April 11, 1973

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD

LIB

John (Jack) Davis (Minister of the Environment)

Liberal

Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in both official languages the annual report of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada for the calendar year 1972.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   TABLING OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1972
Permalink

INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

PC

Flora Isabel MacDonald

Progressive Conservative

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) moved

that the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on April 4, 1973, be concurred in.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

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

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

John Mercer Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. Reid:

Mr. Speaker, I believe a point of order could legitimately be raised as to the appropriateness of putting this motion at the present time. Yesterday when we were discussing the motion to concur in the report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices the point was made that some of the recommendations exceeded the powers of the committee in that they involved the expenditure of money. If Your Honour were to examine closely the second report and the document contained in issue No. 8 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development at page 42- this is the document on aboriginal title which the motion proposes we concur in-and the legal consequences of Indian or aboriginal title and what this document considers to be those legal rights, I think Your Honour would find that the same point arises as was raised yesterday as to the appropriateness of a committee of the House of Commons making a recommendation to the House that would involve the expenditure of money. I would refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, citation 260(1), which reads as follows:

The tendency has been in the Canadian House of Commons, for the past 25 years, to rule out all motions purporting to give the government a direct order to do a thing which cannot be done without the expenditure of money. Our Journals are full of precedents to this effect.

Numerous other precedents and citations from Beauchesne and May might be quoted, but I think the general principle is quite clear. I would make the argument that this motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development does involve a commitment for the government to expend money not only to enter into negotiations but to right alleged wrongs by the expenditure of money. I suggest that this would not only be against the Standing Orders of the House but also any authorities on the subject that Your Honour might care to consult. On that basis I think Your Honour might be asked to give a ruling on the appropriateness of this motion and on the appropriateness of a standing committee of the House of Commons making such recommendation to the House itself.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Gerald William Baldwin (Official Opposition House Leader; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Baldwin:

Mr. Speaker, we pursued this point yesterday. I made my comments then and will not repeat them. I understand that the parliamentary secretary in effect is repeating the caveat that the government House leader entered yesterday in reserving the right not to have this matter taken as a precedent if Your Honour should decide that the debate should continue. I will not repeat the argument. I simply say that the fact that Your Honour, after having been elected Speaker, goes to the other place to claim on behalf of this House the right of free speech, makes it incumbent upon Your Honour, in any case where there is a reasonable doubt and there is no inconsistency with specific rules, to resolve that doubt in favour of the opportunity for debate in the House, and any further attempt by the government to restrict the freest possible debate should not be countenanced.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
NDP

Frank Howard

New Democratic Party

Mr. Howard:

Mr. Speaker, may I put to you, in addition to the remarks made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), that there should be no doubt whatever on the motion before us whether an expenditure is involved, and so I think there is no necessity to rule on the side of parliament as distinct from ruling on the claimed right of government with respect to expenditures. I say there is no doubt because of the very wording of the report that is before the House. Let me read the pertinent words to you, as found at page 241 of Votes and Proceedings for April 4, 1973:

Your Committee accepts and endorses the concept of aboriginal title as set out in the paper entitled "Aboriginal Title" presented to the committee by Mr. George Manuel, President of the National Indian Brotherhood, on Thursday, March 29, 1973, and urges the Prime Minister, on behalf of the government of Canada, to publicly accept and endorse the said concept of aboriginal title-

There is no question of expenditure there. It is simply a declaration of recognition that is asked for. The report continues:

-and to take steps immediately to enter into negotiations with the Indian people with respect to the said title.

April 11, 1973

Indian Affairs

That contemplates no expenditure whatever. It may well be that as a result of those negotiations expenditures will be forthcoming, but that will be as a result of the negotiations, not as a result of the motion and report now before the House. I think Your Honour has no choice.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

I thank hon. members again for the advice they have given to the Chair. This point has been raised twice within the last few days. In the course of giving my views about the motions that are before the House I had expressed the thought that my reservation dealt more precisely with the third report of the committee rather than with the second report. My understanding of the second report was, as the hon. member for Skeena has said, that the first part deals with principles, and if there were fault to be found with the wording of the report it would be found in the last part which reads as follows:

-and to take steps immediately to enter into negotiations with the Indian people with respect to the said title.

My hope would have been, and it is still my hope, that this could have been altered and perhaps have achieved the same result by substituting the following words; "and consider the advisability of entering into negotiations with the Indian people with respect to the said title."

There is not, perhaps, a substantial change there, but at least if those words were included in the report before the House we would have respected a longstanding practice of the House and I think would have saved ourselves a great deal of trouble. I wonder whether the House, by unanimous consent, would not be prepared to make this change now. If it did, there would be no difficulty in proceeding. Is there unanimous consent?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

By unanimous consent, therefore, the report will be changed in that way. This having been done, there is no difficulty at all from a procedural standpoint with the motion and it will be put to the House.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Gerald William Baldwin (Official Opposition House Leader; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Baldwin:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if we could adopt the same practice as was followed yesterday and suspend the discussion on this motion until after routine proceedings and oral questions have been completed. In addition, in view of the very great interest that has been shown by many people in this subject and as we have to convenience the government in trying to expedite passage of the tax bill and have agreed to take today, a short day, for this debate, possibly there might be agreement to limit speeches to 20 minutes for the first speaker from each party and 15 minutes for each following speaker. It has been shown by experience that speeches are very much better if they are shorter.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MacEachen:

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the desirability of suspending the debate until we have concluded routine proceedings and the oral question period. However, I would very much prefer to have the regime that was followed yesterday, namely, that the chief speakers from each group have 30 minutes rather than 20. With respect to subsequent speeches, I am quite prepared to agree to any reasonable arrangement.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Gerald William Baldwin (Official Opposition House Leader; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Baldwin:

Mr. Speaker, possibly we could have the usual interesting meetings through the usual channels to see if we can work something out before the debate begins. Otherwise, we might have to agree to something we do not want.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
NDP

William Arnold Peters

New Democratic Party

Mr. Peters:

Mr. Speaker, I consider this to be a very important motion, and because today is a short day I suggest we deal with it in its proper order.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

I gather we have agreed not to agree and there will be discussions through the usual channels. Is it the wish of the House that the motion be put at this time?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

My understanding is that this debate will be postponed until after the question period.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink

GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION

April 11, 1973