1990-09-25

['Agreed.']
Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could have the attention of the House for a moment.
I wish to inform the House that Hansard is late today. It is expected by approximately 12.30 this afternoon.

This is due to production delays and technical problems.

However, a limited number of preliminary copies will be available at the table shortly. I apologize to the House for this. Every effort is being made to redress the difficulties as quickly as possible.



Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the electoral district of Beausejour, following the resignation yesterday of Mr. Fernand Robichaud, the member for that district.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me this morning to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of residents of Kamloops, British Columbia.
The petitioners point out their ongoing concern with the government's intention to impose the goods and services tax on the people of Canada, and are calling upon the Liberals in the Senate, not only to plan to vote against it but, if necessary, to filibuster this legislation to ensure that this horrid tax never becomes a reality in Canada.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I rise in accordance with Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of 65 of my constituents in the riding of Port de Grave, Harbour Grace, and Trinity-Bay de Verde.
These people are terribly concerned about Bill C-21. They are concerned that the unemployment insurance program which the government plans to get out of when this particular bill is passed will hurt them because of the high rate of unemployment and the scarcity of jobs. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these cuts in the unemployment insurance system and to come up with a more meaningful program.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 would like to place before the House a petition signed by my constituents in Broadview-Greenwood in Toronto as well as other areas.
The government promised comprehensive tax reform. These constituents humbly ask that the GST be scrapped, and that the government go back to the drawing board and review the single tax which more than

Routine Proceedings
meets the Mulroney-Wilson challenge as a constructive alternative.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise today with petitions from members of my constituency of Mission- Coquitlam, as well as from people in Langley and the lower mainland who oppose the goods and services tax that this government is planning, or has introduced and passed and is planning to impose on Canadians. The government is planning to impose it on Canadians and they are opposing it on the basis that it is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for a taxpayer's ability to pay.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a couple of petitions. The first is a petition from a number of residents of my riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre who are opposed to the GST. They call on this government to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations and to ensure that if and when there is a broad public consensus on sales tax measures to replace the manufacturers' sales tax. The petitioners say this is not an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax through the GST.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, I also have a petition presented by a number of farmers from the province of Saskatchewan. It calls upon this government to amend immediately the Canadian Wheat Board Act to place oats under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. This would give oats and barley the same protection that wheat presently enjoys under the that act.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my honour and pleasure to stand in the House and present two petitions on behalf of the constituents in my riding of Kent. The imposition of the GST will create an onerous burden on small business.
On behalf of Canadians I strongly oppose this new goods and services tax which is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians and will hit them not
only with higher taxes but with higher inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 319 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 319 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Robinson: In (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988 (f) 1989 (g) 1990 to date, has money been given for New Horizons programs in British Columbia and, if so (a) what amount (b) has any been given to the riding of Burnaby-Kingsway and, if so (i) what amount (ii) to which organizations and, in each case, what amount?
[.Editor's Note: See Sessional Paper No. 342-9-319.]


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 332. Due to the length of the response I ask that it be made an Order for Return and this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 332 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Arseneault: Since 1984, have there been any Capital Funding grants under the Accessible Vehicle Acquisition Program and, if so (a) what are the names of the recipients (b) what federal ridings were the recipients
September 25, 1990

located in (c) what were the names of the Members in whose constituencies these grants were made?
[Editor's note: See Sessional Paper No. 342-Q-332.] [English]


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved:: That this House commends the exemplary conduct of the men and women of the Canadian Forces at Oka and Chateauguay;
That, in the opinion of this House, the laws of Canada must apply on all Canadian territory, including Kahnawake, and that all persons currently at the Kanesatake Treatment Centre should lay down their arms and submit to the processes of Canada's judicial system, thereby encouraging the creation of a constructive climate for discussions between governments and the Mohawk people on land claims and other issues; and
That upon adoption of this motion, the said motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise to debate this motion regarding a most serious matter of particular concern to Canada's native people, but indeed to all Canadians, a motion dealing with an issue which strikes at the roots of what we believe we are as a country. It is a belief in justice and in an earnest endeavour to seek and find an honourable resolution of longstanding native grievances.
It is a belief shared by Indian leaders across Canada. For example, Phil Fontaine, leader of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs said on August 26 of this year: "To improve our lives, the lives of our people, we, in turn, improve this country."
On September 13, one of the chiefs of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations with whom we have
Government Orders
worked so closely on treaty issues in Saskatchewan said: "If ever there was a light at the end of the tunnel where we all have a keen desire for wanting to succeed, the time is now."
These statements come from Indian leaders with whom I have met on many occasions over the past several months. They wish, as do I and the government, to make that light brighter so that under their guidance we can begin in a substantive and committed way to make necessary changes in policy and process and long overdue improvements and resolution of native issues.
We must all be more sensitive and more conversant with the perspective of aboriginal leaders who want actions so that their children and successive generations can live in dignity, with honour and respect. That is what we wish for all Canadians. I sincerely believe that I can play a constructive role in the process to bring this about. The time to begin is indeed now.
We are all aware of the good that can come from working co-operatively through consensus in a spirit of openness and honesty. We are all aware that this project of historic significance has been made increasingly difficult by the events of the last several weeks but also has now made these matters a major imperative for Canada.
The events at Kanesatake and Kahnawake pose a threat to achieving our reasonable goals and objectives. This debate is not about the existence of legitimate longstanding aspirations of native people in this country. This debate is not about the vast majority of native people who are law abiding in pursuing their aspirations in a peaceful way. What this debate is about is the fundamental respect which all Canadians must hold for the rule of law, the threat posed to society by those who reject it, and the efforts of those that seek to uphold it.
The motion states:
That this House commends the exemplary conduct of the men and women of the Canadian forces at Oka and Chateauguay; and
That, in the opinion of this House, the laws of Canada must apply on all Canadian territory, including Kahnawake, and that all persons currently at the Kanesatake Treatment Centre should lay down their arms and submit to the processes of Canada's judicial system, thereby encouraging the creation of a constructive climate for discussions between governments and the Mohawk people on land claims and other issues; and

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
That upon adoption of this motion, the said motion shall be deemed
referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor
General.
There are several issues relating to this motion that I want to present and review in the House today.
I want to begin with the role and conduct of the Canadian forces, a role which is now coming to an end. I want also to review the land issue at Oka and our efforts to resolve it. I wish to discuss the rule of law and its fair application throughout Canada. There can be no sovereign enclaves within Canada where the laws of Canada do not apply. I want to discuss the laying down of arms by the warriors as the only means to resolve this situation at Oka peacefully and honourably. This will enable our system of justice, the fairest in the world, to take its course and to ensure that the innocent are not in any way penalized and those guilty of crimes meet the proper remedies under the law.
I want to state that once this occurs, we will immediately begin full discussion on the land issues and aspirations of the Mohawk people at Kanesatake.
In concluding my remarks, I will touch on the broader issues facing Canada's native people and the government's commitment to working towards a solution of their grievances. There will be much fuller debates on these downstream questions in the days and months ahead.
Returning to the motion for today, given the situation at Oka and Chateauguay and the level of tension that has existed over many weeks, the first clause of this motion intends to recognize and commend the exemplary actions of the Canadian forces since they were requisitioned by the Government of Quebec. The nature of this requisition has to be well understood by all Canadians.
The Chief of Defence Staff responded to a requisition from the Attorney General of Quebec on August 8. As required by the assistance to civil authorities provision under Part XI of that National Defence Act, General John de Chastelain implemented a plan which sought to remove the barricades and resolve a continuing disturbance peacefully. That was the undertaking of General John de Chastelain on August 8, and he has led that action without bloodshed.
The forces personnel assigned the responsibility of following the order have carried out that order in a planned, logical, and prudent manner. Throughout their mission, they have attempted to bring about a peaceful resolution to this situation.
In the case of Chateauguay, or Kahnawake as it is known to the Mohawk people, the removal of the blockades leading to the Mercier Bridge had to be an immediate priority. The tension in the community on both sides arising from the blockage of a main commuter artery into the city of Montreal required the Armed Forces to undertake a peacefully negotiated joint removal of the barricades. I think all Canadians were proud on that day to see the soldiers assisted by unmasked Mohawk people taking down those barricades.
All the Canadians saw the skill of military officers in achieving the important first step in restoring the rule of law to Chateauguay. This includes supporting the Surete du Quebec in the investigation into the possession of illegal weapons and their which has been graphically demonstrated and counted by all Canadians by way of television.
At Oka, we witnessed the implementation of a detailed military plan which secured, over one weekend, the peaceful dismantling of the barricades blocking several roadways in the Oka vicinity. If it were not for the intransigence of a small group who have thus far refused to accept the rule of law, the mission of the Canadian forces would have been completed several weeks ago.
As the lines between the two groups narrowed, we saw soldiers come face to face with masked, heavily armed warriors. On behalf of all members and all Canadians, I want to commend in this House those brave young people of the Canadian forces who stood firm and resolute, at the risk of death, and in the face of verbal abuse and violent threats.

Their courage, dedication, and commitment to act with minimum force to fulfil their mission was an example of the effectiveness of their training and the quality of their commanding officers.
As the motion states "This House commends the exemplary conduct of the men and women of the Canadian Forces at Oka and Chateauguay" in these trying circumstances.
September 25, 1990

Madam Speaker, all members should commend these men and women who have acted with honour and distinction throughout this tense standoff.

The removal of barricades is not sufficient. What is needed now is a return to normalcy and peace and to a process for the resolution of differences around a table of goodwill and understanding. A table where these matters can be negotiated.
However, the role of the Canadian forces is coming to an end. More and more the situation remaining at the treatment centre will become a provincial policing operation. Support will still be provided as investigations are undertaken and until normalcy is restored to the community of Oka, so that the residents-the children who must return to school, the neighbours, native and nonnative alike-who must live together and the wounds that must be healed may be done so with the security of knowing that there no longer is a militant group of armed warriors in their community. The role, therefore, of the Canadian forces has been to restore the rule of law.
The situation at Oka started out as a dispute over land owned by the municipality and claimed by the Mohawks at Kanesatake. Suddenly, however, it became a dispute over sovereignty, self-government and immunity from the laws by which all Canadians must live together. The vehicle to address these issues is earnest and reasoned dialogue and not military assault weapons and masked warriors.
The rule in law must be applied equally and fairly to all Canadians and all people within the borders of Canada who may choose to visit here. This is the oath I swore when I took my place in the House-to uphold the rule of law. This is the obligation of all of us in the Chamber today share-to uphold the laws of Canada.
The issues of land and self-government have been and will continue to be examined and addressed carefully by the government in the fora appropriate for such matters. I firmly and strongly believe that no one in the country, except a peace officer, should take up a gun or threaten violence in order to get their way. In fact, no one should take up a gun or threaten violence to get their way. I know all Canadians believe this and I assume all hon.
Government Orders
members also agree that an exchange of words is infinitely preferred to an exchange of bullets.
We have witnessed many tragedies this summer, not the least of which was the tragic death of Corporal Marcel Lemay. I know all members of the House will join me in expressing our sorrow and heartfelt sympathies to his widow and family.
We must also feel great sympathy for all people, Mohawk and non-Mohawk people, alike who will bear the wounds and ultimately the scars of these tragic events.
We have seen incidents of racism and intolerance which in this country, my country, our country, are deplorable and unacceptable. We have seen the stoning of men and women; people being pushed and shoved by those who cannot control their hatred-hatred driven by an element in their community hiding behind masks and armed with illegal weapons, hatred that none of us can be proud of. All of us should be ashamed of the conduct of natives and non-natives alike who may have engaged in these acts of hostility toward one another. It has saddened me greatly, Madam Speaker, as it saddens all Canadians.
Throughout the summer Canadians have wondered just how did a tragic circumstance come to be. I want to point out that the Government of Canada through my department had been working diligently on the land question at Oka for some time. Despite court rulings and decisions of previous governments and a decision of confirmation again in 1987 that a specific claim by the Mohawk people at Oka could not be received for negotiation, our government attempted to help the people at Kanesatake to achieve a land base and develop a recognized community.
It was the present Minister of National Defence who initiated a process which led to negotiations and it was the present Solicitor General who appointed a mediator in August 1989 in an attempt to resolve and rectify the land dispute between the municipality of Oka and the Mohawks of Kanesatake. That process commenced over a year ago and the parties endorsed a framework agreement in September 1989 which would have ensured that the land would be preserved for the use and benefit of the Mohawk people at Kanesatake.

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
This agreement was to have been ratified by the community by March 1990, but the community was not asked or allowed to vote on the agreement. Instead, the Mohawks chose a new chief who declared an indefinite suspension of negotiations in early March of this year.
The municipality then decided to push plans ahead for developing a golf course expansion on land which they owned by way of an option. This caused the Mohawk people and warriors in particular to put up a barricade on Route 344 around March 12 of this year. The municipality therefore,sought an injunction from the Quebec Superior Court to have the barricades removed.
During May and June I met separately with Minister John Ciaccia of Quebec and representatives of the municipality of Oka, the parish of Oka, the Band Council of Kanesatake and the Longhouse Group in an attempt to bring the parties back to the table. In May I undertook to pursue the negotiation and purchase of the lands which were the subject of the disagreement. At my meeting with leaders of the Mohawk and surrounding villages and communities in late June, I asked that the Mohawk people put their concerns and propose solutions in writing for an improvement in the process, a letter which I never received.
On June 28 I wrote to Chief George Martin, the Grand Chief of the Mohawk community at Kanesatake, and to Mayor Jean Ouellet, asking them to put their differences aside to reduce the tensions between their communities and, whatever the outcome of the injunction request, to return to the table with our federal negotiator and work toward finding a peaceful solution.
That was two weeks before the tragic morning of July 11. On that morning, acting under a court injunction granted by the courts in Quebec, the Surete du Quebec moved in to remove the barricades. Gunfire ensued, resulting in the most tragic death of Corporal Lemay. From that moment on, the issue was no longer one of land. It became one of security and policing which is clearly the jurisdiction of the province, in this case Quebec, as stipulated by the Constitution of Canada, which we all respect and uphold in this House.
Nevertheless, I worked diligently throughout this dispute, having instant contact that very day with the Quebec minister, John Ciaccia, numerous meetings and telephone conversations virtually daily with Minister Ciaccia, Sam Elkas, the minister responsible for public security, and through discussions directly with the premier's office in Quebec. This constant contact included undertakings with respect to the federal willingness to continue the process of resolving the land issue and clear commitments to acquire and purchase the lands in question at Oka in order that we might all find a way to resolve this issue peacefully. Throughout this situation, the federal government has been reasonable, prudent and extremely vigilant to ensure that the interests of the Mohawk people at the community of Kanesatake and at Kahnawake, where a sympathy blockade had been erected on the Mercier Bridge, were fully taken into consideration by the federal government.
On July 27, I announced that my department had taken steps to acquire some 30 acres of the land at Oka and had entered into discussion with the town of Oka for the purchase of additional lands. This was consistent with what we had been trying to accomplish for several years and we had received the willing co-operation of the village of Oka in negotiating an agreement for the purchase of that land.
On August 8, the municipality accepted an agreement by which the ownership of 67 acres of land was transferred to the federal government, within 10 days after the removal of barricades and a return to normalcy. Prior to that, we also secured and purchased the lands owned by a M. Rousseau and his family, which are adjacent to the park held under option by the village of Oka. The transaction with the village of Oka was concluded and finalized on September 14 and we do indeed hold full title to those lands and they will be an important element of the solution to the land issue at Oka, once the weapons are laid down. I point this out because it demonstrates the steps that the federal government has taken, not only since July 11 but for several months and years, to ensure that the threat of adverse land development in the vicinity of the Mohawk community at Kanesatake be removed. Therefore, the resolution of the immediate land issue at Oka is a fulfilment of our offers and intentions stated well before July 11 and had been confirmed, in writing, on a number of occasions since July 11.
September 25, 1990

Government Orders
It is now time for the warriors to put down their arms. Throughout the process I maintained that the Government of Canada was committed to a very important principle. That principle is simply this, that we will not, and no Government of Canada ever will contemplate, I am sure, negotiating sensitive land issues where many people's interests are involved at the point of a gun. To do so would be to yield our constitutional responsibilities to the forces of tyranny. What remains at Oka, at Kahnawake, and in Akwesasne, are situations where groups of heavily armed men from various parts of Canada and the United States are undertaking activities which no law-abiding Canadian can tolerate, smuggling of illegal contraband, illegal gambling and possession of illegal weapons. When the laws of Canada are broken, then those responsible, whether native or non-native must be brought to justice and that is the fundamental principle that we are debating here today. The rule of law is based on a set of commonly agreed upon moral precepts, some of which are ancient and others which are more modem. If we do not uphold the fundamental principles of the rule of law, we endanger the rights of every Canadian and we threaten the very order and security which we seek to maintain on behalf of all Canadians, our children, native and non-native alike, in a democratic society. Without fundamental respect for the rale of law, there can be no justice for anyone in this country.
The efforts of this government at all times have been to ensure that safety and security is restored at Kanesa-take and Kahnawake. It is not possible, legally or constitutionally, to exempt or exclude any community from this rule. To do so would be to encourage the creation of warrior enclaves where illegitimate and illegal businesses could be conducted. As we have seen at Akwesasne, that is something no one, particularly members of this House, should encourage because of the tragedy and virtual civil war which broke out in Akwesasne at the hands of the same warrior element I might add, only a short while ago during the month of May. To bend to warrior demands on their negotiation proposals in this area is unacceptable. Armed violence such as what we have seen recently cannot be condoned. We must all seek to have normalcy established and the rule of law respected.
I have met a number of times during the eight or nine months of my ministry with native leadership from across Canada, but particularly with the legitimate Mohawk leadership of Kanesatake. In fact, I have been visited by community leaders from Kanesatake, Kahnawake and Akwesasne who have all decried the lack of democracy in their communities, the taking over, the taking hostage of their communities by this warrior element and who have expressed their wish for a resolution of the land issue and the continuation of co-operation and respect between their communities and the surrounding non-native communities.
The ongoing holdout of the warriors at the treatment centre and the events prior to it have undermined that mutual respect between native and non-native people in the vicinity of Oka and Kahnawake and we must all work very hard in the months ahead to rebuild that trust and mutual confidence.
The message for the warriors is you're hurting your own people. They want justice. They want safety and security. They want democracy where they can have a say in the land and future needs of their communities after the weapons are laid down.
So respect between native and non-native Canadians has been seriously undermined these past several weeks by a contingent of armed people who have their own base interests at heart, I believe, and who have sought and continue to seek the imposition of their armed will on other members of their own society and all Canadians. In doing so, they have resorted to acts which no law-abiding Canadian can condone.
This motion, therefore, links the resolution of the situation at the Oka Treatment Centre to important discussions between governments and Mohawk people on land claims and other issues. We cannot move on to that important discussion of these broader issues until the guns are laid down and peace and normalcy is returned to those communities.
As I have stated previously, and state once more for emphasis, the warriors have to accept the rule of law and we will deal honourably, fairly and generously with the needs of the Mohawk people and all other aboriginal

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
people, but not through a process of confrontation and the threat of military style activity to achieve these ends.
That is the position of the Government of Canada and it should be the position of all members of this House. That is why this motion deserves the respect and support of all hon. members. The question we must all ask ourselves is: Can we allow any group in Canadian society to take up arms and to proclaim sovereign enclaves where they would be immune from the laws of Canada which apply to us all? Our answer and the answer of all Canadians, certainly those I have heard from this past many weeks, is a strong and forceful no.
The government recognizes the concerns of the Mohawk people at Kanesatake. They have had, until the illegal actions of the warriors, good relations with the rest of the community despite many long, outstanding concerns about land. This issue will now enable us, with the laying down of arms, to settle those issues about land. The government's commitment is to begin this full discussion immediately and the judicial processes, at the same time, must apply to the warriors who are presently still remaining within the treatment centre.
A federal negotiator was appointed in the month of August to conduct the negotiations. He stands ready to start those discussions, immediately the guns are laid down, but the ongoing standoff is preventing that work from commencing. Discussions cannot take place as long as armed warriors seek to dictate their will by the use of force or threat of violence.
Clearly the ends, no matter how honourable, do not justify the means being used. Armed threats will not and will never be condoned as long as this government holds office.
In this stand we are not alone, as the following statements by aboriginal leaders in recent weeks would attest. Recently Elijah Harper was quoted in The Toronto Star as saying: "Everybody supports non-violence, and there has been public support for that. It is essential that the Canadian people support non-violence".
Manitoba's Chief Phil Fontaine of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs said on August 26: "We don't condone violence of any sort, by any group. Our preferred option, our preferred approach is to negotiate and that is in
keeping with our traditions and the teachings of our
elders".
Notably, after a full week of discussions in camera with Canada's national aboriginal chiefs, the head of the Assembly of First Nations emerged and stated on September 15: "Anyone who picks up a gun in this country and is involved in a political cause, is threatening his cause".
Tom Porter, Chief of the Mohawk Nation Council at Akwesasne, which has seen such tragedy in recent months, said on August 20: "I don't condone carrying a gun at any time. We follow the ancient principles of honesty, truth and kindness because that is the real Indian way".
Negotiation, not violence nor the threat of violence, is the way to resolve problems. The Government of Canada believes, as do these native leaders and many others with whom I have spoken, that problems must be settled peacefully and democratically.
One prominent aboriginal leader said to me last week in the north of Canada: "Anyone who takes up an arm against a government of Canada is taking up arms against all the people of Canada".
There are the broader matters of native land claims, specific claims, treaty rights, and the essential economic and social progress which we all want to assist native communities in achieving. The resolution of these issues will take time. They have, however, taken too much time already, and the system of 120 years' duration, at least since Confederation, has not worked for Canada's aboriginal peoples. A system of dependency, supported by government members opposite for decades through this century has been changed in significant ways and must undergo even more major changes in the years ahead, because this government cares and wants to work with and to assist aboriginal people, but only in accordance with their wishes and in accordance with their guidance and advice on the achievement of their just aspirations within Canada.
The government has an agenda which has been in preparation for several months now. It has involved native leaders and will continue to involve native leaders as proposals are transformed into policies. Their perspectives, ideas and wisdom is a necessary and welcome input.

*

September 25, 1990

Over the past eight months as minister I have tried to meet as often as possible with native leaders across Canada, whether in small groups or in large summits. I have heard the voices of discontent and mistrust, as have many members. I have sensed the frustration and the anger. I have heard the earnest and sincere call from chiefs, councillors, and elders for changes in the policies and actions of government in the way we deal with claims, in the way we failed to live up to treaty obligations, and in the way we deal with the social and community needs of our aboriginal people.
I recognize, as I stated to the Assembly of First Nations two weeks ago, that a lot of native Canadians do not trust ministers. They offered the observation that I was not the first minister they had distrusted. In fact it was sort of the common way of dealing with ministers of Indian affairs. I think it is important that that trust be established. I think it is important that all native people trust this Parliament, trust in the laws and Constitution of Canada, and respect the way in which we ensure that those laws are applied fairly to their advantage, to their benefit and to ensuring the peace and security that they and we all seek in our communities.
The tragic situation at Oka will not dissuade me from my objective of earning that trust and confidence of native leaders. I am sensitive to the gulf that exists between native people and ministers. I am cognizant of the need to build a mutual respect and to establish a mutual confidence, confidence to listen and comprehend the extent and nature of the problems we all share.
I have been assigned a difficult and challenging task, one that seeks to implement with native input and endorsement, a set of initiatives which I hope will build in a substantial way upon a more trusting, generous and honourable relationship between government and native people. To do that, I will need and certainly will appreciate the support of all members in this House.
I have in meetings with leaders of first nations broadened my understanding of the honour and pride of Canada's native people. I have respect for the peaceful way in which native people have approached many of the problems in their communities.
Government Orders
The government can, will and must continue to build in this direction, to build on the progress we have already made, and yet to meet a much greater challenge that remains. We will not penalize the vast majority of peace loving native people by delaying progress on these issues because a small group of extremists are breaking the law to achieve their ends.
We have extremists throughout society and extremism which threatens the order and security of society must be dealt with, but at the same time we have much larger obligations. The people at the treatment centre must realize that their actions are helping to delay the settlement of this issue and they hurt the cause of other native people across Canada.
I encourage all members of this House to stand and vote together to encourage the warriors to lay down their arms and accept the army's offer of custody and the honourable application of our system of justice, which is known around the world for being the most fair and honourable system of justice available to mankind. In doing so they will have acted honourably and accepted that the rule of law applies to all people in Canada.
I hope all members of the House will support this motion because I think it in itself represents the key to breaking the impasse with the remaining few warriors confined to the treatment centre at Oka.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I would like to start my speech by quoting the words of a great liberal, a great Democrat, John F. Kennedy: "Those who make peaceful resolutions impossible make violent resolution inevitable." That in no way refers to my condoning violence, absolutely not.
I would like to say that I have listened very carefully to the words of the minister. He has inflamed my sense of humanity, my good sense of reason, and has compelled me to be a bit angry because I feel that there have been reasonable suggestions made over the period of the summer, the last of which was last Thursday when there was a proposal put forward which was ignored and which was not negotiated.
I think another proposal was one that I sent forward to the Prime Minister, to the minister himself, and to the premier of Quebec to have an all-party group go into

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
Kanesatake to speak with the people about a peaceful and an honourable disengagement.
I received a letter from the minister in response to my letter. Just allow me to quote from it. I indicated that the native members of Parliament and senators would be going there to assist in the peaceful disengagement and to encourage that that would occur. The minister responded to me:
I have to say that I am not persuaded that such action would contribute positively towards the conclusion I presume we all seek- that is, a peaceful disengagement which respects the rule of Canadian law.
It goes on to say:
The bottom line for the Warriors appears to be an absolute unwillingness to submit to Canadian law and a parallel insistence on the recognition of a Mohawk state. As these demands are unacceptable to Canada a mass visit by Parliamentarians, however well-intended, may only encourage the Warriors to prolong their intransigent disregard for that Constitution you and I are sworn to uphold.
Let me say that I have a legal opinion which says that under the Constitution the minister has a fiduciary obligation to those people and it is as follows:
1)	aboriginal and treaty rights will survive within the constitutional law no matter how much they have been regulated in the past
2)	aboriginal and treaty rights can no longer be extinguished by federal or provincial legislation
3)	the only possible ways now to extinguish aboriginal and treaty rights would be by constitutional amendment and, perhaps, by aboriginal consent
4)	the federal government is the fiduciary for all aboriginal peoples-
As that I think he should have accepted my invitation. I think that we could have appealed in a humane sort of way to this group of individuals who are also human beings. It continues:
5)	as fiduciary, the federal government must consult with the aboriginal peoples before regulating their rights in any way and can only regulate those rights in a manner that places aboriginal interests first above the interests of any other sector of Canada (but can place conservation of mother earth even higher as this benefits aboriginal people)
6)	violation of the fiduciary obligation will be controlled by the courts through damage awards and declaring laws inapplicable to aboriginal people
7)	the federal government must change its ways of developing policies and laws so that aboriginal people are involved and consent to these new policies or laws.
The conclusion of a legal advisor by the name Brad Morse who is professor of law at the University of Ottawa and legal advisor to the Native Council of Canada and other aboriginal first nations reads:
I would conclude from this that the federal government's demand
for extinguishment of aboriginal and treaty rights is a violation of this
fiduciary obligation itself and must be stopped.
What has happened is that the minister has indicated to us this morning that when a group is armed he will not negotiate with them. I am telling you, Madam Speaker, that my people, the Dene-Metis, are not armed. These people are not armed and they want to negotiate in good faith a comprehensive land claims that will not force them to extinguish their rights, but this government will not allow that. It will not renew an outdated claims policy. This is divisive. This is the way in which this government is dividing the aboriginal community. It is totally unacceptable.
I would like to go from here to dealing with the fiduciary. The government's responsibility is to bring the aboriginal communities together and inspire confidence, not to drive them apart by using one aboriginal person against the other. I told this House yesterday that aboriginal peoples cannot afford to choose between one another, there are not that many of us. We are a community who has to believe in an old-fashioned ideology, that there is strength in unity. This is what Canada should be about. But that is not what is happening.
This countiy has been driven apart by a government that is bankrupt in policy, in ideology and in vision. We are constitutionally belly-up. It is not just an aboriginal problem, it is an anglophone-francophone, it is an eastern-western, it is an aboriginal-non-aboriginal, it is the rich and the poor. I do not think that is a partisan issue, I think it is a human rights issue.
The people of Canada want to belong to one country. They want to work together, to be one people, proud of the countiy they come from but that is not what is happening. This countiy is constitutionally belly-up and we are heading into a recession.
Why would we entertain such an inane motion to commend the exemplary conduct of the men and women in the Armed Forces? These people are pawns being used by the government to circumvent the democratic
September 25, 1990

process. The wrong process has been engaged in and this is not right. What should have happened?
I have a copy of a speech delivered by the Prime Minister on August 18, I believe, wherein he called this an armed insurrection. If it is an armed insurrection, what the government should have invoked was the Emergency Measures Act, which would have had the House reconvene after seven days. Why would this government, in all good sense, want the sole responsibility for this mess? Why could it have not shared it with the other parties? It is ridiculous, it borders on the sublime.
On September 20 I wrote to the Prime Minister to demand that there be an inquiry. In response the government has given this ridiculous motion. There is no way that I am going to publicly chastise or criticize people that are being used. The National Defence Act is used as a shield to circumvent the parliamentary process. I am not going to be that ridiculous and neither are the other members of this Parliament, Madam Speaker.
Why has the government missed a golden opportunity to address the real issues? Why does it continue to put forward these ridiculous motions which, again, circumvents an opportunity to deal with some of the real issues that need to be dealt with, like the government's fiduciary responsibility. This responsibility should be one of advocacy, not one of adversary. The government should be working for these people, Madam Speaker, in an advocacy manner, not in an adversarial manner. It should be promoting brotherhood, not division.
I must say that the response that I have received on the motion that has been put forward by the government is that it totally avoids the basic issues with which we should be dealing. There are certain moral and legal obligations that should be addressed. I am going to attempt to address some of those, as I have with the fiduciary responsibility of the government as set out in the Constitution.
The government during the Meech Lake debate was very much aligning itself with a larger body of legal opinion on what is right for Canada constitutionally. There are bodies of legal opinion that say, and I have a note here called "The News from Queens." "Queen's
Government Orders
legal scholars announce proposal to end Kanesatake stand-off".
Madam Speaker, these 20 lawyers from the Queen's Faculty of Law may not be experts, but they have bothered to come forward with a proposal. I will leave it here so that the minister may have a look at it.
They bring certain matters into question, and I will quote John White, the Dean of Law.
"Canada and the Mohawks are looking for a process which can lead to the laying down of arms and a withdrawal of the military. This inquiry represents a responsible way to avoid further loss of life.
According to the 22 legal academics who signed the letter, the usual criminal process may not suffice in this context. The laws we apply must recognize international law, treaty law and the law of aboriginal rights as well as the ordinary law of criminal procedure."
There have been many concerns about the ensuing investigation that will take place in Kanesatake. Who will be overseeing it? Will it be the Surete du Quebec? I asked the Solicitor General that question yesterday. In a latter I wrote to him I asked if it was possible to have tlie RCMP undertake the ensuing investigation. I referred to the fiduciary responsibility of the government. The minister said: "If Quebec so wills and if Quebec agrees, it can be negotiated". But legal advice this morning tells me that the Solicitor General can, in fact, override that because of the federal government's responsibility for aboriginal people under the Constitution. In fact, it can make provisions, make accommodations and can negotiate. At the very least it should negotiate to show that there is an element of co-operation and to build the trust the minister has spoken about.
In my letter of September 20 to the Prime Minister, I indicated that it is critical that there be a parliamentary investigation into the entire situation at Oka and the subsequent events at Kahnawake and Kanesatake. The Canadian public is entitled to know why Parliament was not recalled to deal with what has become a national issue. They want to know why the federal government chose to neglect its responsibilities to those aboriginal people. This is a very fundamental question.

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
Why will the government not negotiate? Why was the army directed to use 3,000 troops to deal with a dispute over land? Why has the army used force and tear gas on women and children who were not armed? Why has communication been cut off between the aboriginal people under siege at Kanesatake and the Canadian public at large? Why has freedom of press has been denied? Why has a native civil servant been fired from the federal government? How can the government justify the continuous use of intrusion and violence against a group of Canadians who are not being protected equally as other citizens? These questions are endless and the implications of not acquiring the answers through a parliamentary investigation are too monumental if the government is serious about dealing with the problems confronting aboriginal people across the country. Madam Speaker, the questions and the concerns are endless.
On August 11, the Liberal MP for Kenora-Rainy River wrote to the Speaker asking for an emergency debate on the situation pursuant to Standing Order 52(1). It is crucial that a full enquiry be called in order to establish the facts surrounding this national crisis.
I will review the incident that brought this situation to a crisis. Let us look at the cumulative of the decisions in Calder-Gerin-Sioui. Sparrow establishes that the Supreme Court of Canada is willing to be flexible in order to allow the proof of aboriginal claims. It is also willing to interpret those sections of the Constitution dealing with aboriginal peoples in a way which gives meaning to the concept of aboriginal rights. The latter three cases have been affected by Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.
Madam Speaker, clearly the Constitution Act of 1982, Section 35, is worth the paper it is written on, especially in relation to the evolution of the rights of aboriginal people. Section 35 was included in the Constitution during the tenure of Justice Minister Jean Chretien. Had the Conservative government adjusted its policies and programs to fit these Supreme Court decisions, then the crisis at Oka might have been averted.
Throughout the summer, calls for the Minister of Indian Affairs to become involved in this dispute were
met with silence in an attempt to pass off responsibility to the Government of Quebec. This whole procedure of a termination policy and sloughing off the responsibility to another jurisdiction and making aboriginal issues and the fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal peoples a political football simply is not going to work any more.
What we need in this country is fundamental change. We need changes. Any government that is in power is going to need fundamental change. You are going to have to look at the profile of the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs for instance. Why is it that when a Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs is appointed, it is considered a demotion? It is considered punishment for not having done a good job elsewhere. Why is that? That is ridiculous. That is the perception and if that is the case then it is up to the government to get the message out that this is a high profile position, a position that has inner cabinet support on aboriginal issues, a position that is sensitive to the needs of aboriginal people that is consultative and not confrontational. This is not a ministry that plays a power game, this is one that plays the game of co-operation with the people that it is supposed to serve.
Prior to the army moving to Oka, there were violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Electricity and telephones were cut off, repair crews were denied entry and the actions of the Quebec police were directed towards the cutting off of food and medicine to the Indian people. Media access was also cut off.
The motion put forward by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs is an attempt to mask his incompetence with the competence of the army. That is what it is-avoiding and not dealing with the issues head on. The army has shown restraint and discipline. We recognize that. Why should we talk about it? But the federal government has pushed many aboriginal peoples to the end of their tether, let me tell you. This issue should have been resolved long ago.
I had warned the minister of the burgeoning crisis at Oka and to my knowledge, nothing was done. When human rights abuses took place he did nothing but to condemn various components and factions, not dealing with the issue head on. This is not how you govern. You deal with the issues that are put to you in a crisis yet you do not avoid them.
September 25, 1990

The army was requested by the Government of Quebec. It was not dispatched by the federal government. This government, this minister and this Prime Minister have sat idly acting as lackeys in refusing to take leadership roles in resolving this crisis. In my mind they have abandoned their constitutional responsibilities. The big question across Canada is, why? People have asked ridiculous questions such as this. Are the aboriginal people being punished for killing Meech Lake? That is a question that is being asked. This is not my question, this is a question that is being asked because there is no trust, no faith and no confidence in this government.
The Liberal Party called for the resumption of Parliament at the outset of this crisis, yet the Prime Minister refused to reconvene Parliament. The Prime Minister speaks glowingly in terms laden with blarney about democratic processes, yet he refused to keep Parliament informed about what was going on. Ironically, he reconvened Parliament when a band of poor, destitute refugees landed on the shores of Canada and he called it a national emergency. He used Parliament to foster racism in Canada. That is how I feel about it.
Now I want to go to the whole issue of human rights. I have an article that was sent to me by Lawanahara, Ross Maracle, a clergyman from the Tyendinaga Reserve in Desoronto. He states:
However, here "at home", the Canadian Native is an endangered species living in increasingly endangered spaces. On September 20th the news media reported that the Prime Minister warned that "violence gets you nothing except heartache, sadness and loss'.
So, what's new? We have always lived with heartache and sadness. You saw on TV, Desmond Thtu stand in a northern Native village whose shacks were devoid of electricity and running water. Yes, we have always lived on the edge of epidemics, our babies have the highest rate of infant mortality and our children are plagued with diseases caused by open trench sewers. Our life expectancy is much beneath that of other Canadians. We know what death is all about. Our babies die of gastro-enteritis, our children expire inhaling gas fumes, our youth increasingly are taking their lives. So, what's new? WE DON'T NEED TEAR GAS TO WEEP!
You will never gauge the depth of my emotions, when I, as a Mohawk clergyman and Reverend Greg Shisheesh, a Cree, attempted to deliver food to Kanesatake that was purchased with money that came from Elijah Harper's Reserve of Red Sucker Lake, Manitoba.
Government Orders
How can I express my feelings! Seeing the razor wire! The searchlights! The helicopters! Thnks! Machine-guns with bayonets! And now dogs and the towers! In Canada! May this not be the resurrection of the ghosts of Dachau and Auschwitz rising out of an abyss of racial intolerance.
This is what he likens it to. He continues:
Give us native Martin Luther King's and Desmond TUtu's, who are not afraid to identify with despised people. Who will, as the Good Samaritan, bind up the emotional and spiritual wounds of our people. Where are those that represent the Jesus Christ who would pour in oil and bind up wounds without checking the colour of his skin or asking him his beliefs?
Well, I can say that we, as Canadians, have to remember that there are two races of people only, men and women, and the rest is just colour.
Our attempt has to be to live in peace and harmony, not to divide, not to create policies that divide people. That is totally unacceptable. I can tell you as an aboriginal person and a Canadian parliamentarian, it is my goal to be fair. It is my goal to be more than partisan. It is my goal to be human and to share that humanity with my fellow parliamentarians and Canadians who put me here to represent them.
My goal is to show you when you look at my people and you look into the eyes of my people, you will see something good, something kind, something tolerant, and that you will not see criminals. You will not see the intolerance that has been spoken about, the violence. Because there is goodness there and it is a goodness that is to be shared. We are a people, as one of my elders said, "a people who have no principle and have no belief and no vision, have no future. They are a people doomed for failure". Well, I see the aboriginal people and the people of Canada as more than that.
There have been other concerns. A member of the Canadian Bar Association, Mr. Sam Stevens, wrote an article in a paper called The National. The Canadian Bar Association membership has 35,000 members. There is a large legal body of opinion. In his comments he said:
The new Native Law Section of the Canadian Bar met with the Minister of Indian Affairs in August 1988 to discuss its proposals and urged him to act quickly. The minister did not adopt any of the recommendations. In the midst of the Oka conflict, CBA again forwarded a copy of its report to the Minister.
We, as Canadians, now face circumstances that no longer allow us to ignore or delay the resolution of these many issues, but it has taken an

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
armed confrontation to force us to begin to deal with the original citizens of this country in a fair and equitable manner.
The Canadian Bar Association in its special report entitled: "Aboriginal Rights in Canada: An Agenda for Action (1989)" made this the central focus of how to resolve aboriginal issues but it also realized there had to be a number of other mechanisms to resolve the hundreds of outstanding claims. Their recommendations are as such: the resumption of the constitutional process; a royal commission to examine, study, and report on treaty issues; a parliamentary inquiry to examine and make recommendations on the plight of the Inuit, Metis, and non-status Indians; and the establishment of a specific claims tribunal and aboriginal rights commission to inquire into aboriginal rights, issues and claims and then to publish reports recommending solutions.
These recommendations are not made by people who scribble out messages on napkins. These are groups of professionals who sit down together, think out, and through consensus come up with an agenda, trying to assist government in taking the right approach.
Mr. Stevens states:
In the end that it will take a very long time before the bitterness at Oka and across the country subsides and aboriginal First Nations, governments and average Canadians can begin to feel good about each other.
What a heavy price to pay for something that could have been completely avoided. The solutions were there, but the commitment to do something about these problems was not there.
Sam Stevens is the Administrator of the Justice of the Peace Program for the Territorial Court in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.
I will conclude with these comments. This country and this government will go nowhere if there is not fundamental change. We need to endorse a program, an aboriginal agenda, that does a number of things and that gives aboriginal issues within government the highest profile and the role of the minister. We need to look at what happens to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. To empower people, one accelerates devolution and makes sure that those resources and moneys that are intended for aboriginal peoples do reach the people that they are intended for.
We also must look at taking the right procedures now with this one crisis-this is one crisis, there are many that could occur-and that a parliamentary investigation or inquiry does take place. We must, in fact, entertain the recommendations about a royal commission of inquiry but the government should not use it as a blanket not to take action on current issues.
In dealing with land claims the policies, please, I appeal to the government that it should not be divisive. It is are dividing our people. We need to have our people work together. I represent 15,000 aboriginal people. I cannot have those people divided because of policies that divide them, separate them, and force them to choose between one another.
We also need to look at a legislative commission to deal with land claims and we have to deal with issues of sovereignty. We have to deal with issues of self-determination or self-government and we also specifically have to address the whole issue of the outdated claims policy.
From the day that I was elected, I have pushed successive ministers in committee on this issue of selfgovernment and on the extinguishment clause because I could see that we were heading into trouble with the comprehensive claims. There were the former ministers, Mr. McKnight and Pierre Cadieux, and now we have the current minister.
It has been my goal ultimately to have the claims settled but in doing that there are major considerations for my people. What do they want to lose? What will the exchange be? These are the questions that are determined by the policies that government puts forward.
I say once again to Canada: "You have to realize that the aboriginal people are not the enemy." The aboriginal people are the inhabitants of this land, who have been here for thousands of years and who have carried on tradition.
Winandaga, a great peacemaker who was a Huron by birth and a Mohawk by adoption, said: "Our strength shall be in unity. Our way shall be the way of reason, righteousness and peace." What do you think the white forefathers saw when they came upon a group of people that had government based on peace, that had a group of people who were civilized enough to govern themselves? It must have been a pleasant surprise to extract principles of democracy from them for their own constitution.
September 25, 1990

It must have been a great treat to have been able to do that.
The aboriginal people have many considerations: constitutional, political, social, educational, and economic-marginalized on most fronts. But this is a problem that is not going to go away. This is a problem that the government is going to have to grasp and say, "We have the political will to make change," or it is not going to change. It is quite obvious that it is not changing.
I say that we are willing to work things out. We want to work together, but we cannot do it ourselves. I am here as a fellow parliamentarian and I am willing to work with the government on this issue.


Mr. Angus:: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I was going to move an amendment to the motion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: I am sorry about that, Madam Speaker. This is a very emotional debate and one that is very much heartfelt. We felt that the motion put forward was an attempt to entrap us and to avoid. It is unacceptable as it is, so I move, seconded by the Member for Broadview- Greenwood:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "Chateauguay" and replacing them with the following:
"and that this House condemns the complete failure of the government to address and offer solutions to the problems that led to the Armed Forces being deployed; and
That upon adoption of this motion, the said motion be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
The reason we make this reference to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is that it would be the most appropriate place. The Solicitor General, as well as the Department of Justice, could be called in for consultation to that committee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will reserve at this point on this amendment. We will come back in a few minutes and make sure that this is all in order.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan on a point of order.
Government Orders


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, as members will know, on a motion like this the first speakers from the government and from the official opposition have unlimited time. Unfortunately, the Standing Orders did not provide the same opportunity for the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I think that you would find, if you sought unanimous consent, that there is a disposition to allow the hon. member for Yukon to have a few extra minutes to complete the remarks that she is about to make.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that we, on the government side, are more than happy to co-operate in this gesture.


Mr. Milliken:: Madam Speaker, we can confirm that arrangement also. It is also my understanding that there will be the normal time for questions and comments at the conclusion of the speech notwithstanding the unlimited time.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to offer my congratulations to the member for Western Arctic who made a very impassioned and a very strong speech as an aboriginal member of this House of Commons. I look forward to the other speeches by aboriginal members because I feel that these are the people who can speak, as the member for the Western Arctic has done, from the heart and identify for us the issues.
Having said that, I would like to enter this debate on motion No. 17 which we are debating today, presented by the Minister of Indian Affairs. I would have to say at the outset how utterly disappointing this motion is. It totally fails to deal with the national and international ramifications of the situation that occurred this summer and still occurs at Kanesatake and Kahnawake. It fails to deal with the root of any of the problems that have led to that situation and it is, in my view, simply a cynical attempt, once again, for the government to refuse to accept its responsibility for the actions that were taken.
If the government had accepted its responsibility, it would have called Parliament back, but it failed in accepting that responsibility. The Government of Canada had an obligation, in a situation as serious as this, to call back Parliament and to hear the solutions, the ideas and the debate of all of the members and parties of this House. This government has not only failed on this issue and failed the aboriginal people, it has failed the people of Canada. What we have seen by successive federal governments has led to what I have seen increasingly over the years become, on the part of aboriginal people,

Government Orders
a rebellion of despair because there is nowhere else to turn. I want to say today in speaking to this motion that it is up to us as politicians to turn that rebellion of despair into a revolution of hope. That is our responsibility. That is the responsibility we want to see.
From the beginning of the situation at Kahnawake and Kanesatake it has been characterized by a wish more to save face on the part of the government than to save lives. That should always be the first consideration of any government. This has been much more than a summer of discontent. It has been a summer of anger and contempt. The images that we have seen this summer must surely be branded on the soul of every Canadian and of every Canadian child who watched what their country was becoming. We have seen the images of Canadians fighting other Canadians on Canadian streets. We have seen Canadians stoning other Canadians as they drive by seniors and children. We have seen masked citizens facing off against helmeted and shielded soldiers and police. I suppose the image that struck me the most is something I read the other day by a reporter who was behind the barricades. He said that he was in the treatment centre and a seven-year old child came in. That seven-year old wanted a piece of candy or something and he said to him to go away and he would talk to him later. He described how the seven-year old turned around with a look of tremendous hate in his eyes for this white reporter. It told a thousand tales. Is that the future we will see as a result of this summer? I sincerely hope not.
As politicians, we have a responsibility not just for the events of today but for what is going to happen tomorrow and as we move on into the decade and the year 2000. The minister spoke often in his comments about the rule of law.
We had a situation where the Canadian Armed Forces acted under the Defence Act and came into the situation at Kahnawake and Kanesatake. I ask the government: Let's talk about the rule of law. Why was the Emergencies Act not enforced?
I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the reason that legislation was not used is that this minister,
this government and this Prime Minister would have had to stand before this House and explain their actions, because under that law they would be forced to do so.
I quote from the preamble of the act: "In order to ensure safety and security during such an emergency, the Governor in Council should be authorized, subject to the supervision of Parliament, to take temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times."
By not utilizing this act, are the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Prime Minister saying to us that these are normal times, that what we saw this summer were normal times? I hope not, and I assure you that I and my party will continue to work very hard to ensure that this is not seen as normal times.
Clearly, these were extraordinary times and required the measures that were provided for in this act.
I underline the term in this act that says: "subject to the supervision of Parliament". The language is perfectly clear.
Instead, the Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec and the Liberal premier of Quebec chose to use Section 281 of the Defence Act.
Finally, we have an opportunity now to debate this issue. This motion certainly does not begin to deal with the issue in any substantial way.

And now we are finally here, and if there is anything that illustrates the failure of this government's policies or its lack of policies, it is the fact that the crisis still continues, months after it started. I don't think anyone in this House will disagree with me if I say that this summer was one of the saddest Canada has known. It was a summer of hostility, violence and confrontation, and I believe it has completely changed our concept of Canada.
I was talking recently to a friend who went to Europe this summer. He told me it was the first time in his life that he did not have a feeling of national pride upon returning to his country. For the first time, he wondered whether this country was really more humane, was really a better place to live and bring up children.
September 25, 1990



Today, Canadians are questioning the very character of our nation, and they are finding some of those answers very disquieting.
The crisis at Kanesatake and Kahnawake has deep roots of injustice which have been buried and therefore are easy for many of us to ignore.
The crisis at Kanesatake and Kahnawake is about justice, as the Minister of Indian Affairs says. It is about fair treatment for aboriginal people. It is about hope and dignity, and it is about fundamental human rights.
The experience of Canada's first nations is the experience of a denial of constitutional recognition and the refusal of governments to live up to past agreements.
I remind the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that agreements are the rule of law as well. With that agreement, we have a responsibility to our people.


An hon. member:: Right on.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: But agreements have been broken. Promises have been broken. How could we have expected aboriginal people to have faith in the political system when during the Meech Lake debate, the Prime Minister of Canada promised aboriginal people that he would have a package for them that would address their issues. Once the Meech Lake Accord was defeated, no more was said about that package.
If the injustices remained, then, if a package was necessary to address them and two weeks later it was not there, how could people have faith in the political system?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Aboriginal people for centuries have had the experience of seeing their resources taken away, their land, water and air polluted without their involvement in any of that and their health and livelihood threatened.
The 1763 Royal Proclamation talked about treaties that endured so long as the sun rises and the river flows. Well, Madam Speaker, I remind the Minister of Indian
Government Orders
Affairs that treaties are law and those are laws that should be respected.
About 120 years after the Royal Proclamation, Chief Piapot, of the Cree described the situation as follows, and I quote: "In order to become the sole masters of our land they relegated us to small reservations as big as my hand and made us long promises, as long as my arm. But next year the promises were shorter and got shorter every year until they are the length of my finger".
That is the history of Canadian respect for the law. [Translation]
Listening to the government's eloquent speeches, we must not forget this is the same government that cut back financing for native newspapers by 100 per cent. This government has stifled the voice of our native people..
That same government also cut financing for native broadcasting services. It has undermined the media that help native people preserve their language and culture. That same government also made substantial cuts in funding for organizations that represent native people and it capped funding for native postsecondary education. It is a decision that is hard to understand if we consider the importance of education for the individual, the community and society as a whole.

Finally, Madam Speaker, it is this government along with successive Conservative and Liberal governments and provincial governments that excluded Canada's First Nations from participation in the constitutional reform process. They were shut out just as the territories of the Yukon and Northwest Territories were shut out. Those are areas where indigenous Canadians make up a sizeable percentage of the population.
Consequently, aboriginal concerns and rights were often ignored or put off to some future date.
Elijah Harper and the First Nations movement in Canada said that would not do. Empty promises were not enough. Real commitments were required and that real and immediate action on aboriginal issues had to take place.
I would say that Mr. Harper has also said that aboriginal peoples speak loudest when they speak with the voice of peace and the voice of peace with justice.

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
I would say that there are probably very few of us in this Chamber, if any, who condone the use of violence. But I also believe that if the rights of Canadian aboriginal people continue to be ignored, our collective rights as a nation will be diminished and our country cannot be whole. It is time to recognize that the future of Canada cannot be separated from the future of Canada's first peoples.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, the crisis this summer, to which this motion refers, stems from the frustration of Canada's first peoples who have had their political and constitutional objectives and efforts ignored or obstructed and who have tried to negotiate with governments that are unwilling to negotiate. The role of the Surete du Quebec and the role of the province of Quebec has only added to the problem. That is very sad because it seems to me that the people of the province of Quebec who themselves have been victims of oppression concerning language in their history and of exploitation very often by people from another culture, should be the first people to understand the aspirations of aboriginal people who simply have the same aspirations to some autonomy over their own affairs, to the right to their language and their culture. I think that is a very sad statement for all Canadians.
There are many events that occurred this summer, too many to go into, but I think that too will be one of the scars on the soul of our nation. I have often said that there are three areas that distinguish in many ways Canada from other countries: our vast north land, our territories and northern parts of our provinces; the history of Canada's first people, the aboriginal people; and the fact that we have within Canada, Quebec, with a rich culture, a rich language, and a rich history from which all of us benefit. If we look at our history and indeed if we look at constitutional development, it is exactly in those three areas where we continually fail. We have a chance not to fail.
Today we are discussing a motion, a superficial motion, which does not deal with the roots of one of those three major characteristics of Canada by which we define ourselves as Canadians. Let's not lose that chance. Let's take that chance and say now we are going to do something, we are going to do something noble, we are
going to do something just, and we are going to do it now.
There were many events this summer and this fall. [Translation]
There have been a number of events since then, which I will not describe in detail.
However, we saw provincial police withhold food, water and medical supplies from the Mohawks of Kahne-satake.
There were a number of horrifying incidents involving people from Chateauguay and Mohawks at the Mercier Bridge. The Canadian Forces were brought in. We saw a number of tense face-offs between the military and the Mohawk warriors. There were weapons on both sides. Negotiations were broken off. Three thousand soldiers moved forward and dismantled the barricades. There were a number of violent confrontations between the army and the Mohawks last week in Kahnawake, during which tear gas was used.

We still see food supplies withheld from Mohawk men, women, and children who are behind the barricades. It seems to me that by supplying people with the basic necessities of life we are not necessarily saying that we condone the use of arms. Where is the humanity in this? Surely in Canada we can have negotiations. We do not have to accept the actions of the use of arms and of the use of violence, but at the same time governments have to set an example that we are above that, that we do not deprive people of food, and that we will continue to negotiate.
The fundamental question in all of this in every Canadian's mind is: Who is in control and where has the federal government been? Sadly the answer seems to be that no one is in control.
The Prime Minister, instead of taking a leadership role in trying to find a solution, instead of acknowledging federal constitutional responsibility for aboriginal affairs and for the Armed Forces, has done nothing. I think it has come as a great surprise to Canadians to learn that under the National Defence Act a premier can call in the Armed Forces against Canadian citizens without the involvement of Parliament, without the involvement seemingly of the Prime Minister, and that after that both the Prime Minister and the Liberal premier of Quebec
September 25, 1990

can wash their hands of the situation and say that all of the decisions are now in the hands of the army. We elect politicians; we do not elect the army.
The minister spoke today as well about negotiations. There are many proposals on the table for negotiation, proposals which do not circumvent the Canadian law, and the minister is well aware of this. Minister Ciaccia from Quebec has worked, and I would say has worked nobly, in trying to reach an agreement. Sometimes it seems he has worked, because his feels so fundamentally about the issue, not necessarily under the direction of the premier of that province. Here is a man who obviously wants to find a solution, who wants to find a negotiation, who has put forth a proposal, and this government refuses to listen and says no.
People who are watching this debate have to understand that this proposal does not say and does not in any way intimate that the people involved in the treatment centre, those people who have illegal arms, would be outside Canadian law. The proposal does not say that at all, yet this government says that we will not negotiate.
Having gone to Oka on several occasions myself, having met with Indian chiefs across Canada, I have tried as well to make a number of concrete proposals, as have many, many other people: constitutional experts, legal experts. We have had Bishop Thtu here. Jesse Jackson was here yesterday. Of course as a journalist his freedom of the press was cut off and he was not able to do his job, as Canadians journalists cannot do either. I would say that there are people who have put forward in good faith, not in a partisan way, proposals to end this situation.
I have made a number of those concrete proposals this summer to get negotiations going again, to establish a relationship between first nations and our commitments based on dignity and respect, not based on the desire for humiliation of people who feel that they as Canada's first nations are defending their land. I proposed among other things an aboriginal land claims commission, which clearly in the long term must be considered, a land claims commission that takes it out of the bureaucracy of the Department of Indian Affairs, a commission subject to federal statute and accountable to Parliament. If we
Government Orders
have seen anything this summer, we have learned that we must have Parliament involved in all of these issues and not simply within one ministry.
We must find a solution to the land claims issue. I would add that land claims, as they have done in other agreements, include issues of self-government. We must find a mechanism for co-operation and consultation instead of conflict and violence. We can do this.
I have had a number of other recommendations which I will mention very briefly. First, I have asked the Prime Minister to order the army immediately to restore food and basic necessities to the people in the treatment centre, to restore communications to the journalists on site, and to continue negotiations.
Second, I have also asked that an all-party committee be dispatched to Kanesatake and Kahnawake to investigate the situation and also for politicians to show that we are interested. I am sure the people of Canada must be wondering: Are politicians even interested? For our leaders to come out and say it is all in the hands of the army must be very curious to Canadian citizens. We have to take that responsibility.
Third, I have asked for a public inquiry, not a judicial inquiry, that should be struck immediately to investigate how this crisis has been created and how it has been handled.
Finally, I believe that the government could indeed demonstrate some good faith by restoring funding to the aboriginal programs, funding that was cut in the last budget. It is probably very ironic to those organizations that we have spent ten times the amount of money on the army, on the police, than would have been needed simply to restore the funding to those programs.
The political process must be responsive to the needs and the aspirations of Canada's aboriginal people or it will be rejected by them. We must create real hope for peaceful change. We must have real change for peace and hope.
Today I want to close by reminding the House that the year 1992 marks the 500th anniversary of contact between Europeans and the first peoples of North America. It also marks the 125th anniversary of Confederation. I believe we should look at the year 1992 as a target date

Government Orders
for resolution of conflicts between first nations and peoples who have settled there.
The motion put forward by the government is cynical. It does not deal with the root of the problem. As you know, Madam Speaker, I am only allowed to amend the amendment put forward by the Liberals, but I would have to say that if I had the opportunity I would have wanted to change the first part of the motion as well.
The Liberal Party has accepted to commend the exemplary conduct of the men and women of the Canadian forces at Oka and Chateauguay. I am not against the Armed Forces at Oka and Chateauguay, but the forces work under the direction of the politicians. Once again this clause which the Liberal Party has accepted and I cannot amend takes away the responsibility of the government.
I would say that it is not a question in my mind of the conduct of anyone in this situation, except the conduct of the federal government and the Government of Quebec. However, given those limitations, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "this House
condemns the complete failure of the government" and replacing
them with:
"this House condemns the complete failure of the current and past governments".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will start by putting to the House the amendment presented by the hon. member for Western Arctic and the subamendment by the hon. member for Yukon.
On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, once again the House is faced with a debate that is significant and important to all members.
As a result we had several discussions among the three parties and other members of the House regarding extension of hours to allow more members to participate freely in the debate today.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that you will find consent for the following motion:
That this House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, and continue consideration of the business now before it provided that when no further member rises in debate the Speaker will deem the debate concluded, a division demanded, which division will be deemed deferred until three o'clock p.m. Wednesday, September 26, 1990, and thereupon the Speaker will adjourn the House until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Orders and provided that dilatory motions or calls to have the House counted will not be received by the Chair after such ordinary hour of daily adjournment.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, we are happy to make this accommodation to permit an extended debate on the motion before the House and, indeed, there have been discussions and we agree to the terms.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, we are certainly prepared to consider this favourably. Of course the understanding would be that while the debate of the evening will focus exclusively on the amendment put forward by the leader of the New Democratic Party that further discussion will take place in days forthcoming on the Liberal amendment as well as the main motion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is a motion, an amendment, and a subamendment before the House so we will be debating everything that are before the House.
There will be a period of questions and answers following Question Period.
Is there consent for the special order? I understood that there was.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As it is one o'clock I will now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
September 25, 1990

Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, over the summer months it has become veiy clear that the Liberal Senate does not respect the elected will of the people of Canada. It seems that the Liberal Senators are looking to redefine Canadian democracy.
There are a number of government initiatives that are being stalled in the red chamber. For their own political reasons the Liberals are playing with bills such as C-28 and the GST legislation.
One of the most serious bills that they have chosen to block is the UI reforms. Across northern Ontario this is causing many hardships. From Elliot Lake, Red Lake, Kirkland Lake, men and women are being denied the benefits of these reforms.
Three hundred and fifty million dollars in job training funding of workers has been on hold. The senators have placed in jeopardy additional training and employment programs including the fine work of Community Futures groups. Labour force development and family benefit changes have all been affected by the Liberals actions.
I say it is time that the unelected, over-paid, and self-serving Liberal senators stop playing with the lives of the needy Canadians. Pass the UI reforms.


ELECTION IN MANITOBA
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the Manitoba New Democratic Party are to be commended for their showing in the recent provincial election, but particularly, from my point of view, for having nominated and elected four excellent aboriginal members to the legislative assembly, 20 per cent of our caucus.
That includes Greg Dewar of Selkirk riding, a Metis member, long-time chief Oscar Lathlin who now represents The Pas, Inuit member advocate George Hickes who represents the riding of Point Douglas, and those people join the incumbent MLA for Rupertsland, Elijah
Harper, who joins Chris McCormick at the Native Council of Canada in our gallery today.


CHILDREN S RIGHTS
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the World Summit for Children Week in Winnipeg started yesterday and ends this weekend when the actual summit begins in New York. The week-long observance aims to focus the attention of Canadians to the plight of all children, to guarantee their basic rights to food, shelter, good health and education, and to secure their active role in society.
The Winnipeg Free Press recently headlined the lamentable story that slightly over half a million Canadian children turn to food banks every year; that "in Winnipeg the number of hungry who are turning to food banks to feed themselves and their families has swelled by 30 per cent in the last year."
We cannot long afford to fail them. We cannot long endure their continued loss to hunger, illness, ignorance and abuse.
The country will pay the price if we in Parliament who can act fail to act now.
I therefore urge Parliament and this government to give top priority to development of strategies that would eliminate or significantly minimize poverty within this decade.
A war on poverty on behalf of the children of Canada and of the world is a war worth our effort.


THE SENATE
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the remnants of the last government in the other place have taken it upon themselves to dictate to Canada's duly-elected government.
We live in an era where democracy is flourishing. The Berlin Wall has come crumbling down and new democracies are springing up all over the world. Today we in Canada are faced with the spectre of reversing the process where the appointed become the self-appointed. What other country in the world would put up with this type of situation?
Almost nine years ago the British House of Lords had their authority to veto government financial bills re-

5. ft 31 moved. Clearly Canada is overdue in doing the same thing. It is time that Canada reformed its upper House.
Until that time I call upon the members of the other House to respect the longstanding principles of parliamentary democracy. Pass the legislation that has been approved by the democratically elected members of Canada.
Otherwise Canadians must resign themselves to being governed by an appointed House just as they were in the days before Baldwin, Lafontaine and Joseph Howe.


CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, the World Summit for Children scheduled to be held in New York this weekend has been hailed by this government as a vehicle to advance the causes of children everywhere in the world. The summit will be chaired by our very own Prime Minister and is to bring to the forefront of world leaders' minds the plight of children.
So what is the government's solution to helping the children of Canada and the world? It is to produce a document entitled, Children of Canada, Children of the World at a cost of $72,000 which contains nothing but statistics published elsewhere, yet more uninformative rhetoric about concern for children and a huge glossy photograph of the Prime Minister. This is only one of the costs of the summit and there will be many other costs.
Could this money have been spent better? Several organizations who are in a position to know certainly say so. For example, the World Health Organization estimated that four million children under the age of five will die this year as a result of gastro enteritis when a simple ten-cent package of sugar and salt would save them. Mr. Speaker, $72,000 could have saved 720,000 lives of young children in this world.
Another 2.8 million children will die this year as a result of vaccine-preventable diseases. If the Canadian government really wanted to give a shot in the arm to the world's children, they could have spent $72,000 giving shots in the arm to 7,200 children and in the process saving their lives.


THE SENATE
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I am not well known for my love of the Senate. In fact, I have been known to have said some rather harsh things about the other place.
My disillusionment with the function of the other place is confirmed daily when I see people, appointed on the basis of political affiliation, obstructing the will of the democratically elected representatives of the people of Canada. Their irresponsible, politically motivated actions, unprecedented in the history of Canada, will do nothing but bring greater dishonour to the other place and further disillusionment to the people of Canada for the political process.
Their actions will cost billions of dollars in the future as well as do irreparable damage to Canadian political life. I implore the senators to do the right thing and pass all of the vital legislation that they are delaying at this time.


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, during the last number of weeks some 2,400 Cape Breton coal miners were engaged in a work stoppage. This stoppage crippled the local economy.
Even though there have been difficulties for the union, management has demonstrated a complete lack of ability in terms of exercising their responsibilities. Management had a responsibility to resolve this particular dispute and to effectuate good labour management policies.
We simply do not have the economic base to avoid the negative economic spin-offs that this type of labour dispute generates. I hope that in the future we will not see this type of action again. The minister responsible for this Crown corporation has promised to undertake a study that would focus on labour relations at Devco.
I urge the minister to have this study in place and to have it in place forthwith. I also urge the minister to act upon a request which has been made by the United Mineworkers of America and every labour organization on Cape Breton Island, that is, to appoint labour representatives to the Crown corporation, its board of

directors, in order to effectuate and see, in reality, good management labour relations.


THE SENATE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, Parliament is experiencing a very serious power snuggle. The Liberal Senate is flouting custom and tradition by opposing a number of bills passed by the elected members of this House. This is intolerable! The general feeling is now one of apprehension and malaise.
The Liberal majority in the Senate is a burden, and an expensive one. It is costing the people of this country a fortune. They are systematically and maliciously obstructing bills initiated by the elected representatives of this House. They disregard and literally undermine decisions made by the elected representatives of this country. The Liberal senators are having a ball at taxpayers' expense, and they are costing us a fortune. This is the kind of partisan sham that the people of my riding refuse to support. Enough is enough!
The federal Liberals never cared about people. They could not care less, and it is high time they were called to order. The people of Beauce and the people of Quebec are shocked to see Liberal senators, with their more than ample salaries, thumb their noses at the elected representatives of this country. This Senate is not effective.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 31 to point out that the Canadian government's actions have undermined their claims that they are negotiating at the GATT to strengthen Article XI to protect our dairy and poultry sectors.
In early July the Canadian government endorsed the GATT agriculture chairman deZeeuw's position paper and accepted it as the negotiating framework to reform world agriculture trade in spite of the fact that the paper failed even to mention Article XI.
When this government went to the Houston meeting of the G-7, they failed to include the strengthening of Article XI in the statement of their main objectives. This government helped draft and endorsed a resulting statement that failed to make any reference to strengthening of Article XI. At the end of August the Canadian government failed to table documents to further outline Canada's position. Only Japan and Switzerland tabled positions.
On October 1, the government has the opportunity to indicate through its actions that it is committed to maintaining and strengthening Article XI by not including our system of orderly marketing on that list of tariff equivalents that it will table at the GATT, clearly stating that they are not tariff equivalents. This will ensure that they are not on the sacrificial list to be tabled October 15.
It is time this government showed with its actions, not its hollow words, that it is committed to strengthening Article XI to allow our dairy and poultry sectors an equitable return for our Canadian farmers.


BILL C-21
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, during the summer of very complicated and emotional issues, the constituents of my high unemployment riding have been most affected by the stalling of Bill C-21 in the Senate.
People have actually rearranged their lives and disrupted their families to improve themselves and upgrade their education by using the benefits of Bill C-21, only to have their hopes and dreams dashed at the very last moment when funding was denied. It is incredible to me that my constituents who want to get off unemployment insurance and social benefits and better themselves are denied this opportunity by callous and uncaring political ploys of the Senate.
Bill C-21 has been in the Senate since November 1989. It is high time that the Liberals in the Senate stopped playing political games on the backs of Canada's unemployed.


S. O. 31 THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the long NDP tradition of pointing out the corporate welfare bums in our society, today I would like to point out another dimension of the corporate welfare ethic that demoralizes and undermines the work ethic in this country.
Sometimes, particularly when new senators are needed to push through a tax that will hurt working Canadians the most, members of the corporate elite are rewarded with the greatest corporate welfare package of them all, an appointment to the Senate.
For showing leadership, in helping Brascan make $700 million in 1988-89, with an effective tax rate of 0.07 per cent, for helping Brascade to make $221 million in 1988-89 and pay no taxes, and Edper Corporation to make $129 million in 1988-89 and pay nothing in taxes, while some of these corporations gave thousands to the Liberals and Conservatives. Trevor Eyton has been recruited to help tax ordinary Canadians to death, along with Claude Castonguay, Chief Executive Officer of the Laurentian Life Corporation which made $8.1 million and paid no taxes in 1988-89.


THE BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to point out, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, the advent of this new group in the House of Commons.
A few members would probably prefer not to be reminded of the painful circumstances which lead to the creation of this movement. Let them be reminded, Mr. Speaker, that we are here today precisely to ensure that those events not be forgotten.
Following three constitutional setbacks in less than twenty years, Quebec can not be criticized for reconsidering forming part of Canada. It is in that context that we have decided to focus exclusively on the interests of Quebec.
Unlike the so-called "official" Opposition and the other opposition parties, we have no intention of filibustering every single government initiative. Our sole objective will be to defend and promote the interest of the
province of Quebec in Ottawa until Quebec has become fully sovereign.


LAND CLAIMS
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the events of this past summer at Kanesatake and Kahnawake, along with the rail and road blockades which sprang up across the country, are proof positive that the government's specific land claims policy does not work.
The Minister of Indian Affairs continues to make promises that he will speed up the land claims process to ensure that all outstanding land claims are settled by the end of the decade.
We do not want to be too cynical. However, until such time as the minister gives aboriginal leaders and members of this House some specific information on how he plans to proceed, then I am afraid he will continue to lose face.
The Canadian people watched in horror as the government called in the army against our citizens. Our reputation worldwide has been sullied as charges of human rights violations made world headlines. All of this because of policies which do not work.
I believe it is time for the government to establish, in consultation with aboriginal peoples, an independent and impartial land claims commission which will be responsible for the negotiation and settlement of all outstanding land claims.
Without concrete and positive action on the part of the government, I firmly believe we have not seen the end of events such as we have seen this past summer.


THE SENATE
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, do not be too quick to judge the Liberal senators harshly. They may not be the self-serving, partisan narcissists they appear to be. It may all just be a charade, another deceitful bluff. Not even the fiscally irresponsible Liberal senators can really oppose the GST, for surely anyone who has studied it as carefully as they have, at an
September 25, 1990

additional cost to the Canadian taxpayers of over $1 million, will know by now of its benefit to Canada.
No, my guess is when it comes to a vote the Liberals will come up short while protesting to the end. They will, at the same time, ensure the country will not be denied the stable tax base necessary to reduce the national debt they, while in government, created.



Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, students of history know that delusions of grandeur prefaced the downfall of empires and emperors from ancient Rome to modem Romania.
If one wants to see delusions of grandeur in action in Canada today, look at the Liberal side of the Canadian Senate. It is hard to believe that Senators like Allan MacEachen and political gadflies like Michael Kirby would have the colossal gall to pretend an interest in the financial welfare of Canadians.
Senator MacEachen, as Minister of Finance, single-handedly orchestrated the physical collapse of the Trudeau government with his tax reforms of 1981. Senator Kirby chose Machiavelli as his model in setting the strategy for the Trudeau constitutional changes that have kept Canadians in an uproar since 1982. Now partisan political rejects want to help Canadians by thwarting the democratic process with the co-operation and connivance of their colleagues in the Senate.
Hypocrisy is an unparliamentary expression, Mr. Speaker, but can you think of any other word to describe Liberal Senators?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister to establish immediately a royal commission on aboriginal questions to
Oral Questions
develop better and quicker solutions to the many concerns of our aboriginal peoples across the country. The Prime Minister gave no answer whatsoever to that request, even though in the past he has talked favourably about creating such a royal commission.
I ask the Prime Minister once again if he will today establish such a royal commission to develop these better and quicker solutions to the real concerns of our aboriginal people?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to my hon. friend yesterday that, as soon as the matter was peacefully resolved at Oka, we would be announcing a number of initiatives that would be constructive and beneficial for native peoples. Move-over, there is a debate that is ongoing in which I propose to participate this afternoon. Some of the government's plans and intentions will be indicated at that time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, our aboriginal peoples and Canadians generally, will not be satisfied that the Prime Minister uses the ongoing situation at Oka as an excuse for inaction. The problems of our aboriginal peoples existed long before the Oka situation and they exist all across our country on the part of people thousands of miles from Oka.
On the weekend the Prime Minister is going to be the co-chair of the World Summit on Children at the United Nations. How he can have the nerve even to go to that summit meeting when he has allowed our native children to exist in the harshest social, economic, and health conditions of any children in the country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely disgraceful statement to be made by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
There is no correlation whatsoever to the situation that originated at Oka, not because of the Mohawk people whose peaceful traditions are well known to all Canadians, but because a small group of warriors have hijacked that situation. Many of them are from the United States and have tried to intimidate the people of Canada with guns. I am telling the Leader of the Opposition, in case he does not know, that it will not work with the Government of Canada. Our policy is not to let the warriors go now to try to catch them later.

September 25, 1990
Oral Questions
The participation of the Government of Canada in respect of the World Summit on Children is important for members of all parties and for all Canadians. I did not think that it was one that my hon. friend would want to take an easy or cheap political shot at.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to taking cheap political shots, nothing matches the efforts of the Prime Minister of trying to use Oka as an excuse for ignoring the needs of our native children thousands of miles from Oka.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development how he can possibly let the Prime Minister leave for this world summit at a time when he has no program to meet the serious needs of our native children.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, however much affection and respect I may have for the authority of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, neither the Leader of the Opposition nor I need his permission to attend an important convention.
Yesterday's debate was highlighted by the significant and remarkable intervention of the member for Winnipeg South Centre. He spoke eloquently about the importance of the United Nations' summit this weekend and, unless I am mistaken, he did offer to co-operate fully with the government to support and promote approaches designed to help children in Canada and around the world. Having said clearly that I would indeed put to good use this outstanding gesture of leadership on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I am amazed to see that the Leader of the Opposition should fail to draw inspiration from such leadership.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
We all know that the children of Canada are the jewels in our crown and our pride and joy. In the aboriginal community, they are our sacred trust and our future investment. Having said that, this summer, Liberal
members heard the testimony of members of the Oka defence fund who stated that restrictions on food impeded the free access of baby formula, resulting in children being fed sugar water.
Is it government policy to force unarmed children to go hungry? Is it government policy to make children pay the price for this minister's incompetence?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, certainly this is not government policy. We certainly all respect the needs of children. I have written a number of times and spoken with the responsible ministers in the Government of Quebec to ensure that, at all times, food was allowed through the barricades when there were barricades up. I would say to the warriors that, if they were to allow the women and children to come out-who are completely free to come out-then all of their needs could be assured.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe a minister of the government who spouts the principle of democracy and does not allow people the right to choose what action they want to take.
If the minister does not agree with the statements just made, can he explain why the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Institute of Canada sent letters to the minister citing the need to prevent human rights abuses? Will the minister do the proper thing and resign?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of freedom of choice. The children and women- who in a way are providing a screen for the armed warriors-are free to leave and to seek the full benefits and comforts of Canadian citizenship.
I find it surprising that the hon. member would advocate having children sitting at the knee of armed warriors, learning how to clean a revolver.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is not much wonder that Canadians have become cynical about the old style politics and have totally lost confidence in this government. Now, of course, we see the spectacle of the patronage Senate, with Liberals and Tories announcing
September 25, 1990

their intention to do what this government should have done a year ago, and that is kill the GST.
What does the Prime Minister intend to do now? Will the Prime Minister, instead of going on another binge of political and patronage appointments, kill the GST now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it is about the NDP. It may be biological, but they are opposed to patronage appointments until one is offered.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I was a bit taken aback by the Prime Minister's answer. I did not realize that he was being a stand-up comic and I was waiting for the answer.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. leader could put her question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the Prime Minister that he once said "You had a choice". The choice is simple: continue handing out patronage appointments at an unprecedented rate, or drop this tax and present to the House a real tax reform which would put the interests of families and workers ahead of those of the rich and mighty.
Here is my question: will the Prime Minister take the right direction, drop this tax, and give Canadians a real tax reform?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that the idea of political appointments is repugnant to the New Democrats. Still, another principle is involved. Generations of New Democrats have adamantly insisted that the Senate has no moral authority whatsoever to kill a legislative measure from the House of Commons where members are duly elected by the people of Canada. Whether one accepts or not the outcome of the last elections, the fact remains that the Canadian voters had been made fully aware of the GST, the free trade agreement and the other political programs, and they chose this government and its programs, rightly or wrongly. Under our system, after
Oral Questions
it has been elected the Canadian government has the right to be heard and to implement its program once it has been accepted by the elected members. New Democrats may find political appointments repugnant, but we find repugnant any attempt at undermining the moral authority of the elected House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister does not need to go to the boardroom for the country to get a vote on the GST. What he can do is either kill the tax himself or do the honourable thing, call an election, and let the people decide-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: Call an election.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, just in case there is any doubt in my hon. friend's mind, I just want to reassure her that I did learn that a majority government term is five years, not three.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: That is too bad, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Today at the Canadian Bar Association meeting Roy McMurtry, the former High Commissioner to Great Britain, a very distinguished diplomat and jurist, said the following:
My deep concern is that Canada's role in the international community is being diminished by internal difficulties at Oka. We face a depressing spectacle. We are really on the verge of tarnishing our image in the world which will be very difficult to refurbish unless we get our act together.
Taking those important words of Roy McMurtry and supported by other members of the Canadian Bar Association, I want to ask the Prime Minister this. How can we go ahead on the world stage and argue for the

Oral Questions
protection of civil rights for other people when we are denying civil rights to our native people here in Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago next month the government of which my friend was a member invoked the War Measures Act and threw almost 600 citizens of the province of Quebec into jail without trial and that has been forgotten by my hon. friend and somehow-


Mr. Marchi:: Where did you stand on it?


Some hon. members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will know that there is considerable contest in this Chamber for time in the Question Period. I would ask hon. members to keep that in mind. The right hon. Prime Minister will complete his answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend was a supporter of that government and information was supposed to be provided to the House of Commons with regard to that particular act. It never was and yet, somehow, the Government of Canada of the day and subsequent governments conducted themselves in such a way as to ensure that there was no dishonour brought to Canada's reputation internationally.
From time to time governments are confronted with difficult situations. This one here is a difficult situation. At Oka, following events that took place in May, for reasons that have a lot to do with the internal control of matters ranging from the illegal trafficking in arms, to cigarettes and to illegal gambling. There were two killings that took place on the Akwesasne reserve in the late spring. This was followed subsequently by the murder of a young member of the Surete du Quebec.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Murder?


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is deeply regretted and deeply deplored by all-


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Are you the judge?


Mr. Tobin:: Judge and jury.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, there was one of the members of the Surete du Quebec who was killed in the line of duty. The responsibility of the Government of Canada is to deal with this. We have sought to do so in a manner which ensures the ongoing respect for the rule of law, even if it means from time to time that we have got to get a black eye internationally in some fora. We will not accept that people will dominate this country at the point
of a gun because that is alien to everything that Canadians stand for.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will not take the supplementary to debate all the points but I would remind the Prime Minister that he has colleagues, including the gentleman sitting next to him, who also voted for that same act in 1970.
I want to ask this question: While it may be important to defend law and order, it is equally important to recognize fundamental human rights and fundamental civil liberties. Those are being denied to the people at the treatment centre on the reserve and this government has not moved to deal with the issues that are providing so much frustration and sense of grievance to native people.
Today, we are asking in Parliament: Why not set up a parliamentary inquiry or a royal commission? Why not show native people that we are prepared to deal with them fairly? Then you will get them to listen.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should not be exercised to that extent.
I have already indicated, as has the minister, our intention to join with him and other members of the House of all parties in devising and in setting out programs and policies that will bring a much greater degree of social justice and fairness to the native peoples across Canada.


An hon. member:: With greater consultation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, with greater consultation.
My hon. friend is quite right: indeed, with a greater degree of consultation. I think that my hon. friend from Winnipeg would acknowledge the fact that before these matters can begin, it would be very important that those people who have hijacked an otherwise very peaceful group of native peoples near Montreal put down their guns and abide by Canadian law. Then we can get on with business.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister refused to give us the names of Canadian native leaders with whom he has met to resolve the issue at Oka.
When are the Prime Minister and this government going to stop hiding behind a band of armed warriors just to ignore their responsibilities to all Canadian native
September 25, 1990

people? When is the Prime Minister going to sit down and start meeting with Canadian native leaders?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I would offer the observation that the hon. member has it quite wrong.
It is the masked warriors who are hiding behind a barricade of razor wire from the justice system which all Canadians must abide by.
I will continue to meet aboriginal leaders, Grand Chief George Erasmus and the leaders of the various provincial first nations across Canada, as I have been doing for many months to help to address the important, social and economic needs of their people.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister has not been successful so far.
We want the Prime Minister involved. It should be the top person in government.

The Minister knows that the native children are faced with higher rates of poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition, disease and death than other Canadian children.
Considering such a deplorable situation, how can he justify to the Canadians and to the United Nations Summit on Children the fact that he has completely abolished the $60 million program for native children?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could check the estimates. I can provide him with another copy of the vital information that I circulated to all members in June.
I will provide him with clear evidence of our increased commitment to the needs of aboriginal children. Certainly we recognize there are special social problems and higher than acceptable levels of difficulty in relation to child welfare, child sexual crimes and other matters. We are working on a new set of initiatives to address these in co-operation with the provinces.
Oral Questions


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister said:
The Government of Canada responded to a-request from the
Government of Quebec pursuant to the National Defence Act to
provide the Canadian army for peacekeeping purposes-
However, at a news conference on August 8 to announce the decision, the Prime Minister contradicted his friend, the Liberal premier of Quebec, and said that it would be inappropriate and misleading to describe the army's role at Oka as one of peacekeeping. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House on which occasion he was telling the truth?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, rather than play on words, I think it is more important that the NDP recognize that the Canadian forces have been requisitioned under the National Defence Act in the aid to the civil power. It is a provision in the act that is available to every province in Canada when they need assistance because they cannot enforce civil law, have peace and security for their people, by either the municipal policing authorities, their provincial policing authorities or, in this case, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The Canadian forces were called in, have responded and, to the greatest extent possible, carried out their responsibilities with diligence, patience and understanding that I think even the hon. member would recognize.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, given that the army has been accused of provoking hostility, withholding food, denying human rights and trampling freedom of the press, why does the Prime Minister, with his Minister of Indian Affairs, continue to hide behind the army and why will he not take the responsibility now and commit himself to finding a political solution to this three-month-old conflict?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, this government has been committed to finding a political solution to these matters for at least three years. I would like, because it is important, with the indulgence of the House, to read a short paragraph from a letter I wrote to Grand Chief George Martin and Mayor Jean Ouellet on

September 25, 1990
Oral Questions
June 28, a full two weeks before the tragedy occurred at Oka.
The letter reads:
Over the course of the past week I have met with both of you, and your councils, to discuss the current situation in Oka and the long term needs of your respective communities.
With respect to the former, I understand that the Village of Oka's application for an injunction to remove the blockade of the Chemin du Mille is to be heard on Friday, June 29, 1990. Regardless of the outcome, I urge you both to meet, immediately following the court's decision, to discuss ways of diffusing the tensions that exist and restoring a climate of harmony until long term solutions can be found.
I am prepared to offer the services of Mr. Yves Desilets to assistyou in these discussions. I am confident-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. minister has read the appropriate parts.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in a letter to John Ralston Saul, Chairman of the Pen Club International, a writers' association, the Defence Department stated, and I quote: "Material and films belonging to journalists can go through military barricades and we will allow journalists to receive food supplies." The Minister refuses to respect those commitments.
I ask the Minister of National Defence why he refuses to admit that these rights are absolutely fundamental in a democratic society?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has to understand that there are basic rights in a democratic society. The first right is that of respect of law. There are suspected law-breakers in the treatment centre at this time. The Canadian forces are acting as peacemakers and peace officers in this instance. With regard to food, I can tell the hon. member that we estimate there are some 53 people in the treatment centre. We are providing rations for 60 people. The other day we provided four eggs per person, some 240 eggs. They were so desperate for food that the warriors threw them at the army.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Now, if the hon. member believes there is a shortage of food, she should take a further look at it.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like the minister to tell us what laws the journalists have broken.
Second, I would like the minister to tell us whether or not he believes that the public's right to know the real story at Oka, Kanesatake and the treatment centre is not a fundamental right.
Does the minister think that stopping access to films and tapes and the filing of stories is an absolute abridgement of fundamental rights in this democracy, that it is censorship?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should recognize that there are suspected law-breakers in the treatment centre.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: If that is recognized by the hon. member then she, I believe, will concur with the actions that have been taken by the Canadian forces to limit inflow. There has been no limit to reporters wanting to leave. If reporters wish to leave, the door is open. If anyone wishes to leave, the door is open.
I ask the hon. member to understand that this is not a public event. These are actions that have taken place by people suspected of breaking the law. The Canadian forces are acting as peace officers under the jurisdiction of Canada. Perhaps the member will understand that these are not equals: one is enforcing law and the other is attempt to break law. We are making every effort possible to make sure there is a peaceful resolution.


Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the Minister of Finance's statement that the economic slowdown in this country will be good for Canadians, could the Prime Minister tell us just how many bankruptcies and jobs lost the government and the Prime Minister will need before bringing in a revised budget which reflects the true economic reality of this country.


An hon. member:: Censorship.


Mr. Gauthier:: Journalists?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
HHnHHHHHnHHnffinnnHMHHn
September 25, 1990
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Acadie-Bathurst on his confirmation as his party's financial critic.
May I remind him that in our most recent budget, we had indicated that the economy was under pressure following seven years of record growth and that it would require some slowdown in order better to adjust. Of course, we are now in this transition period and we certainly are quite concerned about the many bankruptcies, but the hon. member should recognize that there is a reduction in the number of businesses compared with an unprecedented high in Canada.
A look at some figures will show that nearly 150,000 new jobs per year have been created over the past ten years. Compared with 1982 when we had a Liberal government-admittedly a veiy difficult period-there are fewer bankruptcies today; there were then nearly 800,000 businesses, while there are now 1,600,000 businesses with the same number of bankruptcies. It is therefore a difficult and necessary situation which we monitor very closely in our efforts to avert inflation.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, my point in asking the Prime Minister the question is that the high interest rates we are suffering were not foreseen by the Minister of Finance. The deficit which the finance minister predicted is not at all in line with what it is going to be. Inflation is going to be fuelled by the GST. That is being confirmed by, for example, the IMF. These are all prime indicators that would require any thinking person to recognize that we must have a revised budget in this country that reflects economic reality.
I ask the Prime Minister: Is it not time to recognize the kind of damage his government is doing to the economy and to ask his finance minister to bring in a budget that reflects economic realities in Canada?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that we are fully committed to deficit reduction. If we look at the situation last year when interest rates were high, we succeeded in coming in $1 billion below our projection.
Oral Questions
If I look at the Liberal performance in 1982-1983, a projected deficit of $10 billion; performance, $27.8 billion; a difference of practically $17 billion.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Canadian grain farmers are in a crisis position as far as cash flow is concerned. They have lots of grain but are unable to move it off the farm at any price. For a variety of reasons, among them the embargo against Iraq, prices have fallen and no grain is moving at all, which means the producers are virtually without any income.
Will the government now provide some immediate cash flow to grain farmers by providing them with an interest-free advance on this year's harvest?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and other members of the House that I am very much aware of the serious cash flow situation in which the farmers find themselves.
I should also tell the hon. member that deliveries, notwithstanding his suggestion, are somewhat higher this year over last year in the first six weeks of this particular crop year. Having said that, we all know that with the record crop, a serious slump in sales and the low prices that situation will deteriorate further still down the road.
We are looking at some options. As a matter of fact, the deputy ministers of agriculture are meeting in Toronto at this particular time. I think the hon. member would agree with me that what is in the best interest of agriculture is to provide some form of improved longterm safety net and stabilization program.
We are actively working on that, and I hope I can count on the hon. member's support in pursuing that objective.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister.

September 25, 1990
Oral Questions
The crisis in cash flow is right now. When can the fanners expect some payment, either by payment for cash in the bin or deficiency payment for crops that will be sold to the Wheat Board later on? When can they expect some cash in hand?
I know the Saskatchewan election is on hold. Does that-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has put his question. Does the minister wish to reply?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the federal government did provide some $500 million in the form of an emergency payment, which I understand is still in the process of being distributed, so there are funds that are being distributed right now.
I can only say to him as well that had the provinces matched that contribution on a dollar-for-dollar basis, it would have certainly covered a much broader range to meet the current situation in which we find ourselves in western Canada.
I can only assure the hon. member that I am very much aware of the current situation. We are working at it, and I will certainly keep him informed as to the success of the discussions that are taking place.


THE ECONOMY
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week, the Minister of Finance practically admitted Canada was again on the brink of a recession. I have the following question for the Prime Minister. Since according to the Economic Council of Canada, the GST will aggravate the so-called slowdown or recession we are seeing now in Canada, is the Prime Minister prepared to join the members of the Senate of this country who want to kill the GST?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member forgot to mention, and her party certainly has not mentioned it either, that the GST has some very definite advantages-I am thinking of the role it will play in enhancing our exports-and will help inject into the
Canadian economy $9 billion worth of additional activities in the course of one year. That is something we should not forget.
Meanwhile, I may add that our policies are working if we consider that during the last few weeks and months there has been a gradual drop in interest rates. We find this very reassuring.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister has not heard the predictions of the Economic Council of Canada, but the Economic Council of Canada is predicting that there will be a 2 per cent inflationary result caused by the GST. Eighty per cent of Canadians know that the Liberal senators are right when they say "kill the GST".
Will the Prime Minister either relieve the Minister of Finance of his obsession with the GST or will he admit that the Canadian people are right, that the respect of Parliament lies in making sure the wishes of the Canadian people are met, and will the Prime Minister show some leadership and kill the GST?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raises very important questions about the structural problems in the Canadian economy.
A statement was made, and I quote it to my hon. friend: "It worries me that serious structural problems have been identified in the manufacturers' sales tax. To name just a few, in some cases its burden falls less heavily upon imported goods than on domestic goods. It falls unevenly upon competing goods which are marketed at different trade levels. It does not currently permit a meaningful appeal system. These problem areas in the law cannot be tolerated indefinitely-Before long,
I will have to assess the merits of all opinions and make a decision on the best course for the government to follow."
That was a statement by the Minister of Finance, Jean Chretien, on November 22, 1977.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BILL C-21
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
September 25, 1990

Hundreds of people in my riding have rearranged then-lives and disrupted their families to upgrade themselves by taking advantage of the new training programs offered by Bill C-21, only to have their hopes and dreams dashed by the refusal to pass the bill in the other place. They have made their grandstand play but my people are suffering.
My question is: What can regular people do to get access to these programs that they need so much? When can we expect the other place to appreciate the real heartache and disappointment experienced by my constituents and pass Bill C-21?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear that someone is taking an interest in something that is of great concern not just to members of the hon. member's constituency but to Canadians across Canada.
There is considerable difficulty for people who do not meet the current entrance requirements, for young parents having new families without qualifying for the new parental benefits, and for unemployed workers who are seeking training.
The minister of social services in Newfoundland has said publicly that he would like to see Bill C-21 passed through the Senate, and in a recent letter the chairman of the Saskatchewan Indian Training Assessment Group calls for the Senate to pass Bill C-21 so that we can provide relief to the hon. member's constituents and to many other Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. One question, please.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and it concerns the agreement that was to be concluded by the Quebec government and the federal government in this area.
Press reports indicated this summer that we could very shortly expect an agreement to be concluded that would transfer most federal powers and responsibilities with respect to immigration to the Government of Quebec.
Oral Questions
However, in an article that appeared recently in Le Devoir, we read that the negotiations had fallen through. Now for my question.
What is the status of these negotiations now? Are they deadlocked? If so why?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, negotiations with the provinces on immigration were part of the Meech Lake Accord. Of course, we have had the Cullen-Couture Agreement since 1976, and there are also other agreements with the other provinces. If there is any change in this situation involving Canada and Quebec or the other provinces, I will inform the House immediately.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it relates to recent sharp increases in oil prices at the pumps in practically all Canadian cities.
The minister knows full well that there is no real market to regulate those prices. And he knows as well that the higher-priced oil resulting from the Gulf crisis has not yet arrived in Canada. Given those facts, does the minister feel that the increases are justified?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, concerning the prices at the pumps presently, I remind the hon. member that in the last quarter of 1988 and the first quarter of 1989, the price of oil per barrel western WTI was $15 on average.
If one takes a look at the price of oil before the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, the average price in Canada as well as worldwide for WTI was about $20. Prior to August 2 the benchmark was around $21 to $23.
The Government of Canada moved away from the National Energy Program which did not keep prices down and moved toward a market orientation. If the hon. member looks at the price at the pumps he will see the increased cost of energy from the first quarter of 1989 to prior to August 2.

Points of Order


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
[Stage Direction]
September 25, 1990
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Mykhailo Horyn, Deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian S.S.R.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINT OF ORDER
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, during Question Period I read extracts from a letter I had written on June 28, 1990 to the Grand Chief and Council of the Mohawks of Kanesatake and to the Mayor and Council of the village of Oka.
I would like to table the letter, if it be the House will, for the record.


REMARKS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I see the Minister of Justice in the House and I would ask her, if she has the chance, to pay attention to the point of order.
During the course of Question Period the Prime Minister, in answer to a question, talked about the murder of an officer of the Surete du Quebec. Later he clarified, after some heckling, that the officer was killed in the line of duty. He then went on to say that we must respect the rule of law. The greatest respect of the rule of law means getting a fair trial. In my view, there is the possibility of jeopardizing fair trials for people in the Oka situation.
I think it is very dangerous and out of order for the Prime Minister to use terms like this. He should have learned from the Douglas Small case. He is going to inflame the situation further in Oka and that is the last thing we need.
I ask the Speaker to rule on this matter and to warn the Prime Minister and other members in this House that we cannot use terms like this when there are probably going to be trials arising from this situation.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. During Question Period the Prime Minister referred to the
killing as a murder. In effect, he is pre-judging the death of that particular police officer was caused deliberately, and is a breach of the Criminal Code of Canada.
As the Prime Minister of Canada, it is inappropriate-


Sergio Marchi: Who are you, God?


John V. Nunziata: -and would be tantamount to an obstruction of justice to pre-judge an activity that has not been investigated yet.
I would ask, Madam Speaker, that you direct the Prime Minister of Canada to indicate to the House what evidence he has to suggest that a criminal act took place and, if he has no evidence that there was a breach of the-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think both hon. members are now getting into debate. At a later occasion they may want to ask questions of the Prime Minister. He is not here at the moment so I really cannot see that this would be a point of order even though the hon. member may have a very valid point.
It is not for me to judge but it is certainly not a point of order.
On a different point, the hon. member for York South-Weston.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice is in the House today and she is responsible for the administration of justice in this particular case.
I would like the minister to stand up and indicate to the Parliament of Canada what the status of-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is the same point of order really, just put in a different way. This is a question that certainly could be put to the Minister of Justice during the next Question Period.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not going to reiterate the argument, but I think we are entitled to a ruling. Either we have a point of order or we do not have a point of order. If the Deputy Speaker wishes to reserve on the point I have no objection to that but I would like to hear the Speaker of the House comment with respect-


Mr. Andre:: Order, order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Deputy Speaker does not wish to reserve on this. This is not a point of order. I do not see under what rule or regulation of the House
September 25, 1990

the hon. member would put his point of order now. This is not a point of order and I cannot accept it as such.
Point of privilege, the hon. member for York South- Weston.


John V. Nunziata: You have ruled and I accept your ruling that it is not a point of order. I would like to raise it as a point of privilege and if the Speaker is not in a position to rule today, to defer judgment. I am required-


An hon. member:: Get on with it.


John V. Nunziata: If you would keep your yap shut and listen a moment-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is impossible for the Speaker even to hear what a member is saying in the House and I would be very grateful if all members allowed me the possibility to hear. It would then be much easier to make a ruling of any kind. The hon. member.


John V. Nunziata: I am suggesting to you that my privileges and the privileges of each member in the House have been affected by the comments of the Prime Minister.
During Question Period, the Prime Minister referred to the death of a police officer earlier this summer as a murder-


Harvie Andre: Shut up, for crying out loud.


John V. Nunziata: Murder is clearly defined in the Criminal Code of Canada.


Harvie Andre: Finally, after five minutes.


An hon. member:: Zip it up, Harvie.


John V. Nunziata: The Prime Minister, by referring to the death as a murder, in effect has pre-judged the criminal investigation into this particular death. Charges might very well be laid in this particular incident.
Here we have the Prime Minister of Canada already concluding that in fact the Criminal Code of Canada has been breached, that a murder took place. The privilege is-would you like to listen?
Points of Order


An hon. member:: No.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, we are elected representatives in this House. It is essential as a very basic fundamental principle of our criminal justice system that individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.
It is also a fundamental principle of democracy in the administration of justice that politicians, and especially the Prime Minister of Canada, not in any way affect the fairness of the trial-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for York South-Weston has now changed what we thought earlier was a point of order into a question of privilege. Even though the hon. member may have a valid grievance, I cannot see how this does anything against his privileges as a member. This is not a question of privilege and I must rule it not receivable at this time.
A point of order, the hon. member.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I had wanted to make a submission on your ruling on the presumption of innocence affecting us here as a point of privilege, but you have made the ruling and I am therefore not entitled to do so.
However, on a point of order, I really do not like and I object strongly to watching the Government House Leader, who does not get up and speak but screams and appears to be directing the Chair. That is not the way the House of Commons should work and the Chair should not accept that. If he wants to get up and speak and make a point, he should get up and speak like we do.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member will realize that with the amount of noise there is in the House right now that the only person that the Speaker can hear through the earphone is the person in front of whom there is a microphone. All I hear, except for the person who really has the floor, is a lot of noise.
I have a point of order, the hon. parliamentary
secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I think it is very clear that a point of order or a point of privilege is not to be used as a vehicle for debate. We have now listened for

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
something like 12 minutes to various points of order, various points of privilege which are essentially nothing more than a thinly disguised debate.
The leader of the NDP finished her remarks at about one o'clock and there was to be a period of questions and comments. All of us are interested in that 10-minute time frame. Why do we not get on with it?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: A point of order, the hon. member.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I think I am entitled to reply to that point of order. The Prime Minister mentioned a murder of a police officer which is-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. member:: That is not a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has listened very attentively to the points made by the hon. member, by the hon. member for York South-Weston and by the parliamentary secretary as the Speaker should. I think it is now time that we returned to the business of the House.
A point of privilege, the hon. member for York South-Weston.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, with the greatest respect, you just indicated that I had had an opportunity to present my case, but it was the Government House Leader continuing to heckle which caused you to rise. I had not finished my submissions with respect to my point of privilege. You proceeded to rule on the point of privilege without me completing my submissions, without hearing from other hon. members that might want to make submissions on the same point.
It is an important point of privilege when the Prime Minister of Canada calls an action a criminal action. We would have thought that the Prime Minister would have learned when he called the Doug Small actions criminal. It is important to the administration of justice in this country that the Prime Minister withdraw his comments that a murder took place. It is up to a criminal court of law to determine and conclude that-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that the Government House Leader making any kind of remark would not cause me to rise or stop any member from expressing his or her views. The hon. member went from a point of order which was ruled not a point of order into the same point making it a point of
privilege and that is not acceptable either. This is the only I interrupted the hon. member.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of motion of Mr. Siddon (p. 13271).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the hon. member for Yukon had completed her speech. The question and comment period following the hon. member's speech is now available to members. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg South.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, we are back to the very important business of the day. Prior to the recess, we listened to the hon. Leader of the NDP make a very important intervention. I was very interested to hear what she had to say.
I know that the hon. member has a great concern for people of native extraction, Indians and Inuit, many of whom live in her riding, and I know she has a very deep and underlying concern about the condition of these people. She mentioned a lot in her talk about justice and fair play in Canada, and I heard that with a great deal of sympathy, as I am sure many other Canadians did as well.
The hon. member talked about how Canadians view themselves and this very special idea that we have about what we are like. We are tolerant, fine, fair-minded people who have a sense of social justice, who want to reach out to help their neighbours and each other. We certainly want to deal with the many injustices that we both feel Indian people have suffered over the centuries, certainly in the 120-odd years of Confederation.
The hon. member also pointed out that Canadians view themselves as a peace loving people. There was some dichotomy in what I heard because, if we are a peace loving society, how can we then assume that might is right and that he who carries a gun somehow has the moral authority to command special attention? Yet, the hon. member was espousing that very idea. If someone has a weapon combined with a just cause, that somehow gives him or her some special authority to get attention that we would normally not accord to anybody in our
September 25, 1990

society who took up arms against any other sector or segment of society.
Is the hon. member saying that when anybody wheels a gun, he or she deserves special consideration for his or her particular interest? Does this mean that anybody who feels he or she has a just cause can take up arms and then get some sort of special consideration? Should we sit down and negotiate the terms of the particular problem that that interest group might have at the point of a gun? If that is so, I find it difficult to put together in my mind with what the hon. member said about the just society, the way Canadians see themselves and how we deal with the perception, even internationally, that other people have of us.
It seems to me that there are many peace loving, law biding Mohawks and other Indians out there who do not condone the use of guns. In fact, Mohawk warriors are hiding behind the very legitimate concerns of the Indian people in the rest of Canada.
How does the hon. member condone the use of force and the use of guns? Does she believe that people who pick up arms should be given food because he or she points a gun in a certain direction? I wonder if the hon. member condones the use of guns.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, no, I have never condoned the use of guns. It is for that reason that I did not support the actions of the Surete du Quebec when it went in in a very violent way and, sadly, a young Canadian lost his life over this.
The hon. member across the way referred to these people, the aboriginal people. These people are Canadians and we cannot lose sight of this. Not only are they the people who the previous speaker refers to as "these people", but they are the first people of this country. There are many treaties that have not been honoured.
No, I do not condone the use of violence. I support Elijah Harper who has said that aboriginal people speak loudest when they speak with peace. No, I do not condone the actions of others who have also undertaken violent actions against aboriginal people, or indeed when
Government Orders
aboriginal people do the same thing. But we cannot avoid a discussion of the root causes of this issue simply by focusing on it and talking only about guns.
We are avoiding the issue of aboriginal rights and the acceptance of aboriginal rights in this country. By dealing only with the issue of guns and by pointing out that it is necessary to deal with the historical obligations of Canada and the historical and constitutional justice of aboriginal rights that are in our Constitution, and, indeed, rights to self-government that reports commissioned by the House have developed, we are simply avoiding the root issue.
No, I do not condone the use of violence. But I do not condone it by residents of Chateauguay, I do not condone it by the Mohawks, I do not condone it by the police, and I do not condone it by the army. The member across the way, of all people, should think that there is a different way to do things. Why do we always have to use the old way and, if I dare say, the macho way? Maybe it is time we started to sit down to negotiate and to deal with some of these issues properly.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question for the Leader of the New Democratic Party is one that concerns not only this issue, but a larger issue of which this is a microcosm, that is, the disrespect for the political process that we have seen this summer.
We have seen the abdication of political responsibility at both the federal and provincial level. As a leader of a major political party in Canada, how does she see this tragedy?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands raises a very good point. It really is not the time to point blame at one group or another, but to look at what we are going to do collectively using good common sense in the House so that we are never faced with this kind of debate again. Is this not what we should be doing?

Government Orders
If the government had had respect for all of the members of the House, they would have recalled the House this summer to discuss the situation. This is an extraordinary situation. None of the aspects of the situation are happy, not for Quebecers, not for Canadians, and not for aboriginal people. It is not a situation we all wanted, but surely it was a time for the government to show leadership and to recall Parliament so that everyone in the House could offer their solutions for this crisis.
The kind of leadership needed in the country is leadership that listens to all the solutions. We cannot afford any more to only look at things from one perspective. If we have learned anything this summer, surely we must have learned that it is necessary to listen to all the voices in Canada. There are very legitimate concerns in Quebec after the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. There are very legitimate concerns of aboriginal people. There are very legitimate concerns of the people who, as we did in the debate yesterday, raised questions about our role in the Middle East.
Surely, it is the time to show some real statesperson-ship, to have people together to debate and discuss these issues. It takes everyone. Real leadership and government that cares about Canadians to ensure that that takes place.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the citizens of a region of my riding, particularly the residents of Oka-Kanesatake, Saint-Placide and Saint-Benoit, have lived through a summer of fear and terror. The nightmarish nights of women and children who were ordered out of their houses at gun point by masked Warriors on July 11, 1990 is an image which these peaceful people will never forget.
This is why I thank the House for this opportunity to express what I have been living through since 1984, and to shed some light on incidents of which members and Canadians alike have a right to be aware.
I was told during the 1984 election campaign that native people did not vote. At the time the chiefs asked me to leave Kanesatake. I was surprised because I
believed that native people were Canadians like all others and that they ought to exercise their right to vote.
After the elections I had many meetings with the residents of this Mohawk community who did not agree with the system under which the chiefs and the grand chief are elected by the clan mothers. Next came the compilation of duly signed petitions from 85 per cent of the people of Kanesatake urging the government to intervene.
In 1987 we asked for a referendum and the case was referred to the courts by then chief Alex Montour. The case is still pending and should be heard in the near future.
Right now, Madam Speaker, however well-intentioned, nobody-Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat, it does not matter-can negotiate with the Kanesatake Mohawk community. I would suggest there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
Six chiefs have held power since 1984. Only the highly-paid lawyers are interested in maintaining the existing system. The Mohawks must change this practice, for their future in Oka depends on it. Moderate Mohawks want to elect their leaders-I am talking on behalf of 85 per cent of the people of Kanesatake-for a term of at least three years and achieve the kind of political stability which, we are sure, will lead to economic stability. I agree with them and I am behind them all the way.
The government will have to deal with me if it seeks to negotiate the after-crisis and the land claim settlement within the current system and with chief George Martin who left his people in the dark when he fled from the reserve during the hostilities. He no longer speaks for the majority of his people. Perhaps I will antagonize some, but I certainly urge him to resign.
I urge the clan mothers not to insult their people by appointing another chief; the next chief has to be elected by the band majority, for only then will they have a strong voice which will make it possible for the government to settle the issue and bring the prosperity which the people of Kanesatake deserve and to which they are entitled.
I think that the unbelievable crisis we are experiencing could have been avoided. Tensions have gone up a few notches since the incident at the treatment centre where the Warriors are holed up. I hope the centre will not be ransacked as were the homes of white people, I hope
September 25, 1990

they have enough honour left to restore the building to its original condition so that native people who suffer from alcoholism may be treated. The centre had been the subject of controversy and we had to resort to various measures to make sure it would be built.
Then Jean-Roch Simon, a Kanesatake Indian who lives in the village and who has no use for municipal by-laws, decided he would build an eight-unit apartment building on his federal land. That is one of the problems at Oka. It is like a checkerboard, Madam Speaker, white land next to native land, and that makes for shaky relations between the two communities. And now we have all heard about the famous golf course. Does that case give a handful of armed warriors the right to hold a whole population hostage?
In passing, I might say that women and children who are victims of violence would be quite justified to ask the armed dissidents to protect them against their violent mates who seek them out in shelter homes. We are the laughing stock and this charade has lasted long enough! We must take drastic measures if that is the only way to force the fifteen-odd Warriors out of the centre so they will face Canadian courts.
Madam Speaker, after the Akwesasne incidents of last May I personally told the authorities and my caucus that the ongoing crisis out there was nothing compared to what was brewing in Oka. Arms have been piling up in Oka since last April. A couple of Warriors used their guns to intimidate ordinary citizens. There have been many blunders. I will mention first of all the hasty statements which Mr. Caccia made at the very beginning and which were challenged by the municipal authorities. I am not here to say whether the municipality was right or wrong concerning the golf course affair. Mayor Jean Ouellet did not nothing but carry out an injunction from the Superior Court ordering these Warriors not to block a public road.
At the time, Sam Elkas, the Quebec Minister of Public Safety, stated that he would not send the Surete du Quebec to act as cowboys in Oka. Well, on July 11, 1990,
Government Orders
he sent the members of his Surete to behave like Rambos, with the tragic consequences we all know.
Yves Desilets, a Federal negotiator, was sent to convince the Warriors to lay down their arms. The negotiation process he used at the time was wrong. I can really say objectively that this man was both arrogant and incompetent. I can understand that he may have been tired, but that is no reason for being incompetent, and he should have resigned at the very beginning and asked the Department to appoint somebody else to replace him. An investigation will show clearly the decisive influence he had, because the citizens from Oka got together as a group to defend their rights. It should be said also that the Kanesatake Mohawk people did not find in Mr. Desilets a worthwhile negotiator.
The whole staff of the Quebec Department of Indian Affairs should be fired and replace with new blood to manage the after crisis. Madam Speaker, how could we compensate our fellow citizens whose houses were broken in, wrecked and spattered with human feces and especially the older people who suffered enormously? Moreover, in their statements, the leaders of human right associations never mentioned the hard times the white people and the moderate Mohawks lived through behind the barricades. For the media, only the Warriors existed! I denounce misinformation. Has this been said? People should know that during the crisis, some reporters went swimming in the swimming pool of one of the evacuated citizens. That is unacceptable, Madam Speaker! The right of property was seriously infringed upon. How do you think the people in my region feel towards these Warriors? They call them savages! These people who ruined the reputation of the Mohawk nation should be damned! Canada and the rest of the world were in a state of shock when they heard that a man with a single semi-automatic rifle had terrorized and killed a group of young women at the Montreal Polytechnical School. In contrast, these Warriors with an enormous quantity of scary weapons were allowed to roam as they pleased. Yes, the Army did a magnificent job. They should have been sent for at the very beginning. Such an action would have spared millions of dollars which could have been spent improving the quality of life for the Mohawks in Kanesatake and the white people in the area.

Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I must admit I was filled with shame when the Ministers signed an agreement in the presence of an armed Warrior. I was also humiliated when some white people stoned Mohawks who were leaving the Kanhawake reserve and when Mohawks stoned soldiers who had been ordered not to reply in kind. I am proud of our soldier's sense of duty, self-control and proper behaviour. This crisis has at least made it possible for us to know the Canadian Army better.
Madam Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party mentioned a while ago a seven year old Mohawk boy who, following the crisis, was looking at a white reporter with hatred in his eyes. I can tell her that I saw the same hatred in the eyes of white boys looking at Mohawks. How unfair this is!
I have no objection to the setting-up of a Parliamentary Commission which the two Opposition Parties are seeking to look into the Oka and Kanetasake events to make sure that they will never happen again and that the guilty people will pay. I want to remind the House that a Royal Commission would help shed light on all the claims made by Indians in Canada to see whether or not they are realistic and reasonable.
Finally, I want to give the people in my riding the assurance that we will do everything that is necessary to restore a climate of trust in Oka-Kahnesatake. To do this, everyone will have to give a little. I want to say to those fifty or so people who do not want to go back to their homes that they will get all the attention and compassion they deserve. There will be a special project for the entire region which has already been proposed by the Regional Municipality of Deux Montagnes and I am sure it will be endorsed by the new leaders in Kahnesa-take.
People who will not be eligible for unemployment insurance this winter because they simply were unable to work will receive special attention from the government.
The Mohawks must redefine their relationship to the Warrior society. The Mohawks must choose their leaders and put an end to fruitless discussion. The white community must negotiate with them to decide on the territory they are to have, so that peace and harmony will return to this area. Stop the scare tactics and decide once and for all: a reserve or no reserve! The talks should be public. White people and Mohawks should discuss their
future together and do so in public. In Oka-Kahnesatake the situation is different because it is not a reserve and because these two communities have been living together, are living together now and will have to live together in the future.
We will have to investigate the role played by reporters. I feel that instead of informing the public, they often helped to increase tension. There should be an inquiry into the proliferation of arms in reserves, and we must find out why the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was unable to inform the authorities in time of these stores of weapons in Akwesasne, Kahnawake and Kah-nesatake. The Quebec and Canadian departments must find a way to either act as one or at least agree on policy in order to avoid duplication and confusion in native affairs in Quebec.
Although he signed the document in Oka it was probably a trap, Madam Speaker-in the presence of armed warriors, I would like to congratulate Minister Tom Siddon who in spite of everything, and as Minister of Indian Affairs during a very difficult and unusual period, stood firm before the native leaders when he denounced violence and the use of weapons.
Madam Speaker, there will have to be a lot of love and friendship on both sides if we are to restore the trust and respect the two communities have always enjoyed in Oka-Kahnesatake. We must make sure that Canada will never again have another crisis like the one experienced by the moderate Mohawks, and this is very important, Madam Speaker, because in Kahnesatake there is a serious leadership problem. For six years we have been unable to negotiate what they were entitled to, which was a more uniform territory. Every time we were close to an agreement, they changed chiefs. Of course, the Mohawks could say that we on this side changed ministers of Indian Affairs, and they would be right.
The fact remains that it is a very difficult situation, because the Mohawk community in Kahnesatake no longer recognizes its present leaders, and the community insists there should be a referendum on the electoral process. Only after a referendum is held and proper elections have taken place-this is not what I want but what they are asking- I say we must ensure this request gets the attention it deserves because we will never be able to negotiate any kind of agreement or settlement that will restore peace to Oka-Kahnesatake
September 25, 1990

unless Mohawks and White people can talk to each other and sign lasting agreements, Madam Speaker.
On the weekend, Chief Martin who was outside- these are moderate Mohawks who signed an agreement with the Quebec Provincial Police to have native people act as security officers. The next day, the agreement was defeated by other Indians by a vote of 45 to 42.
So you see, Madam Speaker, this is a very divided community, and so it is very difficult, almost impossible to conclude agreements. That is why I want to say to our various governments, to my own Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and to the Premier of Quebec and Mr. Ciaccia, Minister of Native Affairs and to the Minister of Public Safety that as soon as there is a surrender in Oka, involving the Warriors, and as soon as peace is restored, a referendum must be held before we start negotiations that will ensure that, in the future, Mohawks and white people will continue to live together and that fairness and justice will prevail.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to thank all members for speaking to this very complicated and very sensitive issue.
I would like to ask the hon. member her view as to a body of opinion from Queen's University, a group of 20 scholars headed by Richard Spaulding and the Dean of Law, John Whyte, who indicate three points.
"(1) That there are legal arguments in favour of the Mohawk's assertion that their aboriginal and treaty rights entitle them to exclusive policing authority over Mohawk people.
The 1664 Treaty of Fort Albany under which the Mohawks first confirmed their relationship with the British Crown contains specific undertakings on this question.
(2) The actions of the federal and provincial governments and of the agents acting under their authority are unconstitutional if they interfere with aboriginal or treaty rights and cannot be justified on the basis of both
Government Orders
the purposes they serve and the methods they employ. (See the Crown v. Sparrow).
(3) Governments bear the burden of persuading the courts that actions which violate aboriginal or treaty rights are justified. Statements that the rule of law must be applied or that there is only one law for all "Canadians" will not suffice as legal justifications for actions which infringe on aboriginal or treaty rights".
These are comments that came from Queen's University. Since these people do not vote, how does the member feel about representing these people who believe they are sovereign and should be dealt with on a nation-to-nation basis?


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member's question would be best answered by a royal commission of inquiry that would establish once and for all how Canada's native community should live with a new situation that has developed as a result of land claims. I think 20 academics- she mentioned 20 scholars from Queen's. Perhaps 20 scholars from the University of Montreal would have a different opinion. That is the problem, and I am convinced that these matters should be dealt with by a royal commission of inquiry, and I am sure that is what the hon. member wants as well.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, I was listening to the comments made by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau who is also a Parliamentary Secretary, and I must say it is very disturbing for a member to hear an admission of defeat from a colleague who is sensitive to the needs of her riding.
During the past few weeks, I heard the hon. member being interviewed on the radio. In fact, she was trying to warn her government through the media, since the House was not sitting. Today, I find it very disturbing to hear a government member say the army should have been there from the very beginning, that she was ashamed of her ministers, that heads must roll and that people don't understand what happened, and especially when we realize that for quite some time the hon. member had been raising these concerns with her government. Today, the hon. member had to rise in the House and practically apologize for the fact that her government had ignored a situation she had most certainly brought to the attention of the Minister of Indian

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
Affairs and Northern Development-in an interview I heard her say she had been after the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, day after day to tell him that a crisis was brewing in this area. That is the very essence of Parliament. Today, we see a member who despite her convictions and arguments was unable to get the government to act, and who now has to admit defeat.
Madam Speaker, I think that today's debate has borne out the hon. member's concerns. I want to say to the hon. member that we heard her this summer, and that when she said it would take a lot of love and friendship, we knew she must have spent her entire vacation working on this problem. I want to say to the hon. member that if her government had shown the same sensitivity to these issues, there would have been no crisis.
While applauding the hon. member's efforts, I also want to tell this government it is a disgrace that the local member should have to come before the House today with this admission of defeat.
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare: Madam Speaker, of course everybody in my riding, like all Canadians, felt it was disgraceful for ministers and a Quebec Superior Court judge to sign an agreement with a masked and armed person. I am only echoing what I have been hearing all summer. That image is imprinted in the minds of my constituents and in that of all Canadians, I am sure.
Madam Speaker, I say this, but I believe I also mentioned having been fully consulted by the Minister of Indian Affairs through the course of the summer. I was in constant contact with him through the phone. He never expected, as no one would have, the day would come when fifteen or so people would make a whole nation shake at gunpoint and could hold out against the Quebec Police Force and even the Canadian Army.
What I have said is that the time to act was in early April, when there were only two or three armed Warriors. Then was the time to prevent the situation from deteriorating and turn into a national or international
conflict, as it turned out, over a golf course. That is absolutely incredible!
However, I want to assure the member that the government has always considered Indians to be peace-loving people and still does. But the government never expected that there would be such people among the Indians, and among the Canadian population for that matter-We have seen Hell's Angels with guns too. Let's face it, the White people are not faultless!


An hon. member:: But they were apprehended!


Lise Bourgault: That's right, they were apprehended. So, Madam Speaker, the minister never expected, and neither did the government, that the Warriors would pursue their action and that the native leaders would keep almost condoning there use of guns.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the government member.
I too am appalled at the use of arms to try to resolve situations, but what are native people to do when as young natives they are facing a 60 per cent to 70 per cent unemployment rate and they are not even acknowledged in the Constitution as being a founding people? It should come as no surprise that some native people have resorted to violence. The real surprise is that it has not happened sooner.
I would like to ask the member who represents this area what her thoughts were when the Prime Minister was selecting cabinet ministers. Four cabinet ministers have been replaced in the last six years in the Department of Indian Affairs which represents natives from all across Canada. To have a government majority of this size and to have to change ministers four times in five years shows the priorities of this government. Did the hon. member speak out against that and for a stronger selection of representation for the native people?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: A brief comment from the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau.


Lise Bourgault: At the outset, may I say it must feel quite safe, in circumstances as complex

and unbelievable as the ones we have lived through, to be sitting on the opposition benches.
Madam Speaker, Mohawks and other aboriginal people in Canada most certainly have other means of pressuring the government than calling upon the Warriors society. There are other peaceful means which would be quite as effective.
In that regard, I must congratulate the hon. member, although I disapprove of his action in killing the Meech Lake Accord which would have finally allowed the premiers to hold a constitutional conference on aboriginal rights. I will never forgive him for killing the Meech Lake Accord, but on the other hand, he was the first to declare that the use of violence by aboriginal people was wrong and should be condemned.
There are all kinds of pressure tactics other than arms.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time allocated for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I would just like to make a short comment. I believe I just heard the hon. member saying that she will never forgive-and I do not know who she meant-somebody for the failure of Meech Lake. Is it the aboriginal people?
However, I would now like to begin my speech. It is with great sadness and disappointment that I rise to speak on the motion of the government regarding the Oka crisis. How can the hon. minister move a motion commending the army when the standoff is still in progress, when Parliament does not yet have all the facts and when things still may happen? It is like jumping before looking.
I would also like to comment on some things that have been mentioned by hon. members across the way about how heavy the Mohawk artillery is. We have to make it quite clear that never have we said at any point that we condone violence. However, I would just like to point out that various members from the government side have referred to the arms, the arsenal, or the artillery in the Mohawk camp.
Government Orders
While this may be true, it does not excuse the fact that the army moved in with tanks, with machine guns, and with I do not know what else-with more arms-but it moved in with 3,000 to 4,000 army personnel against a group of something in the neighbourhood of 50 Mohawks, of which a number were warriors. I would say that is overkill. It is like sending the three frigates that we just sent over to the Persian Gulf against a canoe or a kayak.
It is important for everyone in this debate to rise above the actions of particular individuals and to focus on the broad issues which underlie this summer's tragedy. We risk missing the forest for the trees if we do not focus on principles.
Throughout this crisis Canadians have experienced a range of emotional highs and lows-shock, horror, disbelief, sympathy, compassion, anger, confusion, fear, sadness, frustration, helplessness, et cetera. I feel in particular for the children of this dispute, those who have been trapped in it from the beginning physically and emotionally, but also for all Canadian children who have seen or heard the events. What legacy is this crisis leaving them? What memories of fear, sorrow and horror have been inflicted upon them? What emotional scars will they carry with them for the rest of their lives? Surely it is obvious that once again history has repeated itself and the sins of the fathers are being visited upon the children. As the innocent world of these children has been shattered, so too has the Canadian innocence been lost. Canadians have witnessed ugly episodes of racism and hatred. We have seen a dark side of this country that we wish we had never seen and we will never be the same for it.
This is a complex situation. This is a unique situation. It cannot be seen in terms of black and white. There are many grey areas which I believe most Canadians sense intuitively. Certain means and methods may be condemned, but we cannot deny the justness of the cause.
That is why I have problems with this government's resolution. Canadians have experienced a summer of sorrow. Canadians have suffered throughout this ordeal. Canadians have been hurt. Canadians feel betrayed by their governments and they know they deserve better.
The government's motion, however, shows that it does not understand these emotions. The motion shows that the government does not understand the issues confronting it or the people it is dealing with. This government's approach is simplistic. It is one sided. It is

Government Orders
misleading. It is not conducive to a positive and just resolution of the issues involved.
We all want this crisis resolved peacefully and with good will. The Armed Forces at Kanesatake and Kahnawake should not be there. The families of these soldiers should not be in the positions they are in now of worrying about their husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers or sisters. The people in Kahnawake and Kanesatake and Oka should not be in the positions they are in now of worrying about their families. All Canadians should not be in the positions they have been put in of worrying about the safety of all involved and praying for no loss of life.
It has been said before, many times this summer, but it needs repeating: it should never have come to this. This crisis should not have occurred.
I want to express my deep regret and sorrow, as well as that of the rest of the members of the House of Commons, over the death of Corporal Lemay. All Canadians and all aboriginal people regret this unnecessary loss of life.
At times this crisis has seemed unreal: a nightmare. How many times did Canadians ask themselves: "Can this really be happening? Is this Canada? What has happened to us? What went wrong?"
These are questions we will be asking for a long time. The answers will not be easily arrived at. We will have to search within ourselves and not be afraid of what we may find in either our past or our present. This we must do if we want a future in which such a situation will never happen again.
Federal government ministers have made much in recent weeks of the necessity of having the rule of law apply and the government's resolution today says the laws of Canada must apply on all Canadian territory. While on the surface this is all very well and good, the government's definition and interpretation of the law is very selective.
Basic freedoms in this country-freedom of association, freedom of communication, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press-are being violated in Kanesatake as we speak, but the government does nothing about these violations. It is, therefore, truly hypocritical for politicians to accuse
aboriginal people of being selective about which laws apply to them. These politicians are truly speaking with forked tongues.
In addition to permitting violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the government does not tell the Canadian people about the obligations it has toward aboriginal people which it is ignoring. It does not tell the Canadian people that it is in violation of its own laws all across the country when it comes to aboriginal people. The government's motion does not tell the Canadian people that Indian lands already have a unique status in this country.
Provincial laws do not apply on Indian lands and there are existing arrangements within this country where some federal laws do not apply to some Indian land. In addition, recent court decisions have thrown into question the application of certain other federal laws such as federal fish and game laws to Indian people.
The Constitution of Canada, the highest law of this land, recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights. This is not an empty affirmation. The past week the weight of the the highest court of this land, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a recent case known as the Sparrow case, confirmed that aboriginal and treaty rights have significant and contemporary meaning.
The court also issued a set of guidelines to the government on how it should conduct itself in its relations with aboriginal people. The court confirmed that the relationship of the federal government to aboriginal people is fiduciary-it is a trust relationship. The federal government has a constitutional obligation to protect aboriginal rights and interests, it said, and furthermore the government is obliged to justify any regulation, law or action which infringes upon and denies aboriginal rights.
The court said that the honour of the Crown is at stake in all of its dealings with aboriginal people. The special trust relationship and the responsibility of the government to aboriginal people must be the first consideration in assessing federal actions.
The Supreme Court has served notice to the federal government. The federal government is in breach of trust if it does not protect aboriginal rights from unjustified interference and infringement.
September 25, 1990

I suggest that the government has breached that trust and has failed the Supreme Court's test on numerous occasions since it took office. The tragedy of Oka is simply the most recent and glaring example of government failure.
Throughout this country, aboriginal rights have been, and continue to be, ignored and trampled upon. Justice has been delayed and denied, over and over again. Lands claimed by aboriginal people continue to be alienated by the government even while negotiations are proceeding. Exploration and development rights have been issued by the government to private companies on the traditional lands of aboriginal people with whom settlements have never been reached. Logging, mining, and other forms of resource development are allowed to continue on lands which still belong to aboriginal people.
Towns and cities have been built upon lands which have never been given up by aboriginal people. On the prairies many Indian bands are still owed lands that were promised to them a hundred years ago in treaties they signed. For over a hundred years these people have waited for what is rightfully theirs and they still do not have what was promised to them and are legally entitled to.
Across Canada aboriginal people continue to be harassed in the exercise of their aboriginal hunting, fishing, and trapping rights, despite court decisions in their favour, and the recognition of those rights in the Constitution of Canada.
When the 1987 constitutional conference on aboriginal rights failed, this federal government refused to re-establish aboriginal constitutional negotiations. In fact the Prime Minister shut down the 1987 conference several hours before it was scheduled to end. He threw up his hands and walked away from the table and then his government cut off constitutional funding to the aboriginal organizations.
As well it is this government that cut back post-secondary education funding for aboriginal students and denied native students the opportunity to pursue a higher education because the budget was capped.
It is this government which terminated funding to aboriginal communications societies and political organizations. It is this government which decided to increase
Government Orders
the freight rates on food items shipped to northern and remote communities and now northern people are paying almost $6 for one litre of milk.
All this happened under the Prime Minister who, in a public statement in April 1985, said that the special relationship between Canada and the aboriginal peoples should be strengthened. Aboriginal rights, especially the right of self-government, he said, should have constitutional protections.
The same Prime Minister went on to say that the current funding levels of programs designed to correct the serious inequities which exist for native people and native communities will be maintained. He added that policies regarding aboriginal people will be made after open, public consultation, especially at the grassroots level.
Is it any wonder that aboriginal people are frustrated and angry? Aboriginal people have seen their traditional lands and resources alienated; given away and sold without their consent and without, for the most part, any benefit to them. When there are some benefits, they are minimal and given grudgingly and only because the aboriginal people fought hard for them.
The land claims process in this country is not working well. The current comprehensive claims policy requires aboriginal people to extinguish their rights. The current policy does not allow for constitutional protection of self-government. How can the government justify requiring aboriginal people to extinguish their rights which, since 1982, have been recognized and affirmed in the Canadian Constitution?
The government has not taken any action to reconcile its policy with what the Constitution says. It is not prepared to recognize that self-government is an inherent right; that this right of aboriginal self-government does not come from this federal government or any other non-aboriginal government. It is inherent in aboriginal people and needs only to be acknowledged and recognized by the federal government.
These are issues which are causing much concern to aboriginal people. The government knows that if these issues are not resolved to the satisfaction of the aboriginal people, final settlements in the north may not be achieved.

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
In addition to the limited number of claims the government is currently negotiating, there are hundreds of specific claims which remain unresolved and numerous comprehensive claims, most from British Columbia, which have never even made it to the negotiating table because the government refuses to deal with more than six claims at a time.
In many ways, I am bothered by the term "claims". I reject the implication or suggestion that aboriginal people are clamouring for something which the government may, in its generosity, give to us. We are not claiming anything from Canada. We are asserting what is rightfully ours; what belongs to us and what we are entitled to.
This government must understand that it is not doing us any favours when it enters into negotiations. It is we who are doing the government a favour by agreeing to sit down with them and determine how we will share with Canada, our land and our resources.
Most people in this country do not understand the land claims process. The government, in these negotiations, tries to keep the most it can. It gives up the least it has to. And it, for the most part, has held the big stick in these negotiations.
Many land claims negotiations have taken place under the threat of imminent resource development. Often settlements have been reached many years after developments have taken place and what the people have fought for has largely been turned over to someone else.
At times, the government has cut off negotiation funding or threatened to cut off funding when negotiations are not going its way. It has also threatened to stop negotiating altogether. In the negotiation of land claims, the aboriginal people have always been subjected to federal threats, intimidation and power plays.
Aboriginal people are saying "enough". We are standing on the power of our rights; rights which are affirmed in the Constitution of this country and which the Supreme Court has upheld. We have the power of the law on our side and the Government of Canada is subject to this law. Who determined that the Arctic was Canadian land? Were the Inuit ever asked? Where did the King of France get the right to give Mohawk land to Sulpician priests? These are the kinds of questions that Canadians must ask themselves. How would anyone feel, seeing the land you have lived and made your home on,
sold to others without your consent? How would you feel being squeezed onto smaller and smaller portions of land?
These kinds of expropriations without compensation have gone in this country since the arrival of the first Europeans. Last March, I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a question in the House of Commons about the reports of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
In 1988, the commission referred to the situation of the aboriginal people in this country as a national tragedy. In 1989, it said it had no reason to alter that judgment. I asked the minister at the time what immediate action the government was prepared to take to turn this tragedy around.
The minister gave the usual government response referring to how much money the government has spent, but at the same time agreeing with the human rights commissioner that the situation confronting the aboriginal people in this country needs to be vastly improved.
What has the government done to improve matters since I asked that question? Nothing, absolutely nothing. What the government has done is send in the army, between 3,000 and 4,000, to battle a group of 50 or less warriors.
From the beginning of the Oka crisis, the government tried to distance itself. It tried to absolve itself of any culpability and refused to accept any responsibility. An initial conflict over a golf course, a cemetery and sacred land escalated into a military confrontation the likes of which had never been seen in this country and which we hope will never be seen again.
The government's mismanagement of the Oka crisis has brought aboriginal people together in an unprecedented way.
In conclusion, we have all been shamed and diminished by the events in this summer of sorrow. But let us learn a lesson from this bitter experience. Force and violence solve nothing. They only breed more force and violence.
We need an independent commission of inquiry into the events at Oka, Kanesatake and Kahnawake estab-

lished immediately. Its structure and mandate should be determined in consultation with aboriginal people.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in his speech this morning made the most astonishing claim about the Canadian justice system. He said that our system of justice was the most fair and honourable system of justice known to mankind. I would like to ask the minister whether he asked Donald Marshall that question.
Has the minister not read the Marshall inquiry report which said that the legal system failed Donald Marshall at every turn? Does the minister not understand that the Canadian justice system of which he boasted this morning condemned a man to 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, because he was an Indian? If that is the rule of law the government wants aboriginal people to submit to, then we say: No thanks.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member from Nunatsiaq with a great deal of interest because we have many times stood in this House and had an opportunity to share some of our mutual concerns about native people across this vast land of ours.
I heard what he said about the Arctic and the land claims there. He asked the question: "Who gave permission for this land to be used?" But I wonder if he could tell us how he feels about the situation we are actually faced with today. In fact, in Canada we do have more than one peoples living in this land, and we do have treaties in many of the areas of the country.
I believe the member was talking about comprehensive claims rather than specific land claims having to do with certain treaties and certain parcels of land. How does he put that together in his own mind? How do we solve these issues that have to do with conflict of opinion over who owns what land when there are treaties involved and when there are people currently occupying these lands.
Perhaps the member could give us the benefit of his very valid advice on this matter.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: I am sorry I did not hear the entire question.
Government Orders
One point I would like to make which I mentioned earlier in this presentation, as I think the hon. member mentioned, is that there are no treaties in the eastern Arctic-absolutely none. No land has ever been given by the Inuit to any European or any other group of people other than the Inuit. As far as we are concerned, we live on that land, know the land, and own that land. If the government wants to negotiate with the people about who owns that land, then it should sit down on the basis that at this moment no other body owns that land, rather than saying: "We have one and a half million square miles of land and we would like to give you some."
All I am saying is that the attitude has been that somebody else owns the land and that we should claim back some of it.
In terms of treaty rights and treaties, we must remember that the Europeans came over, I think, starting in 1492.1 must also remind the hon. member that while she can record history in Canada by hundreds of years, we can record ours in thousands and tens of thousands of years.
When the Europeans came over they had in mind that this land was to be claimed for the Europeans. The people in North America, who had no concept of privately owning land and who shared the land at all times, were willing to share that land with the people who came over. There was a miscarriage of justice when the European people who were making those treaties were at an advantage. I have heard of treaties being signed with an x. Where is the justice if the treaties that were signed by people who did not understand what was in those treaties?
On the other hand, some of those treaties have not been honoured. I think the hon. member would be well advised to talk to the various aboriginal leaders and ask them what can we do to correct the situation? What can we do to correct the injustice that has been done to the aboriginal people?


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the member from Nunatsiaq. I think it does this place good to listen to somebody speak from a firsthand knowledge of the plight of native Canadians, the original Canadians, the first nations.

Government Orders
The member alluded in his comments to a statement made earlier today by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning the justice system in the country.
I am from Nova Scotia and anybody who has lived in Nova Scotia or can read newspapers has read with great horror the findings of the Marshall commission of inquiry about the administration of justice in Nova Scotia. Madam Speaker, I do not know if you or other members of the House have read that document, but if they have not, they should. It is a stinging indictment of the justice system in Nova Scotia and a stinging indictment against systemic racism in the justice system right across the country.
I know that the issue of Oka is sometimes hard to separate when dealing with native issues, fundamental rights, weapons, the army, and all the other things, but there is one thing that is clear. It is clear that successive governments have asked the native community to live by our laws and told them that our way is a better way than their way. In doing that we have destroyed their language, we have assisted in destroying their culture, and we have almost destroyed the entire first nations of the country.
There is a double standard when we talk about justice and why the natives have to put down their arms because the law of the country must be supreme. The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs is nodding. He knows that in Nova Scotia the Micmac community took the Government of Nova Scotia to court on the Treaty of 1752. The court affirmed the native rights when it went to the Supreme Court. Yet the Province of Nova Scotia, a province of the country and a sovereign government, has still denied the native community the rights the Supreme Court said they had subsequent to the Treaty of 1752. So, what we have is a double standard.
It is very, very easy to talk about upholding the law, but at the same time successive governments of Canada- Liberal and Conservative-and New Democratic governments in provincial jurisdictions have absolutely refused to honour the treaties they have with native peoples. The rights of everybody in this country-native and non-native-have been treated with a double standard.
I want to ask the member specifically about the UN Charter of the Rights of the Child. The Prime Minister is off this weekend to participate in the international conference and I hope he is listening. One of the articles deals with the right of children everywhere to be educated in their own language and their own culture. Yet, when the sub-committee travelled, it found that one of the number one concerns of the native community was that no resources were provided by the government to ensure the development of native curriculum and that languages of the native communities across the country were maintained.
I would like him to make a comment on that.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Speaker, it is very true that we are suffering from either a lack of funds or the way the funds are allocated within the education system in terms of our aboriginal languages curriculum.
Today in the Northwest Territories we have eight official languages, of which six are aboriginal languages. They also include French and English. I would hope that both the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories would recognize the need to implement programs instituting or introducing aboriginal languages as a full part of that curriculum as we have down here with French and English. I must admit that in certain parts of the territory it has to be that way. In the eastern Arctic they should implement a full Inuktitut program. In some parts of the western Arctic they should implement some other languages.
I would hope that the Government of Canada and, through them, the Government of the Northwest Territories will recognize the need to put as much money as possible into language programs or reallocate the funds to them.
Very briefly, I would also hope that the Government of Canada would reconsider the post-secondary funding to the aboriginal people.
[ Translation]


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time allocated for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, since July, television has been bringing into Canadian homes alien images of barricades and masks and assault rifles. A dispute that began in Oka over land was hijacked by a group of heavily armed people, motivated by ideology and seeking to protect illegal commerce. Their tactics have been the tactics of terrorists. High-powered weapons, threats against the autho-

rities, trade in contraband goods, intimidation of law-abiding Mohawks, interruption of transportation, and destruction of property disqualified any claim the Warriors had to represent the grievances of law-abiding Indians.
What is taking place at Oka is not civil disobedience; it is violent activity that no community should be expected to tolerate. The ostensible reason for the conflict at Oka- and I do not in any way wish to downgrade major historic land claims by Native people, and I will get back to this later-was long ago removed when in July, the federal government acquired the disputed land, before the incidents took place, for the Mohawks of Kanesa-take. This step, incidentally, is in keeping with the goals of the framework agreement concluded a year ago this month between the Mohawks of Kanesatake, the town of Oka and the federal and provincial governments, an agreement that unfortunately was repudiated in March by a number of Mohawk leaders.

What has been at issue these past weeks is not the land, rather the warriors acting against all of the peaceful and noble traditions of Canada's Mohawks. The warriors, advised by foreign legal counsel, have been seeking recognition that their communities are independent and that the laws of Canada do not apply to their lands and to their activities which in the past have included smuggling and gambling on a very large scale. They have sought by various means to circumvent the Canadian justice system.
The warriors' demands are not simply ideas on which reasonable people can agree or simply agree to disagree. They strike at the very heart of what Canada is all about.
The warriors have been acting as if the concept of native self-government means national independence. I want to be very clear on this point. Native self-government is something that can bring great honour, great accomplishment, and great justice to native peoples and, indeed, it shall. But it does not and cannot ever mean sovereign independence within Canadian territory. Mohawk lands are part of Canadian territory and Canadian law must and does apply to us all. Everyone in Canada- members of this House, members of every house, war-
Govemment Orders
riors included-is subject to the Criminal Code of Canada. If exceptions to the Criminal Code were made on the basis of colour, race, or creed, where could the line be drawn in a country as diverse and as complex as Canada? What could be more repugnant in a democracy than a legal system based on birth rather than equality?
There are many non-violent avenues, political and judicial, open to people in the country to promote change. In fact, the traditions of Canada's native peoples have been peaceful and noble down through the decades, often under great assault and under great personal challenge. Any student of history, I am sure, would have wondered at the forbearance and the generosity of native peoples given some of the matters to which I will come very shortly. But the warriors opted for firearms and violence, concepts that are fundamentally alien to Canada and to the interests of all native peoples.
T\vo Mohawks were killed in a dispute over gambling at the Akwesasne reserve last Spring. Corporal Marcel Lemay of the Surete du Quebec was killed in the police assault on the barricades last July. These are the consequences when people decide that the law does not apply to them.
Conferring on the claims of the Warriors the legitimacy of the grievances of Canada's aboriginal peoples does the later's cause an enormous disservice. And glorifying violence and romanticising those who have recourse to it does democracy, itself, a terrible wrong. Masks and guns make compelling pictures and raise ratings and circulation. But they don't equate to noble purpose.
The armed forces have brought the barricades down and are gradually turning their responsibilities over to the Surete du Quebec. As this phase-out begins, I think all members would agree that perhaps the most edifying aspect of this whole tragic episode has been the professionalism of the Canadian Armed Forces.
The Canadian Forces, from General de Chastelain to Lieutenant-General Foster to Brigadier-General Roy are to be commended for the level of professionalism that has been evident throughout.

September 25, 1990
Government Orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: It isn't over yet!


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, it isn't over yet. The hon. member is right. However, they still deserve the respect and gratitude of Canadians for the truly outstanding way in which they carried out this difficult mission.
Lieutenant Colonel Robin Gagnon, Major Alain Tremblay, Private Patrick Cloutier-the young soldier who stood his ground coolly in a face to face challenge- and all the other personnel of 5 Brigade showed great courage and almost superhuman self-control in the face of extraordinary provocation.
There are no plans to attack the centre. No one is being interned there-least of all the innocent children who should be in school. They are welcome to leave at any time.

The armed people, behind the razor wire, can lay down their weapons and accept the offer of the Canadian forces to be placed in custody, and they should, they must. If they persist in staying there and they want to stay there themselves, let the children go. The children should be released; they should be in school.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Otherwise they can confine themselves to the detoxification centre indefinitely. Either way, the ultimate result is going to be the same. They will have to submit themselves, as all Canadians must, to the Canadian criminal justice system. Members of this House have an opportunity today to speak with one voice in calling upon the warriors to lay down their arms and submit themselves now to one of the finest justice systems in the world, the justice system of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Once the guns are down-


Mr. Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Aboriginal exceptions.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is quite right. There are veiy tragic exceptions to this and I will be happy not only to-


An hon. member:: Aboriginal exceptions.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, indeed, and I will be very happy to deal with it because the fact that we have an excellent
justice system which stands up admirably in comparison to any other in the world does not mean that there have not been serious errors and serious abuses. As long as those errors and injustices arise, and they have in recent times affected particularly native peoples, that is a special tragedy and that is one that all members of the House want to correct.
Once the guns are down, we will be in a position to hand over the disputed land to the people of Kanesa-take. There will also be freedom to explore new ways to resolve their historical land claims. In the meantime, there is much to do and many legitimate grievances to address there and elsewhere in Canada.
Over the past year, we have quietly discussed an agenda with native leaders to address issues of concern to all of Canada's native peoples. It is time to begin to put this agenda into operation. Canada's original peoples deserve a special place in this country as our first citizens based on the aboriginal and treaty rights recognized in the Constitution. Those realities have often been denied over decades and centuries in Canada and it is time that we began the process of making up this injustice.
Our agenda will be anchored in reality. It is no myth that native leaders have too often been treated insensitively, unfairly and often times illegally since the days that the first Europeans set foot on this continent. Canadian history records that Indian decency was too often met with cynicism and that Indian generosity was too often repaid with exploitation.
The cultures of Canada's native peoples have been poorly understood and little valued. Many people still remember Indian children being punished at school for speaking their own languages.
The first Canadians, our first Canadians, were denied freedom of speech in their own land.
Thanks to the Indian Act of 1876, people who had never known national boundaries found that they could not even leave reserves-pitiful, mediocre reserves- without a pass. In fact, only in 1960-to show the dimensions of both the tardiness and the enormity of the tragedy-were Canadian Indians fully enfranchised. And I may say, because I will be unveiling a statue of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson tomorrow, that this particular act was done while he was in the House and when the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker was the Prime
September 25, 1990

Minister of Canada, and it was roundly supported by all political parties.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The ultimate irony is that the first Canadians were the last to get the vote, and it is a further reality that contemporary Canadians do not have to scour their history books for examples of the racism, paternalism and dependency that have been so destructive of native peoples' welfare and self-respect.
There is ample evidence that things remain seriously wrong to this very day, for example and most recently, the injustice done to Donald Marshall Jr., the Micmac Indian from Nova Scotia. I suppose that of all the tragedies of recent times that this one stands out for its poignancy. It is a tribute to Mr. Marshall and, indirectly I suppose, to all Canadians that even though it took that time, it was eventually corrected. My hope, as Prime Minister of Canada, is that that evil will never again be repeated against Indian people.
These failings sully our reputation and stain our history. If progress requires that we acknowledge historical realities, it also demands that we acknowledge contemporary realities as well. One of these realities is that Canada's aboriginal peoples benefit, as all Canadians benefit, from being part of a socially progressive and economically prosperous country.
Canada's native people enjoy the same rights as all Canadians under the Constitution even though you would sometimes have serious questions about understanding the application of those rights, and they are supposed to enjoy special rights available only to them, although those too are sometimes placed in jeopardy. In recent years Canada's aboriginal peoples have made progress. Consider the following excerpts from a statement by George Erasmus, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, in his annual report to his fellow chiefs meetings in Whitehorse this past May. I quote:
In the past twenty years, the landscape has changed a lot for us-
I can sum it up by saying that we have taken a good deal of control over our lives and affairs as First Nations persons.
Just look at where we were in 1970: all funding in 1970 was controlled by the federal government through the Department of Indian Affairs (DIAND); now, twenty years later, we're managing the bulk of our finances.
Government Orders
In Education, there's a tremendous number of schools now under
our control; twenty years ago, either Ottawa, the bureaucracy,
DIAND or the churches were in total charge.
In 1970, we didn't have as many as 1,000 post-secondary students;
today, there are nearly 17,000!
In fact, our figures show 18,500.
On-reserve housing continues to be a major concern but even here
there has also been improvement in the past couple of decades.
Chief Erasmus is right that despite the poverty that is too prevalent on too many reserves, progress is being made. More than 30 per cent of the current Indian housing stock has been built since 1984 and a further 35 per cent has been extensively renovated since then.
There has been progress in other spheres as well. For example, in 1960 the life expectancy of status Indians was 60; by this year it reached 70.
In 1960, the infant mortality rate was 82 per thousand live births; this year it has reached 13. These figures are either encouraging or depressing, depending on how one wants to look at them. But, I believe that if you place them in the context of what George Erasmus was saying, progress is often incremental, progress is often difficult to achieve. I agree with Chief Erasmus that when Canadians of good will combine and harness their activities with those of aboriginal peoples, solid and tangible progress can and has been made in Canada. I view the future for native peoples with optimism, provided we can maintain that degree of co-operation. I know that all members of all parties in this House of Commons are pledged to achieving precisely that.
It is also encouraging to note that while there were very few Indian-owned business on reserves in 1960, there are over 5,000 today.
Progress by Canada's native peoples in persuading the courts to endorse their aboriginal rights to the land has been substantial. In 1973, following the rejection by the natives people of the then government's white paper, the Supreme Court's Calder decision led to a re-evaluation of policy with respect to land claims. Substantial progress has been made since then in resolving comprehensive land claims.
I am referring to a series of agreements reached on claims with the Conseil Attikamek-Montagnais in June 1988, with the Nisga Tribal Council in July 1989, with the Council of Yukon Indians in March 1990, with the Dene-Metis in April 1990, although some Dene have

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
subsequently sought some changes, and with the Inuit of the Eastern Arctic in April 1990.
The Arctic claims, by way of illustration, just the Arctic claims, if ratified by all concerned, will put 575,000 square kilometres of land firmly and irrevocably under Indian and Inuit ownership and transfer more than $1.3 billion to them. Together, the land area passing into Indian and Inuit ownership is more than the combined area of the four Atlantic provinces and will make the northern natives the largest land-owners in North America. This I believe is not a miracle, but it is solid progress and it is an indication of what Canada can accomplish when all parties and all of us work together.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: So, progress is being made working within the law. On the constitutional agenda, progress on aboriginal issues, as on other issues, has proved more difficult. Neither proposals the federal government made on aboriginal self-government nor others made by provincial governments and aboriginal groups have been able to attract sufficient support to result in a constitutional amendment. And this summer, the planned series of First Ministers Conferences dedicated to matters of interest to aboriginal peoples died with the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. These setbacks aside, the Constitution, and the growing body of case law based on it, have strengthened the right of aboriginal Canadians.
Nevertheless, no one doubts that we still have a veiy long way to go.

I would like to outline very briefly, perhaps in a summary manner, the course of some of our government's plans to preserve the special place of our first citizens in this country based on their aboriginal and treaty rights recognized in the Constitution.
The agenda I believe we ought to be addressing will have four main pillars: land claims, the economic and social conditions on reserves, the relationship between aboriginal peoples and governments, and concerns of
Canada's aboriginal peoples in contemporary Canadian life.
Consultation with aboriginal peoples respecting the fiduciary responsibilities of the Crown toward them will be built into the process from the very start, but we intend to go far beyond the status quo. On no issue is action more urgent than on land claims.
We intend to take three parallel initiatives. The first will be to accelerate the settlement of specific claims, that is those claims that result from past government non-performance or malfeasance with respect to existing treaties and to the Indian Act. We recognize that increased resources will be essential to make good on this undertaking, and they will be provided.
The second initiative that we propose to take is to ensure that the legal undertakings regarding land transfers to treaty Indians, given in some cases as much as a century ago, will finally be honoured. We have already reached agreement with the Government of Saskatchewan and with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations to begin negotiations. We are eager to initiate the same process in Alberta and Manitoba. I believe that once undertaken and once pursued with vigour by the federal government and encouraged by all parties in the federal Parliament, this will bring about major and historic beneficial results for Canada's aboriginal people.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Third, we will accelerate negotiations on modem treaties, the comprehensive claims which until now have had to be limited to six at any one time.
Comprehensive claims are negotiated where aboriginal title has never been legally ceded to the Crown, thus clouding land title for natives and non-natives alike.
Most of the outstanding claims, certainly thus far, are in British Columbia. In July Premier Vander Zalm reversed a decades-old British Columbia policy pursued by both NDP and Social Credit governments opposing provincial participation in such claims negotiations. That policy was wrong, and I want to salute Premier Vander Zalm for reversing a policy that should have been reversed a long time ago.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: To accelerate claims settlements the federal government will no longer limit itself to handling

September 25, 1990

six claims at any one time. We will consider other innovations such as regional or province-wide negotiations.
The second dimension of the government's agenda will be addressed to improving living conditions on Indian reserves. We are prepared to work jointly with Indian leadership and with provincial governments on a range of improvements in basic community programs and services such as water and sewage facilities so urgently required in so many areas across Canada.
We will expect those native communities with the resources to take on increasing responsibility for financing enhanced services and economic development.
Ensuring that all native Canadians have opportunities comparable to those of other Canadians to participate in the growth and prosperity of a country of this size is not an easy task.
I know there has been a contest in some quarters about the numbers, but it is a fact of life that federal and provincial governments already spend far more money on native programs than any other country in the world. The federal budget alone contains over $4 billion a year and still, in spite of these enormous expenditures, terrible problems persist.
The money has been spent. God knows we have the bureaucrats to prove it. Some of them are excellent and have done tremendous jobs, but the fact of the matter is that the problems are terrible. Unacceptable social problems persist from unemployment to problems with drugs, alcoholism, and abuse. All of these issues cannot be solved overnight.


An hon. member:: What about education?


Martin Brian Mulroney: And education. I know that throwing money at it is not alone the solution, but certainly all Canadians recognize that we can do a lot better in Canada than we have done in the past.

Progress requires more than money. Progress will only be made if the degrading, antiquated and wasteful statutory relationship between Indian peoples and the government is changed.
Government Orders
The Indian Act is largely unchanged since the Victorian age. It fosters Indian dependency on the state, frustrates Indian self-sufficiency and undermines Indian self-respect. It deminishes Indians and non-Indians alike.
In the new year, building on work that is going on now with Indian leadership, we will bring in the first of many changes to the Indian Act. Consultation, and respect for the fiduciary responsibilities of the Crown toward aboriginal peoples, will be built into the process from the start.
But we intend to go far beyond the status quo. The objective will be the enlargment of aboriginal capacity for self-government, within the framework of the Canadian Constitution. While it is not perfect, the Constitution is sufficiently flexible to afford aboriginal people ample opportunity to develop their communities, en-hence their social and education systems and build their economies-in short, to live their lives according to their own cultures. For example, this government will find practical ways to ensure that aboriginal communities can exercise greater control over the administration of justice.
Self-government can mean a new relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians based on human dignity, trust and respect, all within Canada's Constitution and protected by Canada's laws.

Building such a relationship requires the understanding and the support of all Canadians. That is why later this autumn we intend as part of a broader initiative on Canadian unity to seek a thorough review of the fundamental place and the role of aboriginal peoples in contemporary Canada.
The agenda I have outlined is, I believe, very far-reaching. Its goal is to create a new relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. There is no guarantee of success. There is ample precedent of failure over decades to indicate to all of us how difficult and how challenging it will be and, once we embark upon it, how important the responsibility that we all accept. It will take creativity and perseverance.
I believe that it will take the courage to see things as they are, the honesty to acknowledge them for what they have become, and the common resolve to correct them for future generations. Most of all, it will take sustained and firm leadership on the part both of governments and of aboriginal peoples, but with native and non-native

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
Canadians working together and with all members of the House of Commons co-operating on this vital dimension of our national life it can be done. I give Canadians the assurance of the Government of Canada that every effort will be deployed to ensure that it will be done.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would it be possible to ask a few questions of the Prime Minister? He is the main spokesman for the government and the main guardian of aboriginal peoples. I hope I can demonstrate that it can be done in a very co-operative and non-confrontational manner, which I am sure he will not deny.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Our rules do not provide for a period of question and comments when the orator has had unlimited time. Of course I am a servant of the House and I would need unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister for taking the opportunity to address this veiy important question.
It has been a very difficult summer for all of us and things have become rather heated at times. I understand the onerous burden it is to deal with the specific problems facing the aboriginal people and the government at this point in time.
I appeal to the Prime Minister through a question. Why is it that through a series of moves over the last six months, Bill C-269, an act to establish an aboriginal language foundation, was denied? It would have helped to guarantee the linguistic and cultural rights, to some extent, of aboriginal peoples. I needed unanimous consent and the NDP agreed, but the government did not.
Why could we not have the suggestions of the Charest committee considered in our constitutional debate over the last six months? Why could we not get two sentences in the Constitution to recognize the specific wording the aboriginal people wanted to recognize them as a fundamental characteristic? Why is it that we have undergone
some severe cutbacks in native programming like native communications?
I say this to the Prime Minister because there is a real element of mistrust. I say to the Prime Minister in all sincerity that trust seems to be the problem here. The aboriginal community does not feel the element of trust is there. It does not feel that the efforts to negotiate a peaceful and honourable disengagement honestly, sincerely and genuinely have been exhausted, that all possibilities have been exhausted.
Can the Prime Minister assure the aboriginal people of Canada, including all Mohawks, that in fact what has happened is not an attempt to humiliate the aboriginal community because of Meech Lake and for other reasons?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Normally, I would not dignify that last part with a comment because I think my hon. friend knows full well that we undertook the Meech Lake Accord with a view to seeking a specific agenda. It failed, notwithstanding the very strong support it received from the Liberal Party in the House, the NDP and the Conservatives. At an appropriate time history alone will judge whether it was a beneficial attempt to bring about a degree of harmony and unity in Canada.
I would like to give the member an illustration of why I thought it was important. One of the duties that I inherited when I became Prime Minister was the responsibility of chairing meetings under the 1982 Constitutional Accord, seeking to bring about a constitutional amendment for aboriginal self-government. I believe I chaired two of those first ministers' meetings.
We came within a hair of securing an historic constitutional amendment that would have provided fundamental justice and a very beneficial change for the aboriginal communities across Canada. I do not know where it would have led but I had this strong view-and it was the view of the aboriginal leadership-that it had all of the earmarks of making a fundamental difference in the lives, eventually, of aboriginal peoples.
That constitutional amendment failed in 1985 and in 1986, because when it came time to go around the table to count heads, we were short one, and that was Quebec. Quebec was not participating at that time because in 1982 it felt that its own concerns, for reasons we will not go into here today, were not met. Therefore, to achieve
September 25, 1990

greater justice for aboriginal peoples it was necessary, in my view, to bring Quebec back, willingly, into the constitutional fold so that they could be there to vote in favour of aboriginal self justice.
Among my many regrets about Meech Lake-and as I say, we will let history look at it for all of us-is that I firmly believed the bringing back of Quebec to the constitutional table would bring about an affirmative position by the Government of Quebec and provide justice for the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
In response to the comment, I would like to tell my hon. friend that while no one gets everything he or she wants entirely, what I would want most of all in Canada, would be equality, fairness and justice for the native peoples of this country. Their denial and the denial of these fundamentals are something that one sees on a daily basis.
This is one of the problems that often occurs, for example, in an adversarial system in this House of Commons. Mention was made of the fact that there were cutbacks. That is true. What is not mentioned is that in the same time frame, there was an increase of $200 million to the aboriginal peoples of Canada in areas such as education and health and welfare. We decided in co-operation with others that it was better to take $20 million out of a given area and put $200 million into another.


An hon. member:: It was a mistake.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says it was a mistake.


Sheila Finestone: I said it was from communications.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend from Mount Royal reminds me, and she is right. We took it out of communications and we put it into health and welfare and we increased it tenfold and I think that was a good decision for native people.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
May I just conclude with an observation in regard to how I, as Prime Minister of Canada, view our fundamental obligations. We were able to conclude-I was there in the Northwest Territories and the then minister was
Government Orders
there-a large number of new treaties on comprehensive land claims. I am not suggesting that they are perfect.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: The people are divided.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I realized that. I realize that ex post facto there is a difference of opinion as to whether this particular treaty is good. That happens not infrequently. However, we were able to conclude an extraordinary land claim arrangement with the native peoples in the territories. Such a huge tract of land, such a huge amount of money that was invested, that is there. I think this has the elements of bringing together and providing the native peoples with what I believe they always wanted; land, a degree of control and the money to ensure that they become self-sufficient, because selfsufficiency for the native peoples means dignity.
What the native peoples want most of all and what I am committed to working towards is dignity for the native peoples of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think we have gone through a ten minute period of questions and answers.
A point of order, the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would agree that in fairness that he also have a question from this side of the House. I think it is important that we be fair about this.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is after five o'clock and we should be going to Private Members' Business. But if there is unanimous consent to take one more question from the other party, I am the servant of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not have unanimous consent.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

September 25, 1990
Private Members' Business


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   COMPETITION ACT CONCENTRATION OF CORPORATE OWNERSHIP
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House the government should amend the Competition Act so that the Director of Investigations and Research shall consider, when reviewing a proposed merger, the extent to which concentration of corporate ownership is in the public interest, avoids conflict of interest between merged financial and non-financial commercial operations and promises lower prices, innovation, employment and other public benefits.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure that hon. members could continue their conversations in the appropriate lobbies so that the Chair can hear the hon. member at the end of the House.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, the House will be aware of the ruling in April of this year by the Quebec Superior Court that the Competition Act is unconstitutional. It seems to me that that was a clear signal to review the Competition Act and M-58 aims to do exactly that. M-58 proposes to look at the Competition Act, which has been in place since 1986, and with which we have had three year's experience. I think the time has come to look at our experience with the new Competition Act of 1986.
Much has happened in the last four years. We have had three record breaking years in terms of mergers and acquisitions with takeovers worth close to $30 billion in each year from 1987 to 1989.
This is a major restructuring of ownership in this country. It seems to me it is on a scale rarely seen in Canadian economic history. Many of us are very familiar with some of these major changes; Molson's acquisition of O'Keefe, PWA buying Wardair, the Amaco-Dome deal, Imperial Oil's takeover of Texaco Canada to name just a few.
M-58 aims to deal with one aspect of the Competition Act that is a source of concern. The fact is that mergers may be approved if "efficiency gains" can be seen as
emerging from a proposed merger. I believe that this criterion is too vague when assessing the major restructuring that we are now witnessing in the Canadian economy. It seems to me it gives too much discretionary power to the director of investigations and research at the competition bureau.
My motion's aim is to give greater guidance and direction to the director when assessing whether a proposed merger should or should not be approved. M-58 would ask the Competition Act to consider whether a proposed merger would lead to higher levels of corporate concentration and whether these higher levels would impact negatively on the Canadian economy.
Canada is one of the few countries where competition legislation does not take into consideration levels of market share in assessing mergers, for example, in comparable industrial economies in the industrialized world. German legislation limits markets shared to 40 per cent for a single firm for a particular industry. The limit is only 25 per cent if a conglomerate is involved.
Britain and the United States also have size criteria aimed at limiting corporate concentration. In any case, it is highly unlikely that these countries would allow a situation where two companies would control over 90 per cent of the beer market.
In Great Britain, for example, Elders who owned O'Keefe, were prevented three times from taking over another brewery because it would lessen competition. Our competition legislation makes no specific provision to ensure that a proposed merger will guarantee employment levels, or indeed, lead to increases in jobs. Surely, achieving higher levels of employment can be considered as "efficiency gains". It should be specified as such.
Another consideration is that of innovation. Our competition legislation should guarantee that innovative and dynamic firms are not stifled by larger firms more concerned about shutting out competition than with developing new products and new technologies. M-58 aims simply to make the Competition Act more specific in describing efficiency gains.
It seems to me quite a paradox that in a society where the corporate world stresses the marketplace and competition that we have even to consider legislation that forces them to compete.

The key principle of this Motion M-58 is that smarter, not bigger is better. It is an important principle if we are to develop a dynamic, competitive economy.


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nickel Belt has asked the House to consider legislative amendment to the Competition Act to allow the Director of Investigations and Research to consider the extent to which concentration of corporate ownership is in the public interest when reviewing a proposed merger and whether the proposed transaction promises lower prices, innovation, employment, and other public benefits. However, the act already requires consideration of a number of these issues. Hence, there is no need for the House to consider further legislative reform.
Around the world, there has been an increased recognition of the desirability of market-driven approaches to foster economic growth and structural change. This is evidenced by the greater reliance on market mechanisms in a wide range of countries, both developed and developing. This trend reflects the numerous benefits of competitive markets.
From the perspective of consumers, including those who are less affluent, competition is a force that generates considerable savings and increased disposable income. It keeps industries sharp and efficient, characteristics which are of increasing importance in the more global trading environment.
Competition constrains the unilateral or collusive exercise of market power. It preserves a place for small businesses, providing opportunities for new enterprises and rewarding innovation. Moreover, freely competitive forces simultaneously preserve the democratic nature of Canada's political and social institutions. Thus, it is clear that competition is not promoted as an end in itself but, rather, as a means of enhancing society's welfare.
In Canada, the Competition Act is the principal piece of framework legislation which exists to protect and promote fair competition. The act is a general law of general application. To the extent the competition policy protects the forces of competition, it results in the movement of prices to levels which more accurately reflect demand and cost conditions, facilitating the flow of resources toward their most productive use. By promoting the efficient use of resources, competition
Private Members' Business
policy lessens the need for alternative, more interventionist forms of control such as regulations and public ownership.
In principle, it should only be necessary to ensure that market structure and conduct are such as to provide an acceptable degree of competition. The attainment of efficient industry performance can then be left to market forces without the need for detailed government intervention. To this end, Canadian competition legislation has consistently sought to prohibit certain practices in restraint of trade which serve to prevent the nation's scarce resources from being most effectively utilized.
The objectives of today's competition policy, as embodied in the purpose clause of the Competition Act, reflect these concerns and I quote:
The purpose of this Act is to maintain and encourage competition in Canada in order to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy, in order to expand opportunities for Canadian participation in world markets while at the same time recognizing the role of foreign competition in Canada, in order to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have an equitable opportunity to participate in the Canadian economy, and in order to provide consumers with competitive prices and product choices.
Merger review under the Competition Act is governed by this statement. Furthermore, the question of providing consumers with competitive prices and product choices is central to the notion of merger review. Mergers which are likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in Canada, that is those which are likely to result in an increase in prices or decreased quality, et cetera, may be subject to an order of the tribunal except where there are offsetting efficiency gains. Clearly, consumers' interest in lower prices is protected by the existing legislation.
By forcing the movement of prices to levels which more accurately reflect demand and cost conditions, competition policy facilitates the flow of resources toward their most productive use. This in turn allows the Canadian economy to employ fully its labour force in those industries where we have a comparative advantage from a trading perspective and so the issue of employment is implicitly addressed.
The extent to which a proposed merger will affect research and development and innovative activity is specifically outlined by the act for consideration in merger review. Subsection 93(g) instructs the

September 25, 1990
Private Members' Business
competition tribunal and the director of investigation and research to consider the nature and extent of change and innovation in a relevant market when determining whether or not a proposed merger is likely to prevent or lessen competition substantially. The amendment which the hon. member seeks relating to innovation is a factor already explicitly contemplated by the existing legislation.
Finally, the act instructs consideration of "any other factor that is relevant to competition in a market that is or would be affected by the merger or proposed merger" when making the substantial prevention or lessening of competition assessment. I have complete confidence that the director of investigation and research is competently addressing the issues of lower prices, innovation and others when making merger assessments as the legislation instructs. Consequently, there is no need to legislatively amend the Competition Act as suggested by the hon. member.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from Sudbury on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It is certainly apropos, as will be seen in a few moments when I try to outline the effects of the Competition Act, how it affects Canadians and how it affects workers, contrary to what we have just heard from a member on the government side of the House.
I also want to compliment my colleague from Sudbury for being so perceptive in 1989 and bringing this matter to the House today. As I progress in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, you will see why it is apropos of the situation that we have before us.
We are talking today about the Competition Act. It is interesting because the Competition Act has to do with the economy of the country. Although we are all interested in other matters of great importance before the House, such as what is happening in Oka and the Middle East, we must always remember that there are other Canadians who are concerned about the economic conditions as they affect rural and small-town Canada: their livelihood, what is happening in the workplace, lay-offs and terminations. I am so pleased today to be able to speak on behalf of those people and how this Competition Act is affecting those people in rural and small-town Canada.
Perhaps I should talk about the failure of the Competition Act, the failure of its terms but perhaps more so the failure of the way the director of the Bureau of Competition Policy and the bureau itself to interpret properly the terms and the statutory obligations outlined within this act. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, as I carry on with this prime example of what this act is all about, that the interpretation of this act will be challenged in a tribunal other than this. It will certainly be up to the deputy directors who are entrusted with the administration of the act, the Bureau of Competition Policy itself, and even the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs, who have to start applying this act, and the terms of this act, in the best interest of the Canadian citizen and the Canadian worker in the market-place.
The facts that I am going to relate are fairly simple and have to do with this act. There are two companies, two mega-giants in the food industry, Beatrice Foods and Palm Dairies. Beatrice Foods is a food producer across the country and Palm Dairies is a milk producer in western Canada.
Beatrice made an application to buy out Palm. It came to the Bureau of Competition Policy and it was approved. When Beatrice bought out Palm it was approved across all the centres in western Canada, including Thunder Bay. What happened in Thunder Bay? At that time there were only two milk producers in the city of Thunder Bay, Beatrice Foods and Palm Dairies. There are no other milk producers in the whole district.
Now that went to the Bureau of Competition Policy and the director of the bureau act to conduct an in-depth investigation into the affairs of how the elimination of competition in that market-place would affect the consumer. It was my understanding-and I am sure the understanding of all Canadians, particularly the people in Thunder Bay, the area I represent-that we would be protected by this act and the people who are charged with the responsibility of dealing with this act.
On August 28 there was no longer any competition in the milk industry in Thunder Bay. The director who was entrusted with completing an in-depth investigation into the affairs of the Beatrice-Palm sale issued a proclamation that after having reviewed the substance of this transaction he would not stop the sale of Palm Dairies to Beatrice Foods.

He stated in his reasons for making that decision that we were afforded the protection of the Competition Act. In that decision he stated that he would not stop the sale and that, even though there was a substantial lessening of competition, he would monitor the effects of the sale for the next three years to ensure that the consumer in the market-place was protected.
Now we all know that you cannot monitor situations on an ongoing basis in competitive industry. You either have competition or you do not have competition.
When the director chose to ignore that there would be a substantial lessening of competition in the most basic of industries, the milk industry-a basic food industry in the country-he chose to ignore the wishes of the people of that area and said that he would allow the sale of Palm Dairies to the Beatrice interests to go forward. There was no substantial lessening of competition. There was no threat of a lessening of competition.
In allowing that transaction to go through he completely eliminated any competition in that most basic of industries, the milk industry, thereby affecting almost every citizen in that community, especially young families.
He conducted what he said was an investigation as to how it would affect the market-place but in our conversations he said that we were conducting our own investigation.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you just what we did so that the director could make an informed decision, we thought, with proper information.
When we found out that Beatrice and Palm were going to amalgamate, when Palm was going to be eliminated from the market-place, we went out into the marketplace to the independent grocery stores and independent merchants. People signed petitions and in a period of two days we got the signatures of over 2,000 people on a petition which stated that the people of Thunder Bay did not want Palm Dairies to be consolidated with Beatrice Foods because it would be a substantial lessening of competition. There are over 200 independent merchants in that particular area. We have over 200 petitions from those independent merchants exclusively which state
Private Members' Business
that they do not want the elimination of competition by Palm Dairies selling out to Beatrice Foods.
The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay, the city council of Thunder Bay, realizing the import of this decision on the citizens of Thunder Bay, passed a resolution imploring the Board of Competition Policy not to proceed with allowing the sale of Palm Dairies to Beatrice Foods. That was followed by many of the other small communities: Nipigon, Red Rock, Hurkett, Do-rion, Murillo, and other small centres that said they would be affected, and implored the director of the bureau to stop the sale of Palm to Beatrice.
Given all of that information, they still made the decision to allow Palm to be sold to Beatrice in the community, which eliminated all competition. Just to bring it into focus, because I know my time is short, let me just read a press release on the results of that sale and let me put it down in perspective as to what this Competition Act truly means to the Canadian consumer when the terms of that act are not used in the best interest to protect the citizens of this country. This is dated today: "Beatrice Foods announced today that it plans to consolidate its Thunder Bay operations. This facility will undergo a major expansion of $1 million over the next 18 months to provide Thunder Bay with a modem processing plant."
Part of the consolidation plan-and their consolidation plan means closing the Palm Dairies plant, which is the newest and the most modem in the area and using the older one-is closing the Balmoral station, closing of the current Palm Dairies plant on Balmoral Street. With the move, approximately 20 people will be offered employment at the Beatrice plant and 35 people will be laid off effective tomorrow.
What this means, and this is an actual fact of what we are talking about here today, is that the Competition Act in this country is not being applied for the best use and the best interest of the average Canadian citizen. That is the result of what we are doing. We have got to stop it. We should not allow it.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nickel Belt has suggested that the government should amend the Competition Act so that the Director of Investigations and Research shall consider, when reviewing a proposed merger, the extent to
September 25, 1990

Private Members' Business
which concentration of corporate ownership is in the public interest, avoids conflict of interest between merged financial and non-financial commercial operations and promises lower prices, innovation, employment and other public benefits.
Mr. Speaker, the concentration of corporate ownership is a complex phenomenon which cannot be attributed to a single factor. It is the result of various corporate decisions, dealing for instance with expansion projects aimed at greater efficiency and diversification.
The hon. member's suggestion seems to be based on the notion that concentration of corporate ownership is on the rise. As a matter of fact, since 1984, there has been a slight reduction in the number of concentrations generally and in the total assets, sales and benefits recorded by the top 25 companies in the economy. The level of global concentration among the top 1,000 corporations has remained the same since 1976. Therefore, I urge all hon. members to be careful when they interprete statistical data.
These matters are not so important as the impact of corporate concentration on the Canadian economy. It may have a positive impact such as the growth of Canadian corporations and the improvement of their position with respect to exports and world competition.
Just the same, Mr. Speaker, concentration of corporate ownership can give rise to a number of problems. The tools already exist to remedy them and we have shown that we are prepared to use them.
We showed we were ready to use them.
The government adopted a Competition Act whose deterrent effect on anti-competitive mergers have been proven. The Act enables the Director of Investigations and Research to prohibit mergers which prevent or substantially impede competition or will probably have that effect. Since the Act was passed in 1986, over 600 mergers and takeovers have been subjected to scrutiny. In more than 20 cases, changes were made or the case was simply dropped.
The federal government is presently reviewing the Canada Business Corporations Act to make sure that it protects efficiently the minority shareholders' rights in
the context of increasingly important and complex public offers.
Investment Canada reviews takeovers by foreign interests and approves only those that directly benefit Canadians.
There are also governmental programs to help workers who lose their job for some reason, such as retraining programs and mobility incentive programs.
Mr. Speaker, business concentration also causes concerns because of the concentration of wealth in Canada. I believe that the question is not so much to know who owns what, but to determine if the Canadian economy is growing and prospering. In fact, Mr. Speaker, our economy has grown by 16 percent since 1984. Between 1984 and 1987, the growth rate of the economy was higher in Canada than in any other OECD country.
Mr. Speaker, let us not be blind to the fact that concentration of corporate ownership also raises issues concerning the profitability and growth potential of smaller businesses in Canada's modem economy.
Canadian small business is indeed responsible for creating most new jobs and for an important part of the commercial growth, innovation and trade leadership. This sector has been very prosperous in the past five years, Mr. Speaker, and small businesses have held their own against larger companies over the last ten years.
Our government has launched a number of familiarization programs designed to promote the growth of small business. They include new tax incentives to encourage the management of retirement funds to invest in eligible small- and medium-sized businesses, not to mention other incentives like access to small business which makes it easier for them to land government contracts. Madam Speaker, these programs enable small businesses to take every advantage of opportunities flowing from freer trade and world-wide market expansion.
Madam Speaker, the increase in the number of takeovers and mergers in most countries-this is not restricted to Canada-points clearly to the need for a greater number of multinationals to be more competitive on world markets. This situation can easily prove to be a boon for small businesses that act as suppliers, which is a good thing, and in many cases the partners of the larger concerns they supply, for they gain better access to world

September 25, 1990

markets and new research and development opportunities.
Given the complexity of problems created by the concentration of businesses and its links with other fields of economic policy, the government has chosen a many-faceted approach instead of relying on only one legislative lever as advocated in the motion introduced by the member for Nickel Belt.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Madam Speaker, thank you for the privilege of saying a few words on this private members' motion of the hon. member for Nickel Belt.
I congratulate him for throwing into the public mill a private members' motion that draws attention of members of the House, and more particularly Canadians, to problems as different people perceive them. We might have a little different perspective as to whether it is a serious problem at this moment, but nonetheless the extent to which governments permit the concentration of power in any one industry has always been a problem in every nation.
Of course, people are notorious for abusing their monopoly positions. It does not matter whether it is private business or people with too much power in public or private life. It tends to be abused, so the secret and magic of our society is to try to keep power dissipated so no one gets too much over anyone else.
For example, in the hon. member's home town of Nickel Belt, I suppose Inco is a very powerful player. I do not know even under the existing law whether Inco would have been permitted to become so big and powerful in Canada because, as he knows, for I guess 70 years the Competition Act was never changed. The merger test required the proof of criminal intent.
I think over the whole 70 years there was something like one conviction, many years ago. Successive governments had a chance to change that, including 1972 to 1974 when the NDP were really directing the Liberal Party and could have got it. None of us took time to do it when we had power, except 1984.
There are a host of other major problems that this country should have faced and solved 10, 15 or 20 years ago, whether it was the growth of government per se
Private Members' Business
becoming a monopoly, whether it was the lack of intellectual property protection, whether it was drugs or private breeders' rights or the Integrated Circuits Topography Act. There were all sorts of things that this country should have faced in the last 15 years but did not. The Prime Minister did take them on.
Free trade was done. The privatization of some Crown corporations was done, although there are still many Crown corporations. As a policy, the Conservative government agrees that there is a role for Crown corporations in this mixed economy of Canada. We have set some up. We will set more up.
One was the Competition Act. We came out with a whole new statute that took this criminal test on mergers, under which you could never get a conviction, and changed it to a civil test; the balance of probabilities. Under that, if my recollection is correct, there are at least four-I think there might even be up to six-mergers that have been absolutely prohibited. That is just one part of it, but it is significant in itself when there had not been any for 50 years.
The real point is that a host of proposed mergers were refused by the director, unless they made certain changes. For example, in western Canada, Safeway bought out a competitor and the director demanded that they sell certain stores in certain towns and cities. That has worked very well.
I think that is the type of power you need to have because each merger in each industry has to be assessed from a different perspective.
Every merger creates an opportunity. These firms have to compete not only in Canada, but on a global scale. I wonder if Inco would have amounted to the company it is and I wonder if Inco would be able to pay the tremendous salaries it pays now to my hon. friend and his constituents, because if it could not have operated around the world, it might have just gone right out of business.
What I am pointing out is that this thing is not just simple, but that does not take away from the spirit of the motion that my hon. friend from Nickel Belt has put in the House.
I can assure the member that this motion has been looked at very carefully by officials in the policy part of the department and in the directorate to see whether some ideas could be added to the statute. I want to tell

Private Members' Business
him not to write this off if it does not get through today. He might take it back and refine it a bit after talking with people and hearing members in the House give examples. He might well be able to come up with a motion for the next session that is much more appropriate and indeed will be accepted.
Another thing has happened, for those of us who have been around for a while. Private members' motions were never accepted in this House, but since we have become the government the Prime Minister and our government have accepted more private members' motions than ever before in the entire history of Parliament from 1867. There is a host of private members' bills. It has made life much more satisfying for us as individuals, because of course we come here thinking we have some ideas that are important for the private and public spheres.
I wanted to say in a more specific way what these merger tests involve. The issue of corporate concentration is best dealt with once one distinguishes three distinct areas of concern. There is concentration of markets, there is concentration of power, and there is concentration of ownership. We need to note that while any one of these three forms of concentration may coexist with another, the presence of one form does not necessarily imply the presence of another. Concentration of markets refers to the share of an industry's total output that is accounted for by a small number of firms. Typically this form of concentration is accentuated by horizontal mergers. Market concentration necessarily affects competition and thus possibly prices, but concentration of power and ownership in and of themselves do not do that.
This government has responded, as I have said, to concerns about the impact of market concentration on the Canadian economy by passing the Competition Act. Merger review in Canada has always considered the existing and prospective levels of market concentration when assessing the likelihood that a proposed merger will result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition.
The legislation stipulates that this assessment is not make solely on the basis of market share or concentration figures. Other characteristics of market structure,
such as levels of foreign competition, product substitutability, barriers to entry, and whether effective and vigorous competition remains post-merger must also be addressed. The law also provides for consideration of efficiency gains or cost savings arising from the transaction. The Competition Act, by being designed to maintain and encourage competition while promoting efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy, has addressed market concentration concerns. There is no need for further legislative review.
That is the official position at the moment, but again I encourage my friend not to forget about his motion. If he feels that strongly about it, he should change some of the words and he will very likely have a successful motion when he brings it back the next time.
Concentration of power refers to the ability of a firm or a group of firms to influence regulators, legislators or other institutions. The government has taken action to ensure that large corporations do not have undue political influence. To ensure that the government's dealings with the private sector are open we passed the Lobbyist Registration Act, a statute that we should have had for years and years but just did not get done because of other priorities of other governments.
This legislation is intended to foster greater openness in the process of policy formation by allowing all Canadians to see who is lobbying and for what purpose. Canadians are then able to judge for themselves whether any particular group has undue influence.
The Competition Act also provides another example of open and arm's length dealings with business. The Director of Investigation and Research is statutorily independent of government policy makers and hence is free from government interference in matters subject to the Competition Act, including merger review. Moreover, the courts and competition tribunal, an independent, quasi-judicial body, perform all adjudicatory functions related to the legislation. In establishing the competition tribunal Parliament sought to combine the important element of judicial process with expertise in the fields of business and economics. I think it was a wise decision to go that way even though there have been some problems in the courts.

I appreciate that my time has expired. I know there are other members who wish to speak to this motion, so I will sit down now.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of my colleague's motion before this House, the member for Nickel Belt. The matter which he raises is an extremely important one and an extremely timely one.
As I know the House has already been informed, a company that now is the sole operator of a dairy concern in TTunder Bay and northwestern Ontario advised the media this morning that it was closing a plant it had just purchased, putting out of work 35 employees and affecting their families. This is all a direct result of the lack of a federal Competition Act which takes into consideration the needs of the smaller as well as the larger communities, the small as well as the large companies.
Let me elaborate, Madam Speaker. Earlier this year Palm Dairies, a company based in western Canada, owned by Peter Pocklington, decided that it wanted to find a buyer. What happened is very interesting because the initial purchaser-to-be was a western based co-op which the federal authorities deemed to be an inappropriate purchaser, because in their words the acquisition of Palm Dairies by this western based co-op would lessen competition so they ordered Palm Dairies to find someone else to purchase them.
They went to Beatrice Foods, a very large company which had already acquired one family owned and operated dairy in Thunder Bay a number of years ago. They agreed to purchase the assets of Palm Dairies in order to prevent a lessening of competition as decreed by the federal bureaucracy.
That was all well and good. I do not want to pass judgment on the impact on competition in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, but one thing that became eminently clear to us in Thunder Bay and in the Thunder Bay milk market was that the acquisition of Palm Dairies by Beatrice Foods would lessen competition in terms of fluid milk and, some of us believed, would eliminate competition in terms of fluid milk or what we call milk at the corner store.
We had already seen indications of that lessening of competition as store operators were advised that under
Private Members' Business
the new hierarchy the dairy would no longer come in and stock the shelves or rotate the stock. Over time it was suggested that the free freezers and the free refrigerators that were provided as part of a marketing plan by both Beatrice and Palm would no longer be provided. In fact the retailer would have to purchase those or find his or her own. Then we knew, based on what happened elsewhere in the country when an unregulated monopoly situation occurred, that prices would go up.
I take us back to Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario a number of years ago when it found itself in a monopoly situation for fluid milk. In a very short period of time that city by itself became the highest priced city in Ontario for the purchase of milk at the retail level. There was no competition. In the outlying communities such as Wawa and other areas around Sault Ste. Marie the price was even higher.
The only reason today that milk prices are lower in Sault Ste. Marie is the reality of American competition with a very high Canadian dollar that attracts Canadians across the border to pick up groceries like milk. That is the only reason that prices are depressed in Sault Ste. Marie. Because of this merger and because of the permission of the competition bureau, Thunder Bay and the area from White River to Upsala will now be in a virtual monopoly situation.
What did the competition bureau decide after literally hundreds of people from Thunder Bay, from Atikokan, and from along the north shore sent in comments and evidence indicating that they were concerned about the impact on them as retailers, as consumers, and as producers of milk? The bureau ruled that it could go ahead and they would monitor it over three years, as required under the Competition Act.
There is no longer going to be three years, because the moment that Beatrice closes Palm Dairies there is nothing to restart. The assets will be sold. The people will be moved out of town and will find other employment.
It just shows what kind of a farce is the existing act, the prime component in terms of which there is no appeal process. A bureaucrat in this national capital region makes an arbitrary decision based on confidential information provided to that person by the companies involved, and not to be released to any of us who have raised concerns about this matter. He and he alone has the decision-making authority. We cannot even appeal

Private Members' Business
to the minister because under the act he does not have the ability to overrule that decision.
This means that for the 35 employees who were told sometime today, I am told-or perhaps they are not even going to be told until tomorrow that they are out of a job-the company will try to find them employment elsewhere in their system, perhaps in Sault Ste. Marie or in western Canada. However, that is 35 less jobs in the community of Thunder Bay and on the routes that they service. It may in the long term lead to a reduction in the production of milk because, as we know, when the price of a commodity goes up the volume goes down, so there may be a direct impact on the milk producers in the Thunder Bay area.
We need motions like that of my colleague. We need a change in the act to change both the amendments made by the current Conservative government and the original bases for the act which are part of the appeal mechanism I was talking about that was put in by the former government, because it is unfair to see men and women put out of work just for the sake of corporate concentration.
We need a different way in this country. We need a better way. We need legislation, policies, and a government that cares about people first, not about the corporations.


Mr. Charles DeBlois (Beauport-Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for Nickel Belt who, eloquent and knowledgeable as he is, can get his parliamentary colleagues interested in various kinds of measures designed to make life easier for Canadians.
Unfortunately I believe that in fact the member for Nickel Belt is suggesting that the Competition Act, now enforced by the Bureau of Competition Policy, should be expanded into a domestic investment review legislation closely patterned-in spirit and scope-after the Foreign Investment Review Act of the previous administration in office before 1984.
The way I see it, widening the scope of the Competition Act to make it into a Domestic Investment Review Act would be a useless and unwise move.
Useless because the necessary mecanisms required to deal with the potential negative impact of a merger are already available to the Canadian government.
Some mergers may give rise to questions concerning the competition policy and have a negative impact on consumer prices and consumer options. The Competition Act which was amended by this government in 1986 has proved to be a very effective legislative tool to deal with all major mergers in all sectors of the economy.
Since the legislation was passed in 1986 more than 600 mergers and take-overs have been reviewed and in more than 20 cases they did not go through or they had to be changed because according to the Director of Investigation and Research they might have an impact on competition and consumption. If we compare the impact of this legislation with that of the former Combines Investigation Act, our conclusion must be that the latter failed to deliver a single conviction with respect to a merger. Other sections of the Competition Act, such as those dealing with abuse of dominant position and the refusal to sell, provide ways to deal with anti-competitive behaviour by larger corporations after a merger has taken place.
The merger provisions of the Competition Act apply both to foreign mergers involving Canadian assets and to purely Canadian mergers. Furthermore, Investment Canada is responsible for examining foreign investments to ensure that they contribute to economic growth and enhance employment opportunities in this country.
Some people are concerned that certain mergers may cause a loss of jobs. The enhanced competitive position of Canadian companies has increased employment opportunities. Since 1984, there has been a large number of mergers and takeovers in Canada. During this time, Canada has ranked first among OECD countries on number of jobs created. If they need assistance, workers who lose their jobs for whatever reason have access to a wide range of manpower adjustment programs that provide financial support while they look for another job, and also offer training and assistance in moving to another location.
As pointed out by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, mergers also raise concerns about conflict of interest, links between financial and non-financial corporations and corporate power. I repeat, the instruments we need to deal with these matters are already in place. The
September 25, 1990

Canada Business Corporations Act has been effective in providing shareholders with a mechanism to protect their right to fair treatment and adequate disclosure of financial information. Furthermore, the government recently passed the Lobbyists Registration Act to promote openness of relations between lobbyists and the public sector. The government's policy on business ownership is incorporated in new regulations for the financial sector in the form of legislation that will soon be tabled in Parliament.
Clearly the government already has a number of instruments to deal with any situation in which a given transaction raises or appears to raise concerns, and with any matter related to mergers in general. That is why I feel that the wide reaching legislation proposed by the hon. member for Nickel Belt to examine domestic investment is unnecessary.
If I may draw a parallel with the Foreign Investment Review Agency, abolished by the present government and replaced by Investment Canada, it is my firm belief that turning the director's office into a domestic investment review agency, to be established by amending the Competition Act in order to create business and employment opportunities for Canada, would in fact discourage Canadians from investing in their own country and thus lead to a substantial loss of investment.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to rise on this side of the House. In spite of the fact that I am still with the same government, it is a geographical change.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Shame! Come on over.


Larry Schneider: I crossed the floor and no one made an issue of it. I cannot understand that. The trouble with being a mere five foot eight is that when you undertake something like this it is hardly noticeable. So to my taller friends across the way, my sympathies to you because you cannot do anything without being recognized, whereas those of us who go about busily enduring the work of the day, we get little credit for it, but at the end of the day,
Private Members' Business
when we put our heads on the pillow, we know that, indeed, the job has in fact been well done.
With that preamble to the matter before us, Madam Speaker, I would like to tell you and the hon. member that presented the motion before us this evening that I, too, desire competition. I desire competition for it has very many beneficial effects on the entire consumer economy. There were several examples this evening that I would like to offer some comment on that are particularly related to the experience at Thunder Bay as it relates to Beatrice Foods and Palm Dairies.
The city of Regina, where I come from, had a similar situation that happened in reverse. Dairy producers made a bid to purchase Palm Dairies but they were unable to do that because of the competition laws or the manner in which the competitive laws in this country were applied. As a result of that we do not have this monopoly that was anticipated but instead, Regina will see competition provided by Beatrice Foods.
I would suspect too that the same situation could prevail in the operation of the diary in Thunder Bay. There would be room for some competition. We need no government regulations and in fact, we could see that void would be filled very rapidly. I say that from experience because in the city of Regina a similar situation happened. As was mentioned, in Alberta Safe-ways had purchased several other grocery stores and were ordered to sell some of these grocery stores. What happened in Regina is that this provided an opportunity for the smaller business sector to become involved through the private ownership of IGA grocery stores. They have picked up some of the slack that was left when Safeways was forced to sell some of these stores.
One might say that big Safeways operating alone with just the smaller independents really would not experience the presence of competition. That, in fact, may have been so, except for the fact that that void was filled very ably by Westfair Foods Superstore, which in turn has provided the greatest spirit of competition that our city has ever seen.
Madam Speaker, these matters seemingly serve as problems on the surface but in the end, if the market is such, these voids will be filled by those seeking the bottom line, the profit picture, or that which provides wages for employment.
Another example that I have had in our community is that in the restaurant business.

September 25, 1990
Private Members' Business


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, I will have to interrupt the hon. member.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the item is dropped from the Order Paper.
Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the House now returns to Government's Orders.
Resuming debate. The hon. Member for LaSalle- Emard.
[Editor's Note: For continuation of proceedings see Volume B.]

Tuesday, September 25, 1990
[Editor's Note: Continuation of proceedings from Volume
A]




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Siddon:
That this House commends the exemplary conduct of the men and women of the Canadian Forces at Oka and Chateauguay;
That, in the opinion of this House, the laws of Canada must apply on all Canadian territory, including Kahnawake, and that all persons currently at the Kanesatake Treatment Centre should lay down their arms and submit to the processes of Canada's judicial system, thereby encouraging the creation of a constructive climate for discussions between governments and the Mohawk people on land claims and other issues; and
That, upon adoption of this motion, the said motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, today, we are confronted with a so-called Indian crisis, but strictly speaking, it is a crisis concerning relations between different groups of Canadians. The basis of that crisis can undoubtedly be traced back over 400 years of Canadian history. That crisis was aggravated by the government's inaction in the last six years, it has become an inextricable mess because in mid-july that government chose to let things degenerate.

Madam Speaker, Oka was no accident. This House needs no reminder of the tragedy that lies before us. Infant mortality rates simply stagger the mind. These people have a reduced life expectancy by 10 years of the average Canadian citizen. Those of you, and I, who have visited and spent much time on reserves, know that we are looking at a people uprooted, a people decimated. We are looking at each individual aspect of their lives. Whether it be housing or their traditional economic way
of life, we as a society have left a blight upon this nation's landscape. The government must now move to demonstrate that it understands the historical injustices that have been perpetrated on the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
This afternoon the Prime Minister indicated that finally he understands that a different approach is required. I would say that far more than that, the government must now be prepared to endorse fundamental and deep-rooted change. The government must stop the pablum. The government must now get specific. The time for pious wishes and promises without followup is over.
What must we do? Certainly, the first thing is we must recognize the absolute necessity of entrenching in the charter aboriginal self-government. Self-government is not something that you give to a people who have governed themselves for 15,000 years before the first white man or women arrived on these shores. Self-government is not something that needs detailed definition any more than freedom of association did. It is part of our system to establish concepts and let them evolve. Self-government is the culmination, the aspirations and the hope of a people who want to build and make for themselves a life comparable to those who live around them, and indeed in the terms of the exploitation and development of their own culture want to demonstrate that they can stand proud with anyone in the world.
Second, we must enhance the participation of aboriginal peoples in federal decision-making. Federal governments have consistently violated the fiduciary relationship which they have with the aboriginal peoples. You cannot consistently go to court with those with whom you have a trust relationship and expect that trust relationship to be valid any longer in law. As a result, I believe that the government should move immediately to establish a joint committee of ministers and aboriginal leaders to oversee the transition away from the Depart-

Government Orders
ment of Indian Affairs, to oversee the development and the ultimate implantation of aboriginal self-government.
Third, we have land claims. The government should appoint a minister whose sole responsibility is to deal with the task of concluding comprehensive land claims. This should be done in consultation with aboriginal leadership.
Fourth, the government should move to establish a specific claims tribunal. There are over 500 specific claims that remain unsolved, and the number is growing. Indeed, they are a profound source of friction and disaffection and that cancer must be removed.
Fifth, the government should rectify the injustice caused by constant broken treaty promises. It should establish a treaty commission whose sole purpose is to recognize explicitly that you do not solve the problems and the developing interpretation required of treaties by constantly going to court and engaging in litigation. It must be done by a body that understands the cultural background in which both treaties were signed historically and the modem needs of a modern nation.
Sixth, the government should take the lead in working with urban aboriginal Canadians. It must establish support of political, cultural, social and economic institutions so that those aboriginals living in large and small urban centres are not simply put on the dung heap of some suburb.
In the city of Winnipeg there are 600,000 aboriginal Canadians. We are talking about cities within cities, and as of yet this government has not even begun to recognize the nature of the problem.
I would join the Canadian Bar Association in the seventh and final recommendation. The government should accept its responsibility for Canada's Metis people. The Metis people of this country have been a ping pong ball between the federal and the provincial governments since Confederation. If you go into the urban cities that I have just described you see what the result is. It is politically immoral for the two levels of government who normally engage in fights over which has the jurisdiction to engage in fights over which should have the jurisdiction trying to put off their responsibility.
What I have recommended is not all that earth-shaking. What indeed is earth-shaking is that what I am recommending has never been done. We in the House sit
here and debate many issues. They are important issues. In not all of these issues, however, does the world simply stop and take note of our debates. In not all of these issues do we have it within our power to totally affect the world. But there are certain areas of human endeavour where we in the House can make a fundamental change in the way the world regards certain aspects of its policy. There are others where only those of us in the House can bring about fundamental change.
The problems of aboriginal Canadians is a Canadian problem. It is one that we must solve within this House. If there is any reason for any man or woman having gone into public life in this country, it is to make sure that in the course of the next decade we make sure that we leave a legacy so that never again must Canadians look upon armed standoffs on Canadian soil. Never again must we see Canadian soldiers putting barbed wire around other Canadians who are holding arms. Never again must we see the terrible sight of Canadians throwing stones at each other or bridges barricaded. We have our chance within this decade, within the hands of the men and women in this House. We have an opportunity to make an historical legacy not given to very many. We must not miss this chance.
There is one last point that I would like to raise within the context of this debate.

One month ago, the Quebec Government announced an indemnisation plan for the people of Oka and Chateauguay affected by that so-called Indian crisis. But really, we are talking about a matter that comes under federal jurisdiction. Yesterday, I asked the following question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, without getting an answer, I must say: Is the federal government ready to share the tax burden with the Quebec government? I asked at the same time: Is the federal Government ready to fully idemnify the residents of the South Shore, Lasalle, Emard, and the South West of Montreal who have received no compensation? I repeat because I think that it is capital, if we want to resolve the crisis currently affecting my province:

Reconciliation will not be attained if a group of people who should not have borne the brunt of this crisis feel that because of the historical injustices that have been meted out to the aboriginal Canadian that they are asked solely to bear the financial burden. I believe that it is the
September 25, 1990

responsibility of the federal government to share in the compensation for the southwest portion of Montreal, the south shore, and indeed for the inhabitants of Kanesa-take and Kahnawake. I believe that we have an opportunity now as Canadians to do something that very few have had before. But we will not grasp that nettle if the only thing that we do in the House is engage in empty rhetoric; if the only thing that we do in this House is make more vague promises; if the only thing we do in the House is talk, as opposed to laying down specific goals, objectives, and targets. If for the first time we say that the time for talk is over, the time for action is now. If we do that, then we will have justified our existence. Thank you.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend with a great deal of interest because I thought I was hearing an echo. Many of the things that he has suggested this evening have already been suggested in the House just a very short while ago when the Prime Minister spoke.
If you will just bear with me for a moment, Madam Speaker, I will repeat some of the agenda that the Prime Minister very briefly shared with us this afternoon. He said, first, that consultation with aboriginal peoples and respect for the fiduciary responsibilities of the Crown toward them will be built into the process of negotiation from the start. The second initiative is that legal undertakings regarding land transfers to treaty Indians given as much as century ago will finally be honoured. Third, he said that we will accelerate negotiations on modern treaties-the comprehensive claims, in other words- which until now have been limited to six and, to accelerate claims settlements, the government will no longer limit itself to handling only six at a time. We will consider other innovations, such as regional or province-wide negotiations.
He said that the second dimension of the government's agenda would be addressed to improving living conditions on Indian reserves.
Government Orders
I will not get into all the specific details, but further he said that one of the very important objectives of the government would be the enlargement of aboriginal capacity for self-government within the framework of the Canadian Constitution.
I heard many of those things mentioned by my hon. friend opposite. Since as part of his government in power for so many years he had a wonderful opportunity to stop some of the inequities that he spoke about from ever happening in the first place, will he now be willing to stand when some of these these issues come before the House, to vote with the government as we pursue this very comprehensive and very positive agenda for the betterment of the Indian people in Canada?


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker, I was delighted to learn of the Prime Minister's speech in the House this afternoon. If what I said tonight bears some resemblance to his speech, perhaps it is because what I said today is a summary of the speech that I gave this summer in Yellowknife. My great delight was not so much hearing the concepts coming from the Prime Minister's mouth but the recognition that the Prime Minister read the speech which I sent him.


Rex Crawford: Robbed again, Paul.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: That is what happens. Plagiarism, Madam Speaker.
I would certainly like to tell the hon. member a couple of things. In my speech this summer, and indeed in the speech which I just made, I did not use the words "consider", "examine", "reflect upon", or "think upon"-all those words which our Prime Minister uses when he wants to make a fancy speech but does not want to come to grips with the issues.
The Prime Minister has talked about improving living conditions. Did it really take barricades on a bridge in Montreal in order to bring the government to the point where it recognized that it has to improve living conditions on reserves? Is it only within the last two weeks that 600,000 urban aboriginals moved into Winnipeg to live in conditions that no one should have to live in?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: You've got that one wrong.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: The member used the words "the enlargement of the word self-government". The Prime Minister talked about enlarging self-government within the context of the Canadian Constitution. If the member understood the concept of self-government, she would not

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
talk about enlarging upon a notion which is already as large as the sky itself. Self-government, as I mentioned before, is the hopes and the aspirations of a people. You do not enlarge upon something that had been given and that a people had before we got here.
I must say that words are important because they demonstrate, certainly in the Prime Minister's speech, and certainly as reflected in the hon. member's comments, a lack of understanding of what I am trying to deal with here. Self-government is giving a people the means of lifting themselves out of a problem which they are in. You do not talk about enlarging on a concept any more than you talk about enlarging upon the basic freedoms. You have them because that is what it is to live in this country. You have self-government on the same basis.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member who just spoke. On a couple of occasions both in his speech and in his recent questions he talked about 600,000 aboriginal people in Winnipeg. That is the population of Winnipeg. I assume he must mean 60,000, or something like that, which is closer to reality.
So, to listen to the hon. member go on quite eloquently about self-government and about aboriginal rights, knowing full well from my own personal experience how we got hoodwinked at the last by a government of which he was a supporter and probably a fund raiser, is pretty hard to swallow.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker, many years before I had any idea of getting involved in political life, I was involved with aboriginal affairs in the Northwest Territories where I worked. I was a founding director some ten or twelve years ago of the Canadian Council of Native Business, and I will not take a back seat to anybody in terms of my own involvement and interest in this particular area.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: But admit what happened in 1980.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Just a second. The one thing I will accept from the member is the correction in terms of the numbers. The member is correct, I added one more zero. I have obviously been away from business too long.
The one thing, however, I would like to say is that I have an enormous amount of respect for this particular member. I am somewhat appalled to see him engage in base political partisan finger-pointing on this particular issue. This is an issue that no federal or provincial government can really take great pride in. I think that ought to be recognized.


I am not trying to be cute here, but I could listen to the kind of speech we just heard if it came from the hon. member from Western Arctic, who probably ten years ago was not a mover and shaker in the Liberal party, but I know that the hon. member who just spoke has been a mover and shaker in the Liberal party for long time before he reached the House. In that context, I remember the effort made by the NDP caucus in 1980 to have aboriginal rights included in the Constitution. We had to bargain very, very hard, threatening to withdraw our support for the constitutional initiative of former Prime Minister Trudeau, in order to even have that considered. Then, in the end, in the final document when it came out after the last First Ministers' Conference, many of us were tricked by the Liberal Government of the day when, instead of having aboriginal rights recognized, we had the word "existing" injected into the final document, at which time there was very little that anybody could do about it. We either had to vote for that or risk having the whole thing collapse.
I was involved in a housing project in Manitoba when there was a NDP government in power and I had a terrible time getting them to come to grips with it. I know the history of the CCF and the NDP governments in Saskatchewan. In terms of aboriginal matters, they were no more enlightened than any other government. I do not say this with any degree to attack and I certainly do not say it with pride. Every single government, federal, provincial, and, indeed, municipal, has very little to be proud of in this area. I do not think we should be pointing fingers. We should be doing something about the problem.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: A very short question from the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague from LaSalle-Emard for being very constructive and taking the high road in this debate. I believe that is what the people of Canada want us to do. They know there is a complex issue here and they do not want us to be self
*
.
September 25, 1990

righteous. They want us to take the high road. I think he came up with some good ideas.
I also want to salute my colleague on his new appointment as critic for the Environment for the Liberal Party of Canada.
Specifically, I want to ask him a very short question about some of the most serious problems that natives have in the country. I cite Barriere Lake and the Algonquins which we talked about a year ago, the James Bay second phase with the Cree, and the Athabasca situation with the pulp and paper mills.
Could the hon. member take a couple of minutes to talk about how important the preservation of wildlife preserves and so on, are to native peoples? Quite often that causes a lot of the frustration that leads to the sort of condition we have in Oka.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is very limited time for the hon. member from LaSalle-Emard.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: I will respond as briefly as I possibly can, Madam Speaker.
First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. This member has tremendous credentials in terms of the environment. Indeed, the question could not have come from a better source.
I think that the most succinct way of putting this is that one of the questions that is often asked in terms of aboriginal matters is, are they going to lose their culture when they come into the cities, as they develop? I think that the real answer to that is, let us hope, over time, that there is a merging of cultures and not that the aboriginal Canadians lose their cultures but that we in fact begin to imbibe the richness that they have to bring. No greater area is that than in terms of the environment. There are no people who are at one with the ecosystem as the aboriginal Canadians. There are no people on this earth who understand the need for preservation.
Madam Speaker, I am being cut off. Let me simply say that I hope, in the process of acculturation that we, in this society and in this House understand the tremendous contribution to the environment of aboriginal Canadians.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has now expired.
Government Orders
A point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Chair and I have engaged in this discussion before, but the Chair continues, in my view, to violate the spirit of the question and answer period by recognizing people who are of the same party as the member who spoke when there are people of parties, other than the person who is to be questioned, rising at the same time.
If you read the McGrath report, which I have urged you to do I do not know how many times, you will see that the purpose of it is to permit members of other parties-if members of other parties are not rising, then someone can get up and have a kissy, kissy type question like they just had now. But the purpose is to have real questions, not the kind we just had.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: A point of order, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I want to try and be very specific on this. The hon. member put his question forward. Our colleague answered it, but it does not preclude us from participating in the question and answer period on this debate.
I take exception to your tone because I believe that the question that I asked was relevant and specific to the debate that we were talking about.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think if anyone should take exception it should be the Speaker. I do know that the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has made this remark on a few occasions and we have discussed it in a very friendly way. I will make him notice that I did recognize people from other parties. First, there were two minutes left, the hon. member had been asking for a question and I thought it would be proper.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Laurier- Sainte-Marie.


Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Madam Speaker, Quebec lived through difficult times this summer. And as this debate is going on in the House of Commons, it is worth mentionning that this crisis has not yet been settled and that the Canadian Army is still on Quebec soil.

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
This Summer 1990 had begun with the failure of the Meech Lake Accord: the rejection by English Canada of an agreement considered by all in Quebec as a very strict minimum and by many as not enough. This failure was deeply hardly felt as a rejection of Quebec by English Canada.
It must be made clear that Elijah Harper blocked passage of the Meech Lake Accord because the national rights of aboriginal peoples were not recognized in it, whereas English Canada opposed Meech because they refused to recognize Quebec distinctiveness.
Following this rejection, this failure, thousands of Quebecers got together in the streets of Montreal last June 25 with a sense of pride and quiet confidence in their future. Quebecers never considered the problems in Oka as a revenge against the aboriginal peoples.
The aboriginal crisis broke out in a context where a majority of Quebecers were coming out in favour of Quebec sovereignty. And I want to say right away that we cannot but recognize, as the Quebec National Assembly did on March 20, 1985, the existence of aboriginal nations and that, yes, we have to speak in terms of self-government as Gil Remillard, the Minister of Justice for Quebec, said the Government of Quebec was ready to do without waiting for the federal.
According to some public opinion polls, there was in English Canada, unqualified support both for the Warriors and the aboriginal peoples themselves. This prompted a response from some chiefs asking that a distinction be made.
Moreover, these public opinion trends and others have been completely unfair toward Quebec and Quebecers on the subject of land claims. We must then set the record straight.
To begin with, I want to say that the inalienable rights of the native peoples do not justify the actions of the Warriors and that the unacceptable actions of the Warriors must not let us forget the historic and present rights of the native peoples.
We must also say that the govemement of Quebec has not waited for this crisis to occur in order to do
something. Indeed, the 20th of March 1985, the governe-ment of Quebec, then led by Rene Levesque, made the following statement recognizing ten native peoples on his territory, and took tangible measures designed to make real progress on the subject of the recognition of these peoples' rights. I will now read this resolution of the Quebec National Assembly:
That this Assembly recognizes the existence in Quebec of the following nations: Abenaki, Algonquin, Attikamek, Cree, Huron, Micmac, Mohawk, Montagnais, Naskapi, Inuit.
That it recognizes their existent ancestral rights and their rights which are written in the Conventions of James Bay, the North of Quebec and the North-East of Quebec.
That it considers that these Conventions, together with any other convention or future agreement of the same nature have the value of treaties.
That it subscribes to the negotiations entered into by the government with the native peoples in order to further recognize et clarify their rights, that process being based on historical legitimacy and on the importance for the society of Quebec to establish with natives peoples harmonious relations based on mutual trust and the respect of everyone's rights.
Urges the government to continue its negotiations with the native people on the basis, but not exclusively, of the 15 principles which were approved on February 9, 1983, in response to the proposals which it had received on November 30, 1982, and to make, with the nations which so wish or any of their communities agreements guaranteeing them:
a)	the right to self-government within Quebec;
b)	the right to their own culture, language and traditions;
c)	the right to own and control lands;
d)	the right to hunt, fish, trap, gather, and participate in the management of wildlife resources;
e)	the right to get involved in the economic development of Quebec and benefit from it, in order to develop as distinct nations having their own identity and exercising their own rights within Quebec;
Declares that native rights apply equally to men and women;
Affirms its determination to protect in its legislation the rights resulting from agreements with the native people of Quebec; and
Agrees that a permanent parliamentary forum should be set-up for native people to express their rights, aspirations and needs.
Moreover, since 1986, the year the policy statement of 1973 was amended, following therefore the adoption of this global land claim policy, the Federal government, according to an information bulletin published by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in August 1990, signed four territorial agreements with native groups, including three in Quebec and one with the Inuit in Northwest Canada.

*

September 25, 1990

Also, I wish to remind the House that the Quebec Government signed in 1975 the James Bay Agreement with the Crees and Inuit in Northern Quebec, as well as an agreement with the Naskapis Indians in Northern Quebec in 1978. In the same information bulletin, the Department indicated its satisfaction at the positive attitude and spirit of co-operation demonstrated by the Quebec Government in its negotiations within the framework of the amended legislation of 1986.
It would be interesting to hear the Minister inform the House of the level of co-operation demonstrated by the other provinces with respect to land claims, because we know that, except for the Yukon and Northwest Territories, the provinces must be involved in the negotiation of land claims if these negotiations are to result in negotiated settlements within a reasonable time frame, which is not the case now.
Besides, at the moment, five agreements are being discussed, and two of them will soon be reached. Moreover, according to the same department, nineteen other land claims are pending, most of which are in British Columbia.
Could the minister tell the House what means he plans to use to accelerate the settlement of those land claims in order to do justice to the legitimate claims of the native peoples and to avoid that situations similar to the case experienced at Oka, which was known for quite some time, deteriorate into crisis situations, as has been the case in Oka this summer?
Everyone recongnize that the limit of six land claims established by the government is absolutely unnacept-able, and that would result in the native peoples having to wait practically a hundred years before all of their land claims are settled.
Prime minister Mulroney announced he would improve this, but did not say how. If he means increasing the number of claims from six to seven, or reducing the deadline from 100 to 95 years, that does not solve anything.
In these circumstances, how can this government say that it has tried in every possible way and in good faith to avoid the Oka crisis which has still not been settled?
Government Orders
In this context, how can we not understand the legitimate frustrations of the native peoples which have grown over the years and which explain the explosion of violence that we all deplore, condemn, including the native chiefs themselves?
In this context where this government and his predecessors have so obviously dragged their feet without regard to the possible consequences of what is in fact a blockade of native claims, how, Madam Speaker, can this government put forward such a simplistic motion calling for the House to congratulate our soldiers, and merely reaffirm the primacy of law everywhere in Canada without uttering a single word on the core of the matter, the native issue?
I also noticed this morning that both opposition parties, the Liberals and the New Democrats, saw fit to join the government in congratulating the Armed Forces for their intervention.
Of course, in Oka, the military played its role and intervened at the request of the government. That is and was its role. Now, regarding the motion before this House, I think it would be better if the hon. members waited for the results of a public inquiry before handing out condemnations and congratulations. It seems to me that, at this time, such an approach is the most logical and respectful to the prerogatives of the public and members alike, based on complete information on the management and development of this crisis.
I would have liked to amend the government motion, but I am not allowed to. The amendment would have read as follows:
Replace the first paragraph and add the following after "That the
House-":
That the House recognize the basic rights of native peoples as the
Quebec legislative assembly did in a resolution dated March 20,
1985;
And that, in the opinion of the House, violence and arms will not
constitute acceptable means of solving this conflict.
However, the procedure does not allow me to make such an amendment. I maintain nonetheless that, under the circumstances that we know of, that is to say the present faceoff between armed Warriors and Canadian Armed Forces soldiers in Oka, near Montreal, the contribution of this House would have been much more credible in the eye of Quebecers and natives had the

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
House reaffirmed the following. First, the recognition of the national rights of native people in Canada.
Second, the commitment of the government to speeding up the settlement process concerning the native land claims through legal procedures and negociations to allow the peaceful resolution of this dispute. Third, the fact that provinces must take part in this negociation process in order to speed up the settlement of the claims. And fourth, to hold a public inquiry into the management and the causes of this crisis.
I think that, had it used such an approach, the government would have been more credible and would have contributed more to rebuilding the thrust and confidence needed to bring about the laying of arms without amnisty for the Warriors and to open negociations on the root of the problem.
The rights of some must not infringe upon that of others. While recognizing the validity of the native claims and condemning the armed violence of the Warriors as well as acts of agression against natives by protesters in the Chateauguay area, it must be realized that the citizens of Oka and Chateauguay had and still have to put up with major inconveniences because of a crisis in which they are merely helpless hostages. If expressions of intolerance such as the ones we have witnessed are to be avoided, and if we want and really have our heart set on rekindling the brotherly relations, neighbourly terms and mutual respect between the white communities, the Quebecers, and the native people, governments must assume their responsibities regarding the losses suffered by thousands of people. Otherwise, fine words and good intentions will again have resulted in nothing concrete. And results is what we need in the very short term if we are to restore good relationships between the native people and residents of Oka. I therefore ask the government to agree as soon as possible to Quebec's request to share in the financial compensation program and other measures taken by the government of Quebec.
The government must fulfill its responsibilities to all parties involved, natives as well as Quebekers.
Finally, I want to remind the House that, following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, Quebecers have undertaken, under the authority of their National Assembly, and through a Committee on its Constitutional Future, a process supported by more than 60 percent of
Quebec citizens who long for Quebec's sovereignty, as shown by the polls.
The crisis in Oka demonstrates how important it is for Quebec to recover its full sovereignty so that it can, on its own territory, carry out the decisions taken in March 1985 by its own National Assembly and recognize the native people and their rights. I am sure Quebecers are prepared to give the natives the place they are entitled to on their territory and wish to see their nation establish good relationships with the native nation.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The hon. member for Outremont.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Madam Speaker, I want to take a few moments to put a question to our colleague on the other side of the House. I want to ask him if he might make what I would call a useful contribution. Given his long professional experience and his knowledge of the ins and outs of negotiations, I wonder whether he would make a useful contribution through a number of known regular channels instead of advocating in the House that some form of censure be applied and urging that positions be made clear. Perforce, he has been very theoretical because he admitted himself that if he had been able and if it had been possible-he does use the conditional tense-on one hand would it be useful to assist the whole House and all parties if we could take a better approach along the lines of his position and his input- On the other hand, Madam Speaker, how would he explain to me or to the House the fact that in his remarks he sought to depoliti-cize a situation, and yet almost in the same breath he ended up with a statement which to me, a French Canadian from Quebec, seems to be highly politicized? I would suggest that the ongoing situation at Oka-and this goes for Chateauguay as well but it is more obvious at Oka-must be depoliticized in this House. Having the opportunity to express his views, the hon. member should try to explain to us why he should want to politicize the whole thing by opening up a second front which has nothing to do with the issue under consideration.


Gilles Duceppe: Madam Speaker, I must say, first, that I was a bit suprised to be asked why we are bringing politics into those issues. I would have thought that the House was the right place to discuss politics and I am rather suprised by that question. That is a suprising question. And I say "poli-
September 25, 1990

tics" in the true sense of the word! I am not talking about petty politics.
Second, I did ask to meet the leaders of the native nations of Quebec and that meeting will take place in a few days. I hope to better identify the issues with them. Since you mentioned my past experience in the labour movement. I have also decided to meet with union representives who are actually preparing briefs on that question. Both native leaders and officials from Chateaugay and Oka have been invited to that meeting.
Contacts have already been made. I was explaining in my speech that I could not propose any amendment now since the Standing Orders do not allow me to do so, one amendment and one amendment to the amendment having already been tabled. But I say to the hon. member that that does not preclude anybody from proposing new ideas even if amendments are out of the question.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member who just spoke.
How can he reconcile the statements made by his leader in the House who said it is evident that it is necessary to refuse sovereignty to the aboriginal people of Quebec and was speaking of the courage and the strength to say that it is not possible to have more than one sovereignty over one territory? I wonder how he reconciles that with what he said about the charter recently passed in the Quebec National Assembly. Is it possible for Quebec, as he perceives a sovereign Quebec, to allow sovereignty to native people within Quebec as those native people are requesting?
Furthermore, I would like to ask the member a question on the committee that was established to look into the constitutional future of Quebec by the Quebec National Assembly. Are there any aboriginal representatives on that committee in order to convey the aboriginal view?


Gilles Duceppe: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is refering to the speech made by Lucien Bouchard, to things which were saw but not reported. I should know because I was the one who provided Mr. Bouchard with notes, and it is precisely-
Government Orders


Mrs. Deputy Speaker:: I will have to interrupt the Hon. Member. I know that he is making his maiden speech, and I understand a bit what is going on. I just want to remind him that he should refer to his colleague as the Hon. Member for Lac Saint Jean and to address the Chair when answering questions put by member. That would make things easier for everybody. The Hon. Member for Laurier-Sainte Marie.


Gilles Duceppe: So, I start all over again. I suggest we should refer to the statement I made earlier taking all points into account. Mention is made of self-government and not sovereignty. It is there in so many letters. Therefore, there is no contradiction.
Also, when I examine their claims, nowhere do I find that Native people refer to sovereignty, always self-government. It seems to me rather curious that some people should be more Indians than the Indians themselves. We must read their statements. They insist on self-government for reasons based on economic and political realities, while the Quebec nation has a sovereignty project which was developed on the basis of historic conditions of economic and political development. I suggest that within a sovereign Quebec, it will be possible to get along perfectly, and the evidence of that is that Quebec was the only province ever to sign agreements with them.
Under the NDP Government led by Premier Barrett who now sits in this House, no agreement was ever signed with the Natives although this is where the problem is the most crucial.
Let us remember the facts. On the commission established by the Quebec Government, we, of the Quebecois Bloc, insisted on the presence of Natives, among others. We insisted also on the presence of cultural and ethnic minorities, as well as women. Therefore, I fully agree that there should have been Natives sitting on that commission.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I have a very short question, but first of all I would like to welcome the new member for Laurier-Sainte Marie to the Parliament of Canada. I listened very carefully last Sunday at the ceremony in Hull to his views. I hope over time that there will be changes made in the House so that his view of fighting for a sovereign Quebec will change. I hope over time all of us can work together so that his view will change.

Government Orders
My question is very specific because I tried hard to understand the feeling for sovereignty. If I were a Cree elected in the region of James Bay to the Parliament of Canada and I decided that I wanted sovereignty for my peoples in northern Quebec, I would like to ask the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois what his view of such an action would be?


Gilles Duceppe: First of all, Madam Speaker, I see that we will be understood when the time comes for us to negotiate Quebec sovereignty with English Canada.
Also, I suggest that we must take into account the wishes of the Crees in Northern Quebec. They insist on self-government over their territory and they do not insist on ruling over so much land-which would mean 17 countries within British Columbia-would English Canada be prepared to accept that? That is not what the Natives want.
I am beeing asked hypothetical questions about the potential claims of the Crees in Northern Quebec while that is not what they are asking for at all.


Ronald MacDonald: But do you not agree?


Gilles Duceppe: Listen, I will continue. I saw the negotiations in Quebec and that is not what they are asking for. Under the circumstances, why wonder about that?
This would be an hypothetical situation. Native leaders in Quebec mentioned self-government, control over their territory, and creation of police forces in Lorette-ville under Quebec legislation. That is the kind of requests they make and which were negotiated. Never to this day have I heard them ask for sovereignty, creating countries within Quebec or any other province.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some consultations among all sides and corners of this House. As members will know, we are into extended sitting tonight and a number of members from all three parties have indicated a desire to speak tonight.
I think you would find, Madam Speaker, unanimous consent to allow individual members to indicate whether they wish to speak for the 20 minutes or to split their block of time for 10 minutes plus a 5-minute question and answer period with another member of their own party.
Just so it is very clear, Madam Speaker, should this be accepted, it will not change the rotation between parties and members will have to indicate at the outset, on rising, whether they intend to speak for 10 or 20 minutes so that the Chair as well as other members are familiar with what is going to happen.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I hear one dissenting voice. I would like to make things very clear. The hon. member has suggested that members who wish to speak for only 10 minutes could do so and anybody who wants to use the full 20 minutes could do so. The only caveat would be to advise the Speaker. If someone uses the 10 minutes, those 10 minutes would be followed by a 5-minute question period. Is there unanimous consent?


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the hon. member seeking consent as we do our rotation to have our party, if the speaker so wishes, split its 20 minutes into two 10-minute segments or just to speak for 10 minutes or 20 minutes? I would just like that clarified.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, the intention is that the normal half-hour block of time in rotation for each party will be used as each party sees fit.
If they decide on a full 20 minutes followed by a 10-minute question and answer period, that is their choice, or they can decide on a 10-minute speech with 5-minute question and comment period and another 10-minute speech with a 5-minute question and comment period for their half-hour block.


Mr. Rocheleau:: Madam Speaker, we agree that those members who wish to divide their time should be allowed to do so. Elowever, since this debate on the situation at Chateauguay and Oka is a very important one, could you tell me, Madam Speaker, if the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be in the House in the next few minutes.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hull- Aylmer has been in politics for a very long time. He sat in other legislative assemblies and he knows full well that it is not appropriate to comment on the absence or the presence of a member or a minister in the House of Commons. I think it is wrong to presume that someone who is not present in the House does not hear or follow what is going on. I cannot answer the hon. member's question and I hope that this type of question will not be asked too often to the Chair.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Where is Lucien Bouchard?


Jean-C. Lapierre: He is no longer a minister!


Gilles Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, you are certainly right and I apologize. You were also right to say that I sat in other legislative assemblies and, usually, the minister was present when matters relating to his department were discussed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Comox-Albemi.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, regardless of what I feel about the motion on the Order Paper, I think it is worth while to have this debate to hear the range of views and understanding and information that members have on this important issue critical to Canada. It seems that some people have extremely different and diverse views as to what aboriginal people in this country are seeking and what has even been presented to this body or to politicians over the years. It is worth while to have this kind of debate in the House.
However, I want to say that I am completely opposed to the motion presented by the government at the opening of this session. The motion is an absolutely feeble excuse to explain the government's failure to deal with the issues at Oka and those issues which led to the
Government Orders
erection of the Mohawk barricades and ultimately led to the police attack on the barricades at Oka with the tragic loss of the life of Corporal Lemay and finally with the calling in of the army. It is a failure of the Conservative Party's leadership that has led to the situation we face today after 70 some days of a siege at Oka and Kahnawake.
Evident through the whole process was the failure of leadership on the part of this federal government. The failure of the Minister of Indian Affairs to become involved to the full extent of his jurisdiction, as the person who has under our Constitution jurisdiction over, as the Constitution says: "Indians and lands relating to Indians". The minister has through proclamations dating back to 1763 and through court decisions as recently as Sparrow, a trust responsibility to the native Indian people regardless of where they live in Canada. That trust responsibility was abandoned and that minister's jurisdiction over Indians and lands reserved for Indians, as spelled out in the Constitution, was abandoned. That is a shameful abandonment of leadership and jurisdiction and trust responsibility on the part of the federal government, including the Minister of Justice.
Where was the Minister of Justice when international human rights agencies as well as human rights agencies here in Canada indicated to the Canadian public that human rights violations were taking place? The Minister of Justice, who is responsible for reporting on issues of human rights to this House, was absolutely silent during the whole event. Not a single comment came from that Minister of Justice on the human rights abuses and what action she should take in order to correct those abuses.
Where was the Prime Minister of Canada, the man who came into this House claiming as his credentials and pointing to his resume as a man who was a skilled labour negotiator, a man capable of bringing people together and resolving problems between groups in conflict. During this whole situation, the people who have a leadership responsibility and a constitutional responsibility to deal with it were nowhere to be seen.
That is why we are dealing with a problem that is some 70 days old, that has become an embarrassment to Canadians, both in this country and overseas. It is why this Parliament is now dealing with this slippery resolution, to try to excuse the government from its responsibility to do what is constitutionally and morally required under its trust arrangements with the native people-

Government Orders
that is to face this issue and use eveiy effort it can to resolve it peacefully.
This is not the first time that violence has been resorted to in Canada. Rather than putting this in the very narrow perspective of what the parties are asking for at Oka, I think we should put this into a broader perspective and relate it to other conflicts that have taken place in this country dating as far back as 1837.
It is strange that when you look through the history books the same words are repeated over and over again, the same principles are repeated.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, the days of the-you will not recall because you were too young-Chateau clique and the Family Compact, and the rebellion of 1837. At that time people were interested in responsible government in Canada and in giving people the power of the purse and having elected parliaments-the kind of political freedoms we enjoy today. The Government of Canada of the day labelled those people as the Chateau clique and the Family Compact. They were labelled as dangerous terrorists, as criminals, as people who threatened and ignored the law of Canada that governs all of us and that before which we are all treated equally. Those people were labelled in very much the same way that the Mohawk people at Kanesatake and Kahnawake are labelled today. And this was back in 1837.
Madam Speaker, I think you will find that history has been much fairer to the people who took up arms against the Chateau clique and the Family Compact in favour of elected legislatures, of responsible government, and of turning over the power of the purse to the people-people like William Lyon Mackenzie who gave his name to one of our Prime Ministers in Canada and who later became a member of this body-than on those who stood in a chamber like this and insisted that people who took up arms against the country were terrorists and criminals and should face the full weight of Canadian justice. People have looked far more favourably on William Lyon Mackenzie than they have on the forgotten people who called them criminals and terrorists.
It is surprising how often Canada repeats the same mistakes over and over again. In what is called the North-West Rebellion of 1870, headed by one Louis Riel, and another rebellion in 1885 on the banks of the Saskatchewan River in the Northwest Territory at the
time, Riel and the Metis and a number of the aboriginal groups pulled together to attempt to have some government established in that territory that would recognize their rights and their role in the Northwest Territory or in the Manitoba territory of the day.
Again, it was a government of Canada headed by the same political party-John A. Macdonald was the Prime Minister then, and since he is departed from this room I can use his name rather than his riding. John A. Macdonald was the Prime Minister and I can recall him saying-I was too young myself at the time, Madam Speaker, but I can recall reading in Hansard about John A. Macdonald standing up in this House and calling Riel and his cohorts a band of criminals who defied the law of Canada and who were willing to take up arms against the legitimately constituted Government of Canada which, of course, treats all of its citizens equally.
Of course we all know the outcome of the North-West Rebellion and the Red River Rebellion of 1870. Louis Riel was hanged. But history has treated Louis Riel a little more favourably than some of the people who had him hanged.
Louis Riel is now considered a late Father of Confederation, one of the founders of the province of Manitoba and one of the leaders of the Metis and aboriginal people on the prairies who sought justice from the central government in Ottawa. I think that history has looked more favourably on Louis Riel and continues to do so than it does on those who said that nobody has the right to take up arms against this country and that blind obedience to bad law is the requirement of the day. I think history has looked favourably on those people.
None of us like to see Canadians being forced into the position of taking up arms against the government. None of us in this House would condone that kind of action on the part of any individual in this country. However, I think all of us understand that when a people is driven to the point of frustration, when they are constantly put down, when they are constantly treated like second class citizens, when they are constantly treated like colonial people, then the frustration builds, and builds, and builds to the point where those within the group who suggest a recourse to violence or to arms often obtain more credibility than those who wish to negotiate their griev-

September 25, 1990

ances and their concerns in good faith. I think that is what has happened at Oka and at Kahnawake.
I do not like the Mohawk Warrior Society and do not respect its objectives if they believe in using violence against the people of Canada. I do not like those objectives but I can understand them. If Canada drives those people to the point of frustration then the message that is carried by the Mohawk Warrior Society is going to gain a great deal of credibility among the Mohawk people because all other routes have failed. Recourse to the law of Canada has failed. Recourse to lobbying politicians has failed. Recourse to the media to demonstrate the conditions that they are suffering under and living under has failed. Recourse to local government to try to get them to stop, whether it is building a golf course on what is perceived to be Indian land or claimed to be Indian land, has failed. What are they expected to do? To simply submit. Madam Speaker, there are voices among the Mohawks which said that they were not prepared to submit and that they were prepared to take up arms against Canada and that is precisely what happened.
I do not think it is the fault of this government exclusively. It is the fault of people in this House of Commons, it is the fault of past governments, it is our fault because we as non-aboriginal people, have not recognized what aboriginal people are asking for and in fact, how moderate, how legitimate and how supportable are their demands. It is amazing that we have not listened to those people over the years.
We all come from various backgrounds where these kinds of demands were made in the countries from which we originated. One of the few things that I confess to is that I share in common with the Prime Minister of Canada that our ancestors came from the same country. That country is Ireland.
The conquest of Ireland by Britain began shortly after 1066. In fact, a small territory was set up in Ireland called the pale where the English were safe to live and beyond the pale-that is where the word comes from-was where all those savage, wild Irish like the Prime Minister's ancestors and my ancestors came from. It was not until the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries that England finally conquered Ireland and made it a part of England.
Government Orders
But when they did so, they could not understand why those Irish people did not consider themselves as British as every other Englishman; why they did not consider Ireland, to use the Prime Minister's own words, an integral part of the country over which another sovereignty could not survive.
Yet, in every single generation, from the time of conquest of Ireland, Irish people rose up in arms against the government, with their pipe poles and their declarations, demanded sovereignty over Ireland and, ultimately, in 1921 they gained it. Now, on what was considered an integral part of British soil, is a republic. As the old song went in Ireland, a nation once again and that was what the Irish people were seeking.
I do not think you could find a country that is more friendly with Great Britain than the Republic of Ireland, but all they wanted was the right to govern themselves within what they perceived to be their own territory and to co-operate with Britain as equals.
When native people in Canada talk about sovereignty, they are talking about nationhood. They are talking about being recognized as separate, legitimate nations. After all, they say, how could Britain and France come to North America and enter into treaties with those nations? One does not enter into treaties with dependants. One enters into treaties with nations who have the sovereign right as nations to enter into treaties with one and which are considered equal to one.
We are talking to people who have those kinds of treaties with Britain and with its successor, Canada. Those people consider themselves and have the legal documents to describe themselves as sovereign nations within Canada.
The world is changing dramatically and we cannot say any more that it is possible for a country to exist without recognizing the aspirations of the founding peoples within it. It is absolutely impossible.
When I look at what is happening in Europe or the Soviet Union today precisely the same thing is happening. The Soviet Union attempted to retain hundreds of nationalities, hundreds of separate countries within its own boundaries, and to control them from Moscow as if they were Russian people. Now the system has broken down and the nationality and the aspirations of those

Government Orders
people have come out again and they are demanding to be nations once again.
The people and the nations of the world looking at the process going on in the Soviet Union are excited about it. They are excited about the prospect of these, what were called nationalities in the Soviet Union, now seeking their freedom, now exercising their autonomy, and now becoming, as the Irish did in 1921, nations once again.
If we in Canada look at eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, see that these kinds of things are happening in those areas of the world and support it saying it is a good thing, then I am certain, in order to be consistent, we have to look at what the aspirations of the aboriginal people are in this country, because what they want to be are nations once again.
Going into this new world that is being described by what is happening in Europe in 1991, in eastern Europe, and in the Soviet Union, Canada has a tremendous opportunity, to go into this world of the future, recognizing the sovereign peoples within the country and developing a method of negotiating with those people and making settlements and treaties with those people. Rather than having what Lord Durham, in 1839, called "two nations warring in the bosom of a single state" or what could be today compounded with the aboriginal question, "many nations warring in the bosom of a single state", Canada has an opportunity to establish a model for the world as to how one state can recognize the sovereign aspirations of its individual members to become even more powerful and strong and even more of a teacher to the world than Canada is today. Unfortunately, what has happened at Oka has set us back as being a teacher to the world a decade or a century.
I was hoping that when we came into this Parliament for this fall session the Prime Minister in some way would have relented and in the resolution he presented to the House he would have recognized the faults in leadership that were made during the summer and the faults in interpreting the Mohawks demands, which the Prime Minister characterized as bizarre in the same way the British characterized the sovereign ambitions of his ancestors when they were revolting against the British crown.
I would have hoped that the Prime Minister of Canada in this fall session would have presented to us a mechanism which would have allowed for the honourable disengagement of the conflict at Oka so that there would be a basis for friendly, open, and productive negotiations between Canada and Quebec and the Mohawk people at Kanesatake and Kahnawake, and so that we could recognize some of their sovereign aspirations and work out ways of realizing some those aspirations while keeping this nation strong and united.
I remind the House that the country from which the Prime Minister's family originated is now one of the greatest supporters and allies of the country that it formerly opposed and rose up in arms against. There is a possibility of solution in this situation. Unfortunately, I cannot see any possibility in the current resolution, other than carrying on and making the dispute worse.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am especially concerned and interested in the government's resolution which is before the House because of the great concern that has existed in the many Indian reserves which are located in the Algoma constituency. I know that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni who has just spoken represents bands in British Columbia. One of the special features about the whole situation which has existed this past summer is that right across the country, with bands from east to west, people are very concerned about what has happened.
The problems have arisen primarily because the government failed to act and resolve the issues with regard to land claims during the spring and summer months and the whole situation has deteriorated into one of the worst crises that I think we have seen. It has not only hurt us abroad, it has hurt relationships between with aboriginal peoples within our own country. I just hope that the efforts which are being made for negotiations will be enhanced and increased. I believe that there is concern and frustration building that will cause an incredible explosion among aboriginal peoples and Canadians generally if the matter is not resolved peacefully.
Our representative here in the House has called for a royal commission to look into the problems and difficulties that have arisen. A similar motion was passed by the Massey Town Council calling for a royal commission during this situation this past couple of months. To the credit of the bands in the Algoma district and Manitoulin district, there were a number of demonstrations along Highway 17, at Massey and at Garden River by the
September 25, 1990

Garden River Band, the Spanish River Band and the Wikwemikong Band, and they were all very peaceful. They were done on the basis of expressing the concern which aboriginal peoples felt with the situation as it has developed in Oka and in the way it was allowed to deteriorate.
We got a lot of wise advice from bands such as the Wikwemikong band where they were pleading that the Armed Forces not be used against First Nations. They were calling for negotiations to settle the underlying treaty and aboriginal claims problems, that the Surete du Quebec be kept at bay, and that the frustrations that were there be dealt with on a peaceful basis.
As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has outlined in his speech, I think this is a very serious matter that requires negotiation and a peaceful settlement so that we can get on with solving the underlying problems that have caused great anxiety and frustration among aboriginal peoples throughout the country-not just in Oka and Kanesatake and the bands in and around Montreal, but right across the country, including my own districts of Algoma and Manitoulin.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there a comment from the hon. member from Comox-Alberni?


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I am not sure there is a question there, but certainly I have a response to the comment.
I think different aboriginal nations approach dealings with the government in different ways and there certainly are concerns among different nations as to what is happening in the Montreal area.
The Mohawks come from a very unique and different tradition. The incidents that have taken place very much reflect the tradition from which those people come and very much reflect the strong belief that they have based on treaties going back into the mists of time that recognized, on the part of the British crown, their sovereignty and ability to operate as a nation, to make war, and to conclude peace. One has to recognize that what is happening in Montreal is part of a unique Mohawk tradition.
Government Orders
There are other traditions across Canada and, in fact, many of the native nations in my province have preferred a route that does not involve the use of arms but the use of negotiation by sitting down and concluding treaties in that way.
However, I have to suggest that there is a frustration developing among the people in British Columbia that the longer the government delays, the more problems there will be for people to negotiate settlements at the negotiating table. More and more people will see the alternative taken by the Mohawk warriors as the way to go-
The Prime Minister's statement today-and I take him at his word-might lead to some breaking of the log-jam and hopefully some possibility, if the government lives up to its promises, of settling aboriginal claims against the Crown more quickly and more effectively.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, since the House reconvened we have spent some time discussing the situation at Oka, but what we have not done is taken affirmative action to find a peaceful solution to the problem.
Canada has been viewed traditionally as a leading force in promoting and defending human rights. We have earned a fine reputation at the international level, so we cannot continue to ignore our problems at home. We must address the plight of our native people, not just at Oka, but throughout Canada.
This issue has a far-reaching effect. Natives and non-native Canadians alike have voiced their concerns, and the eyes of the world are watching with interest to see how we resolve this crisis. At a time when many of the world's so-called closed countries are opening up, it is vital that we restore Canada's image as a diplomatic and caring nation. We must address the concerns of our native people and put fair and workable solutions ahead of taking arms in our hands.
We are traditionally a peaceful nation and must prove, not just to the world, but to ourselves that we can put aside our differences and negotiate.
Madam Speaker, the government must take positive steps to deal with native issues. We cannot afford to ignore justice, fairness and recognition of our native

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
rights. I call on the Prime Minister to get involved and find a peaceful solution and I call on the government to take affirmative action now and set up this royal commission which my colleague has been calling for.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I actually have a question for my colleague, the member for Comox-Albemi.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will have a conversation with his colleague from Winnipeg-'Transcona. It does happen that someone from the same party does ask a question.


Iain Francis Angus: You could not resist, Madam Speaker, could you. I will have a discussion with my colleague.
My question for my colleague from Comox-Alberni deals with the underlying issue of land claims. I heard the hon. member speak at a meeting on Manitoulin Island this spring of the northern council of the NDP. At that time he explained the economic impact on the region of a completed land claim.
I wonder if he might inform members of the House as well as those people watching of the positive aspects of why we as a society should finally deal with our aboriginal peoples and settle these outstanding land claims, some of which go back as long as this country has existed and even before.


Robert Evans Skelly: I was interested in a statement made earlier today by the member for Nunat-siaq, discussing what actually happens during a land claim. When the Prime Minister was making his speech, he indicated that land was being given to the Indians. In fact, when a land claim is settled Canada takes land from the Indians, gives them a bit of the remnant over which they have control and compensates them for the balance. So Canada is always the greatest beneficiary in a land claim settlement, or what the Prime Minister referred to as a modem treaty. Canada reaps the greatest benefit.
I would also like to point out that if you read the details of the framework agreement of the treaty for the Council of Yukon Indians, you will find that over the ten-year period that the Indians have agreed to take compensation, they have also agreed to phase out all of the exemptions from taxes that they enjoyed as a result of the previous arrangement they had with the federal government when the land claims were unsettled. That is an advantage to the Canadian people.
Another thing that happens and is clearly evident, for example in northern settlements, is that in the past forest and mining companies and oil companies have gone into the north, taken resources, taken profits and taken them to Montreal, New York or elsewhere in the world and discapitalized the area.
By settling land claims you are giving an opportunity for people who have lived in those areas from 8,000 to 13,000 years and are unlikely ever to move away, to spend that capital in the area in which they live so that it has the effect of recapitalizing areas that were previously discapitalized under the old system of Canadian economics.
We now see that native corporations own things like First Air and Air Quebec. They are forming their own transportation agencies, corporations, mining companies and trading agencies. Those things benefit all Canadians from the point of view of income, as well as from employment.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Chateauguay.


Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, before I start, I would like to mention that I intend to take the full 20 minutes to which I am entitled, although this would hardly be enough if I were to talk about all the issues and all the pain and suffering the people of Chateauguay had to endure during the long so-called Amerindian conflict.
First of all, Madam Speaker, I would like to situate the riding of Chateauguay. It contains the largest and most heavily populated Mohawk Indian reserve in Canada. As you know, it is located southwest of the city of Montreal, just across the Mercier Bridge, where they set up one of the biggest barricades. The riding continues along the St. Lawrence in a westerly direction. This is a particularly beautiful and picturesque spot, a lovely contrast to the rest of the riding. I am not saying this because I happen to have the honour of representing Chateauguay but this riding is one of the most beautiful in Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ricardo Lopez: Now I would like to speak more directly to the subject at hand. So far, I was very surprised at the way my colleagues handled this topic. One after the other, they made some very eloquent and well-structured speeches, and I realize I have a lot to learn before I
September 25, 1990

reach that level. Of course most of these speeches were probably written by someone else, but in any case, they were very eloquent.
Everybody is talking about rights this evening, but not a word about duties. In our society, we have rights, and I think that is a very good thing, but we also have duties. And we tend to forget we cannot have one without the other. We are kidding ourselves if we claim we have certain rights and don't recognize the fact we have duties as well.
Speaking of rights, some Indians have been vigorously demanding the right to free movement-free movement of goods, persons, and so forth. Oddly enough, the same people who talk about free movement set up those blockades on bridges and highways. It seems to me they do not always practise what they preach. There is a very clear contradiction here.
If they want free movement, it seems to me that setting up barricades is not the way to go about it, and the people I have the honour to represent in Chateau-guay and the general area realize that. These people have not been able to move freely for over two months. There seems to be a double standard here.
Madam Speaker, I want to say that I have absolutely nothing against the Indians or the Mohawks who live in my riding. Far from it! I am proud to represent them and I am proud to be of service to them now and then. Even though this may sound contradictory, every week in my riding office I see more than fifty of them who ask for information and every kind of services. Rest assured that they are always and will always be welcome in my riding office.
But unfortunately another small group has infiltrated this group of Mohawks, most of them law-abiding citizens. I must say that perhaps-I am even sure of that-all these people are not even Indians residing in Canada. As you know the unfortunate reality is that we have to import a good many things, but we could probably have done without this kind of trouble.
I have another comment to make. The previous speaker dealt very briefly with the matter, namely the fact that our international reputation has been hard hit,
Government Orders
tarnished, and perhaps it is no longer as good as it once was. This would be very unfortunate if it were to be true.
I come from a country called Spain which is in Europe but which is now part of what is now known as the European Parliament. A few days ago in this European Parliament they voted on a resolution condemning Canada and singling us out for badly treating our minorities. Madam Speaker, unequivocally and unhesitantly I could tell you that Canada does not have to take a lesson from anybody whatsoever, not even Europeans.
I visited all the European countries, Madam Speaker, and lived in fifty-odd countries.
I should know. I can tell you that there is not a single country in the world that can compare with Canada, not one which has so much respect for its minorities and grant them so many privileges. It seems today that for people to belong to a minority is almost like having a certified cheque in their pockets, because everybody has rights. They only have to mention that they belong to a minority for the authorities to get on the defensive, for fear of being accused of racism, even when it is not the case.
During the so-called Native crisis in Chateauguay, I heard a number of reporters in the media accusing some Chateauguay citizens, if not all of them, of racism. But let us look at the facts. How could the Chateauguay people be accused of racism when they chose to elect as their representative a member of a minority. It is impossible! Nobody can be accused of racism in Chateauguay, in the whole area which I have the honour to represent or in its vicinity. Otherwise, I would not be here talking to you. I just cannot understand how some people could come to the conclusion that the peole in Chateauguay are racists.
In all this situation which was quite above me, something happened which I did not like at all. It was the day when some Ville LaSalle people, near Chateauguay, displayed quite an unfortunate behaviour. They were reported having thrown rocks at Natives leaving the reserve.
Madam Speaker, it is clear that violence must be condemned, no matter where it originates. I do not condone the actions of these people. But we should be realistic and understand the situation. Why did these people behave that way? It was somewhat in response to

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
another action. You know that it is very easy to condemn the majority by calling it all sorts of names. But in all logic and fairness, we must then also condemn the other side and ask for an investigation because Indians also threw stones, in fact not just stones, but projectiles.
They caused irreparable damage to property as well as to human beings. So, to be consistent I agree that there should be an investigation, of course, and that those responsible for such disgraceful behaviour should be tried and punihed. I fail to see how we could justify being so tough with a group of people whose actions were much less serious than those of others but who are singled out while everything else is forgotten.
I find it very hard, Madam Speaker, to accept that type of justice which really borders on injustice. Sad to say but what can we do. There is no escaping reality.
Anyone acting as did some of the Mohawks in Kahnawake who held a whole community hostage, who put up barricades on bridges and highways, should not realistically expect to be welcomed with open arms. That is unthinkable. There is no doubt that of all the people in the world, none are more calm, patient and tolerant than Quebecers. I should know. To put up with me sure takes a lot of patience! Yet, they elected me once in 1984, reelected me in 1988 and will elect me again in 1993 and so on, at least I hope so.
Our people have suffered enormously. I have urged our government to try and help them with some compensation for all or part of the losses they have suffered. Throughout this crisis, businesses and plants of all kinds had to close up. Let us mention only the case of a Chateauguay restaurant called Le restaurant rustique. It is well known across Canada and even the whole of North America, if I am not mistaken. The staff was reduced from 100 to 15. Imagine, 85 jobs were lost in a single restaurant. That means 85 families suffering the consequences of the crisis. There are farmers, carriers-
In the riding of Chateauguay, and more particularly in the city of Chateauguay, nearly half of the population goes to work in Montreal. These people commute via the Mercier bridge morning and night. To a large extent, they have been deprived of their work. Some have lost their job. So, I hope that my government will listen to the people of Chateauguay who are requesting financial
assistance for the area, by way of grants or whatever, because it is well know that many companies starting up request at the same time grants from the government. In this case, the government should say: "Your request will be considered, but you must settle in Chateauguay." The government usually tries to help when disaster strikes here or there. Well, I think that is our country I am talking about here. So we should be given the same consideration.
The truth is that, whatever our efforts to help people "recover" and to compensate for the losses they have suffered, it will never be enough. Their losses are too great and, in some instances, can not be quantified. For instances, there was a time when developers may have wanted to buy land here for industries. Well, they will prefer to look elsewhere. They probably went elsewhere. That lack of confidence can not be quantified, and there is no way of knowing how many jobs or millions of dollars were lost because of that. We know full well that we have lost a lot, and the hardship will persist for a long time in the population once the crisis is over.
I have a message for the Indian leaders. The chiefs have always advocated peaceful solutions, conciliation and good example. I would like to ask them this. If, in fact, you wish to remain credible, why not tell right now the Warriors behind the barricades to surrender immediately and to face the justice system. It seems to me that, by that action-despite the fact that some chiefs have already lost some credibility, but they may regain it at least partially-, they could put a stop to all that madness, I call it "madness of the century". There are also women and children behind the barricades, children who could go back to school and start leading a normal life again. And we too, as Canadian taxpayers, would stop paying for a totally irrational thing. Some estimate the total cost of the dammages in the billions of dollars. We cannot do that; we cannot afford it.
I appreciated what the prime minister said today, namely that they have to face justice. I agree with that. In our country, there should be only one justice. As long as it is enforced; otherwise, it is nothing but a sieve. I do not believe that our population deserves being harassed as injustly as this. Land claims I understand. But others claims are made as well. I have heard about requests for
September 25, 1990

a new reservation in Oka. I am very reluctant to agree with that.
To my mind, reservations are synonymous in many cases with ghettos. This is a solution which can create problems, as we have seen it. Creating a new reservation would amount to creating a new problem, and we already have enough problems. I quite agree that Indians should be treated fairly, the same as anybody else, but creating reservations around cities can only lead to problems for the future.
I hope the government will not fall into that trap which to me would be a serious mistake. I agree that Indians should be treated fairly. But to create problems in an attempt to solve other issues would be a mistake, Madam Speaker. No problem is solved by the creation of another. I thank you for your patient attention, Madam Speaker. I also hope also that my government will listen to me and take the matter under consideration, once the crisis is over. We cannot look back. However there is one thing the government could do now is to give some sort of compensation to the people who have been a victimized through no fault of theirs.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I would first of all like to salute the member. His speech tonight was obviously based on his first-hand experience this summer. I am sure it was very tough for him and his constituents.
I must tell the hon. member that there are many things he said this evening that I agreed with. No one in this country wanted to see a community go through frustration and inconvenience. Many people in my riding would phone every day and they could not understand what was going on. They could not figure out why there was so much tension.
It concerned me as well, Madam Speaker, and I must tell you that last week I went to Oka. I listened to some residents of Oka who were Mohawks. For someone living in Toronto the obvious question is: How did this all get started?
I was told by friendly Mohawks, not warriors with armed guns; I believe in the rule of law-about the background of the frustrations that were going on vis-a-vis the golf course, the 94 acres, and the municipal-
Government Orders
ity proceeding and totally ignoring some of the warnings that were given by members of this House.
Then I was told about how these barricades were set up near Oka and that on a particular day a group of mothers and children from the reservation were at a prayer ceremony and were confronted by the Surete du Quebec. How it happened or why it happened, obviously none of us in this Chamber want to judge right now, but shots were fired and to the great regret of everyone in this Chamber and in this nation a police officer lost his life. In the process of that experience everyone became frightened. The native community became frightened, the people of the area became frightened, and everyone got their backs up.
In no way, shape or form am I condoning ignoring the rule of law here, but I must tell you, Madam Speaker- and this is where I am heading with my question-that I went there last week to seek answers to questions to find out what was going on.
I was invited by two Mohawk residents of Oka to come into the community. As the cars approached the barricade by the Trappist Monastery, there were many people who got through the barricade. The press got through the barricade. I went there and I was stopped because I did not live in the community.
I was very polite to the police officer of the Surete du Quebec and I said with humility: "I am a parliamentarian. I have hundreds of constituents who are asking me: Are you asking questions? Are you getting answers? What is the point of view?'" I must say that I felt great tension and resentment from the people manning those barricades, not our Armed Forces. I found the Canadian Armed Forces to be very positive in their attitude and accommodating. That part of the Prime Minister's resolution I support, but there is some mystery here why the Prime Minister does not mention the other forces that are involved.
I personally encountered a very rough experience with the police force. We talk about decency and rule of law. What about the men who are holding those positions? The Prime Minister talked about masked men and guns today, but sometimes when we ask a person who is masked why he is masked, we find out that he is masked because he is afraid and he does not want to be intimidated or caught or whatever.

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
Do you know, Madam Speaker, that I asked the officers of the Surete du Quebec if they would give me their numbers and they refused to do it? This is true. I am not trying to be difficult here. This is an absolute truth. Thank God I had cameras because I took their pictures. The law has to go both ways. These men refused. Their attitude promoted tension.
The hon. member mentioned development, tourism and other things that are important to the economic health of this country and that we must have galvanized communities. Does he not think that there is room for improvement in the attitude of the Surete du Quebec and those people who come into contact with them in relation to this crisis?


Ricardo Lopez: Mr. Speaker, there are several aspects to the question of my colleague and I will try to deal with them as best I can.
I deplore the fact that a parliamentarian cannot have access to what is going on on the other side of the barricades while a lot of other people do get through. In my opinion parliamentarians are just as good as any spiritual leader or any of the journalists. I am really sorry he could not go behind the barricades and see for himself what was going on so he could keep his constituents well informed.
It is quite deplorable. But you know, at times throughout this crisis the Quebec Provincial Police behaved impeccably, but they did act irresponsibly now and then. I am referring to the incident on the Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague bridge when a group of citizens blockaded the bridge and were rather savagely man handled by the police. Worse still, after the police ordered them off the site the people obeyed but the officers continued to hit them from behind and did some damage to their cars. I thought they acted like barbarians and savages.
But I can tell you that during the Indian crisis, as it is called, during these two months most of the time the QPP did an outstanding job. I want to thank them and pay tribute to them.
However you know that in the QPP as in any other police force there are good officers and others who are not so good. The experience you had was truly unfortunate and I deplore the situation as much as you do, but we should not blame every single QPP officer.
I want to say a few words about the other authority on the site, namely the Canadian Army. My hat is off to them! I knew that Canadian soldiers were highly competent, very human, well disciplined, but never to that extent. I think that just as I am doing all my fellow citizens and all Canadians will have to pay tribute to the Canadian Army.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was in my office listening to my colleague on television, but some of the comments he made prompted me to come back here to ask him some questions.
Mr. Speaker, my riding is right next door to that of my colleague from Chateauguay. I believe there are always two sides to a story. The question I want to ask him specifically refers to what the hon. member has just said, namely that everybody got his hands dirty in this case. We agree on that, everybody, the government, perhaps all political parties, I do not rule any of them out, all political parties to a certain extent, we all have somewhat dirty hands. Nobody is perfect. Perhaps I might make my colleague from Chateauguay understand that it is true, we did make some progress, and that is my first point. Secondly, I would ask him very quickly: Is it not true that at one time the member for Chateauguay said that the best solution for the native people would be to send them all to Labrador? One last thing that my colleague said was that he agreed with the statement made by the hon. member for Duvemay (Mr. Della Noce) who said in the middle of the Indian crisis that the Conservative Party and members were never told what was going on by their own government? Can he answer these questions?


Ricardo Lopez: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker. If I had more time, I could elaborate further. Of course, I will gladly reply to these questions.
To the first question which stated that everybody has dirty hands, I reply that mine are clean enough, thank you. I do not think they are dirty. I do not know whether you were looking in the mirror when you said that, but my own hands are clean.
When he makes other allegations as to what I think of other comments, I must tell him that remarks should not be interpreted out of their context. I do not believe that in the speech I have just made, I ever mentioned Labrador or the Hon. Member for Duvemay. Therefore, his comments are entirely out of context, as usual, like most of his NDP colleagues! He should wake up, because never once in my speech did I refer to Labrador,
September 25, 1990

the Hon. Member for Duvemay whom I hold in high esteem, or anything else. If he insist on asking questions about what I said, I will reply gladly, but he should not get lost. Please, come back down to earth and stick to reality, as we do on this side of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allocated for questions and comments has now expired. The Hon. Member for Restigouche-Chaleur has the floor.

Point of order.


Mr. Della Noce:: Mr. Speaker, I have been here all day and tried to ask a question. I wish to congratulate my colleague for the speech he made but this time my name was mentioned when my hon. colleague spoke about Duvernay.
I do not think this was in his speech. The only reason he came here was because there was no NDP member present during the speech of my colleague. I would like to congratulate him for taking the lead. What I said during the time of this crisis was that I was not informed enough as an MP. I did not have any trouble getting through the barricades. I went to Oka where my people have suffered all summer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate, I am sorry. On the same point of order.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I understood with the intervention of the last speaker, that under no circumstances, whether you have been here just a few days or a few years, should you make reference to whether people are present or absent in the House. I would like you, Sir, to let me know if that rule still holds or if it just holds for people of other parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That rule holds but I believe he was expressing his own feelings. It was debate, it was not a point of order and I think we should carry on with debate.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to the motion of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In this motion the House is urged to
Government Orders
commend the exemplary conduct of the men and women of the Canadian Forces at Oka and Chateauguay.
The motion also mentions "That, in the opinion of this House, the laws of Canada must apply on all Canadian territory, including Kahnawake, and that all persons currently at the Kanesatake Treatment Centre should lay down their arms and submit to the processes of Canada's judicial system, thereby encouraging the creation of a constructive climate for discussions between governments and the Mohawk people on land claims and other issues;"
I am pleased to see the government has decided to have a debate on this important matter. However, I seriously question the government's refusal this summer to recall Parliament to discuss the conflict. It was high time the government woke up.
Mr. Speaker, what is particularly shocking about this whole affair is the government's inertia, its failure to act. It is clear the Conservatives have made a complete hash of the situation. They tried to ignore the conflict, hoping it would just go away. Unfortunately, problems that are ignored tend to get worse. In any case, the native blockade is a very complex matter and will take a lot of effort and imagination if it is to be resolved in the best interests of all parties.
Native people do not live in very fortunate circumstances. Just look at the statistics.

Mr. Speaker, I will just quote a few statistics. Reserve Indians have the lowest average personal income in Canada. Unemployment rates hover around 70 per cent and on some reserves the rate is as high as 90 per cent. Infant mortality rates for Indians are double the Canadian rates. Thirty-eight per cent of Indian homes on reserves have no central heating. The life expectancy of male and female Indians, aboriginals, is much lower than other Canadians. These statistics tell us a sad story. As the member for Western Arctic explained this morning in her eloquent speech, the native people of Canada do not need tear gas to make them cry.
The government has said that it wished to commend the exemplary work of the Canadian forces. That is fine, but how do we know that this is so because there is now a new blockade that has been set up that not many people have talked about today. That new blockade-just add an

Government Orders
"s" to the word "new" and you have a "news" blockade and that is where the problem is right now. I believe that this motion we are dealing with today does not deal with all of the issues and that one issue is very important.
What are the implications of a news blockade? Need I remind everyone present and those viewing that freedom of the press is one of the pillars upon which our society rests. This situation, this news blockade, undermines the public's right to know. How can we be expected to treat this situation rationally if we are denied the basic facts which are provided to us by the media? Censorship in any form is reprehensible. It undermines the foundation of democracy and, sad to say, paves the way to dictatorship. In fact, the media have a role to play and it should be unfettered.
What is truly amazing, Mr. Speaker, is that every time the Prime Minister is confronted by a crisis he tries to shift the blame. It is always someone else's fault. You will agree that this is a singular demonstration of lack of leadership. He has even had the gall to blame our party and even our leader. I want to make it clear that the Hon. Jean Chretien has done a great deal more about this situation than the Prime Minister will ever hope to do.
Let me outline just a few of those things. On July 20, Mr. Chretien went to Oka. He got in and he spoke to the Mohawks. Did the Prime Minister go? No. I do not know whether the Prime Minister has any intention of going.
On July 25, the Hon. Jean Chretien called together a special caucus committee to hear witnesses, to hear the concerns and try to find solutions that would come from consensus and understanding.
He also announced that the Senate committee on aboriginal peoples would meet and hear witnesses. Again, the Liberal Party was acting immediately. Mr. Chretien also called a national press conference on August 7. So that has all been done. He has been active on this issue.
The Liberal Party made numerous requests throughout the summer for the recall of Parliament. Many MPs have written to the Prime Minister asking for that recall.
I wrote a letter. I asked for a royal commission to be appointed and that a mediator be appointed. I said: "By failing to act on this matter the government has allowed the crisis to spread to other parts of the country and as a result fuelled an already volatile climate of intolerance". That was July 20.
I want to mention other actions taken by our members. On July 29, the Hon. Herb Gray and our critic for aboriginal affairs, the member from Western Arctic, also visited Oka to get a firsthand view. Did our Prime Minister go? No.
I believe that the Prime Minister has to start taking some responsibility. He tends to blame everyone else. The Prime Minister has to get out of his cocoon and stop playing hide and seek with these issues. I know his advisers have probably advised him that his poll ratings are so low he should keep a low profile, take a break for the summer. My gosh, he took them at their word. It is about time that the Prime Minister met his responsibilities.
I like to give a little bit of credit where it is due also. I was glad to see the Prime Minister enter the debate this afternoon. He made some comments in regard to what some of the actions will be on behalf of his government. I hope that he can come up with more specific solutions to the problems at Oka and Chateauguay.
I would also like to talk a little bit about my riding. Although the Oka crisis has monopolized a great deal of the media's attention, it is only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, there have been many demonstrations held by natives right across Canada over the last little while. Obviously they are a direct result of the federal government's failure to address the settlement of land claims and the demands of aboriginal organizations for selfgovernment.
In my riding of Restigouche-Chaleur, the Micmacs at the Eel River Bar Reserve blockaded Route 134 near the town of Dalhousie, New Brunswick in late July. They did this in order to manifest a solidarity and sympathy to the Mohawks. Although their original purpose was a show of
September 25, 1990

solidarity, Micmacs decided to exert a little more pressure for some of the outstanding claims and grievances that they had which were mostly with the provincial government. These grievances included the loss of fishing, water rights, as well as the employment question.
While speaking of the employment question, I would like to say that since unemployment is so pervasive among local natives, one of the things that they would like to see is more flexibility in the training programs, and in employment and immigration programs. I would like to see more flexibility with that and I would hope that the Minister of Employment and Immigration would note that.
There was a problem in my riding. They were trying to put pressure on the provincial government. What did the provincial government do? Unlike the federal government, the New Brunswick Government stepped in to help find a quick and peaceful solution to the blockade. They sent four ministers on site to meet with the Eel River Band Council and with those who were involved with the blockade-right on site. Four ministers went right in there and cleared it up. The aboriginal people were satisfied with the commitments they received from the New Brunswick government. Obviously the federal government should take some lessons on crisis management from the New Brunswick government.
I would like to congratulate the RCMP who handled the situation in my area in an excellent manner, the Micmacs of the Eel River Reserve, the band council, the chief, the local population for their patience and understanding, and certainly the provincial ministers who went in there to alleviate the situation as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the conflict in Oka and other demonstrations held by native people across Canada are a direct result of the federal government's failure to deal with land claims and requests for autonomous government by native organizations.
The Mohawks in Oka have tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain recognition of their claims. The government says the Mohawks do not have title since time immemorial to the lands around Oka and that the King of France
Government Orders
granted these lands to the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice, thus extinguishing the rights of the Mohawks.
The Mohawks and their legal advisors believe that recent judgments by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sparrow and Sioui cases might provide new ways to support their land claims. According to these judgments, the courts are to apply a broad interpretation of subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, and reject exception of so-called legal severance which has proved a stumbling block for many comprehensive claims.
The federal government has neglected to amend its land claims policy to reflect the recommendations of its own task force on comprehensive land claims, and it has refused to acknowledge the precedents created by recent court judgments on these matters, hence the conflict at Oka.
Already guilty by omission, the federal government, as a result of its complete failure to act, made matters in Oka and Chateauguay far worse.
Finally, when it was obliged to intervene, the federal government purchased the land in question from Oka and declared that it would resume negotiations with the Mohawks as soon as they took down the barricades and laid down their weapons. It also approved Quebec's request for bringing in the army, thus showing that it preferred to endanger lives instead of negotiating.
The actions of the federal government show that it is weak and that it will not resume negotiations unless threatened with a confrontation. It will not adjust its policies to reflect recent court decisions.

It is very important that the government realizes that it is a serious affair we are facing. It is important that it takes action. It is nice to put a nice motion on the floor here, but it is only a motion. We need action. I would only hope that the Prime Minister in his speech this afternoon was more than sincere and can convey a type of trust, not only the Mohawk people, but to all Canadians because Canadians are very concerned.
In conclusion, I would again call upon the government if at all possible to appoint a royal commission on aboriginal affairs to look at the whole question right

Government Orders
across Canada once and for all to see if we can come up with some solid solutions that would be acceptable to everyone.
I would also think that a public enquiry is a necessity. It is a necessity because there are so many unanswered questions. There are so many Canadians out there who are asking the questions: How did this happen? How did it happen in Canada?
As an immediate step in the right direction, I would hope that the Prime Minister would appoint a group of parliamentarians to go to the treatment centre to explain to some of the movement the government is planning, if it is planning any and to discuss with them their continuing concerns. An all-party group of parliamentarians must be sent to Oka to visit the treatment centre to help to resolve this conflict in a peaceful and acceptable fashion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The hon. member for Manicouagan.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Having listened with considerable interest to the comments he has just made, Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell my colleague the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur that I followed the events in Oka and Kahnawake all summer long because, like him, I have within my riding Native communities whose leaders and inhabitants were quite concerned about the goings on in Oka.
Having had the opportunity to talk several times with the elected leaders of the Montagnais communities within my riding, I can say that they found the situation very difficult because these hardworking and peaceloving people had managed over the past few years to implement a whole series of programs and set up various organizations which allowed them to assume their own shelter, educational and economic developments. If they were concerned about the action taken by a number of people within the Kanesatake and Kahnawake communities, it is because they feared they might lose the trust and credibility they enjoy within the other North Shore communities.
I am sure that, just like I did, he followed the development of this very difficult situation with considerable interest and that he was concerned about its possible consequences.
I have two questions for my colleague the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur. This afternoon, our colleague from Western Arctic referred to the Federal Government's fiduciary role with respect to the Native people of Canada. Although he certainly agrees, as I do, about the fact that the Federal Government plays a fiduciary role with respect to our First Nations and that it is responsible for ensuring their welfare, development and security, would he admit that this fiduciary role does not entail condoning actions such as those taken by the Warriors in Oka over the past summer? I fully agree that the federal Government is responsible for ensuring their security, welfare and development in every respect, as well as their full participation in Canadian life, of Canada, but I think it is going a little too far to suggest that the government of Canada condones such actions as those taken this year in Oka. So, I would like him to comment on that.
My second question to my colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur is this. He praised earlier the actions of his leader, the leader of the Liberal Party, during the summer. I would like to know if he agrees with the statement made by his leader to the effect that the Warriors should be free to leave, so they can be recaptured two days later.
Those were my two questions, Mr. Speaker.


Guy H. Arseneault: thank you for that question, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, it is the responsibility of the federal government, as fiduciary, to protect the interests of the natives. I can tell you that I have disliked actions from both sides in Oka and Chateauguay in some instances, but I will not be the judge of that.
The other question deals with the policy concerning the 20 Warriors at the treatment center. There were 200 Warriors. So, where are the others? The Quebec government has let them run away. The federal government, your government, let them go. There are only 20 left. Where are all the others?
You have already implemented the same policy, a policy of carelessness.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Mount Royal. The hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood will have a question and then I will recognize the hon. member for Laval-Est.


September 25, 1990

Government Orders


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I acceded my spot to my hon. colleague from Broadview- Greenwood but I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur, first, for a very interesting speech and, second, for raising the issue of the news media black-out.
If anything could define a modern democratic society in today's world, it is, among other things, the freedom of association, the freedom of the press, and the kinds of institutions that allow full disclosure. I was very pleased to see him note that.
I was wondering how the hon. member reacted in Question Period today when the Minister of National Defence in a sense let us feel that the journalists who are on the scene essentially are part of the problem and not part of the people who could enable a better understanding and promote goodwill between people.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I must thank my colleague for her question and her kind words. As I mentioned before, that new blockade that was set up, the news blockade, is certainly a problem. It has created a mistrust out there. It has created a situation in which some of the people behind the barricade are afraid in a sense that the information that is getting out from there might be a little different than what actually the facts are. There are a lot of things.
I happened to see a couple of news programs one day when some of the media were throwing their films to try get them out. There seemed to be a mad scuttle there to try to get them. In fact, in one case I saw the film taken away from someone who was trying to pick it up. It seemed to be someone in a uniform, so I wonder what we have to hide.
Some of the communication that is going on between the Armed Forces and the warriors in the treatment centre is by a sort of an educated mode, I guess. They use rocks. They tie their letter to a rock and throw it in. They throw it back and forth. It is not the way to act.
If we want a peaceful settlement, we must develop an air of confidence, of trust and I really think-

We should send a parliamentary committee in Oka to talk to the Mohawks, review their situation in Oka and see if they are ready to disengage under reasonable terms.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur.
He mentioned in his closing remarks how trust is really a key issue here.
I get many letters from my constituents. Today, I received one where the constituent talked about the fact that the native way of life was probably the original example of a sustainable society. Those of us who profess to be environmentalists are uttering words not worth a hill of beans if you do not immediately start to resolve native land claims issues. Probably many in this House do not realize but our member from Restigouche-Chaleur when he was working on Bill C-39, the forestry issue, forced the members of that committee to come up with the first definition of sustainable development that any act related to the environment in this Parliament of Canada has had, and I salute him for that.
My question is very specific. In keeping with his focused attention on sustainable development, does he not agree with those constituents who are saying that we in this chamber really cannot profess to be serious about the environment unless we begin looking after Canada's first environmentalists. I would like him to respond to that.


Guy H. Arseneault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me a chance to reply to this question. I must thank my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood for the first question and his kind comments as well. I might hire him as a publicity agent to do some promotion.
I must say that it is true without going overboard with it. I think if we look at the state of our environment, not only here in Canada but around the world, we will find that it is a precarious state. I think if we turn back a leaf and look to our aboriginal people we will see how they managed the environment. They did not necessarily manage, but their attitude is so different. Attitude is one of the biggest environmental problems in the world, not only of a politician, but of normal everyday people who

Government Orders
are not willing to have their life styles change. They are not willing to make sacrifices. I think we can take many examples, not only from our own aboriginals here but from other peoples and other countries. I think it is very important that we use and take advantage of that situation while we can. As I mentioned, the environment is in a precarious position.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I will start with one of my questions. I will give ask the hon. member the second question and I hope he will answer very briefly. I know when you are last to ask a question, there is not much time.
My colleague just said we should have a committee go to Oka to speak with the Mohawks. Well, I have been here all day and I have been listening to the speeches. Everyone spoke about the Indians and the Mohawks. I have the proper respect for that, but not one person spoke about the white people, those who lost their homes and belongings. I have been there. I had no problem going through the barricades. I have friends there.


Dennis Joseph Mills: What's your point?


Vincent Della Noce: My point is that when we talk and we tiy to solve a problem, we have two kinds of peoples to solve it. There is the respect we have when we speak. I saw Miss Gabriel speaking on TV. We have to respect our fundamental rights. Yes, but what about mine? What about my people who are there who lost everything? I do not think the committee should be there.

I would have another question, Mr. Speaker. Quebec had, and it still has, a great poet called Felix Leclerc, who said: "The surest way to kill someone is to pay him to do nothing". It is true that Canada is the fiduciary. We give money. That is very well, but there comes a time when you wonder if it would not be better to give responsibilities and dignity. So, if a committee is to go to Oka to solve the problem, I would want the basic rights of the people on both sides of the barricade to be respected. What good does talking do? People I know there told me they do not want to go back to their homes.
There is a problem: The most beautiful village in Quebec was destroyed. This is what the problem is: We can see only one side at a time. I therefore want my colleague to tell me if the government will continue providing money and nothing but money, not dignity for instance? Shall a word be put in for the other people whose houses were damaged? I would like to hear what my colleague has to say on that.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first question with regard to not only listening to the Mohawks, we must listen to all Canadians, I think that is important. I think that is being done in each riding on that issue and I would hope that this all-party committee would also listen to the concerns of the other side, if we can call it the other side.
The hon. member stated that no one has talked about that. I must point out that my hon. colleague and friend, the member for LaSalle-Emard, in Question Period asked about money to compensate the people who were put out because of the Chateauguay issue and Oka issue and residents on both sides of the river, all around the whole region, including natives and non-natives. He addressed that issue quite well and I must congratulate him on that.

I also want to tell you that I agree with you. We cannot keep on spending money without accounting for our actions but it is important that responsible programs be developed. Different programs are tested here and there. There are training programs. I have talked about those in my speech: We need training programs but training programs that are a little more flexible for aboriginal people. That would certainly be a start.


Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this House on a motion respecting the situation in Oka and Chateauguay. This situation, with all its unpleasant and very serious threats to life, at times threats to innocent lives, happened for a reason.
If we put aside all the bad and negative feelings, what was the purpose and, indeed, what have we learned?

It is easy to point fingers and criticize. It is easy to look back and complain. What I think we ought to do though, is look ahead and ask ourselves, what is it that we must do now to heal the bad relations that have developed? What is it that we can do to seek positive solutions?
In retrospect, let us review the Kanesatake and Kahnawake situations. As one who has been involved directly with the advancement of native rights, seeking to do it positvely, I think I know and appreciate the frustration that my native leaders have felt. It is, nevertheless, unfortunate and sad that it has led to the taking up of arms.
The positive signal that this summer, difficult as it was, has sent to Indian country is that national unity and support behind a common cause is possible, just imagine what can be accomplished if the same energy can be expended toward positive goals.
An equally important result from this summer's incidents is that Indian issues are now on the national forefront. Before I propose some recommendations, as other members have done, may I remind the House of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and its second report. In that report, having heard witnesses, including National Indian Leadership, what the committee identified is an agenda for the 1990s. I quote from the report:
The committee invites all Canadians to become aware of the issues that face aboriginal Canadians, because these issues do not affect aboriginal Canadians alone. These issues affect all Canadians. They affect the future strength, prosperity, sense of fairness and tolerance that allows all Canadians to define themselves.
The committee also invites all Canadians to participate, each in their own way, to advance these issues. Awareness of aboriginal issues and challenges is a necessary first step.
I am very encouraged by the Prime Minister's statement a few minutes ago and I quote in part that: "It is time to put the Indian agenda into operation-one anchored in reality". One that will bring back the native dignity the Prime Minister referred to in his address and other colleagues who referred to it a few minutes ago as well.
Let me briefly look at what to me is a very serious negative message that has been sent to the aboriginal communities. The media coverage, although there have
Government Orders
been recent comments in its defence, could have in my opinion been better in some reporting because the message that was being encouraged to the native youth across Canada is that "if you have a problem, take up a gun. If you disagree", the youth is now encouraged "to take up a machine gun or mount an armoured tank". That is not the kind of Canada I want.
Another negative aspect is the disrespect of leadership. Leaders in any community deserve more than to get beaten up in their own homes. When a chief is beaten up in his own home, there is a loss for everyone because such action does not solve the problems. On the other hand, neither is it right that provocative actions by soldiers be taken against unarmed women and children, be they native or not, particularly in a traditional longhouse.
I have throughout this crisis maintained that violence is not the answer. I called on my own people, as I do now, to give tolerance and patience another chance. Continue the dialogue. I along with members from the Western Arctic and Nunatsiaq have perhaps one of the most unique opportunities in this House. As one of our most respected elders Chief Dan George wrote, and I remind the members: "I am a chief, but my power to make war is gone, and the only weapon left to me is speech. It is only with tongue and speech that I can fight my people's war".
But what about the future? I am being told by my own councils to get in there and do something about Oka. Mohawk spokespersons said: "No, you stay away from here". When I had the opportunity to work with an ad hoc committee of cabinet ministers for many hours, other constituents said: "You are spending too much time on Indian issues". Amid all of this I met with Indian leaders to ask them: "We have all had a very challenging summer, now what do we do to bring both sides back together". I indicated to them some of the not too pleasant comments and calls that my staff and I received in our offices. During my constituency tour last week, virtually everyone we spoke with wanted an immediate peaceful solution to the Oka situation.
Importantly, however, Mr. Speaker, we have to regain the positive work that was underway and is underway across Indian country. Mr. Speaker, allow me to give you and the House four suggested recommendations which I have received from my own Indian leadership.

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
First, review immediately the land claims process with a view of considering an independent body or tribunal. The original problem, as I understand it, that sparked the Oka incident was the land claim. There have been many criticisms of the process, there have been many supportive blockades across Canada. We do not need any more evidence to encourage us to change. What is seen as a one-sided unfair process can be changed for improvement and I am pleased the Prime Minister addressed that this afternoon.
Second, consider immediately a new round of discussions or meetings similar to the First Ministers Conference. What is being suggested, however, is that the federal government meet with national aboriginal leadership bilaterally to discuss our future relations. I do not have to add the constitutional, legal and other obligations previous members of these Chambers have referred to in support of this proposition.
Third, I think for the first time the aboriginal leadership is calling on government to replace the Indian Act. Let us look at the alternatives for a new, positive relationship. We need to restore Indian dignity and pride. I encourage the Prime Minister's initiative for changes in the new year which he has just announced.
Fourth, as others have called for a royal commission, a public inquiry or whatever the name, what is needed urgently is a complete and comprehensive review of Indian affairs at all levels including the management by Indian leadership. I believe we will find the rightful place of aboriginals in Canada with this kind of effort.
In conclusion, I urge both sides in the Oka crisis, their leadership in particular, to begin new deliberations. They should put aside the hurt feelings, painful though that may be, and put down the weapons on both sides. This is a beautiful country and peaceful co-existence is possible in such a vast land. I believe we can continue to share. I believe we can continue to live together. Indeed we must.
To my colleagues, through you, Mr. Speaker, let me say that this is not an issue upon which we play political gamesmanship. This is not a matter on which we put blame. This is a time for us to work together. It is possible to come up with one mind, as the Prime Minister said, when Canadians of good will decide. It is possible to work side by side to continue to build a
stronger, more united Canada. As one native person in this Chamber, that is all I ask.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend my hon. colleague who has just given such an eloquent speech and to talk about the way we should be viewing the questions that have arisen in this House this evening.
My hon. colleague mentioned four things that he had in mind as being very positive initiatives. Some of those have been spoken to earlier today by the Prime Minister. He thought there was a very positive initiative to replace the Indian Act. I am wondering what sort of model he sees in terms of dealing with this issue.
The Indian Act has been around for a long time. There have been many attempts to try to change it, but it seems to me that it has always been changed in a top down way where somebody who is white and perhaps does not have very much knowledge of what life is like on a reserve makes decisions for people who have to live them out. I wonder if my hon. colleague would perhaps expand on this point just a little.


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.
It is a question that we have tried to deal with over the years to counter what has been the process in the past to which she referred, that top down change. We have some experience where a committee can be struck, one that represents the Indian leadership, one that represents justice, one that represents Indian affairs. We can work away at legislative amendment together and do it in a way where changes can be hammered out in a room that affect all sides and, indeed, have input from all sides. Although we have heated discussions in such a process, once that kind of procedure is established the legislative amendment that comes forward from that process has always been accepted by all sides because all sides have had input. I would encourage that kind of forum be undertaken for any proposed legislative amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, the
September 25, 1990

hon. member for Scarborough-Agincourt, and the hon. member for Western Arctic, in that order.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I too join with my colleagues on the other side to compliment the previous speaker, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. Many times in this House we are torn between loyalties and the greatest loyalty that we can have, of course, is to Canada. In so saying, I know that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin had quite a burden to carry this summer, along with many other people in the House.
My question to him is quite straightforward. Does the hon. member believe that if we had acted more quickly at the beginning of the crisis, if the federal government as well as the provincial government had moved to alleviate the crisis earlier, might not all of this have indeed been put behind us so that what he is talking about, a return to dignity, would not have been necessary and that the people there would have kept their dignity throughout this whole crisis?


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: Mr. Speaker, hindsight being perfect, when I look back, I suppose one could say that, yes, it would have been better had we acted faster. At the same time, as my colleagues have said, nobody knew what was going to happen. I think that everyone in their own way suggested remedies to deal with the issue but no one knew, for example, that over the past many months, at least from what I understand, people had been preparing with arms for such an event and just waited for the timing to be right. When I look back, sure I could have said yes. We could have dealt with it earlier.
I think the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs even tried in its attempts to air out such issues during the past year. As I said, I find it very unfortunate and sad that we have had to get this far where both sides have taken up arms. I can only hope and pray that in the future we do not do this again.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I too want to say that I found speech of the member for Wetaskiwin to be very sensitive and genuine. I know he has been in a tough spot. I totally agree with him, as I think do all members of this House, that violence is not the answer.
Government Orders
I gather that at first he did condemn the use of the army. Perhaps he could clarify that.
The first part of the government's resolution starts right away by commending the exemplary conduct of the army at Oka and Chateauguay. I gather from the content of his speech when he talked about some of the things that went on there that he feels like us, a little uncomfortable that the government proceeded right away on its motion with sort of the law and order approach rather than proceed with what he did in his speech, talking about where do we go from here and what are the positive measures like moving on land claims that we could do. I would like to ask him to clarify that.
The second matter I want to ask him about is if he is aware of the report on Indian self-government by the 1983 Penner committee wherein the committee recommended that the federal government establish a new relationship with the Indian first nations and that an essential element in this relationship be the recognition of Indian self-government. The committee also recommended that the right of Indian peoples to self-government should be explicitly stated and entrenched in the Canadian Constitution, that the surest way to achieve permanent fundamental change in the relationship between Indian people and the federal government was by means of a constitutional amendment, and that Indian first nation governments would form a distinct order of government in Canada with their jurisdiction defined.
Could the member say whether he agrees with the Indian self-government? I know he talked briefly about it. Does he see that to be in any way contradictory to what the Prime Minister has been talking about when he is saying that all the laws of Canada must apply equally?
I do not think the Prime Minister has reached the stage, quite frankly, where he has in his own mind to recognize we need a really new deal with the native people which may mean recognizing, as the Americans have, a form of distinct aboriginal government.


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the opportunity to clarify what I said about the army's role. I did not condemn bringing in the army because as I understand it the initial request or the purpose for calling in of the army was to have it act as a

Government Orders
peacekeeper or a mediator between the animosities on both sides: the Quebec police and the Mohawks.
When a joint request came forward for the army to be present I agreed with it. I condemned specific actions that I disagreed with, actions taken against unarmed women and children in a spiritual place like the long-house. That is what I do not agree with. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that you or any member would appreciate such actions being taken by anyone in a spiritual place. I could not agree with that.
With respect to the report on self-government, if I may give a very personal opinion, it is necessary to recognize, perhaps in legislation, the existence of Indian government. I hear, of course, the proposition that there is only one law in Canada. In the Criminal Code there is one law, but the native people also have a criminal code and a criminal law, a code that is not written. Sadly it is one that is not recognized either. I do not think in my society, under our laws at home, that if a person commits a crime he can expect to get away with it. I do not think that is what is being requested.
Yes, we do have an Indian government, but we lack recognition. Perhaps a constitutional amendment recognizing that would be a simple step forward.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his comments and I share with him the soul and the toughness of his position.
When the crisis broke I was overseas-and I have travelled extensively-and as soon as people talked to me they realized that I was from North America and asked me: "Are you from Canada or are you from the United States?" Every time I said that I was from Canada, there was a smile on people's faces. However, when I told them I was from Canada, I hesitated to continue by saying that I am a parliamentarian because I knew the next question to follow would be: "Why are you not in Canada? Why are you not dealing with the problem of your first citizens?"
The member for Chateauguay said that we have a duty and a right. Is it one of our duties as parliamentarians to have immediately recalled Parliament? Is one of our duties to our first citizens to look after them? Should we have recalled Parliament? Should the member's boss,
the Prime Minister, have acted immediately without any hesitation?


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: Mr. Speaker, I too was overseas throughout parts of the summer and throughout parts of the crisis. In fact I was at the United Nations in Geneva where some of the Mohawk leaders were and I had an opportunity to deal with them. This unfortunate incident did not only happen domestically. The story was carried elsewhere.
In retrospect, again I suppose it is easy to say that Parliament could have been recalled, but as was stated earlier in Question Period in response to similar questions, every request that came forward to reconvene was not accompanied by a purpose for reconvening.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Wetaskiwin, for his speech. It is a very difficult position in party politics for aboriginal people in all jurisdictions. A very, very tough question that we have to deal with is this. Although we deal with a group of people who have taken up arms, there is the bigger question that the Mohawk Confederacy wants dealt with, that is the question of jurisdiction and sovereignty. I know his legal expertise and I respect his mind when it comes to these matters. I would like to ask him this. How does he feel we can grapple with this very difficult question which relates to law and order which the government is very concerned about and which Canadian citizens are very concerned about? How do we deal with the issue of sovereignty? As he advises his government, what would his advice be to the government on dealing with the issue of sovereignty and the Mohawk Confederacy?


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Western Arctic says, it is a tough question. If I can relate back to my constituents, the second recommendation that they have presented was to consider immediately a new round of meetings similar to the first ministers' conferences. They did not set an agenda for those particular meetings but I am sure from previous and recent discussions one of those would definitely be to address areas of jurisdiction and sovereignty. I believe there are some areas where it is possible to delineate the responsibility and jurisdiction of one area, to delineate the jurisdiction and responsibility of another, just as we
September 25, 1990

do now with the federal and provincial governments under the British North America Act.
In those new discussions it might be just possible that discussions could lead to areas of shared jurisdiction. Maybe it is possible to recognize that there is in fact a third order of government. It is possible to use the word "sovereignty", although it is hated, in that kind of a context.
We have examples all over where it is possible for a smaller nation to be within a larger nation and yet not have to give up its jurisdiction. If we look south, for example, in the United States, some of the islands where they have their own governments have sovereignty yet use the United States currency, defence, and jurisdiction in a lot of other areas. In other words, they share areas of jurisdiction but yet they feel that they are sovereign. The Vatican, as I understand it, is sovereign in Italy but yet it has its own jurisdiction. Therefore, I think there are models elsewhere that we can use that would bring about this kind of possibility in a new round of meetings.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Outremont, a very short question, please.


Jean-Pierre Hogue: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to put a question to my colleague and at the same time offer my sincere thanks for having the honour and the privilege of hearing what I just heard.
Since the start of this debate, positions have been taken and statements made which I would qualify as partisan. This afternoon, after the Prime Minister's speech, we heard a member on the other side of the House open her heart to the Prime Minister and talk about issues that came straight from the heart. I felt that was very moving. On the other hand, another member of this House who belongs to a non-party made a number of comments that I did not appreciate at all, and I am getting to my question, Mr. Speaker, but I thought it would be useful to make these introductory remarks.
Our colleague spoke from the heart, he talked about his people, not in an intellectual way but with great feeling and integrity. Could I ask the hon. member, who is part of this cultural reality-I imagine his answer will be affirmative, but I don't want to prejudge what he is going to say-whether if perhaps here in this House we
Government Orders
could raise the level of debate to that achieved earlier by our two colleagues, does he think that this House will be able to protect and enhance this cultural integrity Canada so desperately needs and which may provide the answer for other groups, including the one to which I belong?


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. But, as his remarks are prefaced that it would be an affirmative one, yes, I see this House being able to protect all rights of Canadians.
I think sometimes of an analogy that could be used. It is not a melting pot but a salad, and within the contents of a salad the lettuce is able to stay as lettuce. If we can use that kind of analogy, I think as all Canadians, we can all be protected.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to enter the debate this evening. First of all, I would like to make a few points clear about the motion.
The motion, unfortunately, does not deal with the issue. The motion has been made very specific for reasons that are hard to understand when you first look at the situation we are dealing with.
For background information for those of the House who are here, the riding I represent has 46 aboriginal communities. This issue was debated very heavily over and over all summer. It was probably the worst summer I, as a politician, have ever had to face simply because I did not have an answer for the people I represented. The questions that were being asked over and over again were what does this all mean? When will this all end? And, just where do we go from here?
I would like to deal with where we have been and perhaps if time allows talk a little about where we should go. I would like to use an analogy that has probably been used often in the House in this issue. It relates to a lost generation of aboriginal people. That lost generation, for those of you who are not quite aware of the history of Indian Affairs, are the people who were put into residential schools in the 1940s and 1950s, and until the early 1960s when they were done away with. That is what the aboriginal people call the lost generation. That was a time when non-native governments tried to force their will on aboriginal people, and by doing that were

Government Orders
attempting to assimilate and do away with the race. As you know, that situation did not occur. It did not work.
I use that analogy in relation to Oka. The only thing that we achieved in Oka is we have attempted to break the spirit of one whole community. All the people who are alive today in that particular community will never forget this episode. We, as politicians might forget if we get carried away in discussing other issues of national importance, but the small village of Oka will remember this particular crisis and episode. That is really what this issue is about, the scars that are left after something that should never have reached a crisis situation becomes a crisis.
I use that analogy, Mr. Speaker, because that is about all we are going to get from the Oka affair when it is all said and done. We have affected and hurt a generation. We could never replace that hurt by handouts, money, or land. What is done is done.
I want to go back to what should have been and to what possibly members of this House should have paid close attention. Maybe I am naive but as a young politician who is very new in this place, I am very sensitive to what people tell me on the street. When I go up north I listen very intently to the 46 chiefs that I represent, their band councils, the elders and the people who are there.
When I was first elected in 1988 I went on a tour, as I am sure all members do in ridings as large as mine, to listen to the people. I came back to the House with this message and fortunately or possibly unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, the leader of our party gave me the responsibility of associate critic on aboriginal affairs. Therefore, I was on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
One of the first things I suggested at committee was that a problem that I could easily see, that I was very sensitive to, was that was the leaders were telling me it was becoming more and more difficult to control their own people. The potential young radicals, a term I suppose is being used a lot in the media these days, are people who are no longer willing to wait 40 to 50 years for governments to act. The chiefs and councils and elders told me very bluntly that we have to start putting
those words that they hear from politicians at every election into action.
I came back to the House and I went to the standing committee to speak to my Conservative colleagues and my NDP colleagues. Of course, Ethel, being a member of that committee, knows very well what I am talking about. I said that we had better get moving very quickly because it is becoming very, very difficult out there for the leadership of the native community to control their own people.
Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, nobody paid attention. What is so often sad in this House is that governments tend not to listen to opposition members. Why should they? They have a majority. What a waste of time. It is a lot of rhetoric, is it not? But there are some members who might have something to say, who have a little bit of sensitivity about this beautiful country of ours. So far I have not seen that sensitivity and that is why we are in this situation.
It would be nice to have had this debate a year ago to hear the types of very good suggestions that are being made today.
Some people have difficulty articulating the issue because they are not familiar with aboriginal people or their situation. Mr. Speaker, that is perfectly acceptable and understandable because aboriginal issues are not very high on the agenda of many politicians. There are those who, I am sad to say, have never been to a reserve and would not know one if they ran over it. They probably drive through one often because there are close to 600 reserves in this country.
The sad part of this whole debate is that we have come to the point of having to call the army into a situation that got out of control. Whether it is right or wrong, Mr. Speaker, we will not solve here tonight. As other colleagues have said we have to ask where we go from here.
First, that depends on whether members in this chamber really understand what we are talking about tonight.
I know we are not supposed to talk about what happens in caucus. I get a big kick out of this.
I listen to my colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic, talk quite often about aboriginal affairs in caucus. We get these guys and gals and their heads are nodding up and down, indicating: "Yes, I understand what you are

September 25, 1990

talking about." But do they really know what this is all about? Do they know how complex specific land claims policy is and how complex the comprehensive land claims policy is and the political will it will take for us as parliamentarians to resolve that issue?
I suggest that more colleagues should stop nodding their heads when aboriginal people speak and start saying: "No, I do not understand." I suggest that they do not.
I represent a riding that has 14,000 aboriginal people and I say very frankly that a lot of my non-native constituents do not understand the issue. They think the specific land claims policy is a land-grab by aboriginal people wanting more.
Simply, it is trying to right a wrong that we as non-natives created a long time ago. Yes, we put in the Indian Act. Yes, we put in the Indian agents. Then we let the Indian agent have all sorts of powers. In those days the communications were not as good and the education level of our First Nations was not as exceptional as it is in some cases today. What happened was that pieces of their land were sold off. In some cases the land guaranteed to them in the treaties was never given. Do you know that there are 165 specific land claims in Ontario alone?
Today I listened very intently to what the Prime Minister said. I had waited a long time in the House for some indication of what my constituents in the aboriginal community call trust and honesty.
The aboriginal people are very difficult in the sense that they are not easily fooled. When you look them in the eye they will tell you right away, very quickly, in their own sophisticated method, whether you are full of it. I use that because it is probably the most parliamentary expression I can use referring to whether one was being just a simple politician or one truly means and understands what they are saying.
I have been through that process and this summer when I looked into those eyes up north it was very, very difficult. I said to myself: "Bob, you had better go back and tell your colleagues just how bad it really is for the 100th time. Just possibly they will listen this time or maybe they might understand."
As I have said in my press releases, letters I have sent to the minister, the request to the Speaker for emergency debate and the request to the House Leader to recall
Government Orders
Parliament, if we do not deal with this issue in a very comprehensive way, what we have seen over the summer is the tip of the iceberg. The young aboriginal leaders are not prepared to wait any longer.
The request of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin for people to be patient and continue with dialogue has come to an end. Aboriginal people have been dialoguing and speaking to non-natives for so long now that they just do not know what to say any more. They meet with the minister and members of Parliament and the heads keep nodding up and down: "Yes, yes, we understand what you are saying". The chiefs and the council go back to their community. A year goes by, two years go by, three years go by-nothing.
I want to bring into the debate a specific example. Here is one that belongs to my constituents. Here are six bands and I will name them for you: Kee-Way-Win, MacDowell Lake, New Slate Falls, Saugeen Nation and Wawakapewin. These six communities were given band status in 1985 by the present government. At that time, when they gave these six bands the hope of having their own community, it said: "Very soon we will give you reserve status." For those who do not know, reserve status means that they get a land base, something to work with, some hope of creating their own community and being independent to a certain extent. I know how much all people in Canada cherish their independence.
Well, it is five years later and this report here states: "Six Bands Five Years Later". That is the title. Lo and behold, there is no reserve status for these six communities. They live in total poverty.
One community lives exactly one mile away from a great big power line and it is not hooked up to the community. What do they do? Every winter they have little generators and little propane stoves and lights. It is an embarrassment to be a Canadian. But it is so far out of the way that these people here might never see that community in their whole lives. If they went there they would be ashamed. They would want to move away.
That is what we are talking about here, the understanding of the issue. People cannot continue-and I talk about parliamentarians and politicians-to talk and not act. That is why I am very sceptical about what the Prime Minister said today. In his discussion and in his speech there was absolutely no detail of where we are going and

Government Orders
no emphasis on timetable. Where will we be five years from now? Where will we be 10 years from now?
Give the aboriginal people a goal to set for themselves and something to work towards. Show them what we mean by improved infrastructure.
Of the 46 reserves I represent, a total of four have sewers and water. The Prime Minister said that we are going to start speeding up sewer and water situations and housing. This is a rough guess and a very conservative one, if you do not mind me saying, but there are at least 500 homes are needed in those 46 communities. There are two and three families living in a little home that we would probably call our garage. And we sit here and nod our heads. Oh, we understand, but do we really, really understand?
We presented a motion in standing committee that we do cross-country hearings. We also debated and discussed very heavily in the aboriginal standing committee about having-can you believe this, Mr. Speaker-cameras in our committee meetings. The ruling was, oh no, you cannot do that. We might say something that would embarrass the government. Good God, it is too late for that. We have embarrassed ourselves already. Look at what has happened.
What we want to do is we want to open the process up and, hopefully, through that we will educate non-natives who do not understand the issue. I do not say that to belittle anyone. If one does not live in that culture or in that world, one might not understand and that is perfectly acceptable. But if we do not turn the lights on, it will always be dark. As one leader said, I am getting tired of screaming in the forest. Do you know how many people hear you in the middle of northern Ontario, thousands of miles from anybody, when you scream in the bush? Absolutely no one. And that is exactly what is happening here.
I asked the members just for once-and I say that more specifically to the government who have a very important responsibility at this present time-to listen to members who might have something concrete to say. There have been many, many suggestions made in the House and those suggestions are for a land claims commission which would allow for a non-biased, nonpartisan approach, a resolution of these land claims issues which have to be sped up at a phenomenal rate with resources applied to it. Otherwise we will never, in my lifetime, go through them all.
Also, I think it is high time that we did look at a royal commission. At first, I disapproved of a royal commission and I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. There are so many reports like this one. There are hundreds of reports that are collecting dust on peoples' desks. Keith Penner's report in 1983 was very comprehensive and it cost the government millions of dollars to put it through. It would have showed us the way to change our approach to aboriginal affairs.
The reason I did not want to go along with this royal commission is simply this. It was another delay tactic, another way of stopping what should start immediately and that is to get into the very, very nuts and bolts of the issue. Now, I think maybe it would be good to air this whole issue nation wide. By doing that, maybe someone will learn something about aboriginal affairs.
I say this because I have learned a lot from my colleague who happens to be sitting behind me. Any member who really wants to learn something about aboriginal people, should come and talk to Ethel or to Jack. They will tell them what it is like. Or they should go and spend a few weekends of their precious time, as Dennis Mills did, up on a reserve in northern Quebec and they will find out what it is all about. Once we get to that point, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you we will, as parliamentarians, have done truly something exceptional. Until then, we will just stand up here and spin our wheels. Hopefully I will not have to do that.
Unfortunately, not being a pessimist but in this case having seen it before, we are in for a difficult time if these people here do not listen.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments and ask some questions to my colleague who has just spoken.
I can understand his deception to a certain extent. Mr. Speaker, it is often true that when we are confronted with problems in caucus or in meetings we have a
September 25, 1990

tendency to shake our heads and say: "Yes, yes, I understand."
I come from Beauhamois-Salaberry. For the benefit of those who do not know, Beauhamois-Salaberry is just after Chateauguay on the road which leads to the Akwesasne reserve. The Akwesasne reserve is in my riding and I might add a little detail which may seem meaningless. When I want to go on the Akwesasne reserve, and I go there regularly to visit the residents of the reserve, I have to go through the United States and Ontario and come back through the reserve. That is a small detail which goes to show to what extent they are sometimes badly treated.
But I want to say to my colleague who has just spoken that in the end the House of Commons may be a reflection of society. We really come to grips with problems when they are staring at us in the face. Three or four months ago when everything was going so bad on the Akwesasne reserve we did not have a great debate. We were saying: We will tiy to find a solution to the problem, we asked a few question and that was the end of it. But what was going on at Akwesasne? Akwesasne is where the traffic goes through. My colleague says he visits the reserves. Well, so do I, I visit the reserve located in my riding. I was in touch with reserve chief Mike Mitchell for whom I have the greatest of respect. He said to me: "Mr. Hudon, one of these days you will see things blowing up elsewhere because traffic interruptions here will have repercussions elsewhere". And we did have them this summer.
But we were all there, in the image of society. Nobody in Chateauguay or Beauhamois-and I said this to the people of Beauhamois and Melocheville during the meetings this summer-nobody among you has been unduly concerned about what was going on at Akwesasne. The situation was very serious. They had some problems in British Columbia, they had a very serious problem there as well.
But like we do they just stand there and wait. We say we will solve the problem whenever it comes up, in a more practical way, and then- But there is something I want to say. We have been here for two days. Yesterday we talked about Iraq. We had to put an end to the debate at 7 o'clock last night because there was no unanimous consent in the House. It is a good thing we did stop at 7
Government Orders
o'clock, for otherwise we might have found a solution to the conflict in the Gulf!
This is not the place where solutions are found. It is now 9.30 p.m.
We have been talking about the Oka stand-off for a number of hours and we could talk about it for many more. We are a reflection of what goes on in society. What the other guy just said is all wrong. The hon. member is perfectly right about that. People don't listen. They always say: he missed the point. That's not the right answer. The Prime Minister spoke and he didn't say the right thing. Well, I think tonight maybe we should start negotiating. I can hear people say: That doesn't make sense. It won't work here. I agree. The Prime Minister of Canada said that he was willing to accelerate the process. Unfortunately, today, the solution is not up to the House of Commons, although I am a firm believer in the parliamentary process and I think everybody should have his say. If we were really honest, maybe just a little more so than our society tends to be, and if we were also a little less hostile, we could all find a solution. However, we always disagree with what the other guy said.
I must say that I agree with the hon. member. Another member said we should have sent a group of parliamentarians. What is that supposed to do? How is sending in a group of parliamentarians supposed to settle the conflict? You didn't say that, it was one of your colleagues who spoke just before you rose, the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur.
Now let me see, this happened about two years ago on the Mercier Bridge. The bridge was blocked because the RCMP had seized cigarettes which it wanted to give to the Quebec Provincial Police. The politician arrived on the scene and just made matters worse. People were arrested with their cigarettes and the drugs they had at the time, but that was not the answer.
I think that if we were willing to sit down together without looking at the negative side of things, without necessarily-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Question!


Jean-Guy Hudon: You want to keep me from talking?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You are making a speech.

September 25, 1990
Government Orders


Jean-Guy Hudon: This isn't a speech, although what I have to say is quite interesting-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I know the hon. member is making his comment. He is coming to his question.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to order.
However, there is one thing I cannot accept in this particular society and something society does not accept either and that is hold-ups. If you really think the Prime Minister or this evening's motion really missed the boat, does this mean you do not condemn the terrorist actions of the Warriors today? Come out and say it! Say whether you approve or condemn this their actions! Say whether you approve of terrorist action and tell the House whether people who consider themselves above the law are exempt from criminal prosecution. As a Canadian, I don't believe that.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I have put my question. [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think he put his question too. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I will recognize the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, the hon. member for Dartmouth and the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, and that will be it.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for getting involved in the debate. I am not quite sure how to answer that question or to make a comment on his comments.
First of all, I would like to go back to what I talked about in the speech and that is that this issue is a lot larger than the reserve that he speaks of that is in his community. Yes, it is unfortunate that there are some situations there that have dictated the unfortunate scenes we have seen this summer, the one where we saw the young soldier, eye to eye with a Mohawk. But I would never stand in my place and say some of the things that this member has just said about people without a fair trial and having the judicial system rule on what in essence has gone on there. The reason I did not get into the debate about Oka the way possibly I would have if I were parked there on the doorstep is because I am not
from there. If I were to speak on what I saw on TV over the summer, I would have got a very slanted view.
I have been told by my French colleagues that the French media has reported much differently than the English media on what took place there. In order for us as parliamentarians to know exactly what did take place in this unfortunate incident, why don't we have a true inquiry so then we will know? I do not like to be dictated by the French or English media because I do not really know what their mandate is. Is it to sell newspapers? Is it to sell time on TV or is it to report to me the true facts and sensitivities of the Canadian people?


An hon. member:: An excellent point.
Mr. Nault I suggest to you that because of that reason I stayed away from Oka. Maybe the member has some inside information that we as members do not have. I wished we would have pressed his Prime Minister to let us have this debate two months ago. I would have loved to come in the 1st of June or early July and talk about this before all-


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Over a year ago.


Robert Daniel Nault: -hell broke loose, if I could use that terminology, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if that is acceptable or not. That is exactly what we waited for and now we are paying for it. I say to him, if he has information that is a lot different than what we have seen, please share it with us because I think we all would like to learn from that.


An hon. member:: Well done.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you. Just a brief comment and then a question. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with interest. He raised the matter of a royal commission. At first he did not think much of a royal commission on native issues. Now he feels that perhaps it would be a good idea. I, too, think it would be a good idea.
I think it would be important for two reasons. One is to educate the public in these issues. That was done in a quick way with the Oka crisis this summer. Native issues have been on the back burner in spite of the horrible situation of native people in this country. It has always been on the back burner, even in this House of Commons.
The royal commission could do another thing. I believe it could define what we are looking for, the answer to a problem. The Mohawks talked about full sovereignty. The government cannot give that. The Prime Minister is talking about the status quo. He is not prepared to give anything on that. We have to get somewhere in between.
September 25, 1990

The royal commission, in my view, has to define self government. It is something less than full sovereignty but something more than the status quo. That is what I think the royal commission could do.
My question to the hon. member is this. I hesitate to be partisan here. Not ever being partisan, I always find Liberals sort of like jelly, trying to nail them to the wall. You know they sort of stand for this and then this and it is hard to pin them down.
Was the Liberal Party in favour of sending the army into Oka or not? Yes or no? It appeared from one member, the Whip I believe, that they wanted the army sent in. It appeared in Question Period today the Liberal Party was against the army being sent in. I ask the hon. member representing the Liberal Party, is it yes or no?


Robert Daniel Nault: Let me answer the last question first. The answer is no. Anybody in their right mind who would suggest that allowing the army to go into any community to defend the interests of our society, be it judicial or not, because when you do that, it means that the ability to police yourself has completely fallen apart. I suggest to you, not being a lawyer and you being a lawyer, and you should know better, that under that scenario, not anyone in this House should have been in favour of the army going in. What I have said in the speech, and I thought I made myself very clear, is that the reason why I never talked about that situation was because you cannot right a wrong that has already been wronged. It has already been done. It has been dealt with. Let us look at where we go from there.
I want to talk a little bit about what I talked about before. This member should pay very close attention to this and not talk when I am speaking. I want to tell him a little bit about something he asked me which shows his lack of knowledge about aboriginal affairs.
He talked about the royal commission and the fact that it should define self-government. Any individual in this House who understands aboriginal affairs will tell you that you cannot define self-government. They are all different in every individual community in this country. That is why it has never been done before. Have you ever asked a chief or council to tell you what their concept of
Government Orders
self-government is? You get an interesting stare because it is very, very difficult. That is like defining distinct society. If you can define distinct society, I will define self-government. I tell you, it is impossible. That is why it is very, very important for this member to know that the reason we are having these debates is because you learn something. Tonight he learned something.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth and then a short question from the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. I think both of you could put the questions and the hon. member will answer.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, my friend from Kenora-Rainy River, has put some sense into the debate tonight and has taken most of the partisanship out of the debate.
This truly is an issue where every member from every side of the House has to feel something deep down in their guts. We are talking about an injustice that has been allowed to go on for much too long and has caused the situation to develop at Oka. Now the government would like very dearly not to talk about the problems that have caused the confrontation at Oka. They want to talk in a very sterile environment.
I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the history of the civil rights movement in the United States, the blacks in the United States did not break laws in the United States through civil disobedience because they were law-breakers. They broke those laws to try to bring to the attention of the American people injustices that were perpetrated upon them, rights that they did not enjoy that the white population did enjoy. It was a final step to say to the larger society "For God's sake, wake up. I am human, too". That is exactly what has been happening in the native community in this country.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Are you making a speech?


Ronald MacDonald: The Prime Minister said it earlier-
If I want to make a speech, I will. If you do not want to listen to it, that is fine. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, great thinker she is.

Government Orders
The Prime Minister said it earlier, and I commend him for it. He said that the native people in this country are a gentle people. That is their history. They are not savages, contrary to what most of our schooling has taught in racist textbooks. They are not beasts, but enjoy a long and deep, rich cultural history.
What has driven a particular community out of that rich tradition to the problems that we see in Oka? It is a government and a society that does not want to deal with the fundamental problems in the native community.
I want to ask the member for Kenora-Rainy River this. Earlier the Prime Minister of Canada offered some possible solutions. I do not want to put the Prime Minister's intentions up to any scrutiny. I think he was honest this evening in wanting to do something. But, there is a problem here. The native community needs a sign of good faith by this government. It needs a sign of good faith. I am going to ask him, is this the type of thing that might lead to some movement, that might lead to restoring some of the trust that this government has destroyed with the native community if they went and did something simple, such as reinstate the funding that was cut through the Secretary of State for native newspapers in this country? Something simple like that.
In Nova Scotia, the Micmac community has lost its only form of communication among that minority community because the Secretary of State, through government cutbacks and government policies, has silenced the voice of the native community. Is this the type of thing I ask the member that the government could do to show their bona fides and to reinstate some good faith in the negotiations between the Government of Canada and our aboriginal peoples?


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer that question simply by saying that this afternoon I listened very intently to what the Prime Minister had to say. The reason I did so was that I was looking for some sort of clue as to whether indeed the trust factor which has been eroded so severely over the years would possibly spark a bit of life back into the unfriendliness created over the past few years I have had the opportunity of being a member of Parliament.
To start off the debate properly and to turn the environment around somewhat on aboriginal issues, one of the nicest gestures that one could make is a small one
when one talks about $4 billion. The Prime Minister is very quick to tell us how much it costs. He is forever telling us how much it costs. I think it would be a very nice gesture if put back in place the funds cut from native communication societies in this country.
I was the recipient of one of those major cuts in Kenora-Rainy River at Wawate which my colleague and I visited. The damage it did to those people who use that radio station, the newspaper, and the bush radios which are there for the trappers was beyond description in this House, at least for me.
A little gesture like that would go a long way toward showing that we are on the right track. If the Prime Minister were serious about what he said this afternoon, he would start to implement this process or this new agenda very quickly. If he does not, it shows that he does not really have an agenda and that what he said today was a lot of rhetoric to get people off his back for a while.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, my comment will be very short.
Yesterday, on the opening day of the Parliament of Canada, most of the country had a pent-up expectation. Later on in the afternoon after Question Period, my office on the Hill received two irate phone calls from high school teachers who had organized their classes to watch Question Period. They called and echoed their disgust at what happened in this Chamber: the bantering back and forth and not listening to each other.
Today's debate in the House of Commons has been one of the most productive, positive, high-road debates that we have ever had. I would like to thank especially my colleague today from Kenora-Rainy River who pushed for a whole new level and tone toward working together and solving very serious issues. We should have a heck of a lot more of it in this House because I think it is basically what the people of Canada want.


Jean-Guy Hudon: As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker, I wish to report to my colleagues and, through them, to all Canadians, on the way our military forces carried out the mandate they had received from the province of Quebec
September 25, 1990

following the breaking down of negotiations aimed at ending the Oka and Kahanawake crisis.
Everywhere in the world, Canada enjoys a tremendous reputation for respecting human rights and assuming peace keeping duties internationally. But now that I am personally involved with defence, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the reputation we have abroad is somewhat different from that we enjoy within our borders. That is the reason many countries were watching us, wondering sometimes with scepticism how our Armed Forces were going to end a conflict which threatened to pitch brothers against brothers. As in many family quarrels, there comes a time when people loose sight of the real reasons behind the conflict.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to recall briefly the events which forced the Quebec Government to send for our Armed Forces. Over the past few years, through its Department of Indian Affairs, the Federal Government has worked diligently with the Mohawk tribe in Oka, in Kahnesatake, to formally establish a reserve. Considerable progress has been made. The government has bought lands from individuals to turn them over to native leaders. Early in May, the Municipal Council of Oka announced its intention to purchase the land next to their city's golf course in order to extend it. Following this announcement, the Mohawks set up barricades closing access to the contentious land. Because they had failed to obey to court injunctions, the Surete du Quebec received the order to dismantle the barricades. On July 11, this police force were confronted with heavily armed opponents, saw one of their men lose his life and incurred various material losses. To demonstrate their support for the Mohawks in Oka, the Mohawks in Kanesatake set up barricades to stop traffic on the Mercier bridge between the Southshore and the Montreal Island.
Following these tragic events, the province of Quebec, under Part XI of the National Defence Act, sent General John de Chastelain, Chief of the Defence Staff, a request to help the civilian power.
Armed assistance consists in providing Armed Forces personnel pursuant to a request received from civilian authorities requesting help to enforce Canadian laws.
Government Orders
Therefore, armed assistance necessarily implies a violent situation or threat of violence.
In our country, the concept of armed assistance is based on several principles that form integral part of our judicial system. The most basic of these principles is probably that any form of martial law is unacceptable; civil power remains the supreme authority and shall not be replaced. It ensues that troops can be called in to assist the civilian authorities. The Armed Forces are called in as a last resort, only when everything else failed to maintain or restore peace and order.
When armed assistance is requested, it is assumed that the civilian authorities at all levels have already done all they could to bring back to normal a situation that has deteriorated to the point of being very serious.
Provincial authorities can requisition-hear "demand" rather than "ask for"-troups from the Armed Forces in order to have them at their disposal when needed. Pursuant to the National Defence Act, the requests are made to the highest military authority, that is the Chief of Defence Staff, rather that to a minister of the federal government or to a political authority.
The following day, that is on July 12, after consulting the Quebec minister of Public Security, the Chief of the Defence staff asked the commanding officer of the Mobile Command to provide the Surete du Quebec with support equipment and personnel, such as armoured vehicles and their drivers, bulletproof vests, rifles, and also night-vision equipment. The troops were authorized to fire their weapons only in self-defence. The same day, July 12, 96 troops were dispatched from the Longue Pointe base, in eastern Montreal.
On August 6, negotiations between native people and representatives of the federal and provincial governments broke down. Therefore, under the provisions of the National Defence Act, the province of Quebec requested that Canadian Forces be called out in aid of the civil power to assist civilian authorities to restore law and order in Oka and Kahnawake.
When he involed the National Defence Act, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Robert Bourassa, conferred upon the Canadian Forces the mandate to remove the barricades at Oka and Kahnawake, to ensure the free movement of vehicles on the roads and bridges, to take control of the fortified posts and to restore the normal

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
conditions essential to general welfare and public security-
When he instructed Lieutenant-General Foster to realize this mandate, General de Chastelain publicly committed himself to the peaceful dismantling of the barricades.
He said Canadian troops would not use force unless obliged to by the Warriors. Echoing the words of the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Mobile Command Commander also expressed his intention of proceeding without violence, but remaining ready to face any situation, confronted with Warriors equipped with military-type arms and entrenched behind fortifications that did not look the work of amateurs.
From the beginning of the crisis to its conclusion, which appears imminent, through the most recent tribulations of this conflict which are but too fresh to our memories to need to be recalled, our military maintained their quiet strength, inspired by their chief, a good balance of determination and calm. If a picture is worth a thousand words, the one of the terrible face to face of soldier Patrick Cloutier with a Warrior was shown everywhere around the world.
The step-by-step dismantling, without bloodshed, of the fortified road blocks, first in Kahnawake, then in Kanesatake, testifies to the impressive competence of the Canadian armed forces in peacekeeping operations. Our soldiers were able to combine some psychology, good sense and courage. They overcame with success several handicaps; those of having different ways of thinking, a different language and culture from those they were facing.
For many of our fellow citizens, the key role the army played in reducing tensions with aboriginal people, between aboriginal people and the people in the neighbourhood of the reserves, was a revelation. The media, particularly those of Quebec, generally conveyed with objectivity the positive contribution of the Canadian forces involved in the conflict I also experience as the member of a riding that includes the area of Chateau-guay.
A few days ago I heard a sociologist on the radio discussing the possible after effects of the conflict and whether there would be any harmful and lasting impact
on relations between the Mohawks and their neighbours. Mr. Speaker, I think we should make a very clear distinction between the legitimate aspirations of native people and the attitude of the Warriors, which is intolerable in a democracy. I am referring to these would-be soldiers, some of whom, in fact quite a number, were from outside Canada.
With the Canadian people, whose interests it reflects, the government has recognized the advantages of a quick and fair settlement of legitimate native land claims, but it had no intention of doing so at the point of a gun. Violence as a political tool or a pressure tactic was entirely unacceptable in a democratic system. Arbitrary actions can only generate fleeting successes and victories that are morally devastating. A democratic system like ours guarantees fair treatment for all citizens of Canada, as brothers who are equal before the law.
The Warriors' threats of violence will merely have postponed negotiations and as a result delayed solutions to problems such as settling the land claims of the Mohawks in Kanesatake and the transfer of 97 acres of land the federal government has purchased in the municipality of Oka.
The fact that dialogue is again possible today, Mr. Speaker, despite the pain and suffering on both sides of the barricades, the fact that there are no longer any barricades between men, women and children who share a common destiny which is to build this country, our country, is largely thanks to the fair, courageous and judicious action of the Canadian Forces. Justice, bravery and wisdom are, as we all know, platonic virtues, and I would like to take this opportunity to offer our congratulations and thanks on behalf of all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The hon. member for Saint-Boniface.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Saint-Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member's speech. Although I appreciated part of what he said, some of his comments I found rather alarming. If I understood correctly, he referred to a situation that had degenerated. He then tried to explain why.
It seems to me that there has been a quite extraordinary attempt to deny or to evade certain facts. What facts?

Is it not true that the Oka situation is in large part because of the failures of successive governments to respond sensitively and sensibly to the needs of our aboriginal peoples? Is it not true that this government's actions with regard to the capping of education funding, to the various budget cut-backs that we have discussed frequently in this House, to the unresolved land claims, to our collective inability to respond to their desire for self-government, to the lack of hope that our native brothers and sisters have in fact because of this series of broken promises, to this lots of talk and no action mentality and this series of broken promises, is it not all of this that is the real reason for what has happened in Oka?
I would ask whether or not my colleague would publicly in this House accept that this Oka situation at the very, very least is in large part a result of these failures.

Are you prepared to accept these facts? Are you prepared to condemn sending in the troops against our own brothers and sisters, against fellow Canadians?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before the hon. member answers the question, I will recognize the hon. member for Victoria and then the hon. member for Nepean on a short question or comment.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the hon. member's question because I believe he expects a reply. I think we must put the Oka situation into context. Oka is not and was not a reserve. So when the town of Oka decided to expand its golf course onto land that belonged to a resident of France, don't tell me this was not a legitimate request. A municipal council may, within certain limits, take certain initiatives. Two court injunctions authorized the town council to do so and to oblige people to take down the barricades. Previously, in the past year, the federal government had purchased several other properties to form a real reserve. Everything was fine. It is no more than natural for a municipality to want to add to property it already has, in a legitimate manner. People in other countries were
Government Orders
joking about the whole thing. I heard the news on French television and they said there was a major dispute in Canada between Indians and White people about a golf course. I think that is an exaggeration.
As for his comments on education funding, I think we shouldn't always think in terms of dollars and cents. I agree it is important. When we talk about cuts in education, as far as I know I don't have all my notes with me the cuts introduced last year do not mean, and I think Canadians should realize this and that you should realize it as well, do not deny native people access to university.
I am all for paying somebody's courses, their room and board and their books. More power to them. But, when they are enrolled in law school and the course takes four years, four years is all they are allowed. If the chancellor of the university says it takes an extra preparatory year, that will be paid for as well. That makes five years. After five years, no more. That is not what I call cutting off funding. It is just obliging people to observe a certain timeframe and do what you and I had to do when we were getting an education. These were constraints we had to live with.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the member's speech and on the situation in Oka and to use this opportunity to do so. What we have seen this summer is a terrible tragedy for Canada. I was listening this afternoon when the Prime Minister decided, in answering a question, to score a point on the basis of the violence that is being taught to young children behind the barricades in Oka, and the Conservative benches roared with laughter at the great score that he had made. This came across to me really as a form of racism, which underlies our whole reaction in Canada to what we have been seeing in Oka and to the real tragedy that has been happening there. Because the violence that we are seeing there behind the lines is really a product of the violence of our society and the terrible violence that we, in Canada, have wrought over hundreds of years on the aboriginal native populations in this country. The rape that happens to women, the sexual assault on children, the suicides of young Indians, the pain and agony that has come from the high populations in our jails, are all products of our violence against native people. And somehow this government keeps persisting in blaming the victims of the violence that has been wrought. It is time that this House

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
understood that we have to speak of reconciliation, of trying to come together to build a more just society.
Let me speak briefly about what this has done to the army. My new role in this House is as critic for our party on defence matters. I see what has happened to the army. The individual soldiers who are there have shown great personal courage but the government has put them and the army in a position in which its authority and its image in this country is slowly eroding. It puts them in a position where they are beginning to trample on the civil liberties of Canadians by denying communications and the right to communications to the press. The rights of journalists in Iraq are greater than the rights of journalists in the Oka area and behind the barricades.
The army is now imposing increased pressure on the people who are there. The image of the army is slowly eroding. The opportunity that it has to risk serious violence on the people there is a daily feature of the situation which this government's neglect has caused. I would ask the member if he would not concede that the time has come in this country for reconciliation and for resolving this matter, not with more violence but with peace and justice.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Sure enough it is ingratiating. But there is a very simple way to initiate reconciliation. As long as armed people remain behind barricades and refuse to come out the process cannot begin.
That is not the way negotiations will get under way because if we begin to negotiate now I can tell you that the first item up for negotiation will not be the territorial claims, they will begin by negotiating safe-conducts for those peole.
They say that those people are traditionalists. I said a moment ago that I had visited the Akwesasne reserve in my riding, I got a book about the traditional values of the Mohawks as a present from chief Mike Mitchell because I had attended the opening of a housing project. I did not see any Mohawk warriors who had to be protected by women and children and move about with a rag over their face to avoid recognition! I did not see that.
A real Mohawk is someone who stood proud and was prepared to face the enemy. They are the ones we have always known and with whom we have always negotiated. They are not in Oka now. They are the ones who suffered in Chateauguay. A moment earlier you said something about suffering-we do not want to be racists and that is precisely what will prevent us from being so-when I consider what is going on in Chateauguay right now, with the solidarity committee which has been established in an effort to fight against such attitudes, because the effects of racism can be felt on both sides-
The real warriors are the people of Chateauguay and the native people who show respect for certain values and who, like you and I, have been taken hostage, just like the people of Melocheville or Beauhamois. Those are also Canadian values.
The negotiations were going well. No one likes the army. I said so in my speech. I had said that before in Haiti, when I was Chairman of the Parliamentary Commission on Haiti: In Canada, we feel towards military governments the way we feel towards hives. We do not like them. Nobody does. The purpose of my comment was to show that the army had behaved professionally. The first series of phone calls I got was for the army to come in and kill them all. That is not what we wanted them to do. De Chastelain, Foster, and Brigadier General Roy assumed their responsibilities and did so as gentlemen. They acted correctly, without violence. If there is still some violence today, let me tell you that we could put an end to it very easily. I could even call the Warriors tomorrow morning and tell them to lay down their arms and face their responsibilities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Nepean on a question or comment.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, a comment first and then a question to the parliamentary secretary.
The recent clash and subsequent stand-off between the provincial police officers, the Canadian army and the Mohawk Indians is both tragic and unnecessary.
This government turned its back on an issue that is clearly theirs and one that it could have resolved in the first week of the crisis. This is a national tragedy and one that every member in this House should be thoroughly ashamed of. Canada's armed service men and women are being used as fall guys for a government that has been incapable of acting to end the tragic circumstances

Government Orders
in Kanesatake. None of us condone armed intervention. None of us condone violence. But I can partly understand it. When one consistently has one's back to the wall, when one's rights are consistently being trampled on, when one watches the federal government bend over backwards to accommodate a distinct society within that particular province, but does not include its native peoples in that accommodation, when one sees a federal government that does not appreciate or understand the national aspirations of its first citizens, then I understand their frustration.
A closer look at the crisis and its implications gives me cause to be concerned that the fundamental guarantee to basic human rights are not being met.
Amnesty International has the Oka situation under investigation at this very moment. They are in the process of collecting affidavits from those who have documented human rights abuses. Our international reputation as a strong human rights nation has been sullied by our government's failure to limit the many human rights abuses in this crisis. The United Nations has been asked to intervene and the UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples has listed representations about the specific situation that we are debating today. Surely, if these international organizations are actively looking into the situation, there must be some legitimate concerns.
Does the parliamentary secretary believe that these concerns bear further examination? Does he think that they can only be given the attention they deserve through a full royal commission and judicial enquiry?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to bring to the attention of the hon. members that we will have to keep this question and answer period within the 10 minutes, otherwise we are going to stay here until three o'clock in the morning. That is fine, if you would like to stay here until three I am willing to stay. I think that I have been very kind, but let us try to get questions very succinct and to the point.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Human rights were trampled on. I should like to know by whom? By our Armed Forces? By the Canadian Government? I do not think so. Some rights were effectively trampled on. At some point during the negotiations, the Commission on International Rights was made up of 24 members. If these people keep quiet now, it is because they understand the situation better.
I must tell you, Madam Speaker, that if you try to make out of the problem in Oka and Chateauguay, a problem of a distinct society, you should pay a visit to my county where a bunch of people are doing exactly that. I received three kinds of phone calls as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. The first series, until the army arrived came from people who wanted us to send in the army to kill them all! The second series was from the Pacifists. As soon as the army arrived, they were worried about our international reputation. I was afraid too. The third series was from people like you. You refuse the natives the right to a distinct society while you yourselves, as Quebec separatists, are demanding it for Quebecers. I can tell you there is a major difference between a distinct society and a distinct nation. As soon as Quebec has a referendum and a government bent on separation, then they will want a distinct society. I do not agree with that, Madam. But that is the difference between the two.
The legislation we amended in this House was different from the War Measures Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are terminated. The next speech is for 10 minutes with five minutes for questions and comments. The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, that, indeed, is my constituency and I do plan to speak for 10 minutes, followed by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.
I am very pleased to be able finally to participate in this long overdue debate. The events that we have seen this summer of Canadians are ones which will be seared in our memories probably forever. They are shocking events: razor wire, dogs, search lights, women and

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
children being stoned in their cars, and food being withheld. Images that we, as Canadians, never thought we would see in this peaceful country of ours. A level of violence that ill-becomes us and is in no way part of our national identity, or so we thought.
Like the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, I, too, spent a good part of my summer touring Indian communities in my constituency. There are 13 and approximately 15,000 treaty Indian people in my constituency. My heart bled more than once at what I saw, especially among the young people, as they asked each other: "Are we prepared to die? Are we prepared to be like the people in Oka and Kanesatake? Are we prepared to die for our people if it should come to that?" And beyond that, the level of anger. In fact, that became perhaps even an attractive option, even to go so far as to think about taking life and becoming violent themselves.
I could understand the deep frustration of the Indian leadership in those communities and the sorrow of their elders as they saw the young people pick up that kind of thinking and those kinds of attitudes on the basis of what they saw over the summer.
We saw, too, the total abdication of leadership in the country and at the level that is probably unprecedented in our constitutional history when it comes to Indian people. Our Constitution is clear when it comes to the trust relationship which the federal government has towards the Indian people. We saw the Minister of Indian Affairs who hid. We saw a Prime Minister who hid.
At the same time, we were virtually in a situation of civil war between Indian people and our own military forces. We had a situation where Indian people were being denied food and medicine. Whole Indian communities were feeling themselves threatened and, in fact, Indian people across the country felt in the position where they needed to mobilize themselves to take action and we had a Minister of Indian Affairs who decided to hide behind the army and the police and a Prime Minister who decided to hide as well.
Therefore, I, like many other Canadians, was waiting very anxiously to see what the government's response would be when it got here to Parliament. What did we see? It was like a bad western movie. What we see here is talk about law and order. We see it repeated over and over again, a vilification of the warriors. Nobody condones the actions that some of the warriors have undertaken. Certainly nobody condones violence. But for the government to focus its attack exclusively on vilification of the warriors and justifying its actions on that very narrow basis, I think is an insult to thousands of Canadians. It is an insult to the thousands of Canadians who marched peaceably, to the thousands of Canadians who participated in peace camps, who attempted to get involved in the situation, who went to Oka, who went to Kanesatake to try to become personally involved in a constructive kind of way and were shunted away and driven away.
It is an insult to the Indian leadership who kept the situation very much under control throughout the country. It is an insult to those Canadians who made all kinds of efforts to become involved and to become informed, many of them for the first time, about the situation which in fact confronts Indian people in the country, the historical situation that we have allowed to evolve, and the situation of the lives of Indian men and women in Indian communities across the country. It is an insult to those Canadians who took this issue seriously for the government to turn around now and say that these are just lunatics that it had to look after. That is the sum total of the government's response.
I guess what sticks in my craw further to that is all this sanctimonious talk about the sacredness of the law and that the government's sole effort here, their sole motivation is to uphold that law. If it is so concerned about the sacredness of the law, why are groups like Amnesty International or the human rights commissions-100 of them from Quebec alone-investigating the situation there and coming up with condemnations one after the other of what they have seen happen? Why have we seen food used as a weapon? That is something we decry internationally when it happens, yet we have done it ourselves.
If the government is so concerned about the rule of the law, why do we see the muzzling of the press and the cutting off of communications? If it is so concerned about the rule of law, why did they use the National Defence Act which holds very little recourse by way of public accountability, as opposed to the Emergencies Act which would require Parliament to be called within seven days and require a public inquiry to be held when all the events had transpired so that there would be a full accountability to the Canadian public? If it was so
September 25, 1990

concerned about the rule of law, why did the government not use that mechanism?
Then we heard the Prime Minister this afternoon talk about how the warriors should give themselves up because they would only be giving themselves up to the finest legal system in the world, a legal system that they could have total confidence in because it is the same law for all. In fact, we have had a lot of talk about being the same law for all and there cannot be any exceptions and so on. Does the Prime Minister remember the Donald Marshall case? Does he remember the Manitoba justice inquiry? Does he realize that in my own province of Saskatchewan 80 per cent of the people incarcerated in that province are of native ancestry, although they make up only about 10 per cent of the population?
Does the Prime Minister not know that Indian people have a deep sense of laws being broken ever since 1763, the Royal Proclamation that said that they should not be disturbed at their hunting until treaties are concluded? We are still disturbing the Innu at their hunting without a treaty being concluded.
In my own constituency the Peter Ballantine Band has waited for 100 years now for 240,000 acres of land that are owing them. That is the law. The treaty is the law. They are to get that land. Yet, the Prime Minister says this legal system is something that is the finest in the world, that the same law applies to all and that the Indian people can have total confidence in the law.
Having said that, I would like to conclude by saying that I do agree that it is time for healing in the country. This has gone on for too long. We must reconcile the present situation immediately and the suggestion that a group of parliamentarians intervene immediately is a veiy good one. It would bring both public scrutiny and a sense of confidence that in fact the political process is working.
Second, I think we need to be honestly critical here. It is not acceptable for the Minister of Indian Affairs to stand up in the House and simply say that the government has nothing to apologize for. It has. Previous governments have things to apologize for and the Canadian people have things to apologize for. I think we need
Government Orders
to be honestly self-critical if there is to be understanding and reconciliation come out of all this.
We have to explore some useful ideas, and I give the Prime Minister credit for standing in the House this afternoon. I hope he was sincere. He floated some very useful ideas and I think it underlined again why we should have had this debate a long time ago. If the Prime Minister had come forward with some of the ideas he presented today six weeks ago, it could very likely be possible that a lot of events which have transpired since then would not, in fact, have occurred.
In that context, I also hope he takes very seriously our leader's suggestion for an aboriginal claims commission because I think that is an idea that is long overdue.
In closing, I would like to say that we need to go beyond what we can do as parliamentarians in the sense of law and the things we do as parliamentarians and develop a new sense of partnership between people, a sense of brotherhood and sisterhood to overcome the racism we see in our society, the distrust, and the sense that our children will grow up being each other's enemies. We need to bring peace, justice and love, not only in what we talk about and do, but in the way we conduct our lives so that, as our leader so eloquently put it today, we can turn a rebellion of despair into a revolution of hope.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend makes a very eloquent, albeit inflammatory and totally political speech full of all kinds of points that really do not get to the point at all.
The point we are dealing with here is one that is very serious, and most members in the House this evening have tried to stay away from political rhetoric. It has elevated the tone of this debate a great deal and it is a matter appreciated by many members of our listening audience across the country.
My question to the hon. member is very simple. How can the hon. member condone the taking of a life in the promotion of a cause, no matter how good that cause may seem to the people who are espousing that cause? Does the member believe that masked warriors dressed in full battle regalia, carrying weapons that one sees only

Government Orders
in movies about full-fledged war, promote the interests of the Indian people that he speaks so eloquently about?
The warriors are armed. We know that they were prepared to use those arms. I do not understand, and perhaps the member can tell me, how that kind of activity can do anything at all to promote the very just and legitimate cause of many of the Indian people who have very just and legitimate causes to be promoted across the country. How can he condone the use of armed force in the promotion of an idea?


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I would have to start by saying that I think the hon. member misunderstood the point of my speech completely and that may well be my fault. I was trying to pack in a lot of ideas in a very short time.
In no way do I condone the taking of a life and what has happened here. I have been a life-long advocate of non-violent solutions to problems, including involvement in the civil rights movements in the United States and the anti-Vietnam movement where I personally have always advocated non-violence. I have done so as well in the Indian communities in which I move and take every step that I can to advocate peaceful, non-violent solutions to problems. In no way do I condone the fact that there has been an escalation of violence here.
The point that I am making, however, is that it is hypocritical-and I do not mean that in the partisan sense-to say that the violence is that of only a small group of people, the warrior society at Oka. I think the violence that has expressed itself has much wider origins than that and finds much wider expression than that. In fact, what is so tragic is that we did not respond to that situation at an early point in its evolution. What were we doing here? It struck me, are we so crazy that we are going to have a civil war in this country because somebody wants to build a golf course on a burial ground? The whole series of events that evolved have shown that certainly the Warriors Society has its way of doing things that I do not personally agree with but, as well, the government's response to that has been one, I think, of machismo as well in that you do not negotiate at the point of a gun and you keep ratcheting up the level of confrontation with lights and depriving a community of food until the whole country is anxious and up tight and in a tinder-box kind of situation. Therefore, I would say that I very much believe and hope that this can be resolved peacefully and, in fact, that this will be a lesson to all of us and one that will not be repeated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. For the other half of that 20 minutes, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I concur wholeheartedly with the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, who has been a lifelong pacifist and has fought hard for the cause of pacificists and the cause of peace. I see the Minister of Justice in the House and I am hoping she will take some notes and reply to some of my comments.
I want to say right off the bat, let us make it quite clear, Canadians are against violence but they feel very strongly that this government has bungled this situation. That is what you get everywhere. As a matter of fact, I think the country would like to see the Tories and their politics out of Oman, out of Oka and out of office as soon as possible. I want to raise some legal questions tonight and, as I said, I would like the Minister of Justice to respond.
The first question is: who is in charge here, who is running the show? Is it the federal government, the provincial government, the army, who? Surely Canadians are entitled to know that. As part of that, how did this thing happen in Canada? How did we get to this horrible situation in Canada? I think you have to look at the political situation at the time this happened. You had a Prime Minister who was angry and wounded over Meech Lake and did not know what to do. He delegated the situation to a premier, Premier Bourassa, who was also angry and arrogant toward the native people and malevolent toward the native people, holding them up as the cause of the destruction of Meech Lake. I think that was the real politics and someone should say that and I have just said it. I think that is what happened. At the time, the Prime Minister delegated to Premier Bourassa, the Surete operation was bungled. If there ever was a police force in need of reform, it is the Surete du Quebec and it was bungled by the Quebec government which is the political master of the Surete and which is responsible.
Then the Prime Minister of Canada and this government used the Defence Act, not the Emergency Measures Act, the Defence Act. In my view that was unconstitutional and illegal. The Defence Act was not made for that purpose. The Defence Act, in my view, is made for a riot or a disturbance where the provincial premier could call in the army for a short period. Why else would it say in the act that the province is responsi-
September 25, 1990

ble but the federal government pays all the bills? Would Parliament leave that open ended? There is provision for a report to the Secretary of State, after seven days. Where is the report? I ask the Minister of Justice to show us that report here tonight.
Why did the government not use the Emergency Measures Act which is the reform of the War Measures Act, which is surely for an insurrection or something like this that happened in Oka? Why did the government not use that? Because they would have to recall Parliament and because there are certain civil liberties protections. I challenge the minister tonight to get up in this House and again justify the shameful conduct that is being applied as it relates to Canadian journalists. It is a clear violation of the Charter of Rights and it is a clear violation of freedom of the press in this country and an example of a bungling government and an example of the price that we are paying for this Oka situation. This is something that we have to look into when this motion goes to committee, the act that was used, the civil liberties violations and so on.
The resolution of the government is bad. The Prime Minister is hanging onto a law and order motion. Everybody, of course, is in favour of law and order but this crisis goes deeper. The Prime Minister is wrong in one aspect. He is in fact saying the law has to apply to all Canadians. There is a principle, of course, of equality under the law. But there are different laws for different Canadians. It is in our law and the Prime Minister fails to grasp this. For example, Quebec is treated differently. They have the Napoleonic code, civil law, a different language protection and different educational rights protection. Natives are distinct in many ways in our law; the fiduciary relationship with the federal government; hunting, fishing and so on and rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Prime Minister is wrong when he proceeds on this premise and the resolution is wrong when it proceeds on this premise.
The reason we need a royal commission, and it has to be an active royal commission and it has to go somewhere in defining between what the Mohawks have asked for, which is sovereignty, which no Canadian government can really recognize and, on the other hand, the status quo, which the Prime Minister wants to see.
Government Orders
We must find some way in the middle where there can be self government that can be defined. It is already in our law; it is already possible. The government is not grasping this and that is why this is a misleading resolution. The Prime Minister bungled the situation, retreated and handed it to the Premier of Quebec who bungled it malevolently, and then comes back in this House and wraps himself in the cloak of law and order. It is disgusting. As soon as the Canadian electorate can go to the polls, they are going to vote this government out of office.
I would like to end with a couple of other matters. It has been called the summer of discontent in Canada by my leader, and we all agree with that. When we saw the native and the old people being stoned at Chateauguay, it was a shame, it was the dark side of racism. But we should remember that that can happen anywhere in Canada. If the Lion's Gate Bridge in B.C. was blockaded, I am ashamed to say that you might see some similar conduct. Let us not just blame the people of Quebec because we all have that dark side to us in Canada. It is still a dark side and we should condemn it.
The second aspect of that is the Warriors. I am speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker, and I say this to many progressive people in Canada: do not be naive. We are against guns, we are against this kind of American conduct that the Warriors adopted. I see it as an almost fascistic takeover of a part of the Mohawk nation by a very, very ultra right-wing group that has been mixed up in some very questionable activities, and I think one has to say that. Having said that, where do we go from here? It is almost like, you know, it is the right cause. It is the cause and people understand the cause, but it is the wrong way to go about the cause. We have a choice in Canada; we can have more violence across Canada or we can tackle the legitimate claims of the native people.
You heard the member for Prince Albert say 80 per cent of the people in jail in Saskatchewan are native people. We must change that. We need to have a new relationship with native people in this country. I call upon the Minister of Justice tonight to begin by ending the Oka crisis. I heard them on television tonight. Call for an independent Crown attorney now. Is that really too great a thing to ask, and some protection from the army when they put down their weapons. I say put down

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
the weapons now. I say that the government agree to an independent Crown attorney and take charge. Don't just let Bourassa and the Quebec government deal with the whole thing. The Minister of Justice has a responsibility. You must give these people in there, whatever you think of them, a little bit of honour to get out of there because that honour will go on to the native people in this country who are looking for a little bit of honour.
Let me end on a positive note and I look forward to the Minister of Justice replying to my remarks. We all felt great, did we not, when the army and the natives got together and started pulling those barricades down on the bridge. We felt wonderful as Canadians, that was from the Canadian spirit, that was as a peaceful country. Let us get back to that. We are only going to get back to that by this Prime Minister cutting out the phoniness, facing the issue straight on and we, as a people, getting a new relationship with the native people and the federal government, through the Minister of Justice tonight taking over control of what is going on in Oka and negotiating at the last minute a settlement with honour.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I have an idea that my colleague is not terribly familiar with the Emergencies Act or if he was, then perhaps he would realize that there are three types of emergency: there is public order, there is public welfare and there is international emergency. In the case of the two that have to do with the domestic problem, there is no need to recall Parliament. Having said that, I want to refer to his comment that in the very outset that the government had bungled the situation. He used the word 'bungled'. In hindsight, as we heard from one of my colleagues this evening, I think that is a very serious mistake in terms because in fact the government has not bungled the situation.
How can the hon. member even suggest such a thing when the barricades have been removed? He alluded to this a moment ago and the good feeling that people had when the barricades were removed without incident and without any loss of life. How can he say that this government has bungled the situation when the volatility
of something that was very, very iffy, very touchy, was removed with cool-headed, capable, competent, calm action? How can he say that the situation has been bungled when in fact over 77 long days that were very trying and very emotional for all of us, not a single life was lost since the very beginning of the incident? How can the hon. member say that the government has bungled the situation? The government has shown the kind of leadership that was necessary to get through a difficult situation with honour, with integrity and without loss of life.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I think to get through the situation, in many respects it was the army and its their public conduct. There was some violence there. It was not exemplary, but the conduct got the government through and got us through. We are not through it yet. We are almost through it. The government should take some action tonight as I have suggested. It bungled it from the beginning. In my speech I suggested how in the beginning it bungled the matter. I suggest you ask any Canadian citizen out there. They will tell you they think the government has bungled the matter. The government is even worse, it is even more sleazy. It is now the Prime Minister who comes before the House and tries to wrap himself in this law and order stance. I am sure he has gone to Allan Gregg and looked at the polls. Well, Canadians like law and order. All right, we will go with law and order. You can see it. You can smell it from the man when he speaks. Where was he in the beginning of the crisis? Where was he hiding? Where was his minister? That is how the government bungled the situation because it was not there in the beginning. It could have made it a lot shorter.
With respect to the Emergency Act, I suggest the member read it. I ask the member to comment on my suggestion. Does she really believe that Parliament really intended to turn over a situation like this to a provincial premier and then let him run up the bills? We have to pay all the bills in this. I don't know if Canadians understand that. It is at the beck and call of a provincial premier. At some point he even said that he was not sure he was running. I call that bungling and I call that the wrong act. I think that the government has to respond to this when we get the committee.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased tonight to rise in this debate. I am just watching my time here because I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam which I think are highly uncalled for. The hon. member is a lawyer and a lawyer of some skill. He knows. He has read the Constitution. I have great respect for the hon. member as a lawyer. He is, in fact, a fine and distinguished member of the British Columbia bar and has practised with some distinction. Notwithstanding that my father occasionally used to whip his butt in the courtroom, he is highly regarded by the Campbell lawyers.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


A. Kim Campbell: Whip his writ. When he refers to the notion of the Prime Minister delegating this to the premier of Quebec, the hon. member knows the Constitution. He knows who has the constitutional responsibility for law enforcement. The Government of Canada worked very hard this summer to try and do what was ever within our constitutional power to contain the situation at Oka and to ensure that it was resolved in a way that did not result in loss of life. It was something that we agonized over. I would say to the hon. member that his comments about the warriors and what kind of people they are I find very welcome. They were pretty scarce in the early days, and I recall a time during this conflict, about the middle of July, when the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development described the warriors in an unattractive way as criminals and thugs and was denounced roundly from one end of the country to the other.
Interestingly enough, about a week later in The Globe and Mail the story came out: "Mohawk chiefs decry paramilitary warriors, group called gang of criminals". Barbara Barnes, a spokesman for the chiefs' council did not mince words about the members of the Mohawk Warrior Society: "I agree with Harry Swayne 100 per cent, the warriors are a gang of criminals".
However, the fact of the matter is that this summer the government was doing a great deal, but it was doing it in the face of a very uninformed public opinion which in fact seemed to think that the warriors were heroes and
Government Orders
could not make the distinction between a group of armed warriors who had a particular interest that they wanted to defend and the legitimate aspirations of Indian people across this country.
I have talked to Indian people across this country who are themselves feeling disillusioned about the late arrival of people like Grand Chief Georges Erasmus on the scene to talk about what they really think of the warriors. Across this country there was a lot of confusion as to who these people were and an enormous amount of strained and tom loyalties among Indian peoples themselves as to how they should respond to the warriors.
I think it has been an enormously difficult situation because we had a group of very unpleasant people, many of whose chief victims have been members of their own community, who have been glamorized and idealized and set up as the champions of a cause in which they are not even faintly interested except in so far as it suits their own particular needs. I think to say that the government did not care, was not involved, bungled or delegated is completely wrong.
It would have been very nice if the Government of Canada had the constitutional jurisdiction to reinforce the law. It does not have it in Quebec. It does not have it in British Columbia. It does not have it in Ontario, which is why all of those situations which occurred this summer were dealt with by provincial authorities.
Once again, when we talk about the question of the honour to get out, the army made a very fair and straightforward offer to the warriors who are now in the treatment centre. I think this whole question of what is a fair and honourable denouement has a great deal to do with how one characterizes the warriors and who they are. I think a lot of people have lost sight of just who they are and what they represent.
I must say as Minister of Justice that I find it hard to answer the questions of people who say to me in my own riding and other parts of the country that if we appeared in masks carrying AK-47s, we would not be treated the way the warriors have been in Kanesatake. If a Chinese youth gang in Vancouver made a little trouble and appeared on the scene with masks and AK-47s, would they have been treated with that kind of patience? What about a group of young blacks in downtown Toronto or Haitians in Montreal?

Government Orders
It is a pretty tough question to answer, and frankly as Minister of Justice I am veiy troubled about that. I think the situation is not helped by people here fudging who and what the warriors are. I appreciate the hon. member's unambiguous statements that they should be the foundation of a reanalysis and a rethinking of the rest of things he said in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today on the motion presented by my honorable colleague the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In that motion, the House is invited to commend the Canadian Armed Forces for their conduct.
I am sure that all the hon. members in this House will agree to say that our soldiers have demonstrated both courage and restraint in extremely difficult circumstances, as well as professionalism and discipline in emotionally packed moments and under very trying conditions.
Their exemplary conduct is worthy of the proudest Canadian traditions and of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The motion today goes on to call for the persons behind the barricades to lay down their arms and to submit to the processes of our nation's judicial system. This motion speaks to some of the most cherished of our democratic rights and freedoms.
My first career before I became a lawyer was as a political scientist specializing in the government and politics of the Soviet Union. My thesis adviser at the London School of Economics was a renowned scholar, Professor Leonard Shapiro, whose career was a mirror image of my own, since he went from the practice of law to academia, while I did the reverse. I believe that his distinguished career at the British bar provided the philosophical foundation for his later academic work. When he died in 1983 he was recognized as one of the great authorities on the Soviet Union.
One of the most important criteria by which he judged a society was whether or not it was governed by the rule of law. Sadly, during Professor Shapiro's lifetime that claim could not be made for the U.S.S.R., although recent changes have been dramatic.
My study of the Soviet Union in the pre-Glasnost era in my three months there in 1972 as well as travels elsewhere in the world have enabled me to gain some perspective on a concept which is taken for granted in Canada: the notion of the rule of law. It is the foundation stone of all our other values because it provides the rules of the game by which we reconcile the differences of interest, value, and opinion that are inevitable in human society. The challenge faced by democratic societies is to recognize that our values are often in conflict with each other.
When I taught political philosophy one of the most fascinating areas for my students was an examination of how different thinkers and different ideological schools of thought deal with the conflict between the values of equality and liberty. Societies cannot maximize either value without some cost to the other and an equilibrium struck in one era may not be acceptable to the priorities of another era.
How do we manage the conflicts in values and priorities in a manner which does not tear society apart? We do it through process which are enshrined in our law. Those processes and laws are themselves subject to change, but the confidence that the rules of the game will be observed is the foundation of our civility.
If one has never been in a country which is not a democracy, one perhaps cannot appreciate the significance of the orderly transition of governments based on electoral results. Notwithstanding the rhetoric that is frequently heard in this House, no one here is under any doubt as to the commitment of all members here to those fundamental rules, even if if occasionally we purport to think that the views of pollsters should substitute for a proper electoral mandate.
Even before but especially since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms became a part of our law, part of our rules of the game, courts have struck down the legislation of this House. However we may regard those decisions, it is unthinkable that we would not abide by their findings. Thus even those who made the rules are subject to constitutional limitations. These limitations and rules are not unchangeable. Sometimes we find them outdated or inappropriate and we seek to revise them, but by working with and through the law and democratic processes we make changes that are accepted as legiti-
September 25, 1990

mate, even by those who do not like them, because they been made according to the accepted rules.
The rule of law which binds governments as well as citizens is a call to an adherence to a reasoned and balanced process of law making in accordance with our Constitution. Fundamental to the principle and the process is the rejection of the arbitrary use of force, a rejection of violence.

We can review how the native leaders, governments and such and such locality responded to events in Oka and Chateauguay-Kahnawake.
We can discuss the wisdom of a specific line of conduct and the merits of the stand adopted by the Warriors. However, this debate must have for framework the fundamental principles of our society.
My colleague the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development gave an excellent overview of the programs the government has implemented with the participation of the native leaders to protect the interests of the native peoples.

We know that we have a long way to go to ensure a rightful and fair place for aboriginal peoples in our country. We also know that a necessary precondition is the acceptance by all Canadians, without exception, of the rule of law. In the final analysis our primary concern must be to see that justice is served. The people of Canada, both native and non-native, demand it.
In current circumstances certain warriors have taken up arms and are resisting the enforcement of the law. Certain aboriginal leaders argue that peace officers should not search for illegal weapons on Indian lands because these lands are sovereign territory, not subject to the law of Canada.
The Government of Canada rejects the use of force by those with no authority under Canadian law. We reject any contention that the criminal law of Canada does not apply from coast to coast on public and private property, on Indian lands, or on land devoted for the use of some other group.
Government Orders
Justice must be applied to those who have consciously and wilfully resisted legitimate authority in the application of the law. We must not undermine the principle that everyone is subject to the law. We must not send a signal that laws can be ignored to suit individual circumstance.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Nobody said they should be.


A. Kim Campbell: The rule of law is the only assurance we have of justice for the private citizen in order for the community-


Ronald MacDonald: Treaties are law.


A. Kim Campbell: The rule of law is the necessary precondition for a society in which our values can flourish. It enables us to weigh our actions, consider the consequences and know what to expect. We cannot pick and choose when we want to apply the law and we cannot pick and choose which laws we want to obey.
If one indulges in crime or civil disobedience, one does so with the assurance that actions have consequences. By the same principle, Canadians have the assurance that if legal consequences apply to them each Canadian enjoys the same guarantee of due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to be heard.
Canadians have been shocked and deeply moved by the tragic events at Oka and Chateauguay-Kahnawake. Canadians have a deep sympathy for the grievances of native people, but one distinction must be kept crystal clear: we must not confuse the legitimate concerns of native people with the resistance to the rule of law by armed warriors at Oka.	.

I categorically refuse to equate the confrontation in Oka to pure and simple civil disobedience.
Weapons are not the tools of civil disobedience. Violence, effective or threatened, profits nobody. It makes innocent people suffer losses and gets in the way of rational discussions.
Violence cannot and will not be tolerated.
I also refuse to believe that the situation in Oka relates to land claims. That question was settled.
On the 27th of August, my colleague, the minister for Indian Affairs and Northen Development, announced

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
that his department had accepted to acquire 60 residential lots covering an area totalling 30 acres.
The lots in question at Oka will never be used for a golf course.
The government of Canada acquired them with the intention to negotiate their transfer to the relevant Mohawks authorities, as soon as all threats of violence will cease.
No, Mr. Speaker, the primacy of law is the question at stake.
The people concerned used very powerful arms to resist to the polices. A police officer was killed. Many innocent victims were threatened. Certain Mohawks were badly beaten.
Houses were broken into and vandalized.
That explains why, on August 27th, Premier Robert Bourassa, in accordance with the powers conferred on the provinces by the National Defence Act, asked the Armed Forces to remove the barricades, store the circulation on all streets and bridges, bring down all centres of resistance and store normal conditions of public order and security.

Under Canadian law, the Armed Forces are obliged to assist in the enforcement of the law when provincial law enforcement agencies are unable to prevent, suppress or control riots, insurrections or other disturbances of the peace. The Canadian forces have been called upon to do their duty and they will remain at Oka until such time as order is restored or the premier of Quebec requests their withdrawal.
I would like to remind hon. members that the Government of Canada has conscientiously avoided jeopardizing the efforts of the Government of Quebec to negotiate a solution to the situation at Oka. At the same time we have used our best efforts to assist in the negotiations.
Throughout the government has sought a peaceful resolution. We share the concern of many Canadians for the safety of the warriors now surrounded at Oka, but we would not agree with a decision to grant amnesty for their actions. No government can or should negotiate whether the law should be respected. No government can or should be expected to negotiate anything under the threat of weapons or violence. We do not accept that
the warriors are legitimate representatives of their people. The citizens of Kanesatake and Kahnawake do not accept them as such.
The Oka warriors will be given all the protection of the due process of law, for this too is fundamental to the rule of law. We will not invite a lasting disrespect for a system of justice that has served Canadians well, and we will not invite prospect of future violence against Canadians.

If the Warriors do accept the offer made by the Canadian Armed Forces to guarantee their safety, we will have to decide if criminal charges will be laid against them.
Individuals facing no charges will be released. Those who are will be entitled to a fair trial and the full protection of the Charter, the law and the courts.
In Canada, justice and fairness start with the rule of law. According to this principle, the government of Canada will continue to work with the native people to achieve their legitimate aspirations.

The government respects and honours all legitimate Indian leaders who come forward peacefully. The government welcomes the opportunity to sit down and discuss reforms to the justice system with these leaders but not with warriors with guns in their hands. We are prepared to move on many fronts. Last June, for example, I requested that the Law Reform Commission of Canada study the Criminal Code and related laws to ensure that any provision of the law that might impair the accessibility and fairness of the criminal law for aboriginal people be identified. I expect to receive their report in the summer of 1991.
The Government of Canada and the provincial governments are working toward reform of the justice system in native affairs. A recent meeting of federal, provincial and territorial Ministers of Justice agreed to hold a conference as proposed by my colleague, the Minister of Justice for the Yukon, on native justice issues in 1991 as an opportunity for governments and aboriginal leaders from all regions to discuss aboriginal aspirations for the justice system.
What have native communities asked for? Greater control of local police, new systems of dispute adjudica-
September 25, 1990

tion, tribal courts, community involvement in sentencing. Most of these demands are not unreasonable.
In looking at them the government is resolved to remain flexible and innovative. We are willing to consider alternatives to the present system, but these must respect the constitutional integrity of Canada and inviolability of the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, all members of this House believe in a future where native people will feel confortable with the Canadian justice system.
I am convinced that by working together, we will make changes that will show our flexibility and our understanding and urge the native people to trust a justice system which really meet their legitimate aspirations.
We have a rather long way to go to deal with all the grievances that have been filed, but we have already made some headway.

We will continue to work with native people to accelerate programs for aboriginal self-government and resolution of land disputes. We will continue to examine alternatives to the justice system. We have learned the painful lessons taught by the Marshall inquiry in Nova Scotia, the testimony in the Manitoba inquiry and the Blood Indian policing inquiry in Alberta.
Even as we resolve to be flexible and innovative in the creation of our system of justice, we must renew our commitment to the basic human rights of all Canadians. Let us recognize once again that particular efforts may be required to ensure that universal standards are available to certain vulnerable individuals and groups.

Let's commit ourselves to implement a justice system that will take into acount our collective values, and suppress from our statutes all form of bias, and from the enforcement of the law, all form of discrimination.
Again, we have to try and establish a justice system that Canadians can continue to rely on.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments.

Questions and comments. First I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North, then the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Mount Royal.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I have several questions for the minister. Why did the government present this particular motion? Why is the conduct of the army on trial in Parliament and not the political marching order that was given by this government? I submit that what we should be debating is the political marching order given to the army and not the conduct of the army per se. I think this motion is misplaced and I would like the minister's comments on that.
The motion speaks about the applicability of Canadian laws on all Canadian lands and is asking the opinion of this House. This is most unusual. Is this an admission of failure on the part of this government? Is it an admission of the absence of federal leadership?
The motion also asks all of the people at the Kanesa-take Treatment Centre to lay down their arms. If this motion is passed and there are no peaceful negotiations in that area and the Indian people do not leave the centre, is the minister and this government then telling the Canadian people that it is creating another offence for the Indian people, that is contempt of Parliament? I think this is serious. This government is creating another potential offence for the aboriginal people of our country.
It is also repugnant to the principle of law. No ex post facto must be enacted. Here they are cornered by the army and now they are being forced to surrender and lose their dignity. If they do not do that, they can potentially be in contempt of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, while the minister speaks of the rule of law that rejects violence, which I agree with, I would like the minister to also address the issue of where there is a conflict between the rule of law and the supremacy of justice. The minister knows that justice is the underpinning of any law. Even President Lincoln refused to

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
handle a client's case when he was being asked to collect from the very rich, which legally was right but unjust. Mr. Speaker, those are my questions to the minister.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief although there are quite a number of questions there.
First of all, the hon. member asks why this particular motion? This is the government's motion. If the hon. member wishes to bring forward a different motion to the House, he is free to do so. The motion is very broad and allows quite a considerable scope for debate. The point is, it does provide an opportunity for the members of this House to express themselves on an issue of veiy considerable public importance and I am sorry if the hon. member feels constrained by this motion and if he does feel constrained, then he can perhaps move his own. The wording of this motion is simply making a declaration on the part of Parliament.
The notion of contempt of Parliament if they do not surrender is totally misplaced. This House, on many occasions, calls on people to do things, calls on people to support something and the notion that somebody who refuses to yield to the call is in contempt of Parliament is totally ridiculous. I think it is perfectly appropriate for Parliament to make that call.
The member talks about the conflict between justice and the law. I would be the last person in the world to say that the law is always right. What I tried to point out in my speech was that there is a framework in which we try to change these things and I am not saying that it would never, ever be the case that dramatic events would not be required, perhaps to get attention. But we have in this country an enormous number of opportunities and processes through which people can attempt to change the law. That does not just mean the democratic process in Parliament, it means the ability to express one's self, to demonstrate, to vote, to mobilize, to organize, and to form associations. There is an enormous amount of leverage in the hands of people in order to influence the form that the law takes.
What I think was so important, and what I tried to draw attention to in my remarks in response to the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam is that part of the problem with this issue this summer has been the confusion as to how to characterize it. This is not, in my view, an issue where people are required to go to extraordinary lengths to get justice. The issue which stimulated the putting up of the barricades and the
taking up of arms, arms that are prohibited for Canadians, was an issue having to do with land and where the negotiations were ended by Chief George Martin in March of 1990. In August of 1989, the federal government met with the Kanesatake band council, the province of Quebec and the municipalities of Oka village and Oka parish to establish a committee to draft a framework agreement aimed at developing a unified land base for Kanesatake.
When I became Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development in January of 1989, one of the first issues I was briefed on was the land problem at Oka because the lands were dispersed and there was a need to develop an consolidated land base for more housing and community development. The efforts to try to purchase that land long predate this particular issue.
I think it is very important to understand that what was going on there was not a situation in which people were driven to extremes in order to achieve justice. From time to time, even some members of the Mohawk community have themselves been quite considerably intimidated, I think, by the presence of Mohawk warriors have spoken up. And what has distressed me is, who is listening to them? Who is listening to those who are saying, "We want them out of our community". Even Georges Erasmus is saying it now. Georges Erasmus was not to be heard in the early days of this particular confrontation but some people, with considerable courage, spoke up and said, "We want them out of our community". They went to my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs, and said, "Get these people out of our community". The chief and his son were beaten by warriors because they tried to stop them from vandalizing the house of the local veterinarian. The warriors will not be rebuilding the community relationship between the veterinarian and the other Indians. They will buzz off. They are not even from that community.
If you have been listening to what has been going on you hear the cries of the people who are in the community who are distressed that their community is being torn out by the roots, by warriors coming in with weapons and creating an atmosphere of violence and creating a division between the native and non-native community. They will not be around to heal. On the contrary, it will be left to others to heal. The actions they have committed have been in breach of the criminal law of Canada
September 25, 1990

and they should be held accountable before the criminal justice system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have on my list the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam. I would hope that they would be more succinct. We have only four minutes left to divide.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to be succinct. The hon. member for Macleod wishes me luck.
I know that the minister's speech was a real mouthful. I want to congratulate her, though. I have not seen her since last June because Parliament has not been sitting all that time. I understand that her legal talents have now been recognized by her former mentor, the Premier of British Columbia, who has made her one of Her Majesty's counsel, learned in the law, and I wanted to pass on my compliments on this elevation for her. It is a distinction that I am sure is richly deserved as the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam will be able to attest, being a solicitor in her own province. I congratulate the minister on that.
With respect to her speech I had some difficulty because it certainly was full of a lot of-if I may put it politely-platitudes which sort of surprised me because when I heard the minister was going to intervene in this debate I was expecting some real pearls of wisdom.
One of the statements she made was: "We are prepared to move on many fronts". Well, today during the speech by my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic, she referred to a proposal that had been sent by some professors at Queen's University. I do not know whether the minister had had the advantage of seeing the set of proposals that was addressed to her. I was sent a copy by the group of 22 professors who signed this particular document.
The paper suggested that one of the difficulties in the two Indian reserves where there are problems today was that the rule of law in Canada involved more than the Criminal Code, as the minister has been stressing throughout her speech. She seemed to suggest that there had been a breach of the criminal law and therefore the
Government Orders
law had to be applied with all its vigour and force, arrests made, charges laid, and so on.
The suggestion of these professors was that in fact Canadian constitutional law was involved. The law of aboriginal rights was involved. The law of the treaties that had been signed was involved. And international law was also involved.
I suggest to the minister that given the suggestion of these professors that perhaps it is not a simple, straightforward matter of criminal law. I invite her to look at the situation in that light.
Would she not agree with them that perhaps the reasonable solution and one of the movements she might make on one of the fronts that she might consider, is the appointment of the legal commission that they recommended, consisting of a group of distinguished jurists, aboriginal people, and others who could look at the situation and advise the minister with respect to how the matter could be handled, on the understanding that the natives who are behind the barricade, contained in the encampment at the moment, could be released and their fate determined based on the findings of the legal commission. It could decide how prosecutions, if any, were to be proceeded with. It could be determined whether or not they were subject to all the rigors of Canadian criminal law as the minister is suggesting.
It seems to be a way to avoid further bloodshed and to bring the matter to a peaceable conclusion. I think the suggestion was put forward by this distinguished group of men and women who are professors at the law school with the best of intentions and to assist the minister in the current difficulty. I wonder if she would comment on whether or not she is prepared to entertain that request and appoint a legal commission as suggested in the letter dated September 24.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Do I have unanimous consent to carry on for another few minutes?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the proposal that the hon. member refers to is one that I have not seen so I cannot comment on the creation of a legal commission. But obviously as Minister of Justice I hope that it has probably been sent to me and actually has not come across my desk yet.

Government Orders
The hon. member makes reference to three particular areas of law that the learned scholars refer to: the law of aboriginal rights, treaty law, and international law. I know of no law under any of those rubrics that would in fact exempt the people who are now in the treatment centre at Kanesatake from the application of the criminal law of Canada.
I have done a fair amount of work on the question of aboriginal rights going back to my days as a policy adviser in the office of the Premier of British Columbia and I know of no interpretation or implication of any of the jurisprudence on aboriginal rights or aboriginal title that would serve to exempt Indian people from the application of the criminal law of Canada. I know of no treaty that would do so. It has been alleged that perhaps the Jay treaty provides that. I would respectfully suggest that is not the case in Canada, nor do I know of any provision of international law or any convention that we are signatory to that would be binding in Canada which would exempt them from the application of the criminal law.
The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam will perhaps smile when I say it, but no matter which direction one goes-one can go up or down or side ways-wherever one goes, one comes face to face with the law. It does not fly.
All these things are very interesting, but once again it gets back to characterizing where one is there and who these people are. I do not see that any of these things would in fact exempt any of those people from the application of the criminal law.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister is referring to a case that I had with her father. He was a Crown attorney and I was defence counsel and I made a brilliant argument. He stood up and said: "No matter where my young friend goes, he goes up and down and around, and everywhere he runs into the law". He sat down and the judge convicted my client. So, that is where the phrase comes from.
By the way I would not cite my experience in Bill Bennett's government which did not recognize, as I recall, aboriginal rights. It is one of the reasons why we have so many problems with native questions in Canada. They were dragging their heels on that.
I do not want to ask the minister about her travelogue in the Soviet Union or her learned dissertation on the political science scene of the rule of law. She must be aware that the one of the officers of the Surete du Quebec filed an affidavit to get an injunction to interfere with the freedom of the press. One of the allegations in the affidavit was that the Lion's Gate Bridge which is in her riding in Vancouver, was blockaded. Absurd and yet they got the interim injunction and cut off press freedoms for a short period in Canada. How does she feel about that? Does she feel any responsibility for that area? How is she involved in this situation? Does she have any responsibility at all for the army down there or for the police?
My final question is this. What is the matter with trying to move in herself on the final negotiation and allowing these people to get out of there? Whatever we want to argue about the warriors, the fact is that other native people all across the country are looking and they feel humiliated. How about letting them out of there with a little honour and accepting some of the reasonable propositions, to wit, a trial under Canadian law, which I agree with, proper charges, proper defence counsel, a fair prosecutor, and some guarantee from the army that they will have some safety?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the specific terms of whatever is on the table in front of the parties, but I remind the hon. member again that the prosecutions under the Criminal Code of Canada are not the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice.
If they were, I could barge in and do all sorts of things. They are not. They are the constitutional prerogative of the provincial governments. They are jealously guarded prerogatives, I am sure he is aware, given the fact of other federal statutes where the Government of Canada has wanted to prosecute the prosecutorial power has been seriously contested.
With respect to his comment about my providing advice in Bill Bennett's government, unfortunately when I was asked to get into the whole issue of aboriginal rights, titles and advice to the Premier, before I had a chance to give him my advice he decided to retire. So, I left his office with a head full of all sorts of no doubt
September 25, 1990

confused and erroneous ideas, but none of which I have been able to give the benefit of to the Premier.
With respect to the situation with the journalists, and I have read the reports about the affidavit, it is not for me to determine whether that allegation is fatal to the request for the injunction itself. That is for a court to determine and I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on it. But the point is that there is recourse. That issue is before the courts now and the newspapers have challenged that decision. The only comment that I have made on this, which I made in the House and it appeared to create enormous discomfort among people, was I simply confirmed that the jurisprudence with respect to the right of freedom of the press as is in the Charter of Rights has indicated that the courts will, from time to time, recognize that it may be appropriate to limit the access of journalists to certain kinds of information.
But, once again, we have to think of what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a situation which is analogous to one where a group of people perform certain acts. They are in possession of prohibited weapons. They block public highways and destroy property. The police are attempting to arrest them. They take refuge in a building or a basement and they are armed. Therefore, the police are trying to determine how to arrest these people without loss of life for the suspects or for themselves. That is exactly the analogy of what we have in Kanesatake. I am not aware of any similar kind of circumstances where the press are allowed free access in and out and where this becomes a great public event.
The army is trying to conduct this law enforcement operation. It makes certain decisions, as does any kind of police department, about how it is going to do it and it is putting pressure on people there to surrender, exactly as one would if people were hold up in a basement somewhere or in a house or whatever trying to avoid arrest. I mean, one would not cater their meals and send out their laundry. We have to keep in mind what we are dealing with there and it is very difficult. None of us wants to see any injury and none of us wants to see loss of lives. No matter what offences may or may not have been committed, no one as yet has been convicted and we do not have capital punishment in Canada, so
Government Orders
shooting people is a bit extreme no matter what they have done and we do not want that to happen.
Those who are enforcing the law are trying to use as much patience as possible to get people to surrender. It is that context that you have to bear in mind. There is recourse in the law if the army has overstepped the Charter of Rights of members of the press and they will be held to account for it. When they go under under the civil power, they are each one of those members of the Armed Forces liable under the Criminal Code of Canada for what they do. It is a very accountable situation. That is all that would be appropriate to say. But people are seeking legal recourse.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, we are debating, as the Minister well knows, the role of the army and a whole series of issues that was placed on the Order Paper which I believe to be somewhat of a smoke-screen, notwithstanding her point of view which differs from mine.
One of the things which has been said in the House is the great deal of pride and sense of pride that one has had when we saw the picture of that young soldier standing there so well disciplined, face to face with this Mohawk. We sensed, in that one picture, the kind of role that the army was playing. There were errors and there were other things but, in a sense, good discipline.
We also were somewhat outraged by the picture of two ministers and a judge signing an accord with a Mohawk flag. There was no Quebec flag, no Canadian flag, but that picture will remain etched in the memories of a lot of us.
We also are well aware of what happened when the army rolled in. The photographers, the newspaper people, everyone has had a role to play in the media that has been very constructive. It has educated this society. There was that wonderful picture that was taken by Shaney Comolanen. She is still in that treatment centre. What was her crime and why was she deprived of both the entrance of food and equipment? Where was the Minister's role in speaking out with respect to the Charter and the abolition of human rights under that Charter? I believe the minister has something to tell this House with respect to her responsibilities for the media, for the telephones, for access to film material and the right to file their stories. Not to throw it out by-

September 25, 1990
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. Minister of Justice.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, no one is stopping people from filing their stories. The point I was trying to make before is that when the journalists go in there and are with the people whom the army is trying to get to surrender, how does one distinguish between them? How does one provide all the comforts of home for the journalists when trying to make life uncomfortable so that people will surrender? No one is being detained in the treatment centre. Anyone can leave. It is an unpleasant situation, but it is an unpleasant situation to have someone with an AK-47. It is an unpleasant situation when people build barricades.


Sheila Finestone: The journalists do not have AK-47s.


A. Kim Campbell: The journalists can leave that centre any time. They are not being treated as criminals. But they cannot have all of the amenities they would like without undermining the attempts of the Armed Forces to resolve the situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard perhaps one of the most chilling speeches that have been given in the House of Commons in a long time. It is especially frightening coming from a minister who has taken an oath of office to protect justice in Canada. It is apparent that justice is not part of the vocabulary or lexicon of this minister.
The description, as she went through her long dissertation, of the rule of law being the foundation of society shows that she does not know her political science very well. There are others in the Chamber who have also had the occasion from time to time to teach political science and we know that a rule of law is not the basis of a civilized society, it is a question justice. It is a question of sharing power. It is a question of having a kind of society which recognizes individual rights and out of that one develops a rule of law around those basic concepts. Dictators and tyrants can use the rule of law as effectively as anybody in a democracy can. Oftentimes the rule of law is used by democracies to suppress the rights of minorities.
How would you think, Madam Minister, wherever you have gone, if you were part of a minority which for the
past three or four hundred years that has not been treated with any justice; who has signed treaties with all expectation of being treated honestly and fairly and had your land and hunting rights taken away? How would you like to be part of a minority where your leader in Manitoba was hung because of a question of law and order, even though he is defending the rights of the Metis people of Manitoba. We put Louis Riel on the gallows, saying that was a question of law and order.
At Duck Lake, we had the army once again go after the native people who had their lands and their rights taken away. Afterward, in the words of the then Conservative Prime Minister, John A. Macdonald: "We will then come down and settle your grievances once you have laid down your arms."
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, how do you talk about having a trust and confidence in a system of justice and this rule of law that the minister so patently described as the basis and foundation, when you have gone through the Donald Marshall case in recent history, or the Betty Osborne case in Manitoba, or the JJ. Harper case, where clearly law and order was not on your side? How do you develop a belief and a confidence?
Even in the Oka case, you find yourself being overtaken on a sacred burial ground by a group of municipal politicians who want to build a golf course. You protested that and the judge gives an injunction which allows the police to come in and take down your right to defend that sacred ground. Do you call that a system of law and order? A system of justice and fair treatment? Surely to goodness in this country of ours the concept of justice means that you recognize that there is an element of mercy, compassion, and distinction in that and that it is not some kind of rigid tool to be employed by the courts or the police or a blind Minister of Justice, to secure political ends. That is the real issue, because we are talking about a group of people who for hundreds of years have been powerless in this society to get the kind of laws that would treat them fairly. They have not had the political power. The laws have been made in this Parliament often without the consideration, consultation, or participation of native people. They have been dependent. They have been inJferior. They have been treated as second-class citizens. We have a Minister of Justice who says "All is perfect, forget it all. The rule of law is all that counts". What absolute nonsense. What a
September 25, 1990

disgrace to have a Minister of Justice who uses that kind of language in this kind of circumstance.
It is no wonder the Canadian people are crying in sorrow this summer about what is going on when we see the country turn in this direction. This is not the country that we have known. We have a Minister of Justice who shows no sign of compassion or understanding, or caring, or sensitivity to those basic minority rights, and then gets up in the House and defends this. What is going on in this country when we have a minister like that?


Sheila Finestone: It is pretty frightening, that's for sure.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is frightening and chilling, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. She talks about visiting Indians. I visited Indian country this summer, like many of my colleagues. I went in a canoe, travelled the old voyageur routes and visited 15 reserves. I spent time on the reserves and the Oka incident was happening at that time. I had to sit around the campfire with band council members who, when they looked upon what was happening, gave up and rushed off to Oka to find out what was going on. I can tell you what the reaction was in The Pas Indian Friendship Centre when the Prime Minister of Canada came on TV with his speech about this is by law and order. I will tell you the look of 30 or 40 native people in the friendship centre. They began to give up on this country. They realized that there was no one in Ottawa on the government side who cared about their interests. They were surrendering.
The real issue that is going on in this country today as we speak is a fight for the kind of moderation that has been shown by our Indian leadership, by the Phil Fontaines and the Georges Erasmuses of this world. How long can they hold to a moderate leadership when they do not have anyone responsive on the other side?
I visited those reserves. I will tell you there are hundreds of Okas waiting to happen in this country. I can talk about going to The Pas reserve and having the fishermen from that reserve talk about when the Saskatchewan government built a dam upriver on the South Saskatchewan and never paid them compensation. Their
Government Orders
livelihood disappeared and no one paid them a cent. It just disappeared.
I can tell you what happened at the Fairford reserve where 800 people are denied their right to vote because no one in this government has got around to passing an order-in-council to give them a new piece of land that was given in compensation for a new dam. So they have lived in a no-man's land for the last five or six years and treated as non-citizens.
I could tell you about a small fishing village up on Lake Winnipeg that had its hatchery closed down by the provincial government and therefore had the livelihood of 90 people knocked out in one fell swoop because some bureaucrat or Minister of Finance on Broadway Avenue in Winnipeg said that was a budget matter. So, you take away the livelihood. They have been writing letters to the Minister of Indian Affairs for the past two years saying help us, get the hatchery open. They have not been given a reply.
This is no different than the transgression of a burial ground at Oka. In its own way, it is a small incident that could explode in their face. And we have a Minister of Justice who said "We're really going to get them. We're going to make sure that all those bad guys are arrested". Well, I will raise a challenge to the government: Let's have an inquiry and find out what the real truth is. Let's find out who was responsible, who was inciting the problems, who was there with the weapons, who was using force. Let's get to the bottom of it. Let's not have this kind of manipulation that we see coming from across the floor, the attempt to do as they have done on the GST and on every other issue, to distort the truth and the facts, to try to manipulate public opinion, because that is what is going on.
Of course, there are people there with weapons. But, the government knew they had weapons two or three years ago. This is not news. They have been on the reserves, the RCMP were there, and they did nothing about it. If they were so concerned about that, where was the federal government and the Quebec government doing something about the law and order at that point in time? Well, it was too big a problem and they just let it slide by. It didn't touch it at all. We have in this country an incredible gap of trust. It is a growing chasm of confidence among the most oppressed minority of any civilized country. I say that with all the shame that every member of this House should share in saying that.

Government Orders
I posed the issue to the Prime Minister this afternoon in Question Period. How can we have the nerve to lecture to other countries about peaceful resolutions of conflict, about recognition of individual rights, about the whole belief in the idea of civil rights and civil liberties when we so blatantly disregard them in our own country when the occasion arises? The Prime Minister and others have said: Well, we had no choice, we were called in and we had to use the force.
Internal observers who were in attendance at the initial negotiation said they did not understand why the negotiations were broken off. Discussion was taking place, sides were being presented. The international observers had no axe to grind. They were not political parties. They were outside the country. People who had witnessed for many other kinds of situations the same kind of problems, said: Hey, it was beginning to happen. All of a sudden the federal government and the Quebec government pull out and say: No negotiations, sorry. They are not negotiating in good faith. Who do you believe? The negotiation was only allowed to get started for two or three days. My goodness, the Prime Minister used to sit across the table from labour leaders for months and prides himself on his skill and ability to work out a deal.


An hon. member:: Supposed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Why was the
skill all of a sudden absent? Where did it disappear? Where did it evaporate into air, this incredible skill to get a deal and to negotiate? The great believer, the gentleman who ran on the ticket of national reconciliation, all of a sudden finds that those talents that he had provided free of charge to the Canadian people for so long all of a sudden disappeared this summer. Where did they go?
We did not give negotiation a chance. I think we were stampeded by a certain public opinion that said use force, solve the problem. Goodness knows it was coming apart, but I have to say to you it was not just the fault of the natives that it was coming apart. I want you to take a good hard look at the responsibility of the provincial government of Quebec in this case because that kind of stoning that we saw which was a shame on this nation was not stopped by those who were standing around watching it happen.


An hon. member:: You are right on, Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I do not hear any condemnation of law and order in this case. I am prepared to say it because I am embarrassed as a Canadian to have watched my country changing before my eyes and watching that kind of distortion take place. Mr. Speaker, I say to you and to members opposite, if you are going to base your case solely and exclusively on the fact that there was a group of armed warriors who took over the Indians nations, who took over the Mohawks and were the manipulators of them, then let us find out. What are you scared of? Let's have an inquiry, whether it is parliamentary or independent, but let's get to the facts of the case because until we get to the truth there will be no rebuilding our confidence or trust among the aboriginal people in this country. The truth is the mother of trust and as long as the truth is being distorted or hidden or being manipulated, there will not be any rebuilding. I do not care if the Prime Minister comes before this House and says that he is going to accelerate some land grants. You cannot buy off aboriginal people anymore. That is what happened this summer. The country can never be the same.


Vincent Della Noce: That's what you did.


Lloyd Axworthy: We did not
buy them off. In 1984 we brought in a bill to provide them with self-government and your government refused to pass it. You stood aside. There was a bill on the order paper in this Chamber offering self-government so that native people could find the self-sufficiency to handle their own affairs, and your government cancelled it out.


Mr. Caccia:: Bill C-52.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is what happened. Before you start talking, learn your history and learn your facts. Don't get confused simply by your opinions.


Vincent Della Noce: You don't even know where Oka is.


Lloyd Axworthy: I have been there, my friend, and I will tell you something. Every other Canadian knows where it is because it is at the very heart of what is sick and what is wrong with this government and with what is happening in this country and the way it is handled. My friend from Port Moody- Coquitlam said that it was bungling. It wasn't bungling, Mr. Speaker, it was worse than that. It was sheer,

unmitigated malevolence in this case. They were standing by and letting it happen. That great vacuum of leadership that everybody talks about, that perception is no accident because Canadians expected better from this Parliament and from any government. They expect people to approach the problems with some semblance of sensitivity and honesty and truthfulness, and they have received none of that up until now.
I can say that if you want to be challenged by members opposite, it is very easy to do. Open it up. Let us find out what really went on. Let us not try to hide it. Let us not try to box it in. Let us not try to turn on the old machine and get the public relations teams rolling. Let us get to the truth. Let us really find out. Do you have the guts to do that? I doubt it. You have not done it before but maybe you will have it in the future. This issue goes way beyond the life of one government or the life of one Parliament. It really goes down to some fundamental characteristics of what we are making this country.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: It started with your government.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I hear from my good friend from Winnipeg South, the neighbouring constituency. It started with the government, sure. We share responsibility in that. Every party does. I will not deny that. I think we were all sort of guilty. I do say that in 1984, as the member may know or should know, and if not go back into the records, there was a bill brought forward by the then Minister of Indian Affairs to provide for the beginning of self-government. Our government also began the constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights in the Constitution, none of which was honoured by the successive government to which that members belongs. Those are issues that I think are very, very crucial. I am not saying that we began, but what happened this summer perhaps may be an opportunity. Maybe that is the way we should really say to them that rather than coming down with the storm boots like we heard tonight from the Minister of Justice, maybe we should start using it as an opportunity to open a few doors. One would be to get to the truth, the other would be to take the Prime Minister not in his hazy promises but a timetable. If you want to use this Parliament for getting down to the serious business, fine. Members opposite, the member from Western Arctic has talked about it. My friend from Kenora-Rainy River
Government Orders
has talked about it. Let us begin to show that we mean business.
When we talk about an independent commission on land claims, we mean one that is accountable to Parliament that will not be subject to the whims and caprices of the justice lawyers and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. We have a Human Rights Commission that is accountable to this Parliament once a year and must report and is independent. We want an independent commission with a budget. That way we can begin dismantling and devolving the Department of Indian Affairs. How do you think any aboriginal person can deal with that department with any sense of responsibility when you have the deputy minister using the whips this summer. It is impossible to restore it. You are going to have to make major, fundamental, far reaching changes. We, members of Parliament, must take our accountability and our responsibility. The way we do it is to say we will set up, accountable to this Parliament, a commission and hold it accountable so that different bands can come forward with their land proposals and their self-government proposals and say: there it is, let us work it out. There will be a clearer timetable, you have five years to work these things out and here is your budget for it. If they do not do it, they are going to be in front of this Parliament every year being asked why.
That begins to make sense. If the government wants to show good faith, there is a way of showing good faith.
I think what we have to come to grips with is that this summer has brought about in this country for all of us, every single Canadian, a journey that we do not like. It has opened up inside us something that we did not like to see about ourselves as a people and as a nation. Now that we see it and now that it is exposed, let us do something about cleaning it up and changing it. Let us come grips finally. Let us turn this session of Parliament, beginning in the fall of 1990, into the Parliament of aboriginal rights. Let us go to work and get various bills done on the land claims issue, on the health issue. Let us not wait until the future. No mananas. Let us do it now. Let us at least say that we have learned those kinds of lessons.
We do not have much time. If we allow the prejudice and the handicaps of the past to hold us back, as well as that underlying sort of nastiness we saw exposed so badly this summer, all of us will be guilty, all members of

Government Orders
Parliament on all sides, of enormous failure of trust and confidence.
There is an opportunity. There is a small door open as long as we can retain the confidence of that Indian leadership which up to now has shown great restraint and moderation. If we do not act now and act with some courage and some imagination, that moderate leadership will be replaced and we will have hundreds of Okas across this country and this country will never be the same.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I must say that my hon. colleague just gave quite a performance. I think it was one of his finest hours. I have often heard him speak with a great deal of eloquence and fire. He certainly had that this evening, and I guess he needed it because there was not a lot behind what he was saying.
It seems to me that my hon. friend speaks about injustices and natives as if they just started occurring yesterday. He admits that they did not, that they began quite a long time ago, and that they began to be built up over the years of Liberal government. I think those were the years when all these specific claims that we hear so much about were created out of betrayal, out of breach of trust, out of giving land to people and then taking it away, and out of making and breaking promises.
My hon. friend knows all about those things, but he expects us to believe that he can stand up here and say: "Oh, yes, I am sorry. Gee, we made a mistake. We were guilty, but we have changed our ways and from now on we are going to be the champion of native rights and we are going to be the ones with the pure white banner". I am afraid that I have a great deal of difficulty with that.


An hon. member:: Mr. Clean.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Let me tell the member something. His current leader who brags about being the Minister of Indian Affairs for six years had a great opportunity to take control of some of these injustices that were built up by previous regimes and do something about them. What did he do?
My colleague says that they were about to pass a bill that would give us the beginning of self-government. My government has just quietly gone ahead and done it. We have started to create self-government throughout the
country. There are native bands all across this land that have benefited from the policies of this government since 1984. We did not make promises. We went out there and we did the things that the Liberals never even thought of doing until we came into government and started getting them actually into action.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that I am a very calm, cool, collected person. I really did not mean to get into the rhetoric, but my hon. friend across the way has a habit of getting my goat a bit and of getting me riled up once in a while. I will get to the question because I know you would like me to do that, Mr. Speaker.
What I would like to ask the hon. member is really very simple. It only requires a yes or no, if that is possible, just a simple yes or no. Does the hon. member support smuggling, violence, beatings? I want the hon. member to answer very clearly yes or no, just to answer the question with a yes or no. Does he support violence as a way to promote the better condition of the native people throughout this country? If he does not then he should say not. If he does then he should say he does and explain himself.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am going to disappoint the hon. member. I am not going to say yes or no. I am going to tell her a few things first and then I will give her the answer.
First, when I described the past I did not start with Liberal regimes. I started with Sir John A. Macdonald, the first Prime Minister of this country, who sent the troops in as well to justify the taking away of Indian land. His regime was responsible for hanging Louis Riel because of a belief in law and order in Canada. Since then we have learned, to our great sense of chagrin and embarrassment, just how wrong they all were.
I simply remind her of that because I would suggest that the speeches given by the justice minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, were about the same as the one we heard from the justice minister tonight. I am afraid that I do not want this country 120 years from now to be still trying to learn the lesson of just how wrong we were then.
I would also like to give her a small lesson in history, and that is that the Liberal government of which I was a part brought in a new Constitution in 1982 which gave aboriginals their first recognition in the Constitution. We
September 25, 1990

set forward a process that would give them further recognition until her government did not cany through.
We established the Penner commission which probably made the most far-sighted, insightful, useful recommendations dealing with the question of land claims and self-government. One of the direct results of that was a bill that was brought into this House in 1984 which set the framework of self-government, not small pieces of devolution, which again was not fulfilled.
I do not claim that is a perfect record, but I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker: a Liberal government would never have allowed an Oka to develop. We would never have allowed the kind of suppression of civil rights and civil liberties we have seen over the last 75 days. That is not the way we do things.
We would have had a justice minister who understood the real meaning of justice. We would have had an Indian affairs minister who cared enough about his portfolio enough to come back the first day from his summer vacation and do something about it. We would have had a Prime Minister who did not abdicate responsibility for two months. That would have made the big difference. We would have had Parliament back in session as a way of using this House to develop some understanding and consensus among members. That is the way we would have done it differently.
There are different ways of handling a crisis. There are different ways of coming to grips with issues.
The member once again throws out the question of smuggling of arms. Of course I do not support that, but I wonder where the federal government was all those previous months and years when it knew that was going on. Where was the Minister of Justice then when that was taking place? Did the member not believe in it then? Has she just discovered that that was taking place? Did it just occur to her this July that those things were taking place?
I have just finished reading a book by one of the experts that has a chapter on it. I would be glad to send it to the member. It was printed before Oka took place, and he describes it in his own book. The government itself had reports on it, but it did absolutely nothing
Government Orders
about it. It did not anticipate the crisis. It did not deal with it. It simply ignored it.
The deputy minister was anxious to run to the media for a backgrounder come mid-July about the problems in Oka. He knew all about it. Where was he?
That is why I say there is no trust or confidence in that deputy minister or that department any more. As the parliamentary secretary, perhaps the most important contribution she could make to this debate would be to go to her minister in cabinet and say: "Look it, we had better make a fundamental change. We had better do something that will turn some real power sharing over to the bands and their councils because that department no longer enjoys any trust or confidence with them".
Those are the kinds of changes that will have to take place immediately.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and I have to say that I agreed in large part with everything that he had to say. I share the outrage I think he feels like so many other Canadians about events of this summer.
However, I think in response to the questions he would have done better to have maintained the humility with which he began in talking about the culpability of all parties and all governments. I regretted that he cited the example of the Constitution of 1981. I remember only too well the bargaining that the NDP caucus had to do at that time because aboriginal rights were not in the original proposal made by the Liberal government of the time. I remember only too well our having to threaten withdrawal of our support for the patriation package in order to make sure that aboriginal rights were in there.
To make a long story short, of course, the final draft came out after the reference to the Supreme Court and the final First Ministers' Conference in the fall of 1981, and we all thought that aboriginal rights were there. When no more was to be done or could be done, the word "existing" had been slipped into the document, which seriously curtailed and contained the whole notion of aboriginal rights.
I am not interested in getting into a contest about who committed what sins against the aboriginal people. I think the New Democratic provincial governments-we have not had a federal one-through various megaprojects and resource development projects have also been

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
involved in all this. I wanted to agree with the member when he adopted the appropriate confessional tone, but the minute he cited the constitution matter in 1981,1 just wanted to remind him how events actually unfolded.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Is there unanimous consent to extend the period a few minutes? The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would like to reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I take the admonition in terms of the proper confessional tone from my theological friend. He is always both willing and able to provide us with the proper and, I think in this case, correct admonition that we hold true to the code.
I pay tribute to members of the New Democratic caucus at that time. I only wish that Mr. Blakeney, the New Democratic colleague in Saskatchewan, had been as equally interested because it was the provincial premiers who were very adamant against those kinds of measures being included. I think we all have to share a certain confessional in this case.
I think that one-and I rose to my feet to make this case-important event which really lead to the Oka incident was the breakdown of the constitutional talks with aboriginal people and the kind of rejection of their position that took place in that period. There was an enormous sense of frustration and disappointment that the recognition was not there. It would seem to me that is something else which must be part of the agenda of this Parliament-not some future Parliament but this Parliament-to address very quickly because I think that would be one of the areas where we could show our good faith.


Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move away from the mutual confessions of my three colleagues from Winnipeg and move on to other issues.
I am delighted to seize the opportunity to speak tonight because I think today we are finally beginning on the road back from a disheartening summer of discontent, despair and disunity.
I suggest that we are on the road back to Canadian common sense, in part because of a series of commitments made earlier today by the Prime Minister in his remarks on this motion. I believe these commitments, and I say this recognizing the substantial efforts of the
past, particularly the recent past. I believe these commitments represent a change, a shift in perspective and commitment by the Government of Canada and the people of Canada.
I speak as a Canadian with a strong commitment to building understanding between native Canadians and non-native Canadians. That is one of the reasons when elected to serve in this House I asked to serve on the aboriginal affairs committee.
During the past year while I had the privilege and the challenge to chair that committee, I was proud of the efforts and accomplishments of all members of that committee from all sides of the House, from all three parties. We have toiled long and hard. I know it has not always been easy because the patience and the tolerance of all members have been tested. We have been tested because the more we learned and the more evidence we heard, the more we realized how much more work needed to be done. At times I felt-and I am sure the same is true for other members-that as we learned more, the greater became the weight of the task before us. The size of the task is overwhelming. I commend to all members and to Canadians in general the second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs published this spring entitled: Unfinished Business, An Agenda for all Canadians in the 1990's.
We undertook this study. We consulted with native leadership from across Canada and we found that there was a multitude of issues that native leadership in this country felt that we, as a committee, should consider. Let me just run through some of them as an example of the depth and the breadth of the kinds of issues that we have had to deal with and the kinds of issues that I believe we have to deal with in this Parliament over the next decade. I will just go through some of the items in the Table of Contents.
Under the title "The Self-government Agenda", there is a list of issues including "Land Claims", "Other Land and Resource Issues", "Constitutional Issues", "Treaty Rights and Relations with Treaty Nations", "INAC's Self-Government Negotiations Policy", "Scope of Federal Activity Under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867", "Indian Act Amendments and the Role and Mandate of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development", the DIAND's Lands, Revenues and Trusts Review", "Implementation and Impact of the 1985 Amendment to the Indian Act", Bill C-31, the question of "Traditional and Elective Systems of
September 25, 1990

Government", "The Trust Relationship", "Fiscal Arrangements", "Justice", "International Treaties Affecting Aboriginal Rights", the "Aboriginal Affairs Policy Development Process" and questions dealing with "Organizations Representing Aboriginal Peoples". That is just half of the list of the kinds of issues that we face. Some of the others include "Education", "Aboriginal Language Retention", "Childcare and Child Welfare", "Health", "Human Rights Issues", "Circumpolar Issues", "Northern Issues", "Housing", "Environmental Issues", "Off-Reserve Issues" "Aboriginal Women's Issues", "Economic Development Issues" and "Literacy". It is a very, very challenging area in which to work and I think it is also very rewarding for members of the committee who have worked on it and I look forward to continuing work in this area.
The committee, after completing this report in the spring also went on to do a study on literacy, the impact of possible changes in the field of aboriginal literacy and we held hearings across the country and it was very interesting. We expect to have a study to report to the House in the next few weeks. I think that that will be very instructive for the government as well. We look forward to making that report.
Last March, at the time that we decided to proceed with the literacy study, we also announced that we were going to be doing a study on land claims because we felt at that point that land claims was the most important issue, after literacy, that a committee of the House could deal with. That will be initiated as well this fall. It will consist of an examination of the process by which specific and comprehensive land claims are negotiated and settled and will be undertaken, obviously, without any intent to have any prejudice toward any existing claims negotiations. The analysis will include self-government issues, as they relate to comprehensive claims and public hearings on the subject of specific claims negotiations process will begin this fall.
I would like to highlight some of the points made by the Prime Minister earlier today because I think they are worthy of review. Judged in perspective, I believe this
Government Orders
path offers some leadership, offers a direction for all of us to work together as Canadians. The first point is that consultation has been going on over the past year and it is time now, after that consultation, to put this agenda into operation. Consultation was one of the issues that we heard a great deal about in our study on post-secondary education over a year ago. There was a great concern that there had not been enough consultation at that time.
The agenda that the government is going to institute will have four main pillars and I think they all hit at basic fundamental issues important to the aboriginal community in Canada. The first one is land claims; the second one is economic and social conditions on reserves; the third issue is the relationship between aboriginal peoples and governments; and the fourth one concerns Canada's aboriginal peoples in respect of the fiduciary responsibilities of the Crown toward them. The Prime Minister noted today, as our committee had noted in the spring, that no issue is more important or requires urgent action more than land claims. The government intends to take three parallel initiatives. The first initiative is to accelerate the settlement of specific claims and I am sure the committee will have important observations on how that is to be done.
The second is to ensure that the legal undertakings regarding land transfers to treaty Indians will finally be honoured. The third one is to accelerate negotiations on the comprehensive claims, or the so-called modem treaties. Most of those are in British Columbia.
The government has made a significant commitment to expand its resources in this area and to expand the rate in which it deals with issues in this area.
A second dimension will be to look at ways to improve living conditions on Indian reserves, including such basic community programs and services as water and sewage facilities.
A third area of importance is taking some important looks, some important reviews of the Indian Act itself. The Prime Minister made a commitment to undertake that, in consultation that is currently ongoing with Indian

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
and native leadership, to bring in some changes in the new year to the Indian Act.
Consultation and respect for the fiduciary responsibilities of the federal government are essential elements of that process.
The government will also go far beyond the status quo to ensure that there are practical ways that aboriginal communities can exercise greater control over the administration of justice. I think this is an important element of self-government and I think that that is an important step forward.
We also have to look at the relationship between non-native and native Canadians, and that is an area in which I have found myself working hard, particularly over the summer, but also prior to that.
The Prime Minister indicated today that this fall the government intends to undertake a broader initiative on Canadian unity where the aboriginal peoples in contemporary Canada will have a full role. I think that is important. I do not think we can look at these issues in isolation and pretend that they are not connected. I think the agenda that was announced today by the Prime Minister is indeed far-reaching. I think it has gotten the ball rolling and I encourage all members in the House to get behind these initiatives to help ensure that they are not blocked by the lack of will in any sector of government. I encourage all members to take up the cause and to get involved in these issues.
It is obviously going to take creativity and it is going to take perseverance and it is going to take commitment, the kind of commitment that, I believe, was shown by members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, but also the kind of commitment and perseverance shown by the moderate and modem native leadership who, over the summer, worked so hard to save the progress that they had achieved over recent decades. I speak here of the progress in terms of understandings held by all Canadians of aboriginal issues and aboriginal concerns. I think that is something that we all have to cherish.
I would also like to make an appeal to all Canadians both native and non-native. We faced a very difficult summer of discord and discontent and I think this, unfortunately, has stressed the bonds of relations between many groups of Canadians. So I appeal for moderation and common sense to prevail and I deplore
the intolerance which has flared up over the course of the summer at various times and any developments which have led to that kind of intolerance in the abuse of innocent individuals.
I call on all Canadians to reflect on what has happened this summer and what has led to heightened tensions across Canada between native Canadians and non-native Canadians. I think we have to reflect on that. Why has this come about? What is it that is behind these issues and what can we learn from this?
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre spoke of opportunity and I think we do have opportunities now, but to achieve the opportunity that is there, I think all parties have to work together.
I think we have to reflect on what we have learned about ourselves as Canadians over the summer. We have to be prepared to tone down our rhetoric and renew our commitment to reasonable common sense means of resolving differences. We have seen some progress, I think. In particular, I do commend the efforts of moderate native leadership in seeking a peaceful, reasoned resolution to these disputes.
I think we would all agree that Canada has a long way to go to balance social justice in this country. All Canadians need to work together in this regard.
Unfortunate incidents such as the stoning of a car cavalcade of innocent women, children and elders in Chateauguay are repugnant, unacceptable and are categorically rejected by all Canadians. There have been other repugnant developments in Canada over the summer. But we are all Canadians who have to live together and find ways to live together in peace. This is important, not only for those of us who live here in Canada today, it is also important for our children and our grandchildren and it is fundamental to establishing long-term solutions to long-term challenges. This is particularly important because of the tone it sets for the children and the grandchildren of all residents of Canada.
We need to set a new tone. Let us learn from this summer of discontent. Let us work together, native Canadians, non-native Canadians, parliamentarians and Canadians elsewhere, to start rebuilding a country that respects all individuals for whom they are and the potential they can offer to build a fair, secure and prosperous future for all Canadians.
September 25, 1990

One of the questions that I have had asked of me frequently over the summer is who will pay? Elow can Canada pay for the settlement of land claims and other outstanding issues? Well my friends, that is not the question we should ask. The question we should ask is: Who pays if we as a nation do not get our act together? The answer is shockingly apparent. Those who pay as a result of Canada not addressing these questions are those who are least able to pay; the children and the youth of aboriginal communities across this country, that 50 per cent of native population which is currently under the age of 23. It is hard to argue in this country that we cannot afford social justice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The hon. member for Western Arctic.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member who is the chairman of our aboriginal standing committee for his speech. He made reference in his speech to the fiduciary responsibility that the government holds for aboriginal people. I would like to suggest to him the ideas and the advice that was brought to me from legal advisers, that one of the violations of the fiduciary responsibility is the extinguishment of aboriginal rights in the process of completing a land claims agreement.
In the Northwest Territories where I come from we have a major land claims agreement which the Prime Minister referred to, which is in jeopardy right now. He said it covered $500 million and 70,000 square miles. We have an agreement that has been signed but not finalized. We are afraid that this particular land claim is in jeopardy because the land claims policy is outdated.
The two key priorities these people want addressed are to negotiate self-government but a more serious priority for them is that they will have to extinguish their rights in exchange for the settlement of this land claim. This will disallow them from ever having to make the government accountable by way of litigation in revisiting any of their rights after settling the land claim.
I ask the hon. member across the way if he feels that it is clearly a breach of the fiduciary responsibility of the government when they have to use the extinguishment clause during the negotiation of the land claims.
Government Orders


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very thoughtful and penetrating question that my hon. colleague has asked. As she knows the question of the fiduciary responsibility is a question that has both legal ramifications and other ramifications. There is a great deal of debate in the legal community about what exactly the fiduciary responsibility implies or means.
I travelled to the hon. member's constituency over the course of the summer and visited a number of communities and I am aware that there is some genuine second thought about this particular claim. I think that is perfectly legitimate. It is in their hands to decide what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. I think my hon. colleague is in essence asking for a legal opinion. She knows I am not a lawyer and I am very thankful for the fact that I am not a lawyer.
Some of these questions are going to be resolved in other fora other than here in the House tonight. I thank her for her thoughtful question and look forward to working with her down the road on these important questions.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I must say I enjoyed a very thoughtful presentation and I have just learned through my colleague from Western Arctic that the hon. member chaired the standing committee. I think they were very fortunate to have someone who seems to have a sense of compassion, understanding, and a great sense of interest which has been aroused in the general Canadian society, thanks to the role of the media. The criticism that perhaps there were some excesses on all sides, including that of the media, may be a worthwhile criticism. On the other hand, at least the media allowed us to hear and learn and sensitized us to the tremendous needs that are out there.
I can recall doing the revisions to the Indian Act for the 12(l)(b) clause in the Canadian Constitution so that Indian women would be acknowledged rights and be reintegrated with their rightful status. There were many women and children who, therefore, under Bill C-31 earned, re-earned or were reaccorded-I think is the right word-it certainly was not a case of earning because we had taken it away from them-their status.

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
I heard the hon. member in the sense of creative approach, perseverance, and trust that we need to rebuild. I heard the hon. member with the sense of goodwill and the fact that we have all these issues some of which he addressed, others which he listed in his speech which are all very interesting. However, we have just gone through this summer of disenchantment, the summer of intolerance, and what I consider to be the summer of lack of governance in an adequate measure. I wonder if those thoughtful studies that he has undertaken and plans to undertake are going to fall on open ears and a Treasury Board prepared to put the kind of money that is required to bring these goodwill wishes and practical facts that will attack literacy, that will enable education and therefore reduce the number of people on social assistance, et cetera.
Just as a very practical question to indicate whether or not the government has been a government of goodwill, the five-year review clause of Bill C-31 must be coming up very shortly. I have been given to understand over the course of discussing with women's groups that we have not seen the kind of money that supposedly was promised for housing, for education, and for the relocation of these families back on to their tribal grounds. Could the hon. member tell me where that stands and if he has had any effective impact. If not, how does he expect those children to be productive people of the future, rather than the delinquents that many of them have become, not always by their own fault?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has three minutes to complete his answer. The hon. member for Macleod.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member for her interest and her question and also for her kind compliments. I am deeply honoured by her compliments.
On the question of Bill C-31-I am speaking in my role currently as chairman of the committee-we have not had the opportunity yet to review the five-year review of Bill C-31. There is a lot of interest I believe on the committee in pursuing it and looking at that question because we want to see exactly what the impact has been. I think that the studies of the impact of Bill C-31 that have been undertaken through aboriginal groups and
aboriginal women's groups across the country have been very instructive. They have shown that there was a far larger number of people turned up than was anticipated I believe. I think that is fair to say from evidence that I have heard so far. It is important that we look at this and see whether there are other weaknesses to the implementation of Bill C-31 that we should apply additional resources to.
My colleague knows as well as anybody else in the House that I cannot speak for the Treasury Board. I am sure though that, given the current climate in this country and the tone that was set by the Prime Minister today, to be fair, I think that there is a renewed commitment to deal with some of these issues and to provide the resources that need to be provided to address them. Obviously we are playing catch-up in a lot of areas. We have come a long, long way on a lot of these issues. We have a long way to go on a lot of them, too.
I do not know that I need to give credit to the media because they have their own resources to give credit to themselves. I think that circumstances this summer have led to an enlightenment and an awareness being created among Canadians. In fact, I would be critical of the media in many cases for not going beyond the dramatic affair and the drama of the instant seven-second clip and for not getting into the substance of the issues. I think a lot of Canadians still have not been provided with the opportunity to learn about the substance of these issues, the real guts of these issues. I see that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I have to cut off the hon. member, but his time has expired. On debate, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands- Canso.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate this evening. I will tiy to be brief with my comments.
I understand the Prime Minister made a very forthcoming speech in the House earlier today that pledged the government to a serious effort finally to begin to address the fundamental concerns of the native people in Canada, the concerns which underlie the current crisis. Unfortunately I missed the speech but I look forward to reviewing it in Hansard. I sincerely hope that it signals a new attitude on the part of the government and that it will be followed up by concrete actions.
September 25, 1990

I am at a relatively early age in my education on the native experience in Canada and I watched for the most part the events of this summer from my constituency in Cape Breton Highlands-Canso where the weather was splendid, the parades were colourful, the square dances were lively, and the hospitality was second to none, as some members who came down had the privilege of experiencing.
What clouded this tapestry was the day-to-day barrage of news reports from Oka, Kahnawake, Kanesatake, and elsewhere in Canada that showed the deteriorating relationship between native people and other Canadians. They showed the escalating violence and the spirit of violence in the standoff between the Mohawk warriors, the government, the police in Quebec and later on the Canadian Army, and the general feeling which we saw in our part of the country that Ottawa was paralyzed, out of control and unable to deal with this situation. We saw with growing dismay the increasing expressions of racism and intolerance in various parts of Canada, and a sense that the whole country and the society was falling apart around this crisis.
There was a growing sense of frustration and despair among those people in Nova Scotia with whom I came in contact at what was happening to the relationship between aboriginal Canadians and other Canadians as we observed the events at Oka.
During the crisis I had an opportunity to spend an evening with someone who is a member of the traditional Mohawk leadership at Kahnawake who had come down to visit a friend on one of the reserves in my riding. The discussion was very illuminating with this very wise individual, whose name I will not mention.
He was a peaceful person and he did not condone the blockades and the violence of the warriors. Equally so, he condemned the response of both the Quebec and the federal governments, which was really to ignore the leadership and the concerns expressed by the traditional and moderate leadership of the native people and to focus their attention solely on the warriors and their weapons.
He, himself, was ignored, even though he had spoken out time and time again on native rights on his reserve and against the violence that was occurring. He de-
Government Orders
spaired of the message that was going out to native people across the country. The moderate, reasonable native people he knew who were being bypassed, who as a result of the government's handling of the crisis were receiving the message that the only way to get the government's ear, the only way to get their attention is put up blockades and to take up arms. It was a very disturbing message that was being sent out to the people across the country as the crisis evolved. There was a cry of despair from him at this message, what he was seeing and what it meant for the relationship and our ability in the country to come to a reasonable dialogue.
The Prime Minister was largely absent throughout the crisis. We never saw him, but he emerged to defend the efforts of his government on behalf of native peoples in Canada. I do not remember exactly how he phrased it, but essentially he claimed that each Indian in Canada receives something like $13,000 in government programs. Of course, that claim lead to a war of statistics and figures about whether, in fact, this was really finding its way to the native people or whether it was actually gobbled up by the bureaucracy that was delivering these programs. There were counter-claims that, in fact, only $2,000 eventually reached the destination and the rest of it was lost in bureaucratic overhead.
What was disturbing about this whole argument was the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada would attempt to justify his government's treatment of native people in terms of the dollars that were sent to them. Whatever the amount is, the whole argument missed a very fundamental point and betrayed something about the misunderstanding we have had in terms of our relationship with native people in the country. I think it is a tragic reflection of a kind of paternalism, a kind of paternalistic attitude that is at the root of our relationship with native people today. I think that it is this paternalism which is translating itself into a total loss of dignity and self-esteem and is translating itself into the dismal life which is so characteristic of our native communities and which manifests itself, as we all know, in the sub-standard housing, in social decay, in high suicide rates, rates that are multiples of what the rates are elsewhere in Canada, in family violence, in the whole litany of social conditions which characterize our native communities.

Government Orders
These conditions of life are present on the reserves in my riding, the reserves of Whycocomagh, Wagmatcook and Afton which too often are depressing and completely unacceptable by any contemporary standards, particularly in a country such as Canada, and where the official unemployment rate hovers between 75 per cent and 85 per cent and where many live in sub-standard housing with no plumbing and inadequate sewer and water and where alcohol and drug abuse is all too often rampant and where most of the natives spend their lives either on welfare or fighting through a maze of bureaucratic inertia in order to acquire the basic amenities of life, a job, housing, food, shelter or education. That is the situation in which all too often they find themselves. I believe that at the root of all of this is a kind of paternalistic attitude which characterizes our relationship with native people and which is symptomized by the statements of the Prime Minister this summer.
Nobody condones the taking up of arms or the use of violence to achieve political ends, be it by Mohawk warriors or by anybody else. I do not want to comment on whether or not the army should or should not have been sent into Oka or how best the standoff should be brought to a conclusion. That has been debated by others more qualified than I this evening. I want to make one point about that. It seems to me that there is a curious irony here and there is a curious irony in the government's insistence that Mohawks and other native people respect law and order, do not resort to blockades and do this as a precondition to being able to discuss what are fundamental questions about their basic human rights, questions which relate fundamentally to a litany of broken treaties, treaties which we have broken in our relationship with them and which have resulted, all too often, in their being pigeon-holed into reserves, having lost the basic elements of their livelihoods and having been forced into situations which are, by any standard, intolerable.
As I said before, I am at a relatively early stage in my education on the native experience in Canada, but I suspect that we can learn a great deal from them. We already have discovered through, I believe, the concern for the environment how the native relationship with the environment, the land and other creatures has in many
ways enriched our understanding of our environment, those of us who have grown up with the Judeo-Christian tradition or other traditions who have, in a sense, not understood that relationship which aboriginal peoples in Canada and elsewhere around the world have with the land and with other creatures who share the land with us. I think we have started to learn a little about the profound lesson that they have to teach us in that area.
Another area that I have personally begun to learn a little bit about is the law and the way in which we organize our society. I was reading about some of the ways in which the Micmacs have understood their treaties and their relationships with the British who came here two or three centuries before.
I would like to read a couple of brief quotes from a book called The Micmac Treaty Handbook. The Micmacs are the native people who live in Nova Scotia. I find it quite interesting to read what they have to say about treaties and the relationships that they have developed with Europeans.
The first two paragraphs read as follows: "Well before the arrival of Europeans, formal agreements equivalent to treaties were negotiated between sovereign nations of North America. The meaning and effect of these arrangements were not limited by a few words on paper as are present day business contracts. Rather, these treaties were living and evolving relationships among various indigenous nations. Like the members of a family, representatives of the nations that had entered into a treaty met from time to time to exchange gifts, to forgive one another and to renew their friendship. We, the Micmacs, related to Europeans the same way.
The 18th century agreements between the Micmac nation and Britain were and still are regarded by us as a form of brotherhood. When there was some injury or threat of conflict, we met to exchange reassurances and renew our engagements. That is why over several decades one finds half a dozen or more seemingly separate treaties between the Micmac and British Crown. The surviving documents are often incomplete summaries of meetings that typically required many days and were repeated every few years as necessary. By themselves the documents are fragments. Considered together, they constitute a great chain of agreement. In other words, the treaty documents that appear later in this book should be seen not as distinct treaties but as stages and
September 25, 1990

renewals of a larger agreement or pact that developed during the 1700s between the Micmacs and the British".
One of these treaties was a treaty of 1752, which essentially stated the relationships between the Micmacs and the British in Nova Scotia at that time. Successive governments have tried to wiggle their way out of this treaty and deny their importance and deny the validity of that particular treaty until the Supreme Court, in a decision in 1985, confirmed that particular treaty as a basis for the relationship between the Micmacs and Nova Scotians. In a meeting I had with the leadership of the reserves in my riding on Saturday, we discussed an agreement that they had just entered into with the Nova Scotia government on hunting rights. It is related to the quote I just read.
I found it quite interesting to see that this agreement, which essentially spelled out the number of moose that the Micmacs could hunt, where they could hunt, when they could hunt and a whole range of particulars related to hunting and fishing on and off the reserves in Cape Breton, spelled it all out in terms of saying what the Micmacs would agree to in terms of their obligations pertaining to those hunts. I found that particular agreement interesting because they showed it to me as an example of what was possible if the governments would be prepared to sit down and work out agreements with native people as equal partners, as people who were adults and capable of taking their own responsibilities and managing their own affairs, rather than treating them in some way as inferior citizens. I think that fundamentally, at least from what I have learned so far about this, that has to underlie whatever new relationship we engage in with native peoples in this country. What I have seen just from reading these two documents and that small experience is that really we have a lot less to be scared of in terms of entering into agreements with native people than perhaps we have had in the past.
Whatever relationship evolves out of this crisis, which I hope will be resolved very soon, I think it has to start with an acceptance by us non-natives in Canada that maybe over a long period of time we have been on the wrong track and maybe we have to accept a certain difference, a willingness to see things differently and to
Government Orders
look and see the reality of life, perhaps not from our own eyes, but maybe from the perspective that our native people have there to teach us. I think that has to be the basis of whatever new relationship, be it through the mechanism of a royal commission or whatever we enter into in this country. That is, in a sense, what I have learned from this and what I would like to contribute in this debate this evening.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. I think it is much more sensible and practicable and much more knowledgeable, and I would not have been here this evening had I not heard the Minister speak earlier because this previous speaker, in contrast with the minister, made sense. The only reason I am down here is because the minister spoke. It showed a great deal of naivety. It was a treatise in law and order. It simplified a very complex issue. It is unbelievable that the minister of this government would speak in that way. I could not believe my ears.
I am not a lawyer and perhaps I am thankful for that. With the naivety that the minister expressed in her speech I could not believe my ears. I am glad it was a late hour because Canadians probably did not hear her either. John Wayne and GI Joe and the Prime Minister of this country, that kind of statement may be popular in the polls, but it is totally impractical, totally impractical. These are people who are grasping for any straw that might gain them some popularity with the Canadian public, but it will not wash. It cannot wash.
The reason that these people cannot speak with any sensitivity, I believe, is because they do not understand. They have not communicated with people on the other side of the issue. They say, "I have been to this reserve and I have been to that reserve", but I do not think they have communicated yet because their words belie their actions. There is no sensitivity in what they have said.
We may have Oka incident 1, 2,3, 4,5 and 25 unless we have some comprehensive ideas. This government saw the situation. It saw the problem before and let it fester and fester. In fact, it has festered for hundreds of years. But this particular situation had festered to a point where it broke out into what we saw this summer. After seven weeks, the Prime Minister comes to his senses and says, I am the white knight, here to-

September 25, 1990
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope the hon. member has a question for the hon. member.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, this is questions and comments. I already indicated to the previous speaker that he did a super job.
The motion that the army is in charge and they have shown exemplary conduct, we agree with that, but the crux of the matter-and I will conclude, Mr. Speaker-is who is in charge? Should the army be in charge? Should the premier of Quebec be in charge? Should the minister be in charge? The Prime Minister should be in charge and where was he? No one knows.
It is a question of leadership and the country knows it. The leader of this country should have been there in the first two or three days and should have taken action. Sometimes if the action or decision is incorrect, at least it was action. Inaction spoke louder than words. To say bungling is an understatement. It is more than bungling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the hon. member like to rebut?


Francis G. LeBlanc: I cannot rebut, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to thank the member for his compliment regarding my remarks. I may use it in my next householder.


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: I stated that I did not believe that we could practise democracy in Canada at the point of a gun, and I still believe that. I also said that I believed that the native mandate which had been established so dramatically well by Elijah Harper was at risk of being diminished and damaged by the events of Oka and Kahnawake.
As many of my colleagues observed with considerable glee, the feather was removed from my hand by one of the elders and there was a sequel to that. About a week later I was invited to attend an Indian meeting around a camp fire in a large tepee in my riding in which a prayer vigil was held.
That feather was returned to me and I repeated the statements I had made in public. This time they were accepted with the dignity, the tolerance, and the patience that the process of the prayer vigil entails for Indian people.
In effect I took that as a statement of amends. In fact there was great glee that night in the tent when I decided in a lighter moment to comment that they had restored my dignity because-and this was said with great good will and was received with great humour-a bird without a feather was a very bald bird indeed.
I must say in that spirit that I have since met with the representatives of those reserves. In fact last week I met with the executive members of the Union of New Brunswick Indians. I said to them that I disagreed with their position in many areas of detail and that I could not support, even in principle, all of their demands. For example, I do not believe that we will ever be able to reconcile the idea of one country and one society of Canadians with separate societies of any kind, including native Indian societies as separate nations on an international sovereignty basis.
I said that notwithstanding those areas of disagreement I wanted to be their representative. I wanted to try to ensure that the process of communication, the process of dialogue, was always open. I must say that after a long, hard summer where the ripple effect of Oka and Kahnawake expressed itself in the Fredericton area, I feel encouraged that the lines of communication do remain open and that dialogue is taking place. I believe it is from that kind of base in every constituency in this country that we can move forward to the kind of higher ground that will bring resolution to many of the historic
Government Orders
injustices and grievances which legitimately have been expressed and which certainly must be resolved.
Another thing I did this summer in the course of these tensions was to try to understand a little more fully the background of the native Indian point of view. I engaged a distinguished teacher and gentlemen, a Malecite Indian who is a professor of Indian studies at St. Thomas University. After some hours with him I did have a new understanding of the aspirations of native Indians and of the complexities of the land claims issues, both the specific claims and the comprehensive claims. I had a better understanding of the deep spiritual roots which comprise the native way of life for many of their people; I would say the vast majority of their people. I was particularly impressed with their convictions about land, about the concept of mother earth and how it is really not there in their ownership but it is there in their trust.
I would urge all members of the House who have not had the opportunity to do so to examine those kinds of issues with native people. We are privileged in this House to have three, all in their own rights distinguished, who I am sure would be quite willing to enlighten those of us who are not conversant with the background of native Indian affairs. From that kind of dialogue, even on a quasi-partisan basis, I believe that much progress can be made.
I would like to say that I am willing and anxious. I would like my constituents on the reservations at home to know that I am committed to do everything I can to advance the legitimate native issues to which they aspire and which they hold but not under the practice or the threat of violence. Fortunately the native people of New Brunswick respect the rule of law. I am confident that we can and will work very well together.
Earlier this year I was privileged to serve on the special Meech Lake committee along with native members from Western Arctic and Nunatsiaq. We heard representations from all points in Canada about native concerns and native aspirations. This ended in the demonstration of democracy by Elijah Harper as he exercised his judgment, his courage, and his dignity in formally ending the Meech Lake process. While I disagreed and continue to disagree strongly with his judgment on that issue, I respect greatly his democratic and lawful demonstration of responsible representation. I believe that all natives and all Canadians could justly share the mantle of his performance, even those of us who found his decision very difficult to accept. Accept his decision we must, and

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
we will seek new horizons and we will find new horizons to unify and build this country.
However at Oka it was a different situation. Oka was a situation of violence. It was a tragedy. It was disgraceful. It was a situation that should never be tolerated again and should never be repeated again in this country.
I do not know how much time I have left, but I would like to move just very quickly to commend the government, as my hon. friend from Macleod has described to us, on the significant progress which is being made in terms of community dialogue in the direction of selfgovernment. I again commit to my constituents and to the government my best efforts to ensure that that process and that concept are advanced and engendered in every way that I can.
In closing, I guess I would merely like to echo the call of my colleague from Macleod to let us look to the future, all Canadians, with a commitment to work constructively and in good faith to create a society in which all may find their place in this country in dignity, in prosperity, and in peace.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona and the hon. member for Chambly are going to split the next 20 minutes into 10 minutes each with 5 minutes each for questions and comments.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I was just informed by the hon. member for Chambly that something may have happened at Oka, that events may have changed, and that there might have been either a settlement reached or something which has led to a change in the situation there but, until we find out more about it, I do not think it would make any sense to comment on it.
I wanted to try to place some of what has happened this summer in a certain historical perspective. I have listened to a lot of fine speeches this evening on both sides of the House, but I want to say that nevertheless the government motion itself contributes to and is part of the problem which led to the situation we find ourselves in. By this I mean that violence is often a response to the failure of the political process. By this I mean that violence is often a response to the failure of the political process. What we see in the government motion is an example of the failure of the political process. Instead of putting before the House a motion which might have brought people together and which might have enabled us to do something constructive,
instead the government did today, with respect to Oka what it did yesterday with respect to the Persian Gulf, and that is they put a motion in which they are trying to catch or trick the opposition and put it into a difficult position. It is this kind of political game playing that I think simply makes matters worse, instead of providing the opportunity for constructive debate.
I would like to go back to 1977, at a time when I was just coming out of seminary. It was the time of the final report of the Berger inquiry into the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I think that was a culmination of a process that began in the early seventies. Out of that report came a new appreciation for the nature of the situation that native peoples found themselves in, the whole question of land claims. It was a time of great hope, not just for a moratorium on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline but also for a new era of recognition for native rights. Many of the current leadership of the native people in Canada came out of that experience and out of that time. At that time, without being too specific, a lot of them were in their twenties and a lot of them are pushing forty now, like myself.
They spent the mid to late seventies and all the eighties believing that the political process, duly invested in, would produce results. It did not produce results. What I think Canadians understand better than the government is that what you see in part and why there is so much solidarity with the action of the Mohawks at Oka, despite people's objection to the use of guns and arms is an expression of solidarity with this frustration that native people rightly feel about the failure of the political process over the last 15 years to respond to their needs. People feel that frustration for native people and it has enabled them and many Canadians-and I knocked on a lot of doors this summer because of the Manitoba election-not to completely put aside but to put in perspective their own objection to the taking up of arms, as has happened in this situation.
I think that many Canadians are able to hear in their own minds how hollow it must sound to the native mind to have people get up and talk about the rule of law when they know that the situation that so many native people find themselves in, is a situation that exists because there has been no respect for the rule of law, that is to say, the rule of the treaties that were entered into between native people and the British Crown or, for that matter, the Government of Canada over the years. How hollow it must sound to native people to hear
September 25, 1990

speeches by the Minister of Justice and others, as we have heard them tonight, talking about the rule of law when they know that the law has been broken, that agreements and treaties have been broken time and time again. It is in that perspective that we have to see what has happened at Oka and not be caught up just on the technicalities of the law although we need to obviously hold the law in great respect but we must hold it in respect in all of its dimensions and not just when it suits us.
The other thing I would like to say because I do have such limited time is that what we see here is the solidarity that I think a lot of Canadians feel with the Mohawks at Oka. It is no coincidence that this is over a golf course, or not over a golf course, but over trees. I think you will see that in the next decade, in the coming years, there will be more and more actions, perhaps not violent, perhaps not taking up of arms but civil disobedience in other forms of demonstration in which people are going to draw the line. They are going to say, no more. Unless they feel that the political process can save the environment, we are going to see these kinds of actions developing, not just with respect to aboriginal rights, but also with respect to the environment. Of course, the two are related because so many times it is aboriginal people who are called upon to defend the last vestiges of the natural environment, but it also will be non-natives. So there is solidarity between non-natives who are environmentalists and aboriginals who, by their very nature, are environmentalists. What we see here is a foreshadowing of the kind of events we may well see more of if the government does not get down to addressing some of the hard questions, not just with respect to aboriginal rights, but also with respect to the environment.
If people like David Suzuki are right-and he keeps saying these kinds of things-we have only got 10 years to save the planet. More and more people are going to say: "If we have only 10 or 15 or 20 years to save the planet, maybe it is about time I put myself on the line here". More and more people will do that, whether it is
Government Orders
stopping logging or whatever the case may be. That is the point I would like to make.
I would also like to say that there is another dimension to the solidarity that a lot of Canadians feel with aboriginal people. They realize that in many respects, not necessarily in Oka, but elsewhere, the reason that native Canadians have been denied their aboriginal rights and denied the kind of control they would like over their own resources and their own land is because that kind of control runs contrary to the corporate agenda in this country. Corporations do not want native people, or for that matter anyone else, to have control over oil, gas, minerals, land and water or whatever the case may be. They want to have unimpeded access to those resources so they can develop them for a profit, so that they can do their thing with planet earth.
In that sense there is a solidarity between the workers in my riding who are also victims of the corporate agenda and native people across the country who have been denied their rights by successive governments because those governments have been influenced by that same corporate agenda.
There were people in my riding who not only could not get to work easily like some of the people who had to go around the Mercier Bridge. There were people in my riding, not many but enough, who lost work altogether because of the cancellation of trains due to a blockade related to the Oka situation and who lost income. Some were not able to get to their cottages because they could only get to them by train.
I received very little complaint from these people, very little animosity. They called up to say that it was a problem, but at the same time I think they realized that the stake in how the government deals with native people is in some way related to their own future and how the government relates to them.
I call upon non-native people who are thinking about this to see the struggle of native people to control their own lives, the struggle of all of us to control our own lives in a context that is increasingly dominated by the corporate agenda, now a North American corporate agenda through the free trade agreement.
I recall the words of a chief in Manitoba who said before the standing committee on external affairs that was looking at the elements of the agreement in Winnipeg: "Free trade will make Indians of us all". Unless all Canadians can regain control of our own lives-not to be

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
too facetious about it, there may come a time when we will all be interested in reclaiming our country from the control of other powers and principalities, those people who have an interest in seeing that none of us, native or non-native control our own destinies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. Debate. The hon. member for Chambly. You are both taking up ten minutes.


Philip Edmonston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you said, I am the Member for Chambly, and I am probably one of the few people who are going to speak here this evening whose home is on the South Shore and who lived through those months, a very hurtful experience. And when I use the word "hurtful" I am speaking of the experience of the native people, of the people of Oka and of Chateauguay, and of the people of Quebec as a community, because in Quebec we have always treated native people with a certain respect. In 1985, as my colleague the Honourable Member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie remarked earlier, the Parti Quebecois recognized the autonomy, the existence of a distinct aboriginal society, if I can venture to use the expression now. Personally I am proud of that, but I am not proud of what happened this summer. I'm not proud at all. I'm not proud of the fact that our Premier, following the collapse of the Meech Lake Accord, held the native peoples of Canada collectively responsible.
I saw that, it was very clear, and I'm going to cite you the example of the federal government, which made a proposal just before the Meech Lake collapse, really a series of proposals, which I find progressive. They were good proposals. But once Meech Lake failed, the federal government said, "Tough, you were against Meech, so too bad, we're withdrawing our offer, and you can just wait, all you native people, and we'll get around to your grievances one of these days". I don't want to blame just the federal government for this. Even the provincial government, even Premier Bourassa, when he met with Mr. Sioui a few days after the Meech Lake failure, he said to him, "I hope the people of Quebec are going to understand you, Mr. Sioui". It was as if Mr. Sioui had been responsible for Elijah Harper, who was responsible for stopping the Meech Lake Accord.
As a journalist who knows what a powerful impact television images have, when it started appearing on television I felt how important it was, because I saw there a certain spirit.

I saw a certain spirit, a nasty spirit, a spirit which is un-Canadian, a spirit which is unnecessary, a spirit which is provocative. When you have this type of spirit from Quebec and you have the same meanness coming out of the federal government, I imagine if I were a native person, how would I react when I see the Surete du Quebec coming into where I call home, firing tear gas, heavily armed and trying to take away the peaceful barricades that we had up until that time? Quite frankly, I am ashamed that, in Quebec, 80 per cent of people who had been polled before this crisis had said that they were in favour of the land claims of the aboriginal people. Gosh, today that is almost as many people in Quebec who are against the GST but they were in favour of the land claims and I believe they still are. But what I find extremely hard to take is, when we are looking at the settlement of this controversy, we find a government wrapping itself in a cloak of law and order.
I am a former military man. I spent three years in the army. I believe in law and order, but I also believe in fairness. Here these concepts of fairness and equity are not present. There is provocation, meanness, and a minority of people turning towards the only defence they have, as warriors. I agree that the approach that the warriors took was wrong and I am going to emphasize that.
Armed struggle in a democracy, where one has the right to change the government through voting and through lawful dissidence, is wrong. I know of what I speak because, being an American by birth, I have worked with Martin Luther King. I never knew Martin Luther King to pick up an AK-47. I never knew Martin Luther King to have been masked. I understand how this could have occurred because of the feeling of weakness and of powerlessness of a minority. I do not think it is right to use these images to say that because of that we should permit ourselves to go in, shoot it out, take no prisoners, and get over with this entire situation. I do not think it is right.

I think what we need to do now-what the government has not done-is to come clean with the voters, with the people of Canada, and say that it was wrong and should have presented a series of propositions to our first peoples of Canada, whether Meech Lake passed or did not pass. It had no relevance to Meech at the time. It was used as a bargaining chip and we know that. But that is the way this government operates. Our Prime Minister, who likes to roll the dice, in this case decided to roll dice which were fixed. It wasn't fair. It wasn't honest. I think right now what is encumbent upon us after this controversy, after this conflict which has caused so many people to be inconvenienced, injured, and caused one death, that we learn from the tragedy-and I call that tragedy of Oka-that aboriginal people have got to be put on the front burner of our approach to this challenge of recognizing their basic rights.
If we talk about sovereignty for Quebec or sovereignty association, we have to also apply that to our nation's first people. If we missed this lesson, as we have missed so many lessons in the past as parliamentarians, then tonight at 1.20 in the morning we have missed this entire day and this entire Parliament in getting the message of what Oka has given us. That message is that it is time now, once and for all, to address the concerns of Canada's original peoples.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by congratulating my collegues on this side of the House, my colleagues from Chateauguay and Argenteuil, who have come through some difficult times this summer-I was in contact with them.
I listened to my colleague, the honourable member for Chambly, whose summer was probably just as busy. I don't know if people telephoned him to express their displeasure, but I am certain that if they did, they didn't all say the same things he has just said.
Mr. Speaker, this evening we have heard some emotional speeches. We have all lived through a long hot summer, that's for sure. I know Oka personally, because
Government Orders
I have many friends there; many of my constituents have summer homes there, and many pleasure boaters make a habit of using the marine there, which this year, unfortunately, couldn't operate. And I had to go there myself to see certain things with my own eyes so that I could contribute to the discussion.
This evening there have been people who told us how they visited reserves, they did this and that, but I think this evening we also ought to talk about the fact that cases like Oka, or Chateauguay, or Chambly, they don't happen every day. It was very hard for people.
Mr. Speaker, this year Laval is celebrating its 25th anniversary, 25 years of love and friendship. Oka is in the process of destroying itself, and the crisis has destroyed the prettiest village in Qubec, where I spent my summers when I was a student. They were wonderful summers. But this has been an Indian summer, and a bitter one.
The proverb has it, Mr. Speaker, that not all truths should be told. But one day the truth has to be faced. And the things I saw when I took my family on a few days of vacation, mainly in the United States, those things hurt me. When I saw cars, on television or in the daily paper of USA Today, a paper that sells 2.5 million copies every day, the first photo where there was a picture of a Surete du Quebec car with a Warrior and a sub-machine gun in his hands, people said, "Things are going badly in Quebec. The Warriors are holding a whole community hostage. A policeman has been wounded." That's what informed people were saying. There were other sources that were less informed: in Le Monde, from France, we read that it was an Indian who had been killed.
Mr. Jesse Jackson, who has forgotten the noble words of Martin Luther King-my colleague referred to him also, one would think he had read my notes-Martin Luther King never picked up a machine gun. He defended people's rights. Jesse Jackson arrives here, a fledgling journalist-recently recycled into American talk show journalism-and he says, "Two people have been killed here. Where are they?" Doesn't he even have a researcher, this guy? That's what has affected our morale, these international observers.

Government Orders
There was Archbishop Tbtu as well, who wanted to come and talk to the Prime Minister at a time when 450 people in his own country were busy killing one another, the Zulus. We saw some others like that, these international observers my colleague the Honourable Member for Winnipeg-North-Centre was mentioning earlier. He has left, which is too bad, as I would have liked to respond to him.
That's the truth. My pride as a Quebecer visiting the United States took quite a blow, I can tell you. I felt humiliated; the people of Quebec were being humiliated. To see the Surete du Quebec, a car overturned, Warriors with sub-machine guns, whether they call themselves Lasagna or Pizza or whatever- They made fun of us with masks, and people said, " You're maltreating the Amerindians." Well, isn't that dreadful!
I have a list of all the benefits we give them. There isn't a country in the world that treats its aboriginal people as well as Canada does-in any event I've never seen the figures that would prove it. And the village has been destroyed.
Earlier I spoke with the Mayor of Oka, who's a friend of mine. He's the one who managed to keep his cool and keep his townspeople within the law, too. No stones were thrown in Oka. Everyone came and went without making a fuss.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are problems in Oka. There is good news this morning: everybody has come back to Oka; but there is bad news, too: there are people who don't have houses any more. There are people the law hasn't protected. Their houses have been destroyed, their goods stolen. Ask to see the houses that belonged to the Lemays, the Mongeons, the Imbeaus, the Legaults, the Dubes-what has become of their houses? Nothing remains but the four walls. Where is the law?
People thought the problem we were facing was the golf course. I hope we're not that naive! The problem is much more than that. The little bit of land wanted for the golf course (and it's a swamp, I know it very well), that wasn't the problem.
There has been a problem for the 14 months that they've been negotiating for the land. Before that they
negotiated for four years. Every time there was an agreement, they changed chiefs. There are serious problems. There's no more investment at Oka. There was a hotel that was supposed to be built there, a $9-million hotel, an open-air resort, because in that part of the country that's what there is: sports, the great outdoors, it's scenic, it attracts tourists. But that's all changed. There were houses that were sold-the buyers came wanting their deposits back. Nobody wants those houses any more, and why would they? I believe my colleague will have a chance to speak later. In the meantime, may I suggest that he do as I did, and listen? He might learn something.
The resort project: $8 million. The proposed marina at Pointe-aux-Anglais, is that going to go ahead? And there will be other surprises in the future, I'm sure. You know, Mr. Speaker, everyone has spoken, and rightly, about the native people, the Mohawks. Certainly the proposal before us must be discussed.
But I would just like to touch on the other side of the story, because I've spoken with the people on the spot. They are whites, non-Indians. You know, there was a poet in Quebec named Felix Leclerc, and he always said, "If you want to kill someone, pay him for doing nothing." So today, as in the past, it's a continuation of the past, the evil continues. We hand out money and more money and still more money, but money isn't always the answer. We are not giving these people the dignity they seek. We don't give them responsibilities, we give them money. Perhaps the Indians want some dignity. Perhaps they want to be self-sufficient. When someone earlier referred my colleague to the Vatican, I saw him smile, because the Vatican is independent, that's true. It would be quite something to see the Vatican, the same system they have for the independence of the Vatican, here.
You will tell me that the Canadian Constitution isn't perfect, and I agree. I may never be perfect. But all we are asking, all I want, all I would ask them if by chance someone is listening is: Lay down your arms. Nothing can be won with weapons. If there are people who think they're going to win with weapons, my regrets.
I listened to our Prime Minister this afternoon, I listened to his positive approach, and I retained something in particular from his speech:
September 25, 1990

Government Orders

Let the children go to school. That is where they belong now.

We see the Warriors, Lasagna and company, huddling close to children, families, women. That looks good, makes it easy to aim. And they call them "braves"! Personally, if I had something to settle, I wouldn't bring my children along, ever. I would confront the other person. They're putting children in danger. Why don't they put down their guns? Why don't our leaders-. Just now someone spoke of Mr. Sioui and of someone else. I'm not satisfied with the way the chiefs operate. I'm not satisfied when I see that people are being paid to do nothing behind all this. My colleague the Honourable Member for Chambly spoke of Mr. Sioui just now. I heard that too. Maybe I thought it was a threat too. I did think so. But if my honourable colleague is following the whole matter, he knows there is more to it. I could mention George Erasmus, who said,

We have never encouraged picking up the guns so that there would be bloodshed, but we have strongly defended our right to do everything possible peacefully to defend our rights.

I agree with him. George Erasmus, Grand Chief- [English]
Georges Erasmus, Grand Chief, said this on July 12 on Newsworld. Later, I saw him on TV say: "Indian people are not going to sit back and have their people butchered. What we are strategizing for is how to bring this country to its knees if it is not going to negotiate.

But in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, those are threats.
Yesterday I listened to George Erasmus, who has received $2 million in grants, who earns in the neighbourhood of $110,000 a year, and he came before Parliament to say, "It's not enough. You're going to have other Kahnawakes, you're going to have other Okas." Threats-And he doesn't pay income tax on his $110,000. He lives on a reserve. He says that the public, the MPs here, who earn $65,000 a year, are paid too much-and they pay income tax, too, which doesn't leave a lot.
So when someone bites the hand that feeds him, instead of finding a solution, because there must be a solution- Everybody talks about solutions. If one of them is a good one, let's run with that one! I'm not saying, "He's the one with the solution, or she is, or someone else is", but there must be a solution. But no, they criticize, they make threats. George Erasmus, Sioui. They don't want to respect the law, but they want the benefits of the law. And benefits the law certainly gives them.
It's true that the federal government has been under attack. It's easy for the opposition, it's easy to criticize those in power. It's easy to criticize the Prime Minister. He's to blame, he did it, they all dit it. It's governmentbashing time. It's like playing hockey, Mr. Speaker, and getting a 10-minute misconduct penalty when you weren't even on the ice. The Prime Minister has a 10-minute misconduct penalty, the Ministers of Justice and of Indian and Northern Affairs have also been given 10-minute penalties, and they weren't even on the ice, because the provincial government was there. But it's time they did get out on the ice. But there are laws, there are constitutions to respect. My colleague says No-he knows everything about Quebec. Probably he's never even been there. Bourassa, for him, doesn't count. For us, he's a Premier, elected as democratically as my colleague. Yes. But that probably doesn't matter to my colleague.
So, misconducts. And if you're in the opposition, it's so easy to criticize! And when they were in power? God save the country! You're so wonderful, but have you forgotten October of 1970, when you sent the army into Quebec? You're so wonderful, but you put Italians in prison, minorities, and why? They were interned because they were Italian. Minorities!

No respect for minorities and you tonight, like the member for Winnipeg South Centre, make a big speech with no content. He is an actor. I have content. I am going to give you proof of what you did, so do not give us any lessons. Go back in history, go back 20 or 30 years to what you did. You have no respect for minorities. We have.

September 25, 1990
Government Orders

Mr. Speaker, I see people enlisted in this cause. One day they are egging the young people on, the next they're saying, "Hold it, hold it, no problem." One day they stir them up, the next day they calm them down. When is it going to stop? The people of Oka have returned home. They're eager for a peaceful solution. They're eager for everything to return to normal. They have lost a summer. They have lost their homes. They have lost personal property. And their eyes are smiling but not their mouths. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I say-

It is about time we got peace because these people did not ask for that problem. Non-Indian people there are suffering too. Nobody cares. We have everything on this side and we have nothing on the other side. I care for them. They are good people too.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Is that a vote for me?


Vincent Della Noce: That is not a vote. They do not vote all for me, but I have got some friends that I respect very much. We were friends before politics and I hope we will stay friends. You see friends when you have problems. I went to visit and sympathize with them and tried to explain. Do you know what they asked me? They asked me, what would happen to me if I would go out with a machine gun? You would be arrested or shot, it is up to you. What would you like to do?
Even my kids said, "Dad, it is impossible that you guys cannot do anything about it". On TV I saw Lasagna playing the guitar with a big M-50 machine gun and then try to play with the arrow. Do you call that fun? Do you call that fun when kids are watching TV? Do you call that freedom of the press? Oh, the poor press, they suffer a lot. They show that almost live on TV. Playing the guitar with a machine gun in Canada when some poor taxpayers cannot even go through a red light without being put in jail.


Mr. Keyes:: Freedom of the press.


Vincent Della Noce: Yes, freedom of the press. One law with some exceptions. I do not know what the Liberals have to say. I would like to ask some questions of them but time does not permit, and I respect that. I would like to know if a lot of people here have the same solution as


Mr. Chretien:: let them go, catch them later. That is not what the people say in my area.
I met with all the people who have asked me to meet them on this issue. Why are we doing this? Why do I not have these benefits? Why do I have a special law? Why? What did we do wrong? We want to go to work. Ask the people at Chateauguay who have to go around. Nobody gave them anything free. Okay, now we will find some money, not too much, 10 cents a kilometre. When you drive a car it costs 36 cents a kilometre-41 now, my colleagues knows about it. It will be a present. My colleague from Chambly will understand that.
I did fight, too. I fought all my life for the consumer. We made a strike together. We had no guns and we won exactly what we wanted. I have a witness here. Thank God he is here to witness. We had no guns and we won. We won everything. Of course, there were some bad words going around. It is part of negotiations. We had something going on, but we did not have any machine-guns, thank God. We did not have any. What did we have? We had some friends who stuck together and we worked and tried to understand. When the minister called me and said we are ready to negotiate, I said, "Hey, boys, let's go back to work. These guys are serious". This was in the PQ time. He was there and saw what I did. We had 7,000 members on the road and everybody respected the law. If my people did not respect the law, we would not be here today.
I would like to finish with some-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Vincent Della Noce: These guys do not like the truth. These guys only like to criticize the government. But they have no solution. The only solution they have is to let them go. We will catch them later. Try to explain that to my people.
What I saw yesterday on TV was a real disgrace. Jesse Jackson came in and tried to play the new star on TV, just for the new talk shows in the United States. The researcher did not even tell him where Oka was. Somebody had to drive him there because he did not understand anything in this area. Thank God, he is not the President of the United States today because he would be playing golf the wrong way.
I was very surprised and shocked to see the international people who tried to give us lessons such as le journal le Monde en France. They do not understand this issue. They do not know what the hell is going on here. They do not know anything because on their first page


they wrote that an Indian was killed in Oka. It is not true. It was a Quebecer who was killed. He was a human being, too. Corporal Lemay was killed. Try to explain that to his wife, try to explain that to his kids. He did not even have the benefit of this person to rest in peace.

The respectful defenders of international human virtue did their usual turn, Mr. Speaker. The Right Honourable Joe Clark put it very well when he said that the observers tried to comment and find solutions when they had no idea what was happening. No idea! I was on the barricades one day, and the international observers came and they said, "How terrible", and then left. They didn't even go to the other side of the barricades. And at that point the army wasn't even there.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the people affected that I sympathize with them very much. I know their problems and I was there to help. I hope the two levels of government are going to do something to help them and also to restore some economic vitality to the town of Oka. I want to congratulate the Mayor of Oka, and extraordinary major who did extraordinary work, because he managed to keep the peace. And all his townspeople displayed extraordinary strength. They didn't criticize; they didn't act like the people of Chateauguay. Maybe they should have.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke to Mayor Ouellet earlier and told him that I would convey this message to the House. I congratulate him on his good work and I hope the government will do something to save this town, the prettiest village in Quebec.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I guess I am in a strange position having had my colleague, the hon. member for Laval-Est, put me in the same boat as he in the past. One thing that I have noticed with my colleague, the hon. member for Laval-Est, is that he has proven to me that anyone can become a member of Parliament regardless of creed, race or ability to understand a debate.
Government Orders
I think that what my colleague has said has been a mixture of insults to native people and an apology for the government. Unfortunately, I do not believe that he has really come clean in the sense of what he said publicly to the press. Before coming into the House today, he said publicly, and he had promised me that he would be saying that again today in the House, that he, as a member of Parliament, was very much upset by the way that his own government handled the native issue and that the members of his own party were not consulted and were left out and he felt very badly because of this situation. I see my colleague saying, yes, that is true and, at the same time I see other members of the caucus of the Conservative Party saying, no, that is not true. I think that is indicative of the fact that they were not able to get their act together before and they are not able to get their act together now.
To speak in terms of Mr. Erasmus, I do not agree with what Mr. Erasmus has said. I believe that he has been tendentious but I agree that the government has been equally tendentious, has been arrogant, has been wrong and has been provocative. To say that here is a man, a respected native leader and that we give him his food, to me, makes me feel dirty, it really does. It is not the appropriate kind of remark that we should make in Parliament about people who are Canada's original people.
I think that this entire debate has led itself to excesses on both sides and for one member of Parliament, my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Laval-Est to say that we have forgotten the other side, I do not think that is true. I have listened today. It is now almost two o'clock in the morning. I have listened because I figured I could make a better intervention if I heard what other people had to say, and I have heard, repeatedly, members from all the parties of this House saying that there has been a collective tragedy here on both sides. There have been people murdered-I am sorry, I must retract that-there has been one person killed, there have been people inconvenienced, there have been people injured, but I do not believe that we can put the blame on one side. I do believe that the government, as I said before must learn, and I wish that my colleague would learn, that this is a collective tragedy and that we should come out of this with the renewed desire to sincerely deal with native problems across the country.

Government Orders
One thing I would like to ask of my colleague and that is this: does he stand by the remarks he made outside of these halls, outside of Parliament, to the effect that the members of the Conservative Party-and I see him being coached right now by one of his colleagues and I understand he may need coaching but I would like the member for Laval-Est to answer on his own because he does that very well-did he not feel that the Conservative Party was running away from its elected members and it was really out of touch with native peoples?


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, what I did tonight was try to explain that there are two sides to the story. The majority of our members tonight spoke about the Mohawk Indians. That was their right. I tried to touch on the other side a little, because these people need to be heard too. They are responsible people, good Canadians. They are taxpayers, and I have a lot of respect for them. I am a minority myself. I will not let anybody insult a minority in this House, even if my colleague tried a couple of times tonight.
The fact is that I was not informed. I said it and I will not hide it. There was a lack of information at the beginning. Of course nobody knew at the beginning where the story was going. I did inform my minister and we had some talks. I can tell the House that right after I was spoiled with information. There was a misunderstanding and some papers were sent to the wrong place. I accept that. I stand on what I said. On such an important issue people call their members of Parliament every day, people who were on both sides of the fence. At Oka and Chateauguay I have some people working there too who had lost their jobs. It is normal to be informed.
I did say that I was not well enough informed. I must say that after they did some research. Something happened and it was corrected, and after that I was spoiled with information. I must admit that I did not have very much time during the summer to read everything. I just wanted some important information about where we stood on the issue.
My hon. colleague from Chambly who asked me the question did not say a word in his speech about his constituents in Chambly. I met some people who were angry. I met some people who were not too happy about the crisis. They did not like the idea that they had to turn around and travel an extra 10 kilometres to 50 kilometres per day.
People called me from Ville La Salle. Maybe that is not exactly in the centre of Chambly, but I understand people called me because they knew me personally. Of course I am not their member of Parliament but I can still talk to these Canadians. They were unhappy. They did not like the idea, but that was the situation.
Of course they would like to have the situation changed after a phone call. I do not think anybody here has the right key for doing that. I hope that people understand that we try to do our best. We tried to work with everybody on both sides of the House and on both sides of the issue. I worked with the mayor, I worked with the people, and I think we did a hell of job.
I know my colleague from Argenteuil-Papineau spent many days there. I saw her on both sides, but most of the time she was on the other side of the barricade. I did not go on the other side very much. I was not allowed to go really. I stayed on this side of the barricade, and she was briefing me once a week.
The situation was not funny. We did not think for a minute that this thing would go on for 70 days or more, and the people sleeping in the homes at Oka tonight are not very secure. I understand that very well. If people here know Oka with the mountains, the golf courses and all the trees, they will know that they do not like that, but we assured them and the army assured them that there would be no problem. I am very happy that they went back to their homes tonight. I received that news at ten o'clock tonight.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on an issue of great importance and urgency to our country and indeed of great interest to the people of Haldimand-Norfolk.
This summer our country's own Armed Forces have been deployed against its own citizens. This summer shots were fired and a Canadian lost his life. Several hundred Canadians have experienced violations of their basic rights. We have seen footage and heard reports of police harassing Canadians and Canadians attacking police. Canadians have attacked one another with names and sticks and rocks. Our mood has become one of confusion, of anger, and of vengeance. Canadians know shame as a nation that they have never known before. The cause of this shame is our inability to deal peacefully and justly with the native people of Canada.
September 25, 1990

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that a great deal of the shame must rest with with government and its inaction to deal with this situation.
In my time as a member of Parliament I have never seen such complete lack of confidence, such lack of understanding, and such lack of leadership as I have seen on this issue. In its souless, gutless manner we have seen throughout, the government is now trying to shift the blame away from its own inadequacies, away from its own lack of leadership, to a whole different issue.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would rather talk about the conduct of our Armed Forces than to address the real issue, the real needs of our native Canadians. The Canadian Armed Forces are just that: they are Armed Forces. They were called into the communities at Kahnawake and Kanesatake and given a mandate in our society. They acted with discipline and efficiency, but the fact that the Armed Forces were called out at all was an admission of failure on the part of both this government and the provincial Government of Quebec, because arms are only taken up by people when they feel that all else has failed, when they feel that their governments have failed them.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development seeks to condemn the Indian people in their use of arms. These arms were taken up rightly or wrongly after decades of attempts to deal and negotiate a settlement with the Government of Canada. How long did the federal government wait to send in its Armed Forces? How hard did the minister and the Prime Minister try to negotiate before sending in the Armed Forces?
The minister could not negotiate because he was far too busy trying to dodge cameras and to figure out how he could twist the situation and how he could tell the people of Canada that it was not his responsibility, that it was not the responsibility of this government. I tell the minister that Canadians are not buying it.
From the early stages of this crisis the only information we got from the government, the only word that came from the government, was that it was a police matter and out of its jurisdiction. There has been no leadership
Government Orders
shown at all. It has completely abdicated the responsibility for first peoples.
That same point was made in a letter, of which I have a copy, to the Right Hon. Prime Minister from the Six Nations Council, from Chief Bill Montour. I want to quote a little from this letter because I think it is important:
The Six Nations of the Grand River are alarmed to be informed by Sue Nations negotiators in the Kanesatake territory that the federal government and the province of Quebec negotiators are unwilling to negotiate or entertain even serious discussions concerning the situation at Oka.
Later it says:
We feel your government has shown a total lack of responsibility and sound judgment, passing the situation off as a police action of the province of Quebec. Your inaction will only serve to regress the social relationship between this divergent cultural group and the aboriginal peoples in Canada to that of 100 years ago.
The Six Nations of the Grand River believe that it is your responsibility to take control of negotiations by defusing the trouble spots and negotiating a peaceful settlement with the Mohawks of the Kanesatake. Rather than allowing the bureaucracy to have total responsibility to uphold the honour of the Crown, we respectively demand that you recall Parliament to deal with the transgression by the province of Quebec.
May our creator guide your thoughts.
That was sent to the Prime Minister by Chief Bill Montour of the Six Nations, and with no response.
By abdicating its responsibility I believe this government has guaranteed, as my colleague from Rainy River said, that the threat of violence could continue. By abdicating its responsibility for aboriginal peoples and for the policies concerning land claims, this government has told Canadians that they are an instrument of choice when it comes to a crisis requiring leadership.
"Forget leadership, forget Parliament, forget serious negotiations, because I have always got the police. I have always got the army to bring in." That is the message from this government to Canadians. Then the government has the audacity to tell first peoples and to tell Canadians about this magical rule of law. This is the same government that stood by while food and medical attention were denied Canadians, the same government that is now trying to justify the violation of the freedom of the press, the same government that manipulates jurisdictions and legislation just to hide from this difficulty, the same government that on numerous occasions has

Government Orders
shown complete and utter contempt for this House. Now it wants to tell Canadians about the rule of law.
Let us talk about that point for a second. I am not a lawyer, but I did have the opportunity to contact the Library of Parliament to find out what exactly its definition of the rule of law is. They gave me a quote of the rule of law taken from the Oxford Companion which it reads:
The concept of the rule of law implies the subordination of all authorities, legislative, executive, judicial and other to certain principles-these principles such as the fundamental principles of justice, moral principles, fairness and due process. It implies respect for the supreme value and dignity of the individual. In any legal system, it implies limitations on legislative power, safeguards against the abuse of the executive power-
We all know-and even the government would admit it-that the treatment of aboriginal peoples throughout history on this continent has not been compatible with the fundamental principles of justice. The land dispute which gave rise to the blockades at Oka has its roots in the unjust allocation of land which arose when our society imposed concepts of land ownership and of land exploitation which were foreign and indeed caused conflict in this situation.
The rule of law implies supremacy of the moral principles and respect for the supreme value and dignity of the individual. Do we consider it morally right to deny food and medical attention to children? Do we abide by the violation of fundamental rights and freedoms?
All these things happened this summer and they are continuing to happen. Has this government done anything to solve these problems? Now government members opposite stand here before us and attempt to pass themselves off as defenders of this rule of law. What about the rule of law safeguarding abuse against executive power?
We on this side of the House demanded that the government recall Parliament so that representatives of Canadians from across this country could participate in a debate and that we could express to this government the anger and the outrage of many Canadians over this government's failure to act in this situation.
This government failed to commit the political will necessary to bring about a peaceful negotiated settlement to the situation and to preserve the dignity of all the individuals involved. This government refused to heed our call despite the fact that it had recalled Parliament to deal with events which while important were no more important than this situation. Members opposite like to talk about the rule of law and order, knowing that they are sacred cows which no one would dare contradict.
Let me express the perspective exposed by Ovide Mercredi, Manitoba Vice-Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. It is one I share with him. This government talks about law and order and what they do not seem to understand is that law and order is based on justice. Our population is law abiding because it believes in the justness of the law and the judicial system and where it does not agree with the law, it has confidence that the system will protect them and that it can be amended. We know that our judicial system, our police system and government have not treated aboriginals fairly or justly. How is it we expect unending patience, unending law and order from a group that we have endlessly abused and discriminated against? Does that mean that I think picking up a gun is a way to solve a problem? No, I do not.
What it means is that I believe it is abundantly clear that the current land claims system is a failure. It has little political legitimacy remaining and is in desperate need of reform. It is unacceptable that this government is trumpeting law and order and the rule of law as a new-found excuse to ignore and dismiss legitimate Indian demands. In fact, this government has violated the rule of law in almost every way imaginable in the last few months.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to participate last Sunday in Simcoe at a rally by constituents of Haldi-mand-Norfolk. It was pouring rain and there were hundreds out there. They signed a petition which I have here and I want to read it because I think it is important. It says to the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier

of the province of Quebec and all those who may be concerned:
"We citizens of the Haldimand-Norfolk area of Ontario gathered in Simcoe September 23, remind our federal and provincial governments of the meaningful aboriginal status of the native people of Canada, of the important contacts with land and community which has sustained them in such symbols as the Mohawk tree of peace, of the privation and suffering which Canadian and American policies continue to cause them, of the need in Canada today for generous and neighbourly treatment of all citizens including native people. We earnestly request our governments to address at once the many outstanding land claims of the native people of Canada, to recognize and respect all treaty rights of native people, to support the native people of this country in their search for a meaningful degree of self-government, to accept due responsibility for the deterioration of the quality of life in many reserves and to take appropriate steps to correct it. Finally, we request the federal government to establish an aboriginal rights commission to push these developments.
At this moment of confrontation at Kanesatake and Kahnawake in the province of Quebec, we think it essential that the federal government exercise its authority to cause a withdrawal from the scene of the Quebec police and after that of the Canadian military personnel who are at present on the scene and enter into meaningful discussion with the native councils of these communities with a goal of peace and the well-being of their people and in demonstration of our sincerity in these matters, we have gathered food and money to aid the people at Kanesatake and Kahnawake and signed our names to this petition."
This petition is clearly the feeling of a great number of Canadians. I know my time is up so in closing, let me return again, to the Oxford Companion's discussion of the rule of law. I believe that these words serve as a very useful commentary on the government's reaction to the Oka crisis and in particular to aboriginal issues in this country. It says, "The rule of law means more than that the government maintains and enforces law and order but that the government is, in itself, subject to the rule of law and cannot itself disregard the law or remake it to suit itself".


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, you caught me unawares as I thought there might be some questions.
Government Orders
I take part in this debate this evening, or this morning, and I look at the resolution that we are debating, that this House commends the exemplary conduct of the men and women of the Canadian Forces at Oka and Chateauguay. We saw the TV coverage, particularly of the young soldiers who were pressed into something that I am sure that they did not enjoy, and the cool and patient way they approached a very tough issue facing Canada.
The second part of the motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the laws of Canada must apply on all Canadian territory, including Kahnawake, and that all persons currently at the Kanesatake Treatment Centre should lay down their arms and submit to the process of Canada's judicial system, thereby encouraging the creation of a constructive climate for discussions between governments and the Mohawk people on land claims and other issues.
I do not think there are many people in Canada who would not agree that the laws of Canada should be obeyed.
The last part of the motion reads:
That upon adoption of this motion, the said motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
If I may take a few moments, I would like to point out something that I think has been missing in the debate that I have heard here today. I think it has degenerated into a situation of blame back and forth which I do not think that really helps the House of Commons. It is very important that we in the House of Commons try to examine the issue and maybe even try and come up with some constructive ideas on the way to resolve a very difficult situation.
I think one of the things that has been overlooked repeatedly, not only in the debate here but in the news media in the past month or so, is the difference between the warriors, the Warriors Society and the Mohawk people. I would like to just briefly read an article which was printed July 4, 1990 by the Herald Journal of Syracuse, N.Y. after an interview. It is by M.C. Bums, who is a staff writer:
Louis Hall lives in an isolated trailer with battered typewriter he used to pound out his manifesto. Over the last 10 years, that document has inspired a divisive, militant resurgence in the Iroquois nation and fostered a rebirth of a warriors movement from Canada to Wisconsin.
When masked Mohawks with assault rifles blocked entrance to the St. Regis Reservation a year ago, Louis Hall was behind them -not physically, but his words put them there.
Those gunmen, members of the well-armed Warriors' Society at the reservation in New York and Canada, idolized Lewis Hall. Today, they are key players in the violence and the uneasy peace that exists in the place Mohawks call Akwesasne.

Government Orders
Halls writing, produced by slender figures rattling his Olympia, is outrageous, vehement and angry. "There will come a day", he wrote recently, "when the Indian will put the white man in a boat and send him back to Europe where he belongs and keep him there".
The manifesto reinterprets the Great Law Peace, the constitution of the Iroquois, and gives some Native Americans the rationale they need to carry weapons. In it, Hall asks, "What can the warriors societies do?
He answers: Dump bridges into rivers-which are now sewers-and into seaway, cancelling all traffic, knock out powerhouses, high-tension power lines, punch holes in the reactors of nuclear power houses.
He urges young Iroquois to reject the peace-oriented teachings of the traditional chiefs, including those who sit on the Grand Council of the Six Nations of Iroquois.
He believes that some traditional chiefs-including all of the ones who sit at the Onondaga Nation-have betrayed the Great Law, and for that they should be executed, Mafia-style, by Mafia hit men, if possible.
Hall is not kidding.
"They should be executing the traitors," he said in an interview. "But they would have to do it the way the Mafia do it -in secret and never see the victim again. No body. No case."
Some Warriors agree with him and do not question his teachings, even concerning executions.
"Yes, they should be executed," said Francis Boots, war chief of the Warriors Society of Akwesasne. "It's the law."
Boots usually has a copy of Hall's manifesto close by.
"But it is his actual presence that inspires us," Boots said. "He has the message, and he knows how to articulate it."
There is more that goes on and points out where the Warriors Society is coming from.
This is not supported by the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. Let me show you a kit that I got from the Mohawk Council and I would like to point out just a few things. It is a chronology of violence and it basically states: "From Petty Offences to Multi-Million Dollar Crime". It is a brief history of events leading to the 1990 campaign of violence by the Mohawk Sovereignty Security Force (the Warriors) and the pro-gamblers.
In Akwesasne, May 1, 1990, ordinary people live in fear. Armed thugs rule the land. Gambling, narcotics, smuggling, beatings, and automatic weapons fire are everyday activities. Police protection exists only in some sectors and where it exists, it is overwhelmed by criminals. A ghetto in an American city? The Sicilian countryside? Life in Columbia? Not in this case.
The above description is of Akwesasne, a Mohawk Indian reservation with a population of about 9,500 located near Cornwall, Ontario, Canada and Massena, New York, in the U.S.A. It lies partially in Canada and partially in the U.S.A. How did a normally peaceful and law-abiding community become a war-zone reminiscent of Belfast or Beirut?
These are comments made by the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. They wrote it. Jack Shields did not write it. This government did not write it. It is the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne who wrote this article.
From 1979 to 1980, the first step was smuggling cigarettes. They started out with petty crime. In 1981, a law enforcement vacuum-the bingo boom begins. A law enforcement vacuum was created on the American side of the reservation when the population disbanded the Tribal Police Force-that was on the American side-after charges of abuse and fraud. A high stakes bingo operator, partially funded by the smugglers and partially from outside sources, was allowed to set up under regulation of the Tribe. But he took advantage of the legal and enforcement vacuum to disregard the elected leadership and the deal that was signed with the Tribe.
In 1984, 1985, and 1986, speakeasies flourished; slot machines are added. As they accumulated wealth, the smugglers diversified into after-hours sales of alcohol and slot machines. Community objections increased after 19 people were killed in alcohol related car accidents as they left the speakeasies. Low skill jobs in the bingo halls and casinos attracted many young people away from continued studies. Community anger grew every day. Protests and attempts to have the illegal operations closed increased. The three Mohawk governments separately and then jointly attempted unsuccessfully to close them down. All of this supported by, not the Mohawks whom everyone talks about, but very clearly by this Warrior Society which was operating illegally among their own people, redefining what the Warrior Society was, following the teachings or the manifesto of Louis Hall.
In 1987, a chief of the longhouse, or the traditional government of the Mohawk people, is dehorned. He is

relieved of his authority and position for refusing to cease his involvement in the lucrative trade. He subsequently organized groups of young, unemployed men and boys to be runners or paid employees to help operate the business.
In 1987, the runners or foot soldiers of the smugglers received paramilitary training, bought sophisticated weapons and communications equipment, and emerged as the Warrior Society, later to become known as the Mohawk Sovereignty Security Force, MSSF or the warriors. They adapted and corrupted a tradition of the warriors which for centuries had meant societies which ensured protection of the nation, among other things. Traditionally, these societies were accountable to the traditional chiefs who call upon their services when needed.
In 1987, the MSSF claimed that their existence became necessary because the nation had been systematically attacked and rendered nearly powerless despite Mohawk protests. In reality, they emerged to protect the lucrative economic interests under the guise of Mohawk sovereignty because Canadian and U.S. officials and the good Mohawk people were becoming an impediment to business.
Again, I am saying, and I underline this, this is being written by the Mohawk council of Akwesasne. They are the ones who are saying this, not people in the House.
In 1988, 1989, and 1990, the warriors began to threaten and intimidate anyone who opposed the slots and bingos. Narcotics, especially cocaine and crack, became an increasing problem. Many people reported that warriors were dealing while others were often high while patrolling and handling their automatic weapons. Arrests were made of some warriors for attempting to take concealed weapons across the border. The State Police raided some casinos and confiscated slot machines but the operators replaced them and resumed full operations within twenty-four hours. Warriors began to run people off the road and ram vehicles. In Canada, you say?
In 1990, warrior violence increased. Beatings, threats, and shootings increased in frequency. Personal property such as homes and cars were damaged. Months of intensive efforts were made in vain to resolve the disputes through negotiation. The people, tired of federal and state inaction and wishing to stop their growth and eradicate the illegal activities, set up road blockades to stop the flow of clients to the casinos. That is the
Government Orders
Mohawk people doing this. Warriors' reaction was to shoot at Mohawk people with automatic weapons and to destroy the barricades.
Warrior spokespeople appeared on television claiming to protect the nation from outside forces and promising to do away with any opposition. The warriors developed a hit list of Akwesasne Mohawks who opposed them.
In April, 1990, warriors declared war on their own people. Hundreds of Mohawks fled the reservation to escape the "civil war" atmosphere. Why have we not heard about that in the debate tonight? Why has it only been an angry outburst of emotion saying that Canadians or the government is not interested in the plight of native people and land claims?
On May 1, 1990, two young Mohawk men were killed in gun battles. The non-Mohawk police finally moved in to back up the Mohawk police on the Canadian side. Mohawks on the American side saw law enforcement officials on the territory for the first time in a decade. In other words, the New York police were, for the first time in a decade, on the reserve.
In June and July of 1990, tensions persisted as the police forces from Canada, Ontario and Quebec and New York State came to Akwesasne to help Mohawk police maintain peace. Warrior spokesmen declare publicly their intention to take over control of all Indian reservations in northeastern North America through undermining means.
There is no doubt that in the past years since our forefathers came to this country native people were shunted off into reserves. There is no doubt in our minds that many of the land claims settlements have not been done. We have tried a number of things and other governments have tried a number of things. One of the things that I experienced was to throw money at the problem. We saw 10 or 15 years of throwing money at the problem and nothing happened. There is a clash in the way we look at it and it is a misunderstanding, many times, of what native people want and what Canadians see.
One of the things that I think is very important is that the young generation growing to be citizens of this country, native people, must recognize that there is not much future on a reserve. Our whole society in Canada is built on the idea that if you work hard, you accumulate

Government Orders
your worth or your wealth, you are able to own your home and you are able to pass on some of these things to your children. It is not so on a reserve. A reserve is communally owned. People living on the reserve do not own their own homes, it is a band house. We have passed the economic development to try to get the economy of the reserves moving to the band rather than to individuals. It has always been my contention that we should be looking more at individuals and saying to individuals on reserves: "Look, you, too, can prosper. You, too, can take part in this Canadian idea of getting into business, owning property, and profiting from your sweat, your work and the hard things that happen when you get into business or when you work."
The other thing that is a problem, and I have seen this time and time again, is when natives do become educated, become doctors, lawyers, and dentists and get into other professions or end up living not on the reserve but in a city, working at a steady job such as the oil sands, for example, in my area Syncrude and Suncor, the other natives on the reserve soon refer to them as Indian white men. The drag-down system starts because the whole philosophy on a reserve is that everyone should be equal. Everyone owns, in a communal way, everything on that reserve. It is run by a band chief and council.
I want to take one more minute, Mr. Speaker, if you will just give me another minute.
It must be totally devastating to a native man who is raising a family and does not have a job. He wants basically the same things that we do. He wants security for his family, he wants to see his family educated, and he wants them to be healthy and happy. That is not happening today. We, in this government, are committed to see that it does happen and that we become more involved through the consultative process to bring natives to the standard of living equal to anyone else in Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I see that you are signalling me to stop.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the hon. member's time has expired. On debate, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of sadness that I enter this important debate at this late hour.
I say with a great deal of sadness because, despite the many excellent and constructive proposals made by members of the House and by individuals and groups including aboriginal groups across the country, proposals to peacefully settle this long-standing dispute, members of the government continue to justify the insensitive and irresponsible actions that we saw throughout the summer. They continue to support this fraudulent, dishonest and demeaning motion which is before the House.
I am sad not only for what this motion says to the people at Kanesatake and Kahnawake, and not only for what it says to all aboriginal people in Canada, but also for what it says to Canadians and about Canadians.
During the last week of August and the first week of September, I was at an international conference in Geneva. Day after day in the news, in Switzerland and in Germany, Canada was portrayed as a banana republic denying basic rights to aboriginal people and using military might to force them into submission.
I refer to the resolution before the House as dishonest and fraudulent. Let me illustrate.
The resolution starts by commending the conduct of the Canadian Armed Forces. The issue that should be before the House is the conduct of the government. Why did the government not have the guts, the intestinal fortitude, to put a resolution to the House which would have addressed the real issue, which is the conduct of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indian Affairs? That is what we should be debating. What a smoke-screen this resolution is. What a fraud this resolution is. It is an attempt to whitewash the irresponsible actions of the government.
The Canadian Armed Forces, of course, have long experience in peacekeeping. Nobody condemns them for what they do under direction of the government. They are a professional armed force. They follow the direction and the laws laid down by the government. The problem we are faced with is caused by the government and, if the government had any gumption, any guts, it would have put a resolution to the House dealing with its conduct,
September 25, 1990

and it did not do it. It is a shame for the House and for the country that it failed to do so.
Let us look at the second paragraph of this resolution.
That in the opinion of this House, the laws of Canada must apply on
all Canadian territory-
The implication of that particular paragraph is that all laws apply everywhere in Canada and that these Mohawks are wild, irresponsible people for suggesting otherwise. What is the government trying to say in that particular sentence? Does it not realize that the Indian Act, to start with, does not apply everywhere in Canada? The Indian Act itself applies to very particular people on very particular pieces of land, reservations and so on.
The government recognizing that Indian people were different in different parts of the country passed the Sechelt legislation a few years ago, whereby the Sechelt people in British Columbia were given a certain form of self-government and were exempted from the Indian Act.
If we look at the James Bay agreement, the James Bay legislation, there are provisions for those people living in northern Quebec which are quite different than the provisions under the Indian Act.
Many laws do not apply everywhere, and others that do should not in some cases, if we address them in a more critical fashion than we have in the past.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, the whole resolution is a fraud. What does the government mean by that particular statement that the laws of Canada must apply in all Canadian territory. It certainly does not mean the Indian Act, or the Sechelt Act, or the James Bay and Northern Quebec Cree Act. Maybe they are referring to the Criminal Code. Maybe they are implying that the Mohawk people, the Indian people, feel they should not be covered by the Criminal Code.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, one might ask if the Criminal Code was applied equally to Donald Marshall, and one might examine the criminal justice system and how it applies to Indians and non-Indians in this country.
I listened to the hon. member for Athabasca reading a long list of accusations against the Warrior Society. No one is suggesting that if there are any crimes against
Government Orders
individuals or any crimes that are to be charged against individuals, they should not be charged with those crimes.
What I find is happening when I listen to the hon. member and others on the other side of the House is that they are trying to brand with a wide brush all aboriginal people and all Mohawks, including all those in the treatment centre, as being criminals and warriors, terrorists, and so on, following the lead of the Deputy Minister for Indian affairs who, in the month of August, more or less said that the people who were causing the trouble were criminals.
The fact of the matter is that there are many examples in this country of special laws for special peoples, depending on their circumstances. For many years in this country the aboriginal people have argued that many of the laws that apply to them were drafted and passed without their participation in a repressive, unjust, paternalistic and colonialistic fashion, and that their past, history, culture and backgrounds were never taken into consideration with the passage of those laws.
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, this Parliament needs to recognize that. We recognize that to a certain extent in the James Bay settlement. We recognize that to a certain extent in the Sechelt Act. Some people will disagree with the Sechelt Act and say it is not really an act dealing with self-government, but despite that the Sechelt people were willing to accept it. So was the government and they made special provisions.
If we look at certain Indian nations in this country, they do have their own courts. They do have their own police officers. They do have their own probation and parole officers who understand their people and who apply their laws and customs in conjunction with the laws in Canada.
This conflict at Kanesatake and Kahnawake was a disaster from the beginning. It is a conflict that need not have happened. It should not have happened if the government had acted responsibly and correctly in the situation.
When I was Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, if there was land under claim by an aboriginal group, we put a freeze on that land until the claim was totally settled. We would not allow oil and gas development. We

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
would not allow mining. We would not allow the construction of roads on that land while it was under claim.
Here we have the mayor of a small community deciding to expand a golf course and for that reason we have this dispute. If the minister and the government had been acting as they should have been, as trustees for the aboriginal people in this country, as they are supposed to do under the Indian Act and under our constitutional laws, and according to a recent decision of the Supreme Court, they would have immediately intervened and said it is irresponsible to move ahead with a golf course when this land is under claim. If they had done that, if the minister and the Prime Minister and the government had not been totally asleep with their heads in the sand, none of this would have happened.
However, here we are before this House debating a fraudulent, camouflage resolution about the conduct of the Armed Forces. Here we have this despicable conduct of the government, of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and they have not even got the courage to put that to the House as they should have.
The conduct of this government in this matter from beginning to end was an abdication of responsibility. After the first incident of violence on July 11, we did not even hear from the minister or the Prime Minister for weeks on end. One wondered what had happened to the minister and to the Prime Minister. We heard from the Minister of Indian Affairs of Quebec, Mr. Ciaccia, we heard from Mr. Remillard, also with the Quebec government, we heard from Mr. Bourassa. There was a total abdication of federal jurisdiction over Indian affairs to the Quebec government. That was bad enough but once the Armed Forces were brought in, this same government abdicated responsibility and jurisdiction over important decision making to the army, and I will illustrate that in a few minutes.
Decisions that were political decisions and should have been made by the government through negotiation and through intervention were left to the Armed Forces, which are not equipped and should not be involved in political decision making or in key decisions which will affect the political results between two peoples, as we saw in Oka and in Kahnawake.
In the resolution they talk about the laying down of arms. They ask that the people in the treatment centre at Kanesatake lay down their arms and submit to the processes of Canada's judicial system. There have been several proposals agreed upon by the Mohawks and by the Iroquois Confederacy to do that, but it also involves some obligations on the other side. But these were not taken seriously by the Bourassa government nor by this government.
There was a very complete proposal to dispose of the arms under supervision and so on and if people were to be charged, let them be charged. Let us go through the process, even though the process has been very unfair to aboriginal people over the years. I have already referred to the Donald Marshall case and there are others as well.
I heard about the situation last week where John Ciaccia, the Minister for Indian Affairs in Quebec, was in Toronto and worked out an agreement with the Iroquois Confederacy to settle both the short term and the long term issues in dispute, a settlement that I understand dealt with the laying down of arms and dealt with the Warrior Society. The hon. member for Athabasca was pretending I suppose that we suggested that those who committed wrong or committed criminal offences should go free. Not at all. Nor did the proposed settlement of the Iroquois Confederacy and Mr. Ciaccia do that at all.
What happened with that agreement? Once concluded, one of the representatives of the confederacy was to discuss it with people in the treatment centre to see if it was acceptable to them. When he arrived in Oka to gain entry to the treatment centre, he was denied entrance by the Armed Forces. That was not a decision to be made by the Armed Forces. Here we have a potential solution to the standoff, to the problem which has existed for several months, and the man cannot even get inside to discuss it with the people involved.
The representative of the confederacy then went to Ottawa to speak to people in a higher position in the Armed Forces. At that time he was told that this is a political matter and he should discuss it with the political authorities, so he goes to the political authorities. What did they say? "This is a military matter, go back to the Armed Forces".
September 25, 1990

Talk about sticking your head in the sand and avoiding your responsibilities. That is what we should be debating today, the conduct of the government. It is not up to the Armed Forces to make key political decisions that would have led to a settlement in this particular case. The Armed Forces is a professional organization, as I said, and they follow the orders of the government, the direction of the government, and the law laid down by this Parliament. They are not meant to make key political decisions involved in the dispute.
That proposal, as I understand it, dealt with the short-term and long-term issues that are before us. The short-term, of course, deal with the standoff at the treatment centre and the long-term issues, the claim policy, the policy that the government has for settling claims and matters of self-government and sovereignty.
With respect to the longer term issues, they will have to be dealt with because if they are not dealt with, we will continue to have problems and trouble in this country. They have been looked at over and over again. I was a member of the special committee on Indian self-government called the Penner committee. We travelled throughout this country for nearly two years and made a report which made serious recommendations to deal with these issues.
We had the Coolican report which recommended changes to the claims policy, which recommended the end of the extinguishment policy and the end to the policy of superseding by law legitimate rights. That is the problem with our claims policy. Indians go before the courts. They go before commissions and bodies and say "Flere are our rights. We want them recognized". People in government keep saying "Well, those rights were extinguished by a law passed in 1905". They were extinguished by a law passed in 1917. They are superseded by law. But, many of those laws are unjust laws and that should not be an excuse.
At one time in our history we had laws on slavery. At one time in our history we did not allow women to vote. We got rid of those laws. It is time to get rid of a lot of other laws that affect our aboriginal people.


Charles L. Caccia: And laws on child labour, too.


William Warren Allmand: Child labour, as my colleague mentions. There are all sorts of laws in our past history which were
Government Orders
unjust and unfair. Thank God we recognize that. But, we have not done it with respect to aboriginal people. We keep citing precedents of courts and saying that is what must govern. We keep citing precedents of laws that go back to a period when people did not have the same understanding they have today, or should have today.
Mr. Speaker, you are giving me the signal that my time is coming to an end.
In conclusion, I want to plead with the government to show a little humanity, a little compassion and a little understanding. They should try to put themselves in the shoes of the aboriginal people in Canada and try to understand how they feel in this particular situation.
I ask the government to forget this ridiculous resolution that is before us and get down to serious negotiation for a just, fair and peaceful settlement. For God's sake, Mr. Speaker, let's see some leadership.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I just thought that perhaps it would be a good time to set the record straight about the story of the land at Oka because there seems to be some question in the minds of the members opposite about what the facts are.
I will go through it very briefly. It is a comment. It does not really require any response. This issue started, as some hon. members may know, back in 1717 when the seminary of St. Soltice acquired a tract of land from the King of France and set up a religious order there. They then brought some Indians with them from Montreal and included, not just Mohawks who are the ancestors of the present Indians, the group included Nipissing and Algonquins as well.
After a time, of course, the land was broken up. The religious order left and there was a dispute over whether or not the land that had been used by the Indians since 1717 was, in fact, theirs.
There have been numerous references to courts and to various methods of settling the dispute over the years, but I will just go quickly through some of the highlights. In 1851, in order to settle this dispute, a reserve was provided at Maniwaki and many of the Algonquins who were moving from Oka moved to this location, but many of the Mohawks stayed at Oka.

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
The dispute sort of continued. In 1881 there was another dispute and the Indians at Oka did not prevail. Finally in 1912 the judicial council of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court in Canada, ruled on this particular item and held at that time that the Indians at Oka had no title or right to control the administration of the land. At that time the highest court in Canada had decided that the interest in that land was not vested in the Indian people. It was vested in the other people who had been living there.
These claims continued. The hon. gentleman mentioned that if they were in power there would not be an opportunity to do anything on a piece of land that was under claim. Even though it had been finally settled by the the highest court in the land, the Mohawks submitted another claim, a specific claim, in June 1977 which was ultimately rejected in 1986. At that time the minister of the day, when he advised the Indians that their claim was rejected, told them however that he was willing to consider a proposal for an alternate means of redressing their grievance.
At that time they sat down and negotiated a framework agreement. We have heard much about it. It was initialled in September 1989. The rest is history. The leadership of the band changed and the land issue was once more in dispute.
It is important that hon. members recognize that this is a very unusual case. They should not ignore the facts.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of that history. It only confirms the points I was trying to make.
The hon. member, for example, referred to court decisions which said that the claim was not justified because according to the laws of the land at the time another owner had the right to the land. In other words, laws superseded what were real rights, rights that had existed for a long time. Although it is true that band of people had moved from one place to another, promises had been made and for one reason or another the dispute carried on for years and years, sometimes with more visibility and more aggressiveness and at other times much more quietly.
If we examine what happened in a chronological way-and I have this record here before me-the negotiations this summer and spring were moving quite well, until once again there was a turndown of offer by the
band due to changes in the band administration and so on.
It was at that point that mistakes started being made. When the town of Oka decided to move ahead with the golf course, it was at that point, I submit, that the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs should have acted as a trustee for the Indian people and said: "Do not go ahead with that golf course, because this land is still under claim. There is no basis for proceeding with that golf course". It was that incident and the lack of action and involvement by the minister and by the government which led to all these problems.
The minister should have intervened at that point and said to the Quebec government and to the mayor of Oka: "Under no circumstances should you proceed with that golf course while this thing is still being negotiated". It is true that the negotiations had broken down, but with mediators and with conciliation they could have got going again, and they will go ahead again with good faith on both sides.
I blame the government for not taking action at that time, for withdrawing from the scene and for leaving it entirely to the Quebec government; then bringing in the army and leaving entirely to the army when the army should have been given more direction and when decisions that were made by the army should have been made by the government. I could list a whole raft of inactions which should have been discussed and blamed on the government.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join in this debate. I cannot think of any other issue which has caused so much anguish among Canadians, so much lack of certainty about the purpose of their country, so much lack of generosity toward people who need some generosity and spirit from government, and some concern for their lifestyles and the peril they find themselves in.
I know that in Winnipeg North Centre, where close to 30,000 or 40,000 people of aboriginal descent live, this issue has been the one that caused the most anxiety this summer and the greatest number of phone calls, letters and demands for public action.
I ask myself why is it that in the organization of the business of the House of Commons such an important issue is being debated at 2.50 in the morning? I will tell the House why. It is because the government wishes to bury this issue. It wishes it to disappear. It wishes it to be

discussed in the darkness of night so that Canadians do not have to hear exactly what has been going on.
I can tell every member of the government sitting over there that we are not going to let this issue die, that we are going to keep fighting, that we are going to bring this to the public's attention, and that we are going to keep demanding a public inquiry because we have to get to the bottom of it and we have to stop treating aboriginal people as second-class citizens.
Mr. Speaker, tonight you have heard several times that the rule of law is the issue. The Prime Minister, in response to questions in Question Period, says that it is the rule of law, that we must have order. I used to be a political science professor before I took on this new task in life. I decided to go back to the textbooks and look up this concept of the rule of law. Apparently the Prime Minister did the same thing because in a speech given earlier tonight or late yesterday, depending on how one wants to count it, he too talked about the same writer, R. MacGregor Dawson, as he tried to justify why he is going to start appointing extra senators to beat back the Liberals in the Senate over the GST.
R. MacGregor Dawson wrote the book The Government of Canada, which is a basic text on understanding the Canadian government. I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that even though these quotations are long they are real eye-openers and you will enjoy listening to them.
Listen to what Mr. Dawson had to say, and I quote:
-Canadian inheritance which is closely identified with some of these fundamental rights of the citizen is the rule of supremacy of law, a long-established principle of the British constitution. The exact meaning and implications of this principle are not readily stated, but its essence is the restriction on arbitrary authority in government and the necessity for all acts of government to be authorized by "reasonably precise" laws as applied and interpreted by the courts.
When we talk about the rule of law here, we are not talking about the actions of the Mohawks. We are talking about the actions of the government.
When referring to this provision, for example, in the old American Constitution, he wrote:
Government Orders
-that "this shall be a government of laws and not of men" was clearly a vain hope, but it was an endeavour to state in one phrase substantially the same idea-the certainty of legal procedures, the absence of untrammelled official power, the protection of the citizen against unknown and unpredictable authority. The increasing complexity of modem government, the growing emphasis on the social rather than the individual good, and the resulting need for government intervention in almost all fields of human endeavour have inevitably resulted in far wider discretionary powers being given to executive and administrative officials, accompanied by a consequent narrowing of the rule of law. Thus the sweeping accountability of officials to the courts of law when the legality of their acts was in question has had its scope somewhat diminished by the grant of wider and more general legal powers, and this has tended to a limited degree to remove the acts of the officials from judicial scrutiny. Despite this modification, the rule of law remains a cardinal principle of the Canadian constitution and a sturdy bulwark against abuse of power.
The heart of the rule of law is not what the citizen is doing but is maintaining control over government. What have we seen in the last two months: that very concept, the essence of Canadian democracy, turned against Canadians and making them feel guilty about what they are doing.


Sheila Finestone: Send it to the Minister of Justice.


David Walker: Well, send it to the Minister of Justice. She does not read as carefully as the rest of us.
The second quotation is equally interesting. It is by Richard Van Loon and Michael Whittington. For the record, members might wish to know that these are people have been advisers to the government in Indian affairs and other matters related to that. They also talk about the rule of law. What is the rule of law according to these writers? It reads as follows:
The manifest function of any constitution is to define the relationship between the citizen and the state, and, to the extent that the relationship can be defined at all, every country can be said to have some form of constitution.
The principle of rule of law in the British and Canadian tradition asserts that any interference with the freedom of any individual must be performed only according to the legal process and carried out by legitimate authorities. No one is exempt from the law, neither citizens nor officials of the government, and no one can interfere with the rights of any individual, except through the legal process. Finally, the principle of the rule of law means, as well, equality before the law for all members of a political community. But if we grant that the Constitution of Canada is built on the principle of the rule of law, we must also ask why the rule of law is so important. The function of the rule of law is, briefly, to protect us, the citizens, from the arbitrary interference of government, or of government officials, in our

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
everyday lives. The relationship of the individual to the political system
becomes, to some extent, fixed and impartial.
By contrast, the rule of the most benevolent dictators-
And here I include the Prime Minister:
- could conceivably deteriorate to rule by whim and caprice, for even benevolent dictators once in a while get out of bed on the wrong side, and so forth. The law, on the other hand, is presumed to be impersonal, predictable and coldly rational rather than emotional or moody.
I understand that is a very dry way to get ourselves involved with such an emotional topic, but if we stop and think about how this issue has been portrayed to Canadians, that the actions on behalf of the people in these communities has been wrong by definition in the eyes of the government, hence the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Indian Affairs refused to negotiate. The heart of the matter is that they have deliberately, forcefully, and wilfully misinterpreted what is going on in order to satisfy their own political agenda.
The second point I would like to raise on this issue, which I think is important, is the great grief that it has brought to Canadians in the eyes of the world. One of the most memorable images that I have of democracy in the world was the site last June in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China. There we had the sight of one man standing in front of a tank; the tank moves one way, he moves the same way, the tank moves the other way, he moves the other way, and there was a standoff.
I challenge the government to tell me what is the difference between that standoff and the standoff that we watched on Newsworld a few weeks ago between a Mohawk warrior and a Canadian army official? What is the difference? If you are sitting in China and it was the reverse than what it was last June, what would you think of the Canadian government? What would you think of that confrontation?
Or, I am drawn to remember in May when I visited Romania on behalf of the Speaker that outside of one of those major hotels, the Intercontinental in downtown Bucharest, there was a nightly demonstration of people talking about what it would be like to be in a democratic society. There was a second-floor balcony from which a student spoke and other members of the community. The crowd was of all ages and from all walks of life.
This summer I visited several times the peace village which aboriginal leaders in Manitoba erected on the legislative grounds to discuss the evolution of a democratic society in Canada, to discuss with political leaders such as members of Parliament and anybody else who would come forward to talk with them what it was that they were looking for. Everyone was peaceful. The leadership agreed to disband the camp during this week, the first week of Parliament, because they thought their point was made, and I agree with them.
Again, when the troops moved in in Bucharest we expressed shock and dismay that any government would turn on its people, but yet we do not even think about the peaceful demonstration taking place in Winnipeg. When I went there the leaders who are nationally known looked at me and said: "What do you think the Prime Minister is thinking? What do you think the government is trying to do to us? What do you think their ideas about us really are?" I stood there in silence because I could not explain to them what it was that the government was thinking. I could not explain to them why they were being treated that way.
However this has created a great unity among Canadians. Perhaps we are beginning to tie together different issues such as the environment and how we treat our land, because aboriginal people can tell us much about how not to spoil property, how to live for generation after generation. We should think of the changes to the lands of people who live in northern Quebec, and think of the way that people have changed their lives in northern Manitoba because of the northern flood agreement. We should think of all these changes and think of people who wandered through those areas and made their lives for generation after generation, and in two or three generations of Canadians we have managed to ruin that.
The peace movement which formerly looked outside of Canada for its issues now turns its attention to what is happening in our own country because we are on the battlefront. We can no longer take for granted the peace and security of our own citizens.
In Manitoba the peace community joined in at the Peace Village and this is why, in their own words: "We support the Mohawk nation and their struggle with the Federal government, Quebec government, Canadian
September 25, 1990

Army and Surete du Quebec, the Aboriginal people of Manitoba have established a Peace Village on the front lawn of the Manitoba Legislature" as a result of these events. In particular, we object to the Prime Minister who is responsible for this "by taking military action against the Mohawk nation. The Prime Minister has imposed a military solution where a political solution is required. This is a dangerous precedent, the security of all Canadians is at risk. The Mohawk people remain under siege with daily violations of their basic human rights."
Hopefully from news that we heard earlier this evening this is ending. "Children have been denied food and medicine, women have been assaulted and hospitalized, support and aid have been blocked by the army and the Surete du Quebec under the direct leadership of" the Quebec government. "The aboriginal people of Manitoba do not condone violence." They ask for our "continued support-to ensure that bloodshed is avoided and justice secured in this time of crisis." All Manitobans were welcomed to join in this Peace Village to show their solidarity. Many came bringing candles and tents and they joined in daily vigils and sunrise ceremonies.
I bring this to your attention and to the attention of the House to help us understand that although the House can fight over the specifics and disagree on the specifics, there is something at stake here which goes beyond the House. It is the transformation taking place in Canadian society. We can sit here and debate it all night, as we are doing today, because of the strong interest shown by this caucus in this issue or we can put our heads in the sand and pretend that if we ignore this or if the Oka crisis is settled this week that for somehow or another the whole issue will go away. In province after province, region after region, town after town and community after community this is going to be repeated until the basic injustices are settled.
It is up to us, members of all parties in this House, to work together with aboriginal leaders, with the support of the public who wish to no longer have to live through this nightmare, who wish to no longer hear about land claims not being settled, who wish no longer to hear about the poverty in urban Canada, who wish no longer
Government Orders
to hear about malnutrition on the reserves, who wish to hear some good news based on facts about improved conditions due to a commitment on the part of parliamentarians that they wish to see some recognition on the part of government that there is a commitment to improve conditions. Once that happens, then all parliamentarians can take pride in this institution. Until then there is a black spot on this institution, there is a black spot on this country and it remains for the government to take action and to get us going again.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, roughly 10 hours ago we heard a deathbed repentance on the part of the Prime Minister of Canada when he spoke in this Chamber. He delivered his commitment as to what he is prepared now to do. After having imposed financial cut-backs on native communications, after the post-secondary education fiasco last year, after having imposed cuts on friendship centres, after having imposed cuts to grants for native organizations, after withdrawing from past commitments, after having demonstrated to the country that not six months, not one year, not eighteen months but two years after the last election this government has not been able to introduce one piece of legislation that deals with the native and aboriginal people, after having failed to introduce measures in the light of what the nation learned about the Donald Marshall case on the application of justice when it comes to the aboriginal people.
In the environment we have seen month after month since the last election provocations and injustices and sheer follies. We have heard about the Cree Indians from James Bay who had to make their point by coming down by canoe, by demonstrating in front of the House of Commons, and then by way of the Richelieu River making their way down to New York in order to demonstrate their rejection of the James Bay II project to the United Nations.
We have heard for the past 20 months in Question Period the issue of the Oldman River dam and how the Peigan tribe is fighting against all odds in order to bring the white community to reason.

Government Orders
We have heard about the Algonquin of Barrier Lake and their frustration in getting the white society to accept some sensible principles of forest management.
We have heard about the Akwasasne reserve people who have to struggle with pollution in the St. Lawrence.
Many times we have heard colleagues in this House raising the issue of the Walpole Island native people and the water contamination that forces them to draw water from a distant region.
Everybody knows about the Wabagoon River and mercury pollution and what the native people have experienced over the last three decades.
We are now at the beginning of another saga in relation to the ALPAC development in northern Alberta where we are giving away the forests and the land on which the native people depend with potential serious contamination of waterways.
We all know and have heard about the Lubicon Indians and their struggle. It is very revealing to read what a writer in St. Bruno, Quebec, Marjorie Marc, writes about the Cree people in northern Quebec. I would like to quote a passage from her study where she says:

To deal with the problem of mercury contamination suffered by the First Nations, in particular the Cree of Northern Quebec, the Quebec government is encouraging them to change their eating habits. So far so good. But it happens that their eating habits are based on a way of life that goes back hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years, the fundamental pillars of which are hunting and fishing. In addition, native people's restricted incomes make it hard for them to obtain products from the South, which are more expensive for them than for us because of the great distances they have to be transported. Insisting that they eat tinned food means not only changing and limiting their way of life, but also putting their mental and physical health at risk. It is not by chance that Amerindians have a high alcoholism rate and the highest suicide rate in the world.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only with the environment that our native people have been increasingly fighting the establishment. When it comes to conflicts, a brief piece appeared in the Toronto Star of September 1 which encapsules the plight of the Innu of Labrador who are,
according to the writer from the Canadian Press historically, a peaceful, nomadic group which in recent years has repeatedly gathered at Canadian Forces Base Goose Bay to protest the low-level flying of NATO jets over their traditional hunting grounds.
You have the Micmac, traditional fishermen and hunters. During the 1950s their lives were disrupted by forest relocation. In the fall and winter of 1988 the Micmac in Nova Scotia protested provincial limits to moose hunting by hunting above the limits.
You know the saga in Temagami where after several years of protesting the extension of a nearby logging road this spring, the Indians won a say over the administration of part of the Temagami forest.
You have the Sarcee in your region, Mr. Speaker. In mid-August they marched on to the Canadian Forces Base in Calgary and claimed a large chunk of it saying the federal government stole it from them nearly 40 years ago.
You have the Peigan tribe, and I referred to them a moment ago when referring to the Oldman River dam. You have the Mohawks who are the subject and object of this particular debate today. It is worth while noting how, in the Toronto Star, Gerald Utting describes this history of Oka where reference is made to the fact that, and I quote:
The Mohawks say they have been provoked to taking action after years of keeping the peace despite continual (and undeniable) land grabbing by the white man. Mohawks lived at Oka before the British took Canada from the French in 1759.
These are historical facts that cannot be easily brushed aside. It is against this background of interference, conflicts and injustices that we read in the Order Paper, and we will debate today, the great vision of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This vision is reflected by the motion that we are debating tonight in which he proposed that the House commend the exemplary conduct of the men and women of the Canadian Forces at Oka and Chateauguay, that in the opinion of this House, the laws of Canada must apply on all Canadian territory, including Kahnawake, and that all persons currently at the Kahnawake Treatment Centre should lay down their arms and submit to the process of Canada's judicial system thereby encouraging the creation, and so on and so forth.
September 25, 1990

What a vision on the part of a minister of the Crown whose task, whose assignment, whose mandate is that of speaking on behalf of the aboriginal people at the cabinet table, at the inner sanctum of power, federally speaking, and who takes this tack in this House, virtually abandoning the substance, the very essence of his political mandate as minister of the Crown in charge of aboriginal affairs.
For these reasons, and against the broader background that I have attempted to outline for you, Canadians have been asking questions all summer as to what is going on in this country. All of a sudden, why are we getting such bad press in virtually every country of the world. What is happening to our high reputation in international fora on human rights that we should all of a sudden, not only have a black eye but also be considered to be in a stage that we never thought we would be ascribed, namely, of neanderthalers?
We in the opposition have been restless all summer. We started urging the government to recall Parliament in July. There was a letter from the Leader of the Opposition on July 17 to the Prime Minister. We had a demonstration on the steps of Parliament to make the point with the help of the media to recall Parliament. Then, on August 22, the opposition House Leader, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier followed up that intervention with a letter of his own to the Prime Minister without avail, of course, as you know, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately, this debate has tended to polarize because except for some very rare exceptions this afternoon and this evening, the government back-benchers have been the champions of the law and order theme. It indicates no sensibility for the basic fundamental principles of justice, and have left the opposition to occupy the much broader territory, the much broader issue that endeavours to indicate that, because of historical facts and because of the fact that the law is meaningless and empty unless it is based on principles of justice, the approach of law and order in the context of what has happened this summer, and against the background of what has happened over centuries, does not make sense. But this is the kind of intellectual bankruptcy that we have to face more and more in this Parliament with this intellectually bankrupt government.
Government Orders
We actually do not have to go back very far to refresh our collective memories. We can go back just to 1983 and look at the Penner report on Indian self-government. I will just use a minute to go over the conclusions of that report because it is as valid today as it was then.
An all-party committee of the House in the Thirty-Second Parliament, three parliaments ago, said in the conclusion on page 148 of the Penner report:
As Indian First Nation governments exercise control over their own affairs, the committee strongly recommends that the programs of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development relating to Indian people be phased out. This process should be completed within five years. This recommendation does not affect the Department's mandate for northern development.
The committee believes that the best way to promote Indian rights is through Indian self-government and not by special representation for First Nations in Parliament. Nevertheless, the situation of Indian peoples will change with self-government, and special representation in Parliament might in future offer benefits that cannot now be anticipated.
Finally, this observation:
The committee has concluded that the implementation of this report in its entirety, legislatively and constitutionally, is the best means of satisfying international standards in relation to Indian First Nations.
I look forward to the Parliamentary Secretary getting up when I finish to indicate to me what has been implemented of this report of 1983, which is the most recent document produced parliamentarily in terms of a well thought out effort on the part of members of all three parties to launch a process. This was in October 1983.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that in June 1984, Bill C-52 was introduced, an act relating to self-government for Indian nations. I would welcome an intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what has happened since November 1984 in terms of introducing legislation in the House on self-government for Indian nations, apart from the legislation to which my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace referred to earlier. What has happened to the substantial body of legislative proposals that the Conservative Government found when it came to power in the fall of 1984?
I would also like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a paragraph which struck me as being indicative of the depths of thought and wisdom of the native people, produced on September 20,1990, five days ago, by the Six Nation Iroquois Confederacy. It is a fairly long document and I will read only one paragraph, because it is very relevant to the situation we are facing today. I quote:
Restricting negotiations at this delicate time to a military demand for an absolute surrender is, we feel, sadly short-sighted. We feel

September 25, 1990
Government Orders
our draft agreement with Mr. Ciaccia bears a real hope for a more lasting peace. Since Mr. Bourassa has announced his desire to negotiate with the Confederacy, and since Mr. Mulroney has stated his desire for a peaceful negotiated settlement, we hope they will agree to support this accord and join us in peacemaking, both for this immediate crisis and for the coming generations.
Time will tell whether this advice and this invitation will fall on receptive ears.
I must say that I felt deeply distressed by the wording of the motion proposed by the Minister of Indian Affairs. It strikes me as a motion that avoids the real issue before us. It almost brings back memories of Louis Riel, who also was described as being outside the law. It ignores the fundamental principles of justice and it reveals an attitude of a government that has to rely on the army because it has no other instrument at its disposal in dealing with a profoundly complex social issue that has been screaming for attention and screaming to heaven for so many decades and for so many centuries.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I rise in debate at this early morning hour of 3.22 a.m. to add my voice to the consensus of my colleagues, the hundreds of constituents in my riding of Hamilton West and, I dare say, the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who agree that it has been a dark summer that has produced suppression, political interference, inaction and a failure of leadership and statesmanship on the part of our Prime Minister.
Even in the motion put forward by the Minister of Indian Affairs there is a degree of cynicism and political manipulation which I am sure all Canadians recognize and deplore. I draw the attention of the House to the first sentence in the government motion. It reads:
That this House commends the exemplary conduct of the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces at Oka.
How can I support such a sentence in this motion when I do not have the full story? In fact, what I have are newspaper articles, reports from the scene, such as that given by The Globe and Mail reporter, Jeff York, who last Saturday walked out of the alcohol treatment centre where he and 11 other journalists have been cooped up by the military since one week ago Monday. York angrily disputed claims by the army that it has been acting in a disciplined and professional manner. York, in fact, says that the soldiers set off smoke-bombs, that they come behind the wire when they say they will not and they taunt the Mohawks by throwing rocks, trying to provoke violence.
In my experience prior to being elected in November 1988 of 16 years as a news journalist, I always followed that unspoken code of the news journalist. That code says that you must tell the truth, that that truth must be verifiable, that we must present a balanced story, both sides of the story, and, of course, that we do not say anything that is libellous. What we have seen is a gag on the media on this issue; in essence, a violation of the Charter of Rights. On my office wall here in Ottawa and in the constituency office, there hang framed parchments of the Charter of Rights. Under the heading of fundamental freedoms, number 2(b), is freedom of the press and other media of communication.
Tonight in my office I took a call from a constituent who passed along this comment. He said: "Stan, the Mulroney government has dealt more gingerly with Saddam Hussein than it has with Canada's native people. The media is permitted to report back from the deck of HMCS Protecteur in the Persian Gulf, but not from behind the razor wire at Oka."
Maybe what the Prime Minister fears most is the video image. It can be very strong, veiy powerful. There is the image, you can recall it, of women, children, and elderly people leaving Oka, and having stones thrown at them. There is the image of natives kicking and punching soldiers, and soldiers kicking and punching and using their gunbutts against the head of natives.
What this government is telling the Canadian people is that it does not trust news journalists because, in this
September 25, 1990

situation, it realizes it cannot manipulate the media. The government has branded the Mohawks as terrorists and will not allow them to negotiate before surrendering. In its opinion, the Mohawks are guilty. The journalists have attempted to give them a fair trial, but have been cut off from presenting their case by the Minister of Defence who is in essence managing the news by eliminating coverage of the events. As the Ottawa Sun reported just yesterday: "No court has declared them-the Mohawks-criminals. They want to negotiate with the province and the federal government but the army won't let them".
Here is the evidence. The letter is from the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy and dated September 20, 1990. It states that "representatives of the Grand Council of the Iroquois Confederacy arrived at a draft agreement to end the crisis at Kanesatake and Kahnawake with Quebec's Minister of Native Affairs, John Ciaccia. Mr. Ciaccia was acting in his personal capacity and had no mandate from his government, but we, the Iroquois Confederacy felt that the proposed agreement represented a real opportunity for peace, not merely a temporary solution to the present situation".
It would have resolved the issues that must be dealt with immediately, but the Iroquois found out that there was virtually no co-operation from the federal, provincial, or military authorities. Both Canada and Quebec have said that the negotiating mandate has been given to the Armed Forces. Military authorities say that their mandate is limited to negotiating an absolute surrender.
Instant deadlock, Mr. Speaker. Even tonight the Iroquois Confederacy proposed that the laying down of arms could be carried out within hours if the government agreed and accepted its final offer which included a demand for an independent Crown Attorney. We have just heard from the Quebec government. It has rejected that proposal. All of it begs the question: Who is in charge? Is it the Quebec government? Is it the Canadian army? It should be neither. It should be this place. It should be the House of Commons. It should be the federal government.
What it all boils down to is two issues, land and the withdrawal of the Armed Forces. There are not many Canadians or I dare say many members of the House who understand fully the relationship that native people have with the land.
Government Orders
I have had the good fortune to attend many information sessions in my riding of Hamilton West and here in Ottawa and I have come to the conclusion that to the natives, the land is sacred. It provides and nourishes. One native person told me: "The land gives us life and it is to the land we shall return when we die." So it becomes increasingly clear when, in the case of Oka, the dispute originated over the expansion of a golf course, for pity sakes, the Mohawks finally decided to stand up for their rights, to speak in unison with indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world who have spoken out wherever oppression exists. Elsewhere in the world we applaud their efforts and in some cases, we even send aid. But here in Canada the Prime Minister calls the Mohawks terrorists and convicts and refuses to act unless they first submit.
Now, maybe as fond as he is of the American way, perhaps the Prime Minister would like to hear what the great statesman and a founding father of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, had to say on individual liberty: "The nation that tries to suppress liberty in the name of law and order inevitably loses both; liberty and law and order."
However the Conservative government, and in particular the Minister of Justice whom we heard from tonight, has hidden behind this notion of law and order and in the process has sent our peacekeeping army. The army we so proudly present as the bringer of harmony and peace in times of conflict, we have put up against a people begging and now demanding to be understood and treated with dignity. Instead, this government has dealt ruthlessly, arrogantly and with force, rather than leadership. Their philosophy is quite clear: that might is right.
Mr. Speaker, this is a power that cannot remain unchecked, for as John Stewart Mill noted in his book On Liberty: "The people may desire to oppress a part of their number and the precautions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse of power. In political speculations, the tyranny of the majority is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard."
The real irony of this notion as applied to the situation we are faced with at Oka is that while the government is the tyranny with the majority, it is apparent to me that the majority of Canadians do not side with the govern-

Government Orders
ment and are in fact angry and frustrated with our "prime misleader".
The government claims that it has advanced the cause of native Canadians, but the record will show that we are talking about a government that has persistently delayed the aspirations of aboriginal Canadians. Only when Canadians are armed with the facts will they have a better understanding of the anger and frustrations of Canada's indigenous peoples.
I draw your attention to the "Budget in Grief". It was presented to the Assembly of First Nations on March 15, 1990. It tells us a few of these facts. The two-year federal reduction of $100 million is deceptively buried in the 1990-91 Main Estimates and the budget papers. Twenty-six million dollars was cut from approved levels for capital facilities and community services; $15 million from band management; $7 million from welfare services; $2 million from economic development for each of the two years.
With a crippled economic base and no tax base, just where do native people find the finances to offset lost federal revenue? First Nations have been trying to do so, but each year it drives them more into debt. To make up for the shortfall of federal budgets since 1985, over $333 million would have to be added to the 1990-91 Indian and Inuit Affairs program budget to compensate fully for inflation and extremely high population growth.
All this resulted in some appalling statistics. In 1989, 70 per cent of the reserve Indian population had become institutionally dependent on government social assistance, 164,000 reserve Indians lived on social assistance,
120,000	Indians living away from reserves received social assistance. It means that 61 per cent of them are on social assistance. That is greater than the combination of all four Atlantic provinces. There is only one business for every 30 Canadians but only one native business for every 100 native people. Life expectancy of male and female Indians will be over eight years lower than their non-aboriginal counterparts in 1991. Infant mortality rates are more than double the Canadian rate, 17.2 per cent compared to 7.9 per cent for 1,000 babies. It goes on, Mr. Speaker.
What native people have been telling me is that they are no longer interested in handouts, what they want is a helping hand. Canadians see the trail of broken promises, of suppressed culture, of deprived economies. And
while we must all take some responsibility for this tragic line of Canadian history, no government has ever been more blatant and more callous in its indifference, in its suppression of the needs of its indigenous peoples.
I want to conclude my remarks with a native myth, Mr. Speaker, the Indian myth about a tribe starving, unable to track the mighty buffalo herds. Two children brought the hunters' robes, made of coyote skins, begging that they wear them. Some of the hunters laughed, some were angry with the children's interference. But two elderly wise members of the tribe agreed to put on the coyote robes and, in doing so, found they had the vision of the coyote and were able to direct their people to the buffalo. Many stories of the great medicine wheel teach an important lesson that the government should learn and apply to the native crisis. To live in harmony and well-being we must see with the eyes of others, hear with the ears of others, speak with the tongue of others. I appeal to the government to put on the robes of the native people, to see and hear and thereby understand their hopes and their dreams.
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly) A comment, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to refer to my hon. colleague's remarkable and very well researched discourse on the present problem with the native peoples of Canada. I listened with great interest and I find that from his research he was able to give us a very good general sense of from where we have come and where we are right now with the native peoples, particularly in regard to Oka. I would like to make a comment and also follow it with a question.
I have learned tonight from a Canadian Press reporter, at this late hour, it is almost four o'clock in the morning, that there has been a declaration from the Mohawk warriors at Oka that they are prepared to surrender. They are prepared to unconditionally leave the detoxification centre as of Thursday or Friday next. If this declaration is followed by them, it would mean then that this entire controversy, which has taken up so much of our time and concentrated our efforts on looking for a way to resolve the issue, will have resulted in finally an end to a major conflict, I believe, between Canada's aboriginal peoples and the government, as well as the citizens. We have heard others say how much the citizens in the immediate area of both Oka and Chateauguay

were affected this summer. We have come to an end which is not a peaceful end. It has not been without a considerable amount of distress, inconvenience, even law breaking. We have to admit that. I am asking myself at the moment, are we going to be foolish enough, and I am speaking to my colleagues on the other side of this House, to feel that this is the end and that there is no more efforts that we must deploy in order to make sure that the conditions that bred this type of conflict no longer exist. Are we going to take this as the end of a conflict and that we do not have to turn attention to these problems? I certainly hope not.
If the Mohawks do surrender at Oka, and we have heard the government's promises, that it really wants to deal with the problems which are behind the grievances, initially of what the natives have brought to our attention so vividly through images, I trust and I hope the government will carry through with some of the comments and some of the promises it has made once again. However, understand we are in an area where the government has made many, many promises and that our native peoples have learned quite justifiably to be very suspicious.
What I would like to do in directing my question to my hon. colleague, and once again I would like to compliment him for a well researched job and very well presented, is ask him, in light of this new information, what concern he would have or whether he would share the same concerns that I have for the safety of the Mohawks in surrendering and the chances of having a fair trial. Finally, how does he see the next step for the government in light of perhaps-if what we hear right now at close to four o'clock in the morning is true-what he sees as the responsibility of us as parliamentarians. He has mentioned the ball is in our court and has to stay in our court. What is the responsibility of us as parliamentarians and on the government side? What is it in the very near future?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I want to thank the hon. member for his compliments and the question. The end, of course, might have been reached much earlier had the government acted responsibly in the beginning. The answer is probably simply this. The actions at Oka obviously loosened
Government Orders
the grip of the Prime Minister enough to force him to make the slew of promises that he made earlier tonight.
Yes, we heard the Prime Minister speak of the overhaul of native policies and changes to the Indian Act and speedier resolution of land claims, but you will have to excuse my scepticism if I say I have heard time and time again the right hon. member give us a record, be long on the promises but very short in the accomplishments.
Now I bring myself to putting aside the partisanship of the issue. We have made our point. We must act now together, as I explained earlier, to try to put ourselves in the position of our native peoples. We realize that may be an impossible goal but we must try to do that. Being able to see through their eyes and hear with their ears and speak with their tongues puts us in a better position to understand their problems, their uniqueness and their understanding and appreciation of the land. Therefore, we can work together, tiy to reach that goal and do what is right for our native peoples.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker for allowing me to speak and for your tremendous forbearance and an excellent job of chairing this House tonight.
To me this is a critical debate, not just in terms of what it means to Canada's native people, but what it means to all of us in Canada in terms of two very different systems of justice which are on trial before us. I am talking first of all about the type of judicial law-making system which is represented by this government's stand. Every one of the members from the Minister of Justice to the Prime Minister, to everyone who has spoken from that side, has spoken about law and order. Yes, this is one system of justice according to the principles of jurisprudence that is available in the western world and in all judicial systems throughout the world. The system of law and order in terms of jurisprudence is described generally as legal positivism or legal realism. It is represented by scholars such as Austin, Kelston and is maybe best expressed by the Swedish legal realist Lundsted, who said: "The assertion that law-makers and courts should be guided by ideals of justice, is completely useless".
In other words, the positives say if the law is properly passed, it must apply regardless. That is the government's position. That is their jurisprudential position. There is in jurisprudence one other position at least, and it is the one which is represented by persons such as Plato, Aristotle, Herbert Spencer, Lester Ward and W.R. Sorley. These are scholars who talked about the necessity for law, not just to be obeyed regardless, but

Government Orders
the necessity for the law to encompass equality andor freedom.
A more recent scholar in this area has been H.A.L. Hart. We go back to the Jeffersonian principles which he brought to the Declaration of Independence which again embodied the ideal that law is not right just because it is law. Law must satisfy the test of justice, and those tests for justice have often been the concepts, depending on the emphasis, of equality and or freedom.
I quote:
This latter school embraces the philosophy that no philosophical or sociological treatment of the law which refuses to face the question of the goodness of the law, in addition to that of its formal validity and technical organization can provide us with an adequate insight into legal reality.
For the Minister of Justice to have stood up tonight and done nothing to recognize that there are other schools of legal philosophy, other schools of jurisprudence other than legal positivism was, I do not believe, an attempt to mislead this House. I believe it was based on ignorance, an ignorance which has led to the type of crisis we are facing in Oka today and which, if blindly followed, is going to lead us to many more crises across this land.
If laws do not meet the test of justice, equality, and freedom, we have seen in the past how it is impossible for any elected or self-appointed government to deal with the civil disobedience that will inevitably arise. It was Ghandi who asked the people simply to make their own salt from the sea rather than capitulate to the monopolies of the capitalists, and he had a nation marching with him in peace.
We know that it is even a part of modern day law that if there is a patently unjust law on the books, it is a crime to follow it. That was the decision of the Nuremberg trials.
Even the United States Supreme Court has introduced these new principles, not illogical, legal positivisms, through Mr. Justice Holmes, in Brown v Louisiana when five blacks disobeyed a law which said they could not go to a public library and the court finally acquitted them. Even though they disobeyed that law the court said the law was not right.
We do have higher laws in this land than just the laws passed by Parliament. There are other laws. There is the Constitution with its Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides an override for all the laws which may be passed.
We have other laws too: treaties, which are laws. We have the laws of reason, of justice, and of equality.
When we come to consider what has happened-and I hope the standoff at Oka is over-how are we going to assess the roles of all the people involved: legislators, native Canadians, police, army? How are we going to assess that unless we have a full inquiry into the facts that led to the resolution of what has been a blight on Canada's national reputation and has caused us great anguish in the international councils of the world?
I want this government to order an inquiry starting say last January and following right through. If it does not we are not going to be able to show people that justice was done or not done. It is not for us to prejudge it. We do not have all the facts. Facts coming out of that place are censured now. We cannot even get in to determine things.
Native Canadians cannot even get in to propose earlier resolutions to that conflict. We need an inquiry into all the facts called immediately.
When we are dealing in the future with this question of whether we are going to be legal positivists or whether we are going to have a broader social view of law, it is critical that we remind ourselves of the plight of Canada's native people.
In Canada we have 466,000 status Indians, 308,000 of whom live on reserves. Their income levels are atrocious: 61 per cent of all reserve and non-reserve Indians depend on social assistance. Their income is only 54 per cent of the national average. Their unemployment level is 70 per cent. Illiteracy among our native Canadians is 45 per cent versus 17 per cent among Canadians as a whole. Only 20 per cent of our Indian children have completed high school; it is 75 per cent throughout our population. Life expectancy is eight years less than for other Canadians. Infant mortality is two times as high. In their homes the overcrowding rate is 16 times as high as in all Canadian homes and 38 per cent of native homes have no central heating.
September 25, 1990

Native Canadians constitute 2 per cent of our population. However, they constitute 10 per cent of our federal penitentiary population. If that is not bad enough, look at native children. Four times as many native children are under child care agencies, and seven times as many native children commit suicide as other Canadians.
Today in this House of Commons the Minister of Indian Affairs talked about increases in spending on native programs. Since 1985, Canada's Indian and Inuit population has increased almost 34 per cent, the spending for them in real dollars over that period has declined by 11 per cent.
We know that money is not everything. Surely we have learned some lessons from Oka. We cannot tolerate this government hiding behind a few warriors in the treatment centre as an excuse for giving up on all of its responsibilities to Canada's native people.
What did this government do to resolve the issue more quickly? If it was a question of law and order, because some of these natives have guns, the government knew about it years ago. Did it step in then on the basis of law and order to deal with the issue? No, it was only when the barricades went up.
The barricades went up on March 11. According to the chronology in the minister's own communique on federal actions taken at Oka, the barricades went up on March 11-the first federal initiative is July 17. "Minister Tom Siddon issues statement explaining profile of federal government". That was six days after the Surete du Quebec went to the barricades, and the tragic death of one police officer. Where was the minister? Where was the federal government?
The Prime Minister admitted that he had not met with one native leader.
In the summer of 1985, 174 refugees were put ashore by boat in Canada. This House was called back because of that crisis and yet this government would not call back
Government Orders
this House to deal with the plight of our own native Canadians as epitomized by Oka.
We needed more negotiations and less force. Is it not ironic that at Oka we have deployed 3,300 armed forces? Heck, this government sent only 2,000 to the Middle East.
I hope we have learned from Oka. I hope we have learned that there is more than one concept of jurisprudence and that the modem concept, the concept that justice, meaning equality and freedom, must also be components of an orderly, legal system. I hope that we have learned that that was critical to all of our future deliberations in this House.
If one good thing has come out of Oka it has shown Canadian people the plight of many of our native Canadians. We must not let it die here. We must have a public inquiry as to the events leading up to Oka. We must have a royal commission to investigate the plight of natives in Canada. We must speed up land treaty negotiations. We must bring about conditions of economic and social justice for all of our native Canadians. Surely by now we realize that they have a claim on the conscience of all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure there are no questions or comments.
Before I call it an evening, I would like to congratulate all members for keeping the debate on such a high plane this afternoon, this evening, and this morning.
There being no further members seeking the floor for debate, pursuant to order made on Tbesday, September 25, 1990 the debate is deemed concluded, the question being put and a division being demanded and deferred until three o'clock p.m. this day.
It being four o'clock a.m., pursuant to order made on Tbesday, September 25, 1990, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m. this day pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, September 26,1990