36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 22
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 28, 1997
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA HEALTH ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-267. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Family Law
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Indian Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1010
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA-YUKON OIL AND GAS ACCORD IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-8. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1015
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1020
1025
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
1040
1045
1050
1055
1100
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1105
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1120
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1125
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MACKENZIE VALLEY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-6. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1130
1135
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
1200
1205
1210
1215
1220
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
1235
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1240
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1255
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1300
1305
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1320
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1325
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1340
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
1345
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WILBER SUTHERLAND
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAST CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1400
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HILLOWE'EN
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MISSISSAUGA FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CAVALIER TEXTILES
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1405
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CAMETOID ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARTHUR LEE
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1410
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAURENT BEAUDOIN
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIREFIGHTING
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFRASTRUCTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1415
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRISON SYSTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1425
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1430
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRISON SYSTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FINANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1435
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRISON SYSTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1440
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPERATION RESPOND
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1445
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1450
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SHIPBUILDING
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WAR MUSEUM
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
1455
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PIPELINES
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1500
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MACKENZIE VALLEY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-6. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1505
1510
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1515
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tabling of document
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault) |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MACKENZIE VALLEY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-6. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1530
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1535
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1540
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1555
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
1600
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1605
1610
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1625
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1630
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1635
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1650
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
1655
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1700
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
1715
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1720
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1725
1730
1750
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Canadian Fishing Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1805
(Division 17)
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion, as amended, agreed to
|
1810
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS TARIFF
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-11. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
(Division 18)
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEWFOUNDLAND SCHOOL SYSTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 5
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker: Mr. Manning, seconded by Miss Grey |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker: Mr. Manning, seconded by Miss Grey |
1815
(Division 19)
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
1820
(Division 20)
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FAIR WAGES AND HOURS OF LABOUR ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 9
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1825
1830
1835
1840
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1845
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1850
1855
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1900
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1905
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Crime Prevention
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1910
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1915
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1920
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 22
![](/web/20061116182428im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 28, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
CANADA HEALTH ACT
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-267, an act to amend the Canada Health
Act (conditions for contributions).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my bill is actually a notification
protocol for emergency response workers who come in contact with
infectious diseases. These people put their lives on the line
for us when attending accidents. If they come into contact with
an infectious disease, no protocol allows them to be notified
because of a concern for the patient's confidentiality.
My bill is designed to provide that protocol while still
providing the confidentiality necessary. It uses the vehicle of
the Canada Health Act to initiate the program. Once initiated it
would not require further pressure, as it were, from the Canada
Health Act.
This bill was previously introduced by the NDP in a previous
Parliament as well as by myself in the last Parliament. It was
supported obviously by us and by them, and by the Liberal
government when it sat as the official opposition prior to 1993.
I hope all members will co-operate in the swift passage of this
bill as it is critical for those who are defending our needs.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. The bill just introduced by the
member for West Kootenay—Okanagan is critically urgent for
emergency response workers. They put their lives on the line to
protect Canadian citizens. They happen to be meeting in Ottawa
this week.
As the member mentioned, his bill was previously introduced by
the NDP. It was supported by the Liberals when they were in
opposition. Therefore I request that you seek the unanimous
consent of the House that his bill be adopted at second reading
and sent to the Standing Committee on Health.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
proposal of the hon. member?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
* * *
PETITIONS
FAMILY LAW
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me pleasure to introduce to the House a petition presented by
some 500 petitioners that request Parliament to amend the law to
require courts not to be biased against fathers when granting
custody, to give equal access to both parents and to give access
to grandparents.
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present. These petitions call for a public
inquiry of Ipperwash.
The petitioners request of the House of Commons of Canada that a
full public inquiry be held into the events surrounding the fatal
shooting of Dudley George on September 6, 1995 to eliminate all
misconceptions held by and about governments, the OPP and the
Stony Point people.
* * *
1010
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA-YUKON OIL AND GAS ACCORD IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Hon. David Kilgour (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development) moved that Bill C-8, an act respecting
an accord between the Governments of Canada and the Yukon
Territory relating to the administration and control of and
legislative jurisdiction in respect of oil and gas, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to address the House on Bill C-8, the Canada-Yukon oil and
gas accord implementation act.
I am extremely pleased to be introducing to the House yet
another bill which reflects the changing political circumstances
in Yukon. I know that my hon. colleagues will want to join me in
supporting and applauding the territorial government's ambition
to take a new provincial-type responsibility at this time.
These are exciting times in Yukon, which is in the midst of a
number of historic developments. The 35th Parliament dealt with
land claims and self-government legislation for Yukon's First
Nations. We also addressed the establishment, through separate
legislation, of the Yukon Surface Rights Board.
Today I am asking hon. members to support the transfer to the
Yukon government of the administration and controls of onshore
oil and gas resources. I am also proposing through Bill C-8 that
the territorial government be granted the authority to legislate
in regard to these resources. In other words, I am seeking the
support of the House to move the devolution process forward
another step in Yukon.
[Translation]
The first steps of this transfer to the Yukon Territory were
taken in the 1980s. The present government made a commitment to
continue implementation in a planned and orderly manner and without
delay.
Prime Minister Chrétien confirmed this course of action and
the government's desire to promote political development in the
North in his speech to the Northwest Territories legislative
assembly in November 1993.
The people of the Yukon including the Yukon's First Nations
fully support the transfer of responsibilities and the passing of
the bill.
The transfer process does not mean that the federal government
is trying to abdicate its responsibilities. Instead it is the
expression of the real and justified desire of the northern people
to take greater control of their lives.
It is a matter therefore of transferring responsibilities to the
appropriate authorities and of ensuring that decisions are made
locally in the best interest of those concerned.
For the people of the Yukon, the transfer of responsibility
for natural resources is vital to their political development.
They are convinced that resource development will provide the basis
for a strong and healthy economy in the territories through to the
21st century.
The Yukon's gas and oil resources are for the most part as yet
undeveloped, although not for lack of interest. Uncertainty as to
land and resource ownership has slowed the development of the Yukon
for over 20 years.
With the passing of the Yukon land claims legislation in 1994,
negotiations currently under way with the Yukon First Nations and
the settlement of pending territorial claims in the near future
will get oil and gas exploration activities going once again.
[English]
Bill C-8 is being brought forward under the terms of the
Canada-Yukon oil and gas accord which was signed in May 1993.
Under this accord the federal government agreed to introduce
legislation to give the territorial government the additional
legislative powers necessary to manage and administer onshore oil
and gas resources. This will be accomplished through amendments
to the Yukon Act as set out in Bill C-8.
On the date of transfer the federal government will also pay to
Yukon the moneys it collected in petroleum revenues from onshore
sources in Yukon.
Once the transfer is completed Yukon will receive an annual
revenue of approximately $1.5 million from the Kotaneelee
project.
1015
I assure hon. members that no new federal money will be required
to support this transfer process. Once the transfer of
responsibilities and funding is completed, the federal government
will no longer be directly involved in managing onshore oil and
gas resources in Yukon. It will be done at the territorial
level.
However, the offshore areas will continue to be under the
jurisdiction of the federal government and the federal regime
will continue to apply.
Territorial legislation will be passed which will establish a
new regime for managing and regulating oil and gas activities.
The legislation will address exploration, development,
conservation, environmental and safety issues, as well as the
collection of resource revenues. The replacement of federal
legislation by territorial legislation will take place
simultaneously with the transfer of administration of oil and
gas.
I also assure hon. members that the transfer of these
legislative powers to Yukon will not affect the ability of the
Government of Canada to fulfil its mandate in any area of federal
responsibility. It will not diminish our authority with respect
to international affairs, national security, the environment, the
resolution and implementation of land claims, or the creation of
national parks.
[Translation]
It is also important to keep in mind that the Government of
Canada will also have the power to resume responsibility for the
administration and monitoring of gas and oil operations on all of
the lands, with a view to settling aboriginal land claims. This
clause will therefore guarantee Yukon First Nations the possibility
of selecting underground lands.
In addition, the supplementary rights assigned to the
territories will not in any way reduce the authority of the
National Energy Board over pipelines.
Subsequent to the transfer of legislative powers to the Yukon,
Yukon First Nations subject to settlements already in effect will
receive a portion of the royalties collected by the Government of
the Yukon Territory, as set out in the land claims agreements.
Bill C-8 will allow the Government of the Yukon Territory to
exercise its jurisdiction over onshore gas and oil. The
territorial government will not obtain greater powers than are
given to the provinces under section 92(a) of the British North
America Act of 1867.
In addition, no party to this agreement or this legislation
shall modify aboriginal rights or rights arising out of existing
treaties protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
This is of major importance to the Yukon First Nations.
These provisions ensure that Bill C-8 cannot and will not undermine
the advantages the Yukon First Nations have obtained through
agreements on land claims and self-government.
In fact, since the bill was presented during the 35th
Parliament, further consultations have been held with the First
Nations concerned. The Yukon Council of First Nations has
indicated its support of the bill.
[English]
The Yukon government will be expected to manage oil and gas in a
manner that serves the interests of all Yukoners including
aboriginal people. I note that the Yukon government is also
working closely with the first nations on the matter.
Hon. members should also be aware that Bill C-8 has strong
support from the oil and gas industry.
This transfer is clearly in the best interests of the
governments of Canada and Yukon as well as individual Yukoners.
It is fully consistent with the devolution initiatives taken by
previous governments.
With that in mind I urge my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-8
so that the devolution process can move forward and Yukon can
continue to evolve politically and administratively.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is kind of a rush, catch-up type of day. I am sure
the Speaker knows all about that.
1020
It is a pleasure to be here this morning to speak to Bill C-8.
Bill C-8 has been kicking around basically off and on for quite a
while. It is an act respecting the Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas
Accord Implementation Act. The bill reflects the government's
recognition of the important role of oil and gas exploration in
the northern territories.
The territories are the site of approximately a quarter of
Canada's remaining discovered petroleum and approximately a half
of Canada's estimated potential.
Oil and gas exploration and development is an important key to
the future economic well-being of the territories. We are
already seeing a wide range of possible benefits from such
mineral discoveries as the BHP Diamond Mines. I have no doubt
that as settlement in the north increases and infrastructure
expands we will see an ever increasing benefit to the north from
natural resource developments of all sorts.
While the legislation before us today is important to the
economic future of Yukon, it is also in accordance with the
Reform Party position on two very important issues. First, the
Reform Party of Canada strongly supports transferring control of
natural resources to the provinces. The legislation calls for
the devolution of provincial-like powers to the Yukon territory
by transferring the administrative and legislative control over
oil and gas to the Yukon government.
The federal government is demonstrating its commitment to
political devolution to the Yukon territory. Reform supports
increased provincial or territorial control of natural resources
and decreased federal control over natural resources including
control over the oil and gas industry.
Second, the bill concurs with Reform's belief in the equality of
all provinces. While Reform supports decreased powers on the
federal level it also supports increased powers for the Yukon
government. The powers held by the territory should not exceed
those held by any of the provinces. The bill does not transfer
greater powers than those held by the provinces under section 92,
92(a) and 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867. As was stated in the
unity debate, equality between provinces is absolutely essential
to the equal treatment of all Canadians.
While Reformers support the legislation we also have some
concerns. In recognition of the unique situation in the north
the legislation respects aboriginal land claims and settlement
rights. The legislation does not diminish aboriginal treaty
rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It is
consistent with the legislation concerning wildlife, the
environment and land management regimes under this section.
The legislation also states that any inconsistencies will be
resolved in favour of legislation implementing the treaties. All
these provisions are important to the acceptability of the
legislation to aboriginals in the Yukon territory.
The concerns I speak of are with regard to the federal
government's retention of the right to reclaim control of land to
settle aboriginal land claims. This provision is intended to
protect the rights of first nations still in negotiations with
the government. However investors may be slow to undertake
exploration development projects until land claims are resolved.
This is not to suggest that the provision should be removed, but
the government must develop and adhere to a time line for
negotiations so that exploration and development are not
continually delayed.
1025
It was previously anticipated that negotiations with all Yukon
first nations would have concluded by February 1997. The
anticipated date was then extended to July 1997. However, as of
September 19, 1997 only half of the Yukon first nations had
reached agreements while the remaining seven were still in
negotiations.
Therefore I urge the government to resolve land claims as
quickly as possible so that potential investors can confidently
proceed with oil and gas development in the Yukon territory with
all the benefits for those who live nearby.
There are also concerns regarding the government's retention of
the right to reclaim lands and to take certain actions in the
event of a sudden oil supply shortfall. This provision complies
with Canada's international obligations as outlined in the
International Energy Agency oil sharing agreement. The same
international obligations were responsible for the introduction
and implementation of the national energy program.
Westerners need not be reminded of the disastrous impact the
national energy program had on Alberta's economy during the
so-called energy crisis. Because of the very nature of the north
with its relatively limited opportunities to obtain income from
manufacturing, for example, especially due to difficulties in
transportation and lack of infrastructure to support the kinds of
development taken for granted in the southern part of Canada,
Yukon is extremely dependent on natural resource jobs and
revenues. It will therefore suffer even greater hardship than
Alberta did should the federal government deem it necessary to
implement controls like those used during the last energy crisis.
There must be some commitment by the government to give much
more serious consideration to the impact of its actions on the
Yukon territory, on the Yukon economy and on the social and
economic well-being of the Yukon people should there be an oil
supply shortfall or energy crisis.
In short, Ottawa must learn by its errors with Alberta and not
treat any part of Canada ever again with such cruel indifference.
The legislation affecting Yukon in this respect should set the
precedent for other provinces resulting in amendments to existing
legislation that will protect all provinces from economic
disasters like that brought upon Alberta under the national
energy program.
The power gained by Yukon through the legislation is economic.
Not only will the Yukon government have jurisdiction over
exploration, development, conservation and management of oil and
gas but also over resource revenues. The legislation allows the
territory to raise revenues by any mode or system of taxation in
respect of oil and gas in the territory. It also gives the
territorial government control over the export of gas and oil
from the territory.
The bill will reduce the economic dependence of the Yukon
territory on the federal government and allow it to develop its
own economy as the more successful provinces have already done.
Others such as Newfoundland and Labrador are still struggling to
get out from under Ottawa's thumb and profit from their own
natural resources.
However the legislation keeps the federal government too
involved. The federal government will continue to collect
resource royalties on annual resource revenues exceeding the
first $3 million.
Reform opposes federal collection of resource royalties from
resource industries in any province but especially those in the
provinces and territories where resource revenues are the
foundation of the economy.
Despite those concerns, however, all interested parties have
expressed support for the legislation. During the summer of 1996
I had the great opportunity to travel extensively in Yukon with
my wife. While I was there I spoke with a broad section of Yukon
residents. There were some real concerns over the legislation
basically based on being underneath the federal wing for so long
and on what would happen when some of the powers were transferred
to the people of the Yukon territory.
1030
While these concerns were there and expressed in great detail,
there was also great anticipation by people looking for the new
opportunities that were to be gained from this piece of
legislation, basically for their freedom from the red tape from
Ottawa which they have been wrapped up in for so long. I
appreciated that and I know where they are coming from. I can
see where the opportunity now arises for these people to go
further with their endeavours on their own.
The Canadian and Yukon governments have committed also to
consult with aboriginal peoples on significant oil and gas
decisions affecting traditional lands prior to the completion of
land claims negotiations. Otherwise we might have in the Yukon a
repeat of the situation at Voisey's Bay in the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
There a mining company invested billions of dollars to acquire a
site but every imaginable hurdle has been thrown in the path of
that development. Hurdles are being thrown by the federal
government, especially agreeing to delay development at Voisey's
Bay while the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development spends a few more years, nobody knows how many more
years, supposedly working to settle land claims which have been
under negotiation for a generation.
I have to wonder when I see how the federal government gets
itself involved in something like the Voisey's Bay situation. We
have the potential of between 3,000 and 5,000 jobs in a section
of Canada that desperately needs those jobs. We all know that the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador desperately want to go to
work, yet the federal government is basically stopping them from
doing so. I have to wonder at the power we allow our governments
to hold in certain areas such as this one.
We know that Newfoundland and Labrador is supposedly one of the
poorer provinces in Canada. Yet it has the chance right now of
probably becoming the Alberta of the east with the Voisey's Bay
project. And here we sit holding up maybe one of the greatest
developments in the world at this point in time. I have to
question the wisdom of this government on that issue.
Sometimes it seems there are departments opposing northern
development rather than working to assist northern development.
In that case I am particularly pleased to see the federal
government stepping back and turning oil and gas exploration and
development over to the local level of government closest to the
situation and best able to deal with it, namely the territorial
government.
We all know beyond a shadow of a doubt when we give people
sitting 1,600 or 2,000 miles away from any given situation the
power to make decisions on things that should be left to the
provinces, the territories or the local governments, we seriously
jeopardize Canadians' ability to further their lifestyles in this
country.
This legislation respects the unique situation north of 60
without compromising the principle of equality. Most important,
this act incorporates grassroots concerns and amendments. This
legislation is part of a greater process that involves the
devolution of control not only over oil and gas but over
education, health care and economic development in general.
This transfer of power will give the Yukon people their proper
voice in the way their lives are to be governed and greater power
over the quality of their lives. Therefore Reform generally
supports this legislation and recognizes it for what it is, a
most important step in the political evolution of the Yukon
territory.
I would like this House to study the concerns that we have in
regard to this piece of legislation and to fully understand maybe
finally that more power is not necessarily more beneficial when
it is controlled in Ottawa as we are doing today in this House.
1035
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this being my
maiden speech and in keeping with the practices of this House, I do not
think it will come as a surprise to anybody if I start by thanking the
constituents of my riding of Saint-Jean for putting their confidence in
me once again. Although this was not an easy election for the Bloc
Quebecois, I am buoyed by the fact I was elected with a 9,000-vote
majority in Saint-Jean. So I want to take the opportunity, at the
beginning of my first speech in this new Parliament, to thank the
voters.
I now move on to the other end of the continent, more precisely the
Yukon.
We have before us today a bill respecting an accord between the
governments of Canada and the Yukon Territory relating to the
administration and control of and legislative jurisdiction in respect of
oil and gas. This is indeed a bill to amend certain acts, including the
Yukon Act, and conferring new legislative powers to the Yukon.
Speaking of “conferring”, let us look at all the powers that will
be devolved to the Yukon. Jurisdiction over all oil and gas operations
will be transferred to the Government of the Yukon Territory, which
will, among other things, administer and control the development of oil
and gas resources. We realize that this region presumably has enormous
potential. Some fields are already producing, but there are probably
many more.
In keeping with the agreement signed with the Yukon Territory, the
federal government is now transferring this jurisdiction.
Regarding exploration, as I just said, this region of Canada is
very likely to be immensely rich in oil and gas. So all responsibilities
with respect to exploration will also be transferred to the Government
of the Yukon Territory.
As far as resource development, production and conservation are
concerned, problems relating to economic development and the
environment often crop up. I will come back to this later,
because I had an opportunity to witness such problems during one
of my trips to the Yukon in 1994. The Yukon government cannot
take over the responsibility of managing and controlling oil and
gas without also having power over the environmental preservation
issue.
The responsibilities relating to management, exports, safety,
revenue collection and the environment are all being transferred to the
Yukon government which, in turn, will have to table legislation
patterned on the laws that are in effect elsewhere.
Up to a point, one can understand Ottawa's attitude, which is
always the same, namely that a policy must apply from coast to coast, in
much the same way. The Yukon government was asked to draft legislation
that will be patterned on what is being done elsewhere and that will not
give powers exceeding those granted elsewhere. It is somewhat
unfortunate. Such is this federal government's centralizing attitude. It
is incapable of completely decentralizing and telling the other levels
of government to do as they please; instead, it tells them it will
decentralize but under certain conditions.
It is also important to look at the Yukon from a geographical
perspective. Unlike the Reform member, I feel that those primarily
concerned are the 14 aboriginal communities in the Yukon. I will
describe them during my remarks and I will also talk about the status of
negotiations, but it is important to look at the geographical location
of the aboriginal communities in the Yukon, to find out who their
neighbours are, to see whether agreements are also in the making over
there, and so on.
The Inuvialuit forms the Yukon's northern border. People are always
saying it is a big word, but it is in fact an Inuit word. As you know,
there are four major Inuit regions in Canada. The Inuvialuit was the
first region to be recognized in the self-government agreement. We then
come to the Nunavut, which is its immediate neighbour, and to northern
Quebec, where the Nunavik is located, before finally reaching another
large Inuit region of Canada, northern Labrador.
Self-government agreements are being negotiated for these regions.
The Inuvialuit agreement was signed in 1993. The Nunavut agreement
was also signed, and an autonomous government will take over in that
region on April 1, 1999. Negotiations are also under way in the Nunavik
region.
Unfortunately, in the case of Labrador, things are a bit stalled at the
moment. I urge the government to speed up the process because they have
some catching up to do.
1040
In the northern part of the Yukon, in Inuvialuit, the Inuit have
already signed self-government agreements. Further west, there is the
border with the United States. Yukon borders on Alaska in the west. I
wish to point out also that there are many Inuit in Alaska and that
there is a circumpolar forum, which, by the way, I would like to
acknowledge, and which includes not only the Inuit of Canada but also
those of Russia, Siberia and Alaska.
To the east are the Northwest Territories. The Nunavut will begin
a bit even further east, but right next to the Yukon, there are the
Northwest Territories with great first nations who are in fact covered
by another bill that will be considered this afternoon, Bill C-6,
dealing with the Mackenzie Valley. The nations involved here are the
Gwich'in, the Dene, the Metis, the Dogrib and the Deh Cho. These are the
great first nations right next door to the Yukon.
To the south, of course, lies British Columbia. That province
starts below the 60th parallel, and we are all aware of its great rich
and diverse native cultures, spread out overmore than 200 native
communities.
I feel it is important to properly describe the Yukon, because that
territory is surrounded by great wealth that not only includes oil and
gas but also native cultures that are extraordinarily vibrant.
This is what concerned us at the outset. It is not really a case
of whether the federal government is well advised to decentralize
a particular aspect of the oil issue, or whatever. We also
considered the impact this would have on native peoples because,
and I will come back to this later, in Canada's history the native
peoples got short shrift and this is still the case today.
I was listening to my colleague in the Reform Party speaking
earlier about Voisey's Bay. Voisey's Bay, in Labrador, is
generating billions of dollars already, and there is a native
community, Davis Inlet, that wants to move. The government had in
fact undertaken to move it. Now we learn that the move will not
take place for another five or six years. In the meantime,
Voisey's Bay is on land to which claim has been laid by the native
people in the area and they are still being ignored. So that is
the historical fact, and unfortunately history has a tendency to
repeat itself.
We in Quebec have always paid attention to native communities,
although attempts have been made to suggest otherwise. Having
travelled throughout Canada, I have to say that Quebec has no
apologies to make with respect to its First Nations. Quebec is in
the vanguard and intends to stay there. That is why, in our
discourse, you will always notice us first directing our attention
to native issues on bills involving anything north of the 60th
parallel, because unfortunately, that is the way things are. The
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is also
responsible for all economic development north of the 60th
parallel. We are keeping an eye out for the interests of the First
Nations.
Now, speaking of the Yukon, I must tell you how much I enjoyed
a trip I made there in 1994. We arrived in Whitehorse and met with
the First Nations.
The Council for Yukon Indians was there. There are 14 native
communities in the Yukon and these people explained to us where
they were, at the time, in their negotiations for self-government.
There are 14 native communities, but they have not all reached the
same stage of autonomy. Some of them have signed final agreements,
others are still working toward that stage. As I told you, I will
shortly give an overview of what stage they have reached.
The trip to Whitehorse was really something. As I said, we
met the Council for Yukon Indians, who briefed us on the progress
that had been made. Then, at their own expense, they flew my
daughter and me to Dawson City, the site of the old Klondike. This
ties in with the bill before us today.
Many years ago, there was a gold rush in the Klondike, leaving the
land completely disfigured in the Dawson City area. There are
piles of rocks everywhere, evidence of the complete disregard for
the impact on the environment when the gold rush took place.
1045
The only thing that mattered was finding gold. Dawson City is a
great place but flying in is not much fun. I must confess that
personally I was not too brave during the two-hour flight on a DC-3. My
daughter travelled with me and she found it rough too. When the plane is
taking off, one wonders if it will ever get airborne. There is this
terribly loud noise and everything is shaking inside the plane.
I did some checking and I am told the DC-3 is the plane with the
best safety record in the past 50 years in Canada.
My daughter was almost in despair when we asked the travel agent what
plane would be taking us from Whitehorse to Dawson City, a two-hour
flight, and the agent, while pointing at the picture of an old DC-3,
told my daughter, who was 12 at the time: “You will be flying on this
plane”. My daughter came up to me and said: “Dad, they want us to go on
an old DC-3, that cannot be right”. My answer was: “Of course not. It
must be a joke”.
But when we got to the airfield, we realized that, unfortunately,
it was no joke. It is somewhat sad that the people in that region are
serviced by equipment that is so out of date. It certainly was an
experience and one I am not about to forget. It was a thrill of a sort.
The plane does not fly very high; it is kind of scary at first, but all
was fine in the end.
We made it to Dawson City. By the way, Heritage Canada owns half
the town. It is an interesting looking town, with its dirt roads and
wooden walkways. The buildings have all been declared heritage buildings
and they reflect the old days. It is almost like finding ourselves in
the Far West. I take this opportunity to salute my aboriginal friends
out there.
One time, we went for a drink in a bar, a saloon like the ones they
had in the West in the old days, with swing doors and all. We had a
drink and watched a French cancan show. It was quite special.
An hon. member: With your daughter?
Mr. Claude Bachand: No, my 12-year old daughter did not join us,
she was not allowed on the premises. I had her baby-sat with other
aboriginal children and this was an interesting experience for her.
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Are you still in your DC-3?
Mr. Claude Bachand: No. I have arrived. I got off the DC-3
and I walked around Dawson City.
The first nations welcomed me with open arms and took me on a
long tour. The high point was probably fishing on the Yukon River,
which is an extraordinary crystalline blue green, because the water
comes from glaciers. I was told the water contains many minerals,
which account for its colour.
It was really extraordinary. We caught a 20 lb salmon. I
have pictures to prove it, because people say fishers exaggerate
the size of their catch. I can tell you personally that we caught
a 20 lb fish. The native people had killed a moose, and we were
given a wonderful welcome to native festivities in Dawson City. It
was unfortunate though that my daughter does not like game.
I was involved in an unfortunate incident. I got caught with
a bag from McDonald's after the official supper. I had to explain
to the grand chief hosting us that the contents were for my
daughter and not me, of course, because I had eaten my fill of this
wonderful meal.
I would also like to recall the social contract at the time.
We told these people as we did others elsewhere in Canada that we
were taking their land because we needed the natural resources: the
forests, mines and oil. And then we told them that we would send
them to communities on little parcels of land and would look after
their survival, their education, their health, their economic
development and so on.
Today, people tend to forget that. People tend to say “The
Indian affairs budget is huge. We are paying for these people and
we are tired of paying for them”. However, we forget the social
contract of the time, and I have made it my duty to refer to it in
each debate.
We have to realize that we took 95% of the land on this continent
and plunked these people down on 5% of it. We did the same thing
in the Yukon too.
We also made grand laws at the time, or what we thought were
grand laws. We systematically regulated the lives of the native
peoples.
That was the Indian Act. We—and I think this includes the federal
government—are beginning to realize that not only is this
legislation outmoded, but there is barely any explanation for its
still being applied today. People do not even own their homes.
When someone dies, a decision has to be made about whom it will go
to next. There are no rights of succession. The act contains some
provisions that are hard to apply in today's reality. The sole
solution is self-government, and the aboriginal nations of the
Yukon, like those elsewhere, understand this.
1050
I remember very clearly that, when we were voting on this act,
when we were discussing the bill on the Yukon, representatives of
the 14 aboriginal nations were up there in the gallery, awaiting
the historic moment. At that time, they had been actively involved
for 21 years in working toward an agreement with the federal
government. Finally, in November or December of 1994, an agreement
was reached and people were very pleased with it.
Now, I would like to give you an overview of the progress in
negotiations. As I have said, and have just referred to again a
few minutes ago, there are 14 aboriginal communities in the Yukon.
It is important for me to refer to the document, because not only
is it rather complex, but also the names themselves are often
complicated. People are wondering what we said. And it not easy
for me either.
At this point in my speech, I must take a more formal look at the
legislation. I also wish to salute these communities, because they are
all friends of mine.
The Little Salmon-Carmacks and Selkirk first nations both signed
self-government agreements on July 21.
About the December 1994 agreements I referred to earlier, I should
point out that six of the 14 aboriginal communities had signed their
final agreements. People thought that the issues of self-government and
territorial claims had been settled. Since then, we have continued to
make progress. The agreements involving the two communities I just
mentioned came into effect on October 1, 1997. These communities joined
those that had already signed agreements.
The federal government and the Tr'on dek Hwech'in first nation,
from the wonderful, historic city of Dawson, which I just
described when relating my perilous experiences, concluded
negotiations on self-government on May 24. It is expected that
agreements will be concluded by the end of the year, and that
they will be ratified in early 1998.
Negotiations with the Dena Council of Ross River are in the
preliminary stages. I remember that, at the time, there was a
particular issue. The Kaska Dena community was very close to the
B.C. border and people were wondering whether most of the reserve
was located in British Columbia instead of the Yukon. These
people had a lot of reservations about how things were conducted.
They were the minority among aboriginals in the Yukon. They were
not very inclined to get fully involved in negotiations on
self-government.
I notice today that at least they have gone beyond the preliminary
stage.
It was expected that the council would submit shortly a 120%
selection of lands. They decided to increase the area covered by the
claim to 120%, and the government expects that the lands selected will
include large areas with a high mineral potential. So there is this high
potential, and as I was saying also, the Yukon is rich in oil and gas.
Perhaps the first nations in the Yukon have found a way to give
real meaning to self-government by having a land claim base that is
large enough to ensure their self-sufficiency.
Negotiations with the Liard first nation are under way and deal
with the selection of rural lands with a high oil, gas and forestry
potential. The bill we are considering today has a certain impact on
every native land claim. We will have to be careful with this.
Negotiations with the Liard first nation are almost concluded and
will cover what are called mining and community lands. I know that the
federal government wishes to conclude the negotiations by March.
1055
As for the first nation of Carcross-Tagish, meetings are now
under way. Right now, negotiations are focussing on rural lands.
Agreements have been signed on a certain number of claims. The
first nation should soon be submitting claims regarding specific
sites. It is anticipated that negotiations with respect to
self-government should be over by year's end. The final
agreement should be signed by March 1998.
Negotiations for the final agreement regarding land claims and
the agreement with respect to self-government for the first nation
of White River have almost been concluded.
It is expected that negotiations will be wrapped up in
December 1998.
The first nation of Kluane submitted land claims slightly in
excess of the allowable area. The final agreement, including the
land claims aspect, is 62% complete, and the agreement with respect
to self-government has been 85% worked out. This means that a few
details remain to be wrapped up before the final agreement is
signed.
Negotiations on the Ta'an Kwach'an council's final land claims
agreement and agreement with respect to self-government have to all
intents and purposes been concluded. They cannot be finalized,
however, until the problem of the band's separation from the first
nation of Kwanlin Dun is resolved.
There is a dispute over this. What they want is to divide the
reserve in two, or to take steps to provide land for the second
community other than the lands it currently shares with the other
aboriginal nation.
As for the Kwanlin Dun first nation, there have been no
negotiations since June 1996. Last June, the first nation submitted
a proposal that falls outside the frame of reference established by
the definitive umbrella agreement. There was a definitive umbrella
agreement intended to cover all of the question of negotiation, the
parameters and the guidelines, but they did not want to fit into
it. Negotiations are, therefore, still under way.
The aboriginal communities which have not yet signed
agreements are the first nations of Champagne and Aishihik, Nacho
Nyak Dun, the Tlingit of the Teslin area, and the first nation of
the Gwitch'in Vuntut.
We still have some work to do with them.
I felt it was important to give a progress report on each
negotiation process, because we have certain misgivings. We are
certainly in agreement with any bill that encourages
decentralization. When the government decides to turn all of the
matter of gas and oil over to the Yukon Territory, we are in
agreement.
I would remind you that we are among those who decry the
encroachment of the federal government onto areas of territorial
and provincial jurisdiction. Unfortunately, and I do not want to
bring the Quebec situation into this, we are becoming aware that
the throne speech and the position this government is taking show
that there is encroachment, particularly in Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois will, of course, support any bill encouraging
decentralization. We are the only sovereignist group in this House, and
anything that smacks of decentralization fits in very well with our
philosophy. Likewise, any kind of centralization does not fit in with
our philosophy.
I was telling you that we had concerns, and they are the following.
The people who have already signed agreements are pretty much the
masters of their lands, including use of the lands themselves and their
surface and subsurface resources, forests, etc. But for those who have
not yet signed, there may be a little problem.
The native peoples, in their great wisdom, once again, have decided
that they will not resort to blackmail by saying: “We want to block the
bill”. They are saying that they are in agreement. There has also been
a change in government.
There is today an NDP government in the Yukon, which is much more open
to native issues. Apparently, the native peoples have a very good
relationship with the Yukon government. That government promised it
would not allow operating permits on lands claimed by native peoples,
because of all the responsibilities that will be transferred.
I was telling you that we had a concern, and it is the fact that
the bill does not deal with this issue. The federal government has a
fiduciary relationship with native peoples, and permits to extract oil
and gas on lands claimed by native peoples cannot be allowed before
there is a final agreement on native self-government and land claims.
1100
So it is unfortunate that there is no provision for this in
the bill. We will, however, vote for the bill, even in the absence
of this provision. We will be decide whether we should move
amendments in the standing committee.
After discussions were held with the Yukon government, and
especially with the governments and potential governments of the
Yukon first nations, they all told us that they were in agreement
with the bill and that they hoped that the Yukon government would
keep its word. You know that these are people who have heard a lot
of promises over the centuries and that these promises have often
been broken.
I therefore urge the Yukon government to respect its
undertaking not to issue mining licences to companies on lands
included in native claims.
For my part, I urge the federal government—I see the
parliamentary secretary is here—to finalize the agreements with
the people in the Yukon. As soon as the land bases for all the
Yukon first nations have been worked out and responsibility for
self-government turned over to the 14 Yukon nations, attention can
then be given to how mining licences are issued. We hope that the
Yukon first nations will finally be able to benefit from the
subsoil and surface wealth of the land they are now occupying or
have occupied from time immemorial.
I therefore urge the federal government to step up negotiations and
the Yukon government to keep its promise and not to issue licences.
The Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-8, perhaps with certain
amendments—we will see on the standing committee—and I wish
a long and prosperous life to the Yukon first nations.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to be speaking for the first time in the House. I would
like to thank the people of Yukon for bringing me here. I feel I
can hardly add further to the comments of my hon. colleague from
Quebec on the north. I would like to say that what he found
strange and wondrous is indeed very normal for people in the
north.
Bill C-8 is an act to implement an accord between the Government
of Canada and the Yukon Territory. It relates to the
administration, control and legislative jurisdiction with respect
to oil and gas. It is an important act for the people of Yukon
as it will transfer additional legislative powers necessary to
undertake through Yukon legislation all aspects of the management
and administration of onshore oil and gas.
This legislation will give the Yukon government provincial like
powers to administer our own business and to do it in the public
interest.
This is very important considering that for the last 100 years
Yukon has not been able to do that in its own interest and has in
fact been penalized. Any resources or any income that we have
brought to ourselves has been directly deducted from our budget,
so this is very important for northern people.
This process of devolution of provincial like powers will not
affect any settlement of aboriginal land claims because the
federal government will retain the capacity of regaining that
authority and it will do so if it is necessary to settle a Yukon
land claim.
Bill C-8 is the necessary legislation to transfer the authority
of oil and gas to the Yukon government. It is very significant.
It confirms Canada's commitment as set out in the northern oil
and gas accord signed in 1993 to transfer to Yukon province like
powers to regulate and manage Yukon's oil and gas resources.
It must be viewed as a commitment from Canada to Yukon for the
political evolution of Yukon and to the concept of devolution and
should be linked to an orderly transition of the transfers of
other remaining resources like forestry and mining to the people
of Yukon.
We expect that the federal government will complete the
devolution of all these powers to the Yukon government by 1998.
That may be very optimistic but we believe it can be
accomplished.
Devolution is a transfer process in which the federal government
will transfer all northern affairs programs of the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Yukon government.
1105
In 1898 a separate Yukon territory was created. In 1902 our
first small civil service was established. In 1948 the Yukon
Territory suspended its rights to income tax collection in
exchange for annual federal funding transfers. In 1979 the
federal government effectively signed over decision making powers
for many programs to elected territorial representatives.
In 1993 the umbrella final accord agreement for land claims was
signed after a 30 year series of negotiations. Being someone who
lives in Yukon, my whole life evolved around land claims. It was
always discussed and it still is. It affects every single person
who lives in Yukon.
In 1996 consultations on the transfer of northern affairs
programs began. In 1997 we are dealing with the transfer of the
administration and control of legislative jurisdiction in respect
to oil and gas and, as I said, 1998 is the target set for this to
be completed.
Devolution is an issue of fundamental importance for the Yukon
people. It will signal the end of a quasi-colonial attitude to
the north and a beginning of a process to gain greater economic
self-reliance. It will reinforce participatory democracy because
it will give northerners a meaningful democratic role in the
development of our own region, communities and a more efficient
use of resources needed to provide services to the northern
people.
Devolution is an essential part of aboriginal self-government
and self-determination. With the continuing settlement of Yukon
land claims and self-government agreements Yukoners, on the basis
of a relationship based on partnerships, can look to the future
as citizens of Canada and not as possessions of the crown.
People in Yukon are looking forward to obtaining the
responsibilities of managing their land and resources. Devolution
is good governance and it will create employment and
economic opportunities. It will also increase the stewardship of
our environment.
Federal devolution is part of a parallel process within the
Yukon government. The Yukon government must develop the
necessary legislation and regulations to fill the federal void
when it comes to the oil and gas regime.
The Yukon government has been actively working with first
nations in the development of such a regime. The working group
began and has been actively engaged since January 1997 in the
development of Yukon oil and gas regulations.
This has been a very positive experience which has resulted in
the development of an oil and gas regime that is acceptable to
the Yukon first nations governments, of which there are 14, the
territorial government and the federal government.
The federal and territorial legislation dealing with the
transfer of province like powers to Yukon and the development of
the oil and gas act regulations is a demonstration of a
successful working relationship with the first nations and the
beginning of a new era in the relationships between people of the
north and the central Government of Canada.
It opens opportunities of economic development for Yukoners.
After completion of the transfers, the Yukon people, through
their own legislation, will manage and regulate oil and gas
activities including exploration, development, production and
conservation, environmental and safety regulations and the
determination and collection of resource revenues.
The Yukon government is committed to table the Yukon oil and gas
act this fall and to have an open consultative process with
Yukoners on the regulations.
The Yukon Act has been amended to transfer to northerners new
responsibilities and new legislative powers in relation to
exploration of oil and gas; the development, conservation and
management of oil and gas, including the rate of primary
production; oil and gas pipelines; the raising of money in
respect to oil and gas in the territory for the benefit of the
people in the north; and the export of oil and gas.
The amendments will include provisions to allow the federal
government to continue to exercise its other responsibilities
including taking back the administration on any lands in Yukon in
order to settle or implement aboriginal land claims.
The Canada-Yukon oil and gas accord is fully consistent with the
legislation implementing aboriginal or treaty rights under
section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including legislation
establishing wildlife land management and environmental regimes.
The accord does not diminish Canada's capacity to settle or
implement land claims and both levels of government are committed
to consult with aboriginal people on significant oil and gas
decisions affecting lands within their traditional territory
prior to the conclusion of land claim settlements.
1110
The bill includes significant financial provisions to support
the Government of Yukon in the implementation of its new
responsibilities.
It needs to be recognized that this piece of legislation is the
result of extensive consultations and close co-operation between
the officials of the Yukon Territory and federal government
officials.
In addition, the Yukon government has actively involved First
Nations in the process, including the development of the oil and
gas legislation and management process.
The Council for Yukon First Nations gave support for the present
legislation and to the devolution process in March 1997, support
ratified by letter from Grand Chief Shirley Adamson on August 1,
1997.
The working relationship and close co-operation of the three
parties, the federal government, the Yukon government and Yukon
First Nations, has been very successful. The three parties are
now committed to completing the remaining land claims and
self-government agreements by the fall of 1998.
Yukoners elected a territorial government with an agenda focused
on completing land claims and devolution, creating employment and
economic opportunities, fostering healthy northern communities,
respecting our environment and building trust in government.
This bill is facilitating the implementation of the working
agenda of the territorial government. On the basis of a
respectful government to government relationship with First
Nations of Yukon and negotiating in an open way implementation of
agreements like the oil and gas accord, we are creating a
positive relationship among all levels of government, an example
I think well set for the rest of Canada to follow.
Devolution is not by any means downloading of responsibilities
by the federal government. The devolution process is and should
include the necessary funding from the federal government to
deliver the services included in the devolution agreement.
Devolution is about partnership and the assumption of new
responsibilities and obligations. Yukon First Nation
governments established a working partnership on devolution and
signed a number of accords.
In addition, the Yukon government and Yukon First Nation
governments have made arrangements concerning their working
relationship during implementation of specific devolution
transfers, particularly arrangements concerning the transfer of
oil and gas responsibilities.
The devolution of the Yukon northern affairs program is a major
step in the evolution of responsible government. There is a lot
of goodwill to maintain a co-operative process for the devolution
of the northern affairs program to the Yukon government. This
co-operation is a very positive way to transfer in an orderly
manner the new decision making capabilities to Yukoners and the
territorial government.
Devolution is good government. It will give the Yukon
government, a local government with locally elected
representatives and locally accountable, appointed officials, the
effective control over land and resource management
responsibilities. The territorial government will be in a better
position to integrate decisions over resources and will be able
to serve more effectively the Yukon people.
This transfer of federal resources to the territorial
government, financial, capital and human resources, must be at the
level that guarantees the provisions of adequate services and
present levels of funding. We are all aware that in the last few
years the northern affairs program has been subjected to federal
cutbacks and there must be assurances that the resources
transferred are enough to provide for the delivery of the
mandated responsibilities of the transferred programs. We are
expecting that the federal government will not withdraw any
funding from the programs considered for the transfer to the
territorial government.
This negotiated agreement is a historical component for Yukon
and the Yukon government, the First Nations of Yukon as well as
for Canada. It fully protects the interests of the First Nations
of Yukon and we are confident in its compliance with the land
claims and self-government agreements.
The agreement bodes well for the future of Yukon and all
Yukoners and in maintaining the spirit of co-operation among the
federal, territorial and First Nations government.
I urge the House to proceed quickly with this bill. Its
Successful passage and proclamation will implement a significant
step in the devolution of powers from the federal government to
the territorial level and will show a great deal of respect for
the First Nations and the people of the north who live a life
that is very remote from Ottawa and very disconnected. Yet we
have been very dependent on the decision made in this House.
Once again I urge a speedy passage to show respect for the work
that was put into this bill.
1115
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to speak to Bill C-8, the Canada-Yukon oil and gas accord
implementation act. I will share my time with the hon. member
for Cumberland—Colchester.
The administration and management of oil and gas is an important
and highly visible province-like function which will allow the
Yukon government and Yukon First Nations with land claim
agreements to share oil and gas revenues. These revenues are
currently valued at $2 million per year.
Platitudes of self-government are wasted if the government does
not back those platitudes with some type of a management process,
with some type of a source of income, making self-government
affordable and therefore making self-government possible.
The bill transfers authority to the Yukon territorial
government, providing and giving control over the exploration,
development, conservation and management of onshore gas
resources, oil and gas pipelines, the raising of money in respect
of oil and gas resources in the territory and the export of oil
and gas.
Onshore oil and gas resources apply to all of Yukon landward of
the Beaufort Sea mean low water mark, including the two bays of
Shoalwater and Phillips Bay.
It is important to understand that this bill allows the federal
government to take back administration and control of oil and gas
in Yukon lands in order to settle or implement aboriginal land
claims.
There are a number of areas of concern in this bill. The
Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, which represents signatories to
the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, a land claim agreement brought
into force by legislation in 1984, objected to several aspects of
the proposed legislation when it was Bill C-50 in the last
Parliament.
This opposition relates to the transfer of management over the
Yukon offshore, defined as the adjoining area in the bill, to the
Yukon territorial government and the protection of those areas.
The Inuvialuit argue the adjoining area defined in the
legislation is part of the Yukon north slope which falls within a
special conservation regime established under their final
agreement. The Inuvialuit consider Phillips Bay, an area
specifically included in the transfer, to be part of their
national park, while Shoalwater Bay is a highly significant area
of Inuvialuit traditional use.
Under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, lands of the Yukon north
slope are to be protected until a wildlife and conservation
management plan is adopted. While such a plan has been
developed, it has not been adopted. The Inuvialuit have argued
the transfer of jurisdiction over the north slope is inconsistent
with the obligations in their agreement.
Bill C-8 has been changed slightly from the former Bill C-50 of
the 35th Parliament to address some of these concerns. Clauses 6
and 8 would amend the Yukon Act to permit the Government of
Canada to protect certain areas of land and future land claim
settlements or the implementation of a land claim.
The addition of the word implementation recognizes that out of
the 14 bands that are signatories to the Inuvialuit Final
Agreement, only six have made their land claim selections. This
would allow the federal government to designate lands
traditionally used by the bands that have not finalized their
land claim selections as those where no oil and gas activity
could occur.
That is a great concern to those First Nations groups that have
not yet selected their land under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.
Clause 8 allows the federal government to take back the
administration and control of oil and gas in any lands in Yukon
to settle or implement land claims. It can be questioned whether
or not the federal government will require the land to be
returned to its original state by the oil and gas developers if
such land is required for land claim settlement or
implementation.
1120
There are some questions to be asked but every individual in the
House should understand that the bill is about jurisdiction, that
the bill is about the transfer of power and that the bill is
about giving the tools to a territory, to a region in Canada to
become independent and self-sufficient.
The Conservative Party agrees and supports a greater devolution
of political and especially economic power to the territories.
Part of that transfer is regulatory power. It is time to move
forward on this legislation which has been on the agenda since
1987.
We support the legislation. We think it is important. We think
it is legislation that is perhaps a little too late but at least
it is on the agenda. We agree that we should move forward with
it.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to add a few comments to those of my associate from South
Shore regarding the accord between the Government of Canada and
the Government of the Yukon Territory which divests power and
authority from the federal government to the Yukon Territory.
To me it seems like a natural evolution: a political transfer of
power to the Yukon Territory. It is certainly appropriate and it
is similar to the powers the provinces have had for years and
decades.
The Progressive Conservative Party supports the legislation,
basically because it evolved from Progressive Conservative
legislation that began in 1987 through 1988, starting with the
northern accord.
Like so many of the Conservative policies, like the GST which
the Liberals picked up, embraced and enhanced, free trade and low
inflation that worked so well for the economy of Canada,
hopefully this policy will also work out well as the powers are
devolved to the Yukon Territory.
Most community groups and organizations support this legislation
in the Yukon area. The Council of Yukon First Nations supports
it on the condition that those First Nations that have not had
their land claims addressed still have access to the land claims.
Clauses 6 and 8 of the new bill address those issues. I feel
that their issues are at least addressed temporarily and
hopefully there is a process to address future problems that they
have in so far as land claims go.
The Yukon territorial government has supported it strongly and
urges the quick passage of it. It requests that it proceed
expeditiously. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
of Canada certainly supports it and urges it to go ahead. It is
prepared to work with the First Nations groups.
The Yukon Chamber of Commerce says that it is the key to
economic stability in Yukon. Certainly we support that and we
support them.
It is timely for the Yukon people because it offers new
opportunities for them for employment and for economic
development. At this time in Canada there is more oil and gas
exploration than at any time in the history of our country. There
is no reason that the Yukon should be left out of that economic
surge. It has the technology in the industry with three
dimensional size technology, horizontal drilling which maximizes
exploration and reduces the number of failures and also maximizes
productivity.
It is certainly an appropriate time to have the gas and oil
jurisdiction turned over from the federal government to the
territorial government and have it totally control the situation
and benefit from it.
In closing, I support Bill C-8, as does our party, as long as
the First Nations concerns are addressed. I believe they are
addressed. There is a dispute settlement mechanism built into
Bill C-8 which will address any future concerns they have. It is
a welcome transfer of power and it will help the Yukon Territory
establish economic self-sufficiency for now and long into the
future.
1125
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate my colleague for supporting Bill C-8. He
mentioned a concern I share, and perhaps we can come up with some
solution in discussing it on the floor of the House. I raised it
in my speech as well.
First of all, some native communities have not completed
arrangements to set up their own government or their territorial
claims. Second, the federal government has a fiduciary link with
the native peoples. Third, the law provides specifically that the
government cannot issue prospecting licences for land that is under
claim.
I would like to know from my colleague whether he foresees the
possibility of amendments perhaps during study in committee or at
third reading. Perhaps he could give us some clues as to how to
resolve this question, which is a delicate one for certain native
communities.
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon.
member's comments that the native community has faith in the
federal government but sometimes has less faith in provincial and
territorial governments. However, I believe that clauses 6 and 8
address his concerns. If native communities have future land
claim problems, clauses 6 and 8 allow the federal government to
take back control of certain territories if it is in the
interests of the natives and if the natives have claims on that
territory.
I believe that amendments can be made to the bill. It is not
perfect. No bill is. However, we will be working with the
native communities to come up with appropriate amendments to
address their concerns.
Probably one of the basic issues is the fact that the native
community does have faith in the federal government far more than
it does in provincial governments.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
* * *
MACKENZIE VALLEY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
Hon. David Kilgour (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development) moved that Bill C-6, an act to provide
for an integrated system of land and water management in the
Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that purpose
and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to address the House on Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley
resource management act.
I am extremely pleased to be sponsoring this bill which will
build on two other legislative initiatives that are already
redrawing the political, social and economic face of the
Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories.
In December 1992 legislation was enacted to implement the
comprehensive land claim agreement of the Gwich'in of the
Mackenzie Valley. In 1994 the Sahtu Dene and Metis comprehensive
land claim agreement was also given effect by legislation passed
by this House.
We are also continuing to negotiate agreements with the other
claimant groups in the Mackenzie Valley. These are historic
agreements for the beneficiaries, for the residents of the
Northwest Territories and for all Canadians.
1130
The aboriginal beneficiaries now have the land base and the
financial resources that will enable them to more fully manage
their own affairs. Residents of these areas in the territories
as well as the territorial government and industry have the
certainty of land ownership and resources rights that come with
settlement agreements.
I am pleased to inform hon. members that many provisions of
these land claim agreements are already being implemented. After
many years of difficult negotiation, the Gwich'in and Sahtu Dene
and Metis are finally beginning to enjoy the benefits of land
ownership and financial security.
[Translation]
However, the government has a number of important issues to
resolve on these agreements.
Chapter 24 of the Gwich'in agreement and chapter 25 of the
Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement provide for the establishment of a
system for co-management of resource use in the regions covered by
the agreements.
More specifically, two agencies will be set up for each region
covered by the agreements: a land use planning board and a water
and land board.
Moreover, an environmental impact review board will be established
for the Mackenzie Valley, which includes the whole western part of the
Northwest Territories, with the exception of the region inhabited by the
Inuvialuit.
Bill C-6 will establish these bodies. Also, in order to ensure
responsible management of the environment and to strengthen the
government in western Arctic, Bill C-6 will create a land and water
board for the whole Mackenzie Valley.
The board will ensure a co-ordinated and consistent process to
regulate the use of land and water throughout the Mackenzie Valley. This
is very important to the residents of that region, since activities
taking place upstream can have a major impact on communities living
downstream.
[English]
I would like to take a few minutes to expand on the provisions
of Bill C-6 so that hon. members can appreciate why it is a good
bill for the Northwest Territories and for Canada.
Bill C-6 provides a co-ordinated system of regulating land and
water use throughout the Mackenzie Valley. In so doing it
ensures regulatory consistency between the settlement areas and
adjacent lands within the Mackenzie Valley. Bill C-6 also meets
the government's commitment to give aboriginal people a greater
role in determining resource use as provided for in the two land
claim agreements.
Within each claimant area the representatives of aboriginal
people will make nominations for half of the members on each of
these new boards. This will ensure that the traditional
activities and lifestyles of the different aboriginal groups in
the Mackenzie Valley will be considered in the making of resource
management decisions.
It is expected that this type of resource co-management will
allow traditional aboriginal activities and lifestyles to
successfully coexist with other forms of economic development.
This is resource co-management in the truest sense of the term and
in the form of co-management that the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples fully endorsed.
In addition to guaranteeing a voice for aboriginal people, the
new land and water regulatory regime will provide more
opportunities for the public to participate in decision making.
People from the Mackenzie Valley will sit on these boards and
there will be an opportunity for input from private citizens and
interest groups through public hearings.
[Translation]
Bill C-6 defines how the new system will work and the interaction
between the various bodies. However, I should point out that the bill
does not deal with surface rights. A surface rights board designed to
settle any dispute relating to private land access in the Mackenzie
Valley will be established under another bill.
In the meantime, land claims agreements include provisions for the
settling of such disputes.
1135
The bodies established under Bill C-6 are government boards whose
mandate is to look after the public's interests. Members will be
appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to
whom they will be accountable.
Each body will have to consult the public, more specifically
aboriginal groups, government organizations and industries, before
making decisions or recommendations.
This new system is patterned on the Northwest Territories'
resources regulating system which puts, as it should, the decision
making process in the hands of local people.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is
currently responsible for managing and regulating crown lands in the
Mackenzie Valley, while the Northwest Territories' water board monitors
the use of water.
Under Bill C-6, each region that will be governed by an agreement
will have its own regional land and water board.
Outside the areas covered by the agreements, and with respect to
transregional activities, the Mackenzie Valley land and water board will
be responsible for making regulations. In other words, the land and
water boards of each region covered by the agreements will become a
standing committee of the main Mackenzie Valley land and water
organization, which replaced the Northwest Territories water board.
Bill C-6 also provides for the establishment, in each of the
regions covered by the agreements, of a land use planning board
responsible for developing a land use plan, whose approval it will
recommend to the government. These boards will develop land use plans
for all land in the regions covered by the agreements.
[English]
An important purpose of land use planning is to protect and
promote the social, cultural and economic well-being of the
residents of the settlement area by setting goals and priorities
for governments and industry. While the interests of all
Canadians must be taken into account, special attention will be
given to the rights and well-being of any affected aboriginal
group.
Bill C-6 will also create a new environmental assessment regime
for the Mackenzie Valley. The environmental impact review board
will be established as the main instrument for environmental
assessment and will carry out the duties currently performed by
the northern affairs program of the department under the CEAA,
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
While this new assessment regime has adopted many of the
features of the CEAA, including extensive consultation
requirements and the same assessment criteria, it goes beyond the
CEAA in that it applies not only to the federal crown lands and
projects but to settlement and commissioner's lands as well.
This means that virtually all lands in the Mackenzie Valley will
be subject to the same rigorous assessment process. Industry
will welcome the certainty, consistency and efficiency of the new
regime. Great effort has been put into ensuring that duplication
is avoided and all will receive equal treatment.
Additionally Bill C-6 undertakes the creation of a cumulative
impact monitoring program. This program will carry out periodic
environmental audits and will pull together the data which will
help track the cumulative impacts of development activity
throughout the Mackenzie Valley.
I want to assure the House that the Government of the Northwest
Territories and First Nations were thoroughly consulted on this
proposed legislation.
[Translation]
These past few years, federal officials met on a number of
occasions with their Northwest Territories counterparts and with
representatives of the Gwich'in and the Sahtu Dene and Metis to develop
an approach to the establishment of these organizations that would be
acceptable to all parties.
We also conducted extensive consultations about the legislation per
se. Drafts of Bill C-6 were distributed to various interest groups to
get their input and feedback. In addition, a background document on the
proposed resource management scheme was released to the public.
After this information was distributed, Indian affairs officials
went on a public consultation tour in the Mackenzie Valley.
These consultations have proven highly productive. Government
employees have prepared information kits on the bill and the
regulations for the public to provide the private sector and the
aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents of the Mackenzie Valley
with a clear understanding of the entire process leading up to the
resource management clauses in the bill.
1140
I am pleased to announce to the House that there was a great
deal of support for our bill. A number of the aboriginal groups in
the Mackenzie Valley, however, have not yet settled their land
claims, and therefore feel that the establishment of regulatory
bodies for the entire Mackenzie Valley is premature.
Although the government acknowledges their concerns and is
dealing with them, we feel that it is important to move ahead with
the establishment of these bodies so as to avoid confusion later.
These aboriginal groups will be entitled to appoint members to
these bodies without jeopardizing their ability to negotiate their
land claims.
I firmly believe that the new resource management regime
offers these groups better representation than they currently have
within the decision making process.
The establishment of a new regulatory mechanism for the
Mackenzie Valley cannot be done piecemeal. The hon. members will
readily understand that we cannot end up with more than one
regulatory mechanism for the same territory.
A cohesive regulatory process for land and water use will be
to the advantage of the entire Mackenzie Valley. It will provide
the private sector with the transparency and certitude required to
enhance the attractiveness of investing in the area.
[English]
From an environmental review perspective, it is also important
to have a valley-wide regime. More and more we are looking at
environmental problems in total. Rivers and streams cannot be
arbitrarily separated by artificial boundaries. We must deal with
entire ecosystems and adapt to a new way of managing
environmental regions.
I want to assure the House that the proposal to establish
valley-wide boards for the regulation of land and water use and
environmental impact review is fully consistent with the Gwich'in
and Sahtu agreements and has their support. These are examples of
good planning and good public government.
First Nations that have not yet settled their claims will have
the opportunity to be represented on these new boards. For all
residents of the Northwest Territories the new regime will mean
more immediacy in decision making.
This bill also is fully consistent with the devolution of
provincial type responsibilities to the territories and with, as
I mentioned, the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples which endorsed this unique type of resource co-management
for the north.
The Government of the Northwest Territories will over time
assume the federal role of responsibilities in each of these
areas. The territorial government strongly supports the concept
of public valley-wide boards.
As hon. members can appreciate, Bill C-6 will accomplish three
important goals.
[Translation]
First, it will meet the requirements of the agreements with
the Gwich'in and the Sahtu Dene and Metis on regulating the use of
land and water. Bill C-6 therefore represents a major step toward
meeting our obligations under territorial claims and will form the
basis of new partnerships with aboriginal peoples and other
residents of northern regions.
Second, Bill C-6 will provide a new system for managing the
Mackenzie Valley, which will be more user friendly, more
transparent and easier to understand.
It will ensure that all residents will be involved in
decisions on issues involving them.
It will also ensure a fair assessment of proposals by allowing all
residents of the region to give their opinion when positions are
taken.
These improvements will encourage investment and economic
development in the regions covered by the agreements and throughout
the Mackenzie Valley. The people in the north, like all Canadians,
will reap the rewards of this economic activity.
Third, Bill C-6 will also establish a system that complies
with standards of prudent environmental management. In keeping
with our national goal of protecting and preserving the environment
for generations to come, the bill will guarantee that environmental
assessments will be standardized and thorough.
1145
[English]
I will now ask my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-6 so that
the government's obligations under these regional land claim
agreements can be fulfilled and that the evolution of strong,
local public government can continue in the Mackenzie Valley.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
this is my first opportunity to speak in the House, I would like
to congratulate you and your colleagues on your election. I am
from that part of Canada lying between the Pacific salmon dispute
and the Atlantic groundfish strategy called Saskatchewan. Since
this is my first opportunity to speak in the House, I do want to
thank the people of Prince Albert for the trust they have placed
in me.
Prince Albert has been called Canada's most illustrious
constituency. This is because of its history of having elected
three of Canada's previous prime ministers. I contend, however,
that Prince Albert remains Canada's most illustrious constituency
for more reasons than that.
The Saskatchewan River runs through my constituency.
Historically it was a major trade route for the fur trade. Today
it provides hydro-electric generation and recreation areas
enjoyed by people from across Canada and around the world.
The constituency has a progressive and innovative farming
community which, by the way, has a strong interest in the
Canadian Wheat Board legislation which passed quickly before this
House.
We have forestry. We have diamond exploration. We have small
towns and the city of Prince Albert. We have pioneers and
visionary business people. We have it all. We are Canada's most
illustrious constituency and I am proud to represent it.
One other thing I would like to mention this morning is that I
am proud to wear the red poppy that commemorates the sacrifice by
so many Canadians in defending our nation, its democracy and its
freedoms. I trust that we will be worthy of their sacrifices
which were supreme.
Having said that I will now turn to the business at hand which
is the consideration of Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley resource
management act.
The stated purpose of the bill is to provide for an integrated
system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley and
to establish certain boards for that purpose. The bill is
enabling legislation which implements obligations between the
federal government and the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene and Metis.
Those agreements, proclaimed September 22, 1992 and June 23,
1994, called for an integrated system of land and water
management to apply to the Mackenzie Valley through the creation
of certain boards.
The Gwich'in claim was negotiated, debated and proclaimed during
the 34th Parliament by the Tory administration. The Sahtu Dene
and Metis land claim, Bill C-16, was debated in the spring of
1994 and was opposed by the Reform Party due to the excessive
size of the land claim agreement. Its provisions called for a
settlement area of about 108,200 square miles or about 280,200
square kilometres which comprised roughly 27% of the entire
Mackenzie Valley.
To put this in perspective, the land area alone included in the
agreement was roughly five times the area of the entire province
of Nova Scotia. It was for the benefit of only 1,755 persons, of
whom only 982 are adults. Taken on a per person basis, the
claims average about 61 square miles each and the economic cost
of the agreements was in the order of $130 million.
The Reform Party opposed Bill C-16 because there was no legal
rationale for this fee simple conveyance. A new bureaucracy was
created and, furthermore, the commitment to self-government made
really no sense given the small and highly dispersed population.
The Reform Party's position respecting land settlement claims is
clear. It supports honouring treaties according to their original
intent and according to court decisions. The agreements made in
that legislation and those which this legislation enables were
negotiated rather than subjected to court decisions.
In addition to the foregoing, the Reform Party's policy further
states that settlement of land claims will be negotiated publicly
and all settlements will outline specific terms, be final and
conclude within a specific timeframe and be affordable to Canada
and the provinces.
I believe that the agreements on which this bill rests fail the
test of finality and affordability and as such have serious
consequences for Bill C-6, which is currently under discussion.
1150
Lastly, in setting the background, the Reform Party supports the
right of individuals entitled to reside on settlement lands to
choose to hold their entitlement privately or in common. Nothing
in the agreement gives the people any individual rights over the
land in question. All rights are held in common.
This is a context in which the bill is drafted and for our
party's consideration of it.
As a new member there is a lot to learn and, like most members,
I suppose there is far more teaching than there is learning at
times. As this is the first piece of legislation for which I
have prepared, I was not sure where to begin. I found out,
though, that the office of the minister transmits the pertinent
information to the office of the critic who in this instance
forwarded it to my office for review in preparation for the
debate.
Included in the material is a list of the organizations with
whom the minister has consulted in drafting and reviewing the
proposed legislation. I found in the material several one page
letters. Some congratulated the minister on the initiative and
some were non-committal in tone, but they all expressed a hope
that the proposed legislation would be useful in pulling together
some of the loose threads in the regulatory and approval
processes.
I submit that will be a vain hope as we look further through the
legislation.
One letter which came to my attention later and did not come
through the office of the minister was not so very complimentary.
It was submitted by an organization by the name of the Northwest
Territories Chamber of Mines which has an interesting motto,
especially in the context of the debate over debt, spending and
taxes “digging Canada out of debt”. I would think that any
organization or for that matter any person committed to digging
this country out of the debt hole in which it finds itself is
worthy of serious attention.
I do not believe these people have been consulted in the
preparation of the legislation and certainly I feel that is a
serious deficiency. They believe “that the sheer complexity of
the new regime will overload the capacity of northerners to deal
effectively with resource management issues”.
This House must listen to the concerns of all those outside the
land claims process and take immediate steps to review the legacy
of a former administration which was out to right every wrong,
whether real or perceived. Canadian taxpayers will be burdened
for years to come because of their policies. Job creation will
suffer and resource development may be slowed down and investors
will begin to look elsewhere for investment opportunities as the
cost of doing business in Canada's north increases as a result of
Bill C-6 and similar legislation.
Legislation of this nature is the reason for many mining
development hold-ups such as Voisey's Bay. We know the
importance of development in the north due to the unemployment
figures in the north.
Resource companies, we know, must conduct their affairs in an
environmentally sound manner. There is a necessity for regulatory
regimes and they must ensure compliance with the regulations
developed for the common good. Those facts are not in dispute.
What is also not in dispute is the need for rules which are
capable of clear interpretation, fair and equal in their
application. The standards set by regulators must be high but
must also be capable of being achieved. The decisions rendered
must be timely and arbitrariness must be minimized. The process
should be unified so as to minimize cost and uncertainty for
those to whom the system applies.
Finally, it should provide for predictability both in the cost
of compliance and in the likelihood of approval being granted
after review of the application. The system as it exists today is
both complex and cumbersome and achieves none of the goals
previously set out.
The express goal of the new legislation is that it would
address the flaws in the current system, but instead it delivers
the same uncertainties and adds yet another layer of bureaucracy
with poorly defined jurisdictions. The net result of the
legislation as it stands would be to substantially increase
uncertainties and cost to development while failing to deliver
benefits to the environment or to the stakeholders identified in
the agreements.
Among the many concerns this bill has raised among stakeholders
are the potential for interference in the staking of mineral
claims, change in the status of leases and land use permits, new
powers to boards to suspend permits and leases, poorly defined
terms for new rights for compensation, unfair enforcement policy,
poorly defined jurisdictions which have the potential for serious
delays in even beginning a review of an application to develop a
promising area.
1155
The proposed legislation does not address, apart from a
numerical formula, how members of the committee are to be
selected, although one of the letters supplied to my office
mentions beginning the process of training members of the various
boards and panels before the proposed legislation was even
introduced in the House. That letter was received in the office
of the minister in the spring of 1996.
The bill does not specify what criteria will be used in
determining who is eligible for appointment to the boards and
panels, if any, nor does it specify the process for appointment.
The proposed legislation calls for the creation of separate
boards in each settlement region with offices to be maintained in
each. There is a mere suggestion in the bill that the boards
could share technical facilities but there is no requirement to
do so. This arrangement is likely to cause uneveness in the
development of regulations and in their application. Developments
crossing jurisdictional lines may be subject to several boards
with the likelihood of different results from their review
process.
The fears of developers as litigation will be required to
resolve the disputes arising from lack of clarity in the proposed
legislation were not put to rest in departmental briefings. The
possibility of litigation is a major concern and need not have
arisen had the government held extensive public hearings
throughout the process of developing Bill C-6 rather than waiting
until it had passed the point of no return.
Given the immense area of land to be administered and the
possibility of duplication of technical resources with lower
individual budgets and staffing as a result, the boards will be
unable to perform adequate evaluation of projects stretching over
those vast distances. This is particularly troubling in
transitional times when everything must continue without
interruption. We know that people's livelihoods depend on these
things.
During the debate on Bill C-16, Reformers warned of the
potential for the creation of a massive bureaucracy as a result
of those agreements. Those fears have now been realized with the
proposed boards and panels exercising broad powers over both
claim and non-claim territory. Hunting, trapping, resource
development, forestry and more will fall within their authority.
With a population of only 40,000 people, the western Arctic will
be subject to a proliferation of administrative authorities.
There is also no limitation of the board's authority within the
settled claim areas.
For these reasons the Reform Party respectfully opposes this
bill. Opposition to this bill should not be seen as opposition to
the settlement of outstanding land claims with Canada's
aboriginal people. As has been stated earlier, the Reform Party
does support final affordable settlement of all outstanding
claims. We believe that wider consultations are the answer to
those negotiations.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have before us
today a bill that I consider extremely technical. It is difficult to
relate to this bill on a personal basis, as can be done with Bill C-8
dealing with the Yukon, because it concerns the establishment of certain
boards to manage water, land, etc. For this reason, I will stick rather
closely to my text.
When I have the opportunity, and because debate on native issues
can often be uninspiring and difficult, I like to stimulate and enhance
the debate by relating incidents we may have witnessed during our
visits. Unfortunately, I have never been in the Mackenzie Valley.
Because of the technical content of this bill, I will perhaps stick more
closely to my text.
So I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-6 dealing with the
establishment of certain boards to provide for an integrated system of
land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, and with
consequential amendments to other Acts. This wording is found in several
pieces of legislation, including Bill C-8 to amend certains acts, which
we discussed earlier.
In other words, Bill C-6 sets up a coordinated and integrated
system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley. In fact,
this bill meets a statutory obligation under the comprehensive land
claim agreement with the Gwich'in and with the Sahtu Dene and Metis.
1200
The Gwich'in comprehensive land claim agreement was signed April
22, 1992 and the Sahtu Dene and Metis comprehensive land claim agreement
was signed September 6, 1993. I have some concern here about the land
claim agreement. In the last Parliament, after the October 1993
election, the House resumed sitting in February and it seems to me that
this bill was introduced at that time. The agreement was probably signed
on September 6, 1993, but the implementing legislation was most likely
introduced in February 1994.
These agreements provide for the establishment of an integrated
joint management regime for land and waters in the Mackenzie Valley by
establishing three boards.
My hon. colleague listed them, but I will repeat anyway: the land use
planning board, the Mackenzie Valley land and water board and the
environmental impact review board.
As in Bill C-8, in developing legislation to implement agreements,
an effort was made to ensure as much as possible that the economic
development and environmental aspects are taken care of. As we can see,
this bill meets its target in this respect.
These boards will be established as government organizations with
their own staff and budget, using government approval procedures and
funding terms. A land use planning board will be established in each of
the Gwich'in and Sahtu Dene and Metis settlement areas. These will be
five member boards. The first nations and the federal and territorial
governments will each appoint two members, who, in turn, will appoint a
chairperson.
The goal is to have a kind of parity committee, given that the
boards are funded in part by the government. This type of parity for
committees can be found in several bills. We in the Bloc Quebecois are
always inclined to say that this parity should be achieved as early as
possible in the process. As a general rule, when the designated members
meet, they are supposed to select a chairperson, who will often also be
a first nations leader. I think this is a laudable effort.
The boards will have the power develop and review plans as well as
propose changes to be made to plans concerning the use of all land
outside the area assigned to local administrations and within the
designated areas for the entire Mackenzie district.
As soon as a plan is approved by a first nation and by the
government, it will be used to guide the region's development.
The second board, the Land and Water Board, will consist of 17
members. The permanent regional panels will consist of five
members located in each of the Gwitch'in and Sahtu Dene and Metis
settlement areas. In addition to these 10 individuals, seven
members will be appointed by the government and by the first
nations of the three settlement areas located outside these areas.
Once again, the goal is native participation. In this regard,
it must be admitted that such participation is a given and is
commendable.
The board will have authority for issuing land use permits and
water licences with respect to development activities outside the
Mackenzie Valley settlement area, or affecting more than one of
these areas. The area is fairly specific. It is inhabited by Dene
exclusively and there are sub-areas often bearing names related to
the Dene culture: Gwitch'in, Deh Cho, Dogrib, names you will often
hear, which are significant for the bill before us today.
A permanent regional panel will issue licences according to
the needs of the settlement area. This new settlement system will
make it possible to implement land claim agreements based on the
Northwest Territories Water Act. Before these agreements, certain
laws had been put forward by the federal Parliament.
These laws will be amended by the bill before the House today.
The agreements will be implemented by means of new land use
regulations based on the existing regulations, on the Territorial
Lands Act, another law that will be amended by the present bill.
Finally, this bill provides for the creation of the Mackenzie
Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. You have to picture the
area, which the Mackenzie River cuts right through.
1205
So, whenever an economic development project is implemented, it has
an impact on the environment. While the purpose of the bill is to ensure
some consistency, it also creates problems. I will explain why in my
conclusion.
The environmental impact review board is the counterpart of an
economic development agency, which assesses projects from an economic
development perspective. So, the Mackenzie Valley environmental impact
review board is being established and will consist of 11 members,
including a chairperson. Again, the aboriginal community and the
government will be equally represented.
This is a positive development.
All development activities on the lands and waters of the Mackenzie
Valley, including those affecting Indian reservations or lands governed
by a settlement with a first nation, will be subject to the
environmental impact review and assessment process.
I said earlier that it will create problems, and I will explain why
in my conclusion.
Reviews and assessments in the Mackenzie Valley will be conducted
primarily through the board and will partly replace measures relating to
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Once again, the bill amends
an existing act.
That board may recommend to the minister responsible for a development
activity that a proposed project be rejected or that the environmental
and socio-economic conditions in which that activity can proceed be
defined.
So it is more than just the environment. The social and economic
impact of a development project on the aboriginal peoples will also be
considered. So we must admit that we are pleased with this item because
the considerations will include not only the environment for aboriginal
peoples, but also their economic development and the impact of the
project on the community. It is important to assess these, and the bill
provides for this.
These boards, the three boards that I have just mentioned, will
replace the land and water regulations applied by the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development and by the Northwest Territories
Water Board.
The bill provides for a procedure to monitor the cumulative
effects—and this also is important—of land and water used on the
environment in the Mackenzie Valley, and also for regular independent
environmental audits that must be made public. It can happen very often
that the immediate environmental impact of an economic development
project will be examined, but not the cumulative effect.
I mentioned this earlier. At the time of the gold rush in the
Klondike, the immediate impact was not the only concern, but we are now
stuck with huge hills of dirt and rocks that were extracted and left
behind. This definitely has a very adverse impact on the environment.
The impact was immediate and cumulative. So this is a bill that deals
with these two concepts and we are pleased with it in that respect.
This could be the job of a board or a department. The
Gwich'in and the Sahtu Dene and Metis must play an important role
in carrying out these functions. So, I think the famous parity for
all boards achieves this objective. I would remind you that there
are sub-regions that are not necessarily affected, that have no
agreement for the moment; these will be covered by the bill, and
this will soon become a problem.
I think it important, particularly because I did so earlier
for the Yukon, to situate the Mackenzie Valley for you. It is the
part of the Northwest Territories not included in Nunavut. As I
said earlier, the Yukon is bordered in the north by Inuvialuit, one
of the four Inuit regions in Canada.
Therefore the region we are looking at, which is covered by
the bill, runs right alongside Nunavut, which, I remind you, will
come into its own in terms of self-government and territorial
claims on April 1, 1999. I would like to acknowledge the interim
commissioner, who is ensuring a smooth transition. He is our
former colleague, Jack Anawak, who was appointed to the position
and who is in charge of the entire transition process that will
lead to self-government and land claims settlement in Nunavut.
1210
The region affected by the bill before us today is the one
immediately adjacent to the Nunavut. It is bordered on the west by
Inuvialuit—as has already been said—and by the Yukon, by the
Nunavut to the east and the 60th parallel to the south. On the
shores of the Mackenzie River are towns that have also been the
subject of bills, Fort Norman, Fort Franklin, Norman Wells, Fort
Wrigley, Fort Simpson, many regions that are particularly rich in
oil.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, these places served both
the whites and the Indians as trading posts or winter command
posts. There was, of course, no oil exploration, or need for it,
at the time. These places were needed instead for the fur trade or
as command posts.
The renowned Hudson's Bay Company, for instance, had a trading
post at Fort Franklin between 1945 and 1950. A Catholic mission
also settled there, in a teepee like construction. Only during the
sixties did the Dene settle permanently in Fort Franklin, which
they called Deline.
Fort Norman, was also founded as a trading post in 1810, with
the aboriginal inspired name of Slavey Tulit's, meaning “mouth of
two rivers”. At first, this place was of seasonal importance for
the Dene, then became a permanent settlement in 1872. Then, as an
undeniable sign of the colonization of the Northwest Territories by
westerners, the English in particular, a hewn timber Anglican
church was built at Fort Norman. A great tourist attraction, this
building is also a sign of the impact of development by the
English.
In the 18th century, the Northwest Company, a subsidiary of
Imperial Oil Limited, operated there. This company also operated
out of Norman Wells on the east bank of the Mackenzie River. It
was there that it obtained mining concessions in 1918 and
discovered oil in commercial quantities the following year. So it
is an area very rich in oil and gas.
The demand for oil from Norman Wells understandably reached
its height during World War II. The need for oil was great.
Canada and the world were at war. The war machine depended on oil.
Their production therefore reached a peak at this time. This was
followed, in 1947, by a dramatic drop because the demand was no
longer there. Demand went up dramatically later and Imperial and
Canada mined these deposits jointly.
Norman Wells is the easternmost point of the Canol pipeline.
This pipeline was built during World War II so that the community
could ship its top quality light crude, a strategic resource, to
the Alaska route and to centres in the south. The oil pipeline
that extends from the Northwest Territories to Zama, Alberta, also
ends at Norman Wells in the north.
I recall, by the way, discussing the Canol pipeline when we
looked at the bill concerning wells at Norman Wells.
As I have tried to show, the Mackenzie Valley is rich in
natural resources and in history. It represents an important
chapter in the history of relations between Canadians and the
native peoples. It seems obvious to me that those settlers bold
enough to do business in this area of the country made their
fortunes.
I do not want to repeat everything I said about Bill C-8, but
it is pretty much the history of Canada all over again. The first
settlers arrived, took possession of the land and the resources and
made vast fortunes. The native peoples are still stuck on reserves
waiting for the day when they will reap the economic benefits. We
know that they are practically living like a third world nation, in
very difficult socio-economic conditions. It is a shame that a way
has never been found to share equitably the wealth generated by the
multinationals and by Canada.
Was this done at the expense of the native peoples? I have just
told you that it was. That is the big question. Naturally,
there are grey areas. Some people blame the multinationals or
the Canadian government, while others argue it is the fault of
the native people for refusing to assume their responsibilities.
But there is no denying that the socio-economic conditions of
native peoples are far inferior to those of all other Canadians.
1215
So even if this needs to be qualified, we believe that this great
epic did not always benefit aboriginal peoples. It did very often
benefit Canadians who struck it rich, but at the expense of aboriginal
lifestyles.
A number of Canadians settled in the Mackenzie Valley and spread
their culture there. Many Indians also live there. There are first
nations, including the Dene in certain subregions, who are extremely
proud of their subregion and who have been living in these areas since
time immemorial. There are, among others, the Gwitch'in, the Sahtu Dene
and Metis, the Deh Cho and the Dogrib, all subregions of the Greater
Mackenzie Valley where aboriginal peoples have shaped Canadian culture
through their ancient aboriginal heritage.
They have also preserved their culture.
The information we have today on the aboriginals living in the
valley is still incomplete. However, observations made by western
explorers and traders who travelled through this area confirm that the
Dene nation split into three cultural groups: the eastern group, which
includes the Yellow Knives, the Dogribs and the Hares, the Slaveys, the
Chipewyan and the Beaver; the southwest group that includes the Nahane,
the Sekani, the Babine and the Carriers; the northwest group that
includes the Kutchin, the Loucheux, the Ahtena and the Khotana.
We can see that in the Dene culture, there are also subcultures,
and these people inhabit areas in the Mackenzie Valley covered by this
bill.
The word Dene comes from one of the main language groups, the
Athapascans, who spread out across Canada, from the Rocky Mountains to
Hudson's Bay.
In fact, I have in my office a lovely map representing the 50 aboriginal
languages still being used across Canada. I must say that Athapaskan is
indeed a widely used aboriginal language and one of the main aboriginal
languages in Canada.
Incidentally—if I may open a brief parenthesis here—the
retention level of these languages is probably better in Quebec than in
the rest of Canada. In fact, statistics show that language retention is
better among natives in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada. I will close
this parenthesis by saying that 50 languages is not insignificant; it
goes to show how rich the aboriginal culture is.
The Athapaskans came up with a word that is both very simple and
very rich to describe any human being, male or female, any
individual or people, including themselves: Dene.
Recently, this word was given a narrower meaning in the
political arena. It has become identified with the first nation
settled in Denendeh, in the Deh Cho Valley—the Mackenzie
Valley—also called Dehogà by the K'ahsho got'ine. In the Dene
language, earth, the land, is called “ndeh” or “nne”, hence
Denendeh, the land of the people, of the Dene.
I know the parliamentary debates translation team will no doubt be
calling my office, as they did after my speech on Bill C-8, but we must
keep the aboriginal names. I find it important to keep repeating these
names in this House so that we do not forget the great aboriginal
culture. I think it is only doing them justice to mention these peoples'
names. I also appreciate that it is not easy to keep track for those
recording our proceedings. I can assure them of my full co-operation in
providing them with any information they might need after I conclude my
remarks.
According to the writings of Father Morice, aboriginal nations in
the Mackenzie Valley lived off fishing and caribou hunting. They also
trapped. Their means of transportation were, and still are, canoes in
the summer and snowshoes or dogsleds in the winter. With whatever they
hunt or trap, they make toboggans, clothes, including mittens and coats,
and fish nets.
In fact, when I visited the neighbouring region, where the Dene
influence is also noticeable, I was impressed by the beautiful and warm
mitts, coats, moccasins and clothes that are made and decorated in the
great aboriginal cultural tradition of that region of the country.
Since the early days of colonization, relations between the Dene
and westerners have always been marked by struggles for territorial
ownership. These disputes concern Canadians, who are not very familiar
with their object and primary cause.
In fact, conflicts occur when the government does not consult aboriginal
peoples regarding the development and disposal of their lands. The
problem is not a new one: it has always existed.
The disputes essentially relate to the fact that aboriginals and
westerners do not share the same vision of the world. Their values are
different and often opposed. Let me give you an example.
1220
We westerners have a tendency to say that the land belongs to us.
We set boundaries, we mark out the lands we buy in the cities and in the
country. In aboriginal culture, the land belongs to everyone. This major
philosophical difference has often generated problems. The solution is,
of course, to establish the kind of relationship that will benefit both
cultures.
It must be realized that, for the first settlers and for the
immigrants who followed them, Canada represented an opportunity for a
new life. But in the case of aboriginal people, their lives would never
be the same.
In precolonial times the aboriginal people were autonomous and
independent, with their own political system, their own social
system, their own educational system. Afterward, they saw their
property and their lands slip from their control. A number of
historians and ethnologists feel that Canada's prosperity in the
north was achieved at the expense of the Indians, as I have already
said.
Colonization concentrated initially on the agricultural lands
of the south. The resource-rich lands were, however, exploited
almost as soon as they were discovered, for instance the treaty 8
and treaty 11 lands in this particular region. Gold was discovered
in the Klondike in 1896, and the gold rush began.
That is what prompted Canada to sign treaty No. 8 with the Dene,
who were opposed to prospectors and miners coming through their
territory.
I referred to Voisey Bay when I was speaking on Bill C-8. The
same thing is still happening today. We arrive, we explore, we
find huge deposits, and we move into lands that have always been
inhabited by aboriginal nations as if they were our own. We churn
out millions of dollars without any concern for fairness, for
paying back part of it in the form of royalties, at least to the
aboriginal people.
The treaty was signed in particular because of the 1920
discovery of oil deposits at Norman Wells in the Mackenzie Basin.
We can see the spirit behind the treaties, that they were mutual
agreements. From the moment that wealth was discovered, there was
an interest in signing treaties in order to avoid problems.
However, when there was no wealth, we left people alone.
Canada put a lot of effort into trying to convince the Indians
that signing Treaty No. 8 and Treaty No. 11 would mean no
encroachment on lands and no meddling in their life, which was
based on hunting, fishing and trapping. As I said, the signing of
Treaty No. 8 and Treaty No. 11 has to be seen in the context of the
political and economic events of the time that were shaping
Canada's future. These treaties came about as a result of the
Klondike gold rush between 1896 and 1898 and of the development by
both individuals and businesses of resources like oil and gas,
which we looked at earlier in connection with Bill C-8. These
events created a very fevered climate.
The Indians, furious at the damage to their economy and the
fires in their forests—people did not bother to cut down trees,
the forest was simply burned so mining equipment could be brought
in—reacted strongly to the invasion of their lands. In June
1898, the Indians around Fort St. John refused to allow police and
miners onto their land until a treaty was concluded. The
government felt that a treaty had to be concluded with them on
their rights to the land.
The treaty commissioners met the Cree and the Dene, who owned
324,900 square kilometres from northern Saskatchewan, Alberta and
British Columbia to south of Hay River and of Great Slave Lake in
the Northwest Territories. Under Treaty No. 8, the crown continued
its policy of offering benefits to Indians who allowed settlers to
move onto their land.
This treaty includes the usual clauses on the surrender and
transfer of land in exchange for government protection, although the
commissioners did not discuss these clauses with the northern aboriginal
population. There were no discussions, these clauses were simply
applied. So these are the infamous clauses referred to as the
extinguishing clauses.
The negotiations went on for many months, and as can often be seen
throughout the history of Canada, these negotiations show a lack of
understanding by officials of the conditions laid down by the Cree and
Dene nations. When these treaties were negotiated, the commissioners did
not explain clearly to the first nations the meaning of the concepts of
surrender and transfer contained in these documents.
For the Indians, any talks on these lands were based on the
assumption that they would keep what they considered to be sufficient
land in their respective areas, while allowing newcomers to share them.
1225
As I said earlier, while according to western philosophy the land
must be owned by someone, according to aboriginal philosophy, the land
belongs to everyone.
Many nations thought they were signing peace and friendship
treaties, not land transfer treaties. It is also unlikely that, in their
eagerness to close these deals quickly, commissioners spent very much
time explaining the concept of land transfer in any great detail.
What I am saying has been faithfully reported in the report of the
royal commission on aboriginal peoples.
In a word, the concepts and principles of land transfer contained
in these two treaties reflect a different reality, depending on whether
one is an aboriginal or a Canadian. No sooner were the treaties signed
that the authorities started passing legislation and drafting
regulations limiting the fishing, hunting and trapping activities of the
aboriginal peoples, which is exactly what they had been afraid of. As a
result of these measures, the Dene were condemned to live in poverty and
the very foundation of their economy was undermined, while the newcomers
on the land benefited and continue to benefit from the godsend that the
natural resources in the Mackenzie Valley truly are.
Ownership of the land and resources covered by Treaty No. 8 and
Treaty No. 11 has given rise to lengthy discussions on politics and
economics, court challenges, comprehensive claims and an inquiry, the
one conducted by Mr. Justice Berger.
I find it important to give an overview of the purpose of the two
agreements.
The bill before us today stems from two agreements, one concerning the
Dene settlements on Sahtu land and the other concerning the Gwich'in.
If we pay attention to the way the agreements are worded, we can
see that the purpose of both the Gwich'in and the Sahtu comprehensive
agreements are identical. It is worthwhile taking a closer look.
The Dene, Metis and Gwich'in people of Canada negotiated the
agreement with the following objectives in mind: first, to clearly
define the right to own and to use the land and its resources; second,
to confer the rights and benefits set out in the agreement in exchange
for waiving certain claims which the Dene, Metis and Gwich'ins have, in
any part of Canada, by treaty or otherwise. That is the famous
extinguishing clause I referred to earlier.
Third, to recognize and promote the way of life of the Dene, Metis
and Gwich'in, which is based on their cultural and economic relations
with the land. For them, the land is something that belongs to everyone.
So, this treaty attempts to reconcile the two philosophies.
Fourth, to promote self-sufficiency for the Sahtu Dene, Metis and
Gwich'in, and to recognize their ability to fully participate in all
aspects of economic life. They want to move away from the infamous
Indian Act. They want a land base with adequate resources to ensure
their own economic autonomy.
Fifth, to grant specific benefits, including allowances, lands and
other economic benefits, to the Dene, Metis and Gwich'in.
Sixth, to grant to the Dene, Metis and Gwich'in rights regarding
wildlife harvesting, as well as the right to take part in the decisions
relating to wildlife management and to hunting, in accordance with
aboriginal culture.
Seventh, to give to the Dene, Metis and Gwich'in the right to take
part in the decisions on the use, management and conservation of land,
water and resources. The bill before us today applies specifically to
this part.
Eighth, to protect and to preserve wildlife and the environment in
the region covered to the settlement, for the benefit of present and
future generations. Another cultural trait of aboriginal people is that
they often think of future generations. Mohawks, among others, often
speak of the seventh generation. In other words, their current decisions
are based on the fact that the seventh generation must also benefit from
them.
Finally, to guarantee to the Dene and Metis the possibility of
signing agreements on self-government. These changes are being
negotiated and could become reality in the days and months to come.
The Dene, who live in the south of that territory, continue to
consider Treaty No. 8 and Treaty No. 11 as the legal and political basis
of their relations with Canada. It is the same everywhere. People say
there have always been problems regarding the implementation of these
two treaties, and there are still problems today.
1230
They want to review the original treaties and interpret them.
At the time, in certain numbered treaties, there was a reference to
providing a medical kit. Today, aboriginal peoples feel they are
entitled to full medical services. And the government is rejecting
this wholly or in part.
So, aboriginal peoples would like to see effect given to
Treaty No. 8 and Treaty No. 11.
This brings me finally to the position of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member
for Saint-Jean, is giving an excellent speech before the House, a
speech that required a great deal of research, because the member
is concerned about aboriginal communities. He is giving an
excellent speech in the House, having spent much time and effort,
and I find it unfortunate that there are only two Liberal members,
and even only one Liberal member out of the 155 in the House. I ask
therefore for a quorum count.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): An hon. member has
called quorum. Do we have a quorum?
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair has
determined that there is a quorum in the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for all the significance he attaches to the aboriginal
voice and to the aboriginal nations in Canada. It is a pity that
people are more interested in having lunch than in hearing about
the future of the aboriginal nations. This may be a reflection of
government behaviour toward aboriginal issues in recent years. I
feel it is quite symptomatic of what is going on. I would like to
thank my colleague nevertheless.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. With all the respect I have for my
colleague opposite, and in particular his commitment to and work
in the area of aboriginal affairs, to somehow want to leave us
with the view that having lunch is more important than the issue
before the House is total rubbish. On the other hand, I do not
think it is parliamentary to reflect on the absence of members.
It does not serve well either side of the House.
I do not want to take any more time of the House because the
issue being debated is very important. I salute my colleague
opposite who does a tremendous amount of work on this issue.
However I hope he would stay to the debate and substance of the
issue rather than reflect on the presence or absence of members.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The government whip
is quite correct. It is an established precedent in the House
that we do not reflect on the absence or presence of members of
the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me,
however, that the procedural question as to whether there is a
quorum does not mean that the House is full at that time. It means
the opposite rather. I think that is what my hon. colleague meant
to say. I agree with the hon. government whip that I may have gone
further than I meant to when I said that the Liberal Party was more
interested in having lunch than in looking after the aboriginal
nations.
As for the position of the Bloc Quebecois, and I will conclude
with this since I have not much time left, the Bloc Quebecois will
oppose this bill on the following grounds. There are two
agreements, one with the Sahtu Dene and the other with the
Gwich'in.
The government said it would use those agreements as the basis of
a bill which would handle the entire question of water and lands in
the Mackenzie Valley. By that very fact, all of the other
communities have not settled their claims are being included. That
strikes us as a major problem.
We have consulted these communities and they have told us that
they had pulled out of the negotiations and that now legislation
was being applied to them, implementing follow-up or application of
an agreement that does not concern them.
In other words, no land claim agreements were concluded with them,
and here we are imposing one because of agreements that were
reached elsewhere.
1235
Specifically, the Deh Cho and the Dogrib withdrew from the
agreements and were not consulted on anything further. Today they
are faced with a bill that will be including them.
There are implementation problems of such proportion, in my
opinion, that the Bloc cannot today support such a bill.
Another point was raised in discussions, particularly with the
Deh Cho and the Dogrib. They wanted complete sovereignty over
their land.
In other words, they no longer wanted to be a part of Canada, and
the federal government is totally opposed to that sort of thing.
I wanted to raise the point because I did not want this example to
be used to tell Quebec that the native peoples in northern Quebec
were entitled to separate from northern Quebec.
If it is not permitted in Canada, it should not be permitted
in Quebec either, and if this is the case, the sovereignists and
the federalists should not be going at each other over the ins and
outs of this debate. I felt it important to say that.
Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-6, because it
wants it to apply only to the native peoples in the Sahtu region
and to the Gwich'in, with whom the government has agreements. We
oppose having the bill apply to the others as well.
Accordingly, the Bloc Quebecois opposes the bill at second reading.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the spirit
of the aboriginal royal commission, the passage of Bill C-6 is
not just about honouring federal government obligations or paying
moral debt to aboriginal people. It is about the development and
implementation of firm and consensual foundations for a new
relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. In
this case it is about a fair sharing of Mackenzie Valley land and
water resources and the strengthening of a relationship of mutual
and peaceful co-existence.
It is my pleasure to rise in the House to participate in the
debate on Bill C-6, an act to provide for an integrated system of
land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish
certain boards for that purpose and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
The bill implements obligations under land claims agreements
between the Government of Canada, the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene
and the Metis respectively. The main purpose of the bill in
accordance with the land claims agreements is to create an
integrated co-management regime for land and waters in the
Mackenzie Valley that would be applied through the creation of
certain boards.
These boards will be comprised of 50% first nations
representatives and the other 50% federal and territorial
representatives. This will give the first nations a far stronger
role in decision making. It is the result of extensive
consultations and a co-operative effort among the northwest first
nations, the territorial government and the federal government.
The Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated supports the enactment of the
bill. The Gwich'in Tribal Council is on record supporting the
bill. The Government of the Northwest Territories supports the
intent of the bill. The Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers and the Canada Energy Pipeline Association support the
bill. We support the bill and speedy passage of the legislation.
One of the main reasons for our support is the co-operative
effort behind the drafting of the bill.
The bill provides the land use planning boards with the power to
develop land use plans and to ensure that future use of the land
is done according to the approved plans. The land and water
boards and their panels are given the power to regulate the use
of the lands and the water, including the issuance of land
permits and water licences. The Environmental Impact Review
Board will be the main instrument for the examination of the
environmental impact of proposed development, including public
review.
With an increase in local accountability and responsibility,
particularly when the northwest first nation and the territorial
government will be in the majority position on each of the boards
being created, there is no question that the new integrated
system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley will
be far more sustainable in the long run.
For example, the Kluane first nations and non-aboriginal people
who live in an area of Kluane have land use planning boards. The
population in that area is just over 300 people and those
meetings regularly draw out over 150 people to participate in the
planning and care of the land in that area.
1240
The Liberals have made polluters responsible for policing
themselves. Degradation of our environment including air, soil
and water has increased under the government. Canada is falling
behind its international obligations to protect the environment.
Our Arctic is polluted because of specific actions or policies of
the federal government. The federal Government of Canada is
failing to protect our air, water resources and ecosystems, and
there is a long record to prove it.
We are all aware of and have experienced the dramatic
implications, including in my own riding, of the cuts in spending
and staff the government has imposed on Environment Canada. The
impact of such a policy has been compounded by provincial and
territorial cuts in the same areas.
Canadians have seen the environmental protection service of
Environment Canada hard hit with the downsizing of the
government. This was the branch that set unenforced regulations
on industries like mining, chemical production, and pulp and
paper. We are aware the federal government with its ideological
doctrine of business competitiveness and deregulation is imposing
declining standards on our environmental conservation programs.
We are optimistic that the devolution process and the
implementation of land claims agreements like the one being
completed by the passage of the bill will stop the trend to
degrading our environment.
The relationship between the first nations and the environment
is one embedded in a different cultural relationship and is not
there for short term economic gain.
The report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples grasped
the spiritual relationship of the first nations with their
environment. The final report of the commission indicated the
ultimate importance to aboriginal societies of the spiritual
relationship to the land. The relationship arises not only
because of dependence on the natural world for life itself but
out of a belief that human beings were placed on earth at
creation and given special responsibilities for the stewardship
of our environment.
The views of aboriginal society will now be included in the new
resource policy for the valley. It will be its responsibility to
manage land and water in the valley in the most appropriate way.
It is a pleasure to be present and participate in the debate of
a bill promoting a more positive relationship between aboriginal
groups and the rest of Canadians. Bill C-6 has implemented a new
approach concerning the recognition of the rights of aboriginal
people in the management of land and water resources. This new
approach ratifies respect for the treaty relationships that
Canada is creating with our aboriginal societies. That is good
for aboriginals of the country and good for Canada as a nation.
In conclusion, I reiterate our support for the bill and will
work for its passage in a quick and speedy way that shows respect
for the people who so carefully drafted the bill.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to make a few remarks about the principle of Bill C-6. I
believe in and will speak to the principle of the bill. I make
these remarks as the Progressive Conservative critic of Indian
affairs and northern development. I also make them as someone
who has over the years watched from a distance. Frankly I have
been amazed at the length of time it takes for the valid
aspirations of aboriginal peoples to be satisfied by the
Government of Canada.
I am most thankful that aboriginal leadership in the Mackenzie
Valley has been so very patient over the decades with what I am
willing to bet was an endless round of negotiation with
government officials.
This is no ordinary bill. It represents a principle that is so
laudable and so welcome Canadians should be thankful it has
arrived after so many years of toing and froing.
1245
Hon. members may know this bill represents a conclusion of sorts
to the precedent setting litigation and negotiation of aboriginal
title claims in the Northwest Territories. Perhaps some will
remember that the native peoples up there were faced with what
some saw as the stark reality of a huge development project
showing up on their doorstep without any input from them.
Essentially there were and remain, of course, concerns about a
disruption of a way of life, a disruption of the lands and the
waters. For people in the Northwest Territories, life is the
land and the water. One of the most remarkable features of this
land is the great and powerful Mackenzie River, one of the
world's longest at 4,241 kilometres. It and its huge valley need
to be respected and protected.
I am only just learning the history of this land myself. Perhaps
it would be useful to cite some of it respecting this matter so
that other members might better understand this legislation.
On April 2, 1973, 24 years ago, some 16 bands filed a caveat in
the land titles office in Yellowknife claiming aboriginal rights
to almost half the land in the Northwest Territories. When they
did that, they got the government's attention. The effect of
that caveat would have been to make any further land grants in
the area subject to the claim of the Indians if it were
subsequently found that they had a valid legal interest in the
land.
That may sound like legalese and I suppose it is, but it is very
important legalese and it was very important to the eventual
settlement of the land claims in the Northwest Territories and in
Canada as a whole.
Hearings were held and an interim judgment was handed down from
the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories which upheld the
caveat saying “that there is enough doubt as to whether the full
aboriginal title has been extinguished, certainly in the minds of
the Indians, to justify the caveat or to protect the Indian
position until a final adjudication can be obtained”.
This process has moved slowly and if you will pardon the pun it
has moved glacially slowly. Of course, the federal government
appealed. That hearing was to take place before the appellate
division of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories in
June 1975. Assuredly, this has been a slow process.
Meanwhile, tired of waiting but wanting to get on with the job,
behind the scenes the aboriginal leadership negotiated
successfully with the then minister of Indian affairs to engage
in preliminary discussions to develop the groundwork for a
comprehensive settlement of Indian claims in the Northwest
Territories. Essentially the aboriginal leadership pushed the
idea of fairness, not a radical idea. They were adamant that a
settlement of native claims must precede the pipeline or any
other major development projects.
This evolved slowly. Maybe for some it was terribly slow.
Certainly a great many people got tired of waiting. Finally it
evolved to the present date, until Bill C-6 is before us today.
This bill, I am told, was developed by a co-ordinating group
comprised of representatives from DIAND, Northwest Territories
government, representatives of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, the
Sahtu Secretariat and the Department of Justice. We are all
hopeful that their many years of dialogue have borne fruit.
The Progressive Conservative Party is in favour of transferring
responsibilities and power to the local level and sharing
management and development duties. We believe, as most Canadians
believe, that this is an important step in empowering all
residents of the Northwest Territories. In principle, the joint
boards this bill will establish are a good idea. However, I am
looking forward to the hearings before committee to give it
closer examination.
This bill is intended to implement obligations under land claims
signed five years ago, as well as in September 1993. In 1992, the
Gwitch'in Tribal Council settled a comprehensive land claim that
provided for 22,422 square kilometres of land in the northwestern
portion of the Northwest Territories and 1,554 square kilometres
of land in Yukon.
It also provided for subsurface rights, a share in the resource
royalties derived from the valley, tax free capital transfers,
hunting rights, a greater role in the management of wildlife,
land and the environment, and the right of first refusal on a
variety of activities related to wildlife.
1250
These are good things and surely we have made some headway since
1973. Yet if they represent one principle it would be one
related to good government. I am sure the current minister would
recognize the efforts and the success of the previous
Conservative government in establishing this excellent
partnership.
The bill before us provides for the establishment of management
boards to co-ordinate environmental assessment and land and water
regulation in the Mackenzie Valley. The valley is 4,241
kilometres long. This is a huge undertaking by the government of
this country and I commend the government for it. People often
think of the north or the Mackenzie Valley as a barren wasteland.
On the contrary, it has been home to the Inuit and the Dene for
10,000 years. Martin Frobisher's expeditions back in the 1570s
were the first recorded visits to the Northwest Territories by an
outsider.
I hope this bill will go some way to ensure that with all the
wealth and the potential to be found under the surface of the
land and the water in the Mackenzie Valley that outsiders respect
the land and water and that they show some respect for the people
who are called the insiders of the Mackenzie Valley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me as the representative
for the Conservative Party to participate in this debate. The
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada supports this bill. We
support its goals and aspirations. Furthermore we support the
goals and the aspirations of the people who live in the north and
who have brought this bill forward.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a couple of points with respect to the hon. member's speech.
He claimed that the aboriginals have claimed up to half the
territory of the Northwest Territories. This rather ambitious
claim could have been dealt with in two ways, through the courts
or through negotiation.
In the years following that claim, governments have decided not
to use the courts as a method of resolving these claim disputes.
When a dispute arises if one partner feels he is in an
advantageous position it is very unlikely that he will be willing
to go to court. He obviously wants to negotiate.
He lauded the past Conservative government for negotiating away
large tracts of land and many rights and benefits not on the
basis of long term residency in the Northwest Territories but on
the basis of race. Could the member comment on whether he
believes this is the way to go?
He talked about first rights of refusal on many activities. Is
that the correct way to go? He knows that when one group obtains
rights it is usually at the expense of another group. I would
like him to clarify some of these things for me, especially the
issue of adjudication or negotiation.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his questions. He raises some valid points. We in this
House have to remember that these issues are not completely
settled yet. It is second reading of the bill. We have a way to
go yet.
I was alluding to the general thrust and the point of the bill.
Certainly we support that.
1255
The hon. member commented on the size of the land claim
agreement, the fact that it deals with surface rights and that
the north is a polyglot of people and represents more than just
the native peoples. Many people have moved to the north in the
last couple of hundred years. The bill applies to everyone in
the north. It is our belief that there is room for everyone and
there is room in this bill to include everyone.
It is not the intent of this party to leave any group out and I
do not believe it is the intent of the bill to leave any group in
the north out. I think it is all-encompassing and reflects the
rights of everyone.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill
C-6, the Mackenzie Valley resource management act. I have been
listening to my colleagues on all sides of the House speak to
this bill. It has been a very interesting and rewarding
experience, to say the least, that we have agreements on various
aspects, if not the total intent and principle of the bill.
First, the principles on which this bill is based are sound and
acceptable I believe to most members. The obligation to provide a
bill to help us to give life to provisions of those claims that
have been settled is quite clear.
We have an obligation because we have enacted legislation at
another time that clearly indicates that in order for those
claims to have full effect and force, this regime needs to be
enacted. That is quite clear. It is indisputable.
I believe that Bill C-6 is proposed to enhance local public
government in the Mackenzie Valley, to provide certainty and
consistency for residents and industry and fulfil outstanding
obligations under the Gwich'in and Sahtu Dene and Metis land
claim agreements.
It is not unusual for any government to find itself in a
catch-22 situation because not all things happen at the same time
or at the same speed. There are those in the Mackenzie Valley
area who have yet to settle their claims. There are those who
have concerns but we are only at second reading of the bill. It
is quite plain to see that the democratic process will allow them
to have their say, that will make provisions for them to speak
their mind to the bill and to quell their fears.
Some features of the Mackenzie Valley resource management act
will act as an advantage to Mackenzie Valley First Nations
without claim settlements. These are to be interpreted. When we
interpret them each individual and group comes up with its own
interpretation.
First, clause 5(2) should give some comfort to those
individuals. It speaks to the aboriginal and treaty rights being
protected under that clause. It is an act that would be reviewed
in consultation with First Nations, which I just spoke to
previously. Clause 5(1) states that it does not affect the
Indian Act.
Clauses 99 and 112 provide for the nomination of members to the
boards, thereby providing a much stronger voice in resource
management decision making throughout the Mackenzie Valley.
Clause 108 allows for permanent regional land and water panels
on settlement of land claims.
There are also advances for the Government of the Northwest
Territories. It clearly support this. We have in writing the
support of the territorial government for this integrated
management resource regime. It is a system it feels holds the
principles of equality that will allow for all groups to come
forward and to participate with a good sense of fairness and
equal participation.
1300
It also talks about public boards in parts 4 and 5 while
integrating the regions. It provides a form of public government
that may accommodate self-government, co-management of resources
endorsed by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
Many of these issues and nuances that relate to it or aspects of
it could be debated by various members but generally the
obligation for us to enact this bill is clear. The principles
that it holds are democratic, fair and representative and I
believe have a fair buy-in from all parties concerned.
The government is not into a regime of overregulation so that
industry cannot move. That is not what this government is on
about. We are not about exclusion and hiding a set of guidelines
that preclude everyone else. That is not the extent to which the
government would like to operate. What we are on about is to
make it so that the goals are commendable and that there are
clear reasons for this House to support this legislation.
The parliamentary secretary has informed the House that the
regional land claim agreements of the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene
and Metis commit the government to establish a new resource
regulatory regime in the respective settlement areas. They have
also heard from NDP members, members opposite, and my hon.
colleague from the Conservative Party who just spoke about some
of these issues.
The boards created under Bill C-6 are public government boards
which will operate in the public interest. These boards are
extremely important. Not only is the process important but the
ensuing products of this act will be extremely important because
they are integrated and they are meant to serve all people. They
are meant not to prejudice, nor to abrogate or derogate the
rights of those who have yet to settle their claims.
The intent of the government is to serve all fairly. That is
what raises the whole spectre of a catch 22. In trying to serve
all members of its constituencies fairly, we face this dilemma.
We are at second reading. We know that those individuals who
have concerns have the opportunity to be heard. That is
extremely important.
Under the new regime, people from the Mackenzie Valley will sit
on the boards. There will be an opportunity for increased input
through public hearings. As well the nominees of different
groups will bring their own perspectives to the boards resulting
in a balance of interest and best overall decisions.
I would like to speak to why it is absolutely important that we
have this regime. In the Northwest Territories we are about to
become the producer, a significant producer of quality diamonds
in Canada's north. By 1998 the first mine will account for about
6% of the world's diamond production by value. With other
prospects coming into production this could climb to 15% or more
within the next 10 years.
We do not hear much about that. We hear about Voisey's Bay and
all of the other regimes which are coming forward, but this is
significant. This is the largest diamond development in the
western hemisphere, outside of a small diamond development in
Colorado to the south of us.
The diamond industry is unlike any other. Canada will soon join
an exclusive club of producers of one of the most valuable and
coveted commodities on earth. We are believed to be in the top
percentage of the highest value of diamonds in the world. Diamond
mining produces an exceptionally high return on investment at
approximately 50%.
For example a company which is currently in diamond development
in the north will recover the capital costs associated with its
first mine at Lac de Gras within the first five years of
operation. How many businesses do that? Usually there are long
term strategic goals for economic recovery in a new business.
This is significant. The company will go on to generate over
$14.3 billion in income during 25 years with just one mine.
There are other proposed mines. Its profit over that same period
is estimated at $4.3 billion.
1305
Yes, I am aware that there are fair returns for the people who
live there, but there are other things we must consider.
The Government of Canada will also be a major beneficiary of the
north's new diamond mining industry. It will earn $2.4 billion
in taxes and royalties just with the first diamond mine. The
federal government's net fiscal benefits increase to $4.4 billion
when royalties, corporate and personal income taxes, indirect and
induced fiscal impacts and grant offsets to the Government of the
Northwest Territories are factored in. These are all new numbers.
They are not generated by our government but they are out there.
Of all the parties involved, the Northwest Territories stands to
gain the least from this lucrative industry. It will receive
only $.2 billion. So far that is the information we have and the
information I have. All this to say that the $7 million raised
annually in tax revenues by the territorial government will be
far less than what it will spend on infrastructure and social
programs over the lifetime of the mine. That is significant
considering the cutbacks various levels of government have
experienced.
Despite advertising claims, diamonds are not forever. The
governments and people at the territorial level feel that the
newest industry in Canada, developing diamond value added
industries in Canada should be done in the north. Billions of
dollars and potentially hundreds if not thousands of
manufacturing and retail jobs are at stake.
Every diamond producing country in the world demands valuation
and sorting take place within its borders before diamonds are
exported. This apparently is the standard. Many require that
diamonds be set aside for domestic production or insist on a
cutting and polishing industry domestically.
As a result, thriving diamond industries exist in places as
diverse as Gaborone, Botswana, Freetown and Perth. In the
Northwest Territories the residents and the leaders believe no
less and we share the same view that those value added activities
should happen within our own borders. What happens in the
Northwest Territories is good for Alberta, Manitoba, B.C.,
Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Quebec and Ontario because we have a
small population. We attract those people by way of service
contracts and workers.
When I go home I travel almost every week with workers who are
going out to those activities including the other mines that had
a rough ride with their stocks and shares last night. Nonetheless
there is that kind of development in the north.
In the Northwest Territories we have other activities that are
ensuing. Lots of land has been put up for bid for exploration.
Some very welcome contenders have put bids on those. I cannot
say the names of those groups. They are in the oil and gas field
and we also have gold and other mineral resource development in
the north.
Oil and gas is a major industry for our people in the north and
we value that. That is why we seek a balance with this
legislation. We know we need to have that kind of a balance. We
know we need to be able to speak to all the parts of this bill,
all the constituents of this bill, not just one aspect.
It is extremely important that the recipients, the major
benefactors in terms of resource development, be northerners.
That does not mean them exclusively. It means other levels in
this country, the federal government, the territorial government,
the municipal governments, industry and various other industries
from abroad should benefit as well. There is a balance to be
struck but there is far greater opportunity than I think we
recognize.
This is an important bill because it is a step forward in the
devolution process in the Northwest Territories.
It will ensure government for and by those directly affected by
the decisions. It will ensure better overall planning of
development, as well as a better understanding of the cumulative
environmental effects of development. These boards will serve the
interests of land owners, developers and the public alike.
1310
I am not a stranger to the views that prevail out there on this
particular bill. I have had access to industry members who do
not necessarily favour it. I have had access to aboriginal
groups who do not favour various parts of this bill but who think
the principles if they apply to everyone are fair and okay.
I have had access to the groups that will be well served by this
bill but who understand and are sensitive to their colleagues.
They know that nonetheless unless they have this bill they will
not be able to enact those provisions in their claims. They
cannot move forward to actualize and implement their claim the
way they should unless they have this bill.
Therefore the dilemma we have is that we must do our level best
in this House, as members of the House, to serve all of those who
would best be served by finding the balance in the legislation to
respect the rights of all those who will be affected by it. That
does not mean we do not do anything, that we are caught in
inertia or that we are paralyzed. It means that we must be
careful and thoughtful, which is what we do as legislators, and
we should be.
The new boards will have powers under the legislation. The
boards will have the right to summon witnesses and order them to
give evidence or produce documents necessary for carrying out the
board's responsibilities. This will be enforceable in the same
manner as an order of the courts.
Decisions and orders of the boards may be appealed to the
Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. If there is a
conflict between this legislation and a land claim settlement,
the settlement agreement will prevail. That is apparently the
law.
The law is subject to interpretation and it is subject to the
way it is enforced. Laws are not meant to be brutal. Laws are
meant to be enforced considering the human factor. The human
factor is a multifaceted one. It is one which has many sides.
We do not live in the Northwest Territories, especially in the
Mackenzie Valley, in a homogeneous setting. We live in a
heterogeneous setting. We have many cultures and many groups.
We have many people with different levels of education and
skills. We have people who are in industry. We have people who
have an extreme attachment to environmental issues.
We continue in our own way in the Northwest Territories to find
the balance. I as a legislator am tasked with this. My view is
that it is important that we fulfil the crown's commitments to
the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene and the Metis.
As the parliamentary secretary has indicated, extensive
consultations have taken place regarding this legislation. I
appreciate the concerns and issues which have been raised by the
First Nations in the Northwest Territories. It is my obligation
as their member of Parliament to see this time as an opportunity
for discussion and debate to continue. Let them come forward
with their views. They can best speak to them. I cannot speak
on their behalf.
I therefore urge my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting
Bill C-6. It speaks to many of the issues I have raised, such as
the profile of one of the major developments in the western
hemisphere, the whole diamond industry, which is unprecedented in
North America.
We have an opportunity to build. We have an opportunity to
share. We have an opportunity to work together. I do not see
any mitigating factors which would prevent us from doing that. I
do not see anything stopping us from engaging in a process that
is fair, consultative and that looks for the best product for our
citizens. It is our obligation to do that as members of
Parliament, as ministers of the crown, or whatever role we are
engaged in in an official capacity.
I hope we will take this opportunity to invite those who have
questions to come forward and to speak for themselves.
1315
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
particularly impressed with the content, passion and the obvious
understanding with which the hon. member presented her arguments
in favour of Bill C-6.
There are a couple of questions I would like to address to the
hon. member which deal with some of the words used which
reverberate very favourably in my mind. These are words like
fairness, balance and the development of the economy for
individuals and entrepreneurs as well as for the country at
large.
I ask the hon. member if she would please tell the House to what
degree would her government be prepared to amend the proposed
bill which is now before the House to accommodate some of the
questions and concerns that the first nations, the Metis and
business people have, as well as other people across Canada. She
states rather correctly that many of the things that will be done
here will affect not only the Northwest Territories but Alberta
and other provinces and the federal government in particular.
I wonder if she would address to what degree will she and her
government accept amendments to accommodate the various
conflicting interests at this time.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I have been in
Parliament for nine years, now in my third term. It has been my
experience that amendments are a way of life when we are dealing
with various acts and bills.
We are talking very strongly about the principles of this bill.
I have not heard any amendments come forward. I do not have a
list of amendments. Those groups that will best speak for
themselves, that have those concerns have not come forward and
given me those lists or inventories of amendments. I am not the
minister to speak to those or the parliamentary secretary. They
will be dealt with in a fair and judicious manner.
However, we must remember that the principles of the bill should
be upheld and not be undercut by amendments which would take the
bill down. That would not be acceptable. It would defeat the
original purpose of the bill.
I believe that we have a consultative process and ideas are
brought forward which will best reflect what is needed for all
constituents concerned with this bill. I think those will be
entertained.
I cannot come forward today and say that certain sections of the
bill will be amended. I cannot do that because it is
unrealistic. I would assume it does not undercut the principles
of the bill or undo the bill generally. At various stages
amendments are entertained. However, I do not know of any
specifics from the constituent groups yet.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member and I congratulate her on her
remarks.
I want to comment on a couple of things in the bill in general
and specifically on the devolution of power to the NWT. I would
like her to comment on the government's position about the
devolution of power. Is there a willingness on behalf of the
government to follow up Bill C-6 with necessary bills and
regulations which will eventually lead to some type of provincial
recognition by the government of Canada, as many other provinces
have evolved in the country? Is there a willingness on behalf of
the government to follow that through?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak on
behalf of the minister responsible for this bill. However, within
the confines of the territorial government's legislative assembly
a speech was given about the support for devolution. Following
there were arrangements with regard to health and we transferred
responsibilities for that. We are in the process of looking at
various other opportunities on both sides which will speak to
honouring the whole process of devolution. However, we must take
caution.
1320
In devolving responsibility we must understand that there are
many players and many people are affected. There are the Inuit
people, the first nations people, the Metis people, the
non-aboriginal people who come from all parts of Canada to be
permanent residents of the north, whom we love and respect, who
share with us in our toils every day in building a wonderful part
of this country. We must be cautious that we do not exclude,
undercut or destroy the rights of those people in achieving what
we might perceive to be a higher goal. We must be conscious of
that and that is not easy to do. It is complicated. It is
complex and is something that requires a great deal of
sensitivity and a great deal of care.
My hon. colleague will know that there is a commitment but it is
one that is undertaken with great caution.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
compliment the member on her commitment to bringing jobs to the
Northwest Territories, to the diamond mines that are currently
under development and the classification and sorting of the
diamonds, these highly skilled and quality jobs. It is vital
that we recognize that they could quite easily be located in the
north and add value to the development of the northern economy.
I am a little concerned about the numbers of boards and
jurisdictions we are creating. This bill creates about five or
six different boards for a very small population. I appreciate
the environmental concerns and the fragility of the environment.
I have two questions for the hon. member.
First, how can we ensure that development will proceed apace as
it can and perhaps as it should to provide job opportunities and
skills and economic development for the north?
Second, I am concerned about the devolution of powers by the
minister. The bill gives the minister powers to delegate
responsibilities to the Government of the Northwest Territories.
It is not clear to me whether these boards will always report
back to the minister specifically or whether it is within his
power to delegate the reporting responsibility of the boards back
to the Government of the Northwest Territories or to him always.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague
raises some very important points. There is no doubt in my mind
that this bill is directly aimed at dealing with the issue of
certainty which will give comfort to the various constituent
groups that they can proceed in a balanced and sustainable way
with development. That is easier said than done. We do not
always have friendly partners in that process.
The north has exemplified through the kinds of agreements it has
reached over the years under various development regimes that it
can work together and I think this bill will aid that. When this
bill comes to its final resolution it will do that.
The issue of devolution is a little more complicated. I am not
sure of all the micro managing details and all the tasks assigned
to the various members of the board. I am not that familiar with
the bill. I am aware of the general structure of what would
result from this bill.
The boards are designed to have an adjudication process that
would serve itself well without too much interference, but there
is an overriding obligation because it is government legislation.
It would not be guided on every detail of what it does. There is
a process for them to be the masters of their own destinies, as
we would have in the House standing committees but on a higher
level. It requires legislation to enact those boards. They have
the power to guide themselves.
I am not totally familiar with the reporting system but I know
they have a great deal of autonomy. They must be arm's length
and I believe the bill speaks to that quite clearly.
1325
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
sat here too and listened to the member opposite speak with
regard to this bill. Bill C-6 was originally introduced in this
House on December 12 as Bill C-80.
I would like to get back to the speech of the member opposite if
I may for a moment. She mentioned quite proudly the diamond mines
in the north, and justifiably so.
I remember not that long ago standing in this House raising some
concerns about the length of time it was taking to come on stream
through the red tape and bureaucracy that we tend to create in
this country.
It has taken years of frustration for the owners and the
participants in the BHP diamond mine to get up and on stream
while the competition in other countries went ahead.
I want this House to be well aware of the legislation that we
create in this House, how it can hamper the development and the
process in these areas.
Make no mistake about it, the legislation that we developed here
hampered the diamond fields of the north. It never helped them,
not one bit. I want to make sure this House is fully aware of
that. I want to make sure the member opposite is also aware of
that and takes that into consideration as we debate this bill.
There are many concerns with regard to this bill in the north.
Some I have heard from the opposite side, and some from this side
too have tried to address this. The main concern here is that
when we pass legislation, it is far easier to pass it than to
repeal it.
As we go through Bill C-6 and talk to all the players involved,
not just one or two, we find there is an abundance of concern
with regard to where this bill is going and what we are
attempting to create here.
We have no problem with setting up some of these boards to help
the people in the different areas but we do have concerns when we
hear from people in these outlying areas saying about the lack of
consultation with regard to this, the complexity of the laws, the
complexity of the language used in order to create these laws not
fully understood by the participants involved.
That has to become a concern of every politician in this House
when we allow this to take place. We all know legal language is
probably the hardest language to understand next to a politician.
We have to be very aware of what we are doing when we create
laws formed basically by lawyers here in the House so that when
we go out to the people to try to put through legislation they
fully understand the legislation being put in place.
From some of the letters we have we know this is not what
happened here. We know that the concern is there due to this
legal language. We also know there is concern. I heard today
that there was concern that this was legislation by exhaustion.
We are talking about over 30 drafts of this legislation going
forward to these people and basically being online until this got
through some of these areas. I have concern about that.
I also have concern when we talk about areas such as this
regarding cost. We know these people cannot afford to come to
Ottawa to address these concerns. We also know there are some
areas they cannot get to, say Yellowknife.
What is wrong with our sending people out there to talk to them?
I have done it.
I am sure other members of the House have done it too.
1330
These people deserve to be heard. We are enacting legislation
in the House pertaining to the way they live, make their living
and in many cases raise their families. We in the House have to
be very aware of that. We have to make sure there is absolute
clarity when we make such legislation.
The Sahtu and Dene Band information session in September raised
many question. Far too many of them were answered with
uncertainty. It scares me when I hear that their questions were
answered with uncertainty. Why? Often the response to such
matters was that it would have to be settled in court.
I am just an ordinary person from a place called Vernon, British
Columbia, just outside Armstrong. When I read people are afraid
we are creating policy that will wind up in court, I have grave
concerns about where we are going.
Are we sitting here as a government, as opposition members and
as other members of the House to create legislation to further
lawyers? Or, are we supposed to be here to further the benefit
of the people so they do not have to worry about legislation that
introduces the idea it may have to be settled in court. I
question that and I worry about that.
There is also question of the extra time limits that will be
imposed and the extra level of bureaucracy and the red tape that
will be created, especially in the further exploration and
development in mining.
We all know what happens in the mining industry. We all have
grave concerns about what will happen if the industry ever
decided one day that perhaps Canada was not the place to do
business in. We have to address some of these concerns. We hear
from exploration companies that unnecessary red tape is already
creating this distinct possibility.
I sat and still sit on the natural resources committee. I can
remember agreeing with all parties in the House in the last
session to preparing a draft policy entitled “Keep Mining off
the Rocks in Canada”. We worked very hard on it. Yet not one
decision of that committee has come to the floor of the House. It
sits on some shelf gathering dust. Maybe that is a make work
project for government, keeping people busy dusting off policies
that would benefit the Canadian populace as a whole. We supply
people to dust them off every now and then so that maybe they can
refer to them but never in the House.
It makes me wonder about the legitimacy of much of the committee
work, as I am sure many members of the House wonder. We put in
many hours trying to clarify legislation, only for it to be taken
from our hands and drafted into language that very few of us
really understand. The lack of clarity has to be the first
concern.
We also have to be concerned about what we are creating in the
process with regard to the legality problems that could be
created and fostered. We have to consider seriously a system
that could be under-resourced. I have not heard much about this
concern, but we have to consider it, especially its technical
capacity. We have to be aware that it might put us at a
disadvantage in dealing with the large workload the bill will
create by agreements and changes in leasing permits.
We have to be concerned about many of these areas.
1335
When the legislation goes to committee I would like to see the
amendments seriously debated and considered instead of just
washed over. If we were to address some of the amendments that
come forward with regard to the bill it would take away a lot of
the worry for the people living up there, both native and
non-native. It would definitely take away some of the worry for
mining exploration companies, the biggest employer in the area.
This has to happen in legislation if we are to go forward with
good pieces of legislation that benefit everybody. These are
legitimate concerns. I hope members of the House understand
them, look at them and are willing to address them through
committee work.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank my colleague for his remarks and his concerns.
In December 1993, DIAND published an information package on the
Mackenzie Valley resources management bill. The package was
announced in the northern media in January 1994 and distributed
to all first nations in the Mackenzie Valley, other pertinent
aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups, communities, industries,
federal and territorial government departments.
In June 1994, DIAND officials met in Calgary with the Canadian
Association of Petroleum Producers, CAPP, and with the Canadian
Energy Pipeline Association, CEPA; in May 1995 in Calgary again
with CAPP and CEPA; in June 1995 in Vancouver with the Canadian
Mining Association and Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines; in
August 1996 again with CAPP and CEPA; in April and September 1997
with the Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines.
Does the member feel the government has an obligation to the
Gwich'in and Sahtu regarding their land claims?
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, yes, it does have an
obligation. It also has an obligation to everybody and to listen
to everybody. That is what the House is supposed to be for.
If the member reads through his notes he will quickly realize
that the DIAND information session in September 1997 raised many
questions that were left unanswered. The ones that were answered
were answered with uncertainty, often with the wording that such
matters would be settled in court. If legal recourse is the only
way to settle matters, it is time to amend the legislation. The
hon. member should be aware of that.
We have to look at all of it before we go ahead and just pass
legislation. Just because part of it is right does not make the
whole right. Why would we pass something that is 50% good and
50% bad? Why would we pass anything that has anything bad in it?
It should be 100% good if at all possible. That is good
legislation.
Good legislation is not having to go back 10 years from now and
having to amend something that we put into place in the House.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
rather interested in my colleague's comments.
The member referred a bit to the previous speaker, the hon.
secretary of state of the Liberal Party. Implicit in her remarks
was efficiency. I remember my colleague stating rather correctly
that there was an impediment to the establishment of exploration
companies and so on. Implicit in the other comments was that
this would expedite, make better and make more efficient the
decision making process.
1340
Could the member comment briefly on exactly how the creation of
four to seven boards—and it is not quite clear how many there
will be—would actually expedite and make more efficient the
decision making process and thereby make it a more profitable
venture?
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, at least three new
boards will be created. There is absolutely no way that will
speed anything up. We all know what happens when we get tied
down in bureaucratic red tape.
I sat on the natural resources committee. We looked for a one
window shop. Now we have created more than that. We have
created more legislation, more red tape, and more headaches for
exploration and development in that area in particular and in
land management. More bureaucracy is exactly what we are
creating. Instead of trying to make something smaller and more
simple we are now expanding to make it more complex and more
frustrating for everybody trying to do business.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Will it cost more tax dollars?
Mr. Darrel Stinson: It will definitely cost more tax
dollars. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It will cost
a fair amount in more tax dollars for more uncertainty. That is
exactly what we are doing.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
interested in the recent exchange between my colleagues from
Kelowna and Okanagan—Shuswap. I have a couple of questions for
the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.
I am a bit confused. If we have worked on these problems for so
long we do not want to pass something that is not right. We want
something that is simple and that natural resources will
understand. We want a lot of things out of the legislation we
will obviously not get. We need something that can be worked
with, something that is balanced and something that is fair.
I do not think my hon. colleague can have it both ways. There
is no way he will be right 100% of the time. We all know that.
I ask the member to explain the term under-resourced, another
word that puzzles me. He used that term in his speech. He said
something about conditions in the north or development being
under-resourced. Could I have an explanation?
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the last
question first. When we put these boards into place we had to be
very aware that it would cost taxpayers a lot more money. It is
under-resourced to handle this issue at this point in time. There
is absolutely no doubt about that. Taxpayers will have to pick
up that cost and we have to remember that.
As for being right 100% of the time, no. I do not think anybody
in the House has ever been right 100% of the time, at least no
member who is still living. I am not sure about those who have
passed away. I have read many times in their speeches that they
absolutely thought they were right 100% of the time, and the rest
of us have had to suffer for their decisions.
One reason I am here is to make sure those who think they are
right 100% of the time take a second look and maybe even a third
look, a sober sincere look.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
address the House on Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley resource
management act. I am pleased to join my hon. colleagues, the
secretary of state and the parliamentary secretary, in speaking
in support of the legislation.
I will explain the roles and responsibilities of the new boards
the bill establishes and how they will bring decision making to
the residents of the Mackenzie Valley.
Bill C-6 will establish a total of six new boards, two of which
will have jurisdiction throughout the Mackenzie Valley. The
other four boards will be regional institutions, two in the
Gwich'in settlement area and two in the Sahtu settlement area.
Under Bill C-6 each of the Gwich'in and Sahtu settlement areas
will have a regional land use planning board composed of two
nominees from the aboriginal beneficiary group, two from
government and a chairperson. Support services will be provided
by a small technical and administrative staff.
1345
This board will be responsible for land use planning for all
lands and waters within the settlement area, except for lands in
national parks or within the boundaries of a local government. As
the parliamentary secretary has stated, the purpose of this
planning will be to protect and promote the social, cultural and
economic well-being of the residents of the settlement area.
Aboriginal organizations, governments and the general public in
each settlement area will have an opportunity to comment on draft
land use plans or any proposed changes to the plan. The plan
must be approved by the affected aboriginal group and the federal
and territorial governments. It will be reviewed every five
years.
The land and water authorities in the settlement area will
conduct their operations according to the approved plan. Each
board will monitor the implementation of its land use plan and
will determine whether development proposals conform with it.
From time to time these regional land use planning boards may
participate in co-operative planning exercises with similar
institutions in adjacent areas. Of course, it is hoped that
eventually the Dogrib, the Deh Cho and the other Treaty 8 areas
of the Mackenzie Valley will become part of this overall picture.
A regional land and water board will also operate in each of the
settlement areas. These boards will consist of five members:
two from government, two from the aboriginal beneficiary group
and a chairperson.
The regional land and water boards will issue, amend or renew
land use permits and water licences for all lands and waters in
the settlement area, except where these powers are already
exercised by a local government. Support will be provided by a
small technical and administrative staff.
These boards will not issue licences or permits for projects
that are not compatible with the land use plan for the settlement
area. As well, proposals must have been subjected to an
environmental impact assessment before a licence or permit will
be issued. This permitting and licensing process takes into
account certain protection and guarantees for waters that lie on
or flow through settlement areas granted by the Gwich'in, Sahtu
Dene and Metis land claim agreements.
Bill C-6 also includes provisions for inspections, for fines and
for prison terms for persons who contravene any regulations made
under this legislation or who fail to comply with the terms of a
permit. The board may also order that compensation be provided to
a First Nation with a claim agreement for any substantial change
in the quality, quantity or rate of flow of waters through or
adjacent to the settlement lands of the First Nation.
This bill obviously takes an ecosystem approach to this problem,
similar to that which we have in conservation areas of other
provinces.
In looking beyond the settlement areas, of which there are five,
these regional land claim agreements foresaw the need for a
co-ordinated system of resource regulation throughout the
Mackenzie Valley. Toward this end, Bill C-6 will authorize the
governor in council to establish the Mackenzie Valley land and
water board to promote co-ordination and consistency in the
regional permitting and licensing process.
This valley-wide board will deal with issues or projects whose
impacts may cross settlement areas or will be outside settlement
areas. Special panels may be established for this purpose. The
land and water board of each settlement area will become a
permanent panel of the larger valley-wide board.
The sixth board which will be established under Bill C-6, the
environmental impact review board, will also exercise
jurisdiction over the entire valley. This board will be located
in Yellowknife and will have up to 11 members, including a
chairperson.
It will have equal nominees from government and aboriginal
groups, including at least one member from each of the Gwich'in
and Sahtu organizations.
1350
The environmental impact review board will assess and, where
necessary, publicly review all development proposals in the
Mackenzie Valley. Based on these assessments and reviews, the
board will recommend rejection or approval of projects to the
minister. Its members will be supported by a small environmental
and administrative staff.
The objective of the board is clear: to ensure that the
environmental impacts of development proposals in the valley
receive careful consideration before actions are taken. The
board will also ensure that these development proposals do not
cause significant adverse affects outside the valley. It will
ensure aboriginal organizations, government and the public have
the opportunity to express their concerns during the assessment
and review process.
Bill C-6 stipulates that preliminary screening, assessments and
reviews of development proposals are to be carried out in a
timely and expeditious manner. As an initial step, all proposals
will be screened to determined whether an assessment is required.
The assessment will determine whether a full scale review is
required. It should be noted that the minister may order that a
review be undertaken even if the board decides it is not
necessary.
When a review is undertaken, the review panel must have at least
three members. Aboriginal people will have guaranteed
representation on the review board when the proposal is within a
claim settlement area.
Once an environment review has been completed under Bill C-6,
the minister has a number of options. The minister may accept
the recommendations of the review panel; refer the
recommendations back to the panel for further consideration;
accept the recommendations, with modifications, or reject them.
The minister's decision on how to proceed with the board's
recommendations may be augmented by information that was not
before the review panel or on matters of public interest not
considered by the review board. Once a decision has been made,
it will be implemented by the appropriate regulatory authorities.
These boards establish a comprehensive system of checks and
balances for resource management in the Mackenzie Valley area.
They do this while meeting the spirit of the recommendations on
co-management put forward by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples.
Having mentioned that document, I want to review with all
members the four principle bases on which the commission says we
must deal in the future with aboriginal people. Those principles
are recognition, respect, sharing and responsibility.
In pursuing Bill C-6 we will find that the original inhabitants
of this part of Canada and the north have been recognized and
have been dealt with as partners. They have been dealt with with
respect by their required appointment to these various boards and
by the rights they have negotiated under land claim agreements.
They are sharing with us in the co-management of development and
resources. We are saying to them “You have major
responsibilities in this area to protect not only your settlement
area but the whole of the Mackenzie Valley resource, be it
natural or human or aesthetic”.
I have letters from the Premier of the Government of the North
West Territories, Don Morin, approving and supporting Bill C-6.
I have letters from the Gwich'in Tribal Council and its
president, Willard Hagen, a letter from the Sahtu Secretariat
Incorporated from the president, Larry Tourangeau, a letter from
the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
and a letter from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association all
approving Bill C-6.
1355
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-6 is partially in response to those who wanted resources
management in the north to be accessible to northerners. This is
a more open, visible and locally responsible form of managing
resources.
Having original panels of a board with meetings and hearings
held in regions is expected to be more cost effective than
holding meetings in Yellowknife. In this integrated system, the
developer will apply for land and water authorization in only one
place. If the development is wholly within a settlement area,
the developer will obtain the authorization from the original
panel.
My question is the following. Does the member feel that the
creation of a regional land and water panel and a valley-wide
board is a duplication or an increase in bureaucracy?
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the parliamentary secretary, although I only heard about
one-third of it. I think he said something about the number of
panels. I explained that there were six. Of course, when we get
the other settlement areas there will have to be another two
panels for each one. I do not know how we can get away from
panels if we are going to share responsibility and get input from
the people who care about the place they live, about its future
and its development.
I do not know if I have answered the parliamentary secretary's
question, but that is my point of view.
The Speaker: We will return to the debate after question
period. It being almost 2 p.m., we will now proceed to
statements by members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what has institutionalized apartheid created in Canada?
An infant mortality rate 1.7 times higher than the rest of the
population, a tuberculosis rate 7 times higher than anybody else,
a youth suicide rate 8 times higher and an environment where
sexual abuse is rampant.
The Government of Canada is directly responsible for this by
creating separate developments and an institutionalized welfare
state among aboriginal people that would rot the soul of anyone.
It has kept the boot on the throats of aboriginal people,
preventing them from integrating into Canadian society and
becoming self-sufficient.
Endless reports from the auditor general to the royal commission
have all condemned the government for pursuing courses that have
simply failed.
This will not end until aboriginal people have the
responsibility and power to manage their own affairs, just as it
is for the rest of Canada. The government must stop the separate
development of aboriginal people, stop apartheid in Canada—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough East.
* * *
WILBER SUTHERLAND
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
September 3, Canada lost a great visionary in the person of
Wilber Sutherland. He had a great gift for bringing people
together so that they could express themselves in creative ways.
One of his projects was the national ad hoc interfaith working
group's preamble to the Constitution, which reads in part:
We affirm that our country is founded upon principles that
acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity of each person, the
importance of family and the value of community.
We recognize that we remain free only when freedom is founded
upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law
in the service of justice.
Wilber is up for a nomination of an Order of Canada. I am
hopeful that his name will be considered favourably.
* * *
[Translation]
BREAST CANCER
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, throughout the
month that is now coming to an end, a number of public events have been
held to make people aware of the plight of over one million Canadian and
Quebec women who have breast cancer.
1400
I remind the House and the public that breast cancer does not
strike only in October; but hits thousands of women every minute of
every hour of every day, throughout the year.
For example, in 1997, over 18,000 women will develop breast cancer.
One woman in nine will be diagnosed with the disease. Over 5,000 of them
will die, including 15 today, in spite of all the efforts made in recent
years.
Research and prevention are the keys to a better understanding of
how to treat breast cancer. I urge the government to keep this is mind.
* * *
[English]
HILLOWE'EN
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the attention of this House will be
diverted by a much stickier matter. I am sure that every member
is aware of what awaits them this evening, the fourth annual
confectionery caucus Hallowe'en party.
Hillowe'en provides an opportunity for Canada's value added
confectionery manufacturers to display their products and raise
awareness about this century old Canadian industry's contribution
to our economy.
As a member of the confectionery caucus, I am proud to be
associated with an industry that supports the direct employment
of over 7,000 Canadians and generates over $1.6 billion in
factory sales annually.
My riding of Brampton West—Mississauga is home to one of
Canada's largest confectionery manufacturers, Hershey, which
employs 1,600 people across Canada.
Please join the members of the confectionery caucus, the
Manufacturers' Association of Canada and me for an evening of fun
and sweets.
The Speaker: I understand that's going to be a Hill of a
party.
* * *
MISSISSAUGA FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I bring to the attention of members that last month the
Mississauga Fire and Emergency Services won first place in the
overall competition at the 14th annual international auto
extraction competition held in Vancouver.
[Translation]
Twenty-five teams representing Canada, the United States, England
and Australia, to name just a few, took part in this three-day event.
The two series of tests consisted in freeing dummies from wrecked
vehicles with hydraulic equipment and portable tools.
[English]
The Mississauga team won the competition with the fastest
reaction times.
I wish to take advantage of this week's annual meeting of the
International Association of Firefighters to extend
congratulations to the Mississauga extraction team on a job well
done.
* * *
[Translation]
CAVALIER TEXTILES
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to
mention that Cavalier Textiles is the main supplier of specialized spun
yarn and strands in Canada.
The company develops, produces and markets a full range of
synthetic yarn and cotton products considered to be the best on the
market. The company is reaffirming its leadership by investing $14.7
million to modernize its four Quebec plants in Sherbrooke,
Drummondville, Montmagny and Saint-Georges de Beauce.
As part of this investment, the Canadian and Quebec governments
will grant a refundable loan of $2,868,000 under the Canada-Quebec
subsidiary agreement on industrial development.
The loan will allow Cavalier Textiles to speed up its own investments,
which will result in the creation of close to 50 new jobs, while
preserving existing jobs.
This is yet another illustration that there is strength in unity
and that, together, Quebec and Canada can help our businesses.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to commend Victoria provincial court judge Brian
MacKenzie.
Last Friday Judge MacKenzie sent a clear message to individuals
breaking into homes in greater Victoria. He sentenced Raymond
Caziere to seven years in jail for breaking into the home of
Elizabeth Kitchen and terrorizing the 73-year old with a butcher
knife. He gave Caziere a further two years for a total of nine
years for other crimes he committed.
Judge MacKenzie's ruling clearly puts the interests of victims
first. The nine year sentence is longer than most people get for
manslaughter. Judge MacKenzie is sending a message to predators
such as Caziere that Canadians are no longer going to tolerate
this type of action.
Most important, I would like to encourage the Minister of
Justice to follow Judge MacKenzie's lead and start getting
serious about punishing criminals. Three cheers for Judge
MacKenzie.
* * *
1405
CAMETOID ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I had the honour to announce a repayable loan
investment of $450,000 through Technology Partnerships Canada to
Cametoid Advanced Technologies Limited, a company in my riding.
Cametoid is a world leader in the development of protective
coatings for the aerospace industry and this investment will
help Cametoid move forward and develop new technologies that will
enhance Canada's capabilities in this very important area.
Developing advanced technologies is one of the goals the federal
government has identified for Technology Partnerships Canada,
creating meaningful employment is another. Once the project has
been successfully completed and the firm moves to full
commercialization it is expected that about 17 new direct jobs as
well as 10 to 20 indirect jobs will be created in my riding.
With creative partnerships like this one with Cametoid this
government is helping to build the kind of economic development
that we need in the coming century. We are developing the
foundation—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.
* * *
ARTHUR LEE
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Arthur Lee, a Chinese Canadian, donated $400,000 to purchase John
McCrae's medals.
Mr. Lee believes it was his duty as a Canadian to make a
contribution to his adopted country, Canada. What a noble
expression to show his love and appreciation to Canada.
I wish to point out to my opposition colleagues that many Asian
immigrants have made special contributions to Canada like Mr.
Lee. They built the railway for Canada and they defended Canada
in the wars. Today many Asian immigrants contribute to our
economic growth and social development in Canada.
I wish to recognize their special contributions like those of
Mr. Lee.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a man
sexually assaulted his step-daughter for 12 years beginning when
she was a child. An impaired driver killed his friend. A woman
tried to hire someone to kill her daughter. A British Columbia
man was convicted of abducting and sodomizing a single mother.
None of these criminals served time in jail. Why? Because of
the Liberals' conditional sentencing law. In case after case
violent criminals are being freed by the courts of this country
to walk our streets.
This is wrong. It is an injustice in the eyes of victims and
Canadians all across this country, and it is an injustice in the
eyes of crown prosecutors.
In Alberta, B.C. and Ontario case after case involving
conditional sentencing is being appealed by the crown. If the
justice minister would simply amend the law limiting the use of
conditional sentencing to non-violent offences the Liberals would
not once again find their legislation under attack in the courts
and our justice system would not be held in contempt by a growing
number of Canadians.
* * *
CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today marks the one year anniversary of the report
of the task force on disability issues, chaired so ably by my
colleague, the hon. member for Fredericton—York—Sunbury, our
solicitor general.
At the one year mark this government has much to be proud of.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is providing
leadership through the ministerial council on social policy
renewal. He is replacing the VRDP program and has introduced the
opportunities fund to help Canadians with disabilities integrate
into the economic life of their communities.
The Minister of Finance has expanded the medical expense tax
credit and supplement that recognize the cost of disability.
The Minister of Justice has tabled amendments to ensure that
Canadians with disabilities have greater and more equitable
access to the justice system.
The minister of revenue has established an advisory committee of
persons with disabilities to help ensure that the Income Tax Act
is applied fairly.
This government has acted on priority recommendations from the
task force and I am confident that the government will continue
to exercise leadership on disability issues.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I have mentioned before that many
times these microphones are so sensitive that we should not hit
them even with papers because it comes out in the sound. Please
be careful.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Minister of Human Resources
Development was in Laval lauding the virtues of federalist style
partnerships.
The minister was cynical enough to tell the government of Quebec
how it should behave. Yet, the minister does not really have
anything to be proud of in the area of social policy, because he
is the one who unscrupulously butchered the Employment Insurance
Act, who did not raise any objections to the cuts in social
transfers, who deprived Quebeckers of all forms of basic justice
in the negotiations on parental leave, who is getting ready to
invest again in job training when the ink is not even dry on the
agreements signed with Quebec.
1410
The so-called social union he wants to saddle us with whether we
like it or not is only the tip of the iceberg in a government obsessed
with centralization.
But as Quebec keeps saying, its areas of jurisdiction are not
negotiable.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday's events have seen a serious downturn affecting stock
markets around the world. The contraction of global investment
has very clear policy ramifications for Canada, particularly with
regard to the future of the Canada pension plan.
The government suggestion of investing CPP funds into the stock
exchange roulette increases the risk to future retirees due to
worldwide speculation and downturns. History shows and recent
events suggest that there is a clear warning against gambling
with Canadian savings.
While the Liberal government wants to put the nation's CPP fund
at the mercy of the stock exchange roulette, the Reform Party
suggests to Canadians that their fully indexed public savings
should be moved completely out of CPP and invested into private
speculative markets which could lose their entire value.
Canadian savings should not be handed over to the compulsive
gamblers in the casino society. Canadians want safe money in
safe havens.
* * *
[Translation]
LAURENT BEAUDOIN
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 26, Laurent Beaudoin, president of Bombardier, was named Person
of the Year at the 14th Gala de l'Excellence organized by La Presse.
Mr. Beaudoin's career is closely linked to the growth of
Bombardier. Under his leadership, since 1966, the company's sales have
soared from $10 million to $8 billion.
Under his direction, Bombardier has made it its mission to play a
leadership role in all its areas of activity. The company excels in
design, manufacturing and marketing.
It should also be noted that Mr. Beaudoin has always demonstrated
his strong commitment to Canada and its capabilities.
On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to acknowledge the work done by
Laurent Beaudoin, a role model for a whole generation.
* * *
[English]
FIREFIGHTING
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the lack
of immediate information regarding hazardous material is a major
reason why firefighting is one of the world's most dangerous
professions.
Firefighters deserve the right to know exactly what hazardous
materials may be present at any incident. Access to reliable
information within the first three to four minutes of arrival
will save lives by ensuring that firefighters use the most
effective response techniques at any incident involving hazardous
materials.
The operational respond system makes it easier for firefighters
to save lives, including their own.
I and my colleagues, along with the International Association of
Firefighters, which is in Ottawa this week, urge the transport
minister to make additional funding available for operational
respond's Canadian test sites so that a proper assessment is
possible which demonstrates that operational respond is needed
throughout Canada.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the 35th Parliament of Canada the riding of
Victoria—Haliburton was successful in obtaining 238
infrastructure grants from the federal initiated program. That
number was the highest in rural Canada. We in
Victoria—Haliburton are pleased with the level of co-operation
from all levels of government.
The provincial member and the federal member worked together to
encourage municipal leaders to submit programs, and we were all
winners.
In the present program we in Victoria—Haliburton are once
again leading the way with over 53 projects in the works.
I want to guarantee the residents of Victoria—Haliburton, in
particular upcoming municipal candidates, that my complete
support for this program is guaranteed. Let us keep the
approvals flowing.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for weeks we have been trying to find out what the
Liberal position is on gas emissions for the Kyoto summit.
1415
Is their policy going to be based on science? Is it going to be
based on an agreement with the provinces, consumers and
taxpayers?
Yesterday the truth came out. Instead of a made in Canada
solution, the Prime Minister is taking his lead from his golfing
buddy, Bill Clinton. It gives new meaning to the words green
tax.
Why is the Prime Minister taking his lead on Canada's
environmental position from Bill Clinton?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on this side of the House we understand that gas
emissions are a problem. Protection of the environment is
extremely important not only for Canada but for the world. There
is an upcoming conference in Kyoto. There is a large gap between
different parts of the world. My ministers are consulting at
this time with the provinces and stakeholders and we are
developing a Canadian position.
One thing is clear. We will not take a position of doing
nothing when the world is confronted with such a problem. While I
was in Great Britain I—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the environment minister said she would
release the Liberal position on Kyoto when she feels it is
appropriate. I would like to remind the Liberals that the Kyoto
meetings are in December 1997. All the other G-7 nations have
released their targets already.
Many people believe the real cause of delay in getting a
government position is a nasty squabble among cabinet ministers.
If that is the case, the Prime Minister has an obligation to
settle that squabble now.
When does the Prime Minister feel that he can release his
emissions levels and cost targets, or does he need to talk to
Bill Clinton about that too?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at this moment we are doing the responsible thing. We
are consulting with the provinces. If the Leader of the
Opposition does not want us to discuss with the provinces, he
should say so and we would have a definite position today. I
will not have a definite position until I have consulted with the
people who want to have something to do with it in Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, our other worry with respect to any issue raised with
this government is that ultimately the answer will come back as
some kind of tax. When we wanted to fix the deficit, their
answer was increased income taxes. If we want to fix the pension
plan, they increase the payroll taxes. If we want to fix the
environment, we are going to get fuel taxes and green taxes.
If the Liberal Kyoto deal goes through, the CPP estimates that
we could be paying almost 90¢ a litre for gas. We are already
paying more for gas than the Americans and this makes it worse.
How high is the Prime Minister prepared to hike—
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the only one so far in this House who has proposed a tax
is the member for Nanaimo—Alberni who said that we should have—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Yes, he said that. He was
described nicely by the office of the Leader of the Opposition as
a dopey mental hiccup. I never treated any of my members of
Parliament with that type of unacceptable language.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): There may be
some members who would dispute that.
Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister's emergency phone call last week
for one-upmanship over Bill Clinton is about bragging rights and
seemingly bragging rights alone. What we have here are two
little boys arguing over whose green tax is bigger.
Let me ask the Prime Minister this. How far is he willing to go
to win his own macho game with Bill Clinton?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not intend to make jokes about the environment and
global warming. I was at the Commonwealth meeting and some
countries feel they have a very serious problem at this moment.
It is a very serious global problem.
As usual the member for Edmonton North cannot be serious about
anything.
1420
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is so serious it is exactly why we are pressing this Prime
Minister for something to take to Kyoto, not just bring home.
Under Bill Clinton's green plan, Canadian families would have
their taxes increased by thousands of dollars per year. In fact
the jump at the pumps could go as high as 30¢ a litre and our
Prime Minister wants to go one up on Bill Clinton with those.
Canadians need assurance on this very serious subject. How in
the world can Canadians trust a Prime Minister who says to Bill
Clinton “You show me your tax hike and I will show you mine”?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have been here for four years now and Reform members
always shoot at a target which does not exist.
The only people who talk about a tax in the House of Commons are
the members of the Reform Party.
We will take a responsible position for Canadians.
It is a serious problem, despite the lack of opposition policies
in this field.
* * *
[Translation]
PRISON SYSTEM
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Solicitor General of Canada.
In Trois-Rivières-Ouest, a hotel known as Auberge du Canada is very
popular with biker gang members. It is owned by a numbered company,
2837617 Canada Ltd., whose principal shareholder is Michel Deslauriers.
Now, Michel Deslauriers is also the warden of Institut Leclerc, a
federal penitentiary in Laval.
Does the solicitor general find it acceptable for one of his
employees to be the principal shareholder of a hotel popular with biker
gang members?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will have to confirm those allegations and get back to
the member.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, considering
the recent murders of peace officers for which biker gangs are strong
suspects, does the solicitor general find it normal for one of his
penitentiary wardens not only to be the principal shareholder but also
to come in regular and close contact with these biker gangs, his
clients, since he is not only the owner but also the manager of the
hotel?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can only repeat that I will take the member's
allegations under advisement and I will get back to him.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general was one of the very few members of cabinet unaware of
the fact that a Liberal Party fundraiser was under investigation. Now,
he claims to be unaware of what is going on in his own department. If he
belonged to a biker gang, his nickname would certainly be “Andy knows
nothing”.
Is it not surprising—and this is my question—that an official
of the Department of the Solicitor General and, what is more, the warden
of an institution, can have such close contact with biker gangs without
the department's management or minister knowing anything about it?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very good to establish due process.
I am going to look into this and I will get back to the member.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, truth
is stranger than fiction. This situation is like a scene straight out of
Omerta, the television series.
Does the solicitor general intend to immediately suspend the warden
of the Institut Leclerc and to institute a public inquiry to find out
why no one in his department took action in this incredible situation,
and himself first and foremost, once again?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will look into this as I said and report back.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Watching this government unveil its position on climate change
is a little like watching a slow strip tease. First the Minister
of the Environment talks vaguely about targets. Then the Minister
of Natural Resources hints at carbon taxes. Now perhaps the Prime
Minister is finally ready to perform.
When will the Liberals stop dancing around this issue and show
some leadership? When will the Prime Minister let Canadians know
what Canada's position on the climate change crisis will be at
Kyoto?
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I said earlier, we are at this moment consulting with the
stakeholders and the provinces on this very important issue.
The position of Canada is very clear. We cannot go and have
nothing happening in Kyoto. We would like to have real progress
in Kyoto. We are developing a Canadian position with all those
who can participate. At the same time we are consulting with the
other countries so there will be a consensus in Kyoto and it is—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is
the story with everybody except Canadians. Scientists and
economists at home and abroad agree that developing strategies in
meeting targets to reduce greenhouse gases can actually be a
powerful job creator. If the Canadian government were doing its
homework, it would know that jobs must be an integral part of any
effective climate change strategy.
Will the Prime Minister bring to Kyoto plans that maximize jobs
and economic opportunities for Canadians?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
answer is yes.
[English]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is on the issue of climate change with a practical
application of how Canada can deal with this issue. The
Government of Canada, this government, reported in the estimates
of 1994-95 that it would be consulting with stakeholders on
economic instruments. It made a commitment in the red book to do
so.
Can the government report to us today what work has been done on
economic instruments so there will be answers to this very
important problem of climate change?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has been looking at a very
long list of measures that can be taken to meet whatever the
target and timelines are that are agreed upon in Kyoto.
We did put one measure in our last budget, $60 million for
refurbishing commercial buildings. Many of the measures that can
be taken will be taken by the federal government, but other
partners in this issue will also have to take their own measures.
That will all be a matter of discussion between the federal
government and all of our partners.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government was saying that three or four years ago. I find it
revealing today that it is the Minister of the Environment, not
the Minister of Finance who is answering the questions on
economic instruments.
Maybe we can help the government today in this problem it has.
Will the government confirm that it will propose joint
implementation in Kyoto? Will it also confirm that it will
propose the use of economic instruments, take up the offer of
President Clinton and look at how we can implement some tradable
permit system here in North America?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there has been extensive work done within the Department
of Finance. There has been extensive work done in conjunction
with the Minister of the Environment on the whole issue of
economic instruments on tradable permits. We have discussed this
at the same time with our counterparts internationally within the
G-7. We have advanced the yardstick substantially. Unfortunately
when we took over government in 1993 we virtually had to start at
zero.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
turns out that while the Prime Minister was in Britain golfing,
he bragged that it was he who introduced the GST. Not only that,
he told them that it was a wonderful tax. He was bubbling over
with enthusiasm for the hated GST.
My question is for the Prime Minister, a man who is well-known
for his love of golf. Is this what they mean by the term
improving your lie?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1430
The Speaker: That is your mulligan for today.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand the hon. member is always in the rough.
Someone will find him sooner or later with his head in the sand.
The GST tax has existed in Canada for a long time. We have
opposed the GST. I said that it was introduced in Canada some
time ago and that it was controversial. That is still my
position. We have harmonized with many of the provinces so that
it is working better.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not know if that was a mulligan. It sounded like a Mulroney
to me.
The prime minister went so far as to say we introduced it. I
think that will leave Canadians teed off. Now we know how he
keeps his score down.
Does the prime minister really believe his government truly
introduced the GST, or did he just take a golf ball in the head
at St. Andrews?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when a question is asked of the Prime Minister of Canada
about Canada he speaks on behalf of Canada. That is exactly what
I did.
I said that when we introduced it in Canada, in the Parliament
of Canada, my party voted against it but it was the will of the
Parliament of Canada. I said when it was introduced in Canada it
was very controversial but it was replacing another tax.
The Prime Minister of Canada is the Prime Minister of Canada and
has been the leader of the Liberal Party for four years. With
this opposition he will be here for a long time.
* * *
[Translation]
PRISON SYSTEM
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
how unacceptable and incredible that the warden of a federal
penitentiary has close business dealings with a highly criminal
biker gang.
Is the solicitor general aware that the warden of a
penitentiary has the authority to hand out temporary parole and
that the close contacts between the warden of the Leclerc
penitentiary and criminal biker gangs therefore leave us with
doubts about the criteria applied in the granting of these
privileges?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the charges that have been made this afternoon are very
serious. I am going to look into them. If the facts behind the
charges are true, action will be taken.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
while he is looking into the matter, does the solicitor general
also intend to look into all the internal privileges that this
warden hands out to inmates, to his friends in the institution of
which he is the head?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if in fact these allegations are true all the
allegations put forward will be looked into, yes.
* * *
FINANCE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister is rumoured to be a successful
businessman. Now this financial wizard is telling our kids that
he will be taking 10% of their lifetime earnings. He will manage
their money so well that by the time they retire he will give
them a whopping 1.8% on all that money, 1.8% on a lifetime
investment.
As a businessman would the minister put his money in a venture
like that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the return that is projected is a 3.8% return, which is
in fact a real return, roughly in line with that projected by
most other major pension funds.
The great advantage of the Canada pension plan is regardless of
market fluctuations the Government of Canada stands behind the
CPP.
The Reform Party wants to subject Canadians to having a
substantial portion of their retirement totally at the will of
market volatility.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister may have come up with some great sound
bytes to sell his pyramid scheme, but anyone who reads the fine
print gets cold feet in a hurry.
Yesterday Alberta's treasurer said “If it takes a little longer
to improve this scheme then we will take the time to help the
feds get it right”.
1435
Other leaders in the country believe our kids deserve more than
1.8% earnings over a lifetime. Why doesn't the minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during the very extensive negotiations and consultations
with the provinces and with the public, which lasted over two and
a half years, the province of Alberta played a very constructive
role.
It is one of the major factors along with the other provinces as
a result of which we were able to save the Canada pension plan.
The real issue is whether the Reform Party is recommending that
it would renege on the $600 billion liability owed to existing
Canadians and those who are currently retired.
* * *
[Translation]
PRISON SYSTEM
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the solicitor general.
For some time now, a penitentiary warden has had a prison
clientele that belongs to the same criminal organization as the
clientele of the tavern he runs in the evenings. All this is
public knowledge, while the solicitor general, whose responsibility
it is to maintain the security and integrity of the prison system,
has never been informed of this incredible fact.
Does the solicitor general realize that, because of his
inability to stay on top of what is going on in the department, he
is creating enormous doubt in the minds of the public and adding
considerably to the concern—
The Speaker: The solicitor general.
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are 49 federal penitentiaries in Canada. There
are 14,000 people in those penitentiaries. It is a very
difficult place in which to work.
It is hard for the employees. It is hard in terms of the safety
of those employees and it does not do any good to repeat
allegations.
We will look into it. It is very serious and if those
allegations bear out action will taken.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
minister was not informed about a situation as unacceptable as that
involving the warden of the Leclerc penitentiary, what useful
guarantee can he give us that there are not other similar cases in
his department?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very important that due process take its course.
We need to look into this. As we do, if allegations that are
made are borne out action will be taken.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Last Thursday the minister justified increasing current
immigration levels contending that the Canadian economy was
growing, inflation was down, interest rates were low and hundreds
of thousands of new jobs had been created.
The same day the prime minister asked the United Kingdom Chamber
of Commerce “to take our jobless youth off our hands and hire
them as interns”.
Who is right on Canada's ability to absorb more immigrants, the
minister or the prime minister?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that we can
welcome even more immigrants into this country, because they are
contributing to the development of our economic and social life.
It is very clear from the figures we have that we can increase
the number of new arrivals into Canada next year and we are very
pleased about this.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the prime minister was right. There is 16%
youth unemployment in the country right now.
Will the minister admit that she is wrong and revise the
immigration levels?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no study or analysis
showing a direct connection between the rate of unemployment and
immigration to this country. None whatsoever. And if the Reform
Party has a study showing otherwise, then let us see it.
That having been said, we have consulted a number of people in
this country about the new immigration levels and I am proud to
report to the House that the Province of British Columbia supports
the immigration level in this country.
* * *
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
We still do not know if the Liberal members will have to toe
the party line in the vote on the proposed constitutional amendment
regarding the educational system approved unanimously by the
National Assembly.
By failing to give a clear direction immediately, is the Prime
Minister not helping to create uncertainty about the outcome of
this debate and would it not be better if he indicated a specific
direction to his troops right away?
1440
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as we announced, the government brought the resolution before the
House very quickly. The government supports it and we have made
this clear. I therefore wonder why the hon. member did not
understand earlier.
We held a free vote on the Newfoundland question. I intend to
allow members to vote as they wish, as I did last time, and I hope
that the other parties will do the same.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada has a strong reputation for defending human rights
internationally and was responsible for having rape in situations
of conflict recognized as a war crime.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what
initiatives the government has taken recently to deal more
effectively with terrorists and some crimes against humanity?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada chairs a group of states which is moving
toward a conference in 1998 to set up an international court. To
achieve that purpose the prime minister is now leading a
diplomatic initiative to get support for the initiative.
In a communique out of Edinburgh the Commonwealth states that it
was the first time it was able to get a full consensus of all the
Commonwealth nations to support the idea of an international
criminal court. This enables us to take a major step forward in
achieving this very important development concerning human
rights.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday when we asked the solicitor general about the
outrageous plan to repay drug and gambling debts by prisoners he
said he did not agree with it. We are glad to know where he
stands.
He has had a day to make inquiries. Now the question is what is
he going to do about it.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the House yesterday the suggestion was made that
Correctional Service Canada was repaying drug loans of inmates.
It is absolutely not accurate and I would like to read a
statement: “The leadership of the Union of the Solicitor
General Employees and the Correctional Service Canada are
addressing and will continue to address any and all safety issue
concerning federal correctional facilities. Both parties feel it
is counterproductive to have outside critics attack the
professionalism of the service, its staff, by intentionally
raising fears and making inflammatory statements”.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians want to know when the solicitor general will
take charge of those prisons.
We have raised the concerns of guards, victims of crime, the
wardens, and we have not received answers. Again my question is
what is he going to do about it and when is he going to do it.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe Canadians are more interested in when the
party that pretends to protect the employees does not listen to
what they tell it to do. Stop inflaming the situation with these
wrong accusations when you claim to be doing it in the interest
of the employees.
* * *
OPERATION RESPOND
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it
concerns funding for Operation Respond, a program used by
firefighters to respond quickly to accidents involving hazardous
materials.
Professional firefighters are in Ottawa this week urging the
government to provide additional funding to establish new test
sites and a credible evaluation system.
Will the minister respond positively? Will he provide the
additional funds needed for Operation Respond, funds which could
very well mean the difference between life and death in emergency
situations?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, after many years of lobbying it was this government
in 1997 that decided to fund Operation Respond. I think that is
very commendable. We share the hon. member's concerns.
A period of evaluation is going on right now. Once that is
concluded I will be able to address more fully the issue at hand.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today is
the first anniversary of The Will to Act, the Andy Scott
Federal Task Force Report on Persons with Disabilities.
This task force was set up to—
1445
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to go directly
to her question, please.
Ms. Wendy Lill: My question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development. Will the government act on the
recommendations of its own task force and appoint a minister
responsible for persons with disabilities and introduce a
Canadians with disabilities act?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like thank the hon.
member for her very good question. I am glad she is reminding us
that this is a task force of this government which has been
promoting helping persons with disabilities.
As a government we have been moving on all fronts. As a matter
of fact, the last budget announced an Opportunities Fund of
$30 million per year for three years to support persons with
disabilities. We have approved $70 million per year in tax
measures to recognize the extra cost of persons with disabilities—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
It seems that the federal government is not simply content with
destroying the east coast and west coast fisheries, but now it
wants to destroy a fishery that is actually working, and I speak
of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
In a recent announcement, the minister appointed Ron Fewchuk as
president and general manager of the corporation, a position I
might add that pays up to $103,000 a year.
What qualifications does Mr. Fewchuk have other than being an
ex-Liberal MP? Did the minister consult with the board chairman,
the board and in fact—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not subscribe to the theory that
members of Parliament come to this House with no abilities or
qualities and when they leave this House have no abilities and
qualities. When I look at the opposition Conservatives I may have
to revise my view.
The government has appointed the former Reform member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands to the Veterans Appeal Board. We have
appointed competent members of other parties to boards and
commissions. I see no reason why Liberal members should not be
similarly treated.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister is aware that the Freshwater Fish Marketing
Corporation is prepared to retain Mr. Dunn who is the current
CEO, in effect have two CEOs. Mr. Dunn will do the real work.
Mr. Fewchuk will probably bait hooks.
Is the minister prepared to pay for Mr. Fewchuk's patronage
salary out of his department's budget and not out of the
fishermen's and get them off the hook?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all I can hear from the Conservative
Party on the other side is that we should go out and fire Kim
Campbell. We should fire Benoit Bouchard. We should fire—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. David Anderson: And clearly the Reform Party
believes we should fire Jack Frazer as well.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the Governor of North Dakota made a suggestion that U.S.
wheat producers be allowed to sell their grain to and through the
Canadian Wheat Board.
I would like to ask the minister responsible for the Canadian
Wheat Board if this is what he means by inclusion in Bill C-4?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the suggestion from the Governor of North Dakota was
very interesting. Quite frankly, the proposition that he made
may border on the fringes of illegality, but maybe it should be
taken under advisement. Certainly he is calling for better
cross-border collaboration between Canada and the United States
in the grain trade. That is a very positive thing.
With respect to Bill C-4, we are listening very carefully to all
of the representations that are being made to the standing
committee on agriculture and we will take all of that advice into
account in our final decisions.
1450
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in early October the Manitoba court of appeal ruled that
the only responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board was to
Parliament and this responsibility negated any desire or any
provision for them to get the best price for farmers' grain.
Does the wheat board minister agree with that ruling?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this hon. member knows, because he is a party to a legal
proceeding that is presently under appeal, that he is asking a
question which I cannot answer in the context of that legal
proceeding.
In fact he is the plaintiff and he has no business asking that
question. I can assure him, however, that the Canadian Wheat
Board in every market around the world extracts the very best
price it can possibly get for the farmers of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
TOBACCO ACT
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Health.
The government announced measures which will soften its
anti-tobacco legislation and which will likely help keep the
Canadian Grand Prix in Montreal.
Will the minister explain why the Liberal cabinet decided to adopt
measures which will only help the Grand Prix, while leaving other major
sports and cultural events to fend for themselves?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government proposed the anti-tobacco legislation that has now been
passed by Parliament to fight tobacco consumption, which is a major
threat to the health of Canadians.
At the same time, we recognized some months ago, in the letter we
sent in April, that some legislative changes were required to
accommodate Formula 1 racing. Therefore, we will soon be introducing an
amendment to follow up on our commitment.
* * *
[English]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Highly skilled Canadian workers on both coasts sit idle as the
government turns a blind eye to Canadian shipping companies
investing in shipbuilding jobs in Asia where exploited labour is
cheaper and environmental standards are even worse than here.
The government's neglect is threatening to torpedo the entire
industry and jettison a whole generation of trained shipyard
workers.
Will the minister honour his 1992 promise to the Halifax workers
and commit to a national shipbuilding policy that includes—
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that Canada continues
to work very hard in the context of the OECD working group to put
an end to what are pernicious subsidies, particularly in the
shipbuilding sector that supply many countries around the world.
If he is asking me to announce that Canada will get into a
subsidy bidding war in shipbuilding, the answer to him as it was
for the member for Saint John last week is absolutely no.
* * *
CANADIAN WAR MUSEUM
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, we are
fast approaching Remembrance Day and Canadians know that our
veterans fought Canada's wars to protect our peace.
It has been brought to my attention that the government is
looking at changing the name of the Canadian War Museum to the
Canadian peace and security museum. I have been getting calls
from veterans from across Canada and they are very upset.
Would the Minister of Veterans Affairs assure the House today
that the name of the Canadian War Museum will not be changed and
that it will remain as it is today.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian War Museum will continue to be
recognized as one of the premier museums in Canada. We are
hoping that as the Canadian War Museum embarks on its program for
the millennium that the very strong support that was shown for
the recent medal acquisition will become a giant fundraising
campaign for the Canadian War Museum and it will keep its current
name.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. Western Canadian
farmers are legitimately anxious about the transportation of
their grain.
The Canadian Transportation Agency is now delaying necessary
investigations into the movement of grain apparently until the
spring of 1998.
The spring of 1998 is too late.
1455
Will that grain be moving this year, next year and the year
thereafter? And what is the Minister of Transport prepared to do
about these delays in the transportation agency?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government and, indeed, all stakeholders are
concerned that there not be a delay in the grain transportation
review. However, as a government we have to be careful not to do
anything that impinges on the integrity of the process of the CTA
in hearing the wheat board complaint.
Preparatory work is under way. Very soon I will be announcing
the appointment of an eminent person to conduct the grain review,
to deal with the preparatory work and to continue in such a way
that we will not transgress any of those items now being
discussed at the CTA.
* * *
PIPELINES
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister and Mr. Bouchard wanted the Sable
Island pipeline to go through Quebec. Will the Prime Minister
respect yesterday's decision of the joint environmental review
panel in order to give the greatest economic benefit to the
people of the maritime provinces?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I answered the hon. gentleman yesterday, the joint
review panel has just filed its report with respect to
socioeconomic issues and environmental issues. It made 46
recommendations. The government is in the process of considering
those recommendations.
The hon. gentleman should know that this whole process has been
conducted very strictly according to the regulatory rules that
govern the situation. The government will follow those rules
until a final conclusion is reached.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in reply to my
question concerning Shan swimwear, yesterday, the Minister of Finance
said, and I quote:
My question is for the Minister of Finance. How could he give such
a reply when, after checking with the tribunal, I was told that it had
not received any new information, that it did not intend to review the
decision, and that it had not received any request from the department?
Whose interests is the minister protecting?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the
hon. member is well aware, the tribunal reports to the department and
the decision is made by the Minister of Finance.
We received new information. We are reviewing it. We will discuss
it with the tribunal and a decision will soon be made.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
For four consecutive days toxins have been reported in the news.
We have seen stories of excluded Canadian technology, toxic waste
sites and dumps, PCBs being bulldozed in the Arctic, contaminated
ecosystems such as the Great Lakes, and Environment Canada PCB
shipment warnings ignored by federal departments.
Does the minister accept the burial of PCBs in the Arctic and is
she aware of shipments of PCBs to Swan Hills?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government, through the
Department of the Environment, carefully regulates toxins such as
PCBs. We were sending PCBs for destruction to Swan Hills, but we
have put a stop to any such shipments until we are assured that
that particular facility is operating safely for the environment
and the health of Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want to
repeat my question to the Minister of Finance about the use of economic
instruments to help solve the problem of greenhouse gases.
A few minutes ago, the minister told me that the government was
doing its job. Yet, a report released by a joint committee mandated by
his government states that the committee did not receive the mandate to
examine every available subsidy and instrument, and that its mandate was
too narrow to review all economic instruments.
Did the government do its homework for the Kyoto summit, yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Yes, Mr.
Speaker.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The people of Toronto and in particular the victims and the
families of victims were outraged yesterday when a Toronto judge
handed down an outrageously lenient sentence with respect to the
sex abuse case at Maple Leaf Gardens.
1500
Will the minister undertake a comprehensive review of the sexual
assault provisions of the Criminal Code with a view to
implementing minimum mandatory sentences?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on a specific
case in question. It is a matter that may be taken under appeal.
That is a decision for the Attorney General of Ontario.
I would, however, remind the hon. member that my predecessor
amended the Criminal Code. Section 718 makes the abuse of a
position of trust or authority an aggravating circumstance in
sentencing.
Therefore the principles in the code are there. They are sound.
It is a matter of application of those principles.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MACKENZIE VALLEY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, an
act to provide for an integrated system of land and water
management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards
for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other
Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
stand today in support of Bill C-6. While understanding that
there are different views of the legislation within the Northwest
Territories from aboriginal organizations, industry and other
public interests, we fully support the timely implementation of
land claims legislation, the substance of this bill.
Parliament has been delivered a package resulting from extensive
negotiations among the Gwich'in, Sahtu, federal and territorial
governments but there are concerns about the adequacy of the
involvement from other aboriginal organizations and the public.
This is a very important piece of legislation as it will change
environmental management of the western Northwest Territories.
The bodies that will be established under this legislation are
institutions of public government and they represent a
significant shift of power and management to a more local level,
something we clearly support.
1505
At the same time it is important to ensure that some of the
significant gains made through legislation, like participant
funding for review panels in the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act, are reflected in the bill.
Consistent with the principles of participatory democracy, we
will strongly urge the standing committee to hold public
hearings in the north to hear the diversity of views on the bill.
Getting such comprehensive negotiated packages in the House
seriously limits the critical role of the member of Parliament to
just acceptance of the package.
We believe that the committee should devote part of its
attention to analyse the process which was implemented to develop
this legislation. We are dealing with issues that, in virtue of
a process, are in a fast track. To some extent the process of
negotiations and consultations among the interested parties shut
out Parliament from the decision making process.
We have an opportunity to assess one of the processes used to
limit the role of Parliament. In this case we suggest that the
committee travel to the north and act as an open forum for a
detailed analysis of the bill but also of the process followed
for the development of the legislation; the role of the
bureaucracy, the acceptance of public input and the balance
obtained among divergent sides, etc. This is an opportunity to
decide if committees should be given more resources, more freedom
to travel, to get in touch with the people of Canada and enhance
the credibility of this House with the people of Canada.
There is also a fundamental value behind the implementation of
this legislation. One of the major issues during the free trade
agreement was the future of the water resources of this country.
Canadians were extremely concerned that the policy implemented by
the federal government was detrimental to the capacity of
Canadians to manage one of the most abundant resources in this
country, water. For Canadians engaged in the free trade
agreement debate, Canadian water was not a commodity to be traded
in a commercial market or just a resource to be exploited. In
this bill we are doing justice not only to the aboriginal people
but to those Canadians who fought for the prohibition of bulk
export of Canadian water.
This legislation clearly recognized that for aboriginal people
as well as for many other non-aboriginal Canadians land and
water are not just economic commodities. This kind of
co-management system makes it more likely that water will not be
traded as a good. This bill also is a formal recognition by the
Government of Canada that land and water are an inextricable part
of aboriginal identity, deeply rooted in moral and spiritual
values. In doing justice to aboriginal people, Parliament is
indirectly recognizing those who took a similar approach to the
water issue during the critical debate on the Canada-U.S. Free
Trade Agreement.
Different societies do have different views on property or
resource rights. The views of the federal government and some
provincial governments are of open access or indiscriminate
exploitation of natural resources that can be bought and sold in
a commercial market. Aboriginal people view land and other
resources as their common property.
Different values and visions create different management styles
that could led to conflict and confrontation. Bill C-6 creates
conditions to eliminate or minimize cultural clashes and promote
or return to aboriginal people their rights to take part in the
governance and management of land and resources. It is clear
that we are addressing a fundamental concern of aboriginal
people, their role in the management over land and water as well
as other resources critical to their goal of self-sufficiency and
self-reliance.
The co-management approach will allow an optimal balance between
the values and beliefs of aboriginal people with the values
and beliefs of other segments of the Canadian population.
We are very pleased with the message being sent to the
aboriginal communities of Canada through the implementation of
this bill. The co-management created for the land and water
resources in the Mackenzie Valley is a positive model for all of
us. It indicates that co-operation and honest, transparent
dialogue create condition for substantive changes in the
relationships between first nations and the people of Canada.
More experiments in regional public government, shared
jurisdiction and shared management of resources may be coming and
we look forward to them.
1510
We hope that certain segments of the department of Indian
affairs will modify their attitude to aboriginal people and
participate fully in the implementation of this new relationship
with the aboriginal people of Canada.
In conclusion, we support the speedy passage of this legislation
and we call on the Government of Canada to proceed as soon as
possible with its response to the recommendations of the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and to include the Parliament of
Canada in the overall process of policy decision making and
evaluation in this new relationship with the aboriginal people of
Canada.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill B-6.
This was introduced first on September 26, 1997 and is the
reincarnation of Bill C-80 from the last Parliament which was
tabled in the House on December 12, 1996. Its intent is to
establish management boards to co-ordinate environmental
assessment and land and water regulations in the Mackenzie Valley
of the Northwest Territories. It fulfils the requirements of the
Gwich'in and Sahtu land claims agreement of the 34th Parliament.
Bill C-6 requires that 50% of the new board members be nominated
from first nations and 50% from people from the Government of
Canada and the Northwest Territories.
We cannot commend enough the action involving both aboriginal
and non-aboriginal people working together toward a common goal,
making a concerted effort to try to develop an intelligent way of
managing the resources of the Northwest Territories, taking into
consideration water and other environmental aspects.
The goal was supposed to be to build a single environmental
impact assessment process that streamlines the process for
obtaining water licences and land use permits. We in the Reform
Party would have absolutely no disagreement with that.
However, as often happens in this House, reality and fact do not
bear up with what is happening in these bills, for the stated
intent and the actual intent are two very different things
indeed.
When we analyse this bill carefully, and I commend my colleagues
from the Reform Party who have done a tremendous job on this, we
see a very different situation brewing. Rather than having a
single co-ordinated effective and responsible board, we see a
situation mired in uncertainty, a situation where not one board
is developing but three boards, a situation where there is not a
lot of agreement but a lot of disagreement.
We oppose Bill C-6 because it is not doing what it is supposed
to do. It is simply not going to develop this concerted
co-ordinated effort. There are many people in the Northwest
Territories who are saying much the same thing.
The chamber of mines in the Northwest Territories said the
confusions, delays and cost of this new system have ground
mineral exploration to a painful halt.
If the intent is to develop the resources of the Northwest
Territories in a way that is going to be beneficial to aboriginal
and non-aboriginal people, this bill is failing miserably. By
this process grinding to a halt, it is compromising aboriginal
and non-aboriginal communities that desperately need the work in
the Northwest Territories.
If we look at the unemployment rate there and in aboriginal
communities across this country it is absolutely horrendous. It
is disgusting. The responsibility for this falls directly at the
feet of this and every government we have had in the last 20
years.
Time and time again, from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples to auditor general reports to committee reports in this
House, new ways to develop employment among aboriginal
communities have been repeatedly sought.
We had a golden opportunity with Bill C-6 to develop the
incredible resources of the Northwest Territories in a sensitive
and environmentally friendly manner. However that is simply not
occurring.
1515
By holding up this process with what the government has created
it is grinding development and therefore employment to a slow and
painful halt.
The system was far better defined and unified in other
agreements. The lack of clarity in the process for selecting
members of the board was also called into question as there is
very little transparency in the system. As I mentioned before,
rather than creating one board the government in its wisdom chose
to create three boards. Why? No one knows.
Conversations with other industry representatives consulted by
the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during
the development of the predecessor to Bill C-6 confirms the
understanding that a single review process which avoids
duplication of time and effort is the most important issue. We
in the Reform Party would gladly support Bill C-6 if that
objective were to be fulfilled. In fact it is not.
The Northwest Territory Chamber of Mines has called for
substantial amendments in two areas of the bill which we in this
party support. A lack of clarity in the law and in the rules is
likely to produce very uneven regulations across the region and
from one applicant to the next, resulting in highly indigenous
processes that will prevent development and in so doing prevent
employment from occurring in the north. This situation is not
only occurring in the Northwest Territories. This situation is
occurring across the country.
The province of British Columbia through the current land claims
process will be balkanized. It will be carved into a number of
little fiefdoms, each of which will have its own rules and own
regulations.
Let us imagine trying to do business in a situation like that.
The situation that is carving out parts of my province will not
only hurt non-aboriginal people. It will hurt aboriginal people
more than anything. People simply cannot engage in business if
they have to bypass rules and regulations throughout the province
in many different areas. Development becomes almost impossible.
This is occurring all over the place. I wish the government
would take the initiative to work with aboriginal people and with
the non-aboriginal community to form together co-operatives and
groups in which development could occur wherein both communities
are taken into consideration.
One big fear in the process—and Bill C-6 is an example of
it—is that the government is creating these little enclaves with
different rules and regulations. It simply does not understand
that in creating an absolute Pandora's box of rules and
regulations it becomes virtually impossible for the left hand to
know what the right hand is doing and for any co-ordinated
development to occur. It becomes impossible for the private
sector to develop these areas and in so doing the creation of
jobs is prevented.
The Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce made another
important point with respect to Bill C-6. It said the new system
was seriously under-resourced, especially in its technical
capacity, and would be at a disadvantage in dealing with the
large workload created by transitional arrangements and changes
to leasing and permits.
I do not understand how the government through the bill could
actually create three underfunded and underequipped boards to
take on the extremely important task of developing the resources
of the Northwest Territories in an environmentally sound manner.
Despite the situation we have to oppose Bill C-6 because it does
not devolve jurisdiction of resource management to local
territorial activities in an intelligent fashion. It makes no
provision for the extra resources required to maintain the
technical expertise to supplement the three boards being created.
1520
I would like to make another point that is very important with
respect to the situation and the way in which this government and
previous governments have dealt with aboriginal people and
employment. One goal of Bill C-6 is clearly to improve
employment among aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in the
Northwest Territories. This is very important and we in the
Reform Party are fighting hard to ensure it occurs.
However that simply is not occurring. I will give one important
example which gives an enormous insight into the utter, dismal
and abysmal failure of the government in trying to create jobs
among aboriginal people.
The government invested $1 billion in an economic development
scheme for aboriginal people that came out of the department of
Indian affairs. This is something we could approve of if it
would make a difference. The proof in the pudding or the Litmus
test lies in what happened to unemployment levels among
aboriginal people.
What happened? Did the levels go down? No. Did they stay the
same? No. They went up. The unemployment rate went up with an
investment of over $1 billion in the economic development of
aboriginal people.
What are the social outcome and social costs of the horrendous
situation? On some reserves unemployment reaches over 50%.
Under these circumstances I should refer to the legacy of this
and previous governments to aboriginal people.
The situation is that the infant mortality rate is almost two
times that of the rest of the population. The tuberculosis rate
is almost eight times that of the rest of the population. Sexual
abuse admitted by the aboriginal people themselves is at an
epidemic proportion on some reserves.
After working in aboriginal communities as a physician I can say
the situation is not getting better in many of them. It is
getting worse. The cold hard reality on the floor, in the
trenches, on the reserves is that people are suffering. There is
blood on the hands of this government and previous governments.
There is blood on their hands. The government is continuing to
deal with the aboriginal people in exactly the same way as it has
done before.
The only way that anything will change—and Bill C-6 had an
opportunity to do that—is by putting responsibility and
accountability into the hands of the aboriginal people. We must
ensure we end separateness, the segregation that has occurred for
decades. We should start to treat aboriginals as equals and
march together to build a better and stronger country for both
aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.
This can only happen where real jobs are created. This can only
happen where an investment is made in aboriginal people to help
them help themselves. This can only happen when the ties that
bind the institutionalized welfare state end.
Unless we end the institutionalized welfare state, nothing will
change on the streets. Aboriginal people are suffering on the
streets of east Vancouver and downtown Toronto. Nothing will
change on aboriginal reserves from Newfoundland to British
Columbia.
We have to look at the issue in a new way. We must stop looking
at the situation among aboriginal people that governments have
created, that of a sacred cow which cannot be changed. We must
look forward to working together with aboriginal people to
empower them and help them to take care of and be responsible for
their own lives.
We are different but the differences between us can be used to
build bridges between us, to build harmony and to create
co-operation.
This government and previous governments have used the
differences as a lever, as a tool or as a wedge to create
separate developments. The social costs are being borne by the
people. We must stop separate development.
We must work together for a united development and to build a
stronger Canada for all people. Not only is it possible. It is
a necessity. Not only is it imperative. It behoves us to take
the initiative to work with people.
1525
One great failing and sadness in working with aboriginal people
in detox units, in emergency departments, on aboriginal reserves
and in jails is the utter, abysmal failure of policies directed
toward these people. It must not happen any more. We have to
stop thinking that it is them and us. We have to think that we
are all human beings. We must use our differences. There is
much we can learn from each other. There is much beauty in the
aboriginal cultures of our country that we can use.
I was utterly fascinated by the explanation of a wife of an
aboriginal chief in my riding about their incredible abilities to
use herbs to treat many medical illnesses. This is virtually
unknown in the medical community. We know it is out there but
how people actually do it is something we can benefit from.
In closing, aboriginal infant mortality rates are higher than
that of any other group in the country. Their children suffer
from poverty and malnutrition approaching that which occurs in
third world countries. Alcohol and drug abuse are of epidemic
proportions. I implore the government to work with the Reform
Party and aboriginal people to develop sound, constructive
solutions to provide a better future for everyone.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I have been trying to get a hold of a document the solicitor
general quoted from last Friday. I was assured that I would get
a copy of that.
At this time I would like to formally request that the document
he again referred to in question period today be tabled in the
House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The Chair
realizes that the point of order was made on Friday and that the
government said at that point that it would table the document.
At this time the Chair has not heard anything, so we will ask the
government to table the document.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to table a news release that was issued as a
joint statement by the Union of Solicitor General Employees and
Correctional Service Canada dated October 24.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MACKENZIE VALLEY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, an
act to provide for an integrated system of land and water
management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards
for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his
speech. I have a few comments to make.
He was asking why we have three new boards. The first one is
the planning board. It is quite simple. It is on the Gwich'in
settlement claim. It is according to the law. This is why we
have planning boards for them.
It is similar to what we have in our own municipalities. We need
to take care with the planning.
1530
Concerning the rest of the member's comments, I had a problem
deciding if he was more in favour of industry or the First
Nations. My question is what does industry want? Industry is
eager to see land claims settled, greater certainty for
investment and fair and expeditious administration of application
for land and water use. This stable regulatory regime with a
single environmental process and clearly defined regulations and
environmental assessment standards will provide a positive
environment for development in the western Northwest Territories.
We have had many consultations with the Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and
the Mining Association of Canada.
When the member talks about the First Nations I agree with him
that a lot needs to be done. I have one simple question for my
colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. If he is concerned about
First Nations government, why did the Reform Party vote against
self-government in the Yukon and against the Sahtu land claim?
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend
from the Liberal Party for his question. He actually asked three
questions.
He mentioned the boards. People who have analysed this,
including the Northwest Territories mines group and other groups,
have clearly stated that it is not a problem to have one board.
It is a problem to have three boards. People who are involved in
this are asking why are we investing in three boards. This is
bureaucracy running wild.
Instead of investing in three boards, we could invest in one and
use the saved money in more useful ways to improve the
socioeconomic situation for people in the north. Perhaps that
would be a better investment of taxpayers' money. That is what
we in the Reform Party would like the government to do. It has
an opportunity to do this when amendments are put forth.
The member asked whether I am for industry or for aboriginal
people. The reality is that we are for the people of the north
who are going to use the industry of the north. We are for both.
It is by having a co-operative relationship with both that both
can benefit.
My friend asked about the situation with the land claims.
Unfortunately what has been happening with many land claims is
that the non-aboriginal communities are not being taken into
consideration during their development. Negotiations are taking
place only with aboriginal people often behind closed doors. We
would like to develop a land claim situation where both
aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can come together to discuss
and debate the situation and form an agreement for the
utilization of the lands of the north where both communities are
taken into consideration.
This government and the Government of British Columbia in many
cases have excluded non-aboriginal people. You cannot get a
workable agreement where one community is not taken into
consideration. You cannot get a workable solution where the
agreement is often negotiated behind closed doors, where there is
a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability. These are
the problems we have with many of the land claims situations.
We are completely in favour of aboriginal people becoming
masters of their own destiny, as are all non-aboriginal people in
this country. Part of the problem has been that aboriginal
people have not had this. They have not been masters of their
own destiny and have not had the responsibility and the power to
do just that.
Aboriginal people deserve to be treated the same way as anybody
else in this country. To do anything less is an insult to them
and everybody else.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have some questions and I will omit any preamble so
the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca will have an
opportunity to answer. These are questions many people have on
their minds when they look at this bill.
1535
The first of these questions is, is there anything about this
bill which will serve to help keep mining in Canada and more
importantly to keep mining dollars in Canada? Second, will it
cause or create employment for Canadians, Canadians of all racial
origins? Third, will it lead to economic self-sufficiency for
northern residents no matter what their racial origin? Fourth,
will it provide environmental protection in an efficient and
cost-effective manner?
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend
for his extremely succinct and pointed questions. In essence
they are the questions that must be asked and answered if this
bill is going to pass.
The first question related to whether this bill keeps mining in
Canada. It does not. The mining groups have clearly stated that
this bill rather than expediting mining in this country has done
the exact opposite. It has ground the whole process of
development to a sickening halt.
The other question asked ties into that and was on environmental
protection. The resources in this bill are simply not there to
provide for the adequate analysis of environmental protection for
the Northwest Territories. Some government members are nodding
their heads. What they ought to do is listen to the members from
the Northwest Territories, the mining groups and the economic
development groups from the Northwest Territories to understand
that this bill does not have the resources to do what it must do,
which is to develop the mining industry in the north in an
environmentally sound fashion.
My friend also mentioned employment for aboriginal and
non-aboriginal peoples. As I said before, rather than creating
employment, this bill has forced development to grind to a halt.
In grinding development to a halt, it has ground the creation of
jobs to a halt.
Does it lead to economic self-sufficiency? One hopes that it
would. It has the potential to do that. I hope the government
will take into consideration the intelligent suggestions that
have been put forth by my colleagues in the Reform Party which
will help to mould this bill into a situation that benefits both
aboriginals and non-aboriginals, the people, the industry and the
environment.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I was
particularly intrigued by the comments of my colleague when he
said that a billion dollars has been placed in a fund for
economic development for aboriginals. It is inconceivable to me
that that amount of money would not in fact have improved the lot
of our native brothers and sisters. I would like to ask him what
happened. Where did the money go? Could he explain so that the
Canadian public would know not to go down the same road again?
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague
from Macleod for a question that has to be answered in this
House. The best person to answer it is the minister of Indian
affairs.
We do know that the billion dollars did nothing to increase
employment among aboriginal people. Rather than doing that, we
know that the unemployment rate is increasing. What is
interesting is that not only is it increasing but it is
increasing at a rate higher than the rate of population growth of
the aboriginal people. That is absolutely worse than we could
possibly imagine.
We do not know where this money has gone but empirical evidence
suggests that these moneys were misappropriated and did not go
directly to the people in need. It belies one of the biggest
problems in speaking to aboriginal people on and off reserve.
Much of the money could go to them to do good things in terms of
skills training, social programs and health care issues that need
to be addressed. Instead of this money going directly to the
people who need it, this money is being absolutely swallowed up
by a bureaucracy that has run wild.
1540
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today in this historic place to speak on Bill
C-6, an act to provide for an integrated system of land and water
management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards
for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other
acts.
As this is my maiden speech in the House, I would like to take a
moment to express my gratitude to the voters of Calgary East.
They are the reason I am here today and I assure them I will be
their voice in this House over the next four years.
I would also like to thank the volunteers who so tirelessly
worked on my campaign. Most important, I want to express my
thanks to my family. My wife Neena, my daughters Priti and
Kaajal, and my son Aman have stood by my side over the last few
months and I realize the next four years will be trying ones but
I want to express just how much they mean to me.
I would like to speak to several of the concerns that I and my
party have with this bill.
Reform's main opposition to this bill evolves around the
creation of yet another level of bureaucracy. In addition there
are specific industry concerns that need to be addressed before
this legislation comes into being. It would be much easier to
iron out any wrinkles in the agreement prior to its taking effect
than to introduce an amendment to legislation at a later date
which only adds to the bureaucratic jungle and the backlog of
legislation we currently face. Our time and energy as
parliamentarians could be better spent elsewhere.
With that said, I do realize the validity of the goals of this
legislation and in particular the need to implement past
agreements made by the Government of Canada. It is also
important to take steps to better manage and protect our lands
for our children and our grandchildren.
We are dealing today with an agreement made by the Mulroney
government. In 1994 under Bill C-16 a land claims agreement was
made between the federal government, two First Nations bands and
the Metis calling for an integrated system of land and water
management to apply to the Mackenzie Valley through the creation
of certain boards. The Reform Party opposed Bill C-16 due to its
creation of an additional and unneeded level of bureaucracy and
opposes Bill C-6 that we are debating today for the same reasons.
In 10 minutes I do not have the time to go into great detail on
all the concerns. However, I would like to spend a moment or two
on an issue that is of great concern to me, the establishment and
management of the various boards that act as watchdogs over the
use and development of the Mackenzie Valley.
These various boards will be partly comprised of individuals
nominated by the First Nations involved and partly from the
nominations of the territorial and federal governments. I have
no real concerns over the appointment of individuals nominated
from the territorial and First Nations groups involved. However,
with this Liberal government's previous history of nominating its
political pals from days gone by, I am concerned that this will
be yet another political patronage ploy for the government.
One only needs to look at the government's appointments to the
Senate since it was elected to power in 1993 to see that it would
much rather appoint its political pals than the best suited
individuals for the jobs. With its record I am left to wonder
how the government will decide to choose who will sit on the
various boards.
In particular I am concerned as to the technical expertise these
individuals will bring to their positions on the board. As it
deals with a very sensitive environmental area, I would ask the
government to put aside its own political agenda, that is making
sure all of their political pals are not put in place, and ensure
that board members are put in place because they are the best
individuals for the job.
Other involved parties have specific concerns with this
legislation as it currently stands.
The Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines, which speaks for some
600 groups and individuals, has serious concerns after the
briefing it was provided by the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development at the end of September. Specifically the
Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines has four main concerns.
1545
Not only does the bill provide new obstacles for resource
development, it also raises several concerns about the
possibility of litigation in the future. It also leaves the
various parties open to the use of deliberate delaying tactics in
the periodic environmental reviews that must occur under this
bill. I have already expressed my concern over the election
process of board members which the chamber also raises.
In each of its concerns there are several compounded and complex
issues within each area of concern. I would like to take a
moment or two to outline some of the complexities of these issues
and hopefully someone from the government side will help to
clarify any confusion that exists.
With respect to the obstacles for resource development, there is
growing concern over the rights to compensation, the powers
granted to the boards regarding permits and leases, and an
enforcement policy which can best be described as confused. I
believe that for effective management of the land and water
resources in the Mackenzie Valley area there needs to be more
specific policies set in place before this bill is passed into
law. We need to be proactive in setting out specific guidelines,
especially in the areas of jurisdiction of the boards. We cannot
be making up the rules as we go along.
Second, several questions remain unanswered concerning the
unresolved issues not addressed in this bill. The participants of
the briefing session that DIAND held in Yellowknife at the end of
September left with the understanding that such unanswered
questions would only be resolved by the courts. Our current court
system is weighed down enough with litigation. It would take
years before litigation arising from the flaws in this bill could
be resolved. This should not and cannot happen.
With environmental concerns playing a fundamental role in how we
approach matters regarding land and water management, the concern
over various delaying tactics that groups can impose in ensuring
that the periodic environmental reviews and assessments that must
occur through the bill is real and must be dealt with. Although
the government officials feel that these concerns are improbable,
past experience suggests that these concerns are indeed
justified.
Before I conclude, I would like to reiterate our concerns with
the bill and why our party will be opposing it at second reading.
There are too many unanswered questions as to how the land and
water management will be structured. In my opinion the
government is simply reacting to the commitments made by the past
government without thinking about the environmental consequences
of the bill.
We agree that the government should hold to its responsibilities
even if they were made by previous governments. However, the
question remains, at what cost? We should look more closely at
what the consequences of this bill are.
Second reading deals with the principle of the bill. Without
some major amendments at committee and at the report stage we
feel that this bill will do more damage than it will do good. It
will only cause a more confused bureaucracy with unclear
regulations, regulated by a board or a series of boards that are
appointed by the government.
Our environment should be first and foremost in our minds as we
study this bill in more detail.
I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill
as it is.
1550
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a few comments for my colleague.
The Reform Party complains about having three boards.
Effectively there are three boards but I would just like to
mention that these boards are co-ordinated. I would like to
explain the activities of the boards.
Although each board functions independently, the legislation
provides for inter-related activities in relation to the
planning, environmental assessment and regulations of
developments on land or water in the Mackenzie Valley. Upon its
receipt of a proposal, the regulatory authority assesses whether
or not it is in conformity with the land use plan.
The land use planning board is involved only on referral or
application when there is a dispute. A preliminary screening of
the environmental impact of the proposed development is conducted
by the regulatory authorities and government departments and
agencies. This preliminary screening expedites the process
whereby developments with little impact need not be assessed by
the environmental impact review board, including those
developments normally exempt from assessment.
If a development could have a significant impact or may be cause
of public concern it must be assessed by the environmental impact
review board.
The Reform Party also talks about having government's power to
the people of the First Nations. He needs to understand that the
Mackenzie Valley is one of the largest regions in the country.
When one travels from Yellowknife to Inuvik it is far. The
Mackenzie River is the longest river in the country. It is
important that we have a water board which understands that when
the river flows from Yellowknife going to the Arctic that it
passes through all the regions of the Mackenzie Valley. Having
these boards comply with the land claims decisions, we feel that
the boards should be very close to the community and community
based.
If we were only going to have one board it would cost much more
because travelling from Inuvik to Yellowknife or the opposite
costs a lot of money for the citizens.
This will be my last remark before my question. The Reform
Party seems to be think this is a mining bill, not a resource
management act. All it talks about is mining. However, it is
more than a resource management act. The Reformers are asking
for just one board, but the reality is that the First Nations,
the Gwich'in and Sahtu, have requested their own boards. Does
this mean that the Reform Party does not take into consideration
the requests of the First Nations of the Mackenzie Valley to have
their own planning boards?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, let me tell the member
what our real problem is. Our real problem is the level of
bureaucracy the government is creating. We do not have much of a
problem regarding the intent of the bill. We understand the
intent of the bill but we have a problem in the way the
government is going about doing it. It is creating another level
of bureaucracy. It is fine to say that it has free votes on
everything, but why does the federal government have a hand in it
by appointing certain members to the board?
We know from past experience that the government is going to
appoint to the board some Liberal MP who has been defeated or
someone who may not have the proper expertise. Therefore, we
definitely have a concern about this.
The member should listen to what the Reform Party has been
saying. We have no problem with the intent of the bill. We have
a problem with the way the government is going about having the
bill implemented and in the way it is set up. That is the
problem we have with this bill.
1555
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to comment on the last two speeches made by the hon. member
for Calgary East and the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.
It seems to me that what we need to understand is something
which has not been mentioned.
The Mackenzie River Valley is one of the greatest river systems
in the world. It ranks up there with the Amazon, with the Nile,
with the Mississippi, with the Yangtze Kiang and with others. We
could probably put the whole of the maritime provinces into the
Mackenzie River Valley and have lots of space left over for some
of the huge caribou herds that used to roam there.
My hon. colleagues seem to forget that we are not dealing with
tightly knit southern Canada, a fully developed area; we are
dealing with thousands of acres, thousands of hectares, and
disparate people. Many people still live off the land, they eat
food produced on that land and their wish is that the rivers
continue to run cleanly and freshly. Their wish is to maintain
that land as closely as they can to the way their great spirits
left it to them.
I never saw the word mining in the bill when I was studying it.
It never came up. If we allow the Chamber of Mines of the GNWT
to tell us how to do it there may not be a Mackenzie River Valley
worth talking about.
My friends say that there are too many boards. As the
parliamentary secretary has already said, the Gwich'in want to
have a board. They want to be represented. They want to have
control over the large area in which they live. The Sahtu want
to have a board. Depending on what agreements are made with the
Dene and the Treaty 8 nations and the Deh Cho we might have six
more boards. We might have three. We might have one. That is
the way things are done. People's responsibility has to be
allowed to work.
I would ask my colleagues whether they have considered that the
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples spent $6 million over five
years, or maybe it was $5 million over six years, to write many
pages containing over 400 recommendations dealing with our
fiduciary and our constitutional responsibilities to the
aboriginal people of this country.
We are not going to solve the problem if we keep looking at this
as “this is not quite as efficient as it should be” and “the
miners have not got full control” and “development will not
occur because the investors will not put money in unless they can
control everything” and so on.
Time is running out. We have a report which some of us have
studied and done some work on. I said it this morning and I will
repeat it now. The report says that the solutions to our
problems with respect to the aboriginal people becoming a
functioning part of this country—and they were the original
inhabitants—are four: recognition, respect, sharing and
responsibility.
This Parliament has the total responsibility of seeing that we
come to terms with this problem in our Constitution, with these
people, who are the original inhabitants of this land.
I have heard nothing more than fine words. I have heard no
practical ways to deal with this matter that are not at least
suggested in the bill, such as boards that are local.
I want my hon. friend to tell me how things like these little
enclaves or masters of their own destiny or an institutionalized
welfare state are going to help the situation and how Bill C-6 is
not going to help the situation.
1600
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I thank the member for asking the
question. We do not have a problem with the Mackenzie Valley. I
think the member is right. It is nice clean water and all the
rest. The First Nations have every right to take full advantage
of it for their prosperity.
We have a problem with the record of this government, the
government intervention through this bill, a creation of a level
that we feel will not utilize fully the Mackenzie Valley. That is
the problem we have and that is why we are saying let us look at
it again so that we can clean out the bureaucracy level and make
sure that the people of the First Nations take full benefit of
the Mackenzie Valley.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise in the House today for my first intervention in
this Parliament addressing the House on this very important bill.
I would like to sincerely thank my constituents for once again
sending me back to this House to represent them. I pledge to do
my very best for them, to do the job that they expect of me.
I begin by reiterating what my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca so eloquently said a few minutes ago about the need for
aboriginal and non-aboriginal people to work together in this
country. Clearly that should be a very important motivation for
all of us for the future.
On the surface this bill seems to work in that direction. It
appears that it is going to get aboriginal and non-aboriginal
people working together. The reality is that it will not really
achieve that because participation on the environmental and
resource management boards is specifically tied and allotted to
individuals based on membership in either the Gwich'in or Sahtu
Dene bands. It is not because they are local to the area. It is
not because they have a vested interest in the future of that
area. It is because they are members of the Sahtu or the
Gwich'in bands that they will receive membership on these boards.
I submit that when we single out groups in our society and
assign them special rights based on distinguishing
characteristics, we do them a disservice and we denigrate the
fundamental principles of democracy. I will argue that
undermining democratic principles is always harmful to society
and in the instant issue will prove most harmful to those whom we
most wish to help, aboriginal people.
Let us examine for a minute a world without democracy to better
understand how human circumstances fare in such a world. Let us
look at the history of this world going back several hundred
years, going back actually more than a millennium where kings and
feudal systems and fiefdoms were the order of the day, where
there was no democracy.
Under those systems, who had rights? We all know how those
rights were determined. Kings had all the power. Kings were not
elected. When they came down the birth canal they were already
elected to be king. They did not have to run for office. They
did not need anybody's consent. They were going to be king or
queen, whatever the case might be, because it was their
birthright.
Under the kings there were others such as barons, earls and so
on who had progressively less power but who were still above the
lowly serfs. The serfs comprised the great majority of the
population. They were people with absolutely no power, with
absolutely no say. They were people who were virtually owned by
the king. They were the property of the king. The king could do
whatever he wanted with them. He did not need to ask permission.
He was an absolute ruler and they were absolute servants to the
king.
History evolved, thankfully for us who live in this day and age,
with great thinkers like Plato and Aristotle and later Thomas
Paine and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and others. They envisioned and
refined a new social order, a new social contract which had at
its foundation and core the rejection of elite special status in
favour of equality of all people under the law.
1605
The emergence of democracy was a very slow and painful process,
first experienced in rudimentary forums in ancient Greece. Later
the evolution of our modern democracy had its beginning in 1066
with the signing of the Magna Carta, a very important document.
This document was hard won and began the slow process of
stripping the kings of their immense power and devolving that
power to the people.
Through the following nine centuries after the signing of the
Magna Carta democracy became much more entrenched in Europe and
North America. In fact I would argue that North America and later
Canada and the United States became the apogee of democracy owing
largely to the fact that the ties to the monarchy were less
strong in North America than they were in Great Britain. As a
matter of fact, the ties to the monarchy were severed completely
by the United States in their War of Independence. Consequently
it was very easy for the United States to adopt a truly modern
democratic system without any ties to the monarchy whatsoever.
North America, Canada and the United States have since become
synonymous with democracy.
I would argue that the fundamental reason we as Canadians enjoy
one of the highest living standards in the world is not an
accident. It is not as a result of the fact that we live in a
resource rich country, although it certainly helps. Look at the
Soviet Union, a resource rich country. For the most part the
people there live in dire circumstances. It is not an accident.
Now we see some hopeful signs with the emergence of democracy.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Madam Speaker, some hon. members do not
make it their duty to be in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We will do a count.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Indeed, there is no quorum.
Call in the members.
[And the bells having rung:]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have a quorum. The
hon. member for Skeena.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the fact
that we in North America enjoy one of the highest living
standards in the world is not an accident. If we look at the
resource rich country of the former Soviet Union, we can see very
quickly that it did not fare nearly as well as we did. This is
simply because it had a political system which did not allow
human beings in that country to achieve their potential.
That system is democracy. It is a fundamental cornerstone upon
which not only our country is based, but on which our economy is
based. We cannot achieve without the freedom to achieve. We
cannot achieve without the freedom of contract. We could not have
achieved what we have in North America without democracy.
Let us compare that with the situation in the former Soviet
Union. The system there said that government and not the people
was the centre of all power, that the communist party was the
only political party. There was no option or choice. If one were
to belong to a political party it had to be the communist party.
The communist party determined that it was going to own the means
of production and dictate how the economy would run and dictate
how people ran their lives. It was going to even dictate whether
or not there would be freedom of religion in the country and it
determined that there could not be freedom of religion.
There were so many things about the former Soviet Union that I
cannot reiterate them all in this short intervention. Suffice it
to say that human liberty was suppressed to the point where the
economy could not work. The economy crumbled in on itself and
the people of that country during that time suffered a very low
standard of living which resulted in a virtual collapse in
1990-91 when the Soviet regime finally ended.
1610
Now we see the emergence of a democracy, albeit not a total
democracy at this point, but it sure has come a long way from the
days when I was a kid and I watched the news at night and saw
what little there was coming out of the Soviet Union. Certainly
there has been a lot of progress made there and we are very
hopeful that is going to continue.
We have a democracy in North America. As I said earlier it is
democracy that is responsible for giving us so much in this
country. I would argue strenuously that without it we would not
be where we are today and we could not be where we are today. If
we abandon democracy, we do so at our peril because we will start
slipping backward.
But the forgotten people in North America who have always been
precluded from joining our democracy are the aboriginal people of
this country. They have been precluded from becoming a part of
this democracy from the beginning contact and colonization.
The system of governance in this country and successive
governments in this country have ignored, belittled and
marginalized these people from the beginning of Confederation.
They have been largely Liberal administrations I might add,
largely Liberal governments. I would ask any aboriginal people
watching today to remember that. Liberal governments for the
most part have dominated the House of Commons during this
century. It is the Liberals who have constructed the welfare
state and the dependency.
Native people in this country did not get the right to vote
until 1960. How could we possibly consider that they were part
of a democracy when for the first almost 100 years of this
country they did not even have the right to vote let alone run
for office? It is a small wonder that the level of anger and
hostility and hopelessness is so pervasive and so high on
aboriginal reserves in this country.
It is a small wonder that these people are bitter and angry and
confused and are wondering what the future holds for them. They
see this Canadian dream being lived all around them and they are
not participating in it. They do not know why and they are angry
and they are looking for answers. They are looking for some
respect.
This government gives them the kind of respect as to set up
these phoney baloney management boards and says “Yeah, we are
going to give you half the seats on the board”. What kind of
respect is that to show to a human being? It is like “You could
not make it on your own, you could not do this unless we created
this special situation for you so that you would have a chance to
sit on these boards. If we do not do this, you cannot do it. You
are not good enough to do it on your own”. I reject that 100%
completely and totally.
Local control or local input into resource management can be a
good thing but it should not be based on anything other than the
fact that there are people who are local to the area and who have
a vested interest in the decisions that may affect them and may
affect the land they are living on. It should not be tied to
membership in a native band. It should not be tied to membership
in anything other than the community of interest that surrounds
the area that could be affected by decisions that are made,
environmental decisions, land use decisions and so on.
I will talk for a minute about the welfare state that has been
built up around aboriginal people in this country. I am not sure
if the House is aware that the dependency on welfare in this
country by aboriginal people exceeds $1 billion at this time. It
is growing faster than the rate of inflation and the rate of
aboriginal population growth combined. That did not come from
me, it came from the auditor general.
The auditor general also points out that over one four-year
period the department spent an additional $1 billion over its
regular spending for economic development. One billion dollars
in addition to its regular spending because the department had
this elite top down arrogant attitude that it could solve all the
problems on reserves by micromanaging from Ottawa. Guess what
happened.
1615
That $1 billion expenditure translated into a progressive
increase in the unemployment rate, the dependency rate and in the
social assistance envelope that the department has to provide
every year for social assistance on reserves. In other words, it
had no affect. The auditor general said in his report that if it
had any effect whatsoever, the affect would have been a negative
one rather than a positive one. One billion dollars, it did not
help the people it was designed to help and cost every taxpayer
in this country a serious amount of money.
I want to talk about what the auditor general said in his most
recent report to Parliament on aboriginal health care. The most
revealing aspect of the report was that the Government of Canada
and the Ministry of Health are so unconcerned about the fate and
health of aboriginal people that over a 10 year period dependency
on prescription drugs was actually facilitated by the department
to the point where in one three month period there were more than
700 people who had 50 prescriptions or more for mood altering
drugs. The government has known about this problem for 10 years.
The auditor general said so and has harshly criticized the
government because it has done absolutely nothing about it.
I submit that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development is without accountability. The government is without
accountability. What it is trying to do is window dress the
whole affair by creating these so-called management boards and
land claim agreements to try to give people the appearance that
the government is actually concerned, that it is actually doing
something. The reality is it sits on its hands and does nothing.
Look at the issue of the Stony reserve in Alberta. The people
on the reserve had to cry out through the media. They lived
under the threat of their houses being burned down before they
could finally get the minister of Indian affairs, kicking and
screaming, to agree a forensic audit of that band. Now we see,
as a result of the forensic audit, charges are being laid. The
truth is coming out. Hopefully the whole truth will come out. I
still think there are still some people on that reserve who are
concerned that the whole truth does come out.
Again this is the Liberal way. It is the way obfuscating what
is really going on by creating the impression that something is
being done about the very serious problems which exist on many
Canadian reserves.
I was speaking with some aboriginal people yesterday who came
from southern Ontario. While we agreed during the meeting that
we would not agree on all points, at least we had some common
ground. These people said they could not understand why a
minister who had fiduciary responsibility to them was actually
intervening in a court case and trying to undermine their
position in that case. I will not get into the details of it. It
is one more example of the Liberal way of speaking out of both
sides of your mouth at the same time. It is one more example of
creating an illusion for the benefit of your political numbers in
the next poll that you are actually doing something when you
really are not.
I believe that aboriginal people across the country have caught
on to the system. I think they know the system better than the
government. The aboriginal people of this country are not going
to be satisfied with these kinds of initiatives in the future. I
submit to the House and to the aboriginal people of this country
that the way out of this mess is for them to be included as full
and equal partners in this democracy, for them to be afforded
every opportunity as any other Canadian. The way for the future
in Canada is the equality of all Canadians, recognizing that
aboriginal peoples have unique culture, unique characteristics
and a unique language.
1620
I think most Canadians embrace the notion of that. Most
Canadians find that something to be proud of, that we have this
kind of a culture within our nation's boundaries. We have a
culture that people from other parts of the world, Japan, Germany
and so on, come over here to see for themselves. I have people
coming to my riding from Japan who want to see for themselves
aboriginal culture, who want to see a display of aboriginal
culture, who want to watch a dance, who want to tour a museum or
who want to view aboriginal art. I think that is a great thing
for our country.
I submit to the House and to the aboriginal people of this
country that being a country that embraces the notion of
expressing our culture and our diversity does not mean
entrenching inequality and special rights within the laws of our
land. I submit that is not the way of the future for this
country.
That is principally why I oppose this bill. I believe it is
undemocratic. I believe it does not reflect the true values of
Canadians and, most of all, I believe in the long run it will do
nothing to assist aboriginal people who really want to assist
themselves at the present time, who really want to have a future
for themselves and their families within this country, who really
want accountability, who really want to have an opportunity to
see themselves in the future with the same opportunities and with
the same economic circumstances as every other Canadian. That is
why I oppose this bill.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Kitchener—Waterloo, crime prevention; the hon. member
for Vancouver East, health.
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Skeena for his speech. I
have first of all a comment for the member for Calgary East, the
previous speaker for the Reform Party.
We say in French he made une affirmation gratuite. I do not know
how to translate it. It could be an unfounded assertion or
misleading affirmation about the number of people sitting on the
board, the next board and a future board. He talked about
patronage. I want to let him know that on the planning board
there will be five members for the Gwich'in and the Sahtu. There
will be two members from the Gwich'in, there will be two members
from the government, one coming from the federal government and
the other one coming from the Northwest Territories government,
and the four will name a president.
On the next one, the land and water board, there will be
seventeen members. Of the seventeen members five will come from
the Gwich'in, five will come from the Sahtu and three will be
from the first nations, the Dogrib, the Deh Cho and the people
from treaty No. 8 who are not part of the negotiations right now,
and three other ones will be from governments, two from the
federal government and one from the Northwest Territories
government. That means we will have two members from the federal
government and those sixteen will name a president.
On the environment impact assessment and review board, there
will be eleven members, five from first nations, five from
government and from the government there will be three from the
federal government.
If we are looking at what this government has done as nomination
for the Nunavik area we have named dozens and dozens of people
for nomination there. If we named them it is because they are
good people. They are dedicated people and competent people. All
the nominations we have done for the Northwest Territories are
very good nominations. What the member said before is really
misleading the House.
The member for Skeena mentioned that he would like to have first
nations as a full and equal partner. My question is very easy.
Does he mean by full and equal partner that he and his party do
not recognize the treaty signed between the first nations and the
governments?
Does he mean that equal and full partner means assimilation? Is
this why the Reform Party is voting against the initiative to
give aboriginal control over their future?
1625
Mr. Mike Scott: Madam Speaker, when the member refers to
treaties, in many cases in Canada treaties were signed more than
100 or 200 years ago. In the case of the Sahtu Dene and Metis
and in the case of Gwich'in, those treaties were signed a very
short while ago by this government in the last Parliament. These
are not treaties the government was bound to 200, 300 or 400
years ago.
The government had a historic opportunity in negotiating with
aboriginal peoples in Yukon and the Northwest Territories to
change direction and say it was not going to go down the road it
had been before because it did not work. We have seen the
results and live with the results. It is not an accident that
the aboriginal infant mortality rate is twice as high as for the
rest of Canadians. It is not an accident that the social
pathologies on reserves are so much worse than for other
Canadians. It is not an accident that the suicide rate is six to
seven times as high in reserve communities as it is elsewhere in
Canada.
The Government of Canada has created welfare colonies right
across this country, encouraged welfare colonies, built up a
welfare dependency cycle around these people and put them in a
position where it was very difficult, some would argue well nigh
impossible, to break that welfare dependency cycle.
What is the government doing now? It is constructing more of
the same. It is finding new and better ways to do the old thing
which is separation and segregation rather than inclusion and
equality. The people who pay the price every time, by far the
highest price, are the aboriginal people who are signed into
these treaties.
The government had a historic opportunity to do something
different but it is so tunnel visioned and so caught up in the
old ways. Here we are about to enter the 21st century and they
are talking about 17th century thinking on that side. I cannot
believe this.
I cannot believe these people do not understand democracy and
democratic principles and that the fundamental principle of
democracy is the equality of all people before the law. When
those principles are violated there are consequences. The
consequences in this case are going to be paid mostly by the
aboriginal people who are affected by these agreements.
When the member looks at me and asks if I recognize that these
people have rights, they have human rights and democratic rights.
They ought to have the same rights as I. They have never been
afforded these rights and it has been largely Liberal governments
that have denied them those rights.
I would ask the hon. member not to look at me. There was no
Reform Party 20, 30, 50, 100 or 200 years ago but there was a
Liberal Party and that is where it came from.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I want to share a perspective of developmental boards,
management boards of resources, our lands, our rivers and our
waters throughout Canada.
If the government, in its wisdom, had to recognize aboriginal
peoples on the vision of the future of all peoples on this land,
aboriginal people would be a majority in this House of Commons.
Aboriginal people would be a majority in the Senate. Aboriginal
people would be a majority on the Supreme Court of Canada, at the
infancy stage of this country. We were the majority of the
population of Canada.
Today, in hindsight, government is preparing to acknowledge that
aboriginal people can have a say on the land use policies and
resource use policies of this country and in the regions of Yukon
and Northwest Territories.
1630
It is a step in the right direction. I welcome that in my own
constituency with regard to the Athabasca lakes and the uranium
mining that takes place there. We do not have resource
development boards to govern or to look at the future of the
environmental, economic and social impact the hon. member is so
concerned about.
Resources are the wealth of the country. Without income there
would be no economic cycle. To create new wealth the resources
are being tapped away. If we include aboriginal people at this
level it is a start. It may not be the answer for all, but the
Dene, Innu and Cree all have a vested interest in investing their
traditional lifestyle of time immemorial in the future
development of the entire country.
I challenge the Reform member who boldly stated the country was
going in the wrong direction, or had a history of making
mistakes, to share with us the vision of the Reform Party for a
brighter future for aboriginal people.
The aboriginal people signed treaties in recognition of the
British and French nations along with the Dene, the Mohawk and
the Haida, all nations of North America. They were willing to
recognize the power of the country and the resources that need to
be developed for the betterment of all but in co-operation and
with respect for each other.
The management boards are a step in the right direction. I ask
for his analysis of the new millennium and the relationship
between Canada and the aboriginal people.
Mr. Mike Scott: Madam Speaker, I will try to respond very
succinctly.
I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I disagree with
him on one point he made. He said that resources were the wealth
of the country. I beg to differ. People are the wealth of the
country and resources are the tools. I submit the bill being
debated today provides no vision for the future.
The very best we could do for aboriginal people is to treat them
as equals and with respect, the same respect we have for
everybody else.
There are areas with high populations of aboriginal people.
There are concerns about land use. There are concerns about
resource extraction. This is not because of the aboriginal
people but because they have a vested interest in the land. They
live there. They are local to the area. I certainly believe
they ought to have the right to exercise some control over the
decision making but not on the basis of being aboriginal.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is an honour for me to address the House for the
first time. I would ask for a little latitude to mention a few
things before talking about Bill C-6.
It is certainly an honour to be in the House to represent the
good people of Dewdney—Alouette. May I begin by acknowledging
the people who chose me to represent them in parliament.
The riding of Dewdney—Alouette encompasses a number of diverse
communities which stretch from Pitt Meadows in the west to
Mission, to Harrison Hot Springs and to Agassiz in the east. It
is a diverse mix of urban and rural settings. For many people in
the riding it is the last frontier of affordable housing so that
they can work in Vancouver.
The forestry and fishing industries are vital to the economic
make-up of the area. I salute the people of those communities
involved in that work. It is certainly a beautiful place to
visit. I would say it is the most beautiful riding in Canada.
I acknowledge a few of my constituents, in particular a few who
live in Mission and those who live right in my house. Those are
the most important constituents, my wife Wendy and my children
Jordana, Reanne, Kaelin and Graedon. It is this support, as it
is for all of us who sit in the House, that make it possible to
make this commitment to our country. I thank them personally for
that.
Family is a very important part of my life. We all make
sacrifices to be in the House. Members of all parties appreciate
those who are at home supporting us. Family is the life of our
country.
1635
It is time for those who have been silent for a long time to get
involved. I talked to a number who were disillusioned with the
governance of the country. Apathy is at an all time high. People
are disillusioned. I believe it is time we restored the
commitment of the House to the people of the country.
I am proud to be a member of a party committed to restoring the
confidence of people in their government through real structural
parliamentary reform. That is where Bill C-6 can be addressed.
While it is well intended it does not deal with real structural
reforms needed to address the concerns of the Mackenzie Valley.
My own riding has eight bands represented, the Sto:lo nation
being the largest in the area. Several bands are part of the
Sto:lo nation: the Chehalis, the Douglas, the Katzie, the
Lakahahmen, the Samahquam, the Scowlitz, the people of Seabird
Island and the people of Skookum Chuck.
As my colleagues have mentioned before when talking about the
bill, we recognize the validity of the goals of the legislation
and the need to implement commitments made by Canada under land
claims agreements. Land and water management and protection of
the environment in the Mackenzie Valley are issues of importance
both to the residents of the region and to Canadians in general.
Our objection and what I would like to focus on is the creation
of another level of bureaucracy as was mentioned earlier by some
of my colleagues. I received a phone call during the election
campaign from one of my own constituents, a member of the
aboriginal community. As my hon. colleague from Skeena
mentioned, a co-dependency relationship seems to have been
established between the federal government and many aboriginal
peoples.
The young lady phoned me and said “I am really tired of the
process I have been through. I just want to be a Canadian. I
just want to be someone who is treated the same as all other
people in Canada”.
Our party's focus on equality and the establishment of equality
for aboriginal peoples and all peoples of Canada strikes at the
heart of this young lady's comments and a need for real
structural change.
When people bring forward legislation they have an idea of what
they are doing, at least we hope they do. We argue that the
level of bureaucracy to be created would not serve the people of
the area well. It would hinder true economic development of the
area and the needs of the people there. It is certainly
something that needs to be addressed and examined.
Members on this side would like to focus on a new relationship
with the aboriginal peoples of Canada, one that focuses on the
equality of all Canadians including aboriginal peoples. We have
seen and heard from a number of a constituents in ridings across
the country of terrible things that have happened in their
personal lives. We think about the fact that real people are
affected by legislation. We see the effects of legislation on
many people in our aboriginal communities and the co-dependent
relationship which seems to have developed over the last several
decades.
I have spoken with people from aboriginal communities, the rank
and file people on different reserves in my riding. People are
looking for involvement at the grassroots level and at the
governing structure of reserves.
1640
Because the rights of each individual on the reserves are not
the same we all know of different stories of people who have been
abused. Those are things that need to be addressed. The best
way to address them is with fundamental changes, structural
changes to the system, the implementation of programs and the
implementation of an aboriginal affairs policy that addresses all
people of all communities and has a primary function of equality.
Members on this side fully support honouring treaties according
to their original intent and court decisions. We also support
that aboriginal people be part of the process. We see some
trouble with the bill as was mentioned by some of my colleagues
before. The levels of bureaucracy would hinder the involvement
of rank and file individual people of the Mackenzie Valley. We
see the principle of the implementation of the boards as a
problem.
The structure of the proposed legislation does not address the
real concerns of changing the system to address the needs of
individual people. That is where our objections would lie. Many
times people will say different things about different groups of
people. We fully support aboriginal people.
We look at different people who have come to our offices with
troubling circumstances. We shake our heads and wonder how it
could have happened. We want to focus on helping all Canadians
to achieve equality and to add to this great country.
We support aboriginal people, rank and file individuals who
often tend not to have a real voice in their own communities. We
see leadership in some bands—not all of course—that does not
fully recognize the contributions of all members of the local
community.
We object to Bill C-6 on the basis of a number of principles
that were mentioned earlier. We look forward to being able to
see real parliamentary reform and structural reform in our
aboriginal communities to give them a real say at the local
level.
As my colleague from Skeena mentioned earlier in his analogy of
kingdoms and fiefdoms, the power structure disables the people at
the rank and file level from being involved. In essence it shuts
down the ability for real involvement by people. It was a very
good analogy. We on this side of the House would like to work
with the government toward looking at fundamental structural
changes for the good of our aboriginal people. The equality of
all Canadians is important.
Another person I did not mention or thank at the beginning of my
speech whom I would like to thank now is not with us. It is my
father. He was a veteran. He served the country and fought in
World War II. He really instilled a sense of democracy in me
personally. We had many debates about freedoms and democracies.
I saw the scars and the pain he carried with him from the horrors
of war, the things he saw and had to endure. In fact he lost
many of his friends. Even 50 years after the fact tears would
well up in his eyes as he thought back to the friends and mates
he had lost in the war.
The battles fought by our veterans were for the equality of all
Canadians, so that all people would have a say. That is the
principle for which he and his colleagues fought.
1645
We would like to see that implemented. We would like to see
expressed equality for all Canadians and our aboriginal people
who have not had that full opportunity, the full rights and
privileges as all other citizens of Canada have had.
I will close by restating our concern for the aboriginal
communities and the fact that in Canada we would like to see
equality for all people, to bring about a healing, to bring about
concern for all people, to help solve the injustices of the past
which previous structural policies have put in place. It is time
for a change, as my hon. colleague mentioned, not a time to go
down the same road. It is time to address these factors of
equality and that all Canadians are equal before the law.
The Mackenzie Valley is a great area, part of a great country.
While legislation can be well intended, we see structural
problems with the implementation of these boards. We need to
have that in place in order for it to work well and it needs to
be right before implementing it. That is where my main objection
lies.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for listening intently to my
comments. It is an honour and a privilege to be here and I hope I
have many opportunities to speak on different bills.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from the riding of
Dewdney—Alouette and I listened to my colleagues from the Reform
Party and to their contradictions and misunderstandings about
this bill.
One member stated that these new boards will have no power and
will be an empty shell. A number of members from the Reform
Party stated the opposite, that they will have too many powers.
Some are scared about the cost.
The Mackenzie River is long and the area is huge. The Mackenzie
River is 4,000 kilometres long. What we are doing right now is
transferring power from DIAND to the people of the Mackenzie
Valley.
The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, the Regional Land Use
Planning Board and the Environmental Impact Review Board will be
transferred from DIAND to them. Right now we have many senior
employees from DIAND travelling weekly to the Northwest
Territories. That costs a lot of money because it is a very
large area. They do not move from Yellowknife to Inuvik just
like that. It is impossible. We are transferring the power to
the people of the First Nations.
I have one question for my friend. How could the Reform Party
say this bill is no good for aboriginal people knowing that the
elected majority in the legislature of the Northwest Territories
is made up of aboriginal people, knowing that the Premier of the
Northwest Territories is Metis, knowing that the Minister of
Renewable Resources in the Northwest Territories is Metis,
knowing that the Gwich'in Council is in favour of this bill,
knowing that the Sahtu Council is also in favour of this bill?
How could he state that this bill is not good for the First
Nations when all the First Nations people in this region are in
favour of it?
Mr. Grant McNally: I thank the hon. member for his
question.
First, I would look at the leadership versus rank and file
aboriginal peoples. We are focusing on the relationship between
the two and the fact that while the elected leadership of the
area may be in favour of this bill we are looking at the actual
process, the actual implementation.
1650
My colleague opposite mentioned returning power to the
aboriginal people in the area. We would question, then, why this
great bureaucracy, this great number of people involved on the
boards from the federal government side? Perhaps we should be
turning it over to the local people, with accountability and
responsibility being placed on the people within that area,
similar to a municipal type of government. That is what my
response would be.
It is basically the process we are talking about. The power
structure and the implementation of the plan are what we are
concerned about. We are not concerned about the intent of the
bill. We are concerned about its implementation and its
practicality to the people of the area.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to
compliment my colleague from Dewdney—Alouette on his maiden
speech and his characterization of his riding. I am sure we all
remember when we said equally glowing things. I appreciate that
because it makes us remember why we are here.
I worked with the previous member for Churchill, Elijah Harper.
He is a Cree Indian. I remember an exchange with the Reform
Party in the last House when Elijah was dealing with a bill much
like the bill which is before the House today. It was a bill
which gave powers to a group of aboriginal people, a unified
people. Reform members were saying that it would be far too
expensive and that if we carried on that way British Columbia
would end up as a native community and all the other people would
have to leave and that sort of nonsense.
Elijah stood and he said “My colleagues in the Reform Party,
you just do not get it, do you? You do not have the foggiest
notion of what I am talking about. I am talking about my people,
my ancestors, the people who have inhabited this land for some
10,000 to 15,000 years. They lived here without the benefit of
gasoline, internal combustion engines, high powered rifles,
airplanes, helicopters and a lot of other things”. I am glad
Elijah is not dead. He would be rolling in his grave if he had
heard the speech today.
The member used a very poor analogy. He suggested that perhaps
the native people were not democratic. Surely my colleague knows
that one of the problems is that the 625 First Nations consider
themselves to be independent, individual First Nations. They
have a system of government and a way of operating.
Before we came along they traded right across the country, from
California to Nova Scotia, from Alaska to Florida. They worked
out things together. They had regions. They did a little
fighting now and then and took a few prisoners. They took a
scalp or two, but most of the time they settled their differences
at councils, by talking. We have to learn that.
Then there is this nonsense about them all wanting to have
equality. That is a very hard term to get hold of. My friends in
the Reform Party use it without due consideration. What they
mean is, we throw the native people in with everybody else to
follow the same rules. If they are in B.C., they will follow the
rules of B.C. If they are in Vancouver, they will follow the
rules of Vancouver. If they are somewhere else, they will follow
those rules. That is not what they want at all. That is not why
we have spent a long time trying to redress the balance.
Yes, former governments and people thought we could assimilate
the natives. They were not educated. They were savages. They
did not have a system of government because we trampled on it.
We did not pay much attention to it.
Some of the early treaties, yes, we have read about them.
They sat, said nice things to one another and they welcomed them
to share this country. That is what they want to do again. That
is what this is bill is aiming toward. It is going to take time,
goodwill. It is going to take some knowledge of history and some
knowledge of what is involved. I do not hear much of that on the
other side. I hear catch words and buzzwords.
1655
If my colleague is so concerned about his native people, maybe
he would tell us why his party opposed the Nisga'a agreement?
Why are Reformers afraid that these terrible native people are
going to take over the whole country and throw us out?
Mr. Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to
address the comments of my hon. colleague. I thank him for the
compliments at the beginning of his comments. I do not thank him
for his comments after.
I do not see Mr. Harper today. I guess he was not supported by
his people in a re-election bid. The hon. member talked about
ramblings and he actually called aboriginals savages. We would
have nothing to do with that kind of comment.
He talked about power structures and abuses of former
governments. We agree with that. We are looking for a change in
the balance. We are listening to rank and file aboriginal
people. There are people that are concerned with power
structures within their reserves. Not to acknowledge that is to
ignore the facts and needs to be addressed. Equality is not a
buzzword here. It is something we believe in and it is something
we are moving and working toward. That is where our policy lies.
We have treaty advisory committees in British Columbia. I had
an opportunity to talk to all the mayors in my riding and they
have great concern about the process. Their great concern is
because they have a minor part. The municipalities are living
hand in hand with the aboriginal communities but they do not have
an opportunity to sit down at the table with each other. The
process is structured so that they have observer status but not
participatory status. They are concerned about that.
When the federal government leaves, the people of both
communities are left to work out the relationship between them.
We would like to see that addressed so that they would have an
opportunity to work together.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the debate on this bill is not about the degree of
respect for aboriginal people held on one side of the House or
the other. I know the Liberals would like to make it a debate on
that and go into their usual rants about how they see themselves
as being the purest of the pure as far as having the best of
motives and everyone else's motives are rotten and suspect. That
is nonsense.
Members need to examine some of these measures on their merits.
They need to get away from some of the rhetoric and some of the
emotionally buzzwords that are used, unfortunately, by
government, I hope not to obscure clear headed debate on the
merits of these proposals. Certainly it should not deter people
who are examining these bills in the public domain.
Bill C-6 is called the Mackenzie Valley land and water
management act. I assume this is what this bill is about. It is
about good management of the resources on the land and the water
resources of a huge, beautiful valuable area of our country. It
is rightly said that the people who live in that area should have
the biggest say in the way the area is managed. That is the
principle that we have tried to use right across Canada.
Unfortunately we get made in Ottawa solutions that do not benefit
the people in a particular area or region of Canada.
We have been pretty blunt about pointing that out when it
happens. We have just seen in B.C. how the mismanagement by
Ottawa of our salmon stocks has erupted into a huge concern and
fight with real economic consequences. It is not just people in
one or another area of the country who suffer under bad
management from this government and I think we need to point that
out.
1700
Let us examine the kind of management structure that is being
put into place by this bill. First, the bill creates four new
boards. It creates a land use planning board in the Gwich'in
settlement area. It also creates a land use planning board in
the Sahtu settlement area. Then it sets up a Mackenzie Valley
land and water board with a regional panel in each of those two
settlement areas and it sets up an environmental impact review
board for the entire Mackenzie Valley.
The Mackenzie Valley land and water board can create panels
besides the two that are set up in the Gwich'in settlement area
and the Sahtu settlement area, and of course as other land claims
are settled there are other settlement areas and presumably other
land use planning boards and land and water boards.
And so we have a proliferation of boards. This is nice. It
gives a lot of people involvement and a say in what happens but
the simple question is does this lead to power or to gridlock. We
can say this scheme is wonderful, we are going to include
everybody, we are going to give everybody we can a say and they
can sit around the table and give their opinion and make a
decision about how this happens. Then a little ways away another
group will do the same thing.
Is not the whole purpose of this to properly manage the land and
water resources of a very valuable region, to manage them for the
benefit of the people there? Just to say that everyone gets a
shot at this and is this not wonderful is simply nonsense.
The stated purpose of the bill is to provide an integrated
system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley. That
is a nice purpose. Integrated sounds very nice. That means
coming together, meshing, working harmoniously and smoothly
together for the protection of the environment and resources that
are so important to people of any region, whether it be fish in
British Columbia, whether it be hydroelectric power in
Newfoundland and Labrador or whatever it is that people are very
concerned about the management of land and water resources.
Is this system integrated? By any normal, rational, intelligent
definition I cannot see any reason to suppose that this is going
to be integrated. There are separate boards and panels being set
up in each of the settlement areas and there is a total
absence of any logical, coherent framework for doing this. It
does not say how the members of these boards are to be selected.
It does not give any criteria for eligibility. It has no process
for the appointment. It does not lay out who is responsible for
what.
There are no guidelines as to how a board decides what is
allowable and what is not. It does not say that if a development
affects both regions or in future maybe multi-settlement regions
if one board decides one thing and then another board has a
different viewpoint who sorts all this out.
Are these projects supposed to be sorted out by the courts at
enormous expense, enormous delays, enormous frustration where
with the resources everyone throws up their hands, as they are
starting to do in Voisey's Bay in Labrador, and wishes they had
never started the whole thing? Then the potential benefits for
the people in the region are completely lost.
I heard the rant by the previous questioner of the last speaker
about this wonderful heritage of aboriginal people.
The Liberals are not the only ones who know and love, have worked
with or have family members who are aboriginal people. They want
the same advantages, the same educational opportunities, the same
goods and services, the same security and employment
opportunities as any other Canadian.
1705
The resources of a particular region are there to be developed
to give that quality of life to the people who live there. We
must have a way to make sure that there is a logical, well
thought out and workable solution so that the people of a
region can decide how to protect, enhance and properly develop
the resources, but not in such a hodge-podge, mish-mash way that
no coherent decision is ever possible.
This decision making process is under resource. It takes a
great deal of technical expertise to do environmental impact
assessments and all other assessments that have to be made. The
development companies will say if they bring in this development
or do this or that, it will be great. However, when those kinds
of proposals are being evaluated there must be the same kind of
technical expertise.
However, there is no indication in this bill that the technical
resources will be available to the decision makers who are being
put in place. To just put people in place and tell them to go
for it and decide without giving them the resources to make well
informed decisions is nonsense. Again, the bill does not allow
that.
I was in the last Parliament when Reform opposed some of the
measures that were brought forward on these settlements. It was
on the basis that if we are to set up power, authority,
responsible decision making structures, it must be done in a way
which will benefit the people involved. We cannot have chaos and
expect anyone to benefit.
I challenge the government to clarify the structure of these
multi-boards it is putting place. By the way, this is not the
only decision making structure in that area. There is the
territorial government and the councils of the people. There
will be these levels of decision makers, government and
authorities. Human nature being what it is, there will also be
competing interests and viewpoints.
I have not seen anything in the bill that would reassure me as a
legislator, as someone who has the responsibility to examine the
structure to see whether it does serve the interests of the
people who will be affected. I am not at all convinced that this
structure is workable.
To say that it includes aboriginal people in the decision making
and therefore it must be wonderful and good and anyone who says
it is not must have some sinister motive is complete nonsense.
It would be absolutely irresponsible to accept the bill and its
structure simply on that soft, fuzzy, mushy basis.
The people who will be affected are looking to us to put in
place a workable structure, one they can operate under. In the
House we have standing orders, procedure in committees, rules of
procedure and Beauchesne. Even then to your sorrow, Mr. Speaker,
sometimes order and coherence do not always carry the day. That
is the way institutions and organizations and decision making
bodies operate. They have to be structured and under some kind
of regulatory process which is clearly laid out so that people
know what their responsibilities and jurisdictions are and what
is allowable and what is not.
Just to say that this is going to happen by magic is like
blowing up a print shop and saying you are going to get a
complete novel from the debris.
1710
We in the House and this government have a responsibility when
we put in structures and make regulatory changes. The goal is
laudable. I do not think anybody in this House would say that we
should not have environmental protection for the northern regions
or good management of land and water resources. Nobody here is
saying that.
What we and the opposition are saying to the government is that
instead of putting our hands over our hearts and saying we are
being inclusive and allowing people to have a say, let us put a
structure in place where we have a say in a way that is going to
get some results.
If we in this House could just get up and shout at each other
and say whatever we wanted whenever we wanted with no structure,
no regulations and no standing orders, we would not be able to
carry on the business of this country. It is the same with any
organization or decision making body that is put into place.
There must be some clearly developed lines of how this is going
to work. This is entirely missing in this bill. Maybe the
parliamentary secretary can reassure us that there are some
regulations that are going to be put into place that will remedy
this defect. I have not seen them but if they are not there they
sure should be.
At this point I think it would be completely irresponsible to
foist on the people of a huge, important and valuable region of
this country this kind of a hodge-podge management system. I
urge members of this House to either see the government rectify
these defects or to vote down this bill until these defects are
rectified.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague across
the way. There were some key words, that it is not workable, we
have to examine the structure. She also said that it was
irresponsible. The responsibility is not in the bill, the
responsibility is standing up on one's feet and criticizing
something by saying it is not workable, it is not this and it is
not that.
If my colleague across the way has some great ideas that she
wants to bring forward I am sure this side will be interested in
listening. However, let us not call something irresponsible when
it is not. The responsibility here is criticizing something and
not putting something down on the table. That is the way the
Reform Party has always been. If it wants to call a spade a
spade, let us not say the sky is falling. Responsibility is
being elected to this place.
If the government does not see its way and the great party
across the way has some sense in where it wants us to go, put it
on the table. Do not just stand and criticize. If it has some
constructive ideas, bring them forward instead of criticizing.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member
was not part of the Liberal contingent when it was in opposition
because as an observer of the political scene I almost never saw
it bring forth anything constructive. The criticisms of the rat
pack were a big example of the order of the day. It seemed to be
its specialty.
Unlike the Liberal opposition, the Reform opposition has been
very careful to bring forth constructive alternatives on major
issues where it disagrees with government. We were the first
opposition, for example, to propose an alternative budget. We
were the first opposition to propose substantial changes to the
Canada pension plan which we knew was not working even before the
Liberals finally admitted it. In area after area we have brought
forth constructive alternatives.
If the government does not have the resources or the brain power
to figure out how to bring forward a workable, logical and
constructive framework for the management of resources then it
probably should resign and let somebody in who can do it.
However, if it is going to get on with the job then the
principles it should go on is that there should be clearly
defined jurisdiction, responsibility and a line of authority and
decision making that is identified, laid out and that people can
refer to when these matters go forward.
1715
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I first of all thank my colleague for his speech.
My first comment is that I am sure he did not read the bill. He
is talking about the criteria for naming the people to the board.
There is just one criteria for naming people to boards, and that
is competence. I hope by raising this question in the House he
does not feel it means the First Nations are not competent.
Second, the member talks about court, about delay and about
frustration. We are just replacing what we are doing now. We
are devolving. We are giving back to the people living in the
Mackenzie Valley what they should have had long ago.
The member said that the boards are not integrated. It is
totally the opposite. This system is integrated because the
Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board and the Mackenzie Valley
Environmental Impact Review Board will end those issues relating
to the valley. It is integrated, totally integrated. One thing
is that the GNWT supports this bill because it is integrated
valley wide. It is for the people living there.
My question is quite simple. Why does the member of the Reform
Party want to impose her view and not take into consideration the
remarks, the views of the people, the wishes of the people living
in that area?
We told that to the premier of the Northwest Territories and he
agreed. The bands living there agree. The minister of renewable
resources agrees. The people and the Government of the Northwest
Territories agree.
Why does the member not take this into consideration? Why does
she always want to impose her view and not take the views of the
First Nations?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, my view is very simple.
That is whatever regulatory and management scheme is put into
place must be clear and workable. I would challenge the
parliamentary secretary to find anybody who would disagree with
that view, including the aboriginal people themselves who are
most affected by this scheme. That is the whole point. They
deserve the very best. I think it is repugnant to suggest that
somehow competence is related to one's view of aboriginal people.
Those are the kinds of tactics that the Liberals continually use
when you criticize them. If you criticize something the Liberals
do, then you are criticizing the people who might be involved. If
you criticize some kind of social program that the Liberals set
up, then you are criticizing the people who are accessing the
program. This is complete nonsense. I think the Liberals need
to get away from those kinds of tactics and on to some valuable,
logical and proper examination of what they are doing.
If the criterion is competence, then what is competence? There
are all kinds of people who are competent but competent in
different things. What kind of competence do we need for people
who are managing land and water resources? What kind of
background do they need? What kind of knowledge do they need?
What kind of perspective of the area do they need? Those are the
kinds of things that need to be spelled out.
If the best that the parliamentary secretary can come up with is
the bare word competence, then surely we are in bigger trouble
than I even thought we were.
I can well imagine that the people of the area are in total
agreement that they themselves should have the decision making
authority and the authority to manage the resources in their own
area. If the management scheme, which is the only point I am
making, will lead to gridlock, confusion and disarray instead of
to clear, proper and effective decision making, then nobody is
well served, whether they are competent or not.
I would ask this government to show a little competence and
realistically address the very serious issues that I am raising,
that the opposition is raising, instead of indulging in cheap
shots and getting away from the real issues that are so important
to the future of this area.
1720
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what I find so interesting about what has gone on in
this debate is that none of us would be debating this if it had
not been for the excesses of the Mulroney era. All of the
legislation from which flowed this current bill was legislation
that was initiated during the Mulroney era. These very Liberals
in government who are now defending every aspect of every
agreement are basically defending the excesses of the Mulroney
era.
In those heady days before there was effective opposition in
this Parliament to talk about some of the potential downstream
problems associated with some of the legislation in the north, we
ended up with agreements that were constitutionally entrenched.
This led to commitments being made in the north which are now
leading to a circumstance where this government is attempting to
cover up the cracks and deal with some very problematic
circumstances in terms of resource development, how to operate
the bureaucracy and how to operate governance in the north.
We had a circumstance here where a member asked why we did not
come up with some constructive solutions. Last January I
presented a paper on the very subject of how the governance of
the western arctic could operate the western Northwest
Territories after the creation of Nunavut which we all know is
coming and very quickly it will be upon us, the creation of a new
territory in the eastern arctic that is a province in everything
but name with new governance. We already have the contiguous
territory of the Yukon. Left between those two circumstances is
a territory that many people are calling the western Northwest
Territories. Some people are calling it the western arctic.
Presently the whole seat of government for the Northwest
Territories resides in Yellowknife which contains half the
population of the residual territory after the creation of
Nunavut. Several land claims agreements were initiated and
legislated in the last Parliament but they all began during the
Tory regime. There are competing interests between tribal
groupings, Metis and non-natives. They are often at odds as to
what the future arrangement should be in the western arctic.
So it is ridiculous to assert that there is a made in the north
solution when it comes to this Mackenzie Valley land and water
management act that is singular. It is certainly anything but
singular. Bringing this whole arrangement into a workable
fashion is turning out to be a very complicated arrangement
indeed.
As we know, in terms of resource development the north is a
warehouse resources. We need to generate interest and debate in
southern Canada on the fate of what goes on in the north. We do
not get enough opportunity to debate this very important issue.
Half the people who live in the western territory which wholly
contains the Mackenzie Valley live in Yellowknife. We went
through a constitutional proposal to try to figure out a way to
govern that territory, given all of the aboriginal settlements
that have already occurred and those that are likely to occur to
try to tie all the community arrangements into that.
1725
After a very lengthy study, my ultimate conclusion was that the
best solution would be to carry out the essential housekeeping
changes to the current Northwest Territories Act which are
necessary to take into account the upcoming division. The
western Northwest Territories could readily continue to operate
under the amended Northwest Territories Act for the foreseeable
future.
The Government of the Northwest Territories putting more service
and program delivery responsibilities into the hands of the
communities should continue to be encouraged. That is what has
been happening because of the reduction in federal transfers
during the last Parliament.
When we look at practical and pragmatic ways to deal with
resource management in the Mackenzie Valley we have to remember
that we have constitutionally entrenched commitments which flow
from the agreements already in place. However there is a better
way.
There are some laudable goals in the bill. It is not so much
the goals that we are concerned about. It is the actual
provisions within the bill.
It is important to note that the Northwest Territories is 90%
dependent on federal funding. In order to move away from that,
the main industry that can accomplish it is mining. There is a
warehouse of resources and it is mostly mining oriented.
The BHP mine proposal which will be a major stimulus to the
economy of Yellowknife and the western Northwest Territories
would not have occurred if it had not been proposed by a large
corporation with patience and if the deposit had not occurred
outside of one of the litigious land claims settlement proposals.
There are lots of warnings from the mining sector that what is
being put in place has all of the pitfalls of leading us into the
circumstance where those kinds of developments will be very much
put at risk.
The mining sector has a world full of experience. We know that
most of the large mining concerns and many of the small ones, and
more and more Canadians are operating in an international
theatre. They view some of the concerns in several ways.
There are new obstacles to resource development in what has been
considered by many to be a friendly environment. There are
concerns about everything from the staking of mineral claims to a
confused enforcement policy.
The reliance on litigation to solve problems when it comes to
the way this new board will operate came out clearly in an
information session held by the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development in the north. Concerns were raised about the
vulnerability of this new process to delay tactics by certain
parties. Then there is the lack of clarity in the process for
selecting members.
I certainly have not gone through the full list, but what is
clear is that the substantial amendments presented by the
Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines revolved around two
things. One was the lack of clarity in the law and the rules,
and the other was that the new system is seriously
under-resourced. Those concerns need to be dealt with in a very
clear way in this legislation. There should be amendments made
to that effect. We would certainly support them.
It concerns me that we do not recognize the complexity of the
legislation which we are dealing with.
1730
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
for Vancouver Island North would forgive me, it now being 5.30
p.m. we must interrupt the proceedings. I understand that the
hon. member will have the remainder of his time when this bill
comes up next.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of
the several deferred recorded divisions.
Call in the members.
1750
Before the taking of the vote:
The Speaker: I have been approached by a few members and
I want to clarify something. Most of the House will know this
already. When we are taking votes may I please encourage you not
to leave your seats. We have to keep track of everyone. If you
are going to be here for the vote, please stay in your seats.
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADIAN FISHING INDUSTRY
The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion
and the amendment.
The Speaker: The first recorded division is on the
amendment relating to the Business of Supply, pursuant to order
made Thursday, October 23.
1805
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Casey
| Casson
|
Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 132
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Malhi
| Marleau
| Mercier
|
Milliken
| St - Hilaire
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the main motion, as amended. The
question is as follows: Mr. Charest, seconded by Mrs. Wayne,
moved:
Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: Did I hear a no?
An hon. member: Yes.
The Speaker:
That this House recognize the urgent need for action to address
the serious problems in Canadian fisheries on both the Pacific
and Atlantic coasts, and calls upon the government to continue
the implementation of a comprehensive national fisheries policy
that demonstrates real commitment to resource conservation,
leadership on the issue of resource sharing with foreign
interests, and sensitivity to the individuals, families and
communities whose futures are linked to the health and
sustainability of the Canadian fishing industry.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, as amended?
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening will vote no on this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: No. The proposal—
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South-Weston I will be voting no.
The Speaker: We did not hear the way the Conservative
Party was voting.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, given the substantial changes
to the main motion, we will vote nay on this motion.
[English]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division 017]
The Speaker: I declare the motion, as amended, carried.
On a point of order, the hon. member.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal vote was the same
as the previous vote yet I see an empty desk on the Liberal side
that was not empty when the previous vote came in.
Is that number for the Liberals correct?
The Speaker: Do you withdraw?
* * *
1810
CUSTOMS TARIFF
The House resumed from October 24, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-11, an act respecting the imposition of duties of
customs and other charges, to give effect to the International
Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding
System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain
duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related
matters and to amend or repeal certain acts in consequence
thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The next recorded division is on the motion
at the second reading stage of Bill C-11.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent
that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having
voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members
voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes unless instructed otherwise by their
constituents.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, we will vote in favour of this
motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston I will be voting with the
government on this matter.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Alcock
| Anders
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 261
|
NAYS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Blaikie
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Earle
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Hardy
|
Laliberte
| Mancini
| McDonough
| Nystrom
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Solomon
|
Stoffer
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 19
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Malhi
| Marleau
| Mercier
|
Milliken
| St - Hilaire
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
NEWFOUNDLAND SCHOOL SYSTEM
The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion
and of the amendment.
The Speaker: The next recorded division is on the
amendment to Government Business No. 5 pursuant to order made
Monday, October 27, 1997.
The question is as follows: Mr. Dion, seconded by Mrs. Stewart
(Northumberland) moved:
Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: Dispense.
The Speaker: Mr. Manning, seconded by Miss Grey (Edmonton
North) moved the following amendment:
Shall I dispense?
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While I recognize the
importance of dispensing with the necessity of reading the entire
amendment and the motion, there are many people who are watching
the proceedings of the House of Commons who may not be aware of
exactly what we are voting on.
I would ask the Chair, in perhaps a sentence or two, to simply
indicate to the public exactly what we are voting on this
afternoon with respect to this matter.
The Speaker: With respect, the Chair is empowered to read
the motion as it is or not to read it to the House. So if you
would like everything read I will read it and, if not, I will
proceed from there.
Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: Mr. Manning, seconded by Miss Grey (Edmonton
North), moved the following amendment:
(a) by replacing the words: “Special Join Committee of the
Senate and the House of Commons” in the first paragraph with the
words: “Special Committee of the House of Commons”;
(b) by adding immediately after the words: “concerning the
Newfoundland school system;” the following: “more
specifically, the matter of applying the following three tests
for such a proposed constitutional amendment:
1. The Test of Democratic Consent,
2. The Test of Canadian National Interest, and
3. The Test of the Rule of Law;”
(c) by deleting the words: “and seven Members of the Senate”
in the second paragraph;
(d) by inserting after the word “Committee” in the sixth
paragraph the words: “be directed and authorized to hold
hearings in Newfoundland and”;
(e) by replacing all the words in the eighth paragraph with the
following: “That the quorum of the committee be nine members
whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, and that
the Chairperson be authorized to hold meetings, to receive
evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members
are present;”;
(f) by deleting the words “Senate and” in the ninth paragraph;
(g) by replacing all the words in the twelfth paragraph with the
following: “That, notwithstanding usual practices, if the House
is not sitting when the final report of the committee is
completed, the report may be deposited with the Clerk of the
House, and the report shall thereupon be deemed to have been
presented to the House;”; and
(h) by deleting all the words in the last paragraph.
The question is on the amendment.
1815
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there the unanimous consent of the House?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against this amendment.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present will
vote yes on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will
be voting against the amendment.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston I would like to indicate for the
record that I am fundamentally opposed to amending term 17.
However, with respect to this amendment I will be voting in
favour.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
| Cummins
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Mancini
| Manning
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 74
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 206
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Malhi
| Marleau
| Mercier
|
Milliken
| St - Hilaire
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated. The next
question is on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: On division.
The Speaker: On division.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, we were waiting for you to
say all those in favour of the motion, all those against, and to
declare who you thought had it. Then we would see if we would
have a standing vote because that is the way you do it.
The Speaker: You are right, that is the way you do it.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
1820
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no, unless instructed otherwise by their
constituents.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the New
Democratic Party vote in favour of this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, we will be voting in favour of
the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston I will be voting in favour of the
motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 227
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Cummins
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Manning
| Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 53
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Malhi
| Marleau
| Mercier
|
Milliken
| St - Hilaire
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
constituents of Esquimalt—Juan du Fuca, I am voting in favour of
the motion.
The Speaker: Hansard will show the way the member
voted.
It being 6.25 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
FAIR WAGES AND HOURS OF LABOUR ACT
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should not
reinstate the wage schedules under the Fair Wages and Hours of
Labour Act, but allow the provincial wages and hours to prevail.
1825
He said: Madam Speaker, in 1935 the Parliament of Canada passed
the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. It applied only to
private sector contractors working for the federal government on
construction projects. An example would be a new post office or
some federal government public works project.
In those depression era days, when jobs were scarce and the
labour market was plentiful, such legislation may have been
justified to some extent to ensure that labourers were not
exploited and underpaid for the work performed.
In 1983 Canada was in the midst of another depression, probably
the worst one since the dirty thirties. Since the legislation
did not stipulate that wages and hours of work schedules were
mandatory, the Liberal government of the day suspended all
activity relating to schedules for construction projects on
federal sites. Those we will remember as the days of six and
five, the wage and price control program the Liberals told
Canadians they would never implement but did.
It seems the Liberal government has a long history of
broken promises.
Schedules were frozen at 1982 levels so contracts would remain
within this six and five range. When the Liberals were defeated
in 1984 the new government re-evaluated the need for these
schedules.
This evaluation revealed that the legislation was largely
irrelevant and affected only a small segment of the construction
sector, approximately 3%, and that the wages, hours of work and
overtime problems it was designed to address in 1935 were being
dealt with quite adequately under provincial legislation through
collective agreements and by the marketplace.
Wage schedules and the survey on which they were based were
found to be expensive to administer and statistically unsound.
In 1987 the government officially suspended the issuing of
schedules for a three year trial period. That trial period found
that the introduction of wage schedules would likely increase
so-called fair wage compliant levels only marginally. However,
the cost to the department of those schedules was estimated to be
approximately $270,000.
We know these approximations are just that and generally they
tend to run a lot higher than originally set
out. It was felt this high administration cost did not warrant a
continuation of the practice of maintaining wage schedules.
Fast forward the VCR to April 24, 1997. The prime minister was
just a few days from calling a federal election, and the
government's olive branch, Bill C-66, otherwise known as
amendments to the Canada Labour Code, was in the process of going
down in flames in the other place.
1830
The Liberals, it seems, were in a bit of a panic mode. The
Reform Party was gaining momentum. The Liberals feared that
their reign was in danger of collapse and that one of the wise
things to do was to dispatch the Minister of Labour to Hamilton,
the centre of the universe, of course, and home of the former
deputy prime minister.
In an attempt to curry favour with the left and secure the
Hamilton area seats, the minister announced the reinstatement of
those expensive, outdated, unneeded, unnecessary schedules. This
was the same government that, only months before, announced with
much fanfare that it would no longer set minimum wage rates.
Almost exactly a year ago, on October 30, 1996, the House passed
Bill C-35, which aligned the federal minimum wage with the
general minimum wage rates established by the provinces and
territories.
The rate paid to an employee is based on the employee's province
or territory of employment. That is a concept that the Reform
Party agrees with, that the going rate in Alberta, British
Columbia or even in areas of Alberta or British Columbia or
Ontario should be the going minimum rate.
However, the portion of Bill C-35 that Reformers did not agree
with was that, if the governor in council did not agree with the
rate in the provinces, it could interfere. We say, hands off. If
it is good enough for private enterprise and if it is good enough
for the provincial governments, then it should be good enough for
the federal government as well.
The government showed that it had at least a reasonable amount
of faith in the ability of the provinces to set minimum wage,
therefore we have to wonder why it would take the opposite
approach on wage rates and hours of work in the construction
industry.
If the provincial minimum wages are satisfactory, why are the
provincial laws governing construction wages and hours not
adequate? In other words, if someone is a contractor and had a
job in Ontario working for the provincial government doing a
public works project, then the federal government would not
interfere. It would be a deal between the contractor and the
wage earner, the trades people or the labourers.
If someone had a job in the private sector in Ontario—same
contractor, now—then the marketplace would determine what those
people were paid for their services. However, the minister is
suggesting that if that same contractor had a job working for the
federal government in the same province with the same crew, it
would be subject to the fair wages and hours of work schedules.
I really cannot get a grip on this because what is the
rationale? We have been led to believe that not only will the
reinstatement of these schedules cost the government the bare
minimum, $270,000, and very likely more dollars in administrative
costs, estimates are that implementation of the wage schedules
will add 2% to 5% to the tab for all construction projects.
That is at a time when the country can ill afford increased
contract prices. Why are the contractors going to do this? They
are simply going to hedge their contracts. They are going to
build this in. They are going to say, it is possible that the
federal government is going to impose something on us later so we
are going to have to build in something to protect ourselves.
They simply cannot, as a contractor, as an employer, take on a
contract for x dollars and then have the person who they
are working for, in this case the federal government, come back
and say that it has decided because of a complaint that as
contractor you did not live up to the schedules and it will cost
x dollars.
The end result is that these contractors are going to build that
extra price into the contract right up front.
1835
If we are to believe the things that the finance minister says
about not embarking on a spending spree, and we would like to
give him the benefit of the doubt on that, higher costs brought
on by the implementation of this outdated practice will mean
fewer projects and fewer jobs everywhere but in the labour
program of Human Resources Development Canada. We can expect to
have more bureaucrats as a result of these schedules.
Let us look back into history a bit more. In 1996, the average
hourly construction wage for union and non-union workers in
Alberta was higher than what the government was paying its trades
people. That hardly seems to be rationale for bringing in
schedules called fair wages and hours of work, when the
construction industry is already exceeding what the federal
government is paying its trades people. There is no rationale
there.
I believe this is a blatant attempt by the government to
interfere in the marketplace. It will cost taxpayers millions of
dollars in unnecessary costs and ultimately, lost wages and lost
jobs.
Perhaps a lot of workers complained about unfair wages so let us
take a look at that. In 1990 an evaluation revealed that during
the three-year trial from 1987 to 1990, six complaints were
registered involving fair wages. Two of these were in
Newfoundland and Labrador where further investigation turned up
that these people were in compliance. In other words, there was
no basis for the complaint. Four were in Yukon where violations
were found and arrears were collected. During this period, the
Department of Public Works awarded 4,622 contracts with a greater
value of $30,000 per contract for a total value of $1.428
billion. The fair wage arrears amounted to $31,401, an amount
that is .00002% of the $1.428 billion total of other contracts.
I am told that over the last three and a half years in Alberta
and the Northwest Territories there have been a total of 26
complaints involving this legislation, virtually all concerning
overtime and a few concerning wages. Of these 26 complaints, six
were said to involve so-called fair wages and two violations were
found. One violation involved wages in the amount of 40¢ an hour
and the second is said to involve wages of less than $2 an hour.
Are you confused yet, Madam Speaker? Because this is rather
confusing to me. Here are examples of workers who say they are
not being remunerated fairly. They make their complaints and in
the last three and a half years, 26 of them were in Alberta and
in two cases it was found that they were not coming up to the
rates. These two cases are out of all the contracts that are
awarded by the federal government.
If this process can be put in place, why is it that we need to
implement these schedules?
This is more than I can comprehend. This sort of rationale
escapes me.
1840
In a letter to the Minister of Labour, the president of Merit
Contractors stated:
Two fair wage violations over a three and a half year period,
involving millions of dollars of work, present a strong case for
not using additional resources or mechanisms such as schedules to
address the matter that is not problematic.
I would like to have seen this motion as a votable item.
However, it is not. The only thing I have at my disposal now is
to urge the Minister of Labour to reconsider this rather
unnecessary, expensive consideration.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak
to Motion M-9, a motion put forward by the member for Wetaskiwin.
The member is urging the federal government not to reinstate
wage schedules under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. He
also wants provincial wages and hours to prevail. My hon. friend
is a keen and intelligent observer of matters related to the work
force. Very often he has interesting things to say. I do not
usually find myself agreeing with his point, however, I do
respect his dedication, commitment and knowledge of workplace
issues.
With respect to this motion, I understand the reasoning behind
it, but I do not support it for a number of reasons.
Let me begin by describing for the members of the House what
Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act is exactly. The Fair Wages
and Hours of Labour Act began as a policy resolution of
Parliament many years ago. It was in 1900. The act first
emerged in 1935. It was passed to provide that every contract
with the Government of Canada for the building, remodelling,
repair or demolition of any construction project must contain
obligations covering the payment of fair wages, hours of labour
and other working conditions.
The objective here, which I sure the member supports, is to
ensure that the expenditure of public funds does not result in
the exploitation of labour. Because there is a Fair Wage and
Hours of Labour Act every construction contract made with the
federal government includes provisions requiring the contractor
to pay the employees fair wages and to observe specified labour
standards.
One effect of the legislation is to remove wages as an element
in the tendering process. In other words all contractors who
wish to tender on a federal government construction project will
know in advance what rates they will be expected to pay for the
labour component of their costs. A very good thing for
contractors to know.
In the past the wage component of the act was administered by
attachments of schedules of wage rates to the construction
contract signed with contractors on federal construction
projects. These schedules contain details pertaining to the
classification of workers who were involved in the project and
the fair wage rate for each classification in a particular
geographic area. The fair wage rates were determined by wage
surveys prepared by the federal Department of Labour. Another
very good fair transparent way.
The process was discontinued in 1982, at least in part, because
the cost of conducting the surveys was very high. As a result
the obligation to pay the fair wage remained. It was left to the
contractor to determine what that fair wage was. There are some
obvious problems with that approach.
During recent consultation, interested parties told officials of
the department that the act could not accomplish its legislative
purpose without the publication of fair wage schedules. Even
those who advocate the repeal of the act expressed the opinion
that, should the act remain, then fair wage schedules would have
to be published in order for the legislation to be effective.
1845
An example of the problem associated with maintaining the act but
not publishing the schedule is this. A complaint could lead to a
decision during or after the completion of the project that the
contractor was not paying a fair wage and must pay more
retroactive to the beginning of the work. That kind of liability
could obviously be disastrous to a contractor and I do not think
there is anybody in this Chamber who would want that to happen.
Last April, after almost a year of consultations with
stakeholders in the construction industry it was announced that
the wage schedules would be reinstated. However, the announcement
included the fact that a new process would be put in place for
determining the schedules.
It is very important that we understand this new process. The
idea is that the construction and labour relations associations
which are employer groups located in every province will meet
with the building and construction unions and also with the
non-union contractor associations in each province and try to
find a consensus on a range of fair wages for every trade.
With the new mechanisms all the stakeholders will have the
chance to take part directly in the decision making of fair
wages. If the schedules worked out by the stakeholders are
consistent with the intent of the legislation then they will be
adopted by government, but only then.
We believe in consultation and we believe that is a very
important part of this legislation.
This method would seem to be a reasonable compromise. However,
any compromise, any agreement as to what is fair is not always
easy to achieve. While we believe the reinstatement of wage
schedules is in everybody's interest because of the certainty it
would bring to employees and employers, we are not 100% certain
the process will work.
That is why we have a pilot project in the member's home
province of Alberta to find out. This debate is very important
and I thank the hon. member for bringing the subject forward. We
are all concerned that we do the right thing.
It is unfortunate that the decision in this discussion is a bit
premature. The fact is we will have better information once
we have the results of the pilot project in Alberta and we should
enter into that really gladly, because to find information, to
find consultation should really be a goal of all members of
Parliament.
Finally, let me turn to the other part of the member's motion
which contemplates replacing federal wage schedules with
provincial schedules. That idea fails to take into account that
only five provinces and one territory have legislation similar to
the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. What would the member
propose for the other jurisdictions?
The member has put a lot of thought into his motion. I
congratulate him on beginning this important debate, but we are
at the beginning. I believe we must wait for the results of the
pilot project in Alberta before we debate the matter further.
The publishing of fair wage schedules after a transparent and
open process leading to the establishment of those fair wages
would allow workers and contractors to know what they will be
receiving and what wages they will have to pay. There would be no
surprises for anyone.
Certainly it would be premature at best to cancel a program
which has every success, all partners, before this pilot project
has even begun. I believe the member's motion must be defeated.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on behalf of my party, the Bloc Quebecois, and as
its labour critic, to comment on the motion by my Reform Party
colleague from Wetaskiwin, Motion M-9, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
not reinstate the wage schedules under the Fair Wages and
Hours of Labour Act, but allow the provincial wages and hours
to prevail.
1850
The purpose of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act is to
set standards for salaries and hours of work for people employed in
federal construction projects. More specifically, it provides that
all construction contracts concluded by the Government of Canada
must contain provisions requiring contractors to pay fair wages and
to comply with the standards on hours of work and on overtime
defined in the act.
It is a clear and noble purpose. It also aims at removing the
wage element from the tender process so that public funds are not
used to exploit workers.
This Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which came into effect in 1935,
was vigorously enforced until 1982, with pay grids or wage schedules
designed in co-operation with employer and employee associations across
the country.
These grids were attached to contracts dealing with government
works, and this was done by agreement between the parties. But in 1982,
all this stopped because it was established that the federal government
intended to stop conducting the investigations that served as a basis
for establishing the grids used to set fair wages and hours of labour.
Starting in 1983, investigations were no longer conducted, which
leaves us with a kind of vacuum that the Reform Party would fill by
saying that such a grid should not be reinstated. Except that, as it
happens, on April 24, just three days before the election was called,
the then Minister of Labour announced in Hamilton that, if re-elected,
the Liberal Party would reinstate the said grids.
After analyzing and holding consultations on the situation, we have
come to the conclusion that it is in the public interest not to drop
these grids, as suggested in the motion put forward by our colleague
from the Reform Party, but to reinstate them at a future date, in the
interest of the workers concerned.
Two points were of particular concern to us, the first one being
that restoring these grids would work against the mechanisms that Quebec
has set up in labour relations and on labour issues, namely Quebec's
minimum wage act and everything to be found in collective agreements in
Quebec in the area of construction.
We found the answer to our concerns in a 1979 court ruling in
Quebec by Mr. Justice Beetz, in the case of Construction Montcalm
Incorporé v la Commission du salaire minimum, where the judge comments
on an argument put forward by the defendant to the effect that the area
is regulated by the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act; the judge made
a ruling, on which we base our position in relation to Quebec. The
ruling states:
The purpose of these clauses is to ensure a minimum wage
for all persons working for contractors who have been awarded
a contract by the Government of Canada for the construction,
restoration, repair or demolition of a structure. However, the
act does not prevent the crown from signing a contract with a
contractor who pays his employees an amount greater than the
minimum wage. Furthermore, the act does not prevent
enforcement of a provincial act providing for payment of a
minimum wage or of an actual wage that is equal to or greater
than the minimum wage provided under federal law.
1855
You will understand that, consequently, the fears or concerns
we might have had have been dispelled by this judgment, which
clearly states that federal law does not contravene Quebec
legislation or prerogatives.
Our second concern, and I will conclude with this, is to
wonder what, in this situation, the fate of the workers concerned,
the construction workers on federal projects, will be.
Getting back to the bill, its intended purpose is to remove the
wage aspect from the bidding process, so that cut-rate wages will
not be paid in order to get a better chance at a federal contract.
The intention in removing pay from the bidding process is to
prevent public funds from being used to exploit workers.
Are we to understand that there is a sort of vacuum at this
time, and that contractors can bid at cut rates for federal
contracts? If so, we know that the government commitment dates
back to April 24, and now it is October 28.
The matter has dragged on for a good six months, with a federal
commitment in place. There has been a loophole since 1984, a sort
of laissez-faire approach, perhaps a dangerous laxity, bowing to
the laws of the marketplace when the livelihoods of thousands upon
thousands of workers in Canada are at stake.
I therefore consider that the government's commitment ought to
be met, and met as soon as possible. I do not know if the foot
dragging is at the Department of Labour or with the Department of
Human Resources Development, but either the government was serious
and must move on it, or the Minister of Labour of the time just
said any old thing. That would perhaps not be surprising for this
government, because it has changed its mind so often over the
years.
Let us think back to Mr. Trudeau in 1978, with the 18 cents a
gallon promise—back in the days when we had gallons.
and Mr. Clark's promise at the time, probably responsibly made, for
he was the Prime Minister. Mr. Trudeau made fun of him. I
personally remember hearing the radio spots as they are called,
telling farmers that they would have to stop ploughing halfway down
the row because gas would cost too much under the Conservative
government. Over the years, the Liberals perhaps increased the
price from 18 cents to 35 cents a gallon, with never an apology,
the same as with the promises about wage controls that the Liberals
back then said they would never bring in. And the GST recently.
Liberals would never bring in wage controls, Liberals would never
change the GST. The Liberals would never renew the helicopter
contract.
We know how these folks blow with the wind. We perhaps have
a good example in Mr. Trudeau, who was the defender of social
democracy, of the just society, who never kept a promise either.
So I am worried.
I oppose the Reform Party motion, and I am in favour of the
government's plans, but I am very worried about how serious and
responsible they are, when they say things on April 24 and on
October 28, there is still no news. Although I asked, I could find
no up-to-date document regarding the restriction or the
government's intentions. We received the press release on April
24. That shows how serious this government is.
We could wonder where it is headed, apart from operating on a
day to day, ad hoc basis, without ever, it must be said, keeping
its promises. We therefore oppose the motion by our Reform Party
colleague and fervently hope that the government will assume its
responsibilities and keep its promises.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
rise to speak on Motion No. 9 and in so doing I say shame on the
member and shame on the Reform Party for introducing this motion.
The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act was initially crafted in
1935 to protect employees from substandard wages and to create a
level playing field for contractors bidding on federal contracts.
The government then stopped posting fair wages in 1987. On April
24 of this year the concept of the fair wages schedule was
restored.
1900
Tomorrow in Edmonton all of the major players in the
construction industry in that province will be sitting down to
work out a fair wages schedule for federal construction work for
that province. They will look at all of the classifications of
the workers involved, the fair wage rates for those
classifications and the geographic areas they apply to.
This Reform motion is an attack on the taxpayer. It is an
attack on fairness and an attack on youth employment
opportunities. I will tell the House why.
The underground construction economy costs taxpayers billions of
dollars. This issue of fair wage schedules is an issue of
quality, of ensuring that the taxpayer gets full value for the
dollar. It is an issue of honesty, accountability and fair play.
What does the hon. member fear about fairness and about ensuring
quality control over the use of taxpayers' dollars?
This motion sets out to scuttle a process that is just gearing
up, a process aimed at establishing a level playing field for all
contractors. Without establishing these wages, there would not
be a level playing field for contractors.
This motion supports the underground economy in the construction
industry. This is where fair-minded contractors lose out. This
is where Canadians simply wanting a fair and decent wage for
their work lose out. This is where the taxpayer loses. With cash
paid for the job at the bottom of the subcontracting ladder, tax
revenues are lost, EI contributions are lost and CPP
contributions go unpaid.
The timing of this motion seeks to subvert an important set of
negotiations occurring this week. It seeks to subvert similar
negotiations that will follow in months to come in other
provinces.
Keeping federal construction contracts above aboard helps ensure
taxpayers' dollars are not misused. It helps to get the best
value out of every dollar spent. It helps to support fair-minded
contractors. It works toward the health and safety of all
Canadian construction workers.
I know that my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre
wants it on record that the NDP will be watching these
negotiations very closely, not only the ones in Alberta this
week, but in other provinces over the months to come to ensure
that fairness and just wages triumph.
This motion deserves to be soundly defeated. In fact the
government should go one step further and ensure that in all
federally tendered contract documents the following language is
put in place: “Contractors must hire qualified journey persons
and indentured apprentices only”. This language would go a long
way to ensure that fair wages are paid, that improved health and
safety is the practice and not the exception, and that youth are
supported through apprenticeship programs.
If the Department of Public Works and Government Services were
to ensure that all contracts had this language, it would go a
long way to supporting good, solid apprenticeships for youth, job
opportunities for young Canadians, support for those who support
this invaluable education and skills training for young workers.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate. Does
the hon. member understand that if he chooses to exercise his
right of five minutes it will close the debate?
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Yes, Madam Speaker.
There are so many places to start I hardly know where to begin.
My colleague the parliamentary secretary implies that employees
are now not being paid a fair wage. She says she would like to
see that and so would I.
However I would put to my hon. colleague that people are being
paid fair wages. Evidence of that is in my talk where I say that
there have been very few complaints made. Of the complaints
made, a lot of them have been found to have no basis. There is
quite conclusive proof that people are being paid fair wages at
the time.
1905
The parliamentary secretary further says that there is no 100%
guarantee that the system they are considering will work. I
propose that the system now is working. Case in point, there
are .00002% of the cases where it is not working. That is so close
to 100% I do not see how the parliamentary secretary could possibly
argue.
On the matter of overtime, these schedules we are talking about
would restrict workers to work eight hours a day. Any time after
that would have to be overtime. I realize that my friends in the
more socialist parties would say that is great, that it is a good
thing.
However a lot of contracts now are negotiated by the employer
and the union to allow trades people and labourers to work four
10-hour days rather than five 8-hour days. The result of that is
when they are working away from home, as in the construction
business, most of the time they can work their 40 hours in four
days rather than five days and have a long weekend every weekend.
They would have actually more time to spend with their families.
If we come in with wage schedules that say that it cannot be
done, then we will deny these people time spent with their
families. I am positive my colleagues would not want to have
these people spending more time on the job and less time with
their families.
I thought I had done such a good job of delivering information,
unbiased of course, to my colleague from the Bloc that he would
certainly support this. I was very surprised to see that he
would say “yes, yes, I think it is a good idea that the federal
government would interfere with the wage schedules and hours of
work in my province of Quebec”. I was amazed.
I thought all along that the Bloc among other things, stood for
more autonomy of the provinces, more devolution of power to the
provinces, more made in the province solutions rather than top
down things from the federal government, a paternal type of
government. I guess I was wrong.
My colleague from the Bloc talked about a vacuum. There is no
vacuum. The area that he claims to be a vacuum is filled by
people who are getting fair wages. The case for that again is
99.888% of the contracts now are being paid fair wages.
I want to close on this note. I think my time is pretty well
up. I think that any time I am admonished by the NDP, my
constituents leap up and say “yahoo, that guy is on the right
track”.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): As no other member
wishes to speak, and the motion has not been made a votable item,
the time provided for consideration of Members' Business has now
expired and the item is dropped from the Order Paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
CRIME PREVENTION
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, certainly the issue I am speaking to is something I am
quite excited about.
All members had a life before they come to Parliament. The area
I worked in was community justice and how a community deals with
people who cause problems in the community.
There is no question that crime has been with us ever since
civilization started and it will be with us for a long time to
come.
The fact of the matter is that we are taking steps to empower
local communities to start dealing with some of the issues of
crime at the local level.
1910
Too often in the past we have passed laws in Ottawa and in
provincial capitals and we have not paid enough attention to what
the local community can do in the whole area of crime prevention.
In the 35th Parliament I had the pleasure of tabling the justice
committee report on young offenders. It was on the final sitting
day of the last Parliament.
One recommendation that came out in the report related to the
whole issue of crime prevention. Strongly underlying crime
prevention, we in the justice committee recognized that it was
imperative to allow local communities to take ownership in trying
to deal with some of the difficult problems. How can we prevent
crime from occurring? How can we make a safer and more secure
community?
Clearly justice at the community level belongs to the whole
community. It belongs to the schools, the churches, the
families, the service clubs, the organizations, the police and
the courts. However it has to be done in partnership. For far
too long we have not supported efforts at the community level to
combat crime and to build safer communities.
I am very pleased to tell the House that on April 16 the 20th
justice dinner is going to be hosted in the Waterloo region. That
is where members of the community come together, the police, the
crown, the judiciary, victims groups and service clubs. They
come together to try to see how they can better play a role in
building a safer community. There is no question that the whole
issue of diversion and prevention is much better than the one of
apprehension and spending more and more money on reacting to
crime.
I am very pleased that we have a program of crime prevention
which will be directed at the local communities where they can
take ownership.
I was very heartened when I put that question to the Minister of
Justice because it is of critical importance. The program will
succeed if the local communities take leadership and the federal
and provincial governments provide back-up assistance.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
first I would like to commend the hon. member for raising the
question and most important for the leadership role he has played
in his own riding to establish a comprehensive and collaborative
crime prevention approach through partnership in his community.
The best way to reduce crime in Canada is to prevent it. Crime
prevention is a priority for this government, for the minister
and indeed for all Canadians. A recent poll stated that over 80%
of Canadians consider that the government has an important role
to play in crime prevention.
[Translation]
We believe that crime prevention starts with understanding the
various problems faced by the different communities, helping them
identify their needs and involving them in finding solutions.
[English]
Unlike our friends on the right and some of the opposition
members I might point out we believe that to reduce crime we must
support measures that alleviate the underlying risk factors that
contribute to criminal behaviour, factors such as poverty and
unemployment.
As promised in the Speech from the Throne, the government is
developing a new initiative that builds on the work of the
National Crime Prevention Council which this government
established. This initiative will target community level
prevention projects, as the hon. member stated, getting money
into the hands of those who know what the problems are and how to
best deal with them.
[Translation]
The program will obtain resources for activities based in the
communities or initiated by them. To help communities develop
programs, we will provide them with material resources and
promote crime prevention measures. We will also ensure they get
the training they need and we will support innovative projects.
1915
[English]
Effective crime prevention operates at the local level but
requires partnership at all levels. The government and the
minister intend to pursue this initiative in co-operation with
other orders of government, the private sector and other partners
in social development and a justice system.
I thank the member for his question.
HEALTH
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker,
the health crisis in the downtown east side community of
Vancouver continues. This community is facing an epidemic
characterized by the highest incidence of HIV infection of
intravenous drug users in the western world. It is reported that
there is a 50% infection rate of an estimated 6,000-plus
intravenous drug users who frequent the area and now this crisis
is spreading to other areas as well.
As reported today, HIV infected drug users are showing up in
larger numbers in the Kamloops and Kootenay regions. On
September 25 the Vancouver and Richmond regional health board
declared a public health emergency because of this issue. On
October 23 the board brought forward an action plan to respond to
this crisis.
There is a desperate need for leadership from all levels of
government to combat this health crisis, to save lives, to
protect the community and to reduce harm associated with
obtaining drugs on the street. So far the province of British
Columbia, the regional health board and even the municipal
government have responded, but not the federal government.
The question being increasingly asked is where is the Minister
of Health.
Since this summer I have raised this issue many times. I wrote
to the minister in July, in September and in October not only to
make the minister aware of the extent of this health emergency
and its devastating impact on people and the community of
Vancouver East but also to request a meeting so this issue could
be discussed further. There has been no response and no action.
Why is the minister ignoring the national action plan on HIV,
AIDS and injection drug use published in May and produced by the
national task force? Why is the minister not participating with
other interested parties across the country in the 10th annual
B.C. conference on AIDS taking place in Vancouver this very week?
At that conference the chair of the national task force, Dr.
Hankins, charged yesterday that politicians are afraid to take
the lead on this issue.
When it comes to the political will shown by the federal
government, I would agree with her on that assessment. In the
Vancouver Sun recently the Minister of Health was quoted as
saying that the HIV injection drug crisis in Vancouver East is a
justice issue, but when the Minister of Health was the justice
minister in 1995 he told the then minister of health of British
Columbia, when discussing the Cain report, that this was a health
issue.
It is time to stop passing the buck because lives hang in the
balance. How many more people have to die before this government
takes action? When will the federal Minister of Health show
leadership as called for in the national task force report and
make it clear that he will acknowledge this epidemic as the
health crisis it is and take action?
If the minister does not, in ten years can we expect a royal
commission posing the same questions that the Krever commission
has already posed such as why when we had the chance to act did
the government do nothing, or why did lives have to be lost
because the political will was lacking?
I call on the minister to act now or he may find himself the
first witness called to task if his inaction and the government's
inaction result in even more lives lost and devastated
communities.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite right
to place her concern where it is. Unfortunately her assessment
of what the minister and the department have been doing is
completely off base.
Health Canada is acutely aware of the situation in British
Columbia and recognizes the seriousness of the issue from both
regional and national perspectives.
1920
Vancouver's HIV epidemic among injection drug users is an
emergency health crisis. It is a multifaceted health crisis that
brings into play other illnesses such as hepatitis C,
tuberculosis, alcohol and drug addiction and mental health as
well as other factors like poverty, housing, transportation and
access to services.
[Translation]
Health Canada will work in close co-operation with the Minister of
Health of British Columbia and with the Minister of Child and Family
Welfare Minister of that province, and also with other federal
departments that are in continuous contact with the Vancouver—Richmond
Health Council.
Health Canada is presently working on the creation of an
interinstitutional task force including federal departments and various
regional and national organizations, in order to implement measures to
deal with the health crisis.
These groups will develop and implement a federal plan identifying
the complete range of health determinants that are responsible for this
crisis.
[English]
Based on discussions with provincial and local governments the
federal response could include a range of activities such as
developing new and innovative methods for delivering services and
programs for populations at risk. I include among them
aboriginal peoples, women, people with mental illnesses and
youth.
It could include activities to broaden community support for HIV
intervention and care issues including interest in and compassion
for injection drug users and, finally, improving the
co-ordination of services in areas such as addictions, mental
health, social services, housing and medical care.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the House
is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.22 p.m.)