the rural and poorer areas of a country.
I do not want to get into generalizations. I am not very good at the generalizations and philosophical arguments which some may put forward on this motion. I do not have time for philosophical arguments because there is so much to be done with regard to specifics. There are so many requests which come into an MP's office on specific problems.
I want to refer to subsection (c) which refers to basic water and sewage treatment facilities. Only today I read a letter from Chief Calvin Francis, the Chief of the northern part of Gander Bay, Newfoundland, in my riding. He was complaining about this particular aspect of life in his area. This rings true for a great many areas of Newfoundland and other parts of Canada.
The complexity of the problem depends upon which province you are in. In other words, there are provincial laws and federal laws, but the provincial laws differ in practically every province with regard to what you must do to try to solve the problem. I will deal only with the provision of basic water and sewage treatment facilities.
We are talking about Canada in 1988. In Canada today we have thousands of children who drink contaminated water. Whose responsibility is it to try to correct this problem? Whose responsibility is it to make such communities conform with Ottawa where you are able to drink water from a tap or flush a toilet? A great many areas of Canada do not have such privileges and it leads to an incredible number of problems.
The area of Gander Bay to which I referred a moment ago is similar to a great many other areas referred to by this motion. There are many problems involved with this. One is that you are confronted with various provincial guidelines. For example, you must have an engineering study done before you can tackle a water and sewage problem. Number one, who is going to pay
for the engineering study? Number two, the engineering study must be passed by the provincial Department of the Environment. Number three, the Department of Health must inspect the water source. Number four, if in examining the engineering study the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health determines that you must have sewage treatment facilities along the water system which is to be installed, you have one big problem because for 15 or 20 homes in a rural area sewage treatment facilities cost perhaps a quarter of a million dollars, and that is a fairly cheap sewage system. The question arises as to who is going to pay for that.
Normally a town or city, through taxes, pays off a loan obtained through a municipal financing system of the provincial government or directly through a bank. That cannot happen in the areas about which we are speaking because there is either a band council, such as in the case of Mr. Calvin Francis, or you must become incorporated in one way or another.
You may be lucky enough to get a grant to pay for the engineering study. There is only one place which I know of that you can get the grant, and that is through some provincial agency. When you do that there is a condition on the grant. If you get a grant from a provincial financing agency in some provinces, you must sign a piece of paper saying that once the system is completed you will impose property taxes. That is the law in most provinces in Canada. If you receive taxpayers' money in the form of grants you must impose property taxes on the homes which will be served by that water and sewage system.
That applies to most provinces of Canada in which you must have an engineering study in order to undertake any sort of water works. In other words, you cannot simply connect 40 or 50 houses to a water system for which you have found the money from a source such as a federal works program. It cannot be done.
A group of people in a small rural area say that they would like to be able to turn on a water tap in their houses in the same way as people in the cities and large towns do. They say: "We want bathrooms in our houses just like those in the towns and cities". The first thing to do is apply for some money because it cannot be done without money. It cannot be done only with volunteers because money is needed to buy pipe, dynamite, other materials to put in the lines.
One used to be able to apply for a normal grant program of the federal or provincial government. There used to be a works program through which people would be put to work to start the water system. I am talking about these programs as they relate to people who live in communities with no water or sewage system as we know it, but a well for a group of two or three houses and septic tanks behind the houses.
A community like that which seeks to install a water system can apply for what is called the job development program of
March 17, 1988

the federal Government. It is the largest works program of the federal Government, and involves millions of dollars. Advertisements state that communities wishing to make improvements should apply under that program.
The only problem is that the Government has converted it into a training program so that those hired under the program must be trained for a certain skill. How do you train someone to dig a ditch? I believe a person could be trained in one day to dig a ditch and install a water line. Therefore, the federal Government does not fund water and sewer system projects as they used to be funded years ago. It will no longer fund water and sewer systems to completion under its largest direct funding grant program because it stipulates that employees must have classroom experience every day on the job, which simply cannot be done in this case. Let us keep in mind that these communities consist of relatively poor people. Any rural doctor will say that today, children in many of these rural communities have to drink contaminated water every morning.
What is the second largest program under which these communities can apply for grants without having to pay them back? It is a program called Section 38, which provides grants to community groups to help toward useful community improvements. The material costs under that program are higher than the job development program and also have certain restrictions.
In order to get money to put in the water and sewer system under Section 38, only those drawing unemployment insurance can be hired. Some MPs just might be foolish enough to promote this program. The fact is that workers who have been hired under that program of the federal Government must be laid off when their unemployment insurance benefits have run out. The MP will have to explain that the reason his constituent did not get unemployment insurance benefits from all the work he did on this summer project is that it was uninsurable employment. As a result, the MP has intentionally put that man on welfare, since that is his only alternative.
I know of only one direct funding program that is fairly universal in Canada. It is a provincial program that is paid fifty-fifty through a recovery system with the federal Government. It is referred to by various names by provinces across Canada. It is usually called the community development program, but I have seen it referred to as the community action program in Ontario and other places. In my opinion and in the opinion of those who work under these programs, it should be called the welfare program.
We have already determined that we cannot do the project through the job development program because we are not allowed to train people to dig a ditch. We have the second largest program, Section 38, to install the water and sewer system, but those we hire will end up on welfare after receiving uninsurable employment.
Unfortunately, the welfare program is designed simply to take people off welfare and put them on unemployment
Supply
insurance. In other words, when they qualify for unemployment insurance they lose their jobs under the welfare program, and there is no material cost. Talk about intentionally putting people on unemployment insurance.
Most of the communities covered under this motion deal with people who are what we call "repeaters" of unemployment insurance. If a private employer went out and took someone on social assistance, gave them exactly 10 weeks or 20 weeks, just enough to qualify for unemployment insurance, that employer would be brought into court and charged. It is against the law. Provincial Governments do it all the time. In every single provincial budget that I have ever seen there is always enough money to take 10,000 or 20,000 people off social assistance and put them on unemployment insurance. The grants run just long enough for someone to qualify for unemployment insurance and then they are laid off.
Here we have the only three grant programs, not loans, available to communities in Canada covered by this motion to put in a water and sewer system, for people drinking contaminated water, and the three programs are not useable for putting in those vital services. That is the bottom line with all these organizations since this Government took over. Previously we were able to do that under the largest program, the Canada Works Program.
The bottom line is that this motion deplores the Government for its failure to address the needs of the aboriginal people of Canada, including the provision of adequate shelter, health care, educational facilities, basic water and sewage treatment facilities and so on and so on. There is no way now they can get money through normal government programs to put in water and sewer systems. There is no possible way. However, if they wished to do something else in the community, they can do it. If they can take someone into a classroom and teach him or her a lesson every day before they go out on the job, they can get some money.
In conclusion, let me say, without going into detail, that the other programs operate in approximately the same way. We have rural and native housing programs. I could write a book on rural and native housing problems. We know inside out and upside down every regulation that has been changed over the years. The new program is called the RRAP program. It is not very well known in Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal, but mention it in any of the rural areas and everyone knows what you are talking about. Yet that program has been so restricted under this Government that it is practically non-existent.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the previous speaker for pointing out so adequately the bind so many aboriginal communities are in. I think he has delineated one program, the water and sewer program, and, as he said at the conclusion, it certainly affects many other programs. The obstacles that are set up are worthy of an Olympic hurdle race for the people who try to take advantage of them. Usually, if

March 17, 1988
Supply
they could take advantage of any of the programs about which the Hon. Member spoke, they would never be completed because the program would end and they would have half a sewer and half a water system.
The speaker mentioned housing. Certainly those of us who have been involved with the issue of housing for aboriginal communities, especially the joint housing projects between CMHC and DIA, have found it an extremely frustrating process. The intent of the program may have been good initially but it is causing many problems in aboriginal communities. Under the guaranteed loans through CMHC, many of the aboriginal people are paying very exorbitant rents. In my own riding we recently had something like a 25 per cent increase in rents in one year under those jointly funded programs.
Would the Member tell us what his experience has been with the joint housing program of DIA and CMHC? How would he comment on that particular program and its success in dealing with the housing needs of aboriginal people?


George Baker: The one thing that is really frustrating to the person who is in the House-and there are all kinds of problems in actually getting into the property in the beginning-is the amount of rent one has to pay is constantly under revision. It is constantly changing. The real problem, I believe, with all of the funding programs that are in existence for native peoples and non-native peoples, is that there are provincial inputs and federal inputs and there are local inputs. What one would have to do is remove the interference from outside and allow local authorities to change the regulations. A person who made $20,000 last year, living in a subsidized rental unit, but today is on unemployment insurance, is watching the rent double from last year. That is absolutely atrocious. The objections that were placed by Chief Calvin Francis today in his communications to me is that they only qualify for housing under the rural and native programs and the cut-down version of the RRAP program.
There are various elements in the RRAP program. One element is native, another element is handicapped and another is just your normal RRAP program. I still cannot figure it out. If one has a house, they will come in and fix up that house, but they will fix it up in such a way that the inspector says it must do for 15 years. In other words, even if you do not want it, you will get the side replaced or the chimney redone or the roof done. By the time it is all added up, under the new regulations brought in by the Conservative Government two years ago, you are left with receiving $5,000 free at the beginning but then having a mortgage of $10,000 which you could not possibly pay back. I must say I have cases before me, as I am sure do all Members of Parliament, where we have written to the Ministers responsible and asked for Ministerial intervention to get around certain regulations in the Act. I am hoping that the two Ministers in this House, to whom we have written regarding special cases under which the Minister has some
discretion, will intervene in those particular cases. I am hoping they will intervene.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the motion of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). When I look at the motion, I see that he obviously wants to lay on the back of this Government the plight of native people across Canada. When one has listened to what has been said in the House regarding the situation of native people in Canada, one cannot but find it outrageous that some people would try to blame this Government for a situation that has developed over a long time. I do not know why they do this. Perhaps it is to get rid of their own sense of culpability.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) making his statements. He was outrageous. If I were a native listening to this debate, I would be insulted. I would be insulted because what has been set out here today regarding our native people is not a reflection of the reality. That is not what is happening to our native people. This condemnation of the Government that the socialists have brought forward does not take into account the real situation and what the Government has been doing.
I was listening to the alleged cuts in spending being outlined by Members opposite. Canadians must know what we are talking about here. When we talk about registered Indians under the Indian Act we are talking, in 1986, about 387,000 people living on and off reserves. We are talking about our Inuit population, which is about 30,000 people scattered over all of northern Quebec, Canada and the territories. That is what we are talking about.
When we talk about money and alleged cuts, it just does not hold. I do not know if Hon. Members opposite and I are looking at the same public account books or not. In the books that I have looked at, I saw that in 1983-84 aboriginal expenditures in Canada were $2,461,000,000. At that time that was 2.77 per cent of total government expenditures. Today, in 1987-88 aboriginal expenditures are $3,863,000,000, which is 4 per cent of total government expenditures.

One does not have to be a genius to understand that this is not a reduction, but an increase in expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members of the House are well aware of the importance of economic development. Today, my Government colleagues, especially the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), have mentioned the efforts made by the Government to improve the situation of our native people through various programs.
I take this opportunity to point out that Hon. Members from both sides of the House are well aware of the importance of
March 17, 1988

economic development in the case of aboriginal Canadians. Aboriginal people want to have more control over their daily activities, the type of control which other Canadians take for granted. That is why their economic development and selfgovernment are really a priority for our Government, something the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) emphasized on several occasions.
Mr. Speaker, our Government believes that entrepreneurship must be the motor of long term economic growth and job creation. Our small businesses account for 80 per cent of all jobs created in Canada and within our Indian communities. Our best hope remains in the ambition and creativity demonstrated by Indian entrepreneurs. And this Government launched major initiatives in that area.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion have such programs. We offer concrete and tangible support to native entrepreneurs, in the form of training and financial assistance to help them establish new businesses and expand existing ones.
For instance, during this fiscal year alone, expenditures in the area of economic development of native businesses and economic institutions will be in the order of $150 million. According to our files, there are in Canada more than 4,000 businesses owned and operated by Indians. Most of them are reserve-based, and their numbers are increasing rapidly. For instance, during fiscal 1986 alone, we supported the start-up in Canada of more than 300 new Indian businesses. Most of them relied on upfront financial assistance from the Canadian Government, either to supply the capital needed or finance their loans, either directly or through the Indian Economic Development Fund, or again through departmental loan guarantees.
Hon. Members will know that the Indian Economic Development Fund is an important source of support for new businesses. It provides both training and advisory and support services to Indian entrepreneurs. The Fund was established in 1970 to support the development of viable Indian economic initiatives. Last year, the Fund helped some 900 Indian businesses get established and win a place in the market. Moreover, the $200 million invested over the last three years by the Native Economic Development Program and the special agreements on rural and farming development, and the subsidiary agreements on northern development, administered by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, have had a significant impact on the development and maintenance of a native private sector in native communities across Canada.
I would like to emphasize more specifically that the Government made significant progress in allowing natives to take control of their own economic development. We have provided more than $100 million of funds to Indian financial institutions from across the country. Those financial institutions will play an important role in the future to finance the growth of Indian businesses through loans or equity financing.
Supply
Apart from the support provided to native business development corporations by the Indian Affairs Department, we help Native people to establish a system of consulting and financial services, managed by native people, independant and able to answer the needs and hopes of Indians.

Indian Affairs and Northern Development provides ongoing advice and financial assistance to Indian bands for the management of their natural resources. Resource development, forestry, fishing, agriculture and wildlife represent significant potential sources of income and employment for Indians. In forestry, for example, changes being developed to timber regulations and future increased federal investment in Indian forestry management will put Indian forestry back on a solid footing after decades of neglect, notwithstanding what the previous Member who spoke before me was talking about. The Government's strong relationship with the provinces has resulted in Indian management of provincial forest land adjacent to reserves.
Oil and gas is another important base for economic selfreliance in western Canada. Indian bands and government officials are currently reviewing together the existing management and regulatory regime relating to oil and gas. We are confident that ways will be found to improve the benefits accruing to Indians from their own oil and gas resource development.
In the meantime, an oil and gas branch has been formed within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The human resources dedicated to this activity alone have been expanded sixfold. Top-notch professionals are being recruited to ensure the best possible return now and over the long term to Indians.
Many Indian reserves have good potential for mineral development. These have been hampered by legal and structural barriers inherent in the Indian Act, but also by a lack of access to private sector capital and by disputes with some provinces regarding control over royalties and other financial benefits. These are being addressed for the first time and progress is being made.

As a matter of fact, the federal Government, in co-operation with native people and their economic organizations, is helping isolated native communities to benefit from economic development opportunities. For example, we support the creation of service industries in those communities due to the implementation of construction and infrastructure projects. These projects helped create 3,700 jobs for Indians. We also encourage local hiring in order to maximize the opportunities created at the local level through vesting of existing federal programs.
Mr. Speaker, we have in Canada a wrong idea about native businesses. I was extremely disappointed to hear NDP and Liberal Members speak in today's debate of natives as if all their endeavors always ended in failure, as if they were

March 17, 1988
Supply
incapable of doing something right and as if they had never made any progress.
Contrary to what the NDP and the Liberals would have Canadians believe, many native businesses are successful. Native entrepreneurs are talented and ambitious and their success rate is high. For example, Econobois, a construction material retailer in the Huron village of Quebec, employs 25 people and has annual sales of more than $5.5 million.
Micmac Industries of Big Gove, in my home Province of New Brunswick, employs 14 persons and has sales of $1.6 million; Lasso Contracting Ltd. of Fort McMurray, Alberta, employs 15 people and has sales of $3 million; the Co-op Store in Fort Hope, Ontario, which is owned and managed by Indians, employs six people and has sales of $2 million; Antsanen Enterprises has sales of close to $800,000 and provides eight jobs in the small Northlands Band in northern Manitoba. I could go on and list successful native businesses in this country. That list will become much longer as we remove the legal and structural impediments to native economic development, as we help more native people to develop good management and occupational skills, as we work to increase funding from private sector sources, and as we improve education levels.
In speaking of removing impediments and barriers to economic development, for a few moments I wish to dwell on how the Government has responded to a call by 115 band councils to amend the Indian Act. Following a two year process of full consultation with Indian communities across Canada, on March 9, 1988, the Government introduced legislation to give bands taxing powers on conditionally surrendered reserve lands. The Bill would also make it possible for Indians to mortgage long term leases on designated reserve bands. This is important legislation, and it is Indian-led legislation. The credit goes to Chief Clarence Jules of the Kamloops Band who started the process, and who has dedicated himself to seeing it through. This Bill has widespread support. Yesterday at a meeting in Toronto the Confederacy of First Nations debated the Bill and passed a resolution in its support.
Not every band will want or need to take advantage of those changes, but for those that do, it will permit them to economically develop parts of their reserves for commercial, industrial, residential, or recreational purposes. Indians should be much better able to obtain loans and to recover their investment in infrastructure or services. They will also be able to govern developed land as an integral part of their reserve. This will expand the economic base of the reserve and the business and employment opportunities for band members.
It is practical changes like those that are as important as the direct financial investments that I spoke of earlier. I trust that Members on all sides of the House will facilitate the passage of
this Indian inspired legislation in order that bands like the Kamloops Band can get on with their business.
The Government is criticized for not paying attention to the problem of unemployment among native people, particularly those who live on reserves. The facts tell a different story. All day we have heard the socialists and the Liberals tell us it is only a question of money. If it is only a question of money, surely when the Grits were in the process of bankrupting the country they would have solved the problems. It is not only a question of money.
Since 1985, the Government's expenditures on native adult training and labour force adjustment assistance have exceeded $600 million. The Canadian Jobs Strategy of the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission, the Indian community human resources strategy, and education programs of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are the main vehicles for helping individuals develop their skills, find jobs, and for assisting Indian leaders to establish and implement plans and strategies to address training and employment problems in their communities.
The Indian community human resources strategy alone has provided full-time academic upgrading and vocational training to 6,000 Indians since 1985. This is a key activity given the strong, proven relationship between academic attainment and employment. Training on the job and entrepreneurial development have been particularly effective. There have been 3,300 unemployed Indians who have benefited from training on the job, and presently most have ongoing jobs. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's 1987 youth entrepreneurship training has graduated 169 persons, 71 of whom are already in business or shortly will be.
As native people achieve higher levels of education, they will be presented with more opportunities for private sector employment. Education has influenced the number and types of businesses established and operated by aboriginal people. Almost 80,000 Indian students are enrolled in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education programs in Canada today. Each year, approximately 750 Indian people graduate from colleges and universities. Why do I quote that figure? Almost 11 years ago, in 1977, federal funding for Indian postsecondary education was less than $8 million. This year it is expected to reach $93.5 million. That is another clear reflection of the Government's commitment to Indian education.
Indian management skills have been recognized as national skill shortages within the Canadian Jobs Strategy, thus permitting more training in that area. This will not only help business managers, but also community and tribal Indian administrators of devolved government programs.
Government training and employment programs are progressively being devolved to local community control. This is the case with the Indian community human resources program, and increasingly so with respect to the Canadian Jobs Strategy. In the coming year we expect to make further advances with the introduction of initiatives focused on moving
March 17, 1988

Indian social assistance recipients into full-time employment, and providing more support to seasonal labour activities on reserves for housing, construction, and the like.
When we reflect on today's debate and on the question of native people, no one has pointed out the fact that unlike the previous Government, when this Government took office it listened to native people across Canada. As a priority we adopted the pursuance of self-government. As the previous Government tried to do, we have not attempted to impose anything upon our native people, upon Indians. They will develop at their own pace. They do not want any Government to come in and impose anything on them.
In terms of economic and social development we recognize as a Government that more work must be done. We must strive to do even better. Elowever, I think we are on the right course. Very little credit goes to our native people if we try to make political hay of their plight. Therefore I encourage all Hon. Members of the House to vote against this NDP motion.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has certainly presented a very rosy picture. On one hand I agree with him when he says that the problems and issues which the Government is trying to address did not begin in 1984. They are of a very long standing history. The previous Liberal Government has no better record in that regard.
I should like to address a little more fully the issue of training and post-secondary education in general. It is an area in which I have been involved over the years. I think I know first-hand some of the problems and successes in this area. I know that there have been on the job training programs, but I would be very interested in knowing, if the Minister has the figure, how many of the 3,300 people trained on the job actually now have full-time employment.
I would also like to remind the Minister that many training and educational programs have not addressed the fundamental problems which exist. He mentioned the Canadian Jobs Strategy which is now cutting back significantly, as the Minister well knows, so that the upgrading needed by not only native Canadians but others is not available. Funds are being cut back from the community colleges which often offered those courses and they are being transferred to private industry. Literacy programs, again not just for aboriginal Canadians but for many others, receive very little funding. I think most of us who have had any experience with the educational system would agree that it has certainly failed aboriginal people.
There is a necessity for training and upgrading programs which unfortunately are expensive and almost provide a parallel system of education in one sense, because there is so much to be done in the area. I agree that some things have been done. We have had programs like the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, the Blue Quills College in Alberta, and the Native Cultural Centre in British Columbia. There
Supply
have been some good educational programs, but the fact remains that about 20 per cent of the Indian children growing up today will complete secondary school, whereas about 75 per cent of the general Canadian population will complete secondary school.
Ihave two questions for the Minister surrounding the real success in full-time employment of on the job training, which again is often short term, and the funding of post-secondary programs that are often uncertain and go from year to year rather than on a permanent basis.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is probably the only one on the other side of the House to have acknowledged today that some positive things have happened. That is the reality out there, but perhaps it has not been at the pace we would have liked. Perhaps we would have expected progress to occur much more rapidly.
In the last few moments of my address to the House, I indicated that at one point in time we were assisting only 3,700 Canadians at the post-secondary educational level and now we are assisting some 12,000. It is a big gain. Of course, when we look at the raw statistics we see the chances of a young Indian child graduating from school. It is the reality, but it is why we are committing so many resources to it.
For example, the Hon. Member alluded to the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College and others which have sprung up in western Canada. They are funded through our department and have accomplished many things. The Hon. Member also underlined the importance of training programs, and the speaker who preceded me was yelling and asking for the return of the Canada Works Project and LIP. Which Government threw hundreds of millions of dollars at the people in regions like Kent County? Which Government did that? Surely the NDP does not condemn us for that today.
Our native people need training. Instead of throwing money at the problem, we thought that we would use the money of taxpayers to the best advantage of the recipients, the people who can get something out of it like positive training. We recognize that training is important.
As initially developed perhaps the Canadian Jobs Strategy did not meet all the needs of our native people, but changes have been made. I am sure that as we experiment with the program we will hear from the native people who take advantage of it. They will make suggestions for further improvement, and the record will be there. Yes, we will improve them, but I think the way we must look at it is by determining whether or not there has been a sincere effort on the part of the Government to address the problem, and I submit to all Hon. Members that there has been.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the Minister and he mentioned some positive elements in his speech. He

March 17, 1988
Adjournment Debate
even referred to a business in the Big Cove reserve in my riding which has provided employment for many people. I recognize that if we look at the few reserves we have in New Brunswick, we could certainly find some very positive achievements. In addition to the business he mentioned in Big Cove, there is in my riding, in Indian Island, a group which has organized a summer camp which seems to have had some success. There is also a trout farming business in the Bouctouche reserve. These projects certainly have very positive effects on the reserves. However, we should not paint too rosy a picture, because I certainly believe that people who live on reserves do not have the same opportunities as other Canadians.
In this regard, I would like the Minister to give us some information on unemployment in the New Brunswick reserves and elsewhere in Canada to show that there really is a serious problem and that we should deal with it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I shall give the Minister 30 seconds to reply.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) that unemployment is much too high on New Brunswick reserves. However, there is some hope because, for the first time, since the unemployment problem did not start in 1984, the Native Economic Development Program, for which I am responsible, has committed funds for New Brunswick reserves. We are working very closely with all the bands in the province to encourage them to implement economic development projects and viable businesses such as those mentioned by the Hon. Member. Thanks to the Native Economic Development Program, we shall be able to help them lower the unemployment rate, which is admittedly much too high.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that the proceedings under Standing Order 82(12) have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on February 25 last the Supreme Court of Canada came out with a historic ruling which might completely alter the Canadian political scenery.
As you may recall, I directed a question to the Government to know its reaction to this decision which I would qualify as being very important to us Canadians.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Province of Saskatchewan has been bilingual since 1905 with respect to its legislative assembly and its courts, which means that any elected Member in that province has the right to speak French or English in the legislative assembly and that all provincial legislation must be passed in both French and English to be valid.
The court also ruled that an individual is entitled to be tried in his or her own language before the courts of the Province of Saskatchewan. Understandably, Mr. Speaker, the decision makes quite a change to the political scene because apparently, in addition to Saskatchewan, the neighbouring Province of Alberta would be subject to the same ruling because it came into being pursuant to identical legislation.
Francophones see this as a major step towards full recognition of their rights which have been trampled on for 85 years. Francophone communities out west have been fighting for decades just to survive in French. The Supreme Court has just confirmed their rights and given them some hope. I say some hope because the court ruling acknowledges the fact that both provinces can legally pass a bilingual law whose effect would be to exempt them from complying with section 110 (Northwest Territories) and thus to deprive francophone minorities of their rights.
This greatly complicates the political scene when we realize that these two provinces have never been too generously disposed toward Francophones. They went along only after quite a lot of arm twisting.
That is why before the Supreme Court came down with its decision the recognition of these basic rights had required many long years of struggle before the courts. These legal battles are not only long, but expensive and exhausting, for they drain a lot of energy. In the case of Father Mercure who went to the Supreme Court of Canada, it took him five years from 1983 to 1988 before obtaining justice. It required a lot of dedication, because at every stage of the legal process, Francophones were told that they had no rights as Francophones in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Speaker, they never gave up. They kept on fighting and appealing to higher courts; they took other steps and incurred other expenses. Faced with constant obstacles, others might have given up. I think that we should congratulate them for showing such determination in getting their basic rights recognized.
Now that they have won, they should not let the legislatures abdicate their responsibilities and deprive them of that right the Supreme Court has recognized. The Federal Government should show political leadership and offer these two provinces assistance to deal with this situation.
March 17, 1988

It would be totally useless to force them to translate all the legislation adopted since 1905, because it would not serve the public interest or the common good. It would be a waste of public funds, because there is probably a lot of obsolete statutes which do not need to be translated.
Of course, if the provinces choose to take the easy road, they will introduce and pass a legislation stating that the province is unilingual and strictly English-speaking, that is they would repeal section 110. In doing so, the francophones would loose their rights without any recourse. It would be legal, though very unfair, not to say cynical, on the part of both provinces which, it will be remembered, passed the constitutional resolution proceeding from the Meech Lake agreement.
By endorsing the Meech Lake agreement, both provinces firmly undertook before the rest of Canada to protect the linguistic rights of their minorities which is as you know a basic characteristic of our country.
They would be ill-advised to pass a legislation withdrawing the almost century-old rights of their francophones. It would probably be legal but it would not be fair.
We have to hurry, Mr. Speaker, because we know that Alberta is about to introduce legislation. Indeed, a dispatch from the Canadian Press confirmed on March 16 that the Government House Leader intends to table such a Bill. We are still waiting for the details of that legislation. But the worst is to be feared, Mr. Speaker, when one knows that in June last, that same legislature in Alberta passed a resolution to limit the use of French in its proceedings-the Piquette case-to such a point that permission is required to use one of the official languages of this country.
The solution would be to retain section 110, even to enshrine it in our Constitution, so that Francophones would feel protected and well treated in those provinces in the future. In exchange for an agreement on partial translation of the major provincial statutes, and not all of them, those two provinces should undertake to increase their services in French to their residents. We would thus save considerable amounts of time and money while making better use of federal grants to be allocated not only to protect, Mr. Speaker, but to promote the French culture in Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recall the fundamental decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada in Mercure vs. the Attorney General of Saskatchewan. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 110 of the Northwest Territories Act of 1891 was still valid in the Province of Saskatchewan. In doing so, the Court pointed out that the statutes of the Province were invalid but the principle of the rule of law would keep the existing laws temporarily in effect. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the Court stated that the language requirements could be modified. It was up to the Province to pass legislation to change the present legal
Adjournment Debate
situation as defined by the Court. Only the Province could determine which option it preferred.
We recognize and respect the Province's autonomy in this respect, and we are very much aware of the divergent interests involved in this decision. In fact, these interests deserve special attention, and we realize that the Province cannot reach a decision without proper reflection.
At the same time, the Government of Canada fully approves the equality of status and use of English and French across Canada. In this respect, the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) initiated certain measures last fall, well before the Mercure case, and some positive consultation has taken place. Since the Supreme Court's decision, there has been further discussion about integrating the implementation of the decision with the broader issues.
The implementation of the Court's decision is expected to require substantial amounts of human, technical and financial resources. Mr. Speaker, we wish to repeat here in the House that the Government of Canada is prepared to help the Province accomplish this task, using the means at its disposal. We are consulting closely with the Government of Saskatchewan to determine in what way we can be most useful, if the Province should request our assistance.
Mr. Speaker, in the days following the decision in the Mercure case, the Government of Canada reiterated to Canadians its position, announced when Bill C-72 was tabled, that it maintained its policy of co-operating with the provinces and the Territories to ensure that the most important provincial, territorial and municipal services would be available in English and in French. We still believe that one of the most urgent priorities for minority language communities across this country is full implementation of minority language educational rights as enshrined in Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is the most important need of the Francophone community, including that of Saskatchewan, and indeed an area where we can be most useful. While we recognize the Province's jurisdiction over education and provincial services, we shall indeed continue to consult and cooperate with the provincial authorities for the very purpose reflected in Section 16 of the Charter, namely to promote the equality of status and use of French and English.

CANADA HEALTH ACT-EQUAL ACCESS- MINISTER'S POSITION/ADMINISTRATION OF ACT


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it gave me great concern that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), in his reply to my question on March 8, did not seem to address the crux of the problem. Certainly I have great concern about what is happening, not just to the women of this country but to our health care system in general. In the 1986-87 Canada Health Act annual report, the Minister said that his department has been following carefully recent developments in provincial programs. Examples of these included the removal of insured coverage for some health

March 17, 1988
Adjournment Debate
services and charges to patients for services which may not necessarily be medically required. A number of issues related to possible non-compliance were identified and subsequently resolved, while some cases are currently under review.
We now know that the attempt to restrict certain services in the Province of British Columbia has not been allowed by the court. Therefore it seems to me that if we are going to have an effective Canada Health Act, the Minister must act on that ruling.
We are greatly concerned that the principles of the Canada Health Act are not being upheld. The principles of public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility are the ones at which we are looking.
With regard to accessibility, it says insured health services on uniform terms and conditions and reasonable access by insured persons to insured health services unprecluded or unimpeded, either directly or indirectly, by charge or other means. Surely it is quite clear, after the Supreme Court decision, that there should be access to these services for women right across the country.
It seems to me that the Government is reluctant to implement the Canada Health Act. New Democrats have never said that abortion on demand should be the policy in place. We have said, though, that it should be equally accessible to women across the country and that we should not be discriminated against on the basis of geography or whether we are rich or poor. That is the issue on which we are trying to get an answer from the Minister. The Minister should take that responsibility as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). He is responsible for ensuring that the Canada Health Act is implemented.
The practice of de-insuring important health care services must be stopped. We have seen this happen in Alberta and know that it can be the beginning of the erosion of the whole medical health system in Canada. With something as clear as the Supreme Court decision it is very important that the Minister of National Health and Welfare exercise his responsibility to ensure that there is accessibility across the country.
If we conclude that debate, we can go on to the issue of services for women which would provide some prevention. We could talk about counselling and contraceptive information. I am concerned that the Minister is not fulfilling his responsibility of discovering where there is not accessibility. If this responsibility is fulfilled Canadian women can get the services which they need.
Under the Canada Health Act we could have pre-abortion and post-abortion counselling and contraceptive information. These things would be useful in reducing the number of abortions. However, that will not happen as long as the Minister is playing around with the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act.
We have been getting answers like: "I do not want to give an opinion to the House now" and "We are going to have to look at it for a while". Surely with the Supreme Court decision which has been handed down the Minister has a responsibility. There have been two court decisions now and the time has come when we must look at the implications of non-accessibility and how they erode the Canada Health Act.
I ask that the Minister respond to us on this side of the House by telling us how he is going to implement the Canada Health Act in order that the principles which have been put in place, which are the true values of Canadian society, will be upheld.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, tonight is the night I reply to questions concerning the Supreme Court!
The minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), a minister responsible for the Canada Health Act, is most aware that the provinces, as is their right under the Constitution, are developing their policies on the delivery of abortion services.
This in neither completely unusual nor expected, since Canada consists of twelve provinces and territories which have different needs in relation to their economic, social, cultural and geographical requirements.
We have a national health care system because of federal-provincial co-operation, commitment and willingness to ensure that Canadians have reasonable access to insured health services without financial or other barriers. The system is based on a respect for the powers, rights, privileges or authorities vested in Canada or the provinces.
This reality has very specific implications for the application of the Canada Health Act and the principles it embodies. The provinces are responsible for the provision of health care services, and it is not within the powers of the federal Government to dictate to provinces what those health services must be, or how they should be delivered.
However, the provinces do have an obligation to satisfy the principles of the Canada Health Act before receiving federal cash contributions for the provision of insured health services. When questions do arise under the Act, experience has shown that both levels of government are willing to address the issue in a cooperative manner that will produce a satisfactory solution.
The Supreme Court decision has made it necessary for provincial and territorial governments to enter a difficult period of readjustment of their policies and procedures on abortion.
Access to the services on an insured basis is one key question in the debate. For some, access means that the service should be available everywhere to everyone without conditions or restrictions of any kind. Others view access to mean that the
March 17, 1988

service should only be available for very limited and specific reasons.
The Canada Health Act requires there to be reasonable access to medically necessary health services if a province is to qualify for full federal cash contributions. The determination of reasonable access must take into consideration all aspects related to the provision and delivery of any insured health service by a province. This could include an examination and understanding of provincial health care delivery resources, facilities, personnel, as well as a recognition of factors, i.e. geography, that may set practical limits on what health services are provided where.
The federal Government is committed to upholding principles of the Canada Health Act, and ensuring that provinces respect the act's provisions for federal funding. Changing developments in the area of abortion services are being closely followed.
IMMIGRATION-IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD HEARINGS- FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA RULING/REQUEST THAT BILL C-55 BE AMENDED


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, a week ago I asked a question of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) on a matter of urgency in the refugee determination system. I asked, as reported at page 13602 of Hansard, whether the Minister:
-will now undertake to bring into Parliament an amendment to Bill C-55 which will assure members of the Immigration Appeal Board that they will have the normal rights and protection of tenure, that is, that they will not be dismissed during their term of office except for cause?
The Minister was so uninterested in the problem or the facts of the situation that he did not even know which Bill I was talking about. His answer was:
Mr. Speaker, I won't bring in any amendment to Bill C-84-
The Bill that is causing the trouble is Bill C-55. It has caused the Immigration Appeal Board to totally stop hearing refugee redeterminations. It is slowly bringing the Refugee Status Advisory Committee to a halt for the same reason. The reason is described by Judge Reed in her judgment at the Federal Court at Winnipeg. As it is stated in this article:
Mr. Matas argued before the court that the Government was opposing Mr. Sethi's application for refugee status at the same time as it was about to Tire' all the existing board members and select some of them, but not all, to become members of the new board.
The judge wrote:
This, it is argued, creates a reasonable apprehension of bias, an apprehension that the existing board members will tend to lean in favour of the Government's position.
Adjournment Debate
That was caused by the Government's passage through this House of Bill C-55, particularly Clause 38(1) and (7) which states:
Subject to this section, the members of the former Board and the members
of the former Committee cease to hold office on the commencement day.
No person appointed to hold office as a member of the former Board or of
the former Committee has any right to claim or receive any compensation,
damages, indemnity ...
In other words, they have no right to continue. They have lost the tenure which is normally considered essential to enable a judge or a person doing judge-like work to give the independent decision the law expects him or her to give.
In other words, as the court found, the Immigration Appeal Board, and the same applies to the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, are no longer to be trusted to be independent and impartial no matter what their good intentions may be because of this law that the Minister drove through the House of Commons.
That has caused not only an injustice to the individuals concerned, the refugee claimants and members of the board, but it is also causing a worsening of a serious backlog and administrative problem, which is a nightmare already, because of that foolish law and the Minister's foolish answer to my request.
The fact is that if the Minister will stop and think, he can very simply today, or if he is not here today, tomorrow, end this problem very easily. He can do justice, that is to say, he can restore the understanding of normal tenure so these judgelike people will not be dismissed during their term of office unless they give some special cause. That is the normal practice. At the same time, he can set the Immigration Appeal Board and the Refugee Status Advisory Committee functioning again very simply, by making a public announcement that he will move to amend Bill C-55-not Bill C-84; that is another battle-in Clause 38 so as to restore the normal right of tenure.
I urge the Minister to get off his high horse and let this process, which has had so many difficulties, get moving again.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to expand upon the reply given by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) on March 10, 1988. The Member knows that there are several legal issues raised by the Federal Court decision. These issues warrant thorough study by legal experts and a careful consideration by the Government. Such study and consideration has been undertaken and the Government will render its decision in due course. Until then, it would not be appropriate to comment on the case to which the Hon. Member refers.
I would, nevertheless, want to offer some comments about Bill C-55 and Bill C-84, which are designed to revise and

March 17, 1988
Adjournment Debate
expedite the refugee determination system and to curve the flagrant abuse of our immigration controls. The Hon. Member knows that Canada's refugee determination system is strained to the breaking point.
We have a backlog of more than 40,000 claims pending. The backlog is growing by 2,500 claims or more every month. Thousands of recent claimants arrived with fraudulent documents or with no documents at all.
Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 are essential first steps in restoring integrity to the refugee determination system. The new refugee determination system will maintain the existing high standards of fairness in keeping with Canada's humanitarian tradition. It affords to refugees the protection guaranteed under the
Convention and provides for efficient resolution of claims so that genuine refugees can get on with their lives in Canada.
The Immigration Act needs to be amended immediately. Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 are important parts of the solution to our backlog. These Bills, which are in the other place, cannot be allowed to languish there. I urge all Hon. Members to request all members of that other Chamber to accept their responsibilities and send the Bills forward.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 6.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, March 18, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers