1993-03-10

Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, last week CN Rail announced plans to lay off 33 per cent of its work force over the next three years. This announcement will lead to the loss of approximately 200 jobs in New Brunswick, 11 of which are in my riding of Restigouche-Chaleur.
Furthermore, there is talk of the possible abandonment of the CN line through northern New Brunswick.

I would like to express my complete disagreement with this approach. Over the past ten years, Canadian National has eliminated more than 2,000 jobs in my region, and it wants to eliminate even more. Other communities hit by severe cutbacks by CN received some kind of compensation. Although my region was promised compensation, CN has yet to deliver.

The government and CN Rail must maintain these jobs and the rail line through northern New Brunswick in order to guarantee the economic viability and development of both the region and the province.
I call upon the government and CN to immediately halt this blatant attack on rural Canada.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of members the plight of residents in my community who have lost faith with Transport Canada.
Residents in my community were extremely pleased to participate last year in the hearings conducted by the environmental assessment review panel studying expansion at Pearson airport. They were encouraged by the platitudes being uttered that Transport Canada and the airport's management were all for public participation and input. They said that they wanted to keep residents involved in the future of Pearson.
Unfortunately, the government wasted their time. The residents made impassioned presentations about the unbearable levels of noise around their homes. They told of violated flight paths and jets breaking regulations by taking off in the middle of the night. They made it clear that if Transport Canada wanted to listen they had lots to say. Sadly, they were completely ignored.
The announcement of more runways makes it obvious that Transport Canada never had any intention of listening to residents in my community. It seems clear that the pattern of abuse that the airport and Transport Canada have demonstrated to my residents over the years is only going to continue.


STATUS OF THE ARTIST
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 respecting the status of the artist was adopted by this House on June 11, 1992 and received royal assent on June 23 that same year. Although the legislation has yet to come into force and is therefore not

March 10, 1993
being implemented, the government is very proud of its up-to-date legislation that recognizes the status of the artist.
Because of this situation, a number of major dossiers are now on hold. This is serious, because artists' associations cannot reactivate these dossiers until the legislation is officially proclaimed, without putting the interests of the artists in jeopardy. It is high time this government stopped congratulating itself and decided to act, because it is one thing to be well intentioned and pass legislation, but another thing entirely to implement that legislation.


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, free trade is working for Canada. In 1992 our merchandise exports to the U.S. surged to an all-time high of $122 billion, smashing the previous record of $110 billion set in 1990.
Every $1 billion in exports creates or maintains 15,000 jobs. Canada's exports to the U.S. increased by $31 billion in 1989-91, just after the Canada-U.S. FTA came into effect, compared to 1986-88.
According to the U.S. department of commerce, average monthly imports into the U.S. from Canada are up 25.9 per cent since the FTA, compared to the four-year period prior to the FTA.
According to Statistics Canada, 16 of 22 Canadian manufacturers increased their market share in the U.S. under the FTA.
Between 1988 and 1991 Canadian high-tech exports to the U.S. grew from $6.6 billion to $10.7 billion, which is a 63 per cent jump.


CROW BENEFIT
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in its report made public yesterday the national transport act review commission recommended changing the Crow benefit from a transportation policy to a payment to farmers. That payment has already been reduced by 10 per cent for the next two crop years by virtue of the December economic statement by the Minister of Finance.
Is it the government's intention to phase out the Crow benefit? If so, what is the timetable for this phase-out? Those are the questions farm people are asking.
The government should make its intentions clear. Farmers want and need money at the elevator when they deliver their grain. The government's policy thus far increases freight rates and reduces transport payments, which means that the farmer pays more to receive less for his grain.
Tell me, how does that solve the farm income crisis on the prairies?


SEXUAL OFFENDERS
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, recently an Ontario coroner's jury conducted an inquest into the horrifying sex slaying of Christopher Stephenson, an 11-year old boy from Brampton, Ontario. The jury produced a report which recommended that a law be established to allow sexually violent predators to be kept in prison beyond their court-imposed sentences if they are judged still to be a risk to the public.
When a sexual offender is nearing the end of his term, corrections officials should be permitted to assess whether there is a high likelihood of re-offending, and on the basis of that review decide whether the offender should remain in jail.
I understand that officials of the Department of the Solicitor General are considering proposals at this time. I would urge the minister responsible to listen to the concerns that so many Canadians have regarding public safety and introduce the appropriate legislation as soon as possible.


NOVA SCOTIA FISHERY
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry in Nova Scotia employs approximately 27,000 people, or 7.4 per cent of the work force in my province. Of this number, over half are employed in the inshore fishing industry. It is obvious that this industry is of vital importance to Nova Scotia.
March 10, 1993

This industry suffers from declining stocks and increasing processing capacity. The Liberal Party recognizes that declining stocks are the result of foreign overfishing and bad management of quotas both within and beyond the 200-mile limit.
Those who work in the fisheries in Nova Scotia simply want to fish. They do not want to rely on government assistance. The prospective loss of employment coupled with the potential death of their communities and their way of life has many of these people worried. Something must be done.
The government must move away from short-term solutions. Greater responsibility must be taken to ensure that fish quotas are stringently observed by all parties involved, and that includes foreign fishing vessels.
The people in the fishery in my riding want to know what the future holds for them, what is going to happen to their industry down the road, and what is going to happen to them next year. They need answers and they need them now.


COMMUNITY FUTURES PROGRAM
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my concerns to the House and to the government regarding the renewal of various Community Futures programs.
As the House knows, many of these programs are about to wind down as their government support comes to an end.
I can speak best of the Community Futures corporation in my area, which is the Triple S group. This group is being recommended by the department to close down, not because it has failed but because it has been successful.
I find it strange that the department wants to fund failure but fails to support success.
I call upon the minister to review the applications of second generation Community Futures funding with the strategy of endorsing success and eliminating failure.


FOREIGN AID
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, the latest government estimates contained many cuts. There are serious cuts to seniors, official languages, literacy and aboriginal programs.
Perhaps one of the cruelest cuts, which is often overlooked, is to foreign aid. With this particular cut contained in these estimates, $4.3 billion will have been cut from foreign aid over the last five years. Yet the government has reported that it is able to find $5.8 billion for helicopters.
This government has gone back on its promise to increase Official Development Assistance to .7 per cent of the GNP. It has now slipped to less than half of that.
The Global Village Voice reported the words of a Zambian woman. She said: "We are burying our children every day as if we were planting beans".
Priorities, priorities, what are the government's priorities?


MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA EAST
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue the education of my colleague from Mississauga East in the wake of her vitriolic attack on this government's commitment to social programs.
If I had to summarize this government's activities in one word, that word would have to be groundbreaking.
For the first time in Canada we had a government that took the initiative in the fight against AIDS, that recognized the unique and so very serious reality of breast cancer, that instituted tax reform to lower the tax burden of 90 per cent of this country's senior citizens, and that initiated a nation-wide panel to confront the ever growing crisis of violence against women.
I,	for one, and the constituents of Simcoe Centre appreciate the government's efforts. In fact, over 2,000 of my constituents availed themselves of the opportunity I offered to contribute input to that panel. I wonder if my colleague can say the same.

March 10, 1993
The presence of violence and poverty in Canada is a tragedy. However, as one who is deeply concerned about social issues I would hope that in the future my colleague from Mississauga East might refrain from exploiting the disadvantaged in Canada to make partisan statements. Her constituents and all Canadians would be better served if she offered constructive solutions rather than venomous, slanted attacks.


LANGUAGE MINORITIES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has twice confirmed the right of language minorities to manage and administer their own educational institutions.
Despite these two decisions by the highest legal authority in this country, some provinces are still dragging their feet on a matter of elementaiy educational justice that was an accepted fact nearly 12 years ago.
Since apparently these rights are closely linked to federal money, it is time the federal government sat down with the provinces, which have jurisdiction over education, and that a decision was made, once and for all.
That language minorities should have to go through all these legal contortions to defend their rights is simply intolerable. Official language minorities are asking only for recognition of their equality rights, no more and no less than the Constitution of our country guarantees: to be treated fairly and equitably without having constantly to ask.


CRIME PREVENTION
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the justice committee for their work during our recent hearings on crime prevention.
The culmination of the committee's work is found in our unanimous report Crime Prevention in Canada: Toward a National Strategy. We have concluded that the conventional crime control model does not work.
As Canadians are aware crime is on the increase. Many offenders are not being brought to justice and others are not being rehabilitated. Our system fails to address the underlying factors associated with crime which, if confronted, could prevent crime.
As a result Canadians live in fear as the cycles of criminal behaviour continue. Our committee has recommended a new approach to crime prevention in Canada. We must reduce opportunity for crime. We must shift our policing efforts to concentrate on the community.
We must address the social and economic conditions that breed crime. We must teach kids about crime prevention at all levels of their education, and we must provide Canadians with a means to avoid becoming involved in criminal activity.
This requires a co-ordinated effort. I am proud to have contributed to what I believe is an outstanding report. My committee colleagues and I are eagerly awaiting the response of the government to our 11 recommendations.


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, long-term sustainable development in the Third World only occurs when basic human development needs are met.
Infrastructure and other advanced economic development will only happen when basic health care, nutritional, educational and training needs are fulfilled. Non-governmental organizations are by far the best vehicle for Canada to use to deliver development assistance. NGOs are ideally suited to working with counterparts in developing countries and provide tens of thousands of Canadians with opportunities for direct involvement in development work both in Canada and abroad.
Despite all this the government has so lost touch with the reality of international development that it has decided yet again to slash support to Canadian non-governmental organizations. Instead of undermining their
March 10, 1993

Oral Questions
development work the government ought to be asking NGOs to help increase Canada's commitment to basic human development.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Mr. Speaker, like my predecessors, I am committed to supporting francophone or anglophone minority communities so that they can have access to better education, community and school management services.\nAs far as this particular project is concerned, it happens to be in line with our policy to help communities obtain access to better education.\nIn this respect, I can inform the hon. member that the project will be looked at favourably, and together with the community and the province of Alberta I hope to be able to contribute towards supporting this project.']
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Minister for International Trade once again confirmed that the government intends to proceed very quickly with the bill to ratify the free trade agre-ment between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Yesterday in Washington, however, U.S. trade representative Mickey Kantor stated firmly that the Clinton administration would not proceed with ratification of the treaty until it gets side agreements on labour, the environment and import surges.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees it would be far more sensible for Canada to wait until these parallel negotiations have taken place before proceeding with a bill as important as this one.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that we believe the North American free trade agreement is good for Canada without having the side agreements on the environment and on labour.
I should remind my hon. friend that in February last year we initiated discussions with the Americans and the Mexicans on side agreements on labour and the environment. They were rejected at the time so we welcome this opportunity to continue the agenda that we commenced in February of last year.
The processes of legislation in Canada, in the United States and in Mexico are under way right now. It is different in each country but it will conclude at roughly the same time. The heads of government of each of the three countries have said that they were committed to the January 1 start-up date. They are committed to not reopening the North American free trade agreement that was signed last December.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the minister that the Americans have decided that they will not proceed unless there are agreements in relation to the environment, labour standards and import surges.
Why is the government not proceeding with its own list, namely a definition of subsidy and a definition of dumping? This week the C. D. Howe Institute said it was a big problem that we did not have clear definitions.
Why does the government not take the occasion to find the solution that Canada needs before getting into that big deal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me remind my hon. friend that if we move to a definition of subsidy and changes to the anti-dumping rules we would be reopening the North American free trade agreement.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Each of the three heads of government is committed to not doing that.
My hon. friend cannot have it both ways. If he wants to reopen the North American free trade agreement he has to give something to get, and the Americans want a change in the cultural exemption and a change in the supply management protection. Some members of Congress want to have a change in the dispute settlement system.
Which of those things would my hon. friend like to give to the Americans to get his changes in the dumping and subsidy rules?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand in a business such as this one not having a definition of subsidy or a definition of dumping before we get into an agreement. We are having so much difficulty because we have to follow the wishes of the American Congress. When will this government stand up for Canadian interests?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has not answered my question. What is he prepared to give up? He says he is going to open-

March 10, 1993
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend cannot have it both ways. He says he wants to reopen the agreement but he is not prepared to say what he is going to give up.
Is he going to give up the cultural exemption? Is he going to give up protection for the supply management sector? Is he going to give up the dispute settlement mechanism?
Canadians understand that my hon. friend is trying to bridge the differences between the protectionist parts of his party from Winnipeg and the free trade parts of his party from Etobicoke. Everybody sees through that.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the minister of trade knows perfectly well that the United States is imposing new conditions on the North American free trade agreement through the device of parallel accords.
Let me ask a question of the Minister of the Environment. Last November the minister issued a statement in which he announced that the North American free trade agreement "adequately safeguards the environment". Yet only a few days ago in this House the Minister for Science conceded "we have finally got the Americans to talk about such things as environmental protection".
What exactly is this government's position? Does the government still claim that NAFTA itself, the NAFTA text, adequately safeguards the environment? Or, is it now admitting belatedly that the agreement falls short on environmental protection and needs to be supplemented by a parallel accord? Which is it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I thought the question was put to me.
I am delighted to answer a question from the free trader from Etobicoke North. He asks about the provisions in the North American free trade agreement as they relate to the environment. These provisions are as strong as any trade agreement in the world today in the protection of the environment, and I am happy to discuss this at length.
He is asking if we are prepared to have discussions to improve on that. Certainly we are. That was the proposal I put forward back in February last year. We reiterated that in September.
One of the results of this is the North American Commission on the Environment. We have been working with the previous administration and the new administration on the mandate of that. The focus of that will be primarily on enforcement and helping the Mexicans in principle to improve their enforcement capabilities.
My colleague, the Minister of the Environment, will tell us that we have provided, I believe it is, $1 million to help the Mexicans with their enforcement measures. That is the direction in which we are going. It is one of the key objectives of the side agreement on the environment.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, let me understand the minister. He says that his objective is some sort of commission on the environment to be created in a parallel accord on the free trade agreement.
Let me ask the minister this question. The United States trade representative yesterday said the United States would walk away from the table, walk away from the agreement, unless it got its three parallel accords.
The minister will know that there is in environment matters, to take one example, a demand on the U.S. part for a trilateral commission which can challenge national environmental law and standards-and that is why I directed my earlier question to the Minister of the Environment-and, second, would impose a broadly based import duty to supplement funding for environmental protection.
Does Canada support that type of proposal? Are we advocating that there be imposed what is in effect a new tariff in what is supposedly a tariff-free zone? Is that the sort of thing Canada wants? Or, has Canada any objectives at all in the negotiation of these parallel accords? What are Canada's objectives?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will just quote from Mr. Kantor's testimony yesterday as it related to environmental matters. He said: "There is no enforcement mechanism. We are looking at certain national, not supemational mechanisms under the present NAFTA that might be available
March 10, 1993

Oral Questions
in connection with the commissions". There is no intent on their part or on our part to impose our views on standards because that would be an incursion into Mexican sovereignty and that works both ways, as Ambassador Kantor said in his testimony yesterday as well.
We are trying to use this North American Commission on the Environment to raise the awareness, the understanding of how enforcement measures could be used more effectively. That is a major advancement we can have as a result of the North American free trade agreement, because without the agreement we would not be having these discussions at all.



Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
According to newspaper reports today sources including from the Department of National Defence and other industry experts have raised considerable questions about the attack helicopters that are being proposed for $5.8 billion by this government.
Before the last election the Prime Minister and his government were proposing attack nuclear submarines. Those were cancelled. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing again and cancel these attack helicopters which are not necessary either?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to glance at the newspaper article to which my friend refers. The article is false.
Parenthetically I tell my hon. friend, perhaps just for the record and I know that she probably will not follow it, these are not attack helicopters. These are helicopters recommended by the military of Canada for search and rescue, for the preservation and protection of Canadian sovereignty, for the fisheries, plus of course to help us in peacekeeping initiatives around the world. They are not for attack purposes. They are there to modernize Canada's fleet in respect of our international obligations.
Let me make it very clear that this government plans to honour all those international obligations.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
I am sure the Prime Minister knows that there is not another country that is purchasing these helicopters for search and rescue, that in fact they are used as anti-submarine helicopters.
I want to say to the Prime Minister who expressed concern for Canada carrying out its search and rescue obligations that we know now the Labrador has had some very serious safety concerns raised by both those who fly that particular helicopter and their families. Clearly if the purchase of the new helicopters is to replace these it will take at least five years.
Will the Prime Minister say today that instead of purchasing $5.8 billion worth of new helicopters, he will refurbish the Labradors, he will do it now and he will think of the safety of those people now, not five years from now?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is possible to refurbish the Labrador helicopters at a cost of $1 billion. It would probably extend their life maybe five or ten years. The problem, even if that money was spent, is that it would not bring them up to the search and rescue capabilities of the EH-101.
I share with the hon. leader of the NDP a concern about our aging Labrador helicopter fleet. It is why I agree with the recommendation made by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs that the helicopters should not only be replaced but it should be done as quickly as possible to avoid costly interim measures. When these new helicopters are delivered we will have the finest search and rescue capability possible in the world. The best technology for Canadians.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
For a purchase price of $5.8 billion, it seems to me we could have a national child care program, we could deal with poverty in this society and we could have the best country in the world if we chose our priorities right.

March 10, 1993
Oral Questions
I want to ask the Prime Minister, will he do the right thing now and withdraw the purchase of these helicopters in the interest of the programs that Canadians need?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend said in her prefatory remark that there is not another country that uses these advanced helicopters. She is quite right. They have not been manufactured yet.
That is the reason they are so useful to Canadian forces for instances ranging from search and rescue to helping peacekeeping initiatives off the coast of Africa. They are multi-faceted, they are very much needed in the minds of the military to enable Canadian soldiers to fulfil our international obligations.
My hon. friend raises a very good question. Are there other things that we could do with the money? Yes there are. As a government we have tried to constrain the cost of government. We have tried to constrain the cost of growth in government. The problem is not that we are black-hearted accountants but that the cost of servicing the debt is absorbing a greater and greater amount of eveiy tax dollar, thereby diminishing our capacity if I may say to do certain things like the very important matter raised by my hon. friend.
We have established good credentials I think as a countiy in social policy. It is not perfect, but good, and we have established very admirable credentials as a country in defence and foreign policy.
It is the view of the government that these helicopters are required to enhance and ensure the maintenance of that very reputation of Canada for reliability and service to the international community. We have made those decisions, we have established those priorities and we intend to honour them.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Yesterday in reference to an accident involving a Canadian forces helicopter in the Gulf of Mexico, the minister stated that the crash occurred with the Sea King because of old, unsafe helicopters.
Is the minister saying the Canadian forces fleet of Sea King helicopters that our people are flying is unsafe?


A. Kim Campbell: No, Mr. Speaker, nor did I say that the reason for the crash was because the helicopter was old.


An hon. member:: It is in Hansard.


A. Kim Campbell: No. What I said was that it is an aged fleet of helicopters. That is why the hon. member who asked the question was part of a unanimous consensus in the standing committee of this House that the Sea King helicopters be replaced by the EH-101 as soon as possible and I agree with that member.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister who is displaying a frightful ignorance of the matters for which she is responsible.
The quotation yesterday was: "I am aware that the men and women serving in the Canadian forces need to be safe and not made to fly old unsafe helicopters".
The minister knows that the Canadian forces do not have their men and women fly in unsafe helicopters. She should also know that the squadron commander involved in this case stated that it was unlikely that the crash was related to maintenance.
I want to ask the minister why she is playing politics with this important and very sensitive issue?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, if I am playing politics, I am a real piker in that department I assure you.
I am quite prepared to agree with the hon. member that the crash was not a result of maintenance simply because we maintain our helicopters to the highest standards.
The reason why that hon. member and his colleagues on the standing committee voted to replace the Sea King helicopters as soon as possible to avoid costly interim measures-this is the exact wording of the recommendation-is because they recognized that even with the best maintenance in the world, at a certain age those helicopters will not be safe for Canadian men and women. That is why we are replacing them with the finest helicopters and the best technology that we can provide for our forces.
March 10, 1993


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Defence who has not confirmed that the Sea King helicopter is indeed a safe helicopter for our military crews to fly.
The minister knows that the U.S. navy and marines have retrofitted 239 Labrador helicopters. The job is complete. They have retrofitted over 250 Sea King equivalent helicopters. The job is complete. She knows that only Canada among NATO nations has chosen to spend $6 billion of taxpayers' money at a time when the Minister of Finance promises a tough new budget for reasons that are completely inexplicable.
I want to ask the Minister of National Defence the following question. Does she believe the search and rescue helicopter which is now in service, the Labrador, to be a safe helicopter?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the Labrador helicopter is a wonderful helicopter. Those who fly it are very fond of it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Have you ever been on it?


A. Kim Campbell: Yes, I have been on a Labrador helicopter. What I would say to the hon. member is that the American Labrador helicopter fleet is younger than our helicopter fleet. When our Labrador helicopters were the same age as the American helicopter fleet, we also did a complete refit of them.
However we are now looking to replace our Labrador helicopters because after a certain number of years there is a limit to what one can accomplish by a refit. Those helicopters are aging, the air frames are too old and it is time to think in advance of replacing them so that by the time they become unserviceable we will have replacements for them.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
I would like to know if the minister is aware that on February 9 three members of this caucus and four members of our staff were told by the senior officers of the minister's department that both the Labrador and the Sea King with a retrofit can fly at least until the year
Oral Questions
2020 for one-third the cost of purchasing the EH-101. Why is she not acting on that recommendation?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the name and the precise detail because that is not in fact correct. Perhaps if they are only flying 500 off the ground and they are not doing very serious missions that may be true.
However our helicopters have very serious tasks to do, both in their shipboard and their search and rescue capabilities. I believe that Canadians need the technology of the 1990s, not the technology of the 1950s, to serve those tasks.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It concerns the issue of the NAFTA and parallel accords.
The Prime Minister said ironically but not surprisingly to an American audience that these parallel accords have little if anything to do with Canada. This certainly contradicts the words of the trade minister.
Yesterday U.S. trade representative Mickey Kantor said: "I am prepared to walk away from the table if we cannot get satisfactory agreements". When asked, the minister responsible said negotiations start next week. We know the American position. It is a strong one. We do not know what Canada's position is.
If the minister is not prepared to defend Canadian workers and Canada's environment, why he is going to the table at all?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to a quote where I said they had little if anything to do with Canada.
He should keep reading the rest of the quote. Perhaps when he rises to ask his next question, he could give the rest of the quote where I indicated that the concerns of the United States are principally with the environment and labour laws in Mexico.

March 10, 1993
Oral Questions
If there are discussions of any kind because of the trilateral and tripartite nature of our fundamental agreement, Canada will be part and parcel of all those discussions to protect Canadian interests at all times.
With regard to the suggestion that Mickey Kantor might want to walk away from the table, good for him. Simon Reisman walked away from the table in 1987 and we got a very good deal as a result of Ambassador Reisman's exits.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, some would dispute how good that deal was.


An hon. member:: Including Simon Reisman.


Lynn Hunter: Including Simon Reisman. The Prime Minister was quoted as saying that we do not have trans-boundary issues between Canada and the U.S.
Is the Prime Minister aware that there are 43 toxic hot spots in the Great Lakes alone, 30 of them on the U.S. side. Where is the confidence of the Canadian people when these types of people are negotiating our interests?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, if there is a recognition of some hot spots around the Great Lakes, it is because through the Great Lakes action plan and the water quality agreement that we have with the United States, we have entered into agreements with the United States to undertake a clean-up of these hot spots.
In fact there are remedial action plans such as the very successful one in Hamilton throughout the Great Lakes. I may add that we are dealing very effectively with these issues and that the American and the Canadian governments have made the Great Lakes a high priority.
I am happy to report to the hon. member that in my conversation with Carol Browner, the new EPA administrator, I indicated to her that the government wanted to maintain the Great Lakes as a high priority issue between both governments.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment.
His deputy minister has admitted that because of the proposed changes to the UI program, new security measures will be imposed at UI offices across the country.
If the government believes that the changes to UI are fair, why does the government need to take new security measures against violence? To what does the minister attribute the anticipated rise in violence?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the deputy and what he stated, I think he should be quoted correctly in this House.
What he indicated is that the department is concerned about the security of public servants throughout the country. In recent years we have witnessed in different offices across Canada some acts that are unacceptable. In order to protect our people, we had to have security measures.
We are reviewing on an ongoing basis the security measures in our offices to protect our employees and we will continue to do that.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the same minister.
It is obvious to me and to all Canadians that the relationship between the unemployed of this country and this government is deteriorating to the point that new security measures must be imposed in order for dialogue to occur.
Instead of wasting so much political energy on attacking the unemployed, why does the minister not attack unemployment and put Canadians back to work?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the record is clear.
The Liberal Party is still arguing that a person in Canada who chooses deliberately, voluntarily and without provocation to quit a job should be paid benefits.
That may be the position of the Liberal Party. It is not the position of this government.
March 10, 1993


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre issued 27 recommendations, many of which are stinging indictments of this government's policies.
For example, it calls for expanded federal government programs for funding training. It is calling for this expanded role for the federal government at the same time as over the past four years this government has cut $217 million out of its share of funding for training.
Will the government now consider reversing its policies and assume its fair responsible share of training programs?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if that member were informed before making such statements, he would know that of the training funds spent at all levels of government across Canada, the federal government spends close to 73 per cent of all money on training.
In the last three years this government has increased the training funds for unemployed Canadians from $500 million to $2.8 billion. This year we will be spending $3.1 billion on training for Canadians. That is a record to which the Liberals can never compare.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is a sham and a fraud on Canadians.
The minister has not read recommendation 21 which says: "Training course costs should not be shifted from general revenues to the UI account paid for by the workers".
The report concludes that "Canada's record of investment in physical public infrastructure such as for transportation, communications and the environment is one of the lowest of the G-7 countries" and has undermined "the potential of private investment as well as income and employment security".
Since this government has rejected our party's call for a stronger federal infrastructure program, would it at least accept this unanimous view of labour and business including its very good friends in the BCNI?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member likes to read. He should also read the estimates where he will find out about training money in Canada.
Oral Questions
The sham and fraud he refers to is that of a Liberal member standing up when the Liberals have opposed Bill C-21 which has seen a 450 per cent increase in training funds for unemployed Canadians. He has the gall to stand in this House and say that he is concerned about unemployed Canadians.
Those members know that training is key to accessing new jobs in this new economy. They oppose every measure that we propose.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Business and labour today released what to us is an exciting report to revive our economy. It has 27 recommendations to which both sides agree. This report calls for full employment, for government investment in infrastructure, for better ways of getting capital to small and medium-sized business, for increased importance for training and child care.
Will the government look seriously at this independent call for a new approach? Will it listen before the next budget to business and labour leaders who have brought forward these unanimous recommendations?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to read the report in detail. However, if the hon. member has an accurate reflection of its summary, then all we would have to do is refer to the economic statement I introduced in December. It covers every one of the points the hon. member made. Therefore, I ask him to re-read it.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, today when business and labour jointly put forward their report they called on the government to re-establish the role of unemployment insurance as income support for individuals by ensuring that training course purchase costs are not shifted from general revenues to the UI account.

March 10, 1993
Oral Questions
This government collects taxes from workers and then collects UI premiums from workers to use for training.
Will the Minister of Employment and Immigration listen to the combined voices of business and labour and take UI training costs out of general revenue? Will the minister join business and labour to rebuild the economy in Canada?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know this government is spending a record $1.6 billion out of general revenue to train Canadians.
The fiscal situation of Canada is such that we have to live within our means and yet even at that level we have to borrow a lot. We have tried to activate some of this income security money in the UI fund so that we can help Canadians acquire new skills in order that they can enter the labour market.
I know the hon. member and her party oppose activation of passive funds where we pay people to do nothing and where we penalize them if they want to get out of that. This government has taken steps to activate these passive funds and I am sure we will continue in that direction.


LOCKPORT BRIDGE
David Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, as you know I have stood in this House many times voicing the concerns of the community of Lockport in my riding.
There is a problem in the fact that the federal government through Public Works is refurbishing a bridge. However, it has caused a significant problem in the business community because it prohibits traffic from travelling back and forth.
I ask the minister what is happening to the advertising support campaign that I requested a number of weeks ago?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the House is well aware of the tremendous concern of my colleague for this project. He knows that we recently let a contract to repair part of the bridge.
During this time, at his suggestion, our department has made arrangements to be in contact with representatives of the Triple-S Community Development Society. Therefore, everyone will know that Lockport is still open for business and that we are proceeding not only to repair this facility but to support the business community in the way he suggested.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
This government is asking too much of New Bruns-wickers and Monctonians. The Moncton CNR shops closed throwing 2,000 Monctonians out of work. CNR's announcement last week will add another 325 Monctonians to the list. The government's announced closure of the military supply depot means another 450 Monctonians out on the street.
Enough is enough. Where is the fairness? When will the minister bring in a coherent rail transportation policy which will put Atlantic Canadians back to work?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will be pleased to learn that about a year and a half ago the Council of Transport Ministers started elaborating on a national rail network. This group is presided over by the Minister of Transport for New Brunswick.


George Saunders Rideout: That is not really too much help to Monctonians and to New Brunswickers.
The National Transportation Act review says that the government should move even faster in the area of rail line abandonment and the abandonment of the goals of regional development. This is now government policy. Obviously this government and the review committee have no grasp of transportation issues in Atlantic Canada.
When will the government deal with the crisis in transportation in Atlantic Canada?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the premier of New Brunswick who is the leader of the Liberal Party in that province will be greatly
March 10, 1993

16773 moved by the great testimony of confidence the hon. Liberal member from New Brunswick has given to him in this Question Period in the House of Commons.
I reassure him that the recommendations we have received from this excellent review of the NT act of 1987 are thanks to a clause which was put in that piece of legislation in 1987 to review it after five years. We have received a very good report. We have asked the Standing Committee on Transport to review it and give us its sense of what it believes as elected members of this House we should do.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Last month the government announced its intention to move forward with the construction of three additional runways at Pearson International Airport. This was despite the findings of an environmental assessment panel which examined the feasibility of expansion and overwhelmingly recommended that the government reject its expansion plans.
How can the minister condone this government's decision and action when an environmental panel of his own department has strongly recommended the very opposite course of action?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, as usual the member from the opposite side is reading into the report something which is not there.
What the environmental panel said was that it was not in agreement with our suggestion to construct a crosswind runway at a certain place and to a certain length. The panel in the report recommended to put it elsewhere and to put it shorter and that it be submitted to a panel of safety experts which we did. The panel of safety experts said that the proposed cross-wind runway should be built where it was suggested by Transport Canada. This is what we are going to do.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, again I go to the Minister of the Environment because when push comes to shove, whether it is the Oldman River dam, the Rafferty dam or now Pearson airport, the minister's assessment review is not worth the paper it is written on.
Oral Questions
This latest panel has been studying this expansion project since 1989. It has received 225 representations and 400 briefs from the public. It has cost over $1 million of taxpayers' dollars. It has recommended strongly against the three runway configuration. Given all of that, how can the minister condone and support such an abandonment of this government's so-called priority for sustainable development policy? What will he do about it?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member is well informed on how the environmental assessment process works. There have been many more environmental assessments than the ones he has referred to in his question. A lot of them meet the exact goal set for them and that is to inform the government about the environmental impacts of major projects as they proceed. As the recommendations are made, the government deals with them.
In this case I think the member is not well informed about the security dimensions of this file. He would do well to go back and read the report and see the reaction from the Department of the Environment.
In closing, may I remind the hon. member that we have just brought forward a piece of legislation on environmental assessment, Bill C-13. It is the first one of its kind in Canada. By the way, his own party supported it.


PORNOGRAPHY
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Will the minister introduce amendments to the Criminal Code which would provide stiffer penalties for using children in the production of pornography?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I know that all members of the House share an abhorrence of pornography and especially pornography that uses children. Members of the House will know that a year ago the Supreme Court upheld the provisions in the Criminal Code vis-a-vis pornography.
I will take his suggestion that we should increase the penalty under advisement. At the same time I think wherever possible attorneys general in all provinces

March 10, 1993
Routine Proceedings
should prosecute the present Criminal Code provisions vigilantly.


EDUCATION
Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State.
The faculty of St. Jean of the University of Alberta is a vital educational resource for Alberta's francophones. I recently met with representatives of Edmonton's francophone community who expressed their concerns for the future of the institution.
I would like to ask the minister-

-what kind of assistance the federal government is prepared to give the community educational centres of the faculty of St. Jean?


Hon. Monique Landry (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, like my predecessors, I am committed to supporting francophone or anglophone minority communities so that they can have access to better education, community and school management services.
As far as this particular project is concerned, it happens to be in line with our policy to help communities obtain access to better education.
In this respect, I can inform the hon. member that the project will be looked at favourably, and together with the community and the province of Alberta I hope to be able to contribute towards supporting this project.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments made by the government pursuant to the provisions of Standing
Order 110(1). These are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, copies of a study called Climate for Co-operative Development prepared by the University of Saskatchewan which was recently presented to federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for co-operatives.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 70th report of the Standing Committee on House Management regarding the list of members of the legislative committee on BUI C-101.



HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STATUS OF DISABLED PERSONS


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing
March 10, 1993

Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons entitled As True as Taxes, Disability and the Income Tax System, in both official languages.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a government response within 150 days.
I would like to add, Madam Speaker, that the implementation of some or all of its eight recommendations will bring disabled people in Canada that much closer to a real, true economic and social integration within our society.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IMPROVEMENT


Hon. Pierre H. Vincent (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)) moved: that Bill S-17, an act to amend the Copyright Act, the Industrial Design Act, the Integrated Circuit Topography Act, the Patent Act, the Trade-marks Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


PETITIONS
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents in my riding of Yukon who are concerned about the crisis in the Canadian airline industry, which is due in large part to government deregulation.
They point out that there will be significant job losses and service cuts as a result of the failure of a major Canadian air carrier. They further point out that remote communities depend on regular safe airline service.
Routine Proceedings
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to urge the government to take immediate steps to re-regulate the airline industry.


Mr. John Nuuziata (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition signed by approximately 100 individuals within my riding. It is with regard to the unfortunate situation in Sri Lanka.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to call upon the two parties to the conflict, the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, to express their willingness to accept mediation in the conflict between them and agree upon a mutually acceptable neutral mediator, and to express their willingness to commence negotiations with a view to entering into an internationally guaranteed accord to establish an associative structure within which the Sinhali people and the Tamil people may live in peace and in freedom.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions contained in Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present to this House a petition from several hundred constituents of my city.
They urge that Parliament consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading material, such as serial killer board games, can be kept from being distributed in Canada.
I present this petition to Parliament today with my full and total support.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the privilege to present before Parliament petitions that have been given to me from constituents.
They say that the incidence of violence against women and children is unacceptable and the present social climate is such that when many women report incidents of assault or abuse they are victimized instead of helped. Therefore these petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women and children, encourage and support women to report incidents of assault or abuse, to concentrate special efforts on the training of police, lawyers, court workers and judges to help them become knowledgeable about women and child abuse and to

March 10, 1993
Routine Proceedings
focus public attention on this very important and long ignored problem.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of central British Columbia from a variety of communities, including the congregation of the First United Church of Salmon Arm. They are concerned about the implications of the NAFTA agreement in terms of it likely leading to the exportation of fresh water from Canada. They are not convinced it will not open the door to fresh water sales and transfers to the United States.
They are asking that the Government of Canada take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that our fresh water rivers not be diverted to the U.S.A.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by many hundreds of people from my constituency in memory of Dawn Shaw, a little girl who was raped and murdered in my riding just a few months ago.
They note that children in our communities are increasingly becoming victims of sexual assault and violence. They propose a number of suggestions that could be implemented by Parliament to deal with this problem.
They ask judges that sexual assault charges not be allowed to be dropped if the case takes too long coming to trial and that prison sentences for sexual assault be lengthened. They also call for the permission for police to take DNA samples from persons suspected of sexual assault and that DNA imprints be kept on file in a national police data base.
In memory of Dawn Shaw, they request that Parliament enact legislation to change the justice system to provide greater protection for children from sexual assault and to assure conviction of offenders.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundum):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present on behalf of residents of the city of Saskatoon today.
The first petition was originated by the students of the University of Saskatchewan, who point out that the GST was the first ever federal tax to be applied to magazines, newspapers and books in Canada. They point out that the GST on reading material has been particularly harmful to publishers, book stores, library students and writers. They also remind us that the Prime Minister promised in 1990 to have a review of the effects of the GST on reading material after a year.
Obviously that has not happened, and the petitioners call upon Parliament to immediately eliminate the GST on reading material.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, my second petition refers to Bill C-91 which the residents of Saskatoon ask not to be implemented, though of course it has been. They also ask for a repeal of Bill C-22, the predecessor of Bill C-91.
The appropriate action now is that both of them be repealed. I am only too pleased to pass on this message on behalf of the residents of Saskatoon because the effects of the bill, as they point out, will be to enormously increase the cost of drugs to the citizens of Canada and certainly the province of Saskatchewan and the medicare drug plans thereof.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 439 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 439 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Althouse: For the years 1990 to 1992, with respect to the Canadian Economic Development Strategy, (a) what were the expenditures and projects undertaken (b) what were the total expenditures in western Canada for administration and programs (c) which projects were approved in Saskatchewan by (i) client (ii) total size (iii) equity contributed (iv) type
March 10, 1993

of equity (d) which projects were declined in Saskatchewan by (i) client (ii) total size (iii) equity (iv) type of equity?
Return tabled.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I suggest that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all such notices of motions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry

Prescott-Russell):
Madam Speaker, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following:
That the name of the hon. member for Western Arctic be substituted for that of the member for Nunatsiaq for the purposes of moving the motion that we will be discussing immediately at Orders of the Day.
The reason I am seeking this is to permit the member for Western Arctic to appear before the parliamentary committee on Indian affairs later about a land claims issue in the Northwest Territories, an area that is partially represented by the hon. member. Therefore I seek the consent of all of the House because of this situation and because it is vital for the member to be able to be there for the benefit of her constituents.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the request. Is there unanimous consent?
Supply
[Translation\


Mr. Plamondon:: Madam Speaker, I would like to say that we agree to give unanimous consent and wish to thank the member for consulting us beforehand and thus respecting us as a party.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I was on my feet earlier but you were obviously not able to see me.
I want to simply say that we have no difficulty in giving unanimous consent, but I do want to use this opportunity to make the following comment.
On a number of occasions when I sought unanimous consent on some very non-controversial issues those in the Liberal Party denied it. We are not denying unanimous consent today. I hope they would be supportive in the future.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, we are happy to consent to the motion presented by the Official Opposition and to give members a chance to speak on the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Ms. Ethel Blondin-Andrew moved:: That this House condemns the government for its abandonment
of aboriginal families and children.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion today to focus on what I consider to be the government's dismal record of dealing with the continuing problems that plague aboriginal children and their families. It makes the future of many First Nations people bleaker .
It is extremely sad and deceptive of this government to wear two completely different hats in its dealings with aboriginal peoples. On one hand, the government continues to speak out to the international community in support of the Year of Indigenous Peoples. In fact,

March 10,1993
Supply
Canada is seen to be one of the world's leading supporters and promoters of this event. Yet here in Canada this government continues to do everything in its power to diminish the cultural and linguistic rights and existence of aboriginal peoples.
More seriously, this government continues to let the aboriginal people of Canada teeter on the brink of socio-economic destruction. In many aboriginal communities we have a 90 per cent unemployment and an 85 per cent drop-out rate. We have the highest rates of recidivism. We still have a high rate of infant mortality. We have cancer and respiratory ailment rates that are many times the national average in the aboriginal communities. We also have the cutback of aboriginal economic development programs by 28.8 per cent, which will have a devastating impact on these communities.
This year's theme is Indigenous People's-A New Partnership. How can this government morally continue such a political and international charade? It seems to me that this government has no intention whatsoever to deal with the continuing problems that plague aboriginal communities across this country.
There are many Davis Inlets in this country of Canada. How then can the government expect Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to believe that in this Year of Indigenous Peoples "new partnerships" will be fostered when the government's record on the state of aboriginal affairs from coast to coast to coast is absolutely shameful?
Clearly this government has completely lost touch with its responsibilities to aboriginal peoples when the finance minister's December 2 economic statement is a perfect example of this. The government's priorities are clear. Moneys will be spent on other priorities such as the obsolete use of helicopters. Their original purpose for a mission is now obsolete. Cruise missile testing will continue in the north although it is no longer warranted.
Aboriginal interest groups, friendship centres and communications organizations have been hit with 10 per cent funding cuts despite the growing need for these social and cultural resources.
I guess there have to be some shining lights in all this bad news. I attended the Dene Family Symposium in Fort Smith two days ago. It is very encouraging to see first hand the Dene people's focus on wellness. Most important is that the Dene people are doing it for themselves.
In the western Arctic, wellness think-tanks are springing up all over my riding. The community of Fort McPherson recently began an initiative called Pathways to Healing. Another community that is not in the Northwest Territories is sharing its expertise. That is the community of Tadoule Lake which has essentially picked itself up and dusted itself off through wellness initiatives and activities by its own people to return to a more productive community. These efforts allow aboriginal people to come together and pool their ideas at a time when alcoholism and other forms of abuse are rampant in our communities.
I believe that no one has the potential to do for aboriginal people what they can do for themselves. The problem is that in order to help themselves aboriginal people need the funding support of the federal government like all other citizens do to help themselves.
What they do not need are more studies. Communities and people know when they have a problem and what to do about that the problem and what healing is needed. This government needs to act-not listen. Funding cuts to desperately needed and already under-funded programs is not the action that needs to be taken.
I have an example that is very sad. As a result of the recent funding cuts the whole Western Arctic Native Communications Society is in jeopardy of going under. The story is the same around the country. The Press Independent, an outstanding newspaper with a readership of 5,700 and which serves the communities in the western Arctic, had its funding completely cut by the Secretary of State in 1990. The efforts to make it a commercial venture have been very difficult.
As one well knows, commercial ventures have suffered grievously over the last number of years. Numerous businesses have gone under and the bankruptcy rates are very high. To expect a small newspaper of this size to survive on its own is just unrealistic at this time and place.
March 10, 1993

The award-winning newspaper may be putting out its last publication this week. The timing of these difficult cuts at year's end could not come at a more difficult time. While the Press Independent struggles to keep its printers working, book drives have begun in western Arctic communities to satisfy the public's need for more reading materials.
Who tells the story better than newspapers like the Press Independent and Windspeakerl Who tells the story better than those newspapers about the importance of aboriginal priorities, values and traditions? Who puts the pictures out there of our elders and our children and issues that are pertinent to the survival of our people? What tells the story better of the importance of education, of the importance of housing, of the importance of land claims and of the importance of aboriginal rights questions than these newspapers?
There are other areas that are undergoing similar cuts. The National Association of Friendship Centres had a rally this afternoon on Parliament Hill at which a number of members of Parliament have spoken and the leaders of the national friendship centres have appeared themselves.
I have been overwhelmed with letters and faxes as have many members of Parliament, as well as the Prime Minister's office and cabinet ministers' offices I am sure. There were faxes from presidents, employees and aboriginal Canadians who run, work and use the unique services and many resources available through friendship centres and native organizations. From every corner of this country their message is clear to Ottawa. These cuts are unfair and unnecessary. Friendship centres across Canada have closed their doors today in staging a national day of protest.
As I have stated, I spoke at a rally this afternoon. People can best tell their stories themselves and we listened to what they had to say. The Tree of Peace Friendship Centre in Yellowknife is one example of the diversity of resources that friendship centres offer at the community level.
Tree of Peace offers kindergarten programs, adult education, native outreach programs and summer camp programs for children that are very important for singleparent families. It also offers drug and alcohol abuse counselling. All of these services and resources provide
Supply
the means to develop self-esteem, personal development, cultural preservation and community awareness.
Ingamo Hall in Inuvik, Northwest Territories, will have to start charging user fees for its free programs when their $24,000 federal funding cut comes into effect next month. Can one imagine how heart breaking it is for a community that is known for its generosity to charge user fees to its own people for a service it used to offer free?
Many of the programs offered have become the backbone of this community: teen and elder programs, teen drop-in programs, elder social programs and voluntary programs for mothers. These are just to name a few of the programs that are offered by the friendship centres. There are many, many other centres across the country that deserve praise and they cannot all be named. In all ridings of members of Parliament and in senators' communities there are friendship centres that offer an invaluable service that cannot be measured by the government and have a price tag put on it. What can be offered is continuing support and not more cuts.
Another area that is feeling the pinch because of the government's inactivity is the fur industry defence program. I am hoping that the government will come forward and make a firm commitment. Funding for this program has only been committed to the end of this month, March 31, 1993.
We have checked on this and this is the case clearly as of today. At this very moment there has been no money set aside for the International Organization for Standardization or to continue trap research. The Minister of the Environment has publicly stated that there will be no money in place by the end of the month.
It is critical that the environment and international trade departments and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development come up with this money and come up with a cohesive strategy that makes some sense and that offers some hope to the 85,000 trappers across this country.
The economic livelihood of indigenous peoples is being seriously jeopardized by callous and insensitive and mostly foreign-financed animal rights campaigns. We have not heard a peep in terms of strategy from the federal government on how to respond to these groups that are financed to the tune of $20 million. We cannot

March 10, 1993
Supply
as small communities put up the battle on our own. We need the help of the government.
The fur trade industry built Canada and brought the free-market economy to this country. What new partnerships is this government prepared to make with Canadian hunters and trappers to ensure that they meet the European Community requirements in 1995 and allow this economic and sustainable development to continue?
The incomes of 100,000 Canadians depend on access to fur markets. All of these programs enable aboriginal people to make the adjustment and transition from the simple, traditional way of life to the more complex and difficult challenge of integrating into the world of technology.
There is another area. I guess I have talked about friendship centres and also about native broadcast and communications societies that let native people regain their self-confidence and get in touch with their cultural identities through promotion, education and preservation. These are well worth preserving, but there are actually institutes that have been developed by aboriginal people themselves that are undergoing funding cuts. The Dene Cultural Institute in Hay River, Northwest Territories, is one fine example.
It received $200,000 a year from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. That is projected to undergo a 10 to 30 per cent cut. This is a cut that will have a direct impact on the future of this institute. Funding cuts will impact this organization's abilities. The Dene Cultural Institute, as small as it is, is a world leader in research efforts to preserve and develop the use of traditional knowledge and the environment and the important need to preserve powerful oral traditions and the knowledge of elders. This does not even mention the work that gets done in the area of sustainable development, conservation and habitat destruction studies and also now in the area of justice program alternatives. Alternative justice programs related to aboriginal communities is something that the Dene Cultural Institute is looking at. A cut as small as this, which to the government may seem harmless, is very much a huge impact on that particular institute and the people who work there.
My hat has to go off to the executive directors of those programs. It has become a very personal mission for
those people to stay afloat and to keep the spirits of their personnel high. For people like Joanne Bamaby who has headed up the institute and has worked for years to develop the programs it is disheartening.
Obviously the government does not see the national and international importance of these resources, nor does it see the importance to provide these services. It is making it difficult for these services to continue. New partnerships in 1993 will not develop without the needed funding. Aboriginal peoples have lost faith in this government in these areas.
Aboriginal peoples have lost faith in the actions of the government with good reason. For example, health and welfare announced a plan to launch the Brighter Futures children's initiative. This initiative is in theory only. It does not seem to exist when it actually comes right down to the funding being provided.
The program was announced almost one year ago, in May 1992. However, today funding still has not been made available. Worth-while programs and desperately needed children's centres remain on hold or must be abandoned.
It is a shameful example of the government's smoke and mirror tactics in dealing with aboriginal peoples and specifically children in this case. We have a particular centre in my riding that could use the money. It wanted to fill out the application forms in order to get the money. It has been working on funding for one year and the Brighter Futures program will offer it not even a hope until the end of April.
It is simply an understatement to say that the plight of the aboriginal housing situation is critically serious. The Government of Canada cannot deny that the Third World housing conditions many aboriginal Canadians live in impact on aboriginal families, their children and their quality of life. The standing committee identified the critical need for housing both on and off reserves in the 1990 report Unfinished Business.
I want to talk specifically about the north because I have a very special mission. I know my hon. colleague for Kenora-Rainy River will deal with this issue in more detail.
March 10, 1993

Other than federal housing, there is virtually no private housing market in the Northwest Territories. Ninety-eight per cent of social housing clients in the north are aboriginals. After months of trying to get the federal minister responsible for housing to reinstate the Northwest Territories housing budget to the 1991 levels, the minister denied this request in September 1992.
Reinstatement of 1991 levels was recommended by the standing committee in its recent report. This federal reduction means that at least 200 fewer cost-shared housing units will be built in the Northwest Territories in 1993. Two hundred fewer. Without reinstatement to 1991 levels the Northwest Territories will only build 153 units across the whole Northwest Territories instead of 372 units.
The need in the north is that 3,945 units are required. There is a huge gap between what the government is able, willing and capable of doing and what it is actually doing or committed to doing, I should say. Without reinstatement to the 1991 levels, the Northwest Territories will only build 153 units.
As you all know, in the Northwest Territories we do not have a private market available to us. We do not have the options available to us as they do in the south. In the past, the Northwest Territories has had a 6.55 per cent protected reserve of national housing allocations. With the projected cuts to the Northwest Territories housing budget, it is now obvious the gap in the shortage of units will never be bridged and will only get wider and wider.
We are all panicking. The minister for housing from the Northwest Territories is extremely concerned about the results and the impact of this reserve not being protected any more and that it will be reduced. This will be reduced and the reason that we have had this reserve is because the need is so much greater and the alternatives and the options are much fewer. It is substantively justified that we maintain this reserve. I appeal to the government not to change this protective reserve.
This shortage in housing has resulted in much higher rates of sexual abuse, family violence, alcohol and drug abuse, suicides and high school drop-outs. The rates are much higher than are found in the south and many
Supply
would say are directly related and linked to the overcrowding in the housing situation that exists.
How does the federal government justify its current spending priorities when northern Canadians do not have the fundamental necessity of adequate shelter to protect themselves from one of the world's harshest climates?
The housing crisis is affecting aboriginal families and children right across this country. Government restrictions on housing funding are forcing bands to build smaller houses and are forcing larger families and their children to sleep in overcrowded basements risking safety.
The basic amount allowed per housing unit needs to reflect the increase in cost of contracts and materials to accommodate the increased cost of the national building code standards.
Bands across the country are put into the position of having to pick and choose the most desperate family in need of housing in the community because the federal housing allowances are not even closely reflecting the actual needs of most bands.
Another issue that is extremely important is post-secondary education. On November 29, 1991 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appeared before the standing committee. He stated that the self-fulfilment of the aspirations and the destiny for aboriginal persons in this country required many things including opportunity and encouragement but that education was the most important ingredient of all.
It is unfortunate that the minister could not keep his commitment. The area of post-secondary education is seriously underfunded. The shortage in funding and the waiting list is so great that students have stopped applying to post-secondary institutions.
If you can believe it, in some areas we have an 85 per cent drop-out rate. That drop-out rate allows very few of our students to make it through high school. How then can you justify denying aboriginal students the right when they are eligible to enter college and university?
I appeal to the government. Please, for our children and for our country we need the help. We need the resources in a number of areas that are very serious and

March 10, 1993
Supply
impact on the lives and the futures of our communities. Please support us and please make a difference in the lives of our families and our children.


Larry Schneider: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Western Arctic for her intense and complete submission to us on this opposition day. While it may seem to be opposition business, actually the plight she brings to us is a plight all Canadians share with her.
I have not had an opportunity to tell a little bit of the secrets about the intensity of the member opposite and I hope she will allow this. I do this to give an idea of how we worked together on the aboriginal affairs committee when we looked toward the resolution of the problem. I suggest in all sincerity that is uppermost in everyone's mind.
We recently completed a study dealing with housing to which the hon. member made reference. When we were welcomed in her community of Fort Norman we were not greeted in the normal way opposition members would greet one another. Instead, she met us and gave us all a hug. It was a significant bonding process that I experienced in Fort Norman. We took that with us throughout the completion of the study. I want to commend her for welcoming us into the human family as she did. All too often in the things we do in this building we have a tendency to lose our perspective on the real issues. As a result I think the committee operates in a much more productive way.
The minister of Indian affairs at a meeting held with Chief Roland Crowe in whose presence I happened to be did discuss some of the problems that are confronting some of the aboriginal communities. This particular one was the delivery of child and family services.
I believe that from the meeting's perspective, Saskatchewan and the minister seemed to be heading closer to a resolve of the provision of these services. To point to a statistic, in 1991 DIAND funded 36 Indian child and family agencies covering some 212 bands.
There is some progress being made in this progression toward Indian self-government, one that I support quite intently.
There was as well a comment made with respect to education and the fact that there was a drastic shortage in terms of educational funding being provided to our aboriginal children. The number of elementary and
secondaiy students attending band-operated schools has tripled from 13,133 in 1981-82 to 40,513 in 1990-91. During the same period in 1990-91, the number of band-operated schools almost doubled from 159 to 312.
I do not think it is a secret that some of the communities we visited seemed to suggest that perhaps viability might be a question that should be addressed. Some of them were not experiencing the same kinds of services and facilities some southern communities were experiencing. Also, there seemed to be a great emphasis toward the need for further self-government.
Could the member comment about whether or not there are other solutions than simply sending money? I do not mean that in a degrading sense. Other than just making more money available, are there other solutions that we should be pursuing rather than just simply writing cheques?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I was very generous and gracious with my hugs because I thought maybe we were going to be given some nice cheques to do a lot of good work.
I know that committees are masters of their own destinies. I have to say the aboriginal affairs committee, many members of which will be speaking today, is a very hard-working and sincere group. I also salute them. We have Mr. Anawak and from the New Democratic Party we have Mr. Bob Skelly. We also have members from the other side, Mr. Schneider, our chairman. There is Bob Nault as well. We work well together and we aim to achieve our goals and make recommendations that sometimes go unheeded.
Having said that, I think it is not an either/or situation of writing cheques, as my hon. colleague puts it. What happens in this case is it brings to mind a comment that was made to me by the minister of housing for the Northwest Territories who said: "We can talk about self-government, but if people do not have roofs over their heads, we are talking about a concept without reality". That is very pertinent.
We have to deal with real issues. Health, education, training, child care, housing and land issues are real issues that require resources. There is not a non-aboriginal community in this country that goes unaided from the federal government. I cannot think of one community.
March 10, 1993

It is unreasonable to assume that it is an either/or situation. Every community that wants to build an infrastructure and wants to build a firm base needs the assistance of government. I do not think it goes without gratitude and it goes without the best intent to build the best and the healthiest of communities for all people.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague from Western Arctic. As a member from Quebec, I share her feeling to a large extent. I think that there is a fundamental problem with what is called the Indian Act. Personally, I see that legislation as racist, because it treats a whole culture, a whole people as second-class citizens. So I think that the problem before us today is fundamental. This kind of legislation means that thousands of bureaucrats are used to spend this money, so that there is much less left for the very ones who really need it. I remember asking this question on the Beau-doin-Dobbie committee, where some suggestions to improve the Constitution were made. I asked whether this Indian Act was not rather a program for giving employment to white people, white bureaucrats. It tends to drain off the available funds. Instead of going to the native people, it goes to bureaucrats in Ottawa.
That is the problem with the law now in force. I would really like to ask the hon. member if it would not be better to abolish the Indian Act outright. It would be a big step towards recognizing native rights, because since 1985, I believe, the Government of Quebec has confirmed the right of native people to govern themselves. I would really like to know whether abolishing the Indian Act would not be a big step forward for helping native people set up their own government funds.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I am glad that my hon. colleague, whom I have worked with, has asked that question. He had a prime opportunity to support aboriginal people, which would have allowed us to abolish the Indian Act, and that was the Charlottetown accord. This accord would have allowed us to remove the Indian Act.
Supply
The Charlottetown accord would have allowed us to replace the existing Indian Act structure with the inherent right to self-government. This was an opportunity that was lost. I supported this opportunity. I am not criticizing people, I am just saying that it was an opportunity that was lost. It was a prime opportunity where we could have built something and we could have added on to it. Once that opportunity was lost we no longer have that step to take forward at this point that was there at the time.
Sure we can abolish the Indian Act. I am sure, as are my colleagues across the floor. My hon. colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East and the minister have stated numerous times that we have looked for alternatives. The main alternative that we had looked at was the inherent right to self-government.


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the opposition motion this afternoon. Perhaps I should point out that the amount set aside annually to help aboriginal people has doubled since 1984. We have doubled the amounts spent by the federal government on aboriginal people, and I think it is important to make this clear at the beginning of my speech. Furthermore, in 1993, the department's budget as a whole increased by nearly $300 million.
That being said, today I would like to review with hon. members what I would call the considerable progress made by the aboriginal peoples and the federal government, in a spirit of co-operation, to improve living conditions on Indian reserves. Many of us already know that improving conditions on reserves is one of the four pillars of our government's program for aboriginal peoples.
Hon. members will recall that a little over two years ago, the Prime Minister announced an action plan that would recognize and preserve the special status of the First Nations in this country. This program confirms Canada's commitment to establishing a new relationship with aboriginal peoples. The program supports aboriginal people in their efforts to bring about changes in their communities that will benefit their families and children.

March 10, 1993
Supply
Since the program was announced, hundreds of initiatives have been launched and have had a very positive impact on the lives of members of the First Nations.
Our commitment to improving the social conditions of aboriginal families and children is reflected in the construction of new schools and new housing-for instance in my own region, a new school was opened last summer in Obedjiwan-social agencies offering a wide range of benefits, and assistance in building water and sewer systems. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been earmarked for aboriginal communities from coast to coast to improve living conditions and opportunities for aboriginal people and their children's prospects for the future.
I think we can say that Canadians realize that more must be done to guarantee that future, but I think it is encouraging to see that native health has improved considerably in recent years. These changes are due both to better access to quality health services and to increased community involvement in education and the provision of health services.
If I may, I shall give a brief overview of initiatives that were started in co-operation with aboriginal people. First of all, the health and water initiative which involves accelerating the provision of safe water and water treatment services on reserves. As you know, Madam Speaker, these new water supply and distribution facilities are vitally important to aboriginal communities. Once these facilities have been upgraded, they will not only protect the health and well-being of residents of the various communities but also preserve the environment. Many reserves are located in natural sites where human activity can have a negative impact on the surrounding land and animal habitat. Waste treatment facilities are essential to prevent pollution and disease. Furthermore, this initiative promotes economic development by making the region more attractive to tourists, investors and local industry. The water and sewage treatment initiative is a concrete example of sustainable development.
Substantial progress has also been made in improving housing standards in many Indian communities. The government realizes that the quality and the quantity of
housing on reserves are still a problem and that certain steps must be taken to correct the situation. Nevertheless, the House will appreciate the progress made in recent years in this important field. In co-operation with Indian communities and their leaders, the government has worked very hard to reverse the deterioration of housing on reserves and give Indian bands direct control over their housing programs. It is now up to the bands to decide what is best for their families and children, and the department is helping the First Nations obtain adequate housing by subsidizing housing construction and renovation on the reserves. Government assistance is necessary because of problems caused by legal restrictions in the Indian Act and the limited economic resources of many Indian communities.
Annually, the department allocates nearly $136 million to the housing subsidy program. Over the past 10 years, the Canadian government has supported the construction of more than 30,000 new housing units across the country. The Government of Canada also supports the construction of housing units on reserves by guaranteeing loans. So far the department has guaranteed more than $750 million in loans for housing.
It is clear these are tangible benefits for families living on reserves across this country. The government spends more than $300 million annually to support, either directly or indirectly, housing construction, maintenance and repairs on the reserves.
This spending has clearly had a very positive impact. Nearly 30 per cent of the houses on reserves were built in the last six years, and another 35 per cent were renovated in the same period. Today, almost 95 per cent of these houses have electricity and it is estimated that about 80 per cent of the houses have adequate water and sewage facilities. For comparison, in 1965 less than half the houses on reserves in Canada had electricity and only 17 per cent had an adequate water supply, so we see that there has been real progress on this score.
Again, the government recognizes, I think, that even more must be done to solve the housing problem. We must talk not only about money but about a whole series of things for solving the housing problem. Together with
March 10, 1993

Supply
the leaders, we are working on developing real, lasting solutions to deal with these various questions.
In another vein, we were just talking about education. In our opinion, the Post-Secondary Education Assistance Program is an investment in the future of native youth. Federal spending on it has not doubled but tripled since 1984. Federal spending on post-secondary education will be about $1.1 billion over five years. I think that is a more than reasonable amount. The government's philosophy is to help education because it is the way to a more prosperous future for this country.
Speaking of native youth, I think that we must also deal with the more serious situation affecting many communities, which is the high suicide rate, particularly among young people, and situations like the one in Davis Inlet or Big Cove must be addressed. I think that it can be said with certainty that we are doing so and doing it in co-operation with the First Nations and the provincial governments, which is important. We will continue to do what is necessary to develop long-term, not short-term, solutions for improving the quality of life and living conditions in the various native communities throughout the country.
I think that we must look closely at the many initiatives which have been taken with government funding to help solve the suicide problem. These initiatives are part of the total package addressing the mental health of native youth. The Canadian government gives $54 million a year for the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program. Again, I think that we must be aware of the efforts made by the government to help all native communities across the country. Thke Davis Inlet, for example, and let me point out the work of the member for St. John's East who was mandated by the government to work on solving the immediate problems and also to handle the issues connected with relocating this community.
As the minister of Indian affairs said in this House, we approve and support the relocation of the inhabitants of Davis Inlet and the work on this must be done with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Chief Katie Rich and her council, both for the interim measures and immediate needs and for the development of a comprehensive long-term plan for the community.
Furthermore, immediate action was taken to treat the young victims of this abuse caused by their problems and in the longer term, we will see to it that these young people no longer have this kind of problem. In Big Cove, the government has done the same thing so that what we have seen, heard and read on this subject will never happen again.
It is important to be aware of these realities and of the importance the government attaches to it, both in monetary terms and in terms of the work done by the minister of Indian affairs, or by yours truly in Quebec, with the different communities for the welfare of native people throughout the country and the relations between natives and non-natives and also the relations between native people and the federal and provincial governments.
I think-and I have said so several times since I was appointed to this position-that it is essential to work as a team on this. Whatever the native issue-health, education, land, et cetera-I think it is essential to work as a team. In this regard, I would like to point out the excellent exchange this afternoon between a Liberal member and a member of my own caucus who work together on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I think that such co-operation is essential in the approach that this government wants to take to solve the problems in the community and in the various communities across the country.
There is also the problem of family violence. Again, the government and the department have acted on it. In a four-year period, a little over $36 million will be spent in order to solve the problem of family violence in the various communities.
Each Indian community must determine its priorities. The government, the department of Indian affairs and the Department of National Health and Welfare must be there to provide money, yes, but also to help each community according to its priorities and its needs. The more we do as a team, the more positive results we will see. Thke this year, 1993, for example, when 78 per cent of the money will be spent directly by the First Nations. I think this is a very positive indication of the progress that has been made on native issues since 1984.

March 10, 1993
Supply
Nevertheless, much remains to be done, but I think that we are on the way to solving the problems. We would have liked them to be solved yesterday, but they will be solved today or tomorrow. In any case, these problems are being solved and steady progress is being made. This is important for native people throughout Canada because they have things to say to the federal government and they also have their own work to do, just as the federal government has its work to do. With such an attitude, I think that a tremendous amount can be done to achieve our objectives.
In closing, I would just like to remind the House that the motion being considered today does not quite reflect reality, unfortunately, I think. Considering the amounts of money and the work being done by the government and the minister of Indian affairs right now, great strides have been made and we will continue to work with this philosophy in mind-with the co-operation of the opposition, I hope.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the new minister's speech as it relates to a very important issue, which is what is going on in the country called Canada and how this government and past governments have dealt with aboriginal people.
After listening to the minister's comments one would think that there are not a lot of grave difficulties in the country, things are moving and progressing very well, and aboriginal people should be very happy.
I would like to remind the minister opposite, who is fairly new at the job, that on Tuesday, September 25, 1990 we had a very similar discussion in this House when we dealt with the issue of the crisis at Oka. The discussions we had at that time dealt quite extensively with the same things we are talking about today. There are tremendous problems out there and the government has missed all the signals.
I want to remind the minister what the signals are, just so he will know, and then I want to ask him a very specific question, which as the minister responsible he can easily deal with first hand.
The crisis is happening before the minister's eyes. In Davis Inlet six youths attempted to take their own lives;
at Big Cove there were nine suicides in as many weeks; and in my riding, in the Treaty Nine Nishnawbe-Aski Nation territory there have been six youth suicides since the end of December, one as young as 11 years old.
This is not the first time I have stood up in this House and mentioned this problem. So the minister can put this in perspective, since 1988, when I was elected, more than 60 youths and young adults have taken their lives and another 800 have attempted suicide and failed in my riding alone. These numbers reflect that the suicide rate in our part of the country is seven times the national average.
If the minister can stand in his place and say that we are really making progress then he has not been in the same communities that I have.
I want to put a very specific question to the new minister. My understanding is that two weeks ago the minister met with the grand chief from Kanesatake. Two weeks ago he was asked a very specific question and to this date has not given an answer, as far as I know, to the request by the grand chief. In 1990, after the Oka crisis, the committee that I belonged to at the time, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, was asked by the people to look at the proposal for healing called Breaking All Barriers. Tb this day that healing program in Kanesatake has not taken place.
I would like to ask the minister if he would tell me why. This is a very small request in the over-all crisis that we are dealing with for a community like Oka, which went through probably one of the most severe situations that any community would ever want to face in this country or any country in the world. It had the army come in on them and was put in a situation where for generations the scars will be visible to everyone, as we talked about that night.
Now is the opportunity for the minister to do a very small thing, and that is to accept the recommendation of that community for the necessity for a healing program and put it in place.


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, I have taken note of the hon. member's comments, and I would like to say that so far, I have had two meetings with the grand chief of Kanesatake, and I think that in both cases, we had some excellent discussions. One important point was that we
March 10, 1993

Supply
should negotiate with him, and so far, that is what I have done. We met again two weeks ago. I noted his comments and I believe he did the same with mine. The matter referred to by the hon. member was raised, and I will report to the grand chief within the timeframe we both agreed on.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords -Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. minister who has just spoken on this matter before us today. The minister may be aware that I rose in Question Period a short while ago to ask about economic development funding scheduled for aboriginal communities.
The chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, Chief Roland Crowe, wrote to the Prime Minister on February 10 expressing concern about potential cuts to economic development programs as a result of the finance minister's mini budget on December 2. At that time Chief Crowe indicated that the Saskatchewan Indian nations had done a study of what potential cutbacks would mean. He said they would devastate the emerging First Nations economies, create bankruptcies in Indian commercial and industrial fields, result in the countless loss of existing jobs and damage the future of their communities and their memberships. They acknowledged that they are the most disadvantaged and deprived group in the country. Chief Crowe put this on the record on February 10.
Last week the government issued the 1993-94 estimates and confirmed that this government has cut back funds for economic development to the Indian bands for 1993-94. I quote from the estimates that we have from the other day. Economic development is on page 14-7 of the estimates: 1992-93 estimates were $54 million and for 1993-94 the figure is $33 million.
We see the government removing the tools necessary for growth in the aboriginal communities, some $21 million in the coming fiscal year.
I would like to ask the minister how at a time when Indian people require economic development to ensure the futures of their communities the government can justify the removal of money from the economic development portfolio.


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that, as I said at the beginning of my speech, in 1993-94 the amount the Canadian government vkll spend on aboriginal people will not go down, it will increase. I think this bears repeating, because the hon. member may not have realized this just now. If the budget increases, I think the hon. member should congratulate us, considering the difficult budget decisions that had to be made by this government in all departments.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate although it is not a debate that we want to see happen in this House over and over again, as has happened. I should remind the House what the motion is. It states:
That this House condemns the government for its abandonment of aboriginal families and children.
As one of my colleagues from the Liberal Party pointed out just a few minutes ago, this is not the first time we have dealt with this kind of motion in the House.
As I said before, we deal with it over and over again. It does not really seem to matter which government is in office, whether it is the party opposite or the party to my right, this same motion seems to come up on the floor over and over again. At some point, the people in this House have to take seriously what they are debating and take a serious look at the information that is being placed before them.
I congratulate my colleague from Nunatsiaq for bringing this motion forward. I congratulate my colleague from Western Arctic and the minister for being involved in the debate. It is an extremely important debate.
It was precipitated, as members know, by a number of stories in the media recently that have placed a stain on Canada's reputation as a promoter and supporter of human rights, both nationally and internationally.
The incident at Davis Inlet a few weeks ago was mentioned earlier, where a number of children barricaded themselves in an unheated building with gasoline and other materials, including inhalants to sniff, hoping that they would inhale enough of this material and it

March 10, 1993
Supply
would become cold enough that they would kill themselves and not have to face the morning.
What kind of a country is this that Canadian children feel they are forced to do this kind of thing? They are children being forced to commit suicide so that they will not have to live through the terror of the following days.
Members will recall that in the same community the same kind of thing had happened over a year ago. Again children found themselves in an unheated house. Forced to heat the house, they created a dangerous fire situation and burned to death. This was in the same community a year previously.
What kind of people in a country like Canada are forced to the kind of despair where they are willing to bum themselves to death? They really did not care whether they burned themselves to death because it was better to them than facing the terror of the next day.
The same thing has happened, as my colleague from Kenora-Rainy River pointed out, in the area around Big Trout Lake in the Nishnawbe-Aski area of northern Ontario where there have been 800 suicides attempts since he took office in 1988. Eight hundred Canadians, most of them very young, most of them teenagers, attempted to take their own lives rather than face the terror of the following days.
How would you feel if you were a parent of one of those children and you tried to tell them there was a better future for them? Would you feel comfortable taking the minister's comments that we have actually added a few more million dollars to the departmental budget of the department of Indian affairs and that that is going to prevent these children from doing that kind of thing? According to the minister, they will not have to do that any more because the government has added a few million bucks to the department of Indian affairs. Certainly that holds no promise for these children.
At Big Cove in New Brunswick, we heard the same thing. I watched parents interviewed over and over on television being asked about the suicide epidemic. The elders in the community were being asked about the suicide epidemic. They felt almost like a kind of tidal wave, that their own children were doing it and they were powerless to stop it. They do not know which
buttons to push. They do not know which arguments to make. They do not know what is going to be affected. Their children simply do not want to live through the terror of the coming days.
There are not many of us in Parliament today, but we in Parliament have been given an opportunity-and again I would like to congratulate the two members who put forward this motion-to take this issue of the suicide of adults, young children and teenagers in aboriginal communities seriously.
It is unfortunate the way the motion is worded but on opposition days that is the way you have to word motions. It means that the government has to vote against it, the opposition has to vote for it and as a result nothing comes of it. If only there was a sense on the part of the people in this House that they really wanted to deal with the issue through a motion like this and that the three parties could get together with the independents and get something going that will stop what is happening in aboriginal communities.
As I said, this is a stain on our reputation internationally. I am astounded at the reaction the government has to the incidents that took place at Davis Inlet, at Big Cove, at Big Trout Lake and in other communities around the country. It sends the deputy minister around on a tour of Europe on essentially a mission of denial, telling people that Indians actually have a great life here in Canada and not to pay any attention to those isolated incidents at Davis Inlet, at Big Th)ut Lake and Big Cove. They are told to ignore those incidents because that is not the real Canada.
It is a process of denial that we should not be involved in because aboriginal children in this country have the highest rate of suicide in the world. It is not just seven times the rate of other children nationally or other teenagers or other populations nationally, aboriginal people in Canada have the highest rate of suicide in the world. There are reasons for this and we should be looking at those reasons.
Instead of one party attacking the other party attacking the third party over their failure to deal with aboriginal children and families, we should actually be developing
March 10, 1993

solutions and motions that all three parties can vote for so that we can get something done on this issue.
The minister's response is that the government has increased spending by a few million dollars. Nobody believes it. My colleague from Western Arctic pointed out the series of budget cuts that have taken place recently. A lot of those budget cuts have been done on the backs of aboriginal people.
What has been cut? Aboriginal friendship centres that serve a tremendously valuable purpose to people who have left their reserves in the country, have come into the cities and need the kinds of services that are provided by friendship centres in order to survive in what they see as a culturally hostile surrounding. It makes it easier for them to live and work in the urban community when they have support organizations such as friendship centres.
Not only that, those friendship centres have been closely audited by the federal government. I wish it audited those as closely as the helicopter acquisition program because a tremendous amount of the waste and the kickbacks and the money that falls through the cracks in the helicopter acquisition program could fund friendship centres into the next century.


Mr. Tbrner (Halton-Peel):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just heard the hon. member opposite state categorically that there were kickbacks involved in the helicopter acquisition program. I would like him to prove those allegations or withdraw.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the money that falls through the cracks in that helicopter acquisition program could fund friendship centres into the middle of the next century with absolutely no further expenditure on the part of the-


Garth Turner: Madam Speaker, I feel it is highly irregular, improper and unparliamentary that the member opposite would allege financial impropriety and a criminal act in this House without offering any justification for that whatsoever.
I would ask him if he has any information to let the House know or certainly the Speaker would ask him to withdraw.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, the way I heard it, maybe wrongly, was not making accusations when talking about money
Supply
falling through the cracks. This was not necessarily making allegations of any wrongdoing.
Should he have said anything which I did not properly understand that implied any such wrongdoing, I know he would want to rephrase his sentence and make sure that he does not imply any wrongdoing by anyone in this House or any other place. Or should he know of any wrongdoing, he would tell people who should know and must know.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, as I heard the hon. member speak he said very much as you have interpreted his words. I think if the hon. member for Halton-Peel has a question or comment he can reserve it for the question or comment period, but at the moment I would very much like to hear the hon. member get on with the important things he has to say.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake should allow me to do my job properly. I will at this time give the floor back to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni who I am sure will do the right thing by everyone.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have a tradition of doing the right thing by almost everyone so if I offended any of the members by any of the words I chose then I most happily withdraw those words.
The issue we are concerned with here is the kind of expenditures and priorities that the government is making. The government on the other hand seems to be ignoring the loss of life, the huge suicide rate, which is the highest suicide rate in the world, that affects aboriginal people. I would have expected the member who was concerned about kickbacks to be on his feet talking about the suicide rate and to be expressing a concern about it but if the word "kickback" that he managed to isolate from my speech did offend him I most certainly withdraw it.
But I want that member to know that I am offended and many Canadians are offended, and many hundreds of millions of people around the world are offended by his government's treatment of aboriginal people. It is a fact that aboriginal people, mainly young people, have the highest suicide rate in the world and they are certainly looking to him to find out what his interest is and what he intends to do about it. I have not heard him lift his voice in this House once on this issue. It is an

March 10, 1993
Supply
important issue that affects the reputation of this country internationally.
This country can spend $5.8 billion on helicopters that are of doubtful value to use in a style of warfare that is long in the past, to use against enemies that have long ceased to be our enemies. Yet we are still spending $5.8 billion on those purposes while we are telling aboriginal people that we do not have the money to meet their basic fundamental, social needs in order to come up to the same level as all other Canadians.
What kind of members are they over there? The more I think of it the more this-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is starting to impute motives and this I cannot let go. I think we can discuss the subject that is before us today on this motion without imputing motives to anyone.
Let us stay with the subject and I think we will be on the right track.


Robert Evans Skelly: It is hard not to get angry on this issue when, as I said, hundreds of aboriginal teenagers are dying and nobody seems to give it that much attention. That is the whole point of this resolution and the whole point of the member presenting it. I certainly salute those motives and those intentions.
I listened carefully to the minister's response. It is a response that we seem to get all the time when we bring these questions before the House of Commons. The government seems to have this response. In fact it developed the response through an organization that developed a program called Special Words and lactics.
The government found out through its studies that Canadians were concerned about what was happening to aboriginal people. They were concerned about the high levels of unemployment in aboriginal communities. They were concerned about the high levels of poor health and about the survival of aboriginal children. They were concerned about the high rates of violence in aboriginal communities.
Canadians are sympathetic. They demand that their government deal with those problems. The government says how much money is being spent on aboriginal
communities. In order to develop the figure, it uses every stamp licked to send pension cheques to retired Department of Indian and Northern Affairs public servants. It pads that bill to about $4 billion, almost the cost of the helicopter program. It pads the figure unmercifully to show Canadians that it is spending a tremendous amount of money, but in fact it is not and the evidence for that is the rate of suicide among aboriginal kids.
I am a member of the aboriginal affairs committee of this House. Members of that committee work well together because we take a problem solving approach. We have travelled to many of the aboriginal communities around the country and we have seen the problems firsthand.
It does not matter whether members are from the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party or other party members who attend the committee. Once they have seen the problem they know they have to start developing solutions for them. They know solutions cannot be developed unless they enter into a process of consultation with the people involved who are better able to solve their own problems provided they have the resources. Then solutions can be worked out.
I suppose that is what I was hoping would come out of the resolution, but I gather from the minister's response to the resolution that the government intends to vote against it. I really do not see how it could do otherwise.
We did a study on aboriginal housing. We listened to the people from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell us that of the 70,000 on-reserve housing units in this country, 35,000 of them are unliveable, as Indian Affairs staff described. Half the housing units used by aboriginal people on reserve are being described by the department responsible for them as unliveable, and 60,000 more units are needed to bring housing standards for aboriginal people up to the same level other Canadians enjoy.
The cost of that program would be in the order of $2.5 billion to $3 billion. That is not a great amount when we compare it to the cost of the helicopter program. When we look at the damage being done to Indian families and to aboriginal children as a result of the housing problems we cannot afford not to spend that money.
March 10, 1993

I said it would take $2 billion to $3 billion but that $2 billion or $3 billion, if it were spent in the right way, would generate a tremendous amount of employment in aboriginal communities building the infrastructure, the sewer and water systems, the roads, the foundations and the houses. All this effort, all this work, could provide employment for aboriginal people currently unemployed and drawing welfare. It would draw down the deficit of the country and make those citizens producing, contributing citizens again. They want to do it. It is just that the government has not taken its place in the partnership and has not provided the resources.
We found that bad housing causes a lot of problems when we visited those communities where housing is a problem. It causes problems such as alcoholism, abuse, domestic violence and sex abuse. It causes problems with education. All those problems related to housing cost the country millions of dollars. We could deal with the problems by reducing the amount of overcrowding in housing and making good quality housing available to aboriginal people.
I will wind up by saying that it is a good resolution. The government should pay attention to it. We are not providing enough resources and the government has the resources. The helicopter program has shown that. Why does not the government respond to this situation and do what should be done rather than hark back to the amount of money it is currently spending, which clearly is not enough or we would not see the symptoms we are seeing in aboriginal communities?


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague with whom I have sat for a number of years on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. He will know that since we have been involved on the same committee there have been discussions and studies dealing with housing.
The issue in a nutshell is simply that since 1983 we have been in the process of studying a housing policy for aboriginal people. Later when I have an opportunity to speak I will give the numbers of the backlog and the percentage of those who do not have sewer and water. We could go on and on about how grave the issue is.
Supply
Could my colleague give us some indication from his perspective of why it is that the government, knowing the particular backlog and knowing how overcrowding can affect the lives of young people, cause mental stress and anxiety in these communities and result in the suicides we talked about, would not come forward with a comprehensive policy program to deal with the very real problem of a tremendous lack of good housing in First Nations communities?


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question. One of the reasons the aboriginal affairs committee dealt with the housing issue in the first place was that the member lobbied the committee because of the concerns he had for housing in his riding and in northern Ontario. It is a major issue.
It is surprising that the government does not deal with this issue. The government says that it wants to get the economy of Canada going again. It wants to get us out of the recession. It wants perhaps to focus its programs on some of the poorest of poor Canadians so that they can begin to lift themselves out of the recession. It wants to do away with and reduce the amount of welfare end unemployment insurance it is paying.
Here is a clear opportunity for the government to do that. It could start rebuilding the aboriginal housing stock and providing some of the 60,000 new units needed to accommodate the growing aboriginal population. It would create tens of thousands of jobs, as I pointed out. It would restore hope in aboriginal communities. It would get people away from the kind of desperate life-style that drives them toward substance abuse as we have seen in Davis Inlet.
This is the kind of thing the government should be doing to bring Canada out of the recession. In addition it would bring the welfare charges down, as I pointed out before.
This has all the elements of something a government should be doing to cure the problem of the recession. Why do government members not do it? I suspect it is because they are Tories. They do not really feel that the government's role is to get involved in the economy that way. As a result, it is ideology that is preventing them from doing something that would be valuable for the Indian people, valuable for the country and valuable for all Canadians.

March 10, 1993
Supply


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I take great exception to the slurs the hon. member has cast on this side of the House in his last comments. They are totally unfounded. They are totally uncalled for. They are totally inconsistent with the record of the government.
If my hon. friend would look at the level of funding and the increase in the level of funding to health, education and housing for aboriginal communities he would withdraw that statement. Those areas of government spending have grown faster than anything else in the budgets of the country.


Dennis Joseph Mills: You should go to look at some of these places.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I say to my hon. friend from Broadview-Greenwood that no one in this House is happy with the state of some aboriginal communities.
What I am calling into question with my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party is his motive for saying that we do not care because we are Conservatives. People on this side of the House do care deeply and that is why the funding in these programs has increased as quickly as it has.


Robert Daniel Nault: Housing funding has gone down.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I say to my hon. friends on the other side that these areas are of deep concern to the government. This is why these areas have received the levels of funding they have. I would ask my hon. friend to withdraw his statements.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Albemi):: Madam Speaker, I have no intention of withdrawing statements made by me in the debate when I repeated statements that have been made around the world, condemnations of this country and the way it treats its aboriginal people. My understanding is that this year those condemnations will appear in the UN development report which this minister touts around the country to show that Canada has the highest standard of living in the world.
Women rank number seven or even lower in terms of their standard of living in Canada. Aboriginal people rank far down on the list. Everybody knows that Canada is not doing the job it should be doing.
You are one of the ministers responsible. You should read your own budget and you would find out exactly what-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has been here long enough to know that he should address the Chair and not the minister directly.
There are three minutes left. I will recognize someone else on questions or comments.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, for the record I will correct the minister who mentioned that the three areas of funding have gone up. Since 1983 on-reserve housing funding has not gone up. That is one of the major problems and one of the reasons we are in a crisis position now.
If the minister wants to put facts before the House he should perhaps take a closer look. The population on reserves since 1981 has grown by 37 per cent and housing funding has not kept pace. Therefore we have a tremendous backlog.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It has gone up.


Robert Daniel Nault: No, it has not gone up.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Check the figures.


Robert Daniel Nault: No, it has not since 1983.1 would like to get back to my friend in the NDP for a second and ask him a question directly. If his party were to be in government, how would he perceive it dealing with the crisis and getting housing stock back up to the level it should be for aboriginal communities?


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, as the member knows, I was one of the members on the aboriginal housing committee who made a number of recommendations to government. The report of that committee was a unanimous report and I stand by the recommendations made in it.
The problem with this issue is that the government, as I said in my speech, has to make the resources available. It has to give aboriginal peoples the right to be involved in the design, the development and providing housing to the standards needed in their own communities. I know the member is familiar with the contents of the report, but I think what is needed in this case is the money and that is $2 billion to $3 billion to provide that kind of housing. The infrastructure is also needed but also we need to permit aboriginal governments to develop housing and to design housing that suits their needs rather
March 10,1993

than to allow the department of Indian affairs to acquire housing for them on a low-bid system outside aboriginal communities.
There is a tremendous possibility for job creation and for the enhancement of aboriginal governments if they are allowed to develop their own housing programs but they need those transfer payments, resources and the power to develop their own housing.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to be given the opportunity to address this particular topic today.
It would seem to me that what we need to do is to highlight one flagrant contradiction. The government, it seems to me, without exaggerating the discussion that has just preceded, is in fact speaking with a forked tongue. The government is speaking internationally about aboriginal rights and the importance of the aboriginal year. Yet, at the same time, there are serious cuts that are being undertaken to aboriginal programs. I will give those in some detail shortly.
What we have to recognize is that the aboriginal people are really suffering a double or triple hit because they have an extremely unique and distinct situation in our society that I would like to explore with my colleagues and with Canadians who are listening.
Let us look at the government's record on education. When we do that let us remember that we are talking about all Canadians and that includes in a number of instances many aboriginal Canadians that are being affected. If we look at EPF reductions, cuts in transfers for health and education, from the government in Ottawa to the provinces and territories, we will find that roughly $30 billion will have been cut in the course of a decade. It is about $20 billion for health and about $10 billion for education.
It is important to recognize that it is not only all Canadians, but within that particular group our aboriginals are also being hit. Look at training and retraining. There are a lot of debates about increases in funds. There are increases in funds but it is Canadians who are paying those funds to the government to use for training and retraining. It is not from the general revenues. Look at the need, at inflation and at what was promised Canadians in terms of the best training programs in the
Supply
world. We should recognize that not only all do Canadians need more training to bring them up to date, make them more productive and make them more competitive, but aboriginals are also involved there. They are being hit here as well.
Look at research and development. The government promised to double its investments in research and development. We know that it slipped dramatically. It is not even close to what it had hoped. In fact, it has slipped from what it was. It was 1.40 of Gross Domestic Product and I think it is around 1.20 right now while our major competitors are at 2.80. That affects our aboriginal communities. Within the area of research and development is the whole field of social sciences that looks at questions of abuse, poverty and many other social challenges that this nation faces.
Of course we recognize that our aboriginal peoples are affected in a very dramatic way by some of the social difficulties that Canada is experiencing as a whole. Any reduction in over-all funding will affect them too.
Look at illiteracy for example and the number of functionally illiterate Canadians. We recognize that there is a disproportionate number of aboriginal people. Yet there was a reduction in the most recent government estimates on investments in literacy. Therefore, our aboriginal peoples are being affected negatively over all.
Let us look more specifically at aboriginal people per se. We know the plight of native Canadians. We can argue all we want whether or not the government has been fair or unfair. I do not think that is the issue. The issue is how much is needed to correct the situation. What is it that we need to do to make sure that they get the same opportunities that the rest of Canadians do? That is the question that we need to be addressing. Look at the unemployment rate, for example. It is high. It is in excess of 11 per cent. There are over 1.6 million Canadians unemployed. However, if we look at aboriginal peoples per se, we find that they are hit dramatically. Look at social assistance. There are over two million Canadians who are on social assistance. Look at the number of aboriginal peoples who need social assistance and compare their numbers as a proportion of the whole. Look at illness and suicide and other measures such as that. We find that our aboriginal people do not compare favourably at all.

March 10, 1993
Supply
If we look at housing there is an awful situation. It is extremely disappointing. Look at the drop-out rates in elementary and secondary schools and at the number of graduates in colleges and universities and then compare that to the whole population. We find that they do not compare favourably.
I maintain that it is not their fault. I maintain that a series of governments over the years, perhaps well intentioned, have not been able to make the progress they should have made. What we need is more assistance. What we need is a renewed commitment. What we need is a recognition of the problems. What we need is to stop arguing about whether we increased it or decreased it. What we need is to put forth the resources that are required in order to permit aboriginal people to compare favourably with their Canadian counterparts who are their Canadian brothers and sisters.
Look at post-secondary education specifically. You would know, Madam Speaker, that there has been a cap placed on it. Of course, that has been increased somewhat and I do not want to get into that argument. However, let us remember that there are more aboriginal peoples today who want to go on to post-secondary education. Obviously it needs to be increased.
We have new legislation that permits members who were otherwise outside of the aboriginal community now to get into the aboriginal community. The ranks have swelled. Look at the cost of education over the last few years. Those costs have skyrocketed so any kind of cap, whether it be minimal or otherwise, needs to be increased substantially under those circumstances.
I want to share with my colleagues here in the spirit of openness and debate some of my concerns. I have a memorandum and I just want to raise a couple of frustrations that have been shared with me. I quote from this particular memorandum from MMC in Ottawa: "To date there have been no self-government agreements concluded with Metis people". There is a great sense of frustration.
I want to share with you the sense of frustration that our aboriginal peoples have had when $21 million has been cut from economic development for Indian Affairs. Economic development provides education, jobs, training and learning. There was a further cut of $6 million from the aboriginal economic strategy by ISTC. There
again was a major blow or hit suffered by our aboriginal peoples.
Why was 10 per cent cut from the native friendship centres?

We know these friendship centres not only welcome the people from these communities who come to our cities but also provide all kinds of support, including apprenticeship programs.

One million dollars have been taken away from the Northern Native Access Program.

Why? This was a very successful program that gave our aboriginal people access to some very important positions.

Why has government reduced funding to aboriginal political organizations? I know that they can be somewhat difficult on governments no matter what governments they are, but surely this is a problem. There is the Arctic Environment Strategy, which is a program that affects our aboriginal people. Why has this been cut by $2 million?
Here is the basic question. I do not want to raise the question of helicopters again, but I do want to raise the question of priorities. These are important dollar cuts to these small groups of people that are not being given the same opportunities. Look at large expenditures in relation to those smaller expenditures. Canadians and aboriginals are asking why this is happening.
I simply say that I do not think it is people-

-who are knowingly intent on doing the wrong thing. I think they just do not have their priorities straight.

It was a year ago today that this House honoured Louis Riel. I shall terminate with a quote from my address on that particular day. I am sharing my time with my colleague the member for Kenora-Rainy River. I want to leave perhaps on a note of some optimism. Last week in Manitoba there were two important historical events. A Metis was named Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba. Hopefully that appointment will permit our aboriginal
March 10, 1993

peoples to re-energize, to go forward and to realize some of their goals that have been long outstanding.
Last week in the province of Manitoba, the Supreme Court decision with respect to the government and French language schools was also important. It has implications-

-for Francophones across Canada, and I imagine for Anglophones in Quebec as well. But I think it could also have implications for our aboriginal people.

If francophones and anglophones can manage their school systems, as I think they should-

-why not aboriginal people?

It would be a great step forward if somehow we could empower them to take over their education and training and retraining opportunities for their peoples.

I want to conclude with the following quote: [English]
In the spirit of justice, and at a time of great instability in this country, I urge the House to take one more step to recognize Louis Riel not only as a founder of the province of Manitoba but also as one of the Fathers of Confederation. A year ago we made that statement.
I am hoping that these gestures, along with political will, will permit us to go forward.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to be able to listen to the comment of my friend from St. Boniface across the way.
In his day he has been an educator and an administrator in the field of education, both in Manitoba and northern Ontario. He and I have had a number of opportunities to discuss the concept of minority educa-
Supply
tion. We discussed education for those groups in which he is particularly interested, the francophone communities of Manitoba and Ontario, as well as the aboriginal communities of Ontario and Manitoba and others across the country.
He quoted a number of figures. I am sure he would like the opportunity to comment or correct me if I am wrong. I know he would want to be as accurate as possible. He always has and always will.
There is never enough money for education. There is never enough money for a lot of things. However, in my mind and in the mind of the hon. member for St. Boniface, there will never be enough money for education.
Despite that, in the area of education for aboriginal communities expenditures for education have increased by $80 million, by 9 per cent. In fact there has been an increase in spending for education since 1981-82. The amount spent on elementary and secondary education has gone up 9 per cent a year, from $272 million in 1981 to $683.7 million in 1992-93.
The number of elementary and secondary students has grown 1.8 per cent annually from 80,000 to 96,000. The most important number to me, and this does not refer just to education, is that 77 per cent of the nearly $5 billion that the Government of Canada spends in this area is spent by band councils. Of the money that we spend, 77 per cent is spent by band councils.
In band-operated schools the number of students has increased from 13,000 to 40,000 over the past 10 years. Thirty per cent of the teachers in band schools today are Indian teachers. That is a direct result of the efforts that have been made to expend moneys to ensure that aboriginal students can take advantage of post-secondary educational opportunities.
The funding for post-secondary education has increased from around $200 million to around $213 million. The pathways program has not been cut this year. It is a very important program in which people come together co-operatively to address some of these issues.
I know that my friend from St. Boniface would allow me to make sure the record is straight.

March 10, 1993
Supply


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments and the statistics he shared with us. I do not challenge them, because I did not have a chance to look at them.

As I indicated before, the debate should not be so much about how much the increase or decrease has been. Decreases are serious in any programs because our aboriginal peoples have so many needs.
If I, for example, were to take a decrease in salary of $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000, it would not be nearly as serious as if I were earning $12,000 or $13,000 a year. That is the issue that we are debating today. Of course there will never be enough money for all of the things that we want to do for our society, I appreciate that. However, at the same time we must continue to strive to remedy that which is wrong. This is definitely wrong.
I know my colleague well enough to know that he shares a belief in the direction in which I want to go. That is, to respond to actual need to the extent that we can and to try to avoid cuts affecting those small groups who depend very much on that kind of support and whose only real opportunity to get out of the cycle of poverty and some of the social difficulties they are encountering is through education, training, retraining, and economic development.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I would like to enter this debate by making a similar suggestion to the members opposite as I did many months ago in September 1990 when we discussed this same kind of situation as it related to another crisis that was at hand, which was the crisis of Oka.
At that time I said to the people across the way that it is important that they listen before the crisis takes place. The problem we are facing again today is the same problem we faced in 1990. It is that the government goes through the motions and pretends to be listening to what Canadians and members of Parliament opposite are saying, but in fact it is not.
I am going to put some things on the record and would be very pleased if anyone would wish to dispute them and get into the argument.
The government has abandoned aboriginal families and children by ignoring the socio-economic issues after the failure of the Charlottetown accord. It has washed its hands of all aboriginal issues, resulting in families and children being ignored. Examples of that, and there are many more, include Davis Inlet where six youths attempted to take their own lives and Big Cove where there have been nine suicides in as many weeks.
In the area where I come from in northern Ontario, which is Nishnawbe-Aski Nation territory, there were six youth suicides since the end of December, one as young as 11 years of age. Since 1988, and this is something that I have raised on many occasions, there have been more than 60 youths and young adults who have taken their lives and, this is something which the people across the way sometimes tend not to focus on, there have been 800 other suicide attempts that have failed.
We do not have to ask ourselves why on this side of the House. We know why. Aboriginal youth in northern Ontario feel a sense of abandonment by their governments. The suicide rate in Canada among aboriginal peoples is seven times the national average. We have to ask ourselves why.
I will explain why. It is because this government has failed to implement a mental health policy for aboriginal peoples. That is why. It is not that we have to do more studying. It is not that we need to consult any more. The time for consultation and study is over. It is now time for action. We need a mental health program in this country.
Wellness does not only include physical well-being. It is absolutely essential that a national aboriginal mental health policy with programs aimed at dealing with suicide and the crisis in aboriginal communities be implemented immediately. We do not need any more studies, we need action.
Let us look at some of the root causes of aboriginal suicides. As has been mentioned in this House today, there is a housing crisis in aboriginal communities. We all know that overcrowding in aboriginal homes is 16 times the national average. Half of on-reserve housing is inadequate and unsuitable for living in. Those numbers are well known.
We as a standing committee, as I have mentioned before in this place, and other members across the way have studied the issue on behalf of aboriginal people. We know what the numbers are. We know what the statistics
March 10, 1993

are. It is now time for the government to come out with a policy to deal with this situation.
As a result of this kind of situation aboriginal youth have no privacy for studying and no space they can call their own. They are surrounded by too many people in these small houses.
Has the government moved to address the on-reserve housing crisis? No. The funding levels for housing, as I mentioned to the Minister for International Trade, have not increased since 1983. Family violence is an offshoot of overcrowding, the lack of funding for education, and the lack of a mental health program.
Aboriginal youths are finding it impossible to deal with violence that they live with on a day-to-day basis. Many see committing suicide as the only way to escape that violence.
Another issue is the economic development situation. This government likes to talk about the importance of economic development for the future of Canadian citizens, and of course aboriginal people are a big portion of that.
On June 12, 1989 in Calgary, the minister of state for small businesses announced the creation of the Canadian aboriginal economic development strategy, known as CAEDS. The minister remarked that: "Even in this day of expenditure restraint the federal government has demonstrated the importance it attaches to aboriginal economic development by maintaining and indeed somewhat increasing the level of resources that it will devote in this area. As important as the amount of money so allocated is to the Government of Canada, it has decided to commit itself to long-term support for aboriginal economic development. Unlike previous programs that had sunset dates this money will form part of the government's base budget and will not have to be renegotiated every five years".
As we all know in this place, that is a false statement as of this date. We all know that the Main Estimates for 1993-94 tell another story. Funding to economic development has been cut for this year from $69 million to $48.7 million, a reduction of 28.8 per cent.
Supply
What we can read into that whole process is that we would rather pay welfare than stimulate economic development and get aboriginal people back to work. Welfare payments to aboriginal people also come from the public purse so if we want to continue to pay welfare payments in this country then we will continue to do what the federal government has done in its estimates, which is cut the tools that will give people the ability to have jobs and create jobs for their own people.
The unemployment rate in aboriginal communities in my riding stands at over 60 per cent in some cases and is as high as 80 per cent in others.
Aboriginal youths have very little opportunity to find jobs on reserves. Now that economic development funding has been cut their chances of finding a job are almost nil.
Aboriginal youths feel a sense of despair. They have lost hope in their future. They see no way out of the cycle of poverty and dependency. They see a government that does not give a hoot. They feel abandoned. They take what they see as the only avenue left, which is to take their own lives.
This is a national tragedy and an international disgrace. We are supposed to be a caring and compassionate society, but instead our national government has abandoned aboriginal families and children.
It is unfortunate that we on this side of the House have to come forward with a condemnation of the government's record on aboriginal issues and suggest an opposition motion which would say to people in Canada that we as parliamentarians in the federal government have done a disservice to our people and their future by not taking this issue as seriously as we should.
We have also done something else. We continue to not listen to people when we are told as parliamentarians that a crisis is looming in particular sectors of our society.
As was mentioned before, and I think it is important to put this on the record as it relates to housing, overcrowding in housing is 16 times the national average. The backlog requires 12,000 units to address it. Funding has not been increased since 1983.

March 10, 1993
Supply
If we want to seriously deal with aboriginal youth suicide in this country we are going to have to deal with the causes. The causes of course are the despair that people feel because of the lack of a mental health policy by the Government of Canada and the resources necessary to have good mental health programs. There is the very important issue of a stable environment through a decent place to live without which causes family violence and with that the despair I have been talking about.
I hope we have been able to suggest to government that there is a crisis and that it not continue to bury its head in the sand and say: "Look at all the nice statistics. The budget has been increased in certain areas by 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 12 per cent". When the population is growing on reserve four times higher than the national average, a 37 per cent increase in the last 10 years, these piddling increases to the budget are not going to resolve the difficulties and the crisis in those communities.
If members opposite and the ministers that are responsible want to give aboriginal youth a chance and a decent hope for the future, they have got to get on with the job of creating programs that are effective and that will work.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment to make. The hon. member talked at some length in his remarks about housing.
I have the honour to represent 22 bands in northwest Saskatchewan. Every single one of them has housing as a priority. The report on housing by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs outlined these circumstances quite clearly as a situation affecting aboriginal people in Canada.
I support as strongly as I possibly can the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs entitled A Time for Action: Aboriginal and Northern Housing. The report indicates that the shortfall in aboriginal housing today is about $3 billion. It is a shortfall that the people living on the reserves within my federal boundaries know all too well exists.
When I visit with the chief and the councillors or when I visit with the band members living on these reserves, I am constantly made aware of the lack of housing available to the individuals living there. I am appalled at
the circumstances that have resulted in large families having to share very small and outdated accommodation.
I am overwhelmed by the lack of ability of the government to respond to those needs, given the political will and the finances that have been made available to the department.
Just this year alone I have had several bands approach me and talk to me about the funding that was available to them at the beginning of the year. They made housing starts during the year only to be told once the basements were dug and the foundations were poured that the department had no more money. Those housing starts would have to be put on hold until the following year. Basements sat throughout the winter months with the snow falling, accumulating and melting in them without the ability of the bands to complete those houses.
I simply want to state that I would like to see the government take immediate steps to correct the deficiencies which exist in the housing program. It would like it to accept and implement the recommendations that are in the report of the standing committee that indicates housing matters must be addressed and must be addressed immediately.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, of course it is very important that members get their statements on the record and I appreciate that the member has done that.
I also suggest to the member that one of the major problems with housing as far as aboriginal people are concerned is that the Government of Canada has not, at this moment at least, put forward a policy on housing to deal with the crisis we are talking about. It also has not recognized that housing is classified as a treaty right.
There is one thing that should be put on the record for people who are watching and listening to these speeches today. That is that the dollars given to aboriginal communities for housing are a subsidy. In essence the government tells the aboriginal people that it will give them a certain percentage.
In my region for example, they will be given roughly $27,000 toward a house. We all know a house cannot be built for $27,000. Then the government tells the aboriginal people they can get the rest of the money for that particular program either on the open market by borrowing from the banks or by going through CMHC. Or they
March 10, 1993

can do it another way and that is to take it from their minor capital.
For those who are not aware of what the minor capital money is for, it is normally used to help with infrastructure. For example, it is used for roads, water, sewer, band offices, street lighting. What has happened is that because the minor capital in some communities is so small, the chiefs and councils are forced to have to make tough decisions as to what is more important, the housing that people are asking for or the other infrastructure problems they are facing.
In the 46 reserves that I represent in Kenora-Rainy River, on average we build two to three houses. When there are known backlogs of 50, 60, 70 houses in some of these communities, we are forced to build only two or three at a time.
If the government is serious about dealing with this crisis it will have to first of all recognize housing as an important part of the treaty right and second, put funding toward it.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.
A short time ago we were all shocked to learn of native young people sniffing gasoline and the terrible consequences. We know that gasoline in Canada contains various toxic substances, such as toluene and manganese. We know that in the penal systems in the state of California studies show that the most violent offenders have higher levels of manganese in their hair samples.
Is the member aware of any studies conducted in Canada on the impact and consequences of sniffing gasoline containing MMT? Of course MMT is not allowed in the United States.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question and one with which I have been dealing. Those of us who are involved in aboriginal issues across this country will know that one of the biggest problems besides youth suicide is the fact that youths are now heavily involved in the sniffing of gasoline.
One of the things we have been looking at is the issue of MMT and manganese which of course is banned in the
Supply
United States. I thought we should find out what drives young people in this countiy to sniff gasoline. I thought we should also find out whether any studies had been done in this country from the department of health and welfare and the department of Indian and northern affairs to ascertain the reasons that this particular solvent seemed to be of interest to young people in the First Nations.
I then went a step further on the advice of my colleague. I went to the United States and asked if any studies had been done on this particular issue. We found that there were learned professors who had looked at the causes and the reasons for this situation and why it was happening in the United States.
We did find that in the United States there is a smaller amount of aboriginal people using gas as a means for getting high. Of course we all know the effects of gas as far as our First Nations youth are concerned and the effects it has on their health and of course their well-being in the long run.
We would also like to go a step further on one of the matters. I suggest to the House that we should as a Parliament and as a government on the other side look at the effects of manganese on young people when it is in their systems. We should determine whether that is the particular substance in gasoline that makes young people high and determine the reasons they use it.
Because my colleague has a private member's bill to ban MMT in gasoline I think we should seriously look at the ramifications of that. That is because sniffing gas is one of the biggest killers in aboriginal communities.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (TVansport)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to enter the debate in the House today on this very significant issue and to lay before the House some information that I think is necessary for the public to hear.
Aboriginal programs continue to be one of this government's highest priorities. Between 1984-85 and 1992-93 the total federal expenditure on programs for aboriginal people has grown from $2.6 billion to over $5 billion.

March 10, 1993
Supply
In spite of the current effort to reduce government expenditures, the 1993-94 Main Estimates reflect a further increase of over $351 million in over-all funding to aboriginal people. This represents a 7 per cent increase government-wide.
The government remains committed to implementing with aboriginal people the native agenda that was announced by the Prime Minister in September 1990.
That initiative focuses the government's attention on four fronts. First is the settling of native land claims. Second is to improve the social and economic conditions in aboriginal communities. Third is to build a new relationship between aboriginal people and governments. Fourth is to review the fundamental place and role of aboriginal people in a contemporary Canada. Substantial progress has already been made on all of these pillars of the agenda.
The government's continuing financial commitment is again evident in the 1993-94 Main Estimates. For example, funding for specific claims will grow 74 per cent to $136.5 million. Comprehensive claims funding will grow 24 per cent to $95 million. Funding for elementary and secondary education on reserves will increase by 9 per cent to $745.2 million. Funding for the Inuit and Indian post-secondary education program will grow by 6 per cent to $213.3 million. Social services expenditures will rise by 10.1 per cent to $898.9 million.
In recent years the growth rate of expenditures on aboriginal programs has exceeded the over-all growth of federal expenditures. While the over-all growth in federal expenditures between 1991-92 and 1992-93 was limited to 3.1 per cent, funding for aboriginal programs increased by 7.9 per cent. Even with tighter restraints on federal spending in 1993-94, expenditures on aboriginal programs will still grow by 7 per cent.
Within the department of Indian and northern affairs, four main activities accounted for about half of the estimated 1992-93 expenditures. While most of these activities are akin to those provided to non-aboriginal people by provincial and municipal governments such as elementary and secondary education, social assistance and welfare services, they also include post-secondary education.
Since 1981-82 the total of these four activities has grown at an average annual rate of approximately 12 per cent. Of course expenditure levels are only part of the
story. What aboriginal people are doing with these funds is the real indicator of progress.
This government continues to support the devolution of responsibility for the delivery of services and programs from DIAND to the direct control of First Nations.
A range of innovative funding mechanisms has been developed and introduced to aid in this process. This includes contributions, alternative funding arrangements, flexible transfer payments and grants. By the end of 1991-92, 77.3 per cent of the expenditures of the Indian and Inuit Affairs Program of approximately $2 billion was fully administered by First Nations through band councils, tribal councils or other Indian organizations. This figure has increased by 15.2 per cent since 1985-86 when bands administered 62.1 per cent of Indian and Inuit Affairs Program spending. Indeed, the control is moving to where it belongs, which is to the Indian leaders.
Since 1981-82, federal funding for elementary and secondary education has increased approximately 9 per cent annually from expenditures of $272.9 million in 1981-82 to an estimated expenditure of $683.7 million in
1992-	93 and planned expenditures of $745 million in
1993-	94.
In the process the number of elementary and secondary students has grown from 80,466 students in 1981-82 to 96,594 in 1991-92. The participation rate of on-reserve children aged 4 to 18 in elementary and secondary schools has increased from 87.6 per cent in 1985-86 to
91.4	per cent in 1991.
At the same time, Indian children are staying in school longer. The percentage of children reaching grade 12 or 13 through normal progression has risen from 33.9 per cent in 1985-86 to 47 per cent in 1991. More of these children are being educated by their own people. The number of elementary and secondary students attending band-operated schools has tripled from 13,000 in 1981-82 to 40,513 in 1991. During the same period the number of band-operated schools has almost doubled from 159 in 1981-82 to 312 in 1990-91.
As a result of special post-secondary education programs providing opportunities for Indian students to become qualified teachers, 30 per cent of the teaching staff in bands schools are now Indians. Since 1981-82, federal funding for DIAND's post-secondary education assistance program has increased more than eightfold from an actual expenditure of $25.1 million in 1981-82 to
March 10, 1993

an estimated $201.3 million in 1992-93 and a planned expenditure of $213.3 million in 1993-94. This has more than quadrupled the number of post-secondary students receiving assistance from 5,467 in 1981-82 to an estimated 21,442 in 1991-92.
Indian communities are also improving living conditions with DIAND funding. We have heard comments from earlier speakers about housing. On-reserve housing expenditures, including the construction and maintenance of houses, schools, roads, bridges, sewers and other community facilities have increased 34.2 per cent since 1985-86 from $102.7 million to $137.8 million in 1992-93.
In 1991-92, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development allocated $131.6 million in direct capital subsidies, and $127 million in loan guarantees to housing. Between 1983-84 and 1991-92, an average of 3,212 new homes per year were built on reserves. Just under 4,000 homes per year were renovated during the same period. In 1991-92, about 91 per cent of dwellings on reserves had an adequate water supply compared with slightly over half in 1977-78. The proportion of dwellings with adequate sewage disposal has increased considerably from about 47 per cent in 1977-78 to almost 80 per cent in 1991-92. Electrical service had reached less than half the houses on reserves in 1965. In 1991-92 it reached 88 per cent.
The government also continues to support increased Indian control of development, design and delivery of child and family services. In 1992-93 the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development funded 41 Indian child and family agencies covering 213 bands. Between 1980-81 and 1990-91 the percentage of children in care has decreased from 6 per cent to 4 per cent.
Throughout this period of devolving responsibility for delivering programs and services to First Nations, DIAND itself has been shrinking. The number of authorized person-years in Indian and Inuit affairs programs has decreased 42 per cent from 4,463 in 1982-83 to 2,608 in 1992-93.
The percentage of the budget of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that is di-
Supply
rected to administrative overhead has declined steadily through 1980 and the early 1990s.
In 1985-86 the department overhead was 6 per cent of the over-all budget administered by DIAND. In 1993-94 the rate is expected to be 3.2 per cent. Yet the statistics for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development do not tell the whole story of this government's commitment to aboriginal people.
In 1993-94, federal expenditures on aboriginal programs were administered by 12 departments. Of these, 98 per cent came from the following departments: Indian Affairs and Northern Development, some 72.2; Health and welfare Canada, 14.9 per cent; Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 5.1 per cent; Employment and Immigration Canada, 3.7 per cent; Industry, Science and Technology, 1.3 per cent and Secretary of State, 0.8 per cent.
There are many departments within the federal government working to make conditions better for aboriginal people. This reflects both the diversity of the federal programming for aboriginal people and the many co-operative government-wide programs that benefit their communities.
For example, the quality of health care available for Indians is improving considerably. Between 1976 and 2001, the life expectancy of status Indians is expected to increase by approximately 10 years. Health and Welfare spends more than $735 million annually on programs and services to further this goal, of which approximately 25 per cent is managed by the First Nations people themselves.
In 1992-93, as part of a $136 million federal initiative on family violence, $36 million was provided directly to Indian communities to deal with family violence on reserves, including $22 million from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and $14 million from Health and Welfare Canada.
This represented a fivefold increase in DIAND's share from $4 million in 1988 to $22 million in 1992. Another $160 million will be provided to promote community health and the well-being of Indian families through the aboriginal component of the Brighter Futures strategy.

March 10,1993
Supply
The federal government's commitment to improving the quality of the environment for all Canadians was confirmed when the cabinet approved the green plan in
1991.	The green plan included two programs that are particularly important to aboriginal people: the Arctic Environmental Strategy administered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Indian Health and Water Initiative, a co-operative initiative administered by DIAND and national health and welfare.
The $92 million Arctic Environmental Strategy is not limited to aboriginal communities, however, since it is dedicated to cleaning up the environment in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories where aboriginal people account for substantial portions of the population, it is of intense interest to them. Indeed, when we were having hearings on the green plan I was fortunate enough to attend the hearings in Yellowknife, Whitehorse and Iqaluit and I had the opportunity to speak with Inuit and Indian people. I know how important the environment in that part of the country is to the Inuit and Indian people.
The Indian Health and Water Initiative was launched in March 1991 as part of both the green plan and the native agenda.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's $250 million share of this program is being used to upgrade water and sewer services on reserves while Health and Welfare's $25 million contribution is helping to improve the quality of drinking water.
Some 125 communities have been identified as priorities for work under this initiative and are already benefiting from the program. Most of them are managing the funds and projects themselves, as it should be.
This government is also committed to closing the gap between the availability of adequate housing for Indian people and the growing need for it. That commitment involves increasing Indian control over the design and management of the program.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Central Mortgage and Housing are
working together on a new housing policy that will meet this need.
Meanwhile, DIAND's housing program and CMHC's on-reserve housing program have been exempted from the government's current deficit reduction measures.
In 1993-94, expenditures by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development alone will be $137.8 million and will provide for the construction of approximately 3,300 houses and the renovation of an additional 3,200 housing units.
CMHC will continue to provide planned, new on-reserve housing. Nearly 25 per cent of all new moneys under its social housing program, $41 million in 1993-94, will be directed to native people living off reserves.
The Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy that was mentioned in the House earlier, CAEDS as it is called, was launched in June 1989 to provide the means to help aboriginal people manage business enterprises, economic institutions, job training and skill development.
Three government departments are contributing to the five-year program: Employment and Immigration Canada, Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Industry, Science and Technology. By bringing together aboriginal people, governments and the private sector, CAEDS is making a substantial contribution to expanding First Nations' capacity to build their economic future and has considerably enhanced their prospects for success.
The strategy is channelling federal support and assistance to hundreds of new and maturing aboriginal enterprises. This includes everything from gas stations to motels to grocery stores to airlines.
Since its launch there has been tremendous growth in the capacity of aboriginal communities to initiate and manage their own development projects. There are now more than 10,000 Indian businesses both on and off reserves reflecting Indian entrepreneurial activity and participation in the larger economy.
In 1991, DIAND approved 22 direct loans valued at $1.2 million to Indian and Inuit businesses, 46 loan guarantees valued at $3.2 million and 4 fee-for-service contracts and loan portfolio sales totalling $723,000.
March 10, 1993

Industry, Science and Technology Canada, which has the lead responsibility for financing native businesses, provided $72 million.
Training opportunities under CAEDS hold special promise not only for aboriginal people but for Canada as a whole.
Demographic projections clearly demonstrate that Canada will face a severe shortage of skilled labour within the next few decades. With a younger population than non-natives and with increasing opportunities for training and education, aboriginal people are in an exceptional position to play a greater role in Canada's economy.
Pathways to Success, the aboriginal component of Employment and Immigration's Canadian Jobs Strategy, is one such opportunity. It continues to contribute $200 million a year to training and employment initiatives for aboriginal people. Under the pathways program, aboriginal management boards at the national, regional and local levels decide on their training priorities and how available resources can be used best to meet their own people's labour market needs.
The funding for Pathways to Success is part of the $347 million this government will spend on aboriginal economic development in 1993-94. While this represents a reduction of 7 per cent over all from 1992-93 levels, it is still a significant investment in the future of aboriginal people in their communities.
On another front, many First Nations are anticipating future land claim settlements by eagerly exploring joint ventures and business possibilities in mineral development, oil and gas and tourism just to cite a few examples.
In addition to having access to specific aboriginal programs, aboriginal Canadians are also eligible to participate in federal programs for non-aboriginal Canadians. Examples are old age security and unemployment insurance.
Moreover, the Indian Act exempts from taxation the property of an Indian, including income, that is situated on reserve. Where purchases are made on reserve, and in certain other cases, the exemption applies to the goods and services tax as well.
Supply
In spite of the significant gains aboriginal people have made, there is still considerable room for improving their social and economic conditions. The federal government recognizes that aboriginal people are still among the most disadvantaged Canadians generally, and remains committed to helping them overcome this disparity.
I know that all of us here today share one objective: healthy and satisfying self-sufficiency for aboriginal people.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister's remarks. I know she has held responsibility for Indian affairs in this country for a couple of years. I know she has been on many reserves throughout the country, therefore this is not a new subject for her.
As I listened to her remarks, I tried to make the linkage to what the percentages were, the dollars were and what was really going on in the reserves. This is what really troubles me about the debate so far today.
I forget who it was who made the statement: Seeing something once is better than reading about it a thousand times. In the last three or four years I have had the opportunity of visiting a few reserves, certainly not as many as the minister has. I have been to Iqaluit, Whapmagoostui, James Bay, Oka and other places across the land, like Barriere Lake. What is going on in those places is just not good enough.
I think of Whapmagoostui in the northern part of Quebec where we have an arena structure. The arena beams have been set up for three years and the rink has not been finished. There is a little community hall for the kids to play in but no other facility where they could get exercise, get involved in figure skating, hockey or other community events. We have to wonder what is going wrong.
I am not talking about a lot of money here. I think there are a lot of things that could be actioned that would not cost the taxpayers of Canada a lot of money. A number of these things would somehow give the communities a better quality of life. Somehow we are missing getting some of these things done.
From time to time when I turn on television and I see the program World Vision I watch the suffering, the lack of facilities, water, sewers, educational facilities of people from disadvantaged countries. We look at all of these

March 10,1993
Supply
places from all around the world but the reality is we have conditions in our country that are just as bad as anything we see on World Vision.
DOT]
I do not agree with the NDP, by the way, that government members do not care about the aboriginal community. I do not believe that. I cannot believe that. I do believe there is a problem in actioning some very simple things that could be done to make the quality of life better for our aboriginal community.
The minister has had this wealth of experience working with aboriginal people, having visited the reserves. Let us forget about the statistics, let us forget about all the numbers for a second. From her own personal point of view does she not think that for minimal tax dollars there are a lot of little things we could do to really make the quality of life a lot better on our reserves, that somehow it is the bureaucratic process that seems to be bogging us down and slowing up getting these things completed.


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. The 14 months that I spent in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development gave me an opportunity to travel from coast to coast and visit many reserves.
Yes, I have seen exactly the same situations that the hon. member mentioned. I have also seen the growth and commitment of our native people on other reserves as well.
In Tionaga, just down by Belleville, a group there started their own charter company with one plane. Two years later they have nine planes which they bought with their own money and are running a very good charter service.
The Six Nations Reserve, which is close to my own home, has a beautiful new senior citizens and nursing home so that elderly native people can stay on their own reserve and be well cared for.
There are reserves in British Columbia and the Atlantic provinces that are showing this type of growth and development but we still do have areas that need more help.
Where they need the help, and what we have tried to do to get the bureaucratic problem out of the way, is to
devolve responsibility to the native people so that those people that are on their own reserves set their own priorities as to what they want from life on their own reserve. Maybe it is not a hockey rink, maybe they would sooner put the money into housing. In another case they might want the rink because they want their young people to be able to play hockey.
I think the best growth and development and help that we can give the native people is to give them the responsibility, along with the funding, to allow them to move forward and make their own decisions. Not decisions made by us sitting in this House and debating or by the members of DIAND, but rather let them make their own decisions and plan their own future.
This is why education is so important and why I am so pleased to see the growth in post-secondary education. Those young native people are leaving reserves, getting a post-secondary education, coming back and applying that knowledge to the growth and development for their younger brothers and sisters that are on those reserves.
That is where I think we have to concentrate. We have to concentrate on allowing our aboriginal people to make their own decisions, to conduct their own lives, to have the funding but let them make the decisions as to where they should spend it.
It is only by making their own decisions, by making their own commitments that things will begin to happen, so that they will have what they want on their reserves to better their particular way of life. I think that is the move we have to make. The fact that we have devolved the control of some 77 per cent of the spending back to the native people where I think it should have been all along is a step in the right direction. I would like to see more of this continue.
I am very proud of the accomplishments so many of our native people have made. The work they have done under the CAEDS program, the businesses they have gone into, the employment they have created for their own people, speaks very well of their ambitions and their abilities to make a difference in the lives of their own people and I think that is the most important part of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is only 30 seconds left, so I will hear the hon. member for Com-ox-Alberni. Thirty seconds, now.
March 10, 1993


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to do this in 30 seconds. The minister outlined a whole series of programs and the funding for those programs and yet a lot of these problems, the suicides we were talking about, the poverty among aboriginal people, the health care problems, continue to exist.
I want to ask the minister if she thinks enough money is being spent right now to deal with these problems but it is just being frittered away through the bureaucratic system or does she think that more resources are required.
She went through the budget in great detail, through the programs in great detail, but at the very end of it said that yes we do have problems. Is there enough money in those programs to deal with the problems we have now or are more resources required and, if so, where are those resources going to come from?


Shirley Martin: The budget for DIAND and for other departments working with our native people, within the constraints of the federal government's position right now with our deficit and our debt situation, have been spared from cuts, unlike what all other departments have been facing for the very purpose that we know we need money in order to make changes.
The money is there. It is being used and I think the more control we give to the native people to spend those dollars the more progress will be made.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I too listened carefully to the minister and I agree with my colleague from Toronto that this is not a question of laying blame on one side of the House. We all share as legislators-they happen to be the government at the moment-some responsibility for what is happening.
I listened to two particular points that the minister made. It seems to me they are key points. One was the issue of education and one was the issue of self-government. What she says makes a lot of sense. Those are the things that had to be emphasized. The unfortunate part of it, as I understand it, is that not only have the funds for post-secondary education been kept but the funds for native communication programs, native broadcasting, have been diminished if not completely eliminated.
Supply
How can people devise their own future? How can people talk among themselves about what should go on if they cannot communicate? We have had native radio and television broadcasting systems that broadcast in Inuit that have been scaled down to the point where they are ineffective. This is key for people, if they are going to talk about their own future they have to talk together in their own language.
In the north we are inundated with signals from the south. We are inundated with sitcoms from American producers. The diminishing of post-secondary education funding and the diminishing of native broadcasting systems needs to be reviewed.
I have a good idea, Mr. Speaker, and maybe I will try it on the minister now. We talk about self-government. Clearly that is a key issue if people are going to make any progress at all. I listened to what the minister said about CAEDS. She told us about certain native groups across the country making progress, developing their private sector and their entrepreneurial skills and their ventures. Some of that is happening.
My colleague talked about James Bay. The Indians in James Bay are a case in point. The symptoms that we see across the country of alcohol abuse and family violence surely point to the fact that by and large our native people are in a desperate situation. Getting control of their own lives, getting an independence, is key for them. Self-government is the key issue for that.
There are still 600 unsettled land claims. The question becomes how and when they are going to be settled. They are still unresolved. There is an Indian Claims Commission which does not have the authority to advance a claim but only to make recommendations to the government and to mediate. Clearly the quick resolution of specific claims is urgent.
What is the policy of the government? We might remind ourselves of the debate about helicopters that has been going on in this House this past week. It is prepared to spend $6 billion for new helicopters. We could argue that they are needed or that they are not needed. I am not arguing whether they are or whether they are not. We on this side happen to think they are not and the government thinks they are.

March 10, 1993
Supply
The point is that to govern is to choose. If we set a priority that this is more important than settling land claims, do we have our priorities straight? We do have a responsibility for the Armed Forces but we have a responsibility to the first people. That should be our first priority. If we are looking at a meagre supply of resources available to the government for doing things that need to be done, surely the land claims settlements of aboriginal people have to be at the top of our list.
I want to get back to symptoms again. Recently a community in my riding was in the news quite a bit, the community of Davis Inlet. I just want to put on record some of the statistics with regard to that community in case the camera lens has now left Davis Inlet and moved to focus on some other part of Canada or on some other part of the world. We happened to be in the range of the camera for a while and that was great, but now the camera lens has moved away.
I want to remind the House and the people of Canada that Davis Inlet is still there. There are 465 people in Davis Inlet, 297 of whom are youths. Of the 297 youths, 42 are habitual sniffers. Of the 42 youths, 14 are chronic sniffers and some may have suffered permanent damage from sniffing. Of the 168 adults, over 100 abuse alcohol. Of the 100 adults, some 31 are chronic alcoholics.
I know the hon. member across the way is doing his best to resolve the situation. I know he is providing leadership on behalf of the Government of Canada in consultation with the Government of Newfoundland to come to grips with this. I know discussions are going on between the two governments and with the community to try to resolve it. In the final analysis it is that community which must make its own decision, must take control of its own life and must plan for its own future. The impetus for the future prosperity and well-being of that community must come from within. I hope it will.
I know the process is in place whereby we can deal with this, but I wanted to put on record some of the statistics we may have forgotten, because that camera lens has deserted us and moved elsewhere.
These are symptomatic. I do not know how my time is going. I want to leave enough time for my colleague from the north who gets a lot of credit for bringing this resolution forward. Let me say again that the symptoms
are conclusive that there are serious problems across the country: a problem in health and a problem in education which must be addressed immediately. We must have the funds to deal with them. We must have a mechanism for speeding up the settlement of land claims. Within that land claims settlement self-government is a key issue, a priority issue, an issue that must be addressed.
We have to put it at the top of our agenda. We cannot say that we are going to deal with it at some time. This is a problem we have as responsible people on both sides of the House. We owe it to first citizens to show them we are prepared to deal with it on an urgent basis.
I compliment my colleague from Nunatsiaq for the motion and for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and to the people of Canada. I hope, as a result of the debate we have had today, progress can be made not simply in Davis Inlet or in Sheshatshits in my riding, not simply in Nain, Makkovik, Hopedale, Rigolet and all along the Labrador coast where we have serious problems that must be addressed, but all across the country.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank my colleague for his remarks and his sensitivity to the issue.
One thing I sometimes try to focus on and to elaborate on as often as I can for members of Parliament who do not represent First Nations communities is the necessity to be much more sensitive to a particular culture that is not the same as their own and to try to put themselves in the shoes of a First Nations person.
In the discussion in the House today, and I want to ask the member to comment on it if he will, it was interesting that the minister who spoke just before him talked about how the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development passed on in the last few years a lot of the responsibility to First Nations to run their own lives, to the tune of close to 70 per cent, if I am not mistaken.
I am concerned that there is a suggestion by the minister in that statement that First Nations have the power now to make the decisions to improve their lot and the way their lives are looked after at the grassroots level or at the community level. My concern is that in
March 10, 1993

fact all we are doing as a government when we make those suggestions is misleading the public.
What we are asking First Nations to do is to administer policies that are within the department, policies that have been made by non-natives. If we want to take it a step further, that suggests to me that chiefs and councils probably have less powers than mayors or reeves in municipalities would have.
Would the member tell me and tell the Canadian people-and he could use Davis Inlet or some such community in his riding as an example-how much power those people have over their own lives to improve their lot, to make a go of the community they so desperately want to improve, and to give young people the future they expect to have?
That is really the essence of this debate. It is not the numbers the minister across the way is throwing at us. The government is suggesting that it is trying to put more money into it. It is the responsibility and ability of First Nations to truly make a difference in their own lives that I think we should deal with in this debate.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on that question. There is a fundamental truth in what the hon. member is saying. I think he is saying that it is power. That involves some resources but maybe not so much resources or certainly not only resources as power. Politics is a question of power.
We understand that there is a federal system whereby power resides in the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments. Everybody quarrels that they do not have enough.
In the communities in my region there is, as the member says, less power to govern those communities than municipalities would have. For example, there is not control over their own schools. There are no native health people in the communities I am talking about.
I have to make a distinction between Inuit communities and Innu communities. The Innu, as the House knows, are Indian people and the Inuit are not. I have to make a distinction between those two types of communities.
Supply
In the Indian communities in my riding there is a clear lack of local control for the institutions and for what could be called the municipal structure. There is a long way to go in creating that but that is what we must aim toward. We must give people control over their own lives. It is not easily done, but it must be done. It is fundamental.
If any of us in this Chamber do not have control over our lives we do not have any self-respect; we do not have any direction; we do not have any identity.
The essential problem is how to give people back their identity. We should give them back control over their own lives. What that means is saying to them: "We do not tell you what to do from Ottawa or St. John's or anywhere else; you decide". As with Moosonee, Moose Factory, Winnipeg, Trois-Rivieres, or any other place in this country, they decide where they want to go as communities. Davis Inlet, Sheshatshits and those other communities have to do the same. They must have that element of self-government.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]

We have proposed this motion today to bring attention to the many unmet needs and aspirations of the aboriginal peoples in Canada.
This year, 1993, is the year the United Nations has designated as International Year of Indigenous People. It is surely appropriate for the House at this time to examine the government's performance on issues of concern to aboriginal people.
On a wide range of issues basic to aboriginal families and children from coast to coast to coast this government has failed to act. Where there has been activity it has been piecemeal, sporadic and ad hoc.
This House and Canadians have to know that behind all the big numbers and fancy rhetoric tossed out by the government, aboriginal peoples and communities throughout the country are in real distress.
Recently the tragic situation at Davis Inlet to which the hon. member who just spoke before me referred shocked Canadians and many other people throughout the world. Under the intense media scrutiny and outrage of ordinary Canadians the government was forced to

March 10, 1993
Supply
take some action. Beyond the government's initial response much more remains to be done. It is more important than ever, now that media attention has abated, for all of us to ensure the government follows through in a fair and just way.
Today I would like to draw attention to the many other aboriginal communities in Canada which are in similar despair. Many of them are remote, far from the political and media centres of Canada. From time to time a story will be written in the newspapers or graphic images will make the television news but this attention is not sustained. I am sure that the government would do much more if only Canadians knew more about the issues confronting aboriginal peoples.
What if there had been massive media attention in the 1950s when several Inuit families were relocated from communities in northern Quebec to the isolation of Resolute Bay on Grise Fiord in the Northwest Territories? What if their suffering and hardship had been chronicled daily for all Canadians to see?
Without that media attention we only have firsthand accounts of the survivors and their descendants. Their words, however, are not good enough for this government. For the past several years the High Arctic exiles, as they call themselves, have documented the circumstances and consequences of this relocation and have tried to obtain an official apology and compensation from the government for the suffering they endured. Having heard their testimony the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs has twice since 1990 asked the government to respond positively to these requests. The government has refused.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples is holding a special inquiry into this issue. Zebedee Nungak, a spokesperson for the exiles, summed up the government's attitude in this way:
They have condemned the exiles to a second exile. The first exile was the relocation itself and the second exile was the government's determined effort to ignore the claims and allegations of these people.
Relocations, loss of land base, loss of traditional economic activity, erosion of language and culture, and loss of control have created tremendous strains and pressures in aboriginal communities. In the most remote communities these pressures are more recent, but recent
or not the consequences are the same. The repeated and continuing impositions and encroachments of non-aboriginal cultures, values and governments on aboriginal peoples have had and are having devastating results. The government has failed once again to recognize these strains and its own role in contributing to them.
The activities of animal rights groups destroyed the sealing economy in the eastern Arctic. Unless the government acts quickly, Canada's European markets for wild fur will be lost and so will the livelihoods of many aboriginal trappers. The government knows that by 1995 Canada has to meet certain international humane trapping standards to keep our European markets. Yet last June the federal cabinet refused to provide any new money to continue on expanding its humane standards development program. Aboriginal trappers are already having a hard time trying to provide for their families and this government is just making it harder.
Throughout the country aboriginal unemployment rates continue to be unacceptably high. It often reaches 70 or 80 per cent or 90 per cent in very remote communities. Aboriginal per capita income levels are well below those of non-aboriginal Canadians.
Aboriginal health conditions have been described by health professionals as Third World conditions. The rates of aboriginal violent death and suicide are many times greater than the average Canadian rates. Aboriginal housing conditions are far below Canadian standards and yet progress on these and many other issues is painfully slow or non-existent.
Study after study has documented inadequate, unsuitable and overcrowded aboriginal housing conditions and a backlog of crisis proportions and yet the government has not acted. In fact it has cut housing funds. The last time any additional housing funds were provided to deal with the housing backlog was in 1983, 10 years ago, under a Liberal government.
This government's refusal to act has made aboriginal and northern housing problems worse. Despite a housing shortage of 3,600 units in the NWT, the federal government reduced its funding for cost-shared social housing. With the full knowledge that current housing construction rates are not keeping up with the expanding northern population, the government instituted cutbacks.
March 10, 1993

The crisis continues, the backlog worsens and the problems increase.
By failing to respond to the north's critical housing needs the government has failed to deal with the quality-of-life issues associated with housing. It has ignored the impact of the lack of available, suitable and affordable housing of all areas of life.
Post-secondary education plans are postponed or not pursued at all due to the lack of housing. If someone has a house they risk losing it to someone on the waiting list if they leave their community to go to college or university. The severe overcrowding creates stresses that contribute to family violence and other social problems. There are homeless people in the Arctic. There are families living in shacks on the edge of Iqaluit and Frobisher Bay and this government has turned a blind eye to their plight.
Last year the federal government turned down a request for more housing funds for the Northwest Territories. Related to family violence and housing is the north's urgent need for more shelters, facilities and services to support victims, offenders and their families. There is also a need for more child care facilities and spaces. This government promised a day care program that never materialized. As a result, northern child care needs are not being met. About 2,300 children in the NWT require child care yet there are only about 700 licensed spaces available.
Health conditions are also related to housing conditions. Tuberculosis is still a problem in the Northwest Territories. Meningitis occurs at higher rates in the Northwest Territories than in any other part of Canada. Deaths among Dene and Inuit babies in the NWT still occur at twice the Canadian rate and the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal death rates in early life is increasing.
From 1984 to 1989 in the Northwest Territories over 30 per cent of all deaths were the result of injury and violence. The NWT suicide rate is more than twice the Canadian rate. In the 15 to 24 age group the NWT rates are more than five times the Canadian rate.
Something is terribly wrong. Why are so many aboriginal young people killing themselves? They seem to have no hope and they do not see any prospects of improving their lives. They have no jobs. Aboriginal employment rates are not improving. Aboriginal unemployment is not decreasing. It is getting worse. An unemployment crisis
Supply
threatens the use of the north and yet the government has done absolutely nothing and is doing absolutely nothing.
Between 1986 and the year 2016 the population between the ages of 15 to 64 will increase by 137 per cent in the central and eastern Arctic or Nunavut. The present rate of job creation is hardly sufficient to absorb the growing population. Excluding opportunities that arise through the creation of the Nunavut government, at the current job creation rates fewer aboriginal people will be employed in the year 2016 than were employed in 1986.
Without concerted and dramatic attention to this problem and the need for much greater investment in education and training the aboriginal people of Nunavut will become increasingly unemployed.
Perhaps this government's greatest failure has been its lack of vision, its failure to see the whole and its refusal to listen to the solutions offered by the aboriginal peoples themselves.
All the issues I have touched on are interrelated and interconnected. Aboriginal peoples want these issues addressed urgently and holisticly. They want long-term preventative strategies developed which reflect their priorities and goals. All too often however, the government has provided only short-term reactions when it responds at all.
The aboriginal peoples of Canada have contributed much to the building of this nation and they have much more to offer. While several of them have managed to circumvent the obstacles placed before them, too many others are being lost. This tremendous waste of energy and talent cannot continue.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his remarks.
Of course as an aboriginal person himself he has a much larger understanding of the issue than any of us in this place. I think something we desperately need is someone who can tell us firsthand just what is happening.
One of the things that I wanted to ask my colleague relates to post-secondary enrolment. Ministers have spoken today and the minister of Indian affairs is going

March 10, 1993
Supply
to speak later this evening in this debate. He could probably help clarify this as well.
The number of aboriginal people enrolled in post-secondary institutions nearly doubled since 1985-86 to 11,170. It ended up in 1991-92 to be 21,442. It is easy to see that there has been almost a doubling of the amount of young people who are interested in and are enrolled in post-secondary education as far as aboriginal people are concerned.
I am interested in asking my colleague this. The ministers opposite continue to say that funding for post-secondary education for aboriginal young people is going up and that it is really improving.
In the capping that took place a few year ago, we found that between 1990-91 and 1991-92 only 142 students more were enrolled than in the previous year. If one looks at the numbers that I gave regarding 1985-86 to 1991-92, a rough estimate shows that there's an increase every year of almost 2,000 students per year going to post-secondary institutions.
We find in a recession that most people tend to go to school because they cannot get a job with times so tough. They go to school to upgrade their skills and training. In fact, only 142 more young people went to school than in the previous year.
That number interests me in that it suggests that the capping has had an effect on young people and their ability to go to post-secondary institutions.
I would like to know from my colleague's perspective from the north whether he is aware of young people who have not been able to go and are on some sort of waiting list because of the effect of the cuts in post-secondary education to aboriginal students.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
First of all, one must understand that young people have to want to go for post-secondary education. We should be giving them every opportunity to do that. However the incentive sometimes is not there because they have to move somewhere else where the environment that they are used to is not there.
In the area of post-secondary education in the north that we are talking about, unfortunately the enrolment
rate is not very high. It is partly because of the amount of paperwork that is required to take the step to go into post-secondary education. I have a nephew who wanted to go into post-secondary education yet decided not to at the end because he could not get through the paperwork.
However, I remember when this government wanted to cap the post-secondary education funding. The cry from the aboriginal people across the nation was heard by the Canadian people, yet it took the government so long to respond that at the end only so many took advantage of it as the hon. member just mentioned. They get to a point where they give up because they are not given the incentive. They do not have the faith in this government's ability to react to the issues that they want to get involved in. I think it is time the government realizes that it has an obligation to the aboriginal people of this country and realize that aboriginal people will take over only when they have the post-secondary education needed to take over the kind of jobs they want and the kind of government that they want.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I am pleased to participate in this debate on a motion sponsored by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq. I am glad that he is in the House to be present for my comments in this very important discussion.
First, I would like to say that I share the member's concern and that of all members, for the condition in which many aboriginal people find themselves in their communities across Canada. For anyone who watches television or reads the news it is evident that there are indeed very sad and even tragic circumstances in some of the aboriginal communities in Canada today. I think we all feel a deep sense of conscience and obligation to do everything within our power to alleviate these conditions.
At this point I depart from the language of the motion before the House where it condemns the government for abandoning aboriginal families and children. I sincerely believe that this government has done more to improve the situation of aboriginal peoples in Canada in the space of the last eight years, and certainly in the last three
March 10, 1993

Supply
years while I have been minister, than has been done since the time of Confederation.
Assume one judges improvement by the level of financial support from government that now exceeds $5 billion a year to status Indian and Inuit peoples. If one multiplied that by all the years that the government has been trying to help through subsidies and welfare in overcoming these problems, one would have to admit that the policies and programs of successive governments of the past have been an abysmal failure. If we still see these tragic scenes on our televisions of any child without a bed in which to sleep, of inadequate conditions, inadequate housing and health problems then one must admit to the failure of policies of many decades.
Therefore, I want to speak today about the successes of the last few years, many of which will not be fully understood and measured until some years into the future. I believe it is important to accept that funds alone and the recognition of rights alone will not solve these fundamental human problems.
Let us set the record straight at the outset.
Within First Nations communities in Canada today, compared to 20 years or 40 years ago, on average all of the statistical indicators show that educational levels are much higher, life expectancy is significantly improved, the level of infant mortality is far lower than it was even 20 years ago, employment levels are higher, and economic development opportunity is greater. I am told there are now 5,000 aboriginal businesses in Canada today, compared to less than 1,000 a decade ago.
Housing quality and standards are much improved. There are new schools. I have visited and opened many of them. There is cleaner water and running water, and there are improved services in most communities and much higher standards of health. I am not saying this to erase the truth about the tragic situations that still exist, but there has indeed been a significant improvement.
It is important to recognize something about the system of paternalism created by our well-meaning ancestors who thought the European ways of raising children, harvesting crops and building communities
were superior to the aboriginal ways, their languages, traditions and form of subsistence. We tried to make them be like us.
We created an Indian Act shortly after Confederation and immediately put First Nations people on to small parcels of land-some called them concentration camps without fences-and told them we would protect them and ensure that their rights and their special relationship to the Crown would always be respected.
In doing so we took away the freedom of aboriginal people to make choices for themselves and gave to a person in Ottawa-I happen to presently be that person-the power under the Indian Act to make all decisions affecting their lands, resources, education, and way of government. That person essentially exercises a veto over any choice they might wish to make about their own destiny.
In retrospect that has been a case of very bad judgment. If we are to continue to see progress in the living conditions and in meeting the needs of young aboriginal children growing up in a modem and rapidly changing world we must end the paternalism that the Indian Act, my ministry and Indian reservations represent.
There are three keys to a brighter future for aboriginal people, who one day we hope will come into a full and complete partnership with all other Canadians, into a true equality. The three keys to getting to that brighter future are education, adequate resources, including land, and self-government. Of those three the one that is of fundamental importance is education.
On coming to this portfolio I discovered that in 1960 less than 4 per cent of all young aboriginal people made it to or through high school. In 1985 that figure had risen to 40 per cent. In 1980 less than 1,500, perhaps 1,000, aboriginal students were getting into post-secondary programs. Now that number is more than 20,000. In 1984 when we formed the government there were approximately 4,000 to 5,000 students in post-secondary programs. Now that number exceeds 20,000.
Education is a fundamental tool for self-reliance and self-determination. At the same time there must be something to do with that education, and while preserv-

March 10, 1993
Supply
mg a traditional way of life it is no longer possible to live on the resources of the land in traditional ways.
The First Nations, the native communities of Canada, are surrounded by forests and have largely survived economically since the encounter with European civilization through the fur trade. It is a strange paradox that the fur-bearing animals are no longer accessible to them nor can they be sold in adequate abundance because of policies and environmental changes.
The forests which we cut down and convert to newsprint and two-by-fours from which we build our homes are largely used and enjoyed by non-aboriginal peoples, even though that is the primary resource that surrounds most First Nations communities.
We need to settle land claims and deal with the question of sharing more equitably in energy resources, mineral resources, forest resources and the power that can be generated from water.
Even if we can settle land claims, honour treaty obligations, provide enough land and resources, and the level of education is adequate we will still not see thriving, successful and self-reliant aboriginal communities without self-government.
In the years ahead that is going to be a fundamental challenge to all the members of this Parliament and those who come after us. We might achieve a recognition of the inherent right of self-government through constitutional change or accelerate progress in replacing the Indian Act with something more practical and more appropriate to the needs of aboriginal people. We might do so by eliminating the department of Indian affairs and replacing it with an Indian governments agency, an agency administered by aboriginal peoples not by government bureaucrats here in Ottawa, and one which gets its political guidance from an aboriginal assembly in which elected aboriginals can establish national policies on how funds will be distributed and how many of these problems will be addressed.
Unless we are prepared to think creatively about those kinds of changes then the mere appropriation of funds by Parliament directed through the existing kinds of programs that we can stand here and talk about will not solve the problem.
When the Prime Minister appointed me and shortly after the very challenging and significant summer of 1990 which we all experienced, when that was past the Prime Minister made a speech on October 24, 1990 to set out a new course of action. We called it the native agenda. Its purpose was to really create a new kind of relationship that would hopefully lead to a full partnership between First Nations people and all other Canadians.
One of the important aspects of that native agenda was that we would try to deal with some immediate problems. So the Prime Minister spoke of accelerating the settlement of land claims and unfulfilled treaty obligations. He spoke of introducing programs to improve conditions on reserve. He spoke of initiatives to develop a new relationship between the Government of Canada and First Nations, a relationship built on trust and respect. He spoke of trying to improve the role of aboriginal people in mainstream or contemporary Canadian society.
There were many initiatives that we took following those four themes: accelerating settlement of land claims, improving conditions on reserves, and developing a new relationship government to government. There was the constitutional process and the Charlottetown accord proposals. But we did not come with all the answers.
In fact, if self-government means anything to aboriginal people it means they cannot look to us and to this Parliament for all the answers, so we should not stand up here and give speeches pretending we know what all the solutions are. I will come back to that in a moment.
Where we did not have short-term answers, for the first time in the history of this country we set in place a process of seeking answers from experts to some of these most profound questions. The Prime Minister in May 1991 announced that we would strike a royal commission on the aboriginal question.
Rather than just striking a royal commission in the usual way and announcing who would be on it he said: "We will consult with First Nations leadership as to who should be on the royal commission and what questions it should address". He asked the former Chief Justice Brian Dickson to give some thought as to how to create this royal commission. That was the first time that the
March 10, 1993

Supply
federal cabinet and the Prime Minister turned the assignment of striking a royal commission over to an outside group. We will see in a few months time what kinds of positive suggestions will come from the royal commission to deal with the long-term question.
Let me mention what I told the Chief Justice when I met him before he submitted his report to government. I said that the fundamental question we must wrestle with is the question of the destiny of young aboriginal children growing up in Canada today: What will be their future? What can governments and their own people, their own leaders, do to help ensure a future of equal opportunity, equal quality of life and the right to have the same freedoms of choice in society as all other Canadians while preserving the aboriginal languages and cultures and traditions, which are so precious and important to First Nations people? How can we construct a better destiny for the children of the aboriginal peoples.
The first answer is that it is not up to us. We have something we can give and we must continue to give in material ways. However, if we lived in a remote northern community whose population was doubling every 10 years, surrounded by trees and with or without a road, and we were in a modem high school with computers and watching rock videos on television, what would we struggle with inside if we were a teenager thinking about our future? Would we want to get out? Could we afford to stay? If we stayed in that community without work, what would be our destiny? Would it be alcohol, other substance abuse or some of the other social tragedies we hear about?
The fundamental question is: What will be their destiny? I think we all have a responsibility.
I came prepared to talk about our progress on land claims and treaty issues. There is also the hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funds we have committed to increasing the budget for post-secondary education and to improving the sewers and water within Indian communities. There is the package before cabinet now dealing with an enhanced housing program for aboriginal communities and dealing with tragedies like Davis Inlet, Big Cove, and Fox Lake which is in northern Alberta.
I could talk about all the statistics and all the funds. The budget of my department is now more than twice as large as it was in 1985 and it is not nearly adequate. Each year we have had significant increases in our budget at a
time when all other government budgets have been frozen or near to that.
Assuming we can find the financial resources, the real question is the destiny question. It is important that we create a legal framework that is acceptable to First Nations, to native people where they no longer have to live in a sense feeling like subjugated people, subjugated to our Crown, to our laws, to our way of life, to our values and to our system which revolves around the dollar.
I hope the royal commission will give us some more profound wisdom. However, between now and whenever we find the magic formula we must continue to encourage increased levels of education. We must take away the shackles of the Indian Act and paternalism and create a climate where native people are free to risk, to succeed and yes, to fail in their own endeavours. And for their part, when they fail they should not come back to government expecting a solution.
I know we must be a caring society and a caring Parliament but we have to create a climate where social welfare is replaced with the freedom to choose, to succeed and to risk. We should help by providing education and by settling land and treaty issues and then by reaching out the hand of friendship. That is because I sense the one thing that has been lacking and which I find astounding is that in a country with 28 million people there has not been enough person-to-person bonding, where a First Nations person can say: "I really have a friend who is not of my own", and some of us can say the same. I will say that to the hon. member for Western Arctic whom I have come to know, respect, admire and feel great affection for.
When I travel across the country and in and out of aboriginal communities, I think it is such a tragedy that we really live in two worlds. Those of us who have so much to give expect government to do it and we are not prepared to reach out our own hand and offer help as we should.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his kind comments.
We all have our parties to which we belong and our partisanships sometimes. However, I think we all recognize the common struggle and we do our best to try to achieve our goals. Sometimes things are a little difficult and a little tense but I think we manage to work

March 10, 1993
Supply
together. I just wanted to say that I appreciate his comments.
Back to the matter of business. I have a couple of very specific concerns. One has to do with the Metis agenda. Following the 1985 First Ministers' Conference on Aboriginal Constitutional Matters, the federal government developed a policy to enter into tripartite self-government negotiations with provincial governments and the Metis.
To date, there have been no self-government agreements concluded. No agreements in principle have been reached. No major policy changes affecting Metis people have been adopted. Currently there are six sets of negotiations being conducted. These are in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
While little is known about the federal policy framework, we do know that federal officials refuse to deal squarely with Metis land claims. They have indicated that land can be considered under economic development. What this means in practice is a mystery to the Metis.
I would like an update on what has been happening with the Metis interlocutor and the Federal-Provincial Relations Office. What is the current state of affairs with regard to any kind of constitutional recognition for the Metis people?
Having said that I know I will not get a chance for another question, but I have another one which deals with the Inuvialuit.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has an agreement with the Inuvialuit that it would clean up the Horton River site which is a DEW Line site. There are approximately 5,000 to 10,000 abandoned fuel drums scattered along the beach. In the vicinity of the site, on-site buildings, pipelines, fuel tanks and a large conveyer must be demolished and disposed of off site. As well, landfills used by the DEW Line must be cleaned and capped with gravel. Since the site is very difficult to access and since the terrain around it is very rugged the clean-up will be very difficult and costly.
I have spoken with the officials of the Inuvialuit. Mr. Gruben has provided me with a briefing done by his staff. I am veiy thankful for that because we would like to know what exactly the government is going to do with respect to the time line of the clean-up. It has agreed that this would provide employment as well as business and training opportunities in a very depressed economy. It has agreed that the Horton River clean-up will be done. However, the disagreement is on-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order please. That might be a pretty good question to put on the Order Paper. The minister would have a better opportunity to answer. I will allow him to answer at least part of it.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Western Arctic will understand if I do not give detailed answers.
On the first question about Metis and the recognition of Metis rights and claims, I think she knows that the minister for intergovernmental affairs has been given that responsibility as interlocutor for the Metis people.
The federal government has always wished to provide a proper recognition of the Metis people. They are in a category different from those of other than North American aboriginal descent and those who are full aboriginal. They are unique.
In the constitutional discussions, it was recognized that that uniqueness of the Metis people should be recognized and reflected in our Constitution. The recognition under section 91(24) should be accorded. With the failure of the Charlottetown accord or at least that stage of the process, that question remains to be resolved.
Meanwhile it is our view that where federal government dollars are transferred to provinces for health and welfare and educational purposes off reserves, provinces then have a responsibility to provide adequate programs for the benefit of Metis people.
Some provinces, for example the province of Alberta, have been quite generous in setting land aside and creating new communities for Metis people. I would not want to call them reserves because as I was saying in my remarks, a veiy unfortunate stigma goes with that.
March 10, 1993

In the case of the western Arctic, the hon. member knows that in the land claims process Metis people are being regarded as having equivalency to status Indian people. I think that is a step in the right direction.
I could not really speculate. I suppose it will take until after a federal election to come to terms with constitutional questions again. I could not speculate on how quickly that aspect of the Metis agenda might be advanced.
I just want to say in conclusion that we are all delighted to see Mr. Yvon Dumont named as Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba. That is another measure of recognition of the important and rich contribution the Metis have given to Canada.
In regard to the Horton River DEW Line site, our government announced the $100 million Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. I had the pleasure of making that announcement two years ago. One important aspect of that project is the clean-up of Arctic DEW Line sites and other unsightly dump sites across the Arctic. We are trying to facilitate these projects where local aboriginal people will do the work under supervision and at the same time get the best value for money so there is a competitive process of receiving proposals.
I cannot tell the hon. member for sure where the proposal she spoke of from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation is, but I can certainly get her that material by way of a letter or report tomorrow.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the minister. I noted the minister went on at some length on the anticipated changes in his department.
The minister stated the recognition of the inherent right to self-government. Logically, from that flows that his Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development becomes much more responsive to the needs of the aboriginal people, that the department will start listening to the advice and the direction of the aboriginal people. I commend the minister if that indeed is the direction.
What puzzles me is that about three weeks ago a delegation from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations pointed out there was going to be a 31 per cent
Supply
decrease in the economic development funds available in the province of Saskatchewan for economic development on and off the reserves.
What struck me besides the fact that there was a 10 per cent cut in the department, of course there was no consultation. One can make an argument, given the dire economic conditions. What struck me the most was that the people of the FSIN heard about it through the back door. There was a leak in the department. It was a decision that had already been made. The FSIN was never consulted. Nobody from the department went to the FSIN and told it of the situation, that there would be a reduction in the budget, and that it should indicate where the reduction should be. The bureaucrats made that decision.
When is the minister's policy of having the department more sensitive to the aboriginal people and consulting with them going to come into effect? Why was this decision to reduce the economic development taken unilaterally and not after consultation?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. The fact of the matter is that as with all governments these days, this government has a limited budget. The budget of my department has grown by $285 million this year. That is almost a 7 per cent increase. The budget of government programs for aboriginal peoples has grown $350 million, a 7 per cent increase on an over-all projected spending of over $5 billion.
Most government departments have their spending frozen. In the case of certain projects there are cuts of 10 per cent in grants and contributions for example.
It is necessary to decide how to preserve the important programs such as housing, where the funds were not diminished, such as education, where the funds were increased, such as welfare, social support, and child and family counselling. A decision had to be made about how we could fit within the budget.
In the final analysis the access to the treasury can only be had by the government on behalf of Parliament. Therefore it is not possible to have budgetary or over-all spending decisions the subject of consultation in advance. Funding for economic development this year will be $347 million, plus the funding of some $200 million in Pathways to Success.

March 10, 1993
Supply
The funding is not the problem, it is the management of the funding. We have created through alternative funding arrangements the flexibility for First Nations and tribal councils to adjust their priorities within budgets. If we reach the day where we see a transfer of global funding to an Indian government agency, then aboriginal leadership will have the delightful challenge of making decisions that would include cuts or rearranging priorities, which is the way it should be with self-government.
We want aboriginal people to control their own funding. That is why over 75 per cent of my department's budget is presently administered by First Nations people.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, when the minister spoke it was interesting to note that he made it sound as if whatever problems prevail today is the fault of the previous Liberal governments.
We have to understand that this government has been the Government of Canada for the last nine years. Its members keep blaming the previous Liberal governments for everything that goes wrong. They talk about how well they have treated the aboriginal people. They are now proposing, under the Department of National Revenue, to tax status Indians off reserve, which they previously never did. I do not call that treating the aboriginal people in the best of ways, when they are proposing to tax them when they had not previously taxed them. They are proposing to cut the economic development programs of the aboriginal people by 28 per cent. They have done an across the board 10 per cent cut to aboriginal organizations funded by the Secretary of State.
All these things have been cut. They cut the housing funds, even though there is a severe housing shortage in the Northwest Territories. If the government does not reverse the decisions it has made on these issues, as far as we are concerned all this will be likened to a full-grown male caribou's droppings.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member thought I was accusing previous Liberal governments. I do not think I even used the term.
I was saying that a system of many decades duration which is based on the Parliament and the Indian affairs minister deciding what is best for aboriginal people, where we spend money to solve every problem, that that
system has failed. I said we are trying to turn in a new direction and establish a new relationship where we can make adequate funds available within the usual budgetary limits, but the difficult decisions and choices in future will increasingly be made by First Nations leadership. That is what I was saying.
I want to make it quite clear that the government has over $350 million available for economic development under the Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy, and there is no 28 per cent cut in that amount. In fact, the government has increased significantly the funding for economic development. The results show that since 1984 we have seen the creation of several thousand new aboriginal businesses.
I should also point out that this year the funding for aboriginal education at all levels will be almost $1 billion. There are significant increases under this government which never occurred under previous governments in all of the history of Canada.
What I am trying to say to the House today is that all the money in the world will not solve these problems if the system is wrong. It is the system that this Parliament has to change.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very delighted that the minister is here today to participate in this debate, given the serious nature of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the hon. member like to ask the minister a question?


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your flexibility and leeway in this regard.
The minister is defending the position of the government on economic development but there is no doubt when one reads the estimates that the economic development funds have been reduced by 31 per cent.
The aboriginal people in Saskatchewan, in particular, and across Canada say that the funds that are available for economic development are reduced from what they were expecting this year. They are suggesting there are unhonoured commitments that have been made which will go unfulfilled.
My question to the minister is-and I thank you for the opportunity to ask it, Mr. Speaker-are we not sending a poor message when the estimates show an
March 10, 1993

increase in funding for welfare but a decrease in funding for development?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I have been approached by many native leaders who would like us to convert welfare dollars into economic development dollars.
In the spirit of self-government I think there is now an opportunity if this Parliament is prepared to encourage these changes to allow chiefs, councils and tribal councils to have more control over the global funding, which is what we are already doing under alternative funding arrangements, and convert welfare dollars into economic development dollars.
What we are doing with the aboriginal economic development strategy is funding major kinds of programs and entrepreneurial initiatives with great success, but at the band level we cannot put money into having economic development officers to the same degree we could before if we have to keep the welfare payments up.
If the hon. member for the NDP says we should cut the welfare payments in order to encourage more economic development I am all for it.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to be able to participate in this debate both because of the substance of the motion before us and the very timely nature of its presentation.
I would like to compliment the member for Nunatsiaq for having the foresight to bring this motion before us. From what I have heard so far, I think the hon. members are certainly making use of this opportunity to put some very important points on the record.
I also appreciate being here to listen to the speech of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in this debate because after all he is the individual who most bears the responsibility for giving reality to the goals and aspirations of this House and indeed the Canadian people with respect to the aboriginal people.
The debate which has just preceded this, the discussion between the minister and hon. members with respect to what has happened with economic development cuts, indicates that in fact there is a problem, not only with the minister but with many participants in these kinds of debates at squaring the rhetoric that goes
Supply
with these kinds of issues with the realities which often accompany them. I would like to deal specifically with some of those aspects later on.
I agree with the minister that a new vision is needed in this country. Also I agree with the minister that the system as we have known it since the time of contact has led us down a blind alley. The system we know has led us to a situation where we have to deal with questions such as the epidemic of suicides in many Indian communities and certainly that is a trend we have to reverse.
At the outset of my remarks I want to pay tribute to the aboriginal families in this country. The motion before us says that this House condemns the government for abandonment of aboriginal families and children so this debate is really about aboriginal families and children.
In that context I would like to give credit and pay tribute to the aboriginal families that have touched my own life. I had the experience at the age of eight of coming into contact with people on the Beardy's Indian reserve, to get to know those families long before I knew anything about politics or issues or differences between people or the many kinds of dimensions to the whole question that one comes to later in life.
I very much value that childhood experience, the experience of Indian family life at its best.
In representing the constituency of Prince Albert- Churchill River, I come into contact with any number of Indian families in the course of my duties. There are 46 aboriginal communities in my constituency, including Metis communities, Dene communities, Cree communities and Dakota communities. I have had the experience of listening to the concerns of those families and of being able to experience their family life in a small way. To be able to have the opportunity of presenting the issues that arise from those contacts in this forum is certainly a rare privilege for any individual Canadian to have. Therefore I am grateful for that experience.
However when we are talking about what is happening to aboriginal families, it goes beyond simple issues of control, of funding, of parliamentary legislation and so on. It goes to questions of what is really happening to real families. Historically the record of what has hap-

March 10, 1993
Supply
pened to aboriginal families is extremely bleak. It is probably the darkest blot on the Canadian record.
We pride ourselves on being a peaceful, compassionate and sharing kind of nation, that we play that kind of role in the international arena. Certainly many people have developed the critique that before we get on a high horse and take too much pride in who we are as a people, we need to look inward at the historical record of the interaction between the majority of society and the aboriginal people.
Certainly it is not a bright record, not if you look at the whole situation of residential schools. There was a concerted effort, a comprehensive policy of alienating Indian, Metis and Inuit children from their own family heritage, from their own culture. It was a deliberate policy to assimilate the aboriginal people into the mainstream of society, no matter what the cost or what the consequences. We see those consequences on a daily basis today.
How could it be otherwise? We had two generations of aboriginal people who were tom from their family life, away from their communities, placed in an alien setting and punished if they in any way exercised their traditional ways, their cultures. After a situation like that, should we wonder why today we have problems of family breakdown, of alcohol abuse and of child suicide in our aboriginal communities. There is very little that is left to the imagination when you look at the historical record.
This was expanded by many of the social programs, the social policies that governments, both provincial and federal, exercised toward aboriginal people. One need only look at adoption policies, where it was considered a hallmark of progress to remove aboriginal children from their families and communities and to place them in white families far from their people, far from their culture and sometimes even far from their country.
What kind of a message did that send to the aboriginal communities? What kind of message did that send to aboriginal families, when federal and provincial governments had, as a matter of policy, the notion that it was best on a blanket basis for aboriginal children to be removed from their families and from their culture? That is part of the Canadian legacy that we need to examine. Certainly there has been a growing recognition of the abomination which this whole line of policy
development represents in our history. We talk a good line about coming to terms with these problems. We talk a good line about providing new resources and coming to these problems with new insights. But what is really happening?
Let me run through a very few specific examples. One is the Brighter Futures Program which the government has proclaimed with a great deal of fanfare. However that is all it is, a great deal of fanfare. Certainly we have all seen the press releases. The aboriginal communities have seen the press releases. As a result of that, the aboriginal communities developed proposals, very good ideas, on how to come to terms with the family violence issues, with suicide issues and with the abuse issues in their communities.
They develop proposals, think these things through, and set in motion a healing process in their own communities expecting that the government is going to make good on its word. Where is the Brighter Futures funding?
There is no such thing. There is no process by which people can access this money. There are no guidelines by which this money is distributed. This is a situation in which there seems to be a recognition of what the problem is but no way to access the resources.
In my own province of Saskatchewan in this very year, and in fact in the weeks leading up to the end of the year, $8.2 million will revert to the Crown, to the Treasury. This is money that was earmarked for family and social services for Indian people in that province. Those funds will be going unspent.
On the one hand, we have a situation in which there is a desperate need. It is a situation in which we have all kinds of ideas and proposals to perpetuate the healing process and to get it under way. On the other hand, because of jurisdictional arguments and the government having to prove a point, we have a case where if aboriginal people do not knuckle under to provincial jurisdiction they are not going to get access to the $8.2 million which they need.
The government is going to withdraw it at the same time as its members speak in the House to outline its commitment to dealing with these problems.
March 10, 1993

I just had the opportunity of participating in the discussion in the aboriginal affairs committee. The minister of Indian affairs appeared before the committee to outline his role in the settlement of land issues.
In talking about aboriginal families and communities one cannot separate those issues from land issues because that culture is fundamentally rooted in its attachment to the land. Its whole way of life and of viewing the world is attached to the land. We cannot separate these issues.
This is a situation in which the minister of Indian affairs is on the verge of introducing legislation in this House to create the Nunavut territory and settle the outstanding Inuit claims. All of us welcome the fact that those rights will finally be recognized and that a resolution of those issues is coming.
At the same time, the minister today took the position that the Dene people of northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba will be shut out of this process. These are families that from time immemorial to this very day have spent a good part of their time and made a good part of their livelihood from lands that are included in that settlement area.
This has been documented all the way back to Samuel Heame. At his first point of contact he found Dene people in those areas. There has been continuous use and occupancy. It was only after the policy began of moving Indian families to where schools and missions were that people did not continuously live in those territories.
Now the minister of Indian affairs says that if those families want to continue to exercise their treaty rights in that area he as the trustee is not going to do anything to help them. Instead, he is saying that these communities are going to have to go to the Supreme Court to exercise the rights that he is supposed to be protecting.
The minister is saying that families in those communities who are suffering from tuberculosis, malnourish-ment, alcohol abuse and a hopeless economic situation are going to have to take funds they should be using to meet their basic human needs in order to fight the minister in the courts. It is very hard to reconcile the minister's words with his actions when one sees cases like that.
Supply
As well, we have recently become very conscious of the whole question of suicide among aboriginal youth. It is very ironic in the international year of indigenous people that Canada's contribution to this whole discussion on the role of aboriginal people should lead off with the tragedy of Davis Inlet and the tragic situation of the young people there.
That is no different than what is happening in Big Cove or in the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation in northwestern Ontario. It is no different than what is happening in Fox Lake in Alberta or in Stanley Mission in Saskatchewan.
There is an epidemic of suicide in this country among aboriginal youth. But at the same time this is going on we are on the international stage saying that Canada is playing an exemplary role in the way it is treating aboriginal families.
It is quite ironic that in the very year we are doing that, on virtually a daily basis, we are being confronted with the fact that this is not the truth at all.
Another issue that I would like to raise is the situation of the Metis people in this country. In many ways the Metis people are the forgotten people of this land. They are the product of the interaction that happened between the European and aboriginal peoples at their first point of contact, which was the fur trade.
They evolved a way of life, a distinct culture and a unique language, which resulted in the Metis people being very central to the formation of the province of Manitoba in 1870. Indeed it was just one year ago today that this House very belatedly passed a resolution recognizing the role of Louis Riel in creating the province of Manitoba and thus contributing to the fundamental development of Canada.
It is timely that we again examine the role of the Metis people because when we look historically at what happened at the point of contact and what evolved out of it, the Metis nation, an argument can be made that in fact the Metis nation is central to the Canadian identity. The Metis have been the agents of change. They are the ones who best exemplify the issues that are involved in the contact between European and other cultures and the aboriginal people of this country.

March 10, 1993
Supply
Rather than having that role recognized, apart from a belated recognition of Louis Riel, the Metis people continue to struggle with the fact that they experience all the disadvantages of aboriginal life-the racism, the economic deprivation and the lack of access to their historical resources-while at the same time they enjoy very few of the benefits that accrue to people under treaty.
I recognize that there are tripartite agreements under way. Nevertheless the situation in Metis communities is extremely acute because for 100 years there have existed no mechanisms by which those people, who have been the harbingers of change in this country, can even meet their basic needs.
I would also like to turn to the issue of what happened in the recent estimates that the government placed before the House and in the economic statement that the Minister of Finance presented to this House in December.
As previous speakers have pointed out, there were some very startling numbers in those estimates that were presented to us. On the one hand, there was a 31 per cent cut in the Indian affairs budget for economic development. It was a cut of approximately $21 million. There was also a cut in the aboriginal economic program, CAEDS, which amounted to approximately another $6 million. So $27 million to $28 million was cut in economic development.
What does economic development mean? It means that people will be able to take control of their own lives. It means that the bread-winners in these families can provide for their own families. It means that there is hope for the future. It means that the aboriginal young people of today can envision a future in which they are contributing members of society and play a proper role in society. That is what economic development means. It means self-respect. It means self-reliance. It means pride and all those things.
What does this government do? It cuts those budgets, which would help lead to that kind of an outcome, by 31 per cent.
At the same time the government saw fit, and probably saw it was necessary, to increase the welfare budget by 12 per cent, by $52 million. The government says that it has
$52 million for welfare but in order to pay that it must cut $28 million in economic development.
I see that very phenomena in my own riding. I am not surprised. This year the government is spending $170 million in one riding, most of it on aboriginal people, for welfare costs and income maintenance. The elders and these families will universally say that welfare has been the ruin of the aboriginal nation. The welfare system as we have developed it has helped to ruin family life and has helped to ruin self-sufficiency. It has taken away meaning in life. The elders are unanimous in their condemnation of the welfare system as we know it.
Yet, what does the minister do? The minister perpetuates the welfare system while at the same time cutting drastically, by 31 per cent, the mechanisms that could lead away from that welfare state.
When questioned about this earlier he said: Yes, it would be an ideal state of affairs if the aboriginal communities were in the position so that they could reallocate this money from spending on welfare to spending on meaningful work and meaningful economic activity which would build up the communities. He said it would be a wonderful thing if that were to happen.
I would like to remind the minister that he has it in his power to make that happen. Rather than creating a situation in which that is going to happen the minister has gone the other way and without consultation perpetuated the welfare system for aboriginal families and drastically cut back their ability to do anything about it.
It is indeed true that not only this government but past governments and we as a Canadian people have in many cases and in far too great a way abandoned aboriginal families-Indian, Metis and Inuit families.
I would like to conclude with the point that not only do those aboriginal families need the support, partnership and assistance of all of Canada, but we as Canadians need the contributions of those families.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have found this debate today to be particularly interesting as it focuses on an issue that, through very sad events in the last number of weeks I have been forced, like all other Canadians, to come to grips with in real terms.
March 10, 1993

The situation at Davis Inlet that my friend from Labrador referred to earlier is a situation that has saddened Canadians and people around the world. It has brought many of us to the realization that these conditions exist in our country. They are conditions that many of us would not accept as being prevalent in 1993. For those of us who live in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and for people who live across the north generally, this situation is one we are reminded of often, and tragically perhaps not often enough.
At the end of January we saw some pictures that reminded us that children and families were suffering. They made us see a community that was having a great deal of difficulty in coming to grips with itself and with some of the problems before it. What is clear though is that this community, with the help of the Innu Nation, with the help of aboriginal people across Canada and with the help and encouragement of non-aboriginal people across Canada, is coming together to face the reality of the question.
Last summer, after a tragic fire in February 1992, the people of Davis Inlet decided in a report called Gathering Voices to look at the community of Davis Inlet, to look at the people, and to look at the families. They would try to judge for themselves what it was that was having an impact on their community, what the current conditions were that were having an impact on their children, what some of the historical realities were that led them to this position and this condition, and what some of the future opportunities might be. All of us, from time to time, are forced to look at ourselves and accept some hard realities. All of us from time to time should be prepared to suggest to ourselves that things need to change. The people of Davis Inlet went through quite a process. The reports that they have written, the comments that they have made and the talk about alcohol abuse, substance abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, child abuse and spouse abuse could not have been easy for the more than 460 people of Davis Inlet to talk about and to come to terms with. It could not have been easy to talk about it to the outside world and to write it down and publish it in a document that goes from testimony to commentary with photographs and poems and writings of young people and old people from today and from the past.
Supply
I hope I am not being presumptuous, but I think the report said that the healing must come from within. The report also said that the people felt that they could and must take that step and that the hope was there.
What also rings through, tragically enough, from the young people and from the children is that what drives them to the abuse and what has some impact on suicide is the lack of hope. None of us individually or collectively can live in this world without hope. They talk about nothing to do. They talk about an inability to see the future. They talk about the lack of hope.
Where do we go from here? Where does the community of Davis Inlet go from here? I think many in the country are aware that the Innu people of Davis Inlet were moved on to the island that they occupy today in the mid-1960s. I think many are aware that in the late 1940s the commission of the government tried to relocate about 75 people to the north. Two years later they were back in old Davis Inlet. During the first war when the caribou stopped moving through Labrador for a period of time, the people of Davis moved to where the trappers were and where the merchants were.
Today they live on an island in just under 100 houses that lack water and sewers. Many of the homes are in terrible repair and have insufficient insulation, roofs and foundations. Water is available from a central spout. It is not so much the physical condition of the community that I read about and the people of Davis that I talk to speak of. It is the culture, social relations, emotions and gut of the community that they are most concerned about because those are the future.
As we talk about relocating the community and the future of that community it is not again the physical movement of the community and what it will look like in terms of cluster houses or spokes. It is what that community will be.
The most important thing of the process that we are going through is to ensure the vision that the people of Davis Inlet have for their community. This will lead them to decide on how that community will work, to deal with the questions of how the education system will function and to see how health care will meet broad

March 10, 1993
Supply
family needs that deal not only with the substance abuse question but wellness and all that that means.
This is the vision that will incorporate the social fabric of the community where extended families have always been so important. It will take into account the cultural realities of the Innu, the Naskapi, the people of Davis Inlet and will address what the economic opportunities are for those people.
What are the things that in the future the children of Davis Inlet will do? It is that vision that must guide what this new community will be, how it will function and how the people of the community will relate to each other, to the community and to the people around them.
It is no good for the Government of Canada or the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to go in and say, "We will move the community and this is what it will look like". It will not work. It is inappropriate and it will be ineffective.
We all want to ensure that we do not simply transfer the problems of Davis Inlet to a new community. No one feels that stronger about that than Chief Katie Rich and her councillors, the people of Davis Inlet, the Innu nation as a whole and certainly the governments.
What do we do? How do we avoid that?
First, we have agreed to tiy to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding. That will lay out an agreement on what it is we want to accomplish here.
Second, there is the process by which we will get there. Obviously there is community consultation and planning such as what went on last year around the report entitled Gathering Voices. That has to be an important part of that as does the funding.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I think I can say without fear of contradiction, recognizes that it too has a role in this process and has a role financially.
The Government of Canada has made it very clear that it will support the process that will ensure the participation of the people of Davis Inlet and the Innu nation. More than the participation, it will ensure that the vision that I spoke of a few moments ago will be incorporated in every aspect of that community: education, culture, social relations, economics. That essence of
the community will be evident as they deal with the conditions that have led to the abuse and the tragedy we have seen around the children today.
There is more than that in the short term. We certainly have some situations that must be addressed immediately if those people are to live with minimal comfort over the next two or three years in the community that they presently occupy.
I have written to the chief and I have committed to her that we will provide the funding necessary to catalogue those needs and to look at some early solutions perhaps to some housing problems and perhaps to the provision of water. This is not to make big expenditures that will not be of any value to us after two years, but to ensure that the quality of life for the people that remain in Davis Inlet over the next little while is made a little bit better.
The question of health is particularly important to the community and for all of us that share the concern. There has been a suggestion that a wellness centre or a family well-being centre could be constructed. I think this is a good idea and I have given them the commitment of the government that we will with them do an assessment of what the health needs are in the community.
The nurses are in place now, the doctor that moves from place to place, the role of the social workers and the employees of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador all have to be incorporated into providing the type of health care that ensures healthy babies, safe pregnancies and that the sick get the help they need and the aged get the comfort they need.
Help that focuses on preventive medicine and traditional medicine and medicine that reflects the needs of those people who have lived so long on the land in Labrador should be taken into account.
We are dealing together with the tragedy of the young children who are chronic abusers. They are now spending time in Alberta in an attempt to give them the support that is so essential and what they need.
The minister of Indian affairs and others have talked about ultimately changing governance in a fundamental way and the way aboriginal communities control themselves and have the decision-making power that they need so much. Self-government is a concept that has
March 10, 1993

been in this country for a long period of time. Some worry that it has no definition. Some worry that they cannot lay it down on a sheet of paper and follow it through. I understand that concern but it is not one that I particularly share myself.
To me self-government meets the concept of self-determination: responsibility for oneself and one's people. Self-government means that you have, as one of my colleagues today referred to, the ability to manage oneself and take the risks that are involved in that. It is to be able to ensure that the community says what happens to the community. The community makes the decisions not only in what it does but in the values that are the guideposts to those decisions. They are not values that are set or perceived in Ottawa or Vancouver or Halifax or, for that matter, perhaps Yellowknife or Whitehorse, but values that are of that community.
Because the history, the culture, the social conditions, the economic opportunities and the value systems change from community to community, the actual definition of self-government will change. Self-government for the Innu people and ultimately the people of Davis Inlet, or whatever term one wants to use, is the ultimate goal. The achievement by those people to be able to manage their present and therefore their future without the encumbrance of government but with the responsibility for themselves and their children and the responsibility over the resources that they will manage is something they want to attain. It is something to which I, this government and the members opposite are fundamentally committed.
The attainment of that is essential. It is an expressed wish of the people of Davis Inlet and the Innu nation that we reach conclusions on land claims in this area. I have given them my commitment. The minister has written that it is very much our interest to continue to pursue that.
We all recognize however, including the people in Labrador, that this will take some time. It is essential to me and to all the people I talked to that we not lose focus in dealing with Davis Inlet. We must recognize that the people of that community are our number one concern. The families, men, women and children of Davis Inlet can never leave our minds in light of land claims, the concepts of self-government and major and substantial policy issues that are on a national stage that
Supply
involve all aboriginal people and that must be solved and that do impact on the people of Davis Inlet.
However, if we are going to tie the success of the transfer of the community to the resolution in absolute terms of those issues, then we will never get to the problem of the people of Davis Inlet. This is a problem that they want to resolve and we have the obligation to work with them to resolve it. It does not mean that we turn our back on land claims, absolutely not. It does not mean we abandon self-government. Quite the contrary. It means that we look at things in context. We look at what is important, the people of the community.
In response to some very serious needs in the community we were able to provide some emergency short-term funding, quite substantial funding I might add.
We recognize the process that must be used by the community and the Innu people to reach agreement on the wording of the memorandum of understanding. It will lead us to the process of defining the new community based on the vision of the people of that community and is one that will primarily involve extensive consultation.
Yes, it will involve engineers, planners, economic experts and health experts. Even they ultimately must be prepared to respond to what it is the people of Davis Inlet feel will make their community work for them.
I believe absolutely that when the Davis Inlets of this country work for the people in those communities, they will work for every one of us in this country. They will work for all Canadians. As every Davis Inlet in this country becomes a better place in which to live, this country becomes a better place in which to live.
I believe absolutely that we together, led by the people of those Davis Inlets will find the solution so that the next generation does not go through this, so that we avoid that. We must be there with them to find those solutions.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to listen to the speech by the hon. member. He has spent a lot of time on aboriginal issues in our committee as well as with the

March 10, 1993
Supply
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his department.
It cannot be easy because the Davis Inlets of Canada are many and the problems have accumulated over the years. Having said that I would like to look at a more futuristic agenda that will deal with the lives of children and families ultimately if people are empowered to do so.
I think in particular of two groups that are well on their way to working out land claims packages. One is the Inuvialuit who would like very much to be resourced to work on a self-government regime for their people on a regional self-government basis. That is much warranted and is to be supported. The other specifically is the Council of Yukon Indians which is working on an agreement and is under a veiy tight deadline. It has to have the agreement of four First Nations in order to complete the arrangements. It is under-resourced. It would like $1.2 million worth of bridge funding for those four First Nations as well as $500,000 to cover some debts it has in working very hard to achieve this claim.
I am wondering if the hon. member has any good news for us on this front.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had but that does not mean I will not.
I think my friend knows that we all have to be prepared to commit to the processes that the Inuvialuit and other communities go through. The bridge funding issue for the four different groups is one I know the department will deal with and is one I will raise with the minister.
We get into this political world and we get constantly fixated and tied up with money. We all get into it. As I said earlier to my friend from St. Boniface, the question of available resources is one where there is never enough money. There is never enough money.
I look at the situation in Davis Inlet and realize that we could spend huge amounts of money. I will be frank and say that the amount of money we have spent in the short term and will spend in the long term in Davis Inlet will be very substantial.
Frankly, some people in other communities wonder why we would spend that amount of money, particularly in the short term. My answer is that we spend it now in
perhaps large amounts or we spend it in the future in huge amounts. That is applicable across the country.
However, it has to be said that it is not a bottomless pit, that resources have to be spent wisely. I have to say that my experience with aboriginal communities in the west, in the north and in Ontario, is that they understand very well how to get best value from the resources, be they money or natural resources or others. It is something a lot of us could learn from and about. I hope that we would and benefit from it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 7.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply under the provisions of Standing Order 81(14).
Accordingly, the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
++NAYS



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
Members
Andre
Attewell
Belsher
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blenkam
Boyer
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cooper
Corbett
Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling de Cotret Do mm Edwards Fee
Fontaine
Friesen
Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Homing
Hughes
Joncas
Landry
Larrivee
Loiselle
MacDougall (Timiskaming-French River)
Marin
Masse
Mazankowski
McDermid
McLean
Monteith
Oberle
Plourde
Redway
Ricard
Roy-Arcelin
Shields
Sobeski
Sparrow
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vien
White
Assiniboia)
Worthy-110

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 10, 1992 consideration of the motion of Mr. Ferguson that Bill C-226, an act to reduce automotive pollution, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on debate to support Bill C-226, an act to reduce automative pollution and to applaud the initiative of my colleague, the Liberal member for Lamb ton-Middlesex who introduced this private member's bill.
The federal government has a duty to protect Canadians from harm, to shelter them from danger. This bill presents the government with a timely challenge, namely to ban the use of methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl, for short MMT, from our gasoline and require all gasoline in Canada to have a minimum oxygen content of 3.2 per cent.
As the critic for the Department of National Health and Welfare for my caucus, I shall focus my debate on health issues. Suffice it to say that the bill will also be an advance in so far as the change would be environmentally friendly for our users of automobiles.
MMT has crossed the American-Canadian border to the Canadian automobile gas tanks. MMT also is known to cross through the placental barrier of a pregnant woman to affect the unborn child. Foetuses have been found to have almost 10 per cent more manganese in their bodies than their mothers. This is frightening, considering the fact that the substance, the key additive

March 10, 1993
Private Members' Business
in MMT, can damage brain cells and is linked to many diseases such as Eluntington's chorea, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and others. It also can cause displays of symptoms of Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease in patients, as well as influence violent behaviour, hallucinations and loss of libido.
This metal can adversely affect many vital systems in the human body, such as the central nervous system and the reproductive system. It can damage not only the physical human body, but as well the human mind.
I understand that in the United States, where MMT is currently disallowed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the argument rages over whether MMT contributes to efficiency of automobiles. In Canada, I submit we should rise beyond that debate, saying we care far more for the health of our people than we do for the health of our automobiles.
I ask the industry to give us gasoline that does not interfere with hormones of reproduction, make people violent or cause paralysis and tremors in its victims.
I know representatives of Health and Welfare Canada have said MMT should hold no fear for Canadians. I also know, however, that recent studies at the Albany Medical College in New York have shown that iron deficiencies can lead to a magnetic-like attraction to manganese.
In my work as a physician and as Liberal critic for health and welfare, I have become aware of the profile of iron deficient people. Usually they are those who have poor diets. Those people with a poor diet are usually the same people who live in poverty. Coming from the urban area of Winnipeg, I have seen the inner city poverty that would help pinpoint those most susceptible to manganese poisoning.
These people have already been dealt enough hard knocks in life. Why add to their burden? Why when we have seen the work of Dr. John Donaldson, whose paper for the National Research Council showed that a manganese "hit" in the womb can trigger an acceleration of the brain's aging process?
Where are the defenders of MMT? One of those defenders would be Ethyl Corporation of the United States, which currently produces 60 million pounds of
tetraethyl lead for gas in Canada, shipping it to the Third World countries and other less industrialized nations. So Canada has quietly aided and abetted the poisoning of fathers, mothers and children from South America to Asia.
Now this same company is preparing to bring MMT into the United States if it can get past the EPA, which has denied the application three times. The company had argued that Canadian data supports its position. I submit that we have an obligation to set an example for the international community and thereby not be seen supporting the use of this metal.
I ask again: Why is this additive allowed in Canada? Dr. Donaldson, who began his work on brain cells-and I am proud to say at my own former university, the University of Manitoba-has found that manganese, although found naturally in many foods, is toxic when inhaled into the lungs or absorbed through the skin. It causes brain cells to die, according to Donaldson's research.
Let me quote from an article by Nicolas Regush, a Montreal Gazette reporter who has also chronicled the medical devices catastrophes at the Health Protection Branch. I have chosen to quote from him because he is able to narrate to us in the language of many his observations on this issue. He states:
Biochemical analysis of the central-nervous-system tissue in humans and monkeys poisoned by manganese showed that the metal reduced the levels of dopamine-a brain chemical which seems to prevent nervous system disorders-causing brain cells to die. The data suggested that manganese could target the region of the brain known as substantia nigra, where dopamine-containing cells originate and then project into the basal ganglia region. Brain-chemistry disruptions and cell death in these regions appear crucial to the development of other progressive neurological disorders. Probably most vulnerable to the metal's toxic "hit" are infants, young children, and women, whose defense systems against the retention of excess manganese-the blood-brain barrier and the excretory system-have been shown to be less efficient.
I have read the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and find her arguments ignore any of these studies. Interestingly, she supported her resistance to this bill by saying the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States had found no health risks in MMT. The EPA hearing documents reveal findings were inconclusive and that the studies did not show that MMT did not harm humans.
March 10, 1993

Could this government not fall on the side of safety for once and believe our own scientists at home who testified that manganese intoxication mimics Parkinson's disease?
Let me conclude by saying that this is a bill that has been introduced by my colleague from Lambton- Middlesex and we should all salute him. It seeks to protect the health of Canadians in addition to the cleanliness of our air and helping the farming economy. Yet for reasons I cannot comprehend, the government remains adverse to this bill. I hope one day soon the government will change its mind and its heart for the future health of all Canadians.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-226, a private member's bill, which is entitled an act to reduce automotive pollution. With that in mind, it also states "the purpose of the bill is to reduce automotive pollution".
Who can argue with that kind of a purpose in legislation? I think all of us are environmentally conscious enough to realize there is a real need to do this.
I remember when we moved to the Fraser Valley back in 1938. On any given day you would wake up in the morning and get a pristine view of the north shore mountains. They were never shrouded in pollution or smoke, even though there were numerous sawmills around. There was always a clear view.
Now in Vancouver on any day when there is an inversion there is a yellowish-purple cloud hanging over the city and shrouding the mountains. As the wind blows up the Fraser Valley it acts somewhat like a chimney. It funnels that pollution up the valley and cities like Abbotsford and Chilliwack and Hope which do not have an industrial base are now getting the so-called benefit of the automotive pollution from the Vancouver area. The air is more polluted up the valley than it is in the lower valley.
We recognize there is a need to reduce automotive pollution. There is an urgency to that need so we cannot argue with the purpose, nor can we argue with the goal. The goal is stated in clause 3 first of all to eliminate MMT. We cannot argue with that. It is a long chemical
Private Members' Business
term that I cannot even sneeze out. I will not even try. My scientist friend, a former university professor who will follow me on this side, can deal with the scientific side of it.
The purpose is to eliminate MMT. Regardless of whether the Royal Society of Canada's commission on lead says it is not a serious pollutant, it is a pollutant. Therefore the day should come when we get rid of it. We cannot argue with that goal, nor can we argue with the ultimate goal of 3.2 per cent oxygen in the gas.
We already have the 10 per cent ethanol in gasoline. In fact this government is participating in a program with Mohawk Oil Company in British Columbia to have ethanol gasoline distributed all through the Fraser Valley. I use that gasoline whenever I can because I know it will help reduce the amount of destructive emissions in the air. That is a laudable goal.
There is a problem with the bill. That is the guillotine. It says in clause 10 that with the passage of this bill the act shall come into force six months after it is assented to. The bill actually ignores what is going on in the entire scientific and government communities.
The fact is that a tremendous amount of research is being done in the industrial community, in the research community outside the industrial components, by the provincial governments, by the federal government. This is research that is in train to arrive at some of these goals to reduce the pollution.
The six-month guillotine that this imposes on all that research says in effect that while the research is going on it may not come to its conclusion of the 3.2 per cent oxygen or the elimination of MMT. Regardless of what the stage of research is at that moment, forget it all.
An illegal product is now being produced. You can neither produce whatever you were working on nor can you sell it. The sale of a product that contains MMT or has an oxygen level below 3.2 per cent is in contravention of the act and is liable for a fine up to $100,000. That is where I have a problem with the bill, not even with a fine, or even the sale of it if the technology has arrived at that level.
The problem is if it could be done then it would be great. But this bill introduces the notion that you have to be able to accomplish this and if you do not you will be fined. If the scientific community does not achieve what

March 10, 1993
Private Members' Business
this bill says, folks, you are out of business and everybody is violating the law whether the marketplace has any in place at all. So the scientific community better produce the research and produce the product. If there is no product, there will be a shortage.
I have a problem with that. What happens to the entire Canadian scene if the product line has not yet been developed but you are supposed to use it? How do you go about maintaining an economy if you do not have the resources to do it and you are going to be fined if you do not obey the law? There is a slight problem here.
I say to the member I would vote for this if it could be done. He can say that this is an opposition bill and that we are are voting against it because it is an opposition bill. Well I want to say to my friend, the member who introduced the bill, those of us who have been here since a few years before the last election-I know he had a bit of a hiatus there, a little vacation-some of us have voted for opposition bills.
I voted for Bill C-204 which was an opposition bill put forward by a member of the New Democratic Party who is now on vacation from this place. She brought forward that bill. I voted for it as did a lot of government members. It passed and it is the law today. Sometimes it is honoured in the breach, but it is the law. So I say to him that I would vote for it if it would do the trick.
I know there is another bill coming forward to protect firemen sponsored by a New Democratic member. I want to tell the hon. member that I intend to vote for that bill if it comes forward to a vote. I think that is a good piece of legislation. If he smiles and laughs that I am going to vote for it because it is an opposition bill, forget it. It is not right. It is not true.
I will not vote for this because the goal is not an attainable goal. Also the technology, as sincerely as the provincial governments and the federal government and the industries have tried to achieve this goal they have not done it yet. Surely we cannot impose a fine of $100,000 on people for using the product that is now illegal but there is nothing on the market that is legal to replace it.
I say to him if he would do it, if he would draft a bill like this that would be consonant with the findings of science up to this point, the calendar, the progression, the time line that research can do, that technology can produce I would vote for it, because who can argue with the purpose of it. All of us here look forward to the day when our atmosphere will return to the kind of purity that we at one time enjoyed.
We want to see the emissions reduced. I want the hon. member to know that if we can find the technology and the legislation to back it up, we will do it. I will support it and both of our purposes will be met and all of us will be happier for it.


Steven W. Langdon: I think this is one of those rare occasions on which we have a bill before us which actually can succeed in dealing with a potentially serious health question.
At the same time it can assist part of our economy that needs assistance, the farm sector. Frankly, it does not have serious problematic consequences for our existing automotive industry in this country nor indeed even in the end for our present petrochemical and petroleum refining industries. I think that what we have here is in fact a piece of legislation which, if we look at it in completely literal form and we say well, yes, this would require us to replace our present system of gasoline in sue month's time, might appear to be too extreme. But that is not what we are being asked to do at this point. What we are being asked to do is, frankly, to look at this and ask ourselves do we in principle agree with the direction in which this piece of legislation is going; does it make sense to send it to committee; and, can we in committee bring before us some of the experts who might improve some of the technical elements of the bill?
For myself, there are two major reasons why I think this bill makes sense. The first is that environmentally this would create for us a situation significantly better than the situation which we presently have in which MMT is used in gasoline and the connection between MMT and various neurological disorders certainly is suggested by much of the work which has been done scientifically.
If we were to move in the direction this bill suggests we would see ourselves replacing MMT with ethanol. If we were to bring forward a regular unleaded but MMT-free gasoline with a 10 per cent ethanol blending, that would
March 10, 1993

reduce automotive emissions in this country, studies have suggested, by the following amounts: In the case of carbon dioxide by 5.9 per cent; in the case of carbon monoxide by 25 per cent; in the case of volatile organic compounds by 8.5 per cent; in the case of nitrous oxide by
5.7	per cent; and in the case of urban ozone, so serious to our ozone layer, by 5.3 per cent.
I think that is something which is an important accomplishment to aim to achieve.
Second, and I say this as someone who represents a constituency with a significant number of farmers producing both corn and wheat, we would produce for people in my constituency and for people in many agricultural producing constituencies across the country an important new market for the output from com and wheat which is grown in this country. It is even conceivable that we could see 20 per cent of the grains produced in this country going into ethanol production to be used to produce these 10 per cent blended ethanol gasolines, which would be so much better for the environment.
We have something here which would be better for the environment, something which would be better for farmers, and something I am convinced, as a representative of a constituency that produces automotive vehicles, which our automotive companies would be able to adjust to very, very easily.
These kinds of requirements have been in place in California for a significant period of time. The car manufacturing companies have found it possible to adjust. There would not be a problem in this country for our automotive producers to make a similar adjustment.
I suggest strongly that this House look positively at this piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation for which the member from Lambton deserves considerable credit for bringing before this House. He has worked very hard to bring before all of us in the House a great deal of information with respect to the health benefits and the economic benefits associated with this legislation.
I think all of us should accept this piece of legislation as something which takes us in the right direction, something which therefore gives us a positive movement
Private Members' Business
forward which we can analyse in committee, perfect in committee, and deal with any problems that might exist in terms of timing in committee. I think therefore that it is a good piece of legislation.
I would hope for instance that the previous speaker would look at this piece of legislation as he looked at the legislation from my former colleague in this House, the former member for Broadview-Greenwood, Lynn McDonald, and see that in fact it makes sense for him too to support this piece of legislation because it has the same kinds of positive benefits that the piece of legislation from Lynn McDonald had in the previous Parliament.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Guelph-Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the previous speaker that indeed we should look positively at the concepts involved in this bill. There is no question that it would certainly help my agricultural community if we could promote the use of more and more ethanol in gasoline mixtures.
I am certainly quite prepared to look at banning MMT, methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl, which as we know may indeed have some health effects although the Royal Society's commission did not determine that that was so.
I would like to see, as I said earlier, the use of more ethanol in gasoline mixtures. My concern about the bill is that it assumes a simple, quick change that I do not believe is easy to bring about. It is not I believe in the best interest of Canadians in the short run to move very quickly to what the hon. member wants.
Is my time up?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes.


William C. Winegard: That is the longest speech I have been able to make in this House for quite a while.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.
It being 8.42 o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 93, the time provided for debate has expired.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


An hon. member:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.

March 10, 1993
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Following the adoption of the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Elouse Management on Wednesday, April 29, 1992, the division will be taken row by row, starting with the mover and then proceed with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover.
Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the House will be called. Those opposed to the motion will be called in the same order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
It being 9.07 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.07 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 11, 1993