TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monday, April 25, 1994
Bill C-208. Motion for second reading 3411
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 3414
Bill C-16. Motion for second reading 3419
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 3438
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 3438
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3439
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3440
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3440
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3440
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3440
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3440
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3440
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 3441
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 3441
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 3441
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3442
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3442
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3442
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3443
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3443
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3443
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 3444
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3444
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 3444
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3444
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 3446
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 3446
Bill C-23. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted. 3447
Bill C-24. Motions for introduction and first readingagreed to. 3447
Bill C-16. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 3448
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 3455
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 3461
PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 3477
3411
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, April 25, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John) moved that Bill C-208, an
act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the
opportunity to speak about my first bill to be tabled in the House
and why it should be adopted. This bill responds to the concerns
expressed by many Canadians on MPs' pensions.
We all agree as members we are contributing substantially to
our pension plan. It is true that only about one-quarter of the
MPs elected will stay long enough to collect a pension. This
being said, we should still move forward on this issue.
Is it fair for an MP to collect a pension after six years in the
House, even if he or she is not of retirement age? Is it right for a
former MP to receive a pension if at the same time he or she is
working for the government?
The objectives of my bill are clear. This bill will prohibit
former members of Parliament from collecting a pension while
employed by the Government of Canada, a government agency
or a federal crown corporation. Under this bill a former member
could not collect a pension until the age of 60.
I know that the Prime Minister is concerned about the issue of
severance pay. Not only did he raise his concerns last April 6 in
Kamloops, but he raised them again on March 7 in the House. He
said: ``There is no security of employment around here. Some
people who come to Parliament when they quit find it is not easy
to get re-established in private life''. This is true, but we all
knew that when we ran as candidates. It is also true that a lot of
former MPs have problems getting back into private life.
However, we are not arguing that issue today.
(1105)
I understand that a case could be made for linking pension
changes to severance packages. I suggest that if the Prime
Minister wants to deal with the severance issue he can do it at a
later date. Right now we should do something about pensions.
In the speech from the throne our government said:
``Measures to reform the pension plan of members of
Parliament, including the elimination of double dipping, will be
placed before you''. The government still has not introduced
legislation to do that.
Indeed, there is a strong consensus on this issue from all
parties in the House. During the last campaign the former Prime
Minister said that she would introduce measures that would
preclude any MP from collecting a pension before the age of 55.
She also added that there would be no more double-dipping.
The leader of the NDP agreed with that statement in the House
last year. The leader of the Reform Party has said that his party is
the only federal political party to consistently advocate a change
in the MP pension plan in order to bring the benefits in line with
private sector standards. The Reform Party has said that it wants
to postpone eligibility until at least age 60, and this bill does just
that.
In his speech in Quebec on August 16, 1993 the Leader of the
Official Opposition said: ``Bloc MPs would support the
government if the previous Prime Minister, Campbell, were to
recall Parliament to pass promised legislation amending the
MPs' pension plan and preventing ex-MPs from holding
government jobs while collecting their pensions''.
On that same day in Burlington, Ontario, our present Prime
Minister urged previous Prime Minister Campbell to act
quickly. He said: ``If Ms. Campbell wanted to do something
about it she would have recalled the Parliament and in one day it
would have passed''.
In response to the Vancouver Sun column ``Ask the Leader'',
our present Prime Minister said that he believes such measures
are necessary in order to restore Canadians' faith in politicians
and to combat widespread voter cynicism, and I agree with him.
The time has come for all members of this House to show
Canadians that we all were serious during the last campaign.
After the election the Prime Minister said that his government
wanted to wait for a report commissioned by Parliament on
MPs' pay and perks before introducing legislation.
3412
That report has been released and the government still has
not introduced legislation to make the needed reforms to the
pension plans of members of this House; reforms that are
necessary, that Canadians want and that this government
promised.
My bill today would make those reforms and so I urge its
passage. Canadians want action and they want it now. Therefore,
I would move that not withstanding any standing orders and
usual practices of the House, Bill C-208, an act to amend the
members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, be made
votable and referred after second reading to a committee of the
whole instead of to the legislative committee and that, unless
otherwise disposed of, no later than five minutes before the end
of the time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business today, any proceedings then before the House shall be
interrupted and every question necessary to dispose of the said
bill at all stages should be put forthwith and successively
without further debate or amendment.
(1110)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the member for
Saint John have unanimous consent to propose the motion to the
House?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Resuming debate.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Members
of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
As noted earlier, this bill comes at an awkward time. It would
have been so much easier to have reviewed this subject
immediately after the Conservative leadership race, during the
summer, a summer when the then Conservative Leader, the hon.
member for Vancouver Centre, British Columbia, crisscrossed
the country from Halifax to Vancouver to Newfoundland on a
pre-election campaign. It would have been easy to recall the
House to give the members of the 34th Parliament the chance to
debate fully the question of whether the provisions of a bill can
apply retroactively.
It is not in our parliamentary tradition to introduce bills which
apply retroactively and, when we do so, it is often only
grudgingly, after having examined all of the ins and outs of the
matter.
The current members of the 35th Parliament were elected in
accordance with the rules that prevailed at the time and, clearly,
they have some vested rights. It is obvious on reading Bill
C-208 that it affects the vested rights of members elected to
serve in the 35th Parliament.
If I understand correctly, Bill C-208 would apply only to
members elected to sit in the next or 36th Parliament. This is
similar to the decision reached by the Quebec National
Assembly when it reviewed the members' pension plan.
Therefore, instead of conducting a pre-election campaign at
the height of the summer, I think the party to which the hon.
member for Saint John, New Brunswick, belongs should have
been calling on its leadership, if there was any, to convene
Parliament so that the issue could be debated and pension plan
reform proposals could be applied to the current Parliament.
Bill C-208 is brief. It contains one provision with which I
know most hon. colleagues will certainly agree, that is the
provision which states that a former member who is receiving
remuneration in whatever capacity from the federal government
cannot at the same time collect a pension. Let us take, for
example, the case of a former member who is appointed to a
federal court bench. Personally, I feel it is wrong and somewhat
contrary to common sense when a person can collect both a
pension and a salary from the federal government. I feel the
same way about persons working for various federal offices and
government or parapublic agencies and collecting a pension at
the same time.
In my view, the different levels of government in Canada
should get together and agree to ban this practice from one
province to another. For instance, there is something a little odd
about a provincial deputy minister of justice receiving
severance pay just because he is appointed to a federal court of
appeal. Representatives of the various levels of government in
Canada should sit down together to review the administration of
public moneys in this area.
As for the second major provision of Bill C-208, namely the
age restriction criteria whereby a former member cannot begin
to collect a pension immediately unless that member has
reached 55 or 60 years of age, this is indeed another matter.
(1115)
Many will say that a member has no business collecting a
pension of $40,000 or so a year after just two terms of office,
that is to say eight, nine or ten years depending on the
constitutional limits, if he or she was a member of Cabinet and is
making a career change. There is something wrong with that
picture, however, and I think we should look at it.
Studies have demonstrated that, by the time some members
who sat for two terms, having been elected twice, finish
collecting the full pension to which they are entitled for life,
they will have cost between $2.5 and $3.5 million to the public
purse.
However, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Saint
John, New Brunswick, has a flaw as I see it. There is a gap
between the proposal for a minimum age of eligibility, whether
55 or 60 years old, as suggested in the hon. member's bill, and
3413
the present situation where one can collect a pension
immediately upon retiring.
Many members-with the kind of turnover we have here in
the House of Commons, there were 200 new members elected in
this 35th Parliament- find themselves in a difficult situation.
Many of those members who were defeated in the last
election-this is true of any election, but particularly of the last
one because of the major changes that took place about six
months ago, on October 25, 1993-may be finding themselves
in dire straights. Perhaps, in fact very likely, we would need a
sort of severance pay to help former members find a new job.
Members of Parliament who held professional positions have
to quit or at least considerably neglect their careers to serve their
constituents while they are sitting in the House of Commons.
When they resume their careers after being defeated or upon
retirement, they must rebuild their clientele.
Farmers who had leased their farms will also have to get
reacquainted with new technology and take operations back in
their own hands. This bill lacks transitory provisions, and there
should be such provisions.
Members of Parliament who retire or are defeated often have
to regain, pardon the expression, some sort of ``political
virginity''. A member who used to work in communications, in a
radio or TV station, would not be allowed to go back on air
overnight as a political analyst. The station would say that he or
she is too closely associated with a given political party, and
should stand back for a while and come back a few months or
even years down the road. In the meantime, the former member
will be handed assignments in areas not closely related to the
political arena that he or she knows well. The same thing
happens in several other fields. You are told: ``Distance yourself
from politics; work on your image and, soon, we will take you
back''.
That is the time frame this bill does not cover, and that is why
I find it very hard to say: Let us immediately stop paying
benefits or annuities to members who retire or are defeated in an
election; let us stop paying upon retirement and wait until
former members reach the age of 55 or 60, without at the same
time putting transitory provisions in place. I would have liked
Bill C-208 to contain something specific in terms of transitory
provisions.
We would do well to use Quebec's legislation, the legislation
passed by the Quebec National Assembly, as a model to refine
this bill in that regard. This government had indicated in its
parliamentary calendar that this issue would be debated in the
House and I would recommend that the various points I have
made be taken into consideration when a government bill on the
subject is tabled.
(1120 )
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): Madam Speaker, we have before us for
discussion Bill C-208 which proposes amendments to the
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, amendments
which seek to end double dipping and delay commencement of
pension benefits to a former member until he or she reaches age
60.
I will confine my remarks to the bill's treatment of double
dipping. My hon. colleague from Nepean will address the
problems raised by the proposed provisions dealing with
delayed receipt of benefits to former members and survivors.
When I refer to double dipping I am referring to the
simultaneous drawing of both a pension under the Members of
Parliament Retirement Allowances Act and a salary or other
payment from the Government of Canada. The government has
announced that it intends to curtail this practice. Indeed, the
right hon. Prime Minister has on several occasions stated that
the government is committed to ending double dipping. The bill
purports to do this but it must be said that the approach adopted
here is seriously flawed.
First, the proposed section 13.1 would remove the
re-employed former member's entitlement altogether rather
than just suspend that entitlement during the period of
re-employment.
Obvious inequities would then result since there is no
provision to reinstate the former member's pension when his or
her re-employment terminated as inevitably would occur. The
bill would appear to impose a lifetime pension disentitlement
for a former member. This surely could not have been its intent.
Second, the term ``remuneration'' is not defined and the
proposed scope of the source of that remuneration is very wide.
Crown corporation directors' fees and per diems for even short
periods of part time service to the Government of Canada would
be caught by this very broad definition, as would contract fees,
even though receipt of pension had already been taken into
account when those fees were set.
As the bill is drafted, receipt of any remuneration no matter
how little the amount would disentitle a former member from
receiving any pension at all. As I mentioned that disentitlement
would appear to be for life.
Third, the bill provides no mechanism to allow the pension
administration to monitor possible cases of re-employment.
Therefore there would be no way of knowing if and when a
former member started to receive remuneration in another
capacity from the Government of Canada, especially since there
is no requirement in the bill for former members to report their
re-employment and remuneration.
3414
This leads to a related problem. No provision is made in the
bill for the recovery of overpayments of pension, overpayments
which would inevitably arise since the administration would
have no sure way of knowing that re-employment had occurred
and that the pension entitlement should be terminated.
Recovery of such overpayments could prove difficult,
expensive and time consuming at a time when government
resources must be husbanded very carefully.
In conclusion, the bill would put an end to double dipping but
it would not do so in a fair and even-handed way. I wish to state
again that the government fully intends to curtail this practice
which has attracted so much criticism. However, it wants to
adopt a more disciplined and integrated approach taking into
account all aspects of a member of Parliament's compensation.
As hon. members are aware, the government has received the
recommendations regarding members' compensation from a
firm of consultants engaged by the previous government.
These recommendations have been referred to the Lapointe
commission which must report to the House by mid-July of this
year. Rather than rushing into law seriously flawed legislation
such as the bill before us now, the more prudent approach for
dealing with the issue of double dipping for persons under the
pension plan seems to be to await the deliberations of the
Lapointe commission. The recommendations of the commission
can then be studied carefully in the course of the government's
consideration of its options for reform of the pension plan, a
consideration of options which would be carried out in a context
of the overall compensation package provided for members of
Parliament.
(1125)
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker,
after years of abusing the trust of the taxpayer with a pension
plan only King Midas could have matched, we have a private
member's bill from a Conservative MP.
Although I favour the two issues that are addressed in this
private member's bill, as has already been mentioned there are
some flaws in it. The best way to evaluate whether the bill is
successful is to compare the Liberal approach, the Reform
approach and the approach of the private member's bill. I leave
it to you, my colleagues, and those watching today to decide
which approach is best.
Before I begin this comparison I would like to look briefly at
who seriously advocated pension reform in Canada in the past
and why all of a sudden here we are in 1994 looking at a very
small private member's bill.
To date no action has been taken by the Liberals other than
after the recent election five Liberal MPs have been added to the
long list of those collecting pensions. The Conservatives have
taken no action to date either but if you look at the last election
again there were 111 members of Parliament picking up a
pension. Then we have the Conservative's private member's bill
today. The Reform Party has had a policy in place for a number
of years which I will describe a little later.
Let us look at the approach to MPs' pensions that has been
taken by the major parties. I would like to go through the
government first, the Liberal Party. As I said, five Liberal MPs
have recently been put on to this pension plan and are now safely
living on government pensions for the rest of their lives along
with many other colleagues. In fact there are 397 individuals
today on MPs' pensions.
The pensions range from about $28,000 to $84,000. The
infamous red book suggests that the Liberals believe reform is
necessary. I am not sure whether they are speaking about our
party or the reform of the pension plan, probably a little bit of
both. They suggest the pension regime of members of
Parliament has been the focus of considerable controversy and is
now the subject of an independent review which was mentioned
here just briefly. The book also talks about the end to double
dipping which this private member's bill actually does address.
After all these years of milking the system the Liberal Party is
now suggesting that it believes that reform of the pension plan is
necessary.
The Liberal Party has recently paid for a study on
parliamentarians' compensation although it has suggested that
the Conservative Party implemented this study and it could do
nothing about it. That was incorrect.
The original study was around $150,000. It could have been
stopped once the election was over but it was not. Now the cost
of this report is approximately $200,000-plus and the
commission which was just talked about will cost about
$300,000. The report contained some recommendations.
It is important to note that the report stated that MPs actually
should get a 37 per cent pay increase. Liberals say it is not going
to happen because we have deferred that for two years but it is in
there.
The study suggests that MPs should get severance pay and
that Senators should get an increase in pay. It also suggests a
number of changes to the pension plan. One in particular
suggests that the pension plan should be indexed annually to the
excess of inflation over 3 per cent which is actually one of the
most expensive parts of the pension plan.
This study is going to a commission. Where it goes from there
we do not know but I suspect that we will see bits of it in the
commission's report.
3415
(1130 )
We have already established that the Liberal government
closely mirrors the previous Conservative government in many
things, so let us not expect too much. If we look at the
Conservative approach we do not need to talk too much about
the performance of that group of politicians and their pension
reform policy. The Canadian electorate said all there was to say
about that in the last election. Since the last election, as I have
said, we have 111 Conservative members of Parliament picking
up pensions ranging from about $26,000 to $82,000.
This private member's bill addresses double dipping which is
now defined as a former member of Parliament who is employed
by the Government of Canada, an agency of the Government of
Canada or a crown corporation. I am happy to see that defined
because there was some question from time to time about what
double dipping actually was.
It also covers vesting or collecting the payoff at age 60. There
were some problems with that. What is not addressed here is that
there are people in the country who could get elected at age 55
and under this private member's bill could get a pension at age
60. They would get it in five years, not six as it is today. We have
to look at both these combinations.
This private member's bill reflects a modest attempt to
correct the outrageous self-indulgence both Liberals and
Conservatives have provided themselves over the years at the
expense of the taxpayer. It is ironic after the last two decades
when we have been going into debt year after year after year and
overspending in our budgets that we are sitting here looking at a
private member's bill. These kinds of things should have been
looked at some time ago. It is a little bit but it is a little bit too
late.
Since the beginning the Reform Party's policy has been to
ensure that politicians could not collect a pension until age 60.
We wanted to ensure that double dipping could not occur by two
means. The first is no vesting of benefits, should a past MP
obtain a position with the government or any of its agencies or
corporations. The second most important aspect of double
dipping is to eliminate all the patronage that is going on in the
first place. The only way double dipping occurs is after an MP
leaves his or her seat and gets appointed to this board, that
board, this corporation and so on.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The Liberals are heckling
me. For those who are watching this debate on camera, they are
heckling me. Quite recently we had three patronage
appointments, and there is no reason to think that party is going
to change that.
We want to end full indexing, to ensure all contribution
criteria meet provisions of the Income Tax Act, which is not in
here, and to allow an adequate sharing arrangement between
government and the member. The current arrangement sees the
taxpayer contributing about $5.97 for every $1 by the MP. We
ought to ensure that pension benefits for MPs are brought in line
with private sector standards.
There is sometimes talk that one of our members is double
dipping. The definition of double dipping is an MP who is
unelected or chooses not to run and gets a patronage
appointment somewhere else. That is where the heckling comes
in because they just love patronage over there.
When I signed my papers as an MP I refused to sign the
pension papers because I did not want to participate in it. I got
this letter back from the government: ``However, pursuant to the
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, members are
required to make pension contributions based on the amounts
payable by way of sessional allowance''. The fact is that we
cannot even stop getting this kind of stuff. Government parties
have made it so difficult over the years that they get in the trough
and cannot help but stay in the trough. No wonder people in the
country are upset.
In conclusion we have to look at whether or not the real intent
will be there, whether or not the Liberal government will
actually take the steps forward to provide a reasonable pension
plan that is in line with the private industry, matches the Income
Tax Act, and so on and so forth. We have already seen that it is a
party that will not accept the function of recall. It is into
patronage. It has moved the NAFTA centre to Montreal and so
on. I say it will not do so. If we want real reform in the pension
we will have to look to Reformers.
(1135)
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to rise to speak to Bill C-208, an act to amend the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
While I commend the member for Saint John for putting the
private member's bill forward, in my estimation it does not go
far enough. My colleague dealt with the first part of it and I will
deal with the second part.
It purports to deal with two aspects of the pension plan
provided for former members of the House and former senators.
It proposes amendments to the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act in an effort to provide a quick fix regarding two
features of our pension plan which have attracted a good deal of
criticism in the country. I am referring to the fact that the act
places no restrictions on double dipping and permits a former
member to begin drawing a pension immediately upon
retirement regardless of his or her age.
At this point I should state clearly that the government is very
much aware of the widespread concern of Canadians about the
pension plan for members of Parliament. The government is
committed to change but wishes to do so in a rational and
comprehensive fashion, not piecemeal, which unfortunately is
the approach adopted in the private member's bill.
3416
It would be prudent to await the proposals of the Lapointe
commission and modify the pension plan for members of
Parliament in accordance with a more integrated and cohesive
approach to the overall compensation package appropriate for
parliamentarians.
My hon. colleague from Essex-Windsor has dealt ably with
the issue of double dipping in the context of the amendments
proposed in the bill. Therefore I shall direct my remarks to other
deficiencies in these proposals, deficiencies which are serious
enough that the intent of the bill could not be realized if it were
to become law.
The major problem with the bill as it stands today is that it
deals only with some of the benefits to which a former member
is entitled. As hon. members may know, the amendments made
to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act in 1992
brought the pension plan into compliance with the Income Tax
Act registration rules and essentially divided the pension plan
into two parts: part I, the registered plan and part II, a retirement
compensation arrangement.
The proposed amendments in the bill only deal with part I of
the act, the registered plan, and purport to delay commencement
of pension benefits under the registered plan until age 60. As an
aside, these amendments do not even deal with all benefits to
which a former member might be entitled under part I, since
they do not address the special joint and survivor benefit which a
former member may elect to receive under section 23 of the act
in cases where a former member wishes to provide survivor
benefit protection to a spouse he or she married after ceasing to
be a member.
Not only is the proposed subsection 13.1(2) quite redundant,
it fails to achieve its objective of delaying receipt of benefits
until age 60. I would assume that is what the hon. member would
like it to do since it does not amend part II of the act, the portion
of the act which contains the provisions that allow for benefits to
be paid prior to age 60.
Further, the proposed amendment seeks to delay
commencement until age 60 but does not make any exception to
that rule in the case where a former member became disabled
after retirement but before he or she reached age 60. Surely it
could not have been intended that in no circumstance would a
benefit be payable to a former member who was unfortunate
enough to become disabled prior to age 60.
Turning to the matter of the proposed companion changes to
survivor benefits, hon. members should be aware that delaying
receipt of survivor benefits until a deceased member or former
member would have been 60 years of age is quite inconsistent
with any other federal pension legislation and contrary to the
standards set out in any pension benefits standards legislation in
the country.
Such a measure could be characterized as regressive at best,
not to mention slightly absurd in the case of children's benefits,
since few such recipients would still qualify for benefits if they
had to wait until their parents reached 60 years old. No provision
is made for an intervening disability in these instances either.
(1140)
There are two further aspects of the survivor benefit proposed
in the bill that are problematic. The first of these is that again the
bill does not address the survivor benefits paid under part II of
the act and does not therefore impose the delay until age 60 for
these benefits.
Second, the provision that purports to delay payment until age
60 does not have any transitional arrangements and could have
the effect of cutting off the benefits of those persons presently in
receipt of survivor benefits who became entitled to them under
the law as it now stands. It is far from clear that the proposed
section 13.3 would prevent this from happening, given the
wording of the proposed new section 24 of the act.
In conclusion the bill may be well intentioned but falls far
short of achieving its objectives. Given its structural defects as
drafted it could be said to raise questions of equity. As I
mentioned earlier the government will be coming out with a
report in July of this year.
I would like to quote from Hansard of March 5, 1991. I am on
record as speaking in favour of amending the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
I find it hypocritical that someone in the private sector who might get laid off
from their job, or might be transferred to another company within the private
sector in another area of Canada, does not have the same privileges as we do as
members of Parliament under the present legislation.
We have widows and widowers who are living on limited income. We have a
country whose economy is very tight today. We have people who are
unemployed and I think that we as members of Parliament must show some
compassion and some consideration.
I am in support of amending the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act. Parts I and II must both be amended.
We cannot look at one in isolation of the other. I am pleased to
speak to the bill. Again I commend the member for Saint John
for taking this initiative and looking at it, but we need to go one
step further to cover all aspects of the bill.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill today.
This bill to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act raised by my friend in the Conservative Party is
a positive step and long overdue. The MPs pension plan is part of
the reason Canadians are disillusioned with politics and with
politicians.
3417
The vote on October 26, 1993 to change the government in
Ottawa was as a result of many things, not the least of which
was the need to reform the MPs gold plated pension plan. Often
in the House when the government enjoys a clear majority, the
majority overrides voices in the opposition who are often and
only repeating the frustrations of Canadians.
Government members protest constantly against the elected
representatives who are only doing what they promised
Canadians: to get rid of the obscene MPs pension plan for one.
When I hear Liberal MPs protestations I am reminded of a
phrase from literature to the effect: methinks thou doth protest
too much.
It seems strange to be defending a Conservative motion which
in essence has been part of the Reform Party platform over the
last few years. It seems strange when other Reform MPs and I
were elected on the basis of our promises and MP pension
reform was high on the list.
One of the promises I made to constituents time and time
again was to fight the current MP pension plan and change the
system so that retiring MPs, those whom the voters have stated
they have no confidence in, those who lost their jobs in the
October federal election, would not be eligible for hefty
pensions, at least not eligible until age 60.
Politicians must realize they should have no more rights than
other Canadians in the private sector like the employees of
Woodward's department store who had to face a changing world
with no guarantees and certainly no gold plated pension plan.
(1145 )
Defeated and retiring MPs will cost Canadians close to $2
million per year in pension payments on top of current pension
payouts. Is this right? No, of course it is not right. The payouts
are obscene. If the government hopes to restore confidence in
the political process it must take quick action to scrap this
ridiculous pension plan.
Part of our accountability and responsibility as members of
Parliament must be reflected in our own pension plan.
According to the Liberal Party platform the incoming
government supports a review of the lucrative pension scheme
with a special look at the age at which pensions begin to be
collected. That is a good sign.
The pension plan is indefensible, even in good times when
Ottawa's vaults are overflowing and the public is feeling
wonderfully generous toward its politicians. In bad times when
many Canadians are suffering and the government is hard
pressed to find basic programs, this plan amounts to little more
than robbery. There are probably east European dictators who
never had it so good as retiring Canadian members of
Parliament.
MPs should not be setting their own wages nor their own
pensions. They should be set by an independent body which
reflects a cross-section of Canadians. It could be businessmen,
academics, professionals, home workers and many others. No
group should police itself in our society or set its own wages
when those wages come from the public purse.
It is hoped the Prime Minister will recognize the public
hostility to this obscene plan. Premier Ralph Klein recognized
the public hostility to a rich pension plan for MLAs in a time of
hardship. His decision to kill the Alberta MLAs pension plan
was probably the single most important factor in the re-election
of the provincial Conservative government. It was also a factor
that Prime Minister Kim Campbell fatally ignored when she set
up a commission on federal pensions rather than act directly.
The Canadian people who heard former finance minister
Michael Wilson promise in 1984 to reduce pensions were not
fooled by more promises. Chrétien should take the right
example: not Wilson, not Campbell, but that of Klein.
It may be that some form of taxpayer assisted federal pension
plan should survive. There may in the end be justifications
accepted by the public for a plan to assist politicians in
retirement. These can be explored.
This bill does not mention the Reform Party's clause on
stopping the indexation of the MPs pension plan. Here we have a
pension plan where the Canadian taxpayers have to pay far more
than their fair share in contributions. The added insult is in
indexing.
Former Conservative cabinet minister Perrin Beatty, only 43,
qualifies for a pension of over $70,000 annually until he is 60, at
which time it will be adjusted to take into account the preceding
17 years of inflation. The Reform Party which has made MPs
pensions an issue estimates that Beatty will collect more than $5
million in pension payments if he lives till 75.
When we become government we will continue as we have
started. Even in opposition we have kept our word to the
Canadian people. We have taken less in salary or in allowance,
forgone other MPs benefits and pushed for changes in many
areas, particularly parliamentary reform.
We will continue to fight for changes to the MPs pension plan,
but not changes like those made by the previous government in
January 1992. Those changes illustrate how excessive MPs
benefits are.
One of the changes came about because the MPs benefits
exceeded the limits allowed for registration under the Income
Tax Act. The federal government therefore had to divide the
pension plan into two separate sections to keep it registered. The
first section, the retiring allowances account, met the
requirements for registration while the second, the
compensation arrangement account, fleshed out the plan so the
MPs could still receive their lavish benefits.
3418
A 1988 actuarial study of the plan revealed that the
contributions made by the politicians, which were matched by
the government, would fall $144 million short of paying for the
MPs projected benefits. Therefore, in the January 1992 changes
the government moved to make the plan self-sufficient.
First, the government provided a cash infusion to make up for
the plan's accumulated shortfall, which by that time had risen to
$158 million. Second, to ensure no further shortfalls would
accumulate, the government had to choose one of a combination
of the following scenarios. Either the MPs would have to reduce
their pension benefits and/or increase their contributions, or the
government would have to increase the amount of tax dollars
being funnelled into the plan.
(1150)
You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out which
route was chosen. Treasury Board decided that Canadian
taxpayers would be more than willing to keep making up the
difference so the MPs plan could keep its gold plating.
A ratio of one to one, one to two, but seven to one? While MPs
contribute $7,000 to their pension plan on their $64,000
sessional allowance taxpayers have to contribute about $41,000
per year on behalf of each MP.
There is another aspect to the pensions which is equally
insupportable, the right of retired MPs to go on collecting a
pension even as they collect another federal public salary. I
repeat federal. Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent is a good
example, collecting both a handsome pension and a large salary,
because of his appointment by Mulroney to a human rights
agency.
I am listening to the frustrations coming from the other side.
Another gross example is former Mulroney cabinet minister
Benoit Bouchard who will collect both an MP-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. I have tried
to be very patient. I think the member is well aware that we do
not call members of Parliament by their names. We refer to the
position or the riding.
The member still has about a minute left, but would she please
pay attention.
Mrs. Jennings: Madam Speaker, I thought you were going to
tell me my time was up.
I was under the impression that if an MP was no longer an MP
it was quite all right to mention their name.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): You did refer to the
Prime Minister by name.
Mrs. Jennings: Getting back to federal pensions, the very
first step in pension reform should be to outlaw that type of
double dipping. MPs should not be permitted to collect a
pension until they reach an age considered pensionable among
the Canadian public, somewhere between the ages of 60 or 65.
Also the pension should bear some relationship to
contributions. At present the taxpayer contributes at least five
times as much as MPs do to the pension payouts. That is a ratio
which is destined to grow.
Finally some leadership has to be shown from the political
representatives who endlessly beseech Canadians to cut back, to
reduce their expectations. These pleas lose their lustre when the
politicians neatly exempt themselves from the sacrifices. Klein
realized this. The Prime Minister probably does too. All he
needs to do now is act.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Madam Speaker, I
would like to make four short points about the bill under
consideration this morning.
The first point is that this is something the public cares very
deeply about. I think we are all aware of that; all members who
have spoken today on this topic have mentioned it. Because this
is something the public cares about, it is something we should
seriously consider.
In my experience nothing gets the public more riled than this
whole subject of the members pension plan. This is for a couple
of reasons.
One is because there is nobody else in the country who is able
to command a pension for life after working only six years.
Canadians feel it is fundamentally unfair that anyone should be
able to do that. Another is that the pension plan is a very rich
one, even if you discount the fact it can be earned after only six
years. It is fully indexed and is based on 75 per cent of the best
six consecutive years of earning. Again it is not something
which is available to most Canadians.
Therefore it is fair to say it is something we should
legitimately deal with because the public is demanding it be
dealt with.
(1155 )
The second point I would like to make is that change is very
much needed in this pension plan. Canadian taxpayers are not
able to fire us, to put it bluntly. If they lose confidence in us, if
they feel we are not competent in the job we are doing and our
performance is unsatisfactory, the taxpayers are not able to
relieve us of our duties as can happen in private industry and in
any other walk of life.
It adds insult to injury in their view when not only can they not
get rid of us in between elections but even after an election if our
performance has been unsatisfactory they have to pay us forever
under a pension plan as long as we had been MPs for six years.
Canadians do feel that change is needed simply on the basis of
equity. On the basis of the dollar figure Canadians feel that
change is needed. As other members who have spoken have said,
for each dollar an MP pays into the pension plan or did in 1993,
the taxpayer contributed more than $6. That is a very high ratio
of contributions of the person receiving the pension and the
employer, who in this case is the public or the taxpayer.
3419
In other words MPs pay about 20 per cent of the value of the
plan. This compares to 40 per cent for federal public servants
and about 35 per cent for public sector executives. Once again
the percentage of contributions in the eyes of Canadians is
inequitable.
Other members have also mentioned that of the MPs from the
1988-93 Parliament 134 will receive pensions now. Those will
cost $5.5 million each and every year. That is an increase of 56
per cent over what was paid out in pensions to former MPs in the
last fiscal year.
Again Canadians see this pension liability as one which is
growing very rapidly. In a time when our tax resources are
shrinking and the demands on them are increasingly
competitive, Canadians are concerned even though it is a
minuscule amount in terms of the overall budget. The
percentage of growth and the growth of the liability does
concern a lot of Canadians.
The average pension for those 134 MPs from the last
Parliament is $41,450 per year and that will go up as the
indexation goes up. This is true even though a number of those
134 former members of Parliament are not retired. They are
working and some of them are even working for the federal
government. Canadians do not see any equity in paying pensions
to people who are quite able bodied and working and are able to
support themselves. They are asking why pensions are paid to
people who are working and are well able to work.
The last point I would like to make about the fact that change
is needed is that a lot of our pension obligations are unfunded.
I have been contacted, as I am sure other members have, by
members of the Public Service Alliance. They are concerned
that there is an unfunded pension liability of about $100 billion
for federal civil servants. They are concerned that this fund
should be managed, should be funded, should be actuarially
sound. They are concerned about their future pensions.
When Canadians are concerned about their future, their
pensions, their retirement years, it is very difficult for them to
feel positive about a group who again seem to be free or not
subject to those kinds of uncertainties.
The third point I would like to touch on is what this bill
proposes. It proposes essentially two things. One is that double
dipping would end. In other words people who are entitled to
members pensions but who are working for the federal
government or crown corporations would not be entitled to
pension moneys as long as they are employed by the federal
government or by crown corporations. The second thing it
would do would be to end any pension payments until at least
age 60.
(1200)
I think it is fair to say that those are key elements of pension
reform for members of Parliament that the Canadian public is
asking for, but I very much agree with other members who have
spoken on both sides of the House suggesting the bill does not go
far enough, that this just touches on the need for pension reform
but there are other elements that really need to be brought into a
comprehensive reform of members' pensions.
While this is a good start and the two points are valid, there
are other elements that need to be addressed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped
from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3419
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development) moved that Bill C-16, an act to approve, give
effect to and declare valid an agreement between Her Majesty
the Queen in right of Canada and the Dene of Colville Lake,
Déline, Fort Good Hope, Fort Norman and the Metis of Fort
Good Hope, Fort Norman and Norman Wells, as represented by
the Sahtu Tribal Council, and to make related amendments to
another act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill
C-16, the Sahtu Dene and Metis Land Claim Settlement Act. I
am honoured and pleased to have the opportunity to speak in
support of this bill. I urge hon. members to give this legislation
their strong support and quick passage so that the Dene and
Metis people of the Sahtu region can begin now to build a better
future.
This agreement has been many years in the making. The Dene
of the Mackenzie Valley filed a comprehensive claim with the
federal government in 1976 and the Metis filed a claim the
following year. These were among the first claims received after
a Liberal government decided in 1973 to end the 50 year hiatus
in treaty making in Canada.
This was the right decision. It avoided potentially protracted
and expensive litigation. Court decisions have indicated that the
best way to resolve land claims is through negotiation. Some 20
years later the settlement of outstanding land claims is an
objective this government will be pursuing with a great deal of
energy and commitment in the coming months.
3420
The clear definition of aboriginal rights to land and resources
is a crucial foundation for the long term success of
self-government and the future aspirations and prosperity of
dozens of aboriginal communities.
With that in mind we need to move quickly to clarify land and
resource ownership in those regions of Canada where aboriginal
right to land has not been satisfactorily dealt with, and we are
committed to do so both through existing channels and with new
approaches to resolve land claims.
We made clear our commitment to address outstanding land
claims in ``Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada''.
On page 96 of that document there is a very clear and concise
statement of this government's intention toward aboriginal
people: ``The priority of a Liberal government will be to assist
aboriginal communities in their efforts to address the obstacles
to their development and to help them marshal the human and
physical resources necessary to build and sustain vibrant
communities''.
Comprehensive land claim settlements take us a long way
toward accomplishing this goal. By ensuring certainty of land
ownership and providing fee simple title to large areas of land
they remove some of the most significant obstacles to the
economic development and diversification of aboriginal
communities.
By affirming resource ownership and rights and by providing
monetary compensation they give aboriginal beneficiaries the
means to become self-reliant. By formalizing aboriginal
participation in the decision making process, land claim
settlement agreements enable aboriginal people, people like the
Sahtu Dene and the Metis, to regain a measure of control over
their lives and to restore pride and self-respect in their
communities.
(1205)
The Sahtu claim was the second regional Dene and Metis
agreement to be signed. A land claim agreement with the
Gwich'in was finalized in July 1991, promulgated to December
1992 and is now being implemented.
The fact that we are addressing Bill C-16 today is testimony
to the perseverance, strength and character of the Sahtu Dene
and Metis.
I am particularly pleased for the elders among these two
aboriginal groups. These individuals have suffered the longest,
worked the hardest and provided the guidance and leadership
that has brought this agreement before the House. They give the
younger generations reason for hope.
The result of those years of perseverance is a modern day
treaty that fulfils treaty 11, signed in 1921. With second reading
debate we are now at a critical stage in the settlement process.
Let me remind my hon. colleagues that this land claim
agreement has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the
beneficiaries. Eight-seven per cent of the ballots cast by the
Dene in the ratification vote supported the agreement and 99 per
cent of the Metis who voted supported the agreement. I would
also like to point out that this is the first land claim agreement in
which the Metis have had a principal role.
This agreement has also been endorsed by the government of
the Northwest Territories which was a key player in the
negotiations and which will play a fundamental role in
implementing the agreement. It has been praised by
non-aboriginal residents and business interests in the Sahtu
region because it will finally lay to rest issues of land ownership
and resource rights that have stymied development in the
settlement area.
Now it rests with this House to move the settlement
agreement forward. By passing Bill C-16 we will be approving,
giving effect to and declaring valid this agreement between Her
Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and the Dene of Colville
Lake, Déline, Fort Good Hope and Fort Norman and the Metis of
Fort Good Hope, Fort Norman and Norman Wells as represented
by the Sahtu Tribal Council. We will also encourage resource
development of the settlement area.
In the simplest of terms, Parliament is being asked to do its
part to address the longstanding, legitimate land based claims of
the Sahtu Dene and Metis and to help the north realize some of
its economic potential.
We are being asked to ensure that their traditional lifestyles
will not only survive but will flourish. We are being asked to put
into action Canadians' commitment to share the potential of our
nation.
I would like briefly to touch on a number of issues addressed
in the Sahtu Dene and Metis land claims settlement that I know
will be of interest to hon. members.
First, I want to make it clear that Bill C-16 provides that the
Sahtu agreement will be a land claims agreement within the
meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This is
extremely important because it means that the rights of the
aboriginal participants to the agreement may not be arbitrarily
affected or altered by any other person. However, this
Constitution protection does not mean that the agreement forms
part or alters the Constitution of Canada.
On the issue of land title, this agreement will give the 2,000
Dene and Metis beneficiaries collective ownership of
approximately 41,000 square kilometres of land in the
settlement area. On approximately 1,800 square kilometres of
this area they will also own the sub-surface mineral rights. The
Sahtu lands will be privately owned lands, not reserve lands
under the Indian Act.
3421
The quantum of land that was agreed upon in this land claim
agreement is guaranteed to the Sahtu Dene and Metis forever.
If any settlement lands were ever to be expropriated, which is
extremely unlikely, they would be replaced with an equal
amount of land elsewhere in the settlement area.
I can assure hon. members that the lands selected have a great
meaning to the beneficiaries.
(1210 )
The settlement agreement encompasses territory that has been
occupied and used by many generations of Sahtu Dene and
Metis. Settlement lands include traditional hunting and fishing
areas as well as lands of historic and spiritual significance to the
Dene and Metis. They also include lands which would bring
economic benefit to the Dene and Metis. Subject to existing
mineral interests, the Sahtu Dene and Metis will decide whether
and how to explore and develop any sub-surface resources that
they might own.
In addition to these revenue generating opportunities, the
beneficiaries of this land claim agreement will seek payments
totalling $75 million in 1990 dollars over the next 15 years.
These lands and these funds combined with a share of the
resource royalties from projects in the Mackenzie Valley will
give the Sahtu Dene and Metis the financial resources to support
their own economic development initiatives. The money may
also be used to support social, cultural, educational and political
initiatives.
Most important, it will be used as the beneficiaries see fit.
They, rather than the government, will have an increased say in
how their communities are to develop.
A number of provisions of the agreement acknowledge the
rights and interests of non-aboriginal people in the settlement
area. For example, any third party rights, titles and interests that
already exist on Sahtu lands when this legislation comes into
force will be protected. As well, because the parcels of
settlement lands are so large, there are provisions to allow
access to the lands under certain circumstances by persons who
are not Sahtu Dene or Metis. For example, members of the
public may cross settlement land in order to exercise a right,
interest or privilege on crown land that is adjacent to the Sahtu
land.
In all cases, however, access to settlement land will be based
on the conditions that no significant damage will be done to the
land and that there will be no interference with Sahtu Dene and
Metis use and enjoyment of their land.
I am pleased to note that the land claim agreement
acknowledges the traditional subsistence lifestyle of the
majority of the Dene and Metis in the Sahtu region. It guarantees
them special wildlife harvesting rights in the settlement area,
including the exclusive right to trap. The agreement also
provides for compensation where developers cause provable
damage to property or equipment used in harvesting wildlife or
a loss of income from wildlife harvesting.
It also recognizes the importance of expanding the economic
horizons for aboriginal people in the north. Toward this end, the
agreement provides for economic development opportunities
related to guiding, lodges, naturalist activities and commercial
fishing.
For example, throughout the settlement area the Sahtu Dene
and Metis will have the first opportunity to obtain new licences
for commercial opportunities in wildlife harvesting, guiding
and outfitting, naturalist activities and the keeping and breeding
of wildlife species native to the settlement area.
The aboriginal beneficiaries will also be looking for
employment and business opportunities that will arise once
third party resource development projects get under way. The
historic involvement of the Sahtu Dene and Metis in the Norman
Wells project puts them in an excellent position to take
advantage of opportunities that are expected to emerge in the oil
and gas sector.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, the passage of Bill C-16 and the coming into
force of the Land Claim Agreement will give the Sahtu Dene and
Metis the opportunity to be really involved in the making of
decisions which will have an impact on their environment and
way of life.
Under this agreement, they are guaranteed a 50 per cent
representation on all agencies concerned with renewable
resource management, land development, and regulations
regarding land and water use in the area covered by the
agreement. Moreover, they will sit on the Mackenzie Valley
Impact Review Boards.
[English]
Federal, territorial and municipal laws will apply to the Sahtu
Dene and Metis and their land. However, if there is any conflict
between those laws and this agreement, the agreement will
apply.
(1215 )
I am pleased to note that an arbitration panel will be
established under the terms of this agreement so any disputes
that arise can be settled without involving the courts.
The agreement also provides a framework for negotiating
self-government. I know that many Sahtu Dene and Metis are
looking with hope and confidence to the day when they might
exercise jurisdiction in such areas as education, language,
taxation, health and social services and the administration of
justice.
3422
We are proceeding with this land claim at this time for three
basic reasons. The first is that an agreement has been signed
on behalf of the crown and we are determined to live up to past
commitments and to uphold the honour of the crown. Second,
the agreement reflects the aspirations of the Sahtu Dene and
Metis and addresses their legitimate claims. This agreement
will guarantee a secure land and resource base for economic
development and self-government. The third reason we are
proceeding is because the resolution of outstanding land claims
has become a priority for all Canadians.
This initiative has the support of people from coast to coast,
aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. Bill C-16 is clearly
deserving of parliamentary support. I urge my hon. colleagues to
do the right thing for the Sahtu Dene and Metis and the right
thing for Canada by ensuring quick passage of this legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy to address this House today to inform you that I and the
party which I represent, the Bloc Quebecois, will be very
pleased to support Bill C-16 for several reasons.
I would like to tell you that since I became Indian Affairs
critic for the Official Opposition, this is probably the issue on
which I have spent the most time. The procedure followed in this
case is fairly typical and representative of what I intend to do
from now on with government bills on Indian affairs.
This bill has many implications, and I will come back to them
shortly. The people of Sahtu, who are very pleasant to deal with,
came to meet me in my office; we went over the whole
agreement as such and I was very glad to learn that the
government had agreed to support Bill C-16 which would
quickly implement an agreement reached on September 6.
Of course, representations were made from many quarters. As
I said, those people are very pleasant to deal with and very
persistent. This agreement is the result of a long struggle. From
1982 to 1991 or 1992, these people tried to negotiate it, but there
were other agreements before, starting in 1921, formal
agreements and also less formal agreements between the Whites
at the time and the people of Sahtu.
So this agreement is very good for them and for us. The
seniors, called elders, were very much involved. For them this
agreement is very important for future generations and I think
that they will be very satisfied.
The president, George Cleary, also came to my office with his
delegation. As I just said, those people were persistent and I
think that the agreement they have today is very worthwhile. I
also hope that all members of this House will ensure that this bill
can take effect fairly soon. Among the local associations that
made representations to us are the Déline band of Fort Franklin,
the Déline sub-band, the Fort Norman band, the Colville Lake
band and the Fort Good Hope band.
Of course, these are important centres of social and economic
activity in that region of the Mackenzie Valley and those people
have communities within those socio-economic centres and
they are all included in the agreement.
Speaking of local associations represented, there are also the
Metis Nation of the Northwest Territories, local 60 in Fort
Norman, local 59 and local 54; these are Metis groups that
worked on this agreement and signed it. The agreement will
affect some 1,755 Metis and Dene. The figures vary a little.
Some talk about 2,000 but there is a general consensus that the
agreement will affect between 1,700 and 2,000 people.
(1220)
Of course, Sahtu-it is important to know this-is the big lake
in northern British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. The
word means big bear in the Dene language. So right off the bat it
is important to realize the significance of the words.
Earlier I talked about the 1921 treaty. It may have been the
start of a more traditional system of management between the
Whites and the Natives, and we see that this is now taking the
form of a land claims treaty that is not in fact a self-government
treaty. I could come back to that a little later.
The territory itself represents about 75 per cent of the area
occupied by Nova Scotia. So it is a huge territory, to say the
least, and it is already limited by other Native agreements. In
particular, the Sahtu Tribal Council's current territory is limited
to the northeast by the recently-signed Nunavut agreement and
to the north by the Inuvialuit treaty.
I will now tell you the history of the five communities because
I think it is important. The Colville Lake community lives on the
ancestral lands of the Slave Dene. It was founded in 1962 and it
is the only community in the Northwest Territories where
everything is made out of roundwood logs, Madam Speaker. It is
still typically, a very rustic, very nice, good-sized village. I did
not visit it but I saw pictures, and everything is built out of
roundwood logs.
Déline, which was founded in 1825 by Sir John Franklin, is
also called Fort Franklin. It was Lord Franklin's winter
headquarters. When oil was discovered in Norman Wells-I will
come back to that later-in the 1920s, it was close to
transportation routes and became a major trading post. At that
time, the people of Bear Lake were still leading a nomadic
existence, following a tradition which is several thousand years
old. They travelled across their hunting grounds in pursuit of the
animals they wanted to trap and hunt.
3423
It is only since the 1960s and the early 1970s that the Dene
have been living in Déline year-round. When these people
became a little more sedentary in the 1970s, they built the
village of Déline where they now live.
Fort Norman has long had great seasonal importance to the
Dene. The Northwest Company was active in the 18th century.
The trading post founded at Fort Norman in 1810 has been
permanently occupied since 1872. It was then a trading post
which became a permanent village in 1872.
Fort Good Hope is the oldest trading post of the Lower
Mackenzie Valley. Although it lies inside the territory of the
Northern Slave Dene, the Gwich'in and the Mountain, the
Mackenzie Delta Inuit used to go there. So another important
community is affected by this agreement.
Norman Wells was the first community in the Northwest
Territories to depend exclusively on the development of
non-renewable resources. It is where the first traces of oil were
discovered. It is a place where the oil development reaches its
full extent. In 1818 and 1819, oil was discovered in commercial
quantities. In 1847, the collapse of oil prices created problems
for the village.
Imperial and Canada are joint owners of operating oilfields.
The Can Oil trail was laid out during World War II so that
Norman Wells could send its premium-quality light oil, a
strategic resource, to the Alaska Highway and to southern cities.
Norman Wells is also the northern end of the oil pipeline going
from the Northwest Territories to Zama in Alberta.
(1225)
I said earlier that the agreement was signed on September 6,
1993, in Fort Norman. According to our experts and researchers,
the agreement is indeed protected by the Constitution as a
modern treaty, in compliance with section 35. I said that
between 1,700 and 2,000 Dene of the Sahtu region will be
covered by the agreement and will be represented by the Sahtu
Tribal Council.
In the region where those rights will apply, the agreement was
approved by 85 per cent of the Dene and by 99 per cent of the
Metis, while the rate of participation was close to 90 per cent.
You can see the efforts made by these people, who live in the
very large territory of 280,000 square kilometres covered by the
agreement. Such high participation and approval rates
demonstrate how important the agreement is to those people, as
well as their very positive attitude towards it.
I want to discuss the content of the agreement as regards the
use of land and water. The Dene-Metis from the Sahtu region on
the one hand, and the government on the other hand, will be
equally represented on the land use planning boards regulating
the use of land and water, and they will also be represented on an
environmental council in the case of development proposals for
the region. This is very important to these people.
I explained earlier the importance of traditions such as
fishing, hunting, trapping, etc. Now, we also realize that, with
the emergence of their new economy, these people want to try to
reconcile in an effective way their new and former cultures. I am
pleased to see that the government has acted on their claim
regarding this aspect and that these people's representation will
be equivalent to that of the government regarding any expansion
project, and also that, in the field of environment, they will have
the opportunity to provide an important input.
I want to point out that it is a land claim agreement-later I
might give more details on the territory covered and on the
agreement itself-which does not put an end to what are
commonly referred to as self-government agreements. These
are two very different things. In fact, the annex to the agreement
before us today contains some draft agreement on eventual
negotiations relating to the issue of self-government.
As you know, a number of things can be the object of a
transfer of jurisdiction between the Crown and Indian bands.
Very few such transfers are in the process of being made right
now, but the agreement provides for that possibility regarding a
number of issues, including education, justice, health care and
police services. Indeed, now that a land claim has resulted in a
formal agreement, once these people have developed their
resources and built a solid base for their economic development,
they will want to look at what issues eventual negotiations on
self-government might include.
Again, this agreement does not put an end to
self-government. In fact, I think that it is a starting point for
self-government, because if there is no land claim, if there is no
land on which to base future claims for transfers of jurisdiction,
it is very difficult to look at the issue of self-government.
Consequently, this is one thing which is taken care of with the
conclusion of the agreement.
We are also pleased to see that the Sahtu Tribal Council will
participate in any constitutional conference on the reform of the
Northwest Territories' constitution. An arbitration board is
about to be set up to avoid having to go to the courts and
therefore avoid delays which can sometimes be very long and
costly for these nations.
The Metis and Dene now get ownership title for over 41,000
square kilometres, of which 1,800 include mines and minerals.
This is very important. This is a territory these people now own
exclusively. Some compensation could even be awarded in cases
of expropriation.
(1230)
In other words, should the government decide, although I
heard the minister say it was unlikely that the government would
be interested in acquiring land and decide to expropriate, but
should this ever happen, these people made sure the agreement
contained clauses under which compensation would consist of
equivalent lands. This is very important to them. If the
3424
government tries to expropriate 2,000 or 3,000 of the 41,000
square kilometres covered by the agreement, it will have to
compensate by giving them the same amount of land somewhere
else.
This is a very important point. The 41,000 square kilometres
are not only part of the settlement but also belong to the Sahtu
municipal lands. In other words, the five or six communities I
mentioned earlier as well as other groups living in small villages
are not only given lands immediately adjacent to their territory
or villages but are also given ownership of all adjacent lands
within the 41,000 square kilometres. On 1,800 square
kilometres, rights to sub-surface resources the mineral rights
will be included.
As far as financial compensation is concerned, I think it is a
good settlement, both for the Crown and for the aboriginal
people. They will receive a tax-free financial settlement in the
amount of $75 million annually, over a period of 15 years. Every
year, participants will receive 7.5 per cent of the first two
million dollars of royalties on resources received by the
government for that year, and 1.5 per cent of additional royalties
on resources in the Mackenzie Valley.
There is a financial settlement and royalties on resources as
well. Of course a percentage goes to the Crown, but the Sahtu
tribal council benefits from it as well.
I think this is good for the economic development of the Dene
and the Metis in that part of the country. For them, the
settlement was a prerequisite for economic development and
self-government, and the rest will follow. The financial
compensation package is a case in point.
As for the other clauses in the agreement which I intend to
discuss, we shall see that, on the economic development side,
these people are ready to take control of their lives.
The main focus of the department of Indian affairs may well
be to help aboriginal tribes and nations to take control of their
lives and get rid of the dependency spirit fostered by the Indian
Act.
I think that today we are witnessing a first step by aboriginal
people toward economic development and, eventually,
self-government.
Incidently, in Quebec we have some very good examples
where this has been successful. Unfortunately, I have not had the
opportunity nor, in fact, much time to compare the two
agreements, but Quebec has set a good example, with its Cree
and Naskapi legislation and the James Bay agreement, and I
think we can say quite honestly that we pioneered the
introduction of a degree of self-government around land claim
settlements. I believe this bill is very similar in its treatment of
the Metis and Dene in the Northwest Territories.
As far as the agreement itself is concerned, I will briefly
discuss a few important points. I mentioned the wild life aspect
and the possibility that these people would be represented on a
kind of tribunal and consulted on environmental and economic
development issues.
To them, wildlife is extremely important. As I pointed out, for
thousands of years, until the beginning of the twentieth century,
these people followed the caribou herds and other game. They
were nomads. Their life style and habits were based on animal
resources. The agreement contains provisions on wildlife, and
we are very glad to see the agreement reflects their culture and
the position of the Bloc Quebecois on the important
jurisdictional aspects that must be included in this kind of bill.
(1235)
So the Renewable Resources Board will be composed of an
equal number of Dene, Metis and government representatives
and will manage wildlife in the region covered by the
settlement. They will obtain specific rights concerning the
management of wildlife, including the exclusive right to trap
throughout the region covered by the agreement, the right to
hunt, economic opportunities concerning the use of camps,
guiding naturalist activities and commercial fishing.
Some people who are neither Dene nor Metis have lived in the
region for some time. They will now have to reach an agreement
with the band council in order to pursue their commercial
activities. The agreement also mentions the importance for the
band council of ensuring that wildlife is managed not only for
subsistence but also on a commercial basis. Furthermore, the
agreement provides that those who harm the environment by
taking too many caribou or fish or who misuse the fishing or
hunting equipment at their disposal will have to compensate the
band council.
The agreement does not infringe on the ancestral political,
social or other rights which the Dene or Metis may have. The
Dene and Metis living in the region can register under the terms
of this agreement. We know that there may be people who have
lived on that territory from generation to generation but were
not registered under the Indian Act; the agreement contains
special provisions whereby these Dene and Metis can register
within a certain period-I will not mention exactly any passage
or provision, but they are indeed included in the agreement.
As for the native people or Canadian citizens living in the
Mackenzie Valley, the valley covered by the agreement, who are
not registered and are neither Dene nor Metis, the agreement
allows them to register provided that a Sahtu community adopts
them. It is important to emphasize that the agreement does not
throw out people who have lived on the territory for a long time,
as if to say to them: ``You are not Dene, you are not Metis, you
have to leave the territory''. The agreement allows these people
3425
to stay provided that they are accepted by one of the Sahtu
communities.
The Sahtu lands will be private, not reserves, and that is
important. I mentioned earlier that, since its inception, the
Indian Act has made the Indians very dependent. The agreement
before us frees the Indians from this dependence and gives them
enough economic power and land to exercise their full
autonomy. Although the agreement on self-government will
come later, we note that this is a step in the right direction. We
are pleased to see that the land will be private and not reserves.
Federal, territorial and municipal laws will apply and, in case
of conflict, the agreement will prevail. That is important; it is
another step to self-government and it says: ``The agreement
between you and us will protect you''. For example, if there is
conflict between a municipal by-law and the agreement, the
agreement will prevail. The agreement will not set up a
hermetically sealed territory. By that, I mean that we are not
building a Berlin wall around a territory and saying that no one
can go there.
(1240)
We are pleased to see that, as far as the public is concerned,
the agreement contains provisions allowing the public access to
the region.
However, if someone has in mind to start up a business within
this territory, then naturally this is another matter. Under the
current provisions the public will be allowed access to Sahtu
land in order to reach an adjacent territory. Dealing with a
territory covering 280,000 square kilometres, you cannot expect
someone to make a detour around this vast expanse to reach an
adjacent territory.
Therefore, members of the public wishing to travel through
this region will have no problem doing so. Naturally they will
have to comply with the regulations and designated areas. The
agreement even contains provisions stipulating that members of
the public will be able to hunt migratory birds, provided of
course they comply with certain conditions to be determined by
the band council.
Regarding access for developers, those who are already in the
area will be able to remain there, subject, as always, to the
approval of the band council. Indeed, this approval will be
required, and even a right to appeal is provided.
One example of this arose when the lands in the Sahtu region
were being selected. As you know, outfitters who have long been
operating in this region need vast expanses of land to carry out
their outfitting operations.
These outfitters renegotiated all of their systems and
territories with the Sahtu and Metis band council, and
agreements are now in place which allow these outfitters to
continue using Sahtu lands.
Federal departments have been represented and consulted on
countless occasions during the negotiation process. The same
holds true for the government of the Northwest Territories
which was part of the federal negotiating team.
As we can see, nothing was taken for granted. All parties, the
federal and territorial governments as well as the
representatives of the Sahtu band council, approached the task at
hand very seriously and no one was left out of the process. The
agreement meets with the approval of all parties.
The Sahtu were even consulted when the time came to draft
the land claims bill. They told us so themselves. They will also
be consulted on the drafting of the future Mackenzie Valley
resources management legislation.
The territory in question does not take in all of the Mackenzie
Valley. Therefore, it is extremely important, to them and to us,
that it be made clear that when legislation, whether economic or
social, is drafted for the rest of the Mackenzie Valley, they will
be consulted. The agreement states that they will be consulted,
that they will be abled to express their views and even
participate in the process.
On certain reserves, the Dene themselves make the decision
whether or not to allow exploration or resource development.
They are not required to follow a particular course of action. Of
course, within the 1,800 square kilometres referred to earlier, a
band council can decide at any time to allow exploration, the
conduct of a feasibility study or a geological study and, if there
are resources in the subsoil, mining, quarrying, and so on.
This is all allowed under the provisions of the agreement
before us.
As for present and future titles holders, they will have to
negotiate with the Dene and Metis the use they want to make of
those lands and waters. That is totally consistent with the
principle of the agreement before us.
To wrap up regarding the contents of the agreement,
negotiations were held from 1982 to 1990 to come to this
agreement. Today, to become law, it will require unanimous
consent from this House. So, I hope that, for the sake of
expediency, we will have unanimous consent.
Other consensus were reached before coming to the product
before us and I would like to mention some of the groups that
have been consulted and various public consultation processes
involved.
So, groups were consulted. Proper consideration was given to
this. The people and organizations I am about to mention have
taken part in the discussions to some extent. The Northwest
Territories Chamber of Mines was one of them, as well as the
Mining Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers, the North West Territory Wild Life
3426
Federation, the Mackenzie Mountains outfitters-those who
need large areas for their outfitting operations, as I said
earlier-and the Ingraham Trail Association. Consultations
took many forms. It was mentioned earlier that the agreement
was approved by federal government. The agreement was signed
by the federal government as well as the territorial government.
The public meeting in Yellowknife was held as part of this
consultation process.
(1245)
Communities were toured extensively. I was saying earlier
that the agreement applies to an area of 281,000 square
kilometres. You can imagine it was no small task to go and see
2,000 people who live in that area. But the results were highly
conclusive, as I said earlier, with a positive vote from 85 per
cent of the Dene and 99 per cent of the Metis.
Information brochures were distributed. Municipalities were
involved in the lands screening process. A serious job has been
done.
I would like to open a parenthesis here because the outlay of
money required makes Canadian taxpayers jump. In fact, many
people have commented to me, and I am sure that similar
remarks were made to the hon. minister, that the department of
Indian affairs was perhaps one of the least hit by cuts. Not only
were there no cuts, but its budget has actually increased.
We must also understand what led to the Indian Act. I often
tend to use the same example, namely an Indian village or
reserve nearby. How much money goes to the village if we look
at who built the town hall? Who built the hospital? Who built the
schools? Who is in charge of the roads? Who is in charge of the
water supply system? If we look at all this and at the money
coming from various departments, we see that the department of
Indian affairs looks after the reserve.
Although the amounts may look outrageously high, it must be
understood that, as a trustee under the Indian Act, the federal
government must look after the quality of life of the Natives
who live on these reserves.
There are many other reasons why the budget was not cut. Yes,
the budget has grown but so has the Native population. It does
not mean that we want to remain a trustee forever. I think we all
have an effort to make in this regard and, after listening to the
minister's comments on this subject, I feel that he, too, wants to
revoke the Indian Act as quickly as possible.
How will we proceed? We have a typical example before us
today. Without the Dene and the Metis achieving
self-government, which will come later, we can still see that it is
a step in the right direction. The money the government was
going to spend on these bands should be reduced to allow for its
gradual withdrawal and to let Natives control their own
economic development and achieve full self-government in the
long term.
We now understand why, in a public finance management
context, the department may not have been hit by cutbacks.
There is also the whole notion that, since the government wants
Natives to take control of their own destiny, it will have to invest
the amounts resulting from that decision and allowing us to
initiate a negotiating process. That is what I tell people to
explain why we in the Bloc Quebecois see an increase in the
Indian Affairs budget. We must also remember that, historically,
we exploited the lands and resources of these people and
confined them to parcels of land representing perhaps 1 per cent
of the area they used to occupy.
In closing, a last word on their languages and cultures because
I think it is important.
(1250)
The Eskimo and Dene languages are not at all related. Even
though these nations have long lived close from one another, we
recognize that the two cultures are distinct. Even though these
people have been hunting, trapping and fishing forever, we
recognize their respective specificity regarding the land they
occupied. They have such precise expressions relating to nature
that there is indeed a separation between the two languages. For
example, the Eskimo language has 60 terms for ``snow''. That
language has all kinds of variations and nuances regarding snow.
Because of this degree of specificity, it is understandable that
the languages are not necessarily compatible, depending on
what part of the territory one lives in.
As for culture, these people are fishermen; they have always
been close to nature, and the agreement before us today will
bring them closer to an economic development which will
enable them to manage their own natural resources. I think that
the agreement ensures a happy union between the two cultures,
and that it reflects a deep respect for their traditions and
heritage. It could be the start of an economic development
somewhat closer to our own culture.
For all these reasons, and after a thorough review of the
agreement, the legislation and the representations made by the
Metis and Dene, I am pleased to say that the Bloc Quebecois
supports Bill C-16. I hope that all members will share our view,
so that we can speed up the implementation of this agreement.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Madam
Speaker, it must be spring. The sun coming through those
stained glass windows is taking my breath away.
As spokesperson on aboriginal affairs for the Reform Party of
Canada I take great pleasure in opening debate on second
reading of Bill C-16, which would have the effect of approving,
giving effect to and declaring valid the Sahtu Dene and Metis
comprehensive land claim agreement signed September 6, 1993.
3427
This agreement is comprehensive and complex in scope and
far-reaching in consequences. Along with numerous
appendices it comprises several hundred pages with many
clauses and subclauses of considerable complexity.
My party has some very serious reservations about the
direction in which land claim settlements in the north have gone
in general and specific concerns relating to this agreement in
particular. I intend to point out some of them and I am sure that
my colleagues will add further to what I have to say. Many of our
members wish to speak on this bill.
I want to emphasize at the outset that my criticism is directed
to government policy toward the native people. In many respects
it is not achieving the desirable result of improving
unacceptable social and economic situations in which many of
our native people find themselves or providing opportunities
which could encourage and assist many of them to take their full
place in Canadian society.
At this time I would like to explain a little bit about my
background. I have worked in many locations on the B.C. coast
in the forest industry. Twenty-two yeas ago I was supervising
tree planting and forestry crews in the Chemainus area on
Vancouver Island with natives as crew and charge-hand. This
connection with native forestry crews continued in Ucluelet and
in the Queen Charlotte Islands. The workforce in the logging
operation on the Queen Charlotte Islands was very integrated.
Individual racial status was often not known nor of
consequence, which is as it should be in my view.
(1255)
When one lives, works and volunteers in these small
communities there is sensitivity that respects cultural
differences. I have shared joy and grief and I am aware of many
of the subtleties of native culture.
I so much remember my Haida friend, on hearing that I was
leaving the Charlottes, saying to me: ``John, many people have
come to the Charlottes, worked, and then left without
contributing a thing. I can tell you that you are an exception
because you have made this a better place''. Madam Speaker,
these words meant so much to me. It is so easy to become
polarized in society, particularly when this suits someone's
political agenda. We all have a responsibility to be constructive
wherever possible.
Returning to debate on Bill C-16, every time I set out to
analyse this agreement I return to the same question. Will the
Sahtu Dene and Metis people be better off after the agreement is
in place than before or will they not? The agreement requires
surrender of all further land claim interest, creates fee simple
ownership without creating reserves, and maintains a tax regime
for individual Dene and Metis of the Sahtu the same as that of
any ordinary person. They pay tax on income earned. These are
enlightened provisions with which I concur.
My primary reasons for speaking in opposition to the bill are
threefold. First, there is no legal rationale for this massive fee
simple transfer of land. Second, a new bureaucracy is created.
Third, the agreement in all its complexity is to be
constitutionally entrenched.
We are dealing with very substantial benefits in land and
dollars and other rights to a relatively small population over a
massive land area. To be specific, the Sahtu settlement area
covered by the agreement we are discussing today covers
280,000 square kilometres or 108,200 square miles. It is an area
50 times the size of Prince Edward Island, five times the size of
Nova Scotia, or 30 per cent of the size of British Columbia.
A portion within this massive land area will be conveyed
outright to the Sahtu Dene and Metis. Specifically they will
receive title in fee simple to 41,000 square kilometres or 16,000
square miles. This is an area seven times the size of Prince
Edward Island or three-quarters the size of Nova Scotia.
In addition to these land entitlements the Sahtu Tribal Council
will receive each year for the next 15 years a sum of money
totalling approximately $130 million. The Sahtu Tribal Council
will also receive from government a portion of the royalties
received from oil and gas exploration within the settlement area
equivalent to 7.5 per cent of the first $2 million in royalties each
year and 1.5 per cent of all royalties over and above the $2
million.
Non-share or communal settlement corporations are to be
established to receive these capital funds and to dispense them
for the activities and details and benefits described in detail in
schedules I and II of chapter 8 of the agreement. These activities
and benefits include education and training, supplementary
funding for a wide range of existing government programs,
loans or grants to low income people for certain purposes,
housing, other public services, heritage preservation, economic
development loans or guarantees, recreational facilities, elders
assistance, one-time individual grants to all of $3,500 plus
consumer price index adjustment to the date of payment,
administrative costs, and qualified trusts investments.
(1300 )
In addition to all of this, the federal government is committed
to taking measures to support the traditional economy and to
assist business development. Moreover nothing in this
agreement affects the participant's right to receive benefits from
any existing or future constitutional rights for aboriginal people
generally.
3428
This is an enormous package of benefits and one cannot help
but be struck with the fact there are so few people who stand
to receive them. The Sahtu ratification committee has provided
us with the most recent count of participants in the settlement
area. It numbers 982 adults, that is 829 Dene and 153 Metis,
and 773 children for a total of 1,755 people.
I would ask the minister as to the rationale the government has
applied in arriving at this huge package of benefits for such a
relatively small number. How has the sum of $130 million been
arrived at? Is there any indication it is appropriate to the needs
of the participants? Will this enormously generous package of
benefits result in the regular programs available to native
peoples being phased out? There is no indication in the
agreement that this is to be so. In fact, the very opposite is said
to be the case.
A very disturbing aspect of this agreement is the fact that a
massive area of land will be forever removed from the public
lands of Canada and conveyed outright. An area equivalent to
three-quarters the size of Nova Scotia will be conveyed to a
collectivity totalling 1,755 people. In our view, conveyances of
this kind are unnecessary, should not be made and are not in
keeping with what the courts of Canada have found to constitute
aboriginal rights.
The area north of the 60th parallel throughout Canada has
always been considered to be a part of the public lands of Canada
in which all Canadians share an interest. This is the fourth land
claim settlement undertaken by recent federal governments in
the territories. It is apparent there is very little left of the
Northwest Territories which has not either been conveyed
outright to various bands or over which they have a substantial
measure of control.
It is apparent it is the intention of successive governments of
Canada to blanket all of Canada's north with land claim
settlements of this kind. One could understand granting to a
sparse northern population traditional rights of hunting, fishing
and trapping, subject to third party interests. But it is quite
another matter to convey the outright ownership of vast
territories of land. It is not necessary and my party opposes it.
It is noted that subsurface rights are also transferred under a
portion of the property to be conveyed outright to the Sahtu
Dene and Metis under this agreement. I wonder if the minister
can tell us if the Government of Canada has any idea of the
potential in mineral and oil and gas exploration that exists in
respect of these subsurface rights. If not, this represents a
potential transfer of unknown proportions.
We do not believe that land claim settlements of this kind
should be open-ended or represent a blank cheque. After all,
these are the public lands of Canada and the Government of
Canada has a duty to all Canadians to administer them in the best
interests of all. Massive transfers run contrary to this principle.
The agreement sets out a plethora of new administrative
tribunals and other bureaucratic instruments that are going to be
established. The same can be said to have been the case in regard
to the three previous land claim settlements in the territories. In
fact in the case of the Nunavut agreement, a whole new
government is proposed to be established: a legislature and a
court system including the Supreme Court of Nunavut and the
court of appeal.
(1305)
In the case of the agreement before us today, it is noted that
five renewable resource councils are to be established for each
of the Sahtu communities of Colville Lake, Déline, Fort
Norman, Fort Good Hope and Norman Wells to manage the
exercise of harvesting rights.
A renewable resource board is to be established as the main
instrument of wildlife management in the settlement area. Six
members are to be nominated by the government and three by
the Sahtu Dene and Metis.
An arbitration panel is to be established to attempt to settle
disputes relating to this agreement without going to court. A
land use planning board is to be established to prepare a land use
plan providing for the conservation, development and
utilization of land, resources and water in the settlement area.
Again the Sahtu Dene and Metis can nominate 50 per cent
membership on such a board.
A land and water board is to be established to regulate all land
and water use within the settlement area. The environment
impact review board and the surface rights board established to
implement the earlier Gwich'in agreement are to have
jurisdiction over the area with special panels established with
the Sahtu tribal council having the right to nominate half of the
members.
One has to question the necessity of setting up still another
plethora of boards, commissions and instrumentalities within
the Northwest Territories. The fact of the matter is that most of
these functions are now being administered by existing
instrumentalities of either the Government of the Northwest
Territories or the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
There is no obvious consideration in the agreement given to
winding down existing boards. Layer of government upon layer
of government in the sparsely populated Northwest Territories is
not the way to go. We are in danger of turning a sparse
population into a bevy of bureaucrats, yet one of the main stated
purposes of the agreement is to permit pursuit of a traditional
livelihood and way of life.
Later this year the government is expected to introduce the
Mackenzie Valley resource management act which it is said will
fulfil the resource requirements of the various regional land
3429
claim settlements in the western Arctic. In addition it will bring
a new system of resource management to the Mackenzie Valley.
Indications are that this act will create still additional boards to
co-ordinate the activities of the others. Where will it end,
bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy?
The agreement provides for a most elaborate process of
negotiations in the future to conclude agreements on Sahtu Dene
and Metis self-government. This framework agreement is set
out in appendix B of the agreement. It is important to note this
framework agreement contemplates negotiations on the transfer
of legislative-making powers to the Sahtu Dene and Metis over
a long list of 18 subject matters.
One has to question the necessity of this given the fact the
agreement we are debating today deals with virtually every
aspect of these people's lives. The real question is: Is
self-government necessary or appropriate for so few people
scattered over such a wide area? Whether or not a
self-government agreement is negotiated remains for the
outcome of future negotiations.
(1310)
I would stress the fact that self-government arrangements or
agreements must provide that the laws passed by legislative
bodies and governments of the aboriginal peoples and the
administrative practices of such governments must comply with
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To be certain this
will be the case, it may well be necessary to amend section 32 of
the Constitution to specifically provide that the legislation
passed and administrative action taken by aboriginal
governments will be subject to the charter.
Perhaps the minister could advise the House whether the
Minister of Justice has examined this issue and expressed an
opinion as to whether or not the actions of aboriginal
governments are now covered by the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, or whether an amendment to the Constitution is
required.
If approved, Bill C-16 constitutionalizes the agreement
within the meaning of section 35 of the amendments to the
Canadian Constitution which came into force in 1982. While the
full scope of this constitutional protection is not clear, it almost
certainly means the agreement can only be amended by resorting
to the appropriate part of the amending formula set out in the
Constitution. If it be otherwise, constitutional protection means
nothing.
When one looks at the amending formula in the Constitution
there are no less than six different formulae, only one of which is
designed to be used in a particular circumstance. The fact of the
matter is that none of them fit the case of an agreement entered
into by the Government of Canada and a tribal council of native
peoples. When the amending formula was designed there was no
thought given to devising constitutionally entrenched land
claim agreements between an Indian band and the Government
of Canada.
If this had been an agreement between the Government of
Canada and a single province then section 43 would apply and
the agreement could only be amended by consent of both the
provincial legislature and the Government of Canada. However,
the Sahtu Tribal Council is not a province and it is unclear how
this agreement can be amended.
Section 41, which is the general amending formula, might be
the only amending formula available in this case. The irony is
that this general amending formula requires not only a
resolution of Parliament, but also of at least seven provincial
legislatures. Of course this is totally inappropriate.
There are two aspects of constitutional entrenchment that
cause me concern. First, this is a complicated agreement. I think
it unwise to constitutionalize such detail given the uncertainty
as to how it can be properly amended.
I am well aware clause 3.1.26 of the agreement provides that
once the agreement is in force it may be amended by consent of
the cabinet and the Sahtu Tribal Council. If this is so, it is
difficult to see that the agreement has protection under section
35 of the Constitution.
My second concern is to question the wisdom of entrenching
all of the detailed provisions of the agreement until it has been in
force for a period of time to consider whether or not it is
workable.
It would be preferable to constitutionalize the land rights and
perhaps the other benefits to be paid. All of the administrative
and regulatory provisions should not be constitutionally
entrenched to ensure flexibility as circumstances dictate.
(1315 )
Who are we to say we know what is best for future generations
in those areas? If there is to be certainty, finality and stability to
these land claim agreements, there must be the extinguishment
of any claim to other undefined and uncertain aboriginal rights
over land that might be put forward in the future.
I am therefore pleased to see under clause 3(1)(11) that in
consideration of the rights and benefits provided under this
agreement, the Sahtu Dene and Metis release and surrender to
the Government of Canada all their claims, rights, title and
interests if any to other lands and waters anywhere in Canada.
I am pleased to see such a provision in this agreement. It is
rumoured that the minister does not favour extinguishment
clauses in agreements of this kind and that he has instructed
departmental staff to expunge from their vocabulary the word
extinguishment.
3430
I do not know whether this is in fact the case but if it is, I
say with the greatest of respect to the minister that it is the
wrong course for him to take. I say that because the content
of these agreements represents substantial concessions from
government to the native people and the most reasonable quid
pro quo should be for the final resolution of outstanding
aboriginal claims.
To enter into these agreements with the prospect of having to
do it again a few years down the road is a prospect that should
not be entertained by government. Although there is an
extinguishment clause, the agreement provides that it in no way
affects the right of the Sahtu Dene and Metis to participate in
any benefit from any existing or future constitutional rights
extended to aboriginal people or their right to continue to
benefit from all government native programs.
What is missing in this agreement is any indication that if it
proves to be successful over a period of time, financial
assistance and government native programs of a general nature
can be phased out. All of this is at the expense of the Canadian
taxpayer and surely the objective is to provide self-sufficiency
and ultimately the removal of the need for government
assistance beyond that available to ordinary Canadians.
I would like to have seen more of an indication that this is the
direction in which the government wishes to go. One should also
ask what we do if this agreement turns out to be unsuccessful
over a period of years.
My final point concerns the tendency of the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development to take a decidedly
advocate role on behalf of the native peoples. I can understand
that this is its mandate up to a point but with issues such as
conveying large areas of public lands, the actions of the
department should be in the best interests of all Canadians.
Too often these agreements are worked out behind closed
doors with the ordinary Canadian in blissful ignorance of what is
going on. I am delighted that the Sahtu agreement is being
debated at some length is this House, unlike earlier north of 60
agreements. In future it would be advantageous to determine a
mechanism for debate at a much earlier stage than merely at
ratification. I commend this approach to the minister for his
consideration.
I regretfully conclude that the major beneficiaries of this
agreement are negotiators, advisers and lawyers. I have
concerns that the average Sahtu Dene or Metis may be no further
ahead in the long run as a result of this agreement. I wish them
well.
(1320)
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Madam Speaker, I rise in
support of Bill C-16, the Sahtu Dene and Metis Land Claim
Settlement act.
As previous members have described, this is a claim which
deals with that part of the Mackenzie Valley which involves
Great Bear Lake and the area to the west and the bands that live
in those areas.
I am extremely pleased to speak in support of this legislation.
It is another example of the government's commitment to build
partnerships with aboriginal peoples, partnerships based on
mutual respect.
The resolution of native land claims is a major part of that
commitment. The federal government is committed to
significantly increasing the rate of land claims settlement. It has
been seeking new ways to resolve impediments that slow that
process down.
I would like to give members of this House some background
to the Sahtu land claim agreement as an example of the claims
negotiation process. I would like to describe what
comprehensive claims are and provide some details of the
process that is followed to successfully conclude them.
First, I will give a few highlights of the evolution of the
concept of aboriginal rights in the context of land claims.
Protecting lands occupied by aboriginal peoples from outside
acquisition can be traced to the royal proclamation of 1763.
With Confederation, Canada assumed responsibility for
applying this principle.
The common law concept of aboriginal rights was addressed
in 1973 in a Supreme Court case which acknowledged the
existence of aboriginal title in Canadian law. Six years later in
1979 a common law test for continuing aboriginal rights was
established in another federal court decision.
These two groundbreaking decisions were followed by the
recognition of the central importance of the concept of
aboriginal rights to aboriginal peoples in the Canadian
Constitution, specifically section 35(1). In 1990 the Sparrow
case tried before the Supreme Court provided the first analysis
of the implication of this recognition.
All these decisions established that the exercise of aboriginal
rights could be regulated by government. The court also set out
strict tests which were to be applied to determine if government
interference with section 35 rights was justified in specific
cases. The court has also concluded that rights are unique to
each aboriginal group. Given that the rights are common law and
not written down their extent and nature have been the subject of
considerable debate.
Before these court decisions were enacted defining the special
rights of aboriginal groups within treaties had long been an
important aspect of the relationship between aboriginal peoples
and the crown. As well the evolution and development of the
federal government's land claims policy has been closely linked
to court decisions, particularly the decisions that I mentioned
earlier.
3431
To address any uncertainty created by the decisions the
federal government announced that it was willing to negotiate
land claims settlements with native peoples. As the policy
developed, claims were divided into two broad categories,
comprehensive and specific.
Comprehensive claims are based on the concept of continuing
aboriginal rights and title which have not been dealt with by
treaty or other legal means. The courts have emphasized that the
proper way to resolve outstanding land claims is through
agreements negotiated fairly by the affected parties.
Specific claims, on the other hand, arise from the alleged
non-fulfilment of Indian treaties and other lawful obligations or
the improper administration of lands and other assets under the
Indian Act.
All these court decisions and constitutional guarantees
provided the background within which the Sahtu agreement was
negotiated.
(1325 )
To further describe this process I would like to list the
objectives of comprehensive claims settlements, of which this is
an extremely important example.
The primary purpose is to conclude agreements with
aboriginal groups that will resolve the debates and legal
ambiguities associated with the common law concept of
aboriginal rights and title.
Uncertainty with respect to the legal status of lands and
resources created by a lack of political agreement with
aboriginal groups has been a barrier to economic development
for all Canadians and has hindered the full participation of
aboriginal peoples in land and resource management.
The comprehensive claims process is intended to lead to
agreement on special rights aboriginal peoples will have in the
future with respect to lands and resources. It is not an attempt to
define what rights they may have had in the past.
The process of comprehensive claims settlement has five
stages. The first is initial negotiation when issues are identified
for discussion. The second is substantive negotiation when
issues are discussed to produce the agreement in principle that
contains all the features of the eventual settlement. The third is
finalization when all parties formalize decisions needed in the
agreement in principle to produce a final agreement. The fourth
stage is enactment of settlement legislation which brings the
agreement into force. The fifth stage is the implementation of
settlement legislation when the terms of the agreement are
carried out by all parties.
During the initial and substantive stages, the first two stages I
mentioned of the settlement process, aboriginal groups may
obtain loans from the government to hire professional and
technical staff to help them prepare and negotiate their claims.
Most of the lands and resources that are subject of
negotiations and that are required for the settlement of
comprehensive claims are owned by a province. Because of this
the federal government feels that provincial governments must
participate in the often complex negotiations and must
contribute to the provision of claims benefits to aboriginal
groups.
In Yukon and Northwest Territories most lands and resources
fall under federal jurisdiction. Nevertheless, territorial
governments participate fully in claims negotiations and have
made commitments to aboriginal groups through claims
settlements. This was certainly the case of the Sahtu agreement.
The Northwest Territories government was an active participant
in all deliberations.
As in all deliberations, including those leading up to Bill
C-16, the scope of discussions was defined so as to arrive at a
fair and just resolution of the outstanding claim in a manner that
would uphold the honour of the crown.
As well, settlements including the one before us today are
designed to ensure that the interests of aboriginal groups in
resource management and environmental protection are
recognized and that claimants share in the benefits of
development. A number of these points were mentioned in
previous speeches.
To achieve these objectives settlement agreements must
define a wide range of rights and benefits to be exercised and
enjoyed by claimant groups. These rights and benefits usually
include full ownership of certain lands in the area covered by the
settlement, guaranteed wildlife harvesting rights, guaranteed
participation in land, water, wildlife and environmental
management throughout the settlement area, financial
compensation, resource revenue sharing and specific measures
to stimulate economic development and a role in the
management of heritage resources and parks in the settlement
area.
The rights and benefits of the Sahtu Dene and Metis in this
particular case have been described by the minister and other
speakers today.
Members should know that settlement rights are
constitutionally protected and cannot be altered without the
concurrence of claimant groups. A claimant group may retain
any aboriginal rights that it may have had with respect to the
lands it will hold following the settlement so long as such rights
are consistent with the final agreement. As well those aboriginal
rights that are not related to land and resources, or to other
subjects under negotiation, will not be affected by the exchange
of rights in the negotiated settlement.
(1330)
Resource revenue sharing is negotiated so that the group can
share federal royalties derived from resource extraction
throughout the area covered by the group's settlement
agreement.
3432
Enhanced aboriginal involvement in environmental
management is also provided for. Such arrangements, however,
recognize that government has an overriding obligation to
ensure resource conservation, to protect the interests of all
users, to respect international agreements and to manage
renewable resources within its jurisdiction.
If an aboriginal group's traditional activities have extended to
offshore areas, their claim settlement may include offshore
wildlife harvesting rights.
The House should be aware that in its efforts to clarify the
rights of aboriginal people the federal government does not
intend to diminish the rights of others. Public and third party
interests will be respected in the negotiation of claim
settlements and if affected they will be dealt with equitably.
I hope my colleagues appreciate the long and complex process
that has brought us to second reading of Bill C-16. I urge
members to support the bill. Its passage will benefit all
Canadians as well as help First Nations become strong and
prosperous. I hope all bands associated with the Sahtu Tribal
Council will have a happy and prosperous future as a result of
this legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Madam Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the hon. member's speech, and I wish
he would expand on the five stages and the process around what
is referred to in English as a comprehensive agreement. The first
two stages the hon. member mentioned were initial
negotiations, when issues are identified for discussion, and
substantive negotiations to identify all aspects of the issues, the
entire process being financed by the federal government.
Earlier in my speech, I said that, to justify raising the Indian
Affairs budget, perhaps the government would like to give us a
preview of its plans for further negotiations. Could the hon.
member tell us whether the Liberal government plans to
increase the level and number of negotiations of the kind we are
discussing today, which would partly justify maintaining and
even increasing the Indian Affairs budget?
I would also appreciate it if he would share with us his views
on the involvement of the provincial governments in these
agreements, although I am aware that today we have the
involvement of the government of the Northwest Territories,
which is not quite a provincial government. I would appreciate it
if he would explain how he sees the involvement of the
provincial governments in the negotiations around land claims.
[English]
Mr. Adams: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his
interest and his questions. I listened with great interest to his
remarks.
I made it clear that the government was very keen to move
forward with claims settlements. I am afraid I cannot comment
on the details of the budget. Unlike the hon. member this is not
one of my specialty areas. However I would be glad to find out
the relationship between our plans to speed up negotiations and
the budget, if he so wishes.
With regard to the question of involvement of the provinces,
in my speech I specifically mentioned that the case of the
Northwest Territories was quite special. In that area the federal
government still has a great deal of control. Nevertheless,
despite that, the federal government involved the NWT
government in these negotiations because it was the proper thing
to do.
As I also pointed out, if that is proper in the case of the NWT
government, where I suppose it could be argued that the federal
government need not have involved that level of government, it
is even more true in the case of the provinces. The federal
government will involve the provinces in equivalent
negotiations in the future.
(1335 )
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to the presentation and I have a couple of
questions for the member.
The member outlined two different types of land claims in
Canada and how they are dealt with. He explained that the
particular agreement falls under the comprehensive land claim
policy which states that under the comprehensive land claim
agreement entitlement to lands not dealt with under treaty fall in
this category.
In my opinion this particular land area is clearly dealt with
under treaty 11. Also in my opinion the Government of Canada
has fulfilled its obligation under treaty 11 in every way possible.
How is this particular land claim justified under that particular
area?
Mr. Adams: Madam Speaker, although I have an opinion on
the status of treaty 11 and the outcomes which have not appeared
from that treaty, in this case I would like to take the question
under advisement.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Madam Speaker, I listened
with a great deal of interest to the legal base that the hon.
member laid out. I thank him for placing that on the record. I am
sure it will be the subject of consultation and examination.
Would the member give the House a view on the question of
the fee simple aspect of this agreement? Does the member
concur that fee simple transfer on such a broad basis as is
undergone in this agreement goes beyond any legal precedent
we have seen in Canada?
Mr. Adams: Madam Speaker, I have to say I am not familiar
with all the legal precedents, but it does seem to me that one of
the bases of these claims negotiations is that there are groups of
people who have variously occupied very large areas. It seems to
3433
me logical that when the settlement is made there is some
agreement or jurisdiction over a very large area which reflects
the fact that over long periods of time they have occupied those
areas in a particular way. There are much tighter agreements
over other areas in which, particularly in recent decades, people
have lived in a much more non-migratory way.
Therefore it seems to me the fee simple part of these
agreements has to do with that. There are rights to wildlife
management over large areas and more controlled rights the
closer we get to the areas presently occupied by the native
people.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Madam
Speaker, I wonder if the member opposite would care to
comment on the whole nature or the whole question of
precedent. There are some very good things in this settlement
and there are some things we are questioning.
While we recognize that these lands are exclusively under
federal jurisdiction, I wonder if there is any notion of precedent.
We will have further land claim settlements in provincial
territory. There are pending land claim settlements in Albert
with Metis, for instance. Would the member speak to the issue of
precedence?
Mr. Adams: Madam Speaker, unlike many members of the
House I am not a lawyer. In using the word precedence as a more
general term, this is a precedent. It is an indication of the fact
that the government and the people of Canada want to move on
many of these settlements.
With regard to precedence in the more technical sense, it
relates to the question I answered of the member from the Bloc
previously, that when such negotiations are made in provincial
jurisdictions provincial governments will be fully involved. To
that extent the precedent of involving the NWT government is a
very good and a very healthy one. It is very proper to involve
provincial governments in their areas of jurisdiction.
(1340)
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Madam Speaker, thank
you for the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-16.
I have particular interest in the proposed legislation, having
lived and worked among the people of this area. Perhaps I have a
better understanding of this part of Canada and its people than
someone living in suburban Ottawa, Toronto or Edmonton.
As I have repeatedly said, I strongly support the right of
Canada's aboriginal peoples to self-determination and
self-reliance. Therefore when representatives of the Sahtu
Tribal Council first presented the agreement to me I was
supportive. There are many elements of this proposal that
moved the aboriginal people of the Mackenzie Valley toward the
objectives I support. I am referring to the rejection of the
objectionable apartheid principles of the reservation system of
more southern parts of Canada.
The co-operative approach to resource management and free
access to their traditional lands for traditional purposes is
positive. The requirement to contribute to the tax system to help
support their own government and the preservation of the social
safety net system so essential to all Canadians including
aboriginals is also a positive step. In my view the taxation
provisions of the agreement are very complex and no doubt will
be the subject of legal interpretation.
On these points and in the hope the cash payment and the
share of the resource revenue would end the devastating cycle of
welfare dependency which has robbed these once independent,
hardy people of their self-esteem and initiative, unfortunately
the closer I examined the agreement the more I came to realize
these positive things would never be achieved through the
agreement.
More and more I began to question the motivation and
objectives of those negotiating on behalf of the people of
Canada. When I contacted public affairs of the department of
Indian affairs and Northern Development and inquired as to the
objectives of this process, I was told it was to right the injustices
of the past and to supplement rather than replace the provisions
of treaty 11.
Immediately I have to ask what injustices are we trying to
right. If one is familiar or cares to study the history of the area
north of the 60th parallel, one would discover that there is a
substantial difference from the history of more southern
neighbours.
To begin with, life for aboriginals in the land north of 60 has
traditionally been a subsistence existence, harsh and
unforgiving. From the earliest encroachment into this land by
European settlement, the federal government has recognized its
responsibility to the people living there and made efforts in spite
of the vast wilderness and harsh climate to provide, where
possible, help through RCMP outposts and local missions.
I will not accept the popular myth spread by certain
self-serving interests that the encroachment of European
settlers constitutes an injustice against the aboriginal people
here or anywhere else in Canada.
At the turn of the century western and northern Canada was a
vast, mostly uninhabited land in real danger of being annexed to
the United States. The aboriginal people living in this vast
territory were eager for the technology which the Europeans
brought with them, in spite of the problems that came with them.
It was under these circumstances that the then Government of
Canada, through a series of grossly distorted and overly
optimistic ads, invited Europeans from all parts of Europe to
come to western Canada with the promise of 160 acres or a half
square mile of land for the sum of $10 and a freer, richer
lifestyle, but
3434
all the time having the real objective of asserting sovereignty
over western and northern Canada.
It was under these circumstances that my grandfather along
with thousands of others came to Canada, not to perpetrate an
injustice upon the aboriginal people but to accept the
opportunity being offered.
In spite of the great disappointment upon arriving in a bush
covered, swampy, fly and mosquito infested homestead in
northern Alberta, my grandfather and grandmother built a home
with the trees on the land, cleared the land with only an axe and a
team of horses, and built a farm in spite of the injustices of hail,
frost, depression, injury, disease and government
misrepresentation. That is how to build self-esteem and
self-worth.
(1345 )
I cannot and will not be held responsible for the actions of the
past political leadership of this country any more than the
aboriginal people can be held responsible for their past
leadership. Therefore I will not accept the guilt or support
compensation for my being here or my helping to develop
industries which now support us in the best standard of living in
the world. However I would support any agreement or effort to
help the aboriginal people of this area to participate and enjoy
the benefits of life enjoyed by all other Canadians.
I believe this agreement entrenches in the Constitution
commitments on the Government of Canada that may not be in
the best interest of all Canadians or responsibilities that Canada
can no longer afford.
The richness of this package should shock even the most
liberal Canadian. The agreement gives $100,000 in financial
entitlement over 15 years plus title in fee simple to eight square
miles of land per capita counting children, plus a share of
resource revenue amounting to somewhere between $200,000
and $400,000 per year.
In my view the settlement would be acceptable if it would
then cause to end the financial responsibility of the federal
government to these people. The truth is far different. Clause
3.1.5 clearly states that the participants in the agreement shall
have full access to all present and future programs for aboriginal
people as well as programs available to all other Canadians.
These programs now include not only a share of the $4.5
billion budget of the department of Indian affairs and Northern
Development but also a share of the proliferation of government
programs for aboriginals provided by at least 29 specific
programs in 15 other departments of government, costing at
least another $5 billion. All this is being offered at a time when
our country is bankrupt and our most treasured social safety net
system is decomposing because of the financial restraints being
imposed on it.
On top of the aforementioned benefits the agreement also
calls for the establishment of no less than nine separate boards
funded by federal money and a written commitment to negotiate
a self-government agreement with the institution of this
government agreement also presumably funded by Ottawa.
This brings me back to a question that I raised earlier. What
could possibly be the motivation or justification of such an
agreement? In my opinion there have been no great injustices
perpetrated on the people of this area above those imposed on all
our lives by the advancement of technology and our consuming
lifestyle.
The government is already redistributing tax and resource
dollars in a major way to help these people catch up. The
Canadian government 73 years ago at the request of these
aboriginal people entered into treaty No. 11 and has more than
met its obligations. In fact the text of treaty No. 11 states: ``The
said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to
the Government of the Dominion of Canada for His Majesty the
King and his successors forever all their rights, titles and
privileges whatsoever to the lands included within the following
limits and also the said Indian rights, titles and privileges
whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated in the Yukon
Territory, the Northwest Territory or any other portion of the
Dominion of Canada''.
Where does this initiative for the land claim settlement come
from? In my opinion the initiative comes from the real root of
the aboriginal problem in Canada, the insidious parasitic Indian
industry. That group of lawyers, consultants, bureaucrats and
Indian leaders year after year swallow up the vast majority of
money designated to solve the problems of poverty, illiteracy,
substance abuse and suffering among our native people.
This agreement does nothing to solve that problem and in fact
greatly reinforces it. Instead of continuing to feed this selfish
parasitic monster, let us break the cycle by making available to
aboriginal Canadians programs available to all Canadians and
then providing an affordable amount of the $10 billion plus now
spent on aboriginal services and programs to grassroots
aboriginal people in the form of a guaranteed annual income.
We will then give the power to tax to the proposed aboriginal
governments. These aboriginal governments will then be truly
accountable to their people. The people will decide what
programs they are willing and able to pay for. They will also
decide if their tax dollars should pay for their chief or band
administrator to spend in one year $130,000 on travel, as was the
case of a band chief in Manitoba, the very birthplace of
self-government proposed by the minister of aboriginal affairs.
There would still be those selfish, greedy people who would try
to exploit these people but at least it would provide a much
greater accountability if combined with regular, fair, democratic
elections than the system now provides.
3435
(1350)
In conclusion, I would urge hon. members to re-examine the
whole agreement and its implications. I ask members to
consider what it means, when in spite of the fact that only 73
years ago the Canadian government entered into treaty No. 11
and the fact that this land claim is in clear violation of the terms
of this treaty, we are repeatedly reminded that the rights gained
by aboriginals through these treaties is a binding contract on
Canada forever.
I also ask members to consider whether we have the right to
commit future generations of Canadians to this extremely
generous package, considering Canada's financial situation and
our doubtful ability to maintain our current social safety net
system.
Last, I ask members to question the real motivation behind
this agreement and who stands to benefit most. Look at the
Indian bands in Canada that have accumulated great wealth
through resource revenue and it is obvious that money will not
solve the problems we are trying to solve. These problems can
only be solved by the people regaining their self-esteem and
self-worth. We are providing enough wealth that 982 adult
aboriginals need never work or strive to meet goals again in their
lifetime. However it will not accomplish this any more than it
did for others.
I ask that members not buy into this guilt trip so skilfully put
on us and not enter into another binding contract based solely on
racial origin that is to last as long as the sun rises and the rivers
flow.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
Madam Speaker,
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
Listening to the two members from the Reform Party one
would think we were invading and taking over the land they have
always occupied.
After listening to what they are saying it seems we are going
in as aboriginal people and saying that they should excuse us but
we are taking over the land. They never quite point out that the
people they are talking about, the Sahtu, whose land claims we
are discussing today, have been in that neighbourhood for
36,000 years.
One would think after listening to the previous speaker-I
will get to the question-that the aboriginal people were just
there to invite the Government of Canada to take over our land
and say it is all yours. It was not quite like that. There were
losses imposed whether it was renewable wildlife loss, or social
loss like custom adoption or mission schools that were imposed
on the aboriginal people.
We did not ask for any of that. We did not ask for a lot.
Somebody told us that we could not hunt geese in the springtime
which we have always done. We could not hunt muskox or
whales any more because they were almost extinct because some
hunters and whalers came along and hunted all the muskoxen,
whales, and whatever else.
The member talked about mosquito infested areas and the
hardships that his grandparents went through. We think it is a
beautiful land. We do not talk about the mosquitoes infesting the
land or cold and hardships. It is our land. We like it. It does not
matter whether there are 10 million mosquitoes around. It is a
beautiful land. We do not describe it as mosquito infested or
cold and harsh.
(1355)
The attitude of people like the member who just spoke and the
other Reform member who spoke earlier, I repeat, is
unbelievable. We are not asking him to accept the guilt. All we
are doing through this legislation is trying to right the wrongs
that were done to the aboriginal people of that area, in this case,
the Sahtu. Words fail me because it is too unbelievable to even
contemplate the attitude of the Reform Party.
I would ask a couple of questions. If we look back far enough,
we will find that the lands that were occupied for the last 30,000
years were occupied by the Dene. If the member wants to trace
his history in that area, he would go back no more than a couple
hundred years, if that far.
Should there not be some justification in settling a claim with
the people who have occupied that land and who can trace back
their occupation in tens of thousands of years? Second, would he
not agree that the right thing to do would be to recognize the
aboriginal people's inherent right of self-government and that
the aboriginal people deserve to have that recognition?
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the member
opposite drew such bizarre conclusions from what he heard
myself and the other Reform Party member talk about. The fact
is the Canadian government resisted entering into a treaty with
the aboriginal people of this area for some time, choosing to
leave them live a traditional lifestyle and to not disrupt that way
of life.
If one examines the history of the area, one also notes that it
was the aboriginal people who on a number of occasions
requested that the Canadian government enter into treaty with
them. In fact, the leadership of the very communities that we
speak of in this agreement put their signatures to treaty No. 11.
Therefore we had the situation where the federal government
had no responsibility to the aboriginal people. It was the choice
of the aboriginal people themselves. They chose to enter that
agreement.
The Speaker: It being two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing
Order 35, the House will now proceed to Statements by
Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
3436
3436
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): Mr. Speaker,
we hear today that Canada's recovery and renewal are based on
the new electronic highway. That may be so but we cannot forget
that Canada was built by our farmers, by our miners, by our
fishermen, by our forestry workers and by our manufacturers
mainly in the automobile business.
That is where the majority of jobs were, that is where the
majority of jobs are today and that is where the majority of the
jobs will be in the future.
This government can assist all of those industries by getting
their products to the global market by a fast economical and
Canadian transportation system.
Is it not time that we develop a transportation policy for
Canada that will change these goals and get all Canadians back
to work?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, recently
we heard that Mary Anne Kirkby accepted the position of
director of communications with the Assembly of First Nations.
Although Mrs. Kirkby is to be commended for deciding to
work in an area that is so rewarding, where she will be most
useful in improving relations between aboriginal people and
non-natives, I would like to draw the attention of this House to
some problems around this appointment.
Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Kirkby's husband is the hon. member of
Prince-Albert-Churchill River in this House and chairs the
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, which is
responsible for voting on government subsidies to the Assembly
of First Nations.
To avoid a potential conflict of interest, I think the hon.
member of Prince-Albert-Churchill River should step down as
chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):
Canada's own Ironman Triathlon takes place every August in the
city of Penticton, British Columbia. This year's race is
scheduled for the weekend of August 27 and 28.
It is the only sanctioned Ironman race on the North American
continent. The competitors compete in a gruelling course which
includes swimming, biking and a marathon run. The 1994 race
will attract over 1,300 athletes from every corner of the world to
the Okanagan valley.
The event is staged almost entirely by volunteers. On race day
thousands of volunteers busily man race routes, transition
zones, first aid stations and perform a myriad of other tasks.
They do their jobs so well that virtually all the world's top
triathletes come to compete in this world class event.
I call on all members of this House to recognize Penticton's
Ironman Canada Triathlon for its contribution to placing Canada
on the international sporting stage.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): In Canada we have
beautiful rivers which are the envy of the whole world. Among
them are the Nahanni, the Alsek, the Kicking Horse, the
Athabasca, the Churchill, the Mattawa, the Grand, the Jacques
Cartier, the St. Croix, the Shelburne and the Main.
In January 1984 in order to protect these rivers and to retain
their beauty for future generations, the Canadian heritage river
system was formed under the auspices of Parks Canada. This is a
national system of protected rivers from sea to sea to sea. It
consists of 27 rivers totalling almost 6,000 kilometres. This
number will hopefully grow in coming years.
The heritage river program deserves support. Canadians can
generate it by writing to Parks Canada and to their federal
elected representatives suggesting the names of additional
rivers that require protection through this imaginative and
unique initiative aimed at enriching our heritage.
* * *
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River): The New
Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology located in my
riding of Timiskaming-French River is a state of the art
agricultural learning institute. Unfortunately the Ontario
government is bent on closing the college on May 1, 1994.
Over the past few months I have been working with the
Coalition for NLCAT and CIDA to secure a block of students
from eastern Europe to come and study at the college.
3437
The idea is simple but the benefits are many: Canada would
make better use of our foreign aid. The Canadian economy
would benefit through all the spinoffs. It would enable foreign
students to return to their homeland with the ability to feed their
own people.
I want to thank the Minister of Human Resources
Development for approving funding for a study into the
feasibility of my idea. I call upon the Minister of Foreign Affairs
to push forth this project. We have a chance to show the world
what Canadians can do. It would be a shame to let this
opportunity pass us by.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
during a recent public meeting a presentation was made
regarding generation x, the lost generation, referring to young
people between the ages of 20 and 30.
The message was that these young Canadians had done all
they could to educate and promote themselves. After four or five
years of university or college, graduation day arrives. The
reality of visiting the local employment centre then sets in. They
are told to check the job boards, check the computer for jobs and
are given the telephone number for job lines.
(1405)
This government and this House must continue to put the
plight of these well-educated youth at the forefront of every
decision. Instead of providing tax incentives for buying
furniture, equipment and computers, let us look at tax breaks for
hiring people.
Let us invest in humans and make these young people
productive again. They are our future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
the Société des auteurs et compositeurs du Québec appeared this
morning before the Copyright Board to ask that royalties paid to
songwriters whenever their works are performed be raised from
2 per cent to 5 per cent.
After reversing its position on this question, the Society of
Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada agreed
with the Copyright Board on a very scant increase over five
years.
We ask the Copyright Board to respond favourably to the
request by the Société, and perhaps we may recall that in France
and Italy, royalty rates are, respectively, 8.8 per cent and 10 per
cent, while today in Canada, the rate is 2 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time that copyright and neighbouring
rights were clearly and fully recognized in this country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, on January 24
in this House the Minister of the Environment said that the site
for the NAFTA environmental secretariat would be selected and
I quote: ``with no politics involved''.
On Friday the minister changed her tune and admitted that the
site of the environmental secretariat was chosen based on
political criteria. Also on Friday ministers of the government
defended not only the environment secretariat but also the
Shawinigan patronage park, not on the basis of economic
feasibility but on the basis of politics and patronage.
Perhaps the government can provide a list of the projects that
are motivated by economic benefits and a list of those that are
motivated by politics and patronage so that we can see which list
is longer.
This is not a good government. This is an expedient
government, a gutless government.
* * *
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough): Mr. Speaker, the
national infrastructure program which was promised by the
Liberal Party in the election last fall promises to be a catalyst in
the fight against unemployment. At the same time it will provide
much needed improvements to our basic facilities and will
prepare our towns and cities for a more prosperous future.
In many provinces of Canada, mine included, the
municipalities, construction companies and the unemployed are
eagerly awaiting the approval of projects so that planning and
construction can begin. We must always be mindful of the fact
that we live in a country which has a relatively short outdoor
construction season. We must, to use an old farm term, make hay
while the sun shines.
The infrastructure program which is just one component of
the program to make Canada work again will surely give our
economy a kickstart.
I am sure all hon. members look forward with great
anticipation to the day in the not too distant future when the
infrastructure projects are under way in every part of this
country.
3438
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, today
the hearings on the
Irving Whale open in Charlottetown.
These hearings could not have happened without the
combined efforts of the population of les Iles-de-la-Madeleine
and P.E.I., and the Minister of Transport. In addition, I wish to
single out my colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, who
played a pivotal role in bringing about today's hearings.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we will finally eliminate the environmental
threat represented by the Irving Whale. There is no doubt that
the Gagnon-Easter committee played a major role in the
decision to refloat that wreck. I want to tell this House that
before taking action we consulted the public and listened
carefully to the representations made, as is the custom with our
government.
In conclusion, I thank the residents of the Magdalen Islands,
as well as Prince Edward Island, for supporting the
Gagnon-Easter committee in its efforts to solve the Irving
Whale issue. This should be a lesson for the opposition.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to applaud the minister of agriculture for his
commitment and resolve to protect the Canada agri-food
industry in light of the recent request by the U.S. to renegotiate
agricultural products under article XXVIII of the GATT.
(1410 )
The minister has assured the country the government will
continue to negotiate in good faith but will not support a deal
unless it is good for Canada. This means it must be a good deal
for grains, food processing and the supply managed sectors.
I am confident although Canada regrets the U.S. intends to
attempt to increase its tariffs on barley and wheat, that cooler
heads will prevail and a good result for both countries will be
reached.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, for the first
time ever, South Africa will have a non racial election this week,
four years after opposition political parties became legal.
However, the democratic forces in South Africa are still the
target of violent attacks. Bloc Quebecois members deplore the
politically related attacks of the last few weeks, including those
which took place this morning and the one which occurred
yesterday, close to the ANC offices, in Johannesburg.
Members of this House, as well as several other observers
from Quebec and Canada, are presently in that country to bring
their support and ensure a smooth election process. For the
millions of Black voters in South Africa, this is a first
opportunity to participate in a democratic election.
I am sure that all members of this House will reiterate their
strong support for a free and democratic election in South
Africa.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian youth today are faced with the prospect of an unhappy
future. They recognize they are going to have to pay off the
massive debt that weak governments have left them. Youth
unemployment rates are higher than ever. Youth crime statistics
are soaring.
Constituents tell me that on an average Friday or Saturday
night numbers of young people can be found in the parking lots
of my riding of Calgary Southeast partying and sometimes
vandalising. There is little fear of being caught. Many know if
they are caught the punishment will be easy to handle.
Members from all areas of society, including youth groups,
have been calling for the government to make changes to the
Young Offenders Act. Does this government have the strength to
show Canadian youth it cares about them, that it is willing to
make the tough decisions to guarantee their future?
The two big signals this government can send to Canadian
youth to show it cares about them are to balance the budget and
reform the Young Offenders Act.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, fairness
and equity within our tax system are not optional but necessary
characteristics which we must strive to achieve. Accordingly,
when inequities are identified Canadians should expect prompt
attention from their elected representatives.
One such inequity has to do with child care expenses. Under
the present income tax law one spouse cannot pay another
spouse to provide direct parental care and receive a deduction
for the expense. However, in the case of same sex couples who
have custody of a child, one can pay the other for child care
expenses and deduct the cost on their income tax return. This
3439
effectively provides for income splitting not available to
married couples.
In the full spirit of fairness and equity, we should extend the
same tax benefit to mothers and fathers as is given to same sex
couples. This serious inequity demands prompt attention.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, the ice is gone from the Northumberland Strait. The
lobster traps are neatly lined on every small wharf from
Barachois to North Port and the fishermen are ready to begin the
lobster season in Nova Scotia.
The fishermen look forward to a good season and have
voluntarily agreed to increase the size of the lobster carapace to
two and three-quarter inches, that is, a larger lobster. They will
toss back the smaller lobster to grow to a more desirable size.
What this means is better conservation of the lobster fishery and
a long term sustainable lobster fishery.
For many years researchers and the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans have recommended the increased carapace size.
Now that our fishermen have voluntarily agreed to comply I
implore the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to legislate the
increased size in lobster carapace to ensure conservation in the
lobster fishery.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has an immigration system that is well
respected throughout the world. However, mistakes are made by
some officials on the application of the law and the result can be
devastating.
One example is the application of 89 year old Mrs. Arora, who
has been denied a visitors visa to visit Canada. She is the mother
of one of my constituents, Paul Arora, whom she wants to visit.
She was a landed immigrant in Canada, returned to her home
country and now wants to visit her son for a few months.
(1415)
Another example is Miss Matharu's application on behalf of
her relatives who want to come to Canada to attend her wedding
on May 7. They were refused because of their close ties to the
family here.
To classify these examples as deceitful is an unfair
assessment and application of the immigration law.
I request assurances from the government that the visa
application process for honest applicants be given fair and just
treatment.
* * *
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, in June 1975 the following
remarks appeared in an MP's report to constituents.
``Very strict regulations governing the sale and possession of
handguns and automatic weapons and the prohibition of sawed
off guns have not deterred the criminal element from obtaining
them for use in the commission of crimes. The standard rifle or
shotgun is sometimes used in murder, but a registration card
would not save the victim. It would be a mistake to initiate
legislation in this area which would impose unnecessary red
tape upon law-abiding citizens. All governments are faced with
the primary challenge of dealing with the root causes of
violence, the disease rather than its symptoms''.
These words were written by the Hon. Otto Lang, a prominent
Liberal who actually believed in classic liberalism.
_____________________________________________
3439
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
After referring to the unemployed as beer drinkers, the leader
of the government also announced in Toronto that he would
proceed with his reform of social programs, in spite of
opposition and reticence from the provinces, which he qualified
as turf wars, although, except in the case of unemployment
insurance, these programs are a provincial responsibility.
In spite of his reputation as a constitutional bulldozer, will the
Prime Minister acknowledge that by forcing his reform of social
programs on the provinces he is acting irresponsibly, since this
strategy will merely lead to sterile confrontations and
unnecessary duplication?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
said that, like all governments, this government has a mandate
to work on creating jobs, not to indulge in squabbles,
constitutional or otherwise, that would adversely affect the
economic climate in this country. In fact, in recent months we
proved that we were able to conclude agreements with
provincial governments. We signed an infrastructure agreement
with the Government of Quebec, which is working very well,
and also with the
3440
other provincial governments; we managed to deal with the
Sainte-Marguerite River project; and we have concluded
similar arrangements.
Obviously, we cannot deal with all the problems, especially
the more difficult ones, and especially when the Opposition is
looking for a bone to pick and keeps trying to talk about the
Constitution and jurisdictional matters instead of focussing on
job creation. We were elected to create jobs, and that is why we
are going to introduce reforms in our own jurisdiction that will
create more jobs. We hope the provinces will be willing to do
likewise, so that both levels of government will benefit and,
above all, so that workers will get what they want: jobs that will
provide them with an honest living.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would
agree that his government has already started ``bulldozing'' the
provinces in the area of social programs, first through the
training component of the federal adjustment plan for
fishermen, and second, through its youth strategy, in both cases
increasing the overlap he denies exists.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Regarding our
strategy for the fishermen, the Government of Newfoundland,
where 85 per cent of the target population comes from, has
praised the reform which was developed in consultation with it
and other governments.
As for youth job creation, that is a priority for this
government. The federal government has always had such
programs. It had them under the Conservative government when
the Leader of the Opposition was a member and a minister on the
government side. My point is that, today, the hon. member is
hardly in a position to blame us for doing what he did himself,
and we make no apologies for doing everything we can to create
jobs, especially for young people.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, is the Prime Minister following the callous approach he
took in Quebec prior to the forced patriation of 1981, when he
refuses to have an open and public discussion of these reforms of
social programs with his provincial counterparts, as requested
by Mr. Bob Rae of Ontario?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Human Resources Development has had several
meetings with his colleagues and was supposed to have another
one last Monday. The provincial governments said they were not
ready, and the minister postponed the meeting. That is exactly
how we want to proceed. At the request of several provinces, the
minister cancelled the meeting he was prepared to call at that
time. We can hardly do more than talk to the provinces and, if
they want us to postpone the talks, we say yes. Eventually,
governments will have to agree, because the unemployed cannot
wait while we squabble over constitutional matters. They want
jobs, and we will do everything to satisfy them in that respect.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, on April 13
last, in response to a question from my colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, the Prime Minister stated, and I
quote: ``- I am sure that all committee chairs will be very
pleased to consider all recommendations for spending cuts and
that will make the hon. members very happy. I asked our party to
do so, because we want our members to be involved. There is no
problem, then''.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a problem. What explanation can
the Prime Minister give for the fact that Liberal members have
so far disregarded his undertaking and have systematically
refused to carry out a comprehensive review of government
expenditures, as the Prime Minister had promised?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the committees have work to do and they do the best they can.
They have received a mandate from this House and, if the
Opposition members want to submit a list of the programs they
would like this government to cut, they can do so here, in this
House. We will gladly accept it. However, with the Opposition,
it is always the same old story when we ask them to identify the
programs they would like us to cut. When we proceed to make
cuts, they say we are targeting the wrong program. But they
never let us know where they want the cuts to be made. When
they themselves know, perhaps then they will tell us. Why all the
fuss? Send me a letter! Deliver it to me here, in the House. What
could be simpler!
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I would be
happy to write a letter to the Prime Minister. I will send him as
many letters as he wants, if that is what it takes. However, I was
under the impression that he had made a commitment in this
House that the committees would, on his orders, proceed to
review government spending as requested. Is the Prime Minister
leading his members? Does he have any leadership? Can he give
us some assurance that his own members will do what he said?
After all, he was the one who gave us his word.
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): It is very
difficult, Mr. Speaker, to satisfy the opposition. When I decide
to do something it blames me because I am moving too fast.
In this case I respect the good judgment of members of
Parliament who have been elected and who work hard in their
committee duties. They know that we cannot look at everything
at the same time. But when we look at something the opposition
wants to look at something else.
3441
I will let my members decide. I know they have good
judgment and I know that they are not afraid to look at all the
expenditures of the government. They are like me, if they can
give some good direction to the government about cuts they will
be happy with that. At the same time they know they have to
respect the rules of the committee. If the members opposite are
never satisfied it will be very difficult to satisfy them. They
have to be there and give the list that they have prepared,
apparently, but which they never made public.
* * *
(1425 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport.
This government was elected on a promise of jobs and
infrastructure. Pearson airport is arguably the single most
important piece of infrastructure in Canada and a huge creator of
jobs.
All five regional chairpersons in the metro area agree that
future growth and jobs are at risk. The review on Pearson by Mr.
Robert Nixon recommended the same thing, that immediate
construction begin.
Can the minister explain why he continues to ignore local
leaders and the Nixon report by delaying action on this
important project?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I want to assure my hon. friend that I am not disregarding the
advice from important political leaders in the greater
metropolitan Toronto area.
I have met with the chairman of metro Toronto, Alan Tonks,
with the mayor of Toronto and with the minister of transport for
Ontario. We are carefully considering the future of Pearson
airport because, as my hon. friend says, it is an important
economic development tool for all of Canada, not just
southeastern Ontario.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, surely the
minister must realize that Pearson expansion is not a local issue.
In an earlier question he indicated it was being held up by some
Toronto MPs.
It is an issue of national importance. National development
and jobs across Canada are at stake. Perhaps the real question
here is why has the minister abrogated his national
responsibilities regarding Pearson? Why has he passed the
matter off to a select group of Toronto members who will clearly
have local rather than national interests at heart?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
with all due respect I do not consider it the role of the minister to
abrogate the responsibilities of members of Parliament from any
region of the country to determine how they wish to analyse a
matter of great interest to them.
I do want to assure my hon. friend that we are looking at the
situation at Pearson very closely. We are working very hard at
trying to resolve it, but we are respecting our national
obligations in making sure that the solution proposed for
Pearson International Airport is consistent with what we will be
setting in place to operate other airports across the country in the
national airport system.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, this project
benefits all of Canada for economic and safety reasons. Pearson
has been studied to death. When will this government take
action on Pearson's job creating potential? Thousands are
waiting.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
there is no question, as the hon. member puts it. Pearson
International Airport is a very important airport for Toronto, for
Ontario and for all of Canada.
As I have indicated many times both in this place and outside
the House, we will be moving expeditiously to do the right thing
at Pearson in consultation with a wide spectrum of interested
parties. We will make that decision known very soon.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, we learned
last week that the Hibernia project will run $1 billion over
budget. This megaproject, the profitability of which is unsure,
has become a real money pit into which Ottawa blindly
continues to pump Canadian taxpayers' money by the millions.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. How
can the government continue to pump more and more public
money into this project without knowing how large the cost
overrun will be and how far this huge farce will go?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, let me thank my hon. friend for his question.
Let me say as was stated last week in the House that estimates
of cost overruns are at a preliminary stage at this point. The
owners, including the government, have requested a report
which will outline the exact nature of expected cost overruns.
At that point the owners will be doing everything in their
power to ensure that whatever cost effective measures can be
taken will be taken.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, that was not
an answer. It was a skating exercise, and I must say the minister
skates very poorly. Unlike Patrick Roy, she must be suffering
from a very acute case of appendicitis.
3442
How can her government justify wasting the hundreds of
millions of dollars she just referred to-but she does not know
exactly how much yet-when this government is about to make
cuts across the board in our social programs?
(1430)
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Let
me say, Mr. Speaker, that with a project of this size cost overruns
are to be expected.
We are doing that which any responsible owner would do in
conjunction with other owners to get a handle on the exact
amount of cost overruns. Once we know that we will take
whatever steps we can to ensure cost efficiency.
Let me assure the House that the responsibility of the
Government of Canada as equity owner-we own 8.5 per cent of
the project-for cost overruns will be limited to that 8.5 per
cent.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns remarks made
in the House by the Minister of the Environment on January 24.
At that time she said with regard to the selection of a site for
the environmental secretariat of NAFTA:
The selection will be made based on the environmental performance of those
cities.
She also said:
The selection would be made with no politics involved.
On Friday the same minister told the House that the reality
was that politics was about making difficult decisions in the best
interest of the country.
Since the independent consultant's report was submitted on
one day and the decision to award the secretariat to Montreal
was made the very next day, what actual criteria came into play?
Was it environmental? Was it political? Or, was it federal pork
barrelling?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if
I recall, the report was not translated until the Monday but a
copy in English had been available before. There was a
minimum of five cities that qualified. Every one of the cities had
some advantages or disadvantages and the minister
recommended the city of Montreal.
We cannot go everywhere. I do not know why people make
such a fuss about it. One factor that was not in the criteria but
always impressed me a lot was that of the five cities Montreal
was the one with the highest unemployment level. That was not
one of the criteria. There were five cities that were basically
equal. Eventually we had to decide. The minister made that
recommendation and we accepted it.
We could have decided in November to name one city. We
gave the opportunity to a lot of cities to make application but we
could select only one. Montreal was selected based on the
criteria of cities that were equal. For me, anyway, the fact that
Montreal had the highest level of unemployment was an
important factor.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the reason many people are making such a fuss over this is that
many Canadians feel they were led down the garden path in the
selection criteria for this environmental secretariat. Had the
decision been made to award it either to Montreal or Toronto and
that had been done up front, it would not have been a problem.
In any event, the Deputy Prime Minister also told the House
on January 24: ``Montrealers like all Canadians want a process
free of politics which is precisely what the federal government
is providing''.
This is why my question is so important. When will the
government stop insulting Quebecers by offering such
transparent bribes when what Montrealers, like all Canadians,
really want and expect from the government is a government
free of political expediency and a government that would put
principle ahead of politics?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
that is an accusation that has no grounds. If we had selected
Edmonton it probably would have been unfair to Vancouver,
Toronto, Winnipeg and Montreal. However there was a problem
with Edmonton in that air connections were not the best. It was
negative. We had to decide the month before; we had to select.
We had to decide if we were to cut Edmonton or Calgary.
It was decided that it was unfortunately better, probably
because you never said thank you, not to cut in Edmonton and
cut more in Calgary. It was not pleasant. Why did you not
complain at that time and say that we should have cut in
Edmonton-
(1435 )
The Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all hon.
members to address the Chair.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Last Friday, the CBC reported rather disturbing conduct on the
part of immigration officers. For example, some of them were
said to have administered a sedative to a pregnant woman before
deporting her to Zaire. Also, a two-year old child with
pneumonia was apparently deported to Ghana. Such practices
are unacceptable and unfitting of a civilized nation such as ours.
3443
Is the minister of immigration aware of these allegations and
does he condone practices which, insofar as the Zairian woman
was treated, are inhuman as well as medically unethical?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising
a very sensitive question. This gives me an opportunity to
address it based on the facts.
First, it is general policy of this government, as it was in
previous governments, that people on medication who are asked
to be removed should continue to receive the prescription
through a regular practitioner.
Second, under no circumstances is it policy for the purpose of
removal to simply sedate individuals.
Third, last year there were approximately 9,000 removals. My
department informed me this morning there were under 12
individuals who required medical attention.
In the case of the woman from Zaire I caution the member
because no immigration officials are permitted to administer
any kind of medicine whatsoever. In this case the woman had a
medical condition which I am not permitted to get into because
of privacy laws. There was medical attention recommended and
administered by a practising physician under provincial
jurisdiction.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister tell us if he has intervened to rectify this unacceptable
situation and condemn the behaviour of immigration officers
who inflict physical abuse to foreign nationals being deported or
expelled?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I said very clearly and as
completely as I could under the guise of question period that no
immigration official is permitted to administer any medicine,
injection or sedation at all.
The 12 cases last year out of 9,000 were done on the orders of
doctors usually practising in the provincial field for the benefit
of the individual who was being asked to be removed because of
his or her condition.
I will certainly make every effort to ensure that the policy be
observed and respected from one coast of this country to the
other.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The government is planning to spend 4.5 million taxpayer
dollars on a patronage theme park in the Prime Minister's home
riding in spite of a report commissioned by the government
warning that the project was doomed to fail.
According to the Deputy Prime Minister the government
reduced its contribution to the park by more than half because of
the concerns raised in the Legault report.
If the government was concerned enough to cut funding to this
patronage park in half because it will fail, why did the
government not do the logical thing and cut the funding
altogether?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is a project that has been in the mill for many years. A lot of
people have worked on it. The request at the beginning was
bigger and it was reduced.
When the private sector put up $12 million and the provincial
government $4 million, the federal government put up $4
million. Even if it had been an infrastructure program,
according to the criteria it would have been one-third. This is
only 20 per cent.
It was approved by the provincial government and it was in
the mill. When I was in the opposition I asked some questions
about it. Eventually when I became the Prime Minister the
contribution was cut in half. I will not talk too much because the
people in Shawinigan wil be mad at me.
(1440 )
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, it seems the Prime Minister is telling taxpayers that
instead of wasting all their money he will only waste half their
money.
According to the February 15 edition of the Globe and Mail
during the election campaign the Prime Minister promised to
fork out the pork in his riding. He said:
I have the impression that when files from Saint-Maurice cross the desk of a
minister-I needn't say more.
Will the Prime Minister rise above patronage politics and tell
his ministers not to give preferential treatment to his own
riding?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
just said that I do not have to talk to anybody. They will look at
all the projects.
When the minister responsible cut my program by half I did
not even protest. Maybe I should have. When the private sector
provides $12 million to a project, is it willing to lose $12
million? I do not think so.
3444
I think they have looked into it. The site was the first
hydroelectric project in North America. It was the first
aluminium project in America. Rather than celebrating in our
country only wars of the past, it is good to celebrate some of
the firsts in North America. If it happens to be in Shawinigan
I think I have no choice but to support it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I would
especially want to draw his attention to the anxiety now felt by
Canadian farmers.
We know that last week, the U.S. government warned GATT
of its intention to restrict Canadian durum wheat and barley
imports starting July 1. If no agreement is reached, the conflict
could well extend to other agricultural products such as milk and
poultry.
Given the importance of these products for the Canadian
market and a statement made by the Minister for International
Trade on the possibility of Canadian retaliation, can the Prime
Minister tell us how Canada intends to protect the interests of
Canadian producers and consumers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
when the GATT agreement was signed, we said that the move
towards tariffs was inevitable, but that very high tariffs would
be protected by GATT, and our position has not changed.
We do not want it to be attacked, and our legal advisers tell us
that there is no danger. The GATT rules will apply in the coming
years, even if the Americans do not like it.
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): I would
like to ask a supplementary question. The Minister of Foreign
Affairs said in February that he hoped Canada's conciliatory
attitude would help resolve the trade problems with the United
States.
Does the Prime Minister not agree that this new attack
confirms the failure of negotiating strategies between Canada
and the U.S.?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
since 80 per cent of our trade is with the U.S., it is not surprising
that we encounter a few problems from time to time.
As for milk and the products controlled by marketing boards,
we think our position is well protected by GATT.
Regarding the situation of Western farmers, our fight is not
over yet-
[English]
They have 90 days. I talked to the President of the United
States on Friday before he made his announcement to tell him
that we were not happy with that and that the problem had to be
revisited. He told me that over the period of 90 days there would
be some time to discuss with the administration. I hope we will
come to a reasonable level of export to the United States.
We are doing our best, but the problems in relation to the size
of our trade with the United States are not very numerous at this
time.
* * *
(1445 )
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle): Mr.
Speaker, an Ottawa
Sun article of April 21 states that although
350 new full-time customs staff members were promised for the
government's anti-smuggling initiative, only one person has
been hired.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of National
Revenue inform the House if this is in fact the situation?
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform
the hon. member that the statement quoted in the Sun has no
basis in fact.
Everything that was promised in the anti-smuggling initiative
is now fully operational. Numerous part-time officers have
become full-time officers. Furthermore we have hired 30 new
full-time officers as of April 13. Our 25 per cent increase in
enforcement is a fact.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
I brought to the attention of the House the fact that Canada
does not require HIV testing of its applicants for immigration.
The minister accused me of having faulty research but then
amazingly proceeded to admit that Canada does not screen its
immigrants for HIV.
This is double-talk. There is some question of exactly how
many immigrants have come to Canada who are infected with
HIV. Why test for communicable, infectious diseases like
syphilis, hepatitis B, tuberculosis but not for HIV?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, when he asked me that question he
said he was amazed to have discovered at committee the day
before that we did not automatically test.
When I said he had faulty research it was in the sense that he
had not known that to be the case as opposed to being amazed
and surprised.
3445
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Marchi: You can hem and haw all you want. You can look
at truth right in the face.
Then I went on to say that as part of the review in immigration
there is a review of the class of medical inadmissibility. I
mentioned that it is appropriate for the department and for the
country to consider that things do evolve. As the member
mentioned there are a number of diseases that we automatically
check.
I also mentioned that where our doctors, our practitioners, see
evidence of HIV positive they are permitted clearly on their
judgment to test and subsequently refuse people admittance.
The question that I raise which will be part of the review is
ought this test to be an automatic part of the medical check, yes
or no. We are happy to look into that question and no one is
hiding anything.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the minister.
As he pointed out a week ago last Friday the minister stated
that mandatory testing does not take place but if individuals
exhibit traces of HIV they are asked to be tested and if HIV is
found then most of these individuals are not permitted into the
country.
How can the minister possibly know that most HIV positive
immigrants do not get into Canada when his department does not
even do the test? Just what is the situation here? How many
immigrants are refused?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, what I mentioned was that if our
doctors currently detect symptoms of HIV, they order a test. The
test is based on two questions, one in terms of public health,
safety to the country and, second, the whole question of the tax
that the disease would put on the medical infrastructure. The
judgment of the doctor is then rendered.
I said then and I repeat today that based on the tests done, our
doctors currently reject most of those individuals from coming
into the country, not based on general public safety but on the
whole question of how taxing the disease would be on the
medical infrastructure.
I have also said that we are reviewing this situation so as to
update ourselves with respect to HIV and AIDS. These diseases
are a growing concern that has consumed the attention of many
individuals. Third, in terms of tracking the number of cases
across the country I do not think my department or any
department keeps those kinds of numbers.
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Industry. The federal government is getting
ready to set up an agency called Access Canada to define a
national strategy for the electronic highway. The federal
government will control 50 per cent of this agency and the other
half will be held by the private sector.
Given the major impact that the electronic highway will have
on the whole cultural community, how can the minister justify
the lack of representatives from this community on the
committee that will define the government's strategy for the
electronic highway? Has the government not learned a lesson
from the Ginn Publishing affair?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
am very glad that we finally have a question on the electronic
highway. On the advisory committee set up a week ago are
people who will inform us about all aspects of the electronic
highway.
[English]
We have representatives from all regions of the country. We
have representatives from all of the different types of users as
well as those who will be designing and providing material for
the eventual construction of the information highway.
I am looking forward to the work that this committee will do
and the assistance it will provide the government in building the
regulatory and policy framework in which the electronic
highway will operate.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, this did not
confirm the exclusion of the cultural community from the
strategy.
How can the government think of defining a national strategy
for the electronic highway without directly involving the
provinces in Access Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): As I just said,
Mr. Speaker, we have representatives from all regions and also
from all provinces of Canada. This committee has members who
deal with cultural issues every day.
3446
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, there
are precious few moments in this House when the government's
answers to questions are complete, specific and focused.
Having said that, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Breast cancer has reached epidemic proportions in our country.
Currently there are two cases of fraudulent breast cancer
research. There are ongoing allegations of improprieties in the
medical auditing process and the American medical community
has withheld information for three years that was important to
Canadian research.
Will the Minister of Health tell the House how the Department
of Health will guarantee the integrity of breast cancer research
in Canada.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, breast cancer has reached epidemic proportions and
it has been that way for many years. It is not recent. It concerns
me very much that more has not been done for women with
breast cancer in terms of research and the outcome of treatment.
In the cases the hon. member is referring to, American dollars
went to fund those studies in Canada. The Canadian government
did not fund those particular research studies.
(1455 )
As a result of what happened with these cases, I met with the
Medical Research Council to assure myself and to speak with
them to make sure that we always address these cases as
completely and as effectively as possible.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I do
appreciate the minister's response but it was not specific to my
question. I have a supplementary question.
I would like to know what progress has been made in the
investigation that the minister committed to on March 17
regarding those fraudulent cases of breast cancer treatments in
Montreal. Could she be specific to that question.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
specific to that question I answered that this was an American
study.
Let me reassure hon. members and all Canadians that even
though these studies were not the way they should have been,
many other studies have validated the findings. They have been
tested and their validity has been looked at, as have all the other
problems that have been encountered with the one case in
Montreal.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
Two weeks ago it came to light that the RCMP were not only
spying on black civil rights leaders in Nova Scotia in the 1960s
and 1970s, including one Wayne Adams who today is a minister
of the provincial crown, but that internal reports of the RCMP
were laced with racially insensitive and overtly racist comments
about blacks.
Last Thursday before a House of Commons standing
committee, RCMP commissioner Norm Inkster was given an
opportunity to apologize for these statements but refused. Given
the seriousness of these incidents, what actions is he
contemplating to address these very disturbing incidents?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly understand the hon. member's concern about this
troubling matter.
I looked at the committee transcript. I note that at the
committee, Commissioner Inkster did say that ``we all regret
what occurred''. He also said he would take the matter ``under
consideration''.
In view of the concerns expressed today in the question by the
hon. member and which were also expressed to me by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I will be
speaking further to the commissioner about it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. On April 21, the Minister
of Health confirmed in this House that the anti-smoking media
campaign to inform and educate the public, particularly young
people, about the risks linked to tobacco use, was a flop. The
minister also said, and I quote: ``I must say that I have indeed
inherited the ad campaign -launched by the previous
government''.
How can the minister put the blame on the previous
government, since she is the one who, last February 8, decided
to waste an extra $3 million on a campaign which never gave any
result?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
first I want to say that the ad campaign was effective when it was
first implemented. But it is now time to change that campaign.
We know how we must spend our money. We are working with
the provinces and the anti-smoking groups to ensure that the
next campaign will focus on the current problems and on young
people, because they are the ones we want to convince to stop
smoking or to avoid developing that habit.
3447
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Minister of Health: Why change the campaign if it is effective?
What guarantee does the minister have that she will not once
again waste millions of dollars in a California-type of
campaign? What guarantee can she give us?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, any
campaign that will convince anyone to give up smoking or not to
start in the first place is a terrific campaign.
(1500 )
The hon. member mentions the California campaign. That
campaign has been particularly effective in discouraging people
from smoking. I want to assure the hon. member that any
campaign we embark upon will be extremely well focused, well
targeted to ensure that we get every bang that we can for our
buck.
* * *
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, my question is inspired by my constituents and is for
the Minister of Health.
Many Canadians are purchasing bottled water or using
purification systems on their chlorine treated drinking water
supply and there are continued health warnings against the use
of chlorine or chloramine.
Is the minister aware of the reported health risks involved
with the continued use of chlorine and chloramine?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
yes, I am aware.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Health but in view
of the seriousness of this potential threat I would like it to be
taken seriously. It is a serious threat to the health of Canadians
resulting in increased cost to our health care system.
Will the minister launch a public investigation into the
continued use of chlorine and chloramine in our drinking water
in Canada?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am concerned with this issue. I have been on top of this issue
now for a number of months. I have asked officials in my
department to bring forward recommendations so that we can do
something as quickly as possible.
3447
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the Government's response to petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (for the Minister of the Environment)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-23, an act to implement a
convention for the protection of migratory birds in Canada and
the United States.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1505)
[Translation]
Hon. Diane Marleau (for the Minister of the Environment)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-24, An Act to amend the
Canada Wildlife Act and to make a consequential amendment to
another Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting a
petition signed by 1,486 people in the constituency of
Souris-Moose Mountain.
We, the undersigned residents of the province of
Saskatchewan and the users of Saskatchewan's public libraries,
draw to the attention of the House the following: That the library
book postal subsidy is necessary for the continued operation of
inter-lending services among libraries and plays a vital role in
the distribution of cultural materials; that the cancellation of the
subsidy or changes in the amount of the subsidy would result in
severely hampering the public's access to information housed in
3448
the libraries outside of residents' immediate area; and that
maintaining the subsidy is a more efficient use of public funds
than any other alternative.
Therefore, your petitioners call upon Parliament to continue
the library book postal subsidy and to ensure that there will be
no further erosion of the resulting library book postal rate.
* * *
[
Translation]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions be
allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3448
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-16, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid an
agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada
and the Dene of Colville Lake, Déline, Fort Good Hope and Fort
Norman and the Metis of Fort Good Hope, Fort Norman and
Norman Wells, as represented by the Sahtu Tribal Council, and
to make related amendments to another act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As I understand it there
are still a few minutes left for questions and answers for the hon.
member for Athabasca. The hon. member for Dauphin-Swan
River.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-16, the Sahtu
Dene and Metis Land Claim Settlement Act.
The government is committed to the conclusion of equitable
land claim settlements with the aboriginal peoples. Since taking
office we have made great strides in streamlining the process of
settling claims. The negotiation of comprehensive land claims is
a result of a policy introduced by the Liberal government in
1973 as a response to views expressed by representatives of the
aboriginal peoples and in recognition of the Calder decision
handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada.
(1510 )
The intent of this government is to achieve through
negotiations appropriate and formal changes to the structure of
the relationships between First Nations and the federal and
provincial governments. The objective of a comprehensive
claims settlement is to exchange undefined aboriginal rights for
defined rights with constitutional protection. The resulting
certainty benefits all.
A number of achievements, especially recent
accomplishments, demonstrate the success of the
comprehensive claims negotiation process. To date 10
comprehensive land claims have been settled and 11 claims are
being negotiated. As well, the British Columbia Treaty
Commission has received statements of intent to negotiate from
44 First Nations and aboriginal organizations.
The James Bay and northern Quebec agreement and the
northeastern Quebec agreement represent Canada's first modern
treaties. They were signed in 1975 and 1978 respectively. The
two agreements are very similar. The Inuvialuit agreement,
signed in 1984, sets out the rights and benefits of the 2,500
Inuvialuit of the western Arctic. The next agreements concluded
with the Gwich'in in 1992 and the Tungavik Federation of
Nunavut in 1993 contained many provisions similar to the
Inuvialuit final agreement. They also include additional items
such as resource revenue sharing.
In April 1990 negotiators for the Dene and Metis, Canada and
the Northwest Territories initialled a final agreement for that
group's overall claim. However, in July 1990 a motion of the
joint Dene and Metis assembly called for the renegotiation of
fundamental elements of the initial agreement, effectively
rejecting the agreement as negotiated.
The legislation before the House is the result of intensive
negotiations over several years which led to regional claims
agreements with the Dene Metis. They are based on the April
1990 agreement. The Gwich'in of the Mackenzie Delta region
were the first Dene and Metis group to negotiate a regional
comprehensive claim. The Sahtu Dene and the Metis agreement
is the next regional claim settlement to be concluded. The
restoration of a land and resource base to sustain this aboriginal
society is key to the cultural and economic viability of the
communities concerned.
This government remains committed to the negotiation of
comprehensive land claims settlements. As a step to fulfil our
commitment to other aboriginal people without standing claims,
we announced on December 20, 1993 that the Government of
Canada would return immediately to the claims negotiations
table with the Labrador Inuit Association without any
preconditions.
As a parallel commitment to support regional
self-government agreements, our government mandated the
conduct of Labrador Inuit self-government negotiations
concurrently with the comprehensive land claim negotiations.
We are looking forward to receiving a proposal from the
Labrador Inuit over the
3449
next few weeks and we expect that tripartite discussions on that
proposal, which will include the government of Newfoundland
and Labrador, will begin very soon. I am optimistic that we will
reach an agreement with the Labrador Inuit within a reasonable
time.
Similar progress is being made with other aboriginal claimant
groups. As members are aware, offshore water is the primary
source of Inuit subsistence activities. This is no different for the
Inuit of northern Quebec. The 1975 James Bay and northern
Quebec agreement dealt with aboriginal rights to lands in the
province of Quebec only. It did not address Quebec Inuit claims
to islands offshore Quebec which are in the jurisdiction of the
Northwest Territories and the northeast coast of Labrador.
(1515 )
Negotiations began in 1992 and already a framework
agreement which is the first step to these negotiations has been
signed by Canada, the Northwest Territories and the Quebec
Inuit.
All of us have been aware of the government's various
initiatives to improve the social and economic circumstances of
the Innu nation in Davis Inlet in Labrador. Concurrent with these
initiatives we are also negotiating the Innu nation land claim.
Negotiations toward a framework agreement began in July
1991. Substantial progress has been realized in those
negotiations. There has been equally encouraging progress on
the potential interim measures related to the environmental
impacts of proposed development projects.
We expect the discussions which are tripartite in nature and
involve participation of the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador will result in a settlement with the Labrador Inuit and
the Innu nation to provide a land and resource base, one which
will promote regional development and self-sufficiency in
those communities.
The government also intends to introduce settlement
legislation for the Council of Yukon Indians over the next few
weeks. This will complete a lengthy negotiation process, one
which was begun some 20 years ago.
Negotiators for the Government of Canada, the Yukon
government and the Council for Yukon Indians signed an
umbrella final agreement in 1993. It establishes the basis for the
negotiation of individual settlements with each of the 14 Yukon
First Nations. Final land claims agreements and
self-government agreements have been signed with four Yukon
First Nations. Settlement and self-government legislation for
these agreements will be introduced soon.
One may well ask why all of these land claims agreements are
so important. The answer is both elementary and profound.
These agreements are the basis on which we can provide land
and resources to aboriginal people along with guaranteed
participation in land and resource management in a way that
provides for them their rightful place in Canadian society.
These modern treaties are the means for guaranteed
participation of aboriginal peoples in effective governing
structures dealing with renewable resources, land use planning,
environmental impact assessment and review, and land and
water regulation. In addition they provide the financial means to
allow aboriginal people to develop an economic base which will
sustain their futures.
It is only by clearing away the uncertainty over title to the
land that we are able to assure equitable access to the
development over land and resources. This becomes critical in
negotiating claims south of the 60th parallel, claims which we
are undertaking.
In addition to finalizing the claims in the north and beginning
negotiations in Labrador we are negotiating along with the
government of Quebec, the Conseil des Atikamekw et des
Montagnais, CAM, claim in Quebec.
Recently the Quebec government reappointed its negotiators
in another effort to accelerate the negotiations. General side
tables have been established to negotiate matters such as lands
and traditional activities, self-government and economic
development. The parties are aiming to complete the agreement
in principle by June 1995.
Negotiations with the Nisga'a are also under way in the
province of British Columbia. We have approached the
numerous land claims in British Columbia through a unique
process.
The governments of Canada and British Columbia and
representatives of First Nations have established a treaty
commission to facilitate and monitor negotiations, allocate
negotiation funding, and assist in dispute resolution. A further
function of the commission is to make public the reports on the
progress of the negotiations.
(1520 )
The British Columbia Treaty Commission is an impartial
arm's length body designed to facilitate negotiations.
Commissioners are appointed by the governments of Canada
and British Columbia and by the British Columbia Summit of
First Nations.
We intend that the negotiations in the province will include
both comprehensive claims and self-government matters in a
combined process. This will help to establish appropriate
linkages between claims, structures and self-government
institutions in various jurisdictional areas.
Given the importance of land and resource development in
British Columbia, a joint third party consultation process has
been established to address the interests of the third parties.
3450
I have sketched for hon. members the very promising
situation surrounding the comprehensive claims process in
Canada today. I am proud to be able to urge them to consider
favourably the Sahtu Dene and Metis land claims settlement
which is before them.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, my first question relates to the B.C. Treaty
Commission which was referred to as an impartial body. Three
groups are involved in those negotiations, represented by the
federal and provincial governments and the First Nations.
My first question is why are third party interests and most
especially the municipality or local governments that are
elected and influenced by local negotiations not represented in
that so-called impartial treaty commission?
My second question relates to the whole question of fee
simple land transfer. Is the hon. member familiar with the recent
B.C. Court of Appeal decision on the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en
case? Does the member concur that the fee simple transfer this
bill talks about goes far beyond any legal precedence as
expressed very well in that B.C. Court of Appeal decision?
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
questions. I know hon. members on the other side of the House
really like the colour red just as I do. I would like to quote a
portion of the red book which I carried with me in October: ``The
priority of a Liberal government will be to assist aboriginal
communities in their efforts to address the obstacles to their
development and to help them marshal the human and physical
resources necessary to build and sustain vibrant communities''.
The hon. member has asked a question which I will take under
advisement and my answer to his second question is no.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for her speech. I would like her to comment on a few
observations I have.
The original treaty signed by the treaty Indian people with the
agents of the crown were in part land settlements. They have
never worked out, not that they could not have because in some
areas there has been an enormous amount of wealth generated
from Indian lands.
The reason they have not worked out is because of the power
and control the department of Indian affairs has over the Indian
people. They cannot sell their grain without approval from the
superintendent of the department of Indian affairs and so on. It is
all there in the history of the treaties and the treaty research
many of the bands have conducted.
(1525)
Our party is supportive of the fair, equitable and rapid
settlement of these land claims so that the aboriginal people can
form a base upon which they can become economically
independent.
My concern about this agreement is that we are creating
another bureaucracy. It seems to be a fairly formidable one
according to what I have read.
Does the hon. member see the economic viability of this
agreement? In other words, will we see a time when the people
of Canada will no longer have to provide support through the
various programs for this particular group of Indian people? I
think there would be a lot of support from the people of Canada
if that is the case, if that is what we can see within this
agreement.
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon.
member's first question, one of the reasons they never did work
is because they were never honoured. They were left out in
limbo.
I am very optimistic about this process we are doing today. I
want to quote some information for the hon. member. The
agreement guarantees the participation of the Sahtu Dene and
Metis. They will be able to manage their own renewable
resources within their settlement area; land use planning within
the settlement area; environmental impact assessment and
review within the Mackenzie Valley; and regulation of land and
water use within the settlement area.
I believe this is the road to take for the dismantling of Indian
affairs. This is the road to take to initiate self-government.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, I have one more question.
There was some discussion about the history of these kinds of
negotiations in the member's statement. I just wondered
whether the member was familiar with the comprehensive
western Arctic Dene-Metis agreement. It was signed in 1990
and included a larger settlement area, but it included this
specific area within it. Would the hon. member comment as to
why the fee simple transfer of ownership in that period of time to
this group of people has approximately doubled in size since
1990?
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, in 1990 there was some
disagreement between the Sahtu and the Metis. Why we are here
today is so that they can take on their own initiatives and their
own mandate, so that they can do this themselves.
I encourage hon. members across the way to support us in this
venture. I believe we must work together on this venture.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I am going
to give the member for Dauphin-Swan River a break.
3451
I wonder if she might not agree that the degree of
compensation seems to be setting a very high precedent in
terms of what the compensation level is.
(1530 )
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member did not
hear what I had said earlier. I would hope that we could be very
positive and take a look at the positive side of this matter.
I am going to mention again that the agreement guarantees the
participation of the Sahtu Dene and the Metis. They can control
their own destiny. They can be managers of their own resources,
land use planning, environmental impact assessment and review
within the Mackenzie Valley, and regulation of land and water
use within that settlement area.
I encourage hon. members on the other side of the House to
accept our philosophy. Let us get on with self-government. Let
us allow the aboriginal peoples of the country to have some
dignity.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
the opportunity this afternoon to speak in the debate on second
reading of the bill tabled by the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, the purpose of which is to approve, give
effect and declare valid the agreement signed on September 6,
1993, with the Dene and the Metis. This agreement was
concluded following land claims made by these peoples, which
must be considered by this House in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982.
I am the elected representative for the riding of Châteauguay
and, as such, I am particularly aware of and concerned by all
matters connected with aboriginal affairs. The riding provides a
good example of the Amerindian problem or, should I say, the
problem of co-habitation between our peoples. The facts are
clear: sharing the lands of this continent first meant living with
them, then it meant hostility, then pushing some into the back
country and then creating reserves after a conquest in which they
lost everything. We cannot deny and we cannot get around this
historical truth, since we are faced with it every day. The proud
descendants of these peoples are only too willing to remind us,
each in their own way, of the cost of being neighbours on such a
fragile basis.
The most troubling challenge to us today is to find the right
way to deal with the problems we have created. There is the
silence of the young suicide victims in Davis Inlet. This is our
own third world, within our borders, the result of wanting to
share this land without respecting the aboriginal culture and way
of life.
The most troubling image is that of this anonymous
Algonquin in the subway, crowded all sides by the ultimate
cultural mosaic, and no one else realizes that his ancestors were
there first. Another troubling image: two faces staring
impassively at each other, their silence an eloquent metaphor.
With the reserve of Khanawake within its boundaries,
Châteauguay knows all about that, and that is why it placed its
trust in the Bloc Quebecois.
The Bloc Quebecois recognizes aboriginal peoples as distinct
nations, as it recognizes the two founding peoples of this
Canadian federation. Mutual understanding will depend on our
ability to share the same sphere of economic, political, legal and
commercial activities, as opposed to the present situation,
where we live in parallel worlds.
(1535)
This partnership must succeed and, with them like with the
people of Quebec, the best way to achieve mutual co-operation
is by recognizing first of all their existence as partners, as
neighbours, in their integrity, with all their rights and
obligations. The days when one nation exercised trusteeship
over another should be over.
In that context, the Bloc Quebecois welcomes Bill C-16 as a
form of recognition of the Sahtu Dene and Metis as nations.
Major exclusive territorial rights are being recognized to a
group of 2,000 people living on 41,437 squre kilometres in the
Mackenzie Valley, in the Northwest Territories, including
subsurface rights on an area covering 1,813 square kilometres,
some $75 million over 15 years and an annual share of the
royalties on the valley's natural resources.
Sahtu lands will be neither public property nor reserves.
Trough this agreement, the Dene and the Metis are guaranteed
private lands, which will enable them to be involved in land use
planning, protect their exclusive hunting rights, and determine
their economic development prospects as well as their future.
This is one more step toward self-government. That is exactly
what we are wishing for all peoples: the capacity to take in their
hands and have a say with regard to the management of their
natural resources, heritage conservation and regulations
concerning their lands and waters.
One point of particular interest to me is the impact of this
agreement on the land holding system. Since the Colonial era,
we had known two main types of property: private property and
public property. The former was a vested right of lords, settlers
and inhabitants, and today, it is a privilege enjoyed by citizens,
corporations and speculators alike. The latter was a prerogative
of the Crown, the clergy, the Colonial administration, and today,
the state, our governments.
The mid-19th century saw another type of property be
established, namely Indian reserves. It was then, and still is, a
special status granted to lands, a status nonetheless ambiguous.
We are dealing here with collectively owned lands which are
neither public, since they are not accessible to everyone, nor
private, since they are not controlled by individuals, but rather
by a tribal council which is responsible for administering the
reserve.
3452
I have some difficulty understanding why, in 1994, we have
yet to clear up this ambiguity. I think back to a time full of
promise when, in 1969, the government of Pierre Elliott
Trudeau promised action to bring about the full participation
of native communities. Even then, the Minister of Indian and
Northern Affairs, today the honourable the Prime Minister, said
that the legislative and constitutional basis of discrimination
must be removed. The government of the day was adamant that
services must come through the same channels and from the
same government agencies for all Canadians. The lawful
obligations of natives must be recognized and, to this end,
responsibility for administering native lands must be
transferred to native communities.
Despite the Trudeau era and his minister, 25 years later, the
problem of native self-government has yet to be resolved. Why
is this? Because the promised action was never taken, despite
the fact that, on June 25, 1969, the Minister of Indian Affairs
made a commitment to this House to act so as to give natives
control over and title to their lands. Listen to what was said at
the time. The minister promised to transfer to the provinces
federal funds normally provided for native programs so that the
provinces could take over the same responsibilities for natives
that they had for other citizens in their provinces. He was
committed to dismantling the department of Indian affairs and
giving its mandate to other federal departments.
(1540)
What was this minister talking about? He was talking of
transferring jurisdictions to the provinces, according to the
Trudeau government; of eliminating costly and unproductive
duplication and overlap. What did he actually do? The
department is still in place. It will spend over $5 billion. As for
transferring jurisdictions, in today's federal arena, only the Bloc
Quebecois maintains that it is necessary.
The Sahtu agreement paves the way to something other than
reserves for Natives. The Sahtu lands will fall under two
categories: those covered by the regulations and municipal
lands.
In the case of regulated lands, certain special conditions will
ensure the Dene and Metis' title to the lands. These lands cannot
be sold, mortgaged, seized or expropriated without being
replaced. Municipal lands, on the other hand, can be sold or
ceded, but if it is to an individual, they will no longer belong to
the Sahtu. The Sahtu's improved municipal lands will be
taxable, but those that are not improved will be tax-exempt.
This issue of ownership raises several questions, especially
since the Native crisis of the summer of 1990. This crisis arose
from claims for territorial autonomy and self-government. The
claims made at that time almost amounted to an offense
affecting
urban areas inhabited by thousands of people with deep roots in
their community.
In my mind, the Bloc Quebecois' support of the agreement
with the Sahtu Dene and Metis does not mean opening the door
to all land claims from a distant past. Neither the Bloc
Quebecois nor any other political party can recognize the rights
of one people at the expense of another. That is why negotiations
on self-government are so sensitive. We must consider these
negotiations in the light of today's realities, without forgetting
the past, of course, but by acknowledging that lasting relations
are based on mutual respect.
As the member for Châteauguay where the Kahnawake
reserve is located, I know that this agreement is good. I salute
the Mackenzie Valley agreement; I hope that it is only
recognizing today's reality, above all, and that it does not
discriminate against anyone.
[English]
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktituk.]
[English]
I rise to address the House on Bill C-16, the Sahtu Dene and
Metis Land Claim Settlement Act.
I am extremely pleased to speak in support of the legislation.
Bill C-16 fulfils one of the most important commitments made
in the red book, a commitment to resolve outstanding land
claims. As has been stated on a number of occasions this is a
priority for the government.
In the speech from the throne the government made a more
specific commitment to put before Parliament legislation to
further the implementation of northern claim settlements. Bill
C-16 is such legislation. It is an action to back up our words.
(1545)
Bill C-16 completes some unfinished business. It is a result of
governments and aboriginal people working together in a new
partnership of trust and mutual respect to ensure more certain
and prosperous futures for all northerners.
As hon. members are aware, Bill C-16 implements the land
claims agreement signed last September by Canada and the
Sahtu Tribal Council, which represents some 2,000 Dene and
Metis in the Sahtu settlement area of the Northwest Territories.
In the ratification vote held last July, 87 per cent of the Dene
and 99 per cent of the Metis were in favour of the agreement.
Voter turnout was very high.
As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
has stated, the House is now being asked to support the wishes of
the Sahtu Dene and Metis as expressed in their ratification vote.
I should say that the interests of the non-aboriginal people,
northerners and all Canadians are amply protected in the
agreement. The certainty of land ownership and rights provided
3453
through the agreement will allow the major resource
development projects to proceed. The moratorium on oil and gas
exploration will be lifted. I remind hon. members that the
government is committed to putting Canadians to work. This
agreement will help us do that.
Because of the many benefits it will bring to the settlement
area, the Government of the Northwest Territories is also a
strong supporter of Bill C-16.
The opening sentence of the preamble in the Sahtu land claim
agreement states:
The Slavey, Hare and Mountain Dene of the Sahtu region have traditionally
used and occupied lands in the Northwest Territories from time immemorial.
The location of that statement as the first sentence in the
preamble is significant. It is the reason we are here today.
The land claim agreement and the bill before us recognized
that the Slavey, Hare and Mountain Dene as the original
inhabitants of the Sahtu region have aboriginal and treaty rights.
These rights have been translated and affirmed through
negotiation into the rights contained in the land claim agreement
before us. It is a fact that the rights of the original inhabitants of
the Sahtu have not been adequately dealt with in the past. The
agreement returns to the Sahtu some measure of control over
what happens to land and resources in their homeland.
I draw the attention of hon. members to the objectives of the
land claim agreement. The objectives stress the cultural and
economic relationships which the Sahtu Dene and Metis have
with the land. The preservation and the strengthening of these
links, along with the clarification of land and resource rights
contained in the agreement, provide the basis for a renewed
partnership in a very important region of the western Arctic.
The Sahtu settlement area encompasses some 280,000 square
kilometres of land in the Mackenzie Valley. Under the land
claim agreement the Dene and Metis will own more than 41,000
square kilometres of that area, including the mineral rights of
about 1,800 square kilometres. The Sahtu Dene and Metis will
also own a wide range of specified substances under settlement
land. These include carving and construction stone, gravel,
gypsum, peat, sand and other substances.
Under the agreement there will be two categories of Sahtu
land. The first category is settlement land, which will be outside
municipal boundaries. Sahtu municipal land, the second
category, will be those lands located within municipal
boundaries. Certain special conditions will apply to settlement
land to ensure that it is never lost to the Sahtu Dene and Metis.
For example, these lands may never be sold, mortgaged or
seized under court order. They will enjoy special tax treatment.
If any of the land is expropriated, the government guarantees
that it will be replaced so that the initial amount of settlement
land is never reduced. Sahtu municipal land will be treated like
other privately owned municipal land in that it may be sold or
mortgaged. However, if Sahtu municipal land is sold or granted
to an individual, it will no longer be considered Sahtu land and
the provisions of the agreement will not apply to it.
(1550)
In this agreement third party interests will be protected and
will continue. As I mentioned earlier, the certainty of ownership
and rights this agreement will bring about are important for the
non-aboriginal people of the Northwest Territories, as well as
the aboriginal beneficiaries.
The settlement agreement should lead very quickly to new
investments in the oil and gas sector, which in turn will mean
employment and business opportunities for all northerners.
Before any oil and gas developments can proceed, however,
Canada must provide the Sahtu Tribal Council with an
opportunity to present its views on the matter. This is a key
principle of the land claim agreement.
As well, any operator proposing such activities must consult
with the beneficiaries on such issues as environmental impact,
potential impacts on wildlife harvesting, and Sahtu Dene and
Metis employment opportunities. Similar consultations will
also be required prior to the development or production of other
types of minerals.
The settlement agreement also provides a fair and equitable
financial settlement to the beneficiaries. Over the next 15 years
the Sahtu Dene and Metis will receive payments totalling 75
million in 1990 dollars. They will also receive a share of the
resource royalties from projects in the Mackenzie Valley. This
will amount to 7.5 per cent of the first $2 million of resource
royalties received by the government and 1.5 per cent of
additional royalties.
Special efforts will be made to strengthen the traditional
economies and economic self-sufficiency of the Sahtu Dene and
Metis.
As the minister has already stated, governments are
committed under the agreement to providing economic
opportunities related to guiding, lodges, naturalist activities and
commercial fishing.
These and other provisions will enable the five Sahtu
communities in the settlement area to improve their social and
economic opportunities to control their own destiny. It is they
who will make the decisions. Promoting self-determination by
aboriginal communities is a goal that is shared by all Canadians.
3454
The settlement agreement accommodates the government's
objective of increasing the participation of aboriginal peoples
in the decision making process.
The Sahtu Dene and Metis will be full and equal partners in a
renewable resources board that will be created to manage
wildlife harvesting in the settlement area.
The board will also have the power to establish policies and
propose regulations for all aspects of wildlife harvesting and
commercial activities relating to wildlife.
The Sahtu Dene and Metis will also participate fully on
boards responsible for land use planning, environmental
reviews and the regulation of land and water use in the
settlement areas. These boards will be institutions of public
governments within the settlement area. The agreement will
also provide constitutional protection of the special wildlife
harvesting rights the Sahtu Dene and Metis will have in that
settlement area, including the exclusive right to trap.
If for conservation reasons harvesting quotas must be set on
certain wildlife species or populations or in certain areas, the
harvesting needs of the Sahtu Dene and Metis will have first
priority.
The wildlife harvesting provisions of the agreement are
extremely important to the Sahtu Dene and Metis and other
northerners. Each Sahtu community will establish a renewable
resources council to manage the harvesting rights provided
under land claim agreements.
I am pleased that Bill C-16 provides for the negotiation of
self-government agreements with the Sahtu Dene and Metis. It
guarantees them a role in any process to reform the constitution
of the Northwest Territories.
I assure my hon. colleagues the agreement that will be put into
force by Bill C-16 does not affect any aboriginal rights the
Sahtu Dene and Metis may have to self-government.
A great deal of effort has been devoted to ensuring full and
proper implementation of the Sahtu Dene and Metis land claim
settlement agreement. In mid-1992, when the terms of the
agreement were taking effect, a special working group was
established to develop a 10-year implementation plan. This
plan, which was signed at the same time as the land claim
agreement, identifies all the obligations contained in the
agreement, the activities required to fulfil those obligations and
various other responsibilities, time frames and resource
requirements.
(1555 )
The implementation plan however is an accord among the
parties to the land claim settlement. It is not part of the
settlement agreement and therefore will not receive
constitutional protection. Nevertheless it is a vital document
because the land claim settlement must be properly
implemented in order to fulfil its aims.
The implementation plan is extremely detailed. It reflects the
commitment of all parties to ensure that the letter and the spirit
of the agreement are fulfilled. It sets out more than 100 separate
obligations, some of which may involve up to 20 distinct
activities. All parties to the plan have responsibilities to fulfil
many of these obligations. This underlines the fact that the
Sahtu Dene and Metis land claim settlement imposes
obligations not just on Canada but on the aboriginal
beneficiaries and the Government of the Northwest Territories.
It also emphasizes the need for all parties to work together in
implementing the agreement.
A key focus of the implementation plan is to give substance to
the commitments in the land claim agreement that the Sahtu
Dene and Metis will have genuine and meaningful participation
in the institutions of government.
To further the goal of successful implementation of the
agreement an implementation committee will be formed
comprising representatives of Canada, the territorial
government and the Sahtu Tribal Council. The committee will
guide the implementation process for at least the first 10 years,
monitor the status of the implementation plan and, if necessary,
amend the plan. It will also report each year on the
implementation of the Sahtu agreement.
One of the first orders of business will be to establish an
enrolment board which will determine eligibility for benefits
under the agreement. Eligible Dene and Metis living within or
outside the settlement area may also enrol with the board as
beneficiaries of the agreement. To be eligible they must be
Canadian citizens and Sahtu Dene or Sahtu Metis as defined in
the agreement.
An aboriginal person who is not Sahtu Dene or Metis but lives
in the settlement area and is a Canadian citizen may also be
eligible to enrol after the settlement is in effect. This will be
achieved through a community acceptance procedure which will
be decided by the Sahtu Dene and Metis.
The Sahtu claim is the second regional Dene and Metis claim
to be settled. The first settlement with the Gwich'in in the
Mackenzie Delta came into force in December 1992. This
agreement is now being implemented.
With the co-operation of hon. members on both sides of the
House we can ensure the Sahtu Dene and Metis will also soon be
benefiting from their own land claim agreement.
I urge my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-16. This claim
will benefit all Canadians.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, it seems a bit like the further we get away from the first
presentations the more murky some of the debate becomes.
3455
I would like to make a couple of points and then ask a couple
of related questions. We are really looking for open debate. We
are talking about an area three-quarters the size of Nova Scotia
to be set out in fee simple and constitutionally entrenched. We
wanted to create a circumstance in which we could get input
from members interested in inputting into the process. There
will be a diversity of opinion. There is no doubt about that. We
are certainly not looking to be obstructive in any way, shape
or fashion.
I am reminded of a current example in British Columbia
where we have quite a raging debate right now on the Kemano
project. That project was signed by two levels of government in
1951 originally and in the ensuing 40-some years many societal
values and other things have changed. That agreement was not
constitutionally entrenched, but we have a very complicated
agreement here that is planned for constitutional entrenchment.
My first question for the member who just spoke would be: Is
there not some sympathy with the argument that constitutionally
entrenching this level of detail has some inherent dangers?
(1600 )
My second question relates to a statement the hon. member
made relating to the Sahtu Dene and Metis co-operating on
amending the constitution of the Northwest Territories. I would
like clarification on that because that statement is something I
am certainly not clear on.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the first question is
no.
In 1999 there is an agreement to divide the Northwest
Territories into two. One part will be Nunavut which is the area I
presently represent and hope to continue to represent after 1999.
The western Arctic will be the area the Sahtu Dene and Metis
land claims fall under.
I suspect there will be a lot of discussion on the constitution of
the western Arctic portion of the Northwest Territories. It is
pretty well settled as to who will define the constitution of the
Nunavut area and that is us, the Inuit.
I think all the land claims groups in the western Arctic portion
of the Northwest Territories will have a great role in defining the
constitution of that western Arctic territory prior to 1999 in
order to ensure proper implementation of the western Arctic
territory.
Presently all the claimant groups in that western Arctic area
are about equal to the non-aboriginal people in that area as well.
Therefore I think the groups will have a large role in defining the
constitution of the Government of the Northwest Territories in
the western part.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker, in
what sense is the hon. member using the word constitution? Is he
using the word constitution in the sense of what constitutes the
western Arctic lands, or is he using it in the sense of the British
North America Act, which is really a legal provision that
determines how government shall function and so on? Could he
clarify that, please.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, in the Northwest Territories we
are basically colour blind. The proposal in the Northwest
Territories is to have two new territories which are public
government concepts. However a large role is played by the
aboriginal people in that area.
I answered the question on the basis that the hon. member
asked it in terms of the constitution of the Government of the
Northwest Territories as it relates to the British North America
Act. I was using it in those terms because all the aboriginal
people will have a large role in a public government as well as
the self-government again because of their sheer numbers.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I have a
follow-up question on the hon. member's response.
If the territories are going to create their own constitution,
then I would be interested in knowing whether or not the
aboriginal individuals will continue to have the protection of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms as guaranteed to all Canadians
within the Constitution of Canada.
(1605 )
Mr. Anawak: I am sorry I did not get that very important
question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If I could be of assistance,
I might ask the hon. member for Crowfoot to repeat his question
to the parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the hon. member's
response to the last question indicated there is going to be the
creation of a constitution for the Northwest Territories, my
question and concern is whether the aboriginal people involved
will continue to enjoy the protection of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms within the Constitution of Canada as all Canadians
now do.
Mr. Anawak: As I said, we are basically colour blind in the
Northwest Territories. All the residents will continue to enjoy
that privilege.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today in opposition to Bill C-16. Although there are many
positive things in this agreement, there are also many problems
with it.
I wish to direct my comments to the compensation package
given to the Sahtu Dene and Metis in this land claim agreement.
I have many concerns about the precedent this agreement sets
for land claim settlements and other negotiations in the rest of
the country.
3456
With every right there comes a corresponding responsibility
and obligation. I see many rights in this agreement. The Sahtu
are receiving a generous compensation package of land and
money, rights to resource royalties, rights to restrict public
access over large tracts of land and water, rights to participation
in resource management decisions and environmental
assessment, and rights to review economic plans and resource
development initiatives.
Where are the responsibilities outlined? Where are the
obligations summarized? With this agreement the government
has lost certain rights by handing them over to the Sahtu
peoples, but what is the diminishment in government
responsibilities? These are questions which need to be
answered.
The monetary compensation package in this agreement is
generous. The Sahtu have been awarded a non-taxable $75
million cash settlement to be paid out over a 15-year period with
accrued interest. This will add up to approximately $130 million
for the current population of 1,755 people.
The agreement does not explicitly state why this money is
being awarded. If it were compensation for not having had the
use of the land they were entitled to under treaty, they are
receiving $1 million for every year the government failed to
fulfil the treaty land entitlement provisions of 128 acres per
person. But there are few fences in the Northwest Territories so
they have had the use of the land for traditional purposes.
In the recent Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement
Framework Agreement funds have been set aside to enable the
First Nations to purchase the shortfall in treaty land themselves.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been set aside for this
purpose, but they will not be able to buy anywhere near the
amount of land the Sahtu have been given in addition to their
cash compensation.
Apparently this money was just part of the settlement. Does
this mean that the government would have given them even
more land if they had not received the $75 million? This is
extremely generous.
What is the responsibility that goes with the awarding of the
cash payment and these royalties? If the Sahtu Dene and Metis
have not lost any of the privileges which accrue to them under
the Indian Act, then what does this mean? Does the crown have a
fiduciary obligation with respect to Sahtu monetary decisions?
On the face of this agreement it would appear that it does.
Settlement dollars and land title are vested in Sahtu
organizations, not individuals. If five or ten years down the road
the Sahtu people from a community charge that one of these
organizations have mismanaged their money or land, who will
be responsible? If, as the former Indian affairs minister implied,
this settlement has given the Sahtu the necessary land and
resources for a brighter future, do the Sahtu also have the
obligation to actively pursue that goal for future generations?
(1610)
This agreement also provides the Sahtu Dene and Metis with
resource royalties. As previously stated they will receive 7.5 per
cent of the first $2 million of resource royalties received by the
Government of Canada in any given year and then 1.5 per cent of
any additional royalties. These royalty shares will be from the
entire Mackenzie valley. What is the explanation for this? How
can the government justify this royalty deal to the Canadian
people?
The Sahtu are given fee simple title to more than 41,000
square kilometres with subsurface rights on 1,800. This
agreement gives them traditional use rights and significant input
on resource development decisions on over 280,000 square
kilometres. Now they will receive a share of government
royalties over 900,000 square kilometres of the Mackenzie
valley.
All resource royalties are calculated on a different basis. Oil
and gas royalties tend to be based on production. Mineral
royalties are based on profit. Exploration for diamonds and
other minerals is on the increase in the Mackenzie valley. We do
not know what our proven resource potential is north of 60.
Just exactly how much money are we talking about here? It
appears the Sahtu do not know, the government does not know,
no one knows. Only the taxpayers of Canada will know when
they have to make up for the royalty shortfall out of their
pockets.
As each northern comprehensive claim is settled more groups
will receive a share of the government royalties. The Gwich'in
are already a part of this deal as was stated earlier. As each group
is added on, the government share of royalties decreases
proportionately. What precedent does this set for claims
settlements in the rest of Canada?
If the government gives up most of its resource royalties
based on these precedents north of 60 other taxes will clearly
have to go up. The Canadian people are already overtaxed. As a
result of this agreement obviously they will have to pay more in
the future.
Is this government being responsible? Is it giving hope to
future generations of Canadians?
This new right to resource royalties the government has given
the Sahtu people does not appear to have any responsibilities
attached. The minister talks about giving them some control
over resources so they can control their own economic destiny.
That is certainly a worthwhile objective, but where does it say
any of this money will be used to further the aspirations of the
Sahtu people? They continue to rely on the federal government
to provide special programs and funding.
The government may suggest Sahtu responsibility for all of
these functions will come later after self-government
agreements are reached. However this government is taking
great pains to point out that no one knows what the eventual
form of self-government will be. This government has no idea
what
3457
responsibilities the Sahtu or other aboriginal groups will
assume under their specific self-government formulas.
We are talking about the rights and responsibilities that arise
out of this particular agreement. The Sahtu are receiving many
monetary rights without the attachment of any significant fiscal
responsibilities. They are receiving a land base and royalties
without an obligation to use them to further the economic and
self-sufficiency objectives outlined in the agreement. I am very
concerned that it sets a bad precedent for fiscal responsibility in
future self-government negotiations.
This agreement also establishes a number of boards for
resource management and environmental assessment. In some
ways this is a positive development. The Sahtu have recognized
that many of the board activities, functions and decisions are
technical and not political.
Opening up the appointment process allows the Sahtu to
nominate technically competent people to represent their views
and interests at the table. If those people are not doing their jobs
in the future, they can be removed easily without the
repercussions removal of a political nominee would create.
Increasing the number of boards also adds to an existing
problem. In 1992 one Toronto paper said there were already
6,200 bureaucrats and 800 boards and agencies in Yellowknife.
There are fewer than 60,000 people living in the Northwest
Territories in 62 communities. That is more than one bureaucrat
for every 10 people and one board or agency for every 70. Surely
that is enough. Imagine the chaos if we tried to run the rest of the
country as inefficiently.
(1615)
Yet this bill proposes more boards and with one or two
exceptions does not propose to eliminate parallel boards at other
levels of government. All stakeholders should have the right to
have input into resource management decisions and these boards
provide the Sahtu people with a mechanism for that
participation.
Will these boards provide a more informed and cost effective
way for northern residents to ensure that environmentally and
economically sustainable decisions are made in the best
interests of all Canadians? Will they take the responsibility to
represent all interests seriously? I hope that is the purpose of
these boards. I hope that this was not just a Tory job creation
scheme for the north. Only time will tell.
The Sahtu, Dene and Metis received title to more than 41,000
square kilometres. The settlement lands of the Sahtu peoples fall
within the treaty 11 territory. In 1921 treaty 11 was signed by the
crown and the ancestors of the Sahtu Dene who are now
signatories to this land claim agreement.
Among other things treaty 11 provided for the establishment
of reserve lands. It is obvious now and it was obvious then that
the whole reserve system envisioned by Ottawa bureaucrats was
unworkable.
It was even more irrelevant for the people living under
completely different conditions in the Northwest Territories.
Reserves do not make sense to people who must follow the
caribou to survive. One only has to look at the tragedies of
substance abuse and suicides in communities like Davis Inlet to
see the end results of past misguided policies of clumping
people who traditionally ranged much further afield into small
groups.
It is because the crown never upheld its promise in 1921 to
provide treaty lands that we find ourselves discussing this
agreement here today. The government did not have to make
reserves out of this land entitlement. It could have spread the
entitlement out as land in severalty in traditional camps or along
family trap lines. This should have been a specific claim
settlement because it lies within treaty 11, not a comprehensive
claim settlement.
During the 1970s the Dene and Metis people took the position
that they had never surrendered their rights to all of the land. It
appears that the government chose to agree with this position
rather than uphold or slightly modify the provisions of the
treaty.
Under treaty 11 people were entitled to 128 acres per person.
If the government had fulfilled its lawful obligation under the
terms of the treaty even at this late date far less land would have
been transferred. Although the Metis would not have received
land under the old treaty, including them now means that the
Sahtu Dene and Metis beneficiaries would have received just
over 900 square kilometres of land with subsurface rights.
In this agreement the government doubled the treaty land
entitlement to 1,800 square kilometres. Then it stepped
completely outside of the treaty and beyond its lawful
obligations and added another 39,000 square kilometres without
accompanying subsurface rights. Instead of 128 acres per person
the Sahtu have received 20 square kilometres per person. I
would call this quite generous.
After doubling the treaty land entitlement and after
guaranteeing traditional use rights over the entire settlement
area of 280,000 square kilometres, why did the government give
the Sahtu fee simple title to 39,000 more kilometres? I would
ask the question is this fair and is it a just settlement?
Recent court decisions in Canada have recognized aboriginal
rights to the land. In the Delgamuukw Court of Appeal decision
last June the court clearly distinguished between land ownership
and land use. The traditional use rights are to be determined on a
case by case basis. The aboriginal rights referred to are for the
use and enjoyment of the land according to tradition and culture
while recognizing there are other third party interests which also
require use of the land base.
3458
The courts do not currently hold that the aboriginal right to
the land is a right of ownership but of use. This agreement goes
far beyond that. Not only have fewer than 1,800 Sahtu Dene
and Metis retained the right to hunt, trap and fish throughout
the settlement area, but they have a share of resource royalties
in perpetuity, a generous cash compensation and a significant
land and resource base.
(1620)
For all the rights the Sahtu have received, what are their
accompanying responsibilities and obligations? Despite the
generosity of this agreement, the crown retains responsibility
for program delivery and for special economic development
programs to encourage self-sufficiency. These programs are in
addition to the many government programs the Sahtu and other
Canadians are eligible for.
Where is the incentive or the responsibility to become
economically self-sufficient if the government is committed to
providing programs indefinitely?
The crown has gone far beyond its lawful obligations and is
not getting any diminishment of its responsibilities in return.
Although the agreement states that government is not liable for
damages or losses due to the failure of a Sahtu organization to
comply with its administrative obligations, what does this really
mean?
If the government does not get any concessions from the
signatories regarding their assumption of program funding and
delivery in this settlement then it is certainly not going to get it
from south of 60 where governments cannot afford to be quite so
generous.
The continuation of government's involvement will incur
increasing fiduciary obligations despite the fact the Sahtu now
have the land and money to begin to take responsibility for these
functions themselves.
This agreement is setting a precedent for self-government
negotiations down the road. Where First Nations in the future
may have a tax base and the economic means to provide for their
own programs, will they choose to rely on government funding?
Instead of downsizing with the devolution of programs and
authority away from Indian affairs, we seem to be encouraging
greater bureaucracy with little fiscal responsibility at the local
level.
What precedent is the crown setting for negotiators in other
treaty territories and in comprehensive claim areas throughout
Canada? There is a clause which extinguishes all future Sahtu
claims to additional land and water, but treaty 11 also had an
extinguishment clause. The government chose to renegotiate the
land entitlement provisions and resource royalties even though
it takes the position that the Sahtu did surrender title to the land
in 1921. The extinguishment clause in this agreement
apparently provides greater certainty to the government, but
extinguishment is extinguishment.
Modern day treaties are far more complex and it is hoped
more equitable, but will they be any more binding on the
parties?
The Indian Act was created in an era when paternalistic
government believed that the Indian and Inuit peoples of Canada
needed protection from unscrupulous land speculators and
others, but it evolved into the misguided monster we see today.
The Indian Act created dependencies where none existed
before. Government assumed responsibility for all decisions
regarding monetary or land transactions and removed all
responsibility and decision making authority from the people it
sought to protect.
It is time that government got out of the business of making
decisions for people. Government must restore the dignity of the
Indian, Inuit and Metis people by letting them make their own
decisions and allow them to be responsible for the consequences
of those decisions.
Government has given the Sahtu a settlement with extensive
rights. Now it must ensure that the Sahtu assume the
responsibilities that go with those rights.
The government of the day has the right to negotiate fair and
just settlements with aboriginal peoples who have outstanding
claims, but the government also has the responsibility to ensure
that those settlements are fair for all Canadians.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the Reform Party reminds me of
the story of Rip Van Winkle who slept for so many years that
when he woke up things had changed drastically. I think
Reformers are still sleeping with the attitude they have.
(1625 )
Their attitude is surprising when they say how generous the
government is. I think the Sahtu Dene and Metis have been
pretty generous by giving up 240,000 square kilometres of land
to the Government of Canada and only retaining 41,000 square
kilometres and 1,800 of subsurface and surface rights. I think
that is pretty generous.
I would like to think that the Reform Party can see reason.
However, that might be impossible to ask of such outdated
thinking.
To the three speakers from the Reform Party, how would they
feel if they woke up one morning and somebody said they can
live on their land but laws are going to be proposed which they
have to obey on how to live, where to live, outlawing their
beliefs, taking away their dignity, taking away their hunting
rights, not allowing them to vote, putting in a new justice system
3459
that is totally foreign to them, and in the process infecting them
with smallpox, tuberculosis and other communicable diseases?
How can they be so dense that they cannot understand that the
Government of Canada and the people of Canada are now trying
to correct a situation, an injustice that has been around for a few
hundred years?
I will repeat my remarks from earlier. The Reform Party
members talk as if the aboriginal people are invading their land.
It is as if we are taking land away from them. They can record
their history in hundreds of years. We can record ours in
thousands and tens of thousands of years. The sheer audacity of
this group-I am at a loss for words.
How would they feel if they woke up one morning and
suddenly found themselves subject to a totally different kind of
life than they had been used to for years and years?
Some of them make statements that they are all for aboriginal
self-government, self-determination. Strip away that veneer
and I think all we see is paternalistic statements from the
Reform Party. It is like saying some of my best friends are
Indians. It is good to say it but it does not really mean much,
because the respect and the support have to be there from within
rather than just saying it on the surface.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for his comments. I do not think that anyone
would deny that there have been injustices done. I detailed some
examples of that, how that has taken place down through the
history of our country.
I think also that what I was trying to get at in my presentation
is that when rights are granted to individuals or to groups there
are corresponding responsibilities that go with those rights. I do
not see in this agreement where that is taking place within the
confines of the agreement. I see all sorts of things being granted
to this group of Canadians, and I think we have to distinguish
here that we are all Canadians and we have all benefited from
this great land of ours in different ways. Even the native people,
the aboriginal people, have clearly benefited from Canada. My
comment is that they also have to take responsibility. If they are
going to go down the road toward self-government-there
clearly does not seem to be any definition of that forthcoming
from the opposite side of the House-then obviously there
should be this devolution of power, to the Sahtu people in this
particular case, to the aboriginal people in Canada, but also they
should be seeking to give up any further rights to aboriginal
programs.
(1630)
My hope always was that once we came to a reasonable and
fair settlement and self-government for the aboriginal people
that at some point we would all be treated equally. There would
not be any programs specifically based on race any more.
I see that this agreement does not accomplish that, even
though the monetary compensation is paid, even though the land
use is guaranteed, even though the fee simple land is given over,
even though subsurface mineral rights are given to these people
from the Government of Canada. The bottom line still appears to
be that they do not give up any future access to aboriginal
programs, either existing ones or ones in the future. That was the
thrust of my speech. That is my concern.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the hon. member and I have a hard time coming to grips with the
root of his reasoning.
He suggests somehow that Canada is giving them something.
In his speech he even goes on to suggest that other agreements
would have given them less. I cannot really comprehend it. Then
the hon. member goes on to say we are going to give them these
things but what are their obligations. In other words he wants to
pay homage or lip service to self-government but then turns
around and says we should be making the rules for them and tell
them what their obligations are. That is what I hear in the
speech.
We are not giving the natives anything. It is already theirs. We
are simply arriving at a suitable accommodation so that the
country can forge ahead.
I saw a cartoon once where two Indians are standing on Mount
Royal watching Jacques Cartier land. The soldiers are about to
get off the boat and come ashore and one Indian is saying to the
other: ``Let them land. What harm can they do?''
Does the hon. member really believe that we are giving them
something by these agreements? I have really failed to
understand what direction he is coming from. We have already
taken. It is already theirs.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for his question and comments regarding my
presentation.
What I was referring to was that the ancestors of the Sahtu
Dene did sign treaty No. 11. As signatories to that treaty certain
things were decided on, one of which was that there should be
128 acres granted per person under the treaty. What we see under
this new agreement goes far beyond that.
I believe that as a people and a country we are giving up
something. If we are not then I would ask the member in return
where is the $75 million coming from? It is coming from
3460
somewhere. Someone is giving that money and it is we as a
nation, which includes all the aboriginal people, all of us are
giving that. I am not saying we as a race or we as a party or we as
a government. I am saying we as a nation are giving up some of
the things that are in this agreement. I dispute his point.
(1635)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Given the nature of the
debate today, if any one of you should be watching the clock
very carefully you will notice that I am going to extend the
period of questions and comments because I want to hear from
the Secretary of State for Training and Youth.
I think all of us in the House would recognize her interest in
this issue and that of others. But in this instance I would like to
give the floor to hon. Secretary of State for Training and Youth.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth)): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member. I know that he has had intense briefing this very day
and put forward quite a few ideas concerning this claim.
I just want to say that some of the things I am hearing in this
debate are very disturbing. It is a very ethnocentric view that is
being perpetrated, but then I suppose that is the reason why we
have different political ideologies. We totally support the land
claims process. In fact as a government we want to make that
process fairer and more equitable for the aboriginal people.
It is unfortunate that this particular claim is receiving all of
the concerns that the Reform Party has. It is not specifically the
Sahtu claim that is being dealt with here. It is the Reform Party's
political agenda regarding aboriginal issues: self-government,
compensation. However there are a number of things I want to
hit on.
Talking about treating all Canadians the same I think is very
misguided and misdirected through this claims debate because
talking about treating aboriginal people the same is not treating
them fairly necessarily.
If you know the language of constitutional debates and of
aboriginal justice you will know that treating people who are
poor, who are probably one of the poorest groups in the country,
who have the highest unemployment, who have the highest rate
of suicide-in Big Cove one a month-if you think about the
social statistics, the under representation of aboriginal people in
the financial institutions, the political institutions and when you
think about the over representation of those people in terms of
incarceration, poor health, poverty, suicide and a number of
other social malaise, you will know that treating the people the
same is not treating them fairly. Maybe we can eradicate that
view.
Second, I would like to say that you are talking about the
finality of the claim. It was my grandfather, Chief George Zault
Blondin who signed treaty 11. It was with the good intent of
holding in trust those things that we hold dear to us. I know from
the history of my people that it was not to forfeit anything. It was
signed to secure and hold close the things that mean something
to aboriginal people.
This is a peculiar arrangement, a very difficult process, which
for the last 20 or 24 years these people have undergone. They
voted for it. They want it. We recognize that as a government. By
taking the debate one step further, the hon. member alleges that
if we have a deal there has to be finality, there has to be an
element of certainty, that if we reach an agreement the people
have to be responsible and must not ask for anything else.
My question to the hon. member is this. Is he alleging that
once provinces become provinces they should not ask for any
more transfer payments? Is he alleging that once municipal
governments are formed they should not look for any subsidies
in terms of tax benefits or anything like that? Is he alleging that
any form of government that is established outside of the federal
government should have that same finality as well? If we are
going to treat people the same, so should governments be treated
the same.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will certainly give the
hon. member for Prince George-Peace River the same
generosity of time to respond.
(1640 )
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I will
address my comments to the last question first. That is not what I
am advocating. When the municipalities of the Sahtu Dene are
formed I would think and hope they would be eligible for the
same programs and the same benefits as any municipality in
Canada.
What I was referring to were programs specific to one group
based on race, in other words, specific aboriginal programs.
That is what I was referring to. Certainly, once they form their
municipalities and have self-government, they should be
eligible for the same programs as any other municipality in any
province.
I have a couple of other quick points because I know time is of
the essence. I agree with the hon. member. The system has failed
and part of the reason it has failed in the past is that they have not
been treated equally. People were segregated and shoved on to
reserves and they had to live there.
That is where the system failed in the past. They were not
treated equally. Therefore I still hold on to the long-term goal
that gradually we can reach a point where all Canadian citizens
will be treated equally. I noticed that the hon. member used the
term that she was interested in a fair and equitable settlement for
the aboriginal people. Certainly that is my concern and I think
the concern of my colleagues in the Reform Party as well.
3461
We go a bit beyond that. I would say to the hon. member that
we are concerned about a fair and equitable settlement not just
for the aboriginal people but for all the people of Canada. We
feel we do not just represent one group. We represent all
Canadians and we are speaking on behalf of all Canadians when
we raise these issues.
She also mentioned that she had concerns about the Reform
Party's position, that we were using this debate and it was not
specific to this agreement. I agree with her. Obviously we are
trying to bring other issues concerning the aboriginal people to
light using the format of the debate here today.
We are very concerned about the precedent that one
agreement will set. It might be used in future agreements
throughout the country and we are using the debate to bring
forward some of these other issues. I thank the hon. member for
her comments and her questions.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): 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 Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, MIL
Davie shipbuilding; the hon. member for Portneuf,
bilingualism; the hon. member for Frontenac, job creation.
[English]
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, I have spoken
here a few times. I have made some statements but this is my
first speech in the House. I am very honoured to be sent to the
Parliament of Canada to represent my constituents, not only the
aboriginal people in my area but also many non-aboriginal
people.
As an aboriginal person and First Nations member, I have
been involved in this discussion for many years both as a chief in
my reserve, Red Sucker Lake Band, and also as a member of the
Legislative Assembly in Manitoba for well over 11 years. I have
committed myself to this process for a very long time. What I
find is that I have to repeat myself over and over again many
times to get my point across.
When we talk about the aboriginal people we have been here
for thousands and thousands of years. We have had governments
for thousands of years. We had societies. We had political
structures, social structures. We had our own languages. We
traded with other nations. In that way we have existed as a
nation, as a government in this country. When the first European
people or the settlers arrived they were met by the First Nations
in this country. They welcomed these people on to the shores of
what we call Canada today. Whether it was on the west coast or
on the St. Lawrence River we were here; even through Hudson
Bay, which I am very familiar with, down to the Nelson River to
Winnipeg we welcomed these people.
(1645)
If it had not been for the kindness and the generosity of our
people many of those people would have perished. If the Lord
Selkirk settlers had not been helped by Chief Peguis, many of
these people would have perished.
What surprises me in this country is the lack of understanding
or the ignorance of the history of this country. We see the
Canadian Constitution being proposed as supreme law in this
country, entrenching in the law of this land the recognition of
two founding nations, the French and the English. We know very
well that the first people here were the First Nations. Yet your
Constitution is based upon the supremacy of God and the rule of
law.
There is a myth concerning the Canadian Constitution and the
truth. Any constitution should be able to tell the truth, built upon
strong foundations that will not crumble but will stand the test of
time. The Canadian Constitution never did that. That is why it
crumbled, it did not acknowledge the truth and reality in this
country.
It was the First Nations that contributed so much to this
country by signing treaties. What does it mean when you sign
treaties? It means that you enter into an agreement with another
nation, in this case the settler people represented by the Queen
with our representatives of the First Nations.
There were many pre-Confederation treaties and a number of
treaties made in Manitoba and today what are called modern day
treaties. Treaties are about establishing relationships. That is
what it is all about. As a matter of fact, when we say inherent
right to self-government, we are exercising the very authority to
sign the treaties. We did not need Parliament to tell us we have
treaties. As a matter of fact, there should be a formal recognition
by Parliament that we always had the inherent right to
self-government. It is not something that can be granted by
Parliament or by Canada, because we came to the table as
equals. That is what the treaty making process is all about,
establishing that.
In that process we shared the land and resources of this
country from which many people have benefited all over the
world. How generous and how kind we have been to the rest of
this country. What kind of benefits have we received so far?
Look at the situation in Davis Inlet or in my home at Red Sucker
Lake. We have poor housing conditions. We do not have running
water. We do have unemployment rates higher than in the cities.
I am sure that if unemployment reaches 20 per cent it is a
national disaster across the country, but it is 90 per cent in many
of these communities. Nobody cries about those kinds of
conditions.
All we want is governments to honour and respect the treaties
they have signed with us. We do not expect anything more or
anything less because we have contributed so much to this great
country and we have not benefited at all.
3462
(1650)
We talk about the special relationships. I know we have a
special relationship, but I do not mean special in the way that we
are better off than anyone. We have a unique relationship which
no other group has in this country. We want governments to
honour that.
This government has proceeded to do what has not been done,
and that is to settle and implement inherent right to
self-government. We are not asking it to give us
self-government. It has never been anyone else's concern to
give us anything. It is a matter of acknowledging that we have
always had that.
We talk about the Fathers of Confederation in Charlottetown.
What about our forefathers who signed the treaties? Can they
not be mentioned in history as contributing to the well-being of
everybody else in this country? There is no formal recognition
of our people. All we are asking for is to settle the outstanding
issues, the treaty obligations. The spirit and intent of the treaties
should be honoured.
Many people have risen and spoken here but all we asked for,
compared with what money has been spent, has been very little.
Consider how much land and resources have been generated in
this country and shared by the aboriginal people. I am sure
billions and billions of dollars have been made off this great
country. Yet when we ask for money we are not asking in the
sense that we are begging for it, we have been asking
governments to honour their treaty obligations, if only a small
portion allocated under the control of First Nations.
If we look at the treaty making process, government officials
went back and developed the wording. They never really
understood what the native people were saying. First, our way of
life and our philosophy is to share what we have so we shared the
land and the resources so that we would have respect for each
other, that we would live side by side with each and that we
would co-exist with each other and help each other. That was the
spirit and intent.
It was never our intention to be governed by a government.
We have never extinguished or surrendered the right to govern
ourselves. It has never been that. When we signed the treaties
they were signed nation to nation. As a matter of fact, it was a
recognition when we signed treaties that we were nations. As a
nation we expect governments not to act unilaterally in the way
history has shown us and in which they created the Indian Act
which has total control over our lives. It even defines who we are
today. This has to be done away with and we have to have a
renewed partnership. That is the challenge that faces us today.
How can we honour that? I know we have honoured our bargain.
We expect the government with the support of the opposition to
honour the promises of its forefathers, those they made to us. We
do not expect anything more or anything less. That is all we ask
for, we do not ask for very much. We have been very patient for
a very long time and it is time the government honour those
treaties.
(1655)
That is why I am very honoured to speak on Bill C-16. It is a
very small part. We want to be part of this country and we have
contributed so much to this country as well, but no one seems to
talk about it or at least acknowledge it. If they acknowledge it
somehow they seem to be obligated that they have to provide
more things or more benefits.
If the governments alone were to provide for their treaty
obligations there would really be no need to ask for more
funding. We talk about finality. In the treaties it says as long as
the sun shines and the rivers flow and the grass grows. That is
the terminology used. It is forever, the relationship that we have.
We are very committed to this country. We want Canada to be
wealthy. We want Canada to be united. We love this country. We
love this land. We love everybody. I often say jokingly that our
immigration policy was wide open, and it has been to show what
kind of people we have been. We have been very kind but it has
been the governments here that have always dictated and put
restrictions on. It seems like within our own homeland we are
treated like foreigners, we are treated like outside citizens,
second class citizens.
The first order of business should be the First Nations
business in this country. We should settle the treaties and settle
land claims. I speak in favour of this bill. I hope members will
support this bill.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Churchill
on his first participation in debate. I think we were very
appreciative of the words he spoke, his commitment to Canada,
and the warmth and conviction with which he speaks.
I have spoken to many Canadians and I am sure I speak for
millions of Canadians who would like to express appreciation to
the hon. member for Churchill for the part he played in the
debate over the Meech Lake accord. I have had many people
express to me their appreciation for the fact that the hon.
member for Churchill played a major and a significant role in
defeating the Meech Lake accord and preventing it from being
imposed upon Canadians.
I also want to congratulate the hon. member on his concern
over Canada as being a country built on two founding races. I
know that my Reform colleagues and I for many years now have
shared the view that as a false conception of Canada it is not
relevant in very many parts of the country and certainly does not
recognize the role played by the true founding race of Canada,
the aboriginal people.
3463
I do have a question. On our side of the House and in our
caucus we have asked the minister of Indian affairs, we have
asked the Prime Minister and we have asked many influential
members on the government side to provide us with a definition
of aboriginal self-government. I heard the hon. member for
Churchill speak about aboriginal self-government today. It is
very difficult for us to fulfil our role as an opposition until we
have the terms of aboriginal self-government defined for us so
we can determine whether they are good and just and will make
us a better country and will enhance the role of aboriginal
people within the nation, whether it may be divisive and
negative on the country. I plead with the hon. member for
Churchill. Would he at least be so considerate as to give us his
definition of what aboriginal self-government is.
(1700)
Mr. Harper (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, self-government
simply put is to administer our own affairs, to be able to make
our own decisions and to determine our own future. It is a very
simple statement but very complicated to implement.
Self-government entails many things. It means to start
developing our own institutions, language, culture, education
and our own First Nations government structures.
In negotiations self-government is based upon what kind of
agreement is reached. My position has always been that the
fundamental basis and foundation from which we negotiate are
the treaties. When the first governments met we sat down
together and came up with a treaty. That formed a basis for our
relationship with the government. In return we were to have
certain benefits.
However we have never extinguished the right to
self-government. It has never been surrendered. To me the
treaty making process has never come to an end. What needs to
happen is the government needs to sit down with the First
Nations in this country.
One of the reasons the constitutional process failed is that the
very question the hon. member asked was raised at the
constitutional table. All the first ministers and the Prime
Minister asked the same question. They were the ones really to
say what kind of structure we have. It was not based on equality.
We were not being invited as equals; we were just invitees at the
first ministers conferences. It failed because we were not equal
in the negotiations.
Sometimes we get invited equally on a level playing field.
However often when we are on that level playing field or let us
say we are in a skating arena we find we have no ice skates or
equipment, yet we play according to their rules. That is the kind
of process we have been involved in. We are not being treated
equally.
It should be based on the treaties, nation to nation. Once that
is recognized instead of trying to determine what is best for us,
we should sit down as equals, equal to First Nations. I think that
would resolve a lot of the questions.
Self-government is not something which is defined in a paper.
It has to be negotiated with the First Nations. It may vary from
the Micmacs to the Haida people because they have different
cultures and a different way of doing things.
There is the potlatch system. Potlatch is a system of
government. We have the clan system which is another
traditional form of government. There is Iroquois confederacy.
These different systems of government have been here for a long
time, whether they will be modified or not. Those are things we
go through.
When the hon. member asks for a definition of
self-government, it is a matter defining it in the negotiation
process or through a treaty process. It is not black and white but
it is a process that hopefully the governments are going to be
undertaking so we can resolve it.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, we are
competing with each other to be recognized by you.
First of all I would like to congratulate the member for his
speech today and the straightforwardness with which he
expresses his point of view.
(1705 )
I for one am in this House to help resolve this problem. I
definitely would like to see as much consultation and work as
possible with the aboriginal peoples, the Indians, the Metis and
the Inuit so we can resolve these long term outstanding
settlements and agreements.
I know the settler people are here. I know the white man took
over, those immigrants when they first landed. Perhaps the hon.
member for Churchill would appreciate the current 1 per cent
rule the Liberal government has and he would have maintained
control.
Repetition is important; it is a fact of life. If he has to give a
similar speech again and if he has to repeat it five or six times, I
would encourage him to do that.
There have been a lot of wrongs committed. A lot of injustices
to the native peoples have been perpetrated over the years. We in
this House are not the ones who have perpetrated this crime nor
made these mistakes. We are here to learn from these mistakes
and we are here to try to make it better.
It is in this light and in this vein I wish to address the hon.
member and let him know that what we are concerned about is
the consultative process. Will he agree with us or put forward
the next time he speaks the type of self-government the native
people or the aboriginal people want will comply with the
current law? He has his problems with the other tribes and other
3464
nations. There is a problem with that interfacing with the laws of
the land as they are today. It is a fact of life that the Government
of Canada is here and it has to be negotiated with.
Will the hon. member try to put an answer in the context that
what they are seeking for in terms of self-government will in
fact comply with the laws we have today? How can we get over
that hurdle? What would his response be on that basis?
Mr. Harper (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, certainly the problem
we are wrestling with is not as a result of our laws. It is as a
result of the laws that were passed here a long, long time ago,
well over 100 years ago.
Many of our people have been put outside of their
communities as a result of laws that were passed here. If we had
exercised our own laws many of our people would still be
enjoying the benefits of our societies. When we are concerned
about leaving out people or people not being represented or
losing their rights, the principles of that will be maintained by
our people.
Certainly, when we are talking about self-government
structures we cannot operate with the kind of laws that have
been put in place. If we did that all we would be doing would be
implementing the colonial oppressive policies on ourselves.
Therefore, a new kind of system would have to be recognized
and a level of government would have to be established in which
we would be able to exercise jurisdiction within our own
territory.
When talking about justice, whose justice are we talking
about? Usually the dominant society has the upper hand in
dispelling justice which is quite different from ours in terms of
value systems. We could get into a big debate about that, but I
certainly think the aboriginal people in their own traditions have
maintained the kind of structures that would provide all kinds of
rights and benefits to our communities.
I do not see any kind of loss of rights if we were to administer
our own jurisdiction in our own territory. I have no hesitation in
saying that.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise and respond to
the hon. member for Churchill.
This really is what Parliament is all about. I am personally
very honoured to have been here for the hon. member's first
intervention and to have heard him speak so passionately and
honestly about his life, his experiences, dreams and aspirations.
Obviously it came from the heart. It is not something I could
live; I cannot be in the hon. member's skin. We can learn a
tremendous amount from each other.
I want to assure the hon. member, other members in this
House and others in our land that our role here is to oppose the
government, to challenge its program and to try to ensure that by
a spirited and healthy debate we end up with a better solution
than we would have had without that debate.
(1710 )
I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I look forward to
more in the future.
What would the member do faced with this situation? The
situation is that all across the land on reservations there are all of
the social ills and the unemployment the hon. member
described. How do we go about changing that, not just on
reservations but for urban Indians as well?
Mr. Harper (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, first of all we would
like to be in a position to make our own decisions. We would like
to exercise our own jurisdiction in respect of our territories. At
the same time we would expect the government to honour its
treaties so that we would have the resources and the financial
wherewithal to address and alleviate some of those problems
that are so apparent in our communities such as unemployment,
the high suicide rates and the economic conditions.
We are not asking for any special funding or to consider
anything special. All we are asking is that the government
honour its treaty obligations. Housing, medicare and education
are under the treaties, just to give an example of what we are
talking about.
What is important is that the government tends to make
decisions for us and that has to stop. By not supporting this bill I
think what is being said is that the hon. member is agreeing to
the policy which exists today. What is being said to me is that he
is not agreeing with the government's policy and legislation to
allow us to make those decisions.
With respect, the amount of dollars we are talking about is
very small compared to the spending government has had. As I
said, we have been very generous. We are not asking for billions
of dollars in this package. We are asking for a very small amount
of money compared to the kind of money spent overall.
My first answer is, allow us to control it and honour your
commitment by supporting this bill. Actions speaker louder than
words.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, just a point of order to correct
what I believe is a small error. In Canada we have reserves, not
reservations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am not sure that was a
point of order. However, the point has been made and I thank the
parliamentary secretary for his intervention.
3465
Let me add also my own remarks that I feel honoured to have
been in the Chair on the occasion of the member for Churchill's
first intervention and debate on the floor of the House of
Commons.
Let me also compliment all members in the House,
particularly those who have participated in the debate and even
those who did not participate through this intervention but who
listened very attentively. The tone was most encouraging and
the sensitivity in respect of the debate is much appreciated by
the Chair. I compliment all members present.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, I would like
first to thank the hon. member for Churchill who gave us a
lesson in history. He spoke from his heart and also with great
wisdom, and I can only hope that his speech will help improve
our relations with aboriginal nations, as well as our
understanding of those people.
This having been said, we have before us a bill to approve,
give effect and declare valid the comprehensive land claim
agreement of the Sahtu Dene and Metis, which was signed on
September 6, 1993. The region covered is a territory of 280,000
square kilometres, in which live some 2,000 people representing
five communities. The Bloc Quebecois supports this legislation.
(1715)
At this point, I would like, for the benefit of those who are
listening here and across the country, to give a chronology of the
events which have led to the tabling of this bill today.
In 1976, the federal government started negotiating under a
land claim process with the Dene and the Metis of the
Mackenzie Valley. In 1981, these negotiations led to a final
agreement which was concluded in April of 1990. On September
6, 1993, the agreement was signed by the Queen and the Sahtu
Tribal Council, in Fort Norman, Northwest Territories.
A plebiscite was held from July 5 to July 8, 1993, to ratify the
agreement. The agreement was approved by 85 per cent of the
Dene and by 99 per cent of the Metis. On January 13 and
February 11, 1994, the tribal council approved certain
amendments to the agreement. Just what is this agreement all
about?
First, its purpose is to achieve certainty and clarity of rights
with respect to ownership and use of some lands and their
natural resources. The agreement is divided in two parts. The
first one deals with issues such as self-government, royalties on
resources, taxation, financial and economic measures, rights
over water, as well as wildlife harvesting and management.
Financial compensations totalling $75 million, in dollars of
1990, are to be provided over a period of about 15 years. An
annual proportion of royalties collected on resources from the
Mackenzie Valley is also covered by the agreement. As well, an
annual proportion of royalties collected on resources from the
Norman Wells oil and gas development is also covered. Indeed,
7.5 per cent of the first two million dollars collected by the
government during a given year and 1.5 per cent of any
additional amount will be used as royalties.
The agreement also includes participation in land use
planning, renewable resources management, water and land
control, as well as preservation of the Sahtu heritage in the
region covered. Federal, territorial and municipal laws will
continue to apply to Sahtu Dene and Metis, and also to the land.
A Renewable Resources Board is created. This board is a legal
entity, which means that it can take legal action and can itself be
sued. It can also set policies and propose regulations on the
commercial harvesting of wild animals and on commercial
activities related to wildlife. It will be the main wildlife
management organization in the region. It is composed of seven
members appointed jointly by the federal government and the
territorial government, with at least three members chosen from
a list submitted by the Sahtu Tribal Council.
I said that this agreement was in two parts. The second part
concerns land and distinguishes between areas with rights to
underground resources and areas with only surface rights.
Property rights cover 41,437 square kilometres in the
Mackenzie Valley region, with mining rights for 1,813 square
kilometres.
At this time, I think it is appropriate to talk about the
aboriginal question in a broader way, going beyond the specific
subject before us now and putting it in the larger context in
which it belongs anyway and on which the rest must necessarily
be based. Perhaps we could begin with the native issue in
Quebec.
I remember a song heard fairly often on radio and television in
the 1970s, which told the story of what our colleague from
Nunatsiaq was talking about earlier, I believe.
(1720)
In the beginning, in his tent, a very easygoing native man
received a white man, who asked permission to plant a stake,
just a single little stake. The reaction was, ``Well, my God, it is
just a single stake, so why object, it is so simple and easy; it is
not much, go ahead, plant your stake''. Some days passed and he
was asked permission for a second stake; a few more days went
by and a request came for a third stake. Several months later,
after a series of stakes had been installed across the forest, he
was asked to let a wire go through. Every time, the native had
always agreed in good faith and complied with great pleasure.
Once the wire was installed, he found himself with concrete,
highways, houses, buildings and he finally had to move his
teepee. The song goes on for about three minutes, but I have to
shorten it. However, I believe that it expressed a certain
inescapable reality.
3466
Many people have asked me, and I am sure that many of my
colleagues in the Bloc have been asked the same question, Mr.
Speaker, ``What will Quebec do about the native people?'' That
is the wrong question. Not only is it the wrong question, but
it is one which should not be asked in the first place.
First, we are not doing anything about the native people. If
something is to be done, it will be done together, as equals. It is
not up to us or anyone else to decide what must be done about
native issues. This is a matter that must be negotiated and
covered by agreements between equal nations. The question
arises how this translates in Quebec and how our perspectives on
the matter have developed since the sixties.
I may recall that on April 8, 1963, the Government of Quebec
resumed contact, administratively speaking, with the aboriginal
peoples within Quebec territory. Until then, the federal
government's responsibility was paramount and it still is today.
The Government of Quebec at the time established the Ministère
des richesses naturelles et de la Direction générale du Nouveau
Québec. Within New Quebec, the department was responsible,
with the exception of those areas that were already administered
by Quebec, for the administration of justice, provincial police
services and the services of the department of lands and forests.
At the time, the purpose was to develop natural resources.
Not until federal responsibility for community and municipal
services was transferred to the province 17 years later, in
February 1981, was the direction générale du Nouveau Québec
able to start concentrating on education, although it had, as in
1963, stated its desire to respect the Inuit language and culture.
By the way, I would like to commend the hon. member for
Nunatsiaq on using his mother tongue. I don't understand when
he speaks in his own language, but we must realize that language
communicates culture. When I speak French, I am able to
express ideas in a certain way, and I would be unable to do so in
English because language is a reflection of culture. When the
hon. member speaks in his native tongue, we don't understand,
and I think that is his message to us. We don't understand. And
when we realize that we don't understand, perhaps then we will
start showing respect, and he has my respect.
To continue this short history, in the early seventies, the
federal government published a White Paper on native policy.
Quebec established the Commission de négociation des affaires
indiennes, whose purpose was to work together with the
department of intergovernmental affairs and other departments
involved in negotiations with the Confederation of Indians of
Quebec, and with the federal department of Indian affairs and
Northern Development regarding Quebec's responsibilities
vis-à-vis the Indians of Quebec or Indian affairs.
(1725)
The Commission de négociation des affaires indiennes was
also supposed to make recommendations on an integrated policy
on Indian affairs and to propose measures to be taken in order to
implement the policies concerning Indian affairs.
On November 11, 1975, the Quebec government signed the
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement with the Crees and
the Inuit. On January 31, 1978, it signed the Northeastern
Quebec Agreement with the Naskapis of Quebec.
We were then facing a new reality in Quebec government
departments: the aboriginal reality. And the whole of the
Quebec policy on aboriginal people was summed up in two
agreements only. Therefore, we had to give ourselves a more
comprehensive policy; that is why on January 18, 1978, the
Secrétariat des activités gouvernementales en milieu
amérindien et inuit was created and the Direction générale du
Nouveau-Québec and the Bureau de coordination de l'entente
were abolished.
Then came the eighties. In January 1987, the secrétariat was
given a new name, Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones, and its
new mandate was to negotiate global agreements in
co-operation with the various departments involved. Let me
remind you that the preamble of the Charter of the French
Language says that ``the National Assembly of Québec
recognizes the right of the Amerinds and the Inuit of Québec, the
first inhabitants of this land, to preserve and develop their
original language and culture''.
And self-government is certainly the focus of discussions
between aboriginal people and governments. It was the subject
of four constitutional conferences held in Ottawa between 1983
and 1987. There again, they talked about the principle of the
inherent right to self-government, but unfortunately that right
was not entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. Natives have
to get some political leverage if they want to really exercise that
self-government because this is the way to their economic
self-sufficiency.
Self-government means giving aboriginal people complete
jurisdiction over health, education and social services they
receive. It means giving them full jurisdiction also over the
administration of justice, environment, public safety and land
and forest management.
I would now like to present this House with some statistics
that should give it some food for thought. It should interest as
well those who are watching this debate at home.
In 1991, there were, in Quebec, 39,590 Indians living either
on reserves, in establishments or on treaty lands, whereas
15,794 Indians lived off their reserves. On top of that, there were
6,400 Inuit living in northern settlements in the Hudson and
Ungava Bay area.
3467
We are therefore dealing with a native population of 61,754
according to the 1991 Census, which represents one per cent
of the total population in Quebec. The lands set aside for them
amount to 14,770 square kilometres. The main native peoples
or nations are the Mohawks, with close to 16,000 members; the
Montagnais, with more than 11,000; the Crees, with a little
more than 10,000; and the Algonquins, with more than 6,000.
Nations vary in size from 242 for the Malecites to more than
15,000, very close to 16,000 for the Mohawks. Fifty per cent of
these communities have less than 500 members. Their annual
birth rate is 2.4 compared to 1.4 for other Quebecers. Seventy
per cent of Indians living on reserves do not have a high school
diploma. Their suicide rate is three times that of Quebecers. The
native infant mortality rate is three and a half times higher than
in the general population. Life expectancy for Indians on
reserves is 8.6 years shorter than for the rest of the population.
Indians account for 2.74 per cent of inmates.
Here are now a few statistics for Canada as a whole, again as
food for thought. Twenty-five per cent of natives are
unemployed, whereas Montreal, with 19 per cent, has the
highest unemployment rate in the country.
(1730)
The average income is 33 per cent lower. The unemployment
rate for native people on reserves is 33 per cent, and 16 per cent
of natives say that their race is a barrier to employment, which
proves that racism and discrimination are probably fairly
prevalent.
In 1990, 13 per cent of native adults did not have any income,
compared to 9 per cent for the general Canadian population.
Only 5 per cent of natives had an income in excess of $40,000 in
1990, compared to 15 per cent among Canadians in general.
Seventeen per cent had an income of less that $2,000 and 29 per
cent were on welfare. Forty-two per cent of native welfare
recipients lived on reserves.
The main problems encountered by natives are, in descending
order of importance: chronic unemployment, alcoholism,
family violence, suicide, sexual abuse, rape. Six per cent of
natives have diabetes compared to two per cent in the general
population, even though this disease was unknown among native
people in the 1940s.
Forty-five per cent of Indians on reserves claim that their
absence of mobility is a problem. Twenty per cent of native
housing is in need of major repairs against eight per cent for all
dwellings in Quebec. Ten per cent of native dwellings did not
have toilets, less than half were heated with electricity.
Nevertheless, the average rent was $410 in 1991.
Crib death among native infants is 4.7 times higher that the
national rate, and deaths in the 15 to 44 age group resulting from
drowning, fire, shooting and vehicle accidents, can often be
linked to alcohol abuse. The suicide rate among young adults is
22 per 100,000, twice the national average.
The only way to give back their dignity to the First Nations is
to treat them as equals. Nobody has a secret formula for reaching
the results which must be obtained before the next century, but
everyone should keep an open mind and a fair attitude. We could
thus negotiate on an equal basis and come to suitable agreements
like the one signed with the Dene, which is before us tonight.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
would first like to congratulate the Sahtu Dene for the very
professional manner in which they have pursued this agreement
and the help they have been to me and to others in trying to get a
handle on this debate and exactly what is in the bill.
It is my view that in Bill C-16 the majority of what is written
is innovative, imaginative and very worth while.
At the outset I want to point out that I will be raising some
points while speaking about the bill. The intent is to make it
better and to understand what we are talking about. This is
probably one of the very first times that there has ever been a
debate in the House of Commons over such an important issue.
These issues come before the House and because they are
politically sensitive or motherhood issues they never end up
being debated honestly. It is this lack of honest, vigorous debate
which may have allowed us to arrive in the position we are at
today.
It is our job, our function, our responsibility not to
automatically assume that everything the government presents
is right and holy and good. Our job is to assume that everything
the government presents is exactly the opposite.
An hon. member: And can be improved.
(1735 )
Mr. McClelland: And can be improved. It is in that spirit I
make my comments today and I know my hon. colleagues do as
well.
We are all aware that Bill C-16 will pass eventually. It will
pass intact or with moderate or very little change. The question
then is this: Why am I and my colleagues so impassioned about
this debate? That is the question. Why would we even bother?
The other question is: This is a debate of incredible
importance, at least in our view, to the nation, and yet how much
ink does it get? Where are the priorities in the nation? We are
talking about the First Nations, the first people in our country.
They have traditionally, we know and acknowledge, been the
recipi-
3468
ents of something less than the kind of treatment of which we
should be proud. Yet for the very first time it is being debated.
Unfortunately it will probably get very little interest outside the
House.
Why then do I think this is the most important speech I have
given in the House thus far, and why do I care so deeply that
what we do is right? It is because the relationship between the
first people and the immigrants, that is all of us that they
welcomed to this continent, has largely been one of paternalism,
of manipulation, of neglect and of isolation.
We acknowledge that there are two sides to every story. While
we-I am speaking essentially as a white person in this
country-have not much to be proud about, neither do our native
brothers have very much to be proud about either. We have to
recognize that there are two sides to this story and
responsibilities on both sides. We must accept responsibility,
but so must the aboriginal people accept responsibility for their
lot in life.
That is not to say there have not been examples of inspiration
and achievement. But in general, especially on the prairies
where I am from, we have nothing to be proud of. By using that
as a starting point and as a base, what can we do, where do we go
from here?
As in everything we have to recognize the situation as it is, not
as we would wish it to be. We have to recognize both sides of the
issue; those who will receive the benefits of this agreement, and
also those who are going to be paying the bills. Because we are
all, as it was mentioned earlier by an hon. colleague, and we
have to make it work. If it is not good for both sides it will not be
good for either.
Aboriginal Canadians comprise about 5 per cent of the
population, and yet aboriginal Canadians are over-represented
in every statistic that speaks to failure in our society and they are
under represented in most statistics that represent success. This
was so eloquently put across to all of us by the hon. member for
Churchill when he talked about his experiences. We know this, it
is not something we are debating at all.
How did this unholy circumstance happen? Did it happen by
accident? I submit it did not. It happened because our
forefathers chose not to accept the aboriginals as brother human
beings, equal in every respect, in human rights and in dignity.
Instead, aboriginal Canadians were treated as innocents, they
were in need of the benevolent protection of the state.
Aboriginal Canadians were herded on to reserves, isolated from
the world, out of sight and out of mind. That has largely been the
situation for many years, one of benevolent ignorance, ``let's
not pay attention to it and it won't be a problem''.
It does not matter whether the intention was good or evil. The
result today is the circumstance that aboriginal people largely
endure, a circumstance in many respects no better than South
Africa's discredited system of apartheid, so deservedly
denounced in all the civilized world. Aas we debate today, free
elections are under way in South Africa. Another nail is being
driven into the coffin of the marginalization of indigenous
peoples around the world. South Africans should and must be
congratulated for this giant leap forward and that indeed is a
giant leap forward for mankind.
(1740)
However, I must get back to Bill C-16, the comprehensive
land claims settlement of the Sahtu Dene and Metis. How would
the bill lead to a better way of life for those involved and will
this settlement lead to self-sufficiency, pride, self-respect and
self-confidence of the Sahtu Dene as a people? That is the
question. If what we are talking about would lead to
self-respect, pride, self-confidence and self-sufficiency, then it
would be a very small price to pay. It is what we all want to
achieve. It is where we want to be at the end of the day.
Unfortunately I think the answer is a qualified no. I do not
know if it is going to achieve the noble objectives which are
envisioned for it. While there are aspects of the bill my
colleagues have already questioned, I need to point out that
16,000 square miles is an awful lot of land for just 2,200 people,
not to mention $130 million over 15 years.
Why do the Sahtu Dene need so much land and why does the
government pay them so much money, while at the same time
they are still entitled to all the benefits all other status Indians
have today or may receive in the future?
Sixteen thousand square miles is a lot of land. However keep
in mind that over much of the year it is covered with ice and
snow. Also keep in mind there really are not a whole lot of
people up there and the traditional way of life for the Sahtu Dene
is trapping, hunting and fishing. Not a whole lot of people are
trying to get into that land either, except to explore and get at the
resources and we still have that opportunity.
As I understand it the Sahtu Dene will be the custodians of the
land. We should not make any mistake. The land will be theirs in
fee simple. However, except for about 700 square miles all
Canadians will have access, with permission where possible,
provided they do not harm the land or destroy the environment.
We can look at the immense amount of land and look at the
Sahtu Dene and Metis because there will not be any reserves.
This is all settlement land. We can look at it as a big national
park but the park rangers are the traditional inhabitants, the
Sahtu Dene and Metis. While they will be getting the land in fee
simple, they do not own the resources of the vast majority of the
land. They own the resources of about 700 square miles. That is
an important consideration.
3469
However, if resources are found in any of that land, they will
via royalties be able to participate in the profit. The money, $75
million to be paid out over 15 years, is intended to help develop
a commercial infrastructure and is paid to the band council.
With the money they can set up hunting lodges-if handguns
or rifles are not banned-and with fishing and guiding try to
get some tourist trade going.
The idea of the Sahtu Dene is to participate, to be doing
something, rather than sitting back and for this they are to be
recognized and congratulated.
The reality is that we, the Government of Canada, are going to
pay out $75 million over 15 years. The money is not going to
disappear. It will be recycled through the band to the
community. I think that financial commitment may turn out to
be a mistake and this is the primary reason why I have a problem
with the bill. Remember it is in addition to any existing
entitlements.
In my opinion the Sahtu Dene would be well served if their
commercial activities had to undergo the same checks and
balances as any other commercial venture anywhere else in
Canada. The band council could consider a system of guarantees
but the focus should be to develop entrepreneurs who would
repay their stake and be accountable for use of the money.
However the most important consideration is: Will the
agreement lead to self-sufficiency? Will this get people off
social assistance and into the mainstream of Canadian life?
(1745)
Unless the entrepreneurs in the Sahtu Dene nation have
obligations, they are not going to be able to develop skills as
entrepreneurs that will allow them to become part of
mainstream life. All of us exist in a competitive society and we
cannot take ourselves out of it. If we are going to get into
business, we are into business. We cannot be half in and half out.
Otherwise it will be a black hole in which we will be throwing
more and more money.
I think, though, it could be but only if the land settlement and
cash payment are one-time deals. That is why the agreement is
so very important. In my opinion the agreement will set the
stage for future agreements to be negotiated across the country
in the months and years ahead.
Most Canadians want to do the right thing by our aboriginal
brothers. Most Canadians feel a collective sense of
embarrassment over the condition and situation of many
aboriginal Canadians. We will not improve their situation by
creating still more dependence and throwing still more money at
the problem. Therefore this would be a much better agreement if
the Sahtu Dene and Metis were to receive the benefit of the
agreement or their traditional entitlements as agreed, but not
both.
That is a fairly major change. They would receive the benefits
of the agreement or their traditional entitlements, but not both.
The way it is set up today, they would receive all their
traditional benefits plus all the benefits that accrue to them
under the agreement.
There are only 982 people to participate in this. How will that
do anything to promote self-sufficiency? We must remember
that when the settlement is done the Sahtu Dene will get the
benefit of the royalties of resources on the land. Those royalties
would today give them $200,000. How does anyone know what
might be found there in the future?
By accepting this land settlement and the royalties that come
with it as well as the cash settlements, the Sahtu Dene should
also accept the same rights, freedoms and obligations of any
other Canadian in any other part of the country. That is the only
road that leads to self-sufficiency, self-respect and dignity.
Continued dependence generation after generation leads to
exactly what we do not want whether the recipients are
aboriginal or not. This settlement offers at the very minimum
hope of a better future for the Sahtu Dene and Metis. I am
concerned that the agreement sets a bad precedence because it
does not regulate the use of the cash payment. The land
settlement is absolutely enormous. It is not clear if there is a
provision to make changes in the agreement if it is subsequently
seen to be in need of correction. The agreement is entrenched in
the Constitution under section 35 because the Sahtu Dene are
already covered under treaty 11.
Another consideration has to be the implementation of
aboriginal self-government. It is my opinion the Sahtu Dene
will be responsible in implementing a combination of band
council and municipal government. We have to face it that in
this circumstance there are only about 2,800 people in the entire
16,000 square kilometres and they are mostly concentrated in a
few communities.
Finally the agreement will be entrenched in the Constitution.
Therefore I am of the opinion that the charter rights would
prevail as the law of the land despite any future self-government
negotiations.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, the member who just spoke was a businessman in his
previous life. Has he looked at the agreement from the
standpoint of the new bureaucracy, how it would affect doing
future business and how it would affect existing businesses
within the settlement area?
(1750 )
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not looked at it
carefully from that perspective. I contacted Mr. George Cleary,
president of the Sahtu Tribal Council, and talked to him about
this settlement. He seemed in conversation to be very concerned
that whatever was done on both sides of the table be done right
and be done in a responsible manner.
3470
There are provisions in the agreement to set up an enormous
level of bureaucracy. I believe there are seven, eight or as many
as nine other bureaucracies. He was very clear in saying they
understand the potential for problem there and would be very
cautious to ensure that did not happen by perhaps having people
wearing two or three different hats at one time.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for my caucus colleague from Edmonton. I appreciate
and understand his concern about the size of the grant of funds.
What about inherent self-government and how that will
interface? Perhaps he has an idea of how inherent
self-government could be negotiated on the reserves within this
large land area and how that would interface with the laws of the
rest of Canada. Does he see any potential conflicts there? Should
this be negotiated now before we do the land settlements?
He talked about precedent. That is something they did not
mention. I would like to know as a businessman how he would
be negotiating this deal from that point of view.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that
entirely unexpected question.
The implementation of self-government in this particular
circumstance will be very different from the implementation of
self-government in other circumstances. This is an enormous
area with relatively few people who are by and large involved in
a traditional lifestyle, with the exception that they particularly
want to get more involved in oil and gas exploration.
Self-government in this particular model would be one that
would be more municipal; it is envisioned as being more
municipal than it would be federal.
Something we would want to keep in mind in this whole
self-government consideration is that if 5 per cent of Canadians
are of aboriginal ancestry, and yet something like 40 or 50 per
cent of Canadians in jail are of aboriginal ancestry, then
somewhere along the line we have gone horribly wrong. If we
need to make a leap of faith to try to right that wrong then it is
incumbent on us to do exactly that.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
would the hon. member make a distinction between land use
control, oil and gas development and self-government as such?
Does he see an intrinsic difference between them?
Obviously oil and gas development would not be compatible
with the structure and powers of a municipal set of governments.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, on the whole question of
mineral exploration or exploration for anything the
self-government model would have to go to a provincial model.
In this particular case the people involved have indicated they
would be flexible to do whatever is necessary and to do whatever
is right. It is a learning process for everyone involved.
The important thing in the whole aspect of self-government
as I envision it is not to replace one with another but is to say:
``Give us the opportunity to earn and to have our dignity by
making our own laws. This is our land. We know our land. We
know how to look after our land a lot better than you do. Give us
the power to do so''.
I think particularly in this agreement the Sahtu Dene have not
tried to say this was their land exclusively. It is very clearly laid
out in the agreement that with the exception of about 700
kilometres it is open to anyone on permission. The caveat is not
to destroy the environment or harm the land. In answer to the
direct question it would not work as a municipal but it might be a
combination of municipal and provincial. Who knows?
(1755)
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great
interest to my hon. colleague's speech. He raised some
questions that I might like to refer to and ask him one in return.
He asked: ``Is this agreement fair?'' If this agreement were
arrived at by an equal number of participants who wanted to
make an agreement that would stand and serve their interests,
those of Canada and those of the aboriginal people, it is probably
fair.
He said that 16,000 square kilometres was a whole lot of land.
I agree but we do have a lot of land in the country. Then he said
they were custodians. I suggest aboriginal people made less
impression on this land in 36,000 years than we immigrants
made in the past 200. In fact in the past 50 years we have done a
pretty good job of changing the face of this land.
It might be a good thing to return some custodianship to those
who believe that the land suckles us all and that it is here for our
children and grandchildren and not for our exploitation.
He said that the Dene wanted to participate but that the money
may turn out to be mistake. He asked: ``Will this agreement lead
to self-sufficiency?'' All members of the House would like to
say they hope very much that it will. Certainly what we have
been doing up to now has not led to self-sufficiency. Maybe we
had better try another approach to see whether it will work.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I did not really hear much of a
question in the comments, but I would pretty much echo
virtually everything he said. We are basically on the same
wavelength.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
will admit that I am not an expert on native affairs, land claim
settlements or treaties that were signed years ago. However
because I am the only Reform member from Manitoba, and
Manitoba being probably a model of self-government for the
rest of Canada, I would like to point out a few things that could
have some effect on self-government for Manitoba which are
3471
kind of laid down in the guidelines in the Sahtu Dene and Metis
bill.
Through the agreement the government, as far as I am
concerned, has shirked the wider public interest in dealing with
aboriginal land claims. North of 60, which is the Northwest
Territories and Yukon, comprises 40 per cent of the land mass of
Canada. Ownership up to now has been with the federal
government, which should control it in the best interest of all
Canadians. It would appear however that the government like
the one before it is more concerned with being perceived as
politically correct than it is in administering the land in the best
interest of all.
The people in this part of the country have seen four major
territorial agreements. There have been four massive land claim
agreements since 1984. The Inuvialuit agreement covered the
western Arctic. The Gwich'in agreement dealt with the
Mackenzie River Delta and the Nunavut agreement covered the
eastern Arctic. Now we have before us the Sahtu Dene and Metis
agreement which covers the Great Bear Lake region. These
agreements typically give vast amounts of land to a relatively
small number of people. The land settlement agreement to Sahtu
Dene and the Metis includes land equal to 28,000 square
kilometres or about five times the area of Nova Scotia.
(1800)
There are, however, only about 1,755 beneficiaries. This
works out to approximately 160 square kilometres per person,
an area 10 kilometres by 16 kilometres per individual. If you
take that into miles it is 6 by 10 miles which is 60 sections per
individual, 36 sections in a township. Each individual will
receive approximately two townships of property.
These agreements give generous concessions to the
recipients, including the constitutionally entrenched rights for
aboriginal fishing, trapping and hunting forever. If any outside
group wants to use this area in the future for something like
forestry or the development of oil and gas it would have to go
through several complex layers of regulations including native
negotiations. This could seriously deter any potential investors
from setting up shop in these areas.
This bill will also provide cash payments of $130 million over
15 years. This works out to approximately $74,000 per person.
Also included in this agreement is a percentage of resource
royalties from any gas, oil and mineral development. No
indication is given as to how much money this would include.
When combined with the agreements that preceded it we have
an area of over half a million square kilometres. That is half the
size of Ontario and it is granted to a population of 23,800
individuals. These actions have taken this land with its untold
resources out of the hands of all Canadians and put it into the
hands of a few.
This bill has special significance to me because I am the only
Reform member of Parliament from Manitoba. The hon.
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has
indicated that Manitoba will be a test case for aboriginal
self-government. I am very concerned that this Sahtu Dene and
Metis agreement sets a precedent for future Manitoba
agreements. Manitoba has a native population of about 84,000,
four times the amount that these four agreements include.
I am not sure that this government can define everything that
would be included in self-government but to put it in
perspective, if the agreement that C-16 deals with is used as a
model and the same concessions are eventually given to
Manitoba's 84,000 natives, the government would have to agree
to land claims of about 13.4 million square kilometres.
Since Manitoba covers about 650,000 square kilometres this
is obviously impossible. This would mean that the federal
government would have to purchase another 20 Manitobas
somewhere to settle the land claims. Maybe this would be a way
of selling my farm land which I am told is very valuable,
although it is hard to get the money out of it.
Based on the funds that are given under the Sahtu Dene and
Metis deal, about $6.2 billion is going to be handed over to the
84,000 Metis. Where will the federal government get that type
of money to settle all the land claims? What is the figure
eventually going to be for the rest of the native people in
Canada?
One week after the Charlottetown accord referendum was
defeated a leaked government document indicated that the
government had few answers as to what self-government would
entail. It had no idea of how much it would cost, where it would
get the money or how many aboriginal groups would want to be a
part of this.
I am simply not confident that this present government has a
better grasp on these matters. Yet, through the Sahtu Dene and
Metis agreement the government will enter into a future
agreement for self-government.
(1805 )
As I stated, the model for self-government is not clear. Thee
is a reference in appendix B of the land claims settlement
agreement for local law making on a range of powers that are
normally exercised federally or provincially. I would hope that
the government could assure Canadians that this does not mean a
new legislative law making body would be set up with a new
judicial system all for the benefit of fewer than 2,000 people.
As I mentioned, huge questions surround how Manitoba will
become a testing ground for aboriginal self-government. The
number of acres of land that will be set aside for Manitoba
natives and the amount of money involved are two more of the
3472
obvious questions, but there are no answers because they do not
make sense in this agreement.
What will the related costs add up to, for example the cost of
policing a judicial system? In appendix B of the Sahtu Dene and
Metis agreement there is a framework that considers
transferring not only administrative responsibilities but also
legislative powers. The extent to which this applies in any
self-government initiative remains to be determined in future
negotiations.
This leads to a number of questions. Would this include a
special and separate native police force? Who will be
responsible for the hiring and training of such a police force?
Who would be responsible for the incredible costs involved?
There is also the question of whether the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms would apply to any self-government arrangement
negotiated in accordance with this agreement. That is a question
that is not answered in this agreement.
A very questionable aspect to this agreement is the additional
layer of bureaucracy it creates to administer the land, the water,
the resource and the wildlife provisions. Renewable resource
councils will be established by each community. A renewable
resource board will be created by the government. Sahtu Dene
and Metis will make up half the membership on this board. An
arbitration panel will be formed to settle disputes relating to this
agreement without going to court. A land use planning board and
a land and water board will each be set up, with 50 per cent
membership for the Sahtu Dene and Metis.
There will also be an environmental impact review board and
a surface rights board. Together with an expected act on the
Mackenzie Valley resource management, this agreement will
give rise to a whole new layer of bureaucracy.
Who will pay the salaries and expenses of the members on this
new layer of government? Are we just training the Sahtu Dene
and the Metis to become bureaucrats? Currently all of these
functions are performed by either the department of Indian and
northern affairs or the government of the Northwest Territories.
I see no commitment to phase out these current boards. I wonder
if they will continue to exist even though their jobs have been
taken over by someone else.
The department of Indian affairs has a budget of about $5
billion and has a staff of 3,400 people. In this year's estimates
salaries and contributions to employee plans amount to $134.4
million. This works out to an average salary of approximately
$40,000. Will this department with a huge budget and a large
staff continue to exist as we set up another bureaucracy?
This land of course will have roads, bridges and similar
infrastructure that will have to be built and maintained.
Presumably this will be the responsibility of the new native
administration. Will it still be federal funds that will be applied
for?
I think it is worth mentioning that health care under this
agreement will remain unchanged. It will still be administered
by the federal government. As I can expect that self-government
will be introduced into Manitoba, this is of concern to my
constituents. In the report to the Manitoba standing committee
on medical manpower concerning the year 1991-92, I learned
that the total health care service expenditure per capita for
natives was much higher than for the rest of the province. In my
own area of the province, which includes Morden and Steinbach,
the average cost was about $140 per person. In Winnipeg it was
about $200 per person. The Manitoba average was $185 but on
the southern native reserve it was $260 per person. One doctor
told me that half the people on the native reserve are afflicted
with diabetes-how sad. It is of real concern to the other people
in that area that these problems get corrected and how that will
be accomplished.
(1810)
It is similar when we look at the average expenditure for each
hospital visit. For towns like Winkler and Steinbach the cost was
about $23 per visit which was about the same as the Winnipeg
and Manitoba average, but for the reserve natives, the average
cost was $50, more than twice as much.
Clearly this indicates that there are special health care
requirements for Manitoba's native population. It is a social
issue because we should be looking at ways to improve their
overall health but it is also a financial issue and I think it is
important to realize that these costs will remain after these land
claims are settled.
Will there be any provision under self-government for natives
to assume their own health care or will they depend on the
federal system forever?
The government has also announced its commitment to
continue the northern food mail program which I think is a very
important program. This program will cost about $14.1 million
in 1994-95. I think it is important for Canadians to realize that
these programs continue even after these agreements have been
achieved. The Canadian taxpayer's responsibility to fund these
programs does not disappear just because natives are being
given new land rights and more control over their affairs.
I wonder when the time comes for self-government in
Manitoba what the government will do in the way of initiatives
to improve the health of this segment of the population. I hope it
will not ignore the problem and just agree to another wholesale
giveaway of land and resources as it has done in the Sahtu Dene
and Metis agreement.
3473
I think it is very important that we realize that not just the
Metis and the native people but the white are responsible to
correct some of these problems and they have to be dealt with
and there have to be funds for it. Huge land claims will not deal
with these health problems.
In closing, I hope I have served to air some concerns and raise
some very important questions regarding Bill C-16. The
implications are very far reaching and it is very troubling that
some of the more important questions seem to be without
answers.
As a Manitoba member of Parliament I hope that when the
time comes for any self-government or land claim agreement in
my own province it is more well thought out than this one is. The
current concept of self-government is so ill-defined and open
minded there are serious implications to everyone involved, not
the least of whom is the Canadian taxpayer.
A large percentage of native bands in Manitoba are millions
of dollars in debt because of mismanagement and corruption. By
moving toward self-government are we going to clear ourselves
out of this indescribable mess created by Indian and Northern
Affairs, or will it simply make the situation worse?
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr.
Speaker, it always amazes me when members talk, as the
previous speaker just did, about giving away land. It seems to
me incredibly naive to say that the government gives away land.
After all, I cannot describe well enough what has happened to
the land that we now call crown land or Her Majesty's land or
whatever the case may be.
(1815 )
The member talks about the large size of the land that has been
given. He compares it to how Manitoba would fare if it had a
similar type of land claim in that regard.
We have to remember that the boundaries were not set down
by the aboriginal people. As far as the aboriginal people are
concerned those are artificial boundaries when they talk about
their land.
The aboriginal people, the Dene and the Inuit of the
Northwest Territories, the Denesuline from Manitoba and the
people from Prince Albert did not sit down and say: ``Okay, here
is Manitoba, here is Saskatchewan and here is the Northwest
Territories''. It was imposed on them. As far as they were
concerned they had some boundaries but not necessarily defined
when they hunted and survived around that area.
When the member talks about how large the land is in ratio to
if they tried to do that with Manitoba, that is not an applicable
question.
The hon member talks about how self-government is
undefined. I go back to a response I made some weeks ago about
self-government.
When the British parliamentary system was being set up here
who asked the aboriginal people of Canada? ``We are going to
set up a government. We are going to set up the Parliament of
Canada, but you do not have a choice. You are just going to have
to go along with it''. That is basically what happened. We did not
have a role in defining how the system of government was going
to be set up in our land.
There has to be some understanding and I am sure the
understanding is there. It is just being chosen to be ignored.
We talk about the bureaucracy which is going to be set up. In
the Nunavut area I hope that the bureaucracy is going to be
comprised of a large number of Inuit in our area. Hopefully the
same will be true in the western Arctic, and there will be a large
number of Dene within the bureaucracy.
In order to save time and money in dealing with issues we
want a bureaucracy and a government sensitive to the people
being served. After all the bureaucracy is there to serve the
people. Even though sometimes the bureaucrats seem to think it
is the other way around, that is the way it is supposed to be.
Does the hon. member not understand that this is setting up a
system or settling claims which are long overdue? The hon.
member asks whether the aboriginal people will be paying for
their own medical care and so on. He talks about the food-mail
program which he says is a good one and I agree. However that
subsidy cannot be taken away from the people it presently serves
when in large part those people have the least earning power.
(1820 )
In some cases they are paying $4 for a loaf of bread, $4 for a
dozen eggs, $5 for a litre of milk. They regard apples and
oranges and other fruit as treats rather than a nutritional part of
their diet.
Does the hon. member not think this is the settling of some
claims which has been long overdue?
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those comments
from the hon. member.
As I said, I am not that familiar with the history of the native
people but when I read the history books, it seems to me the
native people were immigrants at one time too. They did come to
Canada from the Soviet Union across the Bering Strait. North
America was settled to some extent by them. I do not know who
was replaced.
I can also tell the hon. member that I stood on the ruins of
Chichén Itza. That was a Mayan civilization which totally
disappeared from North America before there was any white
man around. It was because agriculture failed in that area.
3474
I can also tell the hon. member that my forefathers came to
this country and bought a quarter of land for $10. After 100
years and having cut down every tree to provide food for this
nation, they have lost everything. I buried three of my
neighbours who committed suicide just like the hon. member
explains because the system we have today took away from
them what they had worked for, just like their people have done.
This land has been given to us by our creator. We should use it
for the benefit of all people. We cannot totally disengage
ourselves from the kind of situation where we want to try to grab
more for this person or more for that person.
We have to realize that problems were here before the white
man came. I am just wondering what the natives would be like
today if it had not been white men who defended these borders
against the communist regime in the Soviet Union.
I had the opportunity to talk to some of the native people at
Flin Flon or Pine Falls recently. I listened to their problems. We
have made a lot of problems but we have also done some good
for this country. I wish that was acknowledged once in a while.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are here to
debate hypothetical questions. That is a totally hypothetical
question.
I suspect if Christopher Columbus had not come over, North
America would be a lot more cleaner place to live. I would hate
to think if not the aboriginal people but the people whose
forefathers came first, what state of affairs the aboriginal people
would be in. I cannot imagine the despair we would be in.
However I acknowledge what the hon. member has stated,
that he is ignorant about the aboriginal issue. I accept part of his
comments. Ignorance is bliss.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering. Do we then
say that our history books are full of lies and there is no truth in
that when I read about the 1400s and 1500s of how native people
in this area were fighting among themselves? Whole nations
were wiped out. People starved to death because of famines. Is
that all a myth? Did the white man create that in Europe before
he was even here? Is our history that false? Should we rewrite
our history books?
What would the hon. member suggest? Does the hon. member
want to take the facts or do we want to work on as he said,
hypothetical questions, solutions or answers? We have to be
honest about this issue. We have to try to resolve that, not just
for the native issues or their grievances but there are also
grievances on the other side.
(1825 )
I think if we want this country to survive we have to come to a
realization that this is a joint problem and we have to work
together to solve it or else we will destroy ourselves.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask my colleague what he thinks of the land tenure system that
has been put in place from the beginning with the earlier settlers,
those who settled this land and stayed put versus what those
settlers may have found here as a group of people not necessarily
staying on the land, and did that actually help develop this
country?
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the hon. member
speak, I do not know how to respond to that. I always thought
that we as a people who developed a country should have some
respect or some benefits from it.
My forefathers were driven from Prussia to the Soviet Union.
They lost all their land and came over to Canada and started over
again. Maybe it is just natural for us to be on the losing side all
the time. Maybe it is the other side that should always win. I also
have feelings and needs.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to preface my comments by saying that there is a
legitimacy about the comments that the Reform Party members
are making in this debate.
I am honoured to be here. I am honoured to participate in this
debate and express concerns and questions of my constituents.
Far too many aboriginal people struggle daily with the
economic and social conditions that are overwhelming and
tragic. Few Canadians would argue that their standard of living
is acceptable. For far too long aboriginal people and the state of
their affairs were out of sight of most Canadians. However, as
Canadian people become increasingly aware of what life on
reserves has meant in terms of humiliation and loss, there is a
justifiable reaction. Let us remedy the situation. Let us make it
right. There is a will for this to happen.
Some people are saying there is no way that we can move too
quickly or do too much to remedy the unacceptable state of
aboriginal affairs. I have heard non-aboriginal people in their
enthusiasm and guilt say things like it is the white man's turn to
live on the reserves with no vote and do what the department of
Indian affairs tells him.
In my mind, however, what we must accomplish is somewhat
less reactionary. I believe that what we should be doing is
bringing down the barriers and co-operatively opening up the
way for aboriginal people to come as far into the mainstream of
Canadian life as they individually choose to come.
3475
I have heard aboriginal people respond to this guilt of the
white man. In very natural human terms aboriginal people are
prepared to take whatever the government will give up; money,
land, special rights. Aboriginal leaders are justifiably proud
that they have learned how to get money out of the government,
as one western chief described it. They have learned that in the
present climate of political correctness the government has
little if any will to deny aboriginal demands.
As an example of this the media reported recently that the
minister of aboriginal affairs was handed a memorandum of
understanding by Chief Phil Fontaine and after quickly reading
the memorandum, without a word of clarification or
consultation and to the surprise of everyone in the room, the
minister took out his pen and signed it. All involved were so
surprised at the minister's action, to quote the reporter, you
could have heard a pin drop.
I see the Sahtu Dene and Metis comprehensive land claim
agreement that we are debating today in much the same light; a
willingness to give to the Sahtu Dene and Metis whatever is
demanded. Once again there is a willingness to relinquish large
tracts of land, water, surface and subsurface rights with little
public consultation south of 60. There is also the unanswered
question of the federal government's legal ability to enter into
such an agreement without at least consulting the provincial
governments.
(1830)
I am not suggesting that past wrongs and present day
inequities should not be addressed. They must be addressed. But
inasmuch as there are now no secrets about what happened on
the reserves and in the residential schools, by the same token
neither should there be any secrets about what the government
of the day does behind closed doors.
So far the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement has been made
behind closed doors with little public consultation. When the
facts become known, as surely they will, what will be the
reaction of mainstream Canadians? They will feel they have
been deceived by the government. Will their reaction stall and
delay and even prevent the kind of programs that fair-minded
aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike have been struggling to
achieve? Will the reaction move against and stifle the
agreement?
Bridges can and should be built between aboriginal and
non-aboriginal people. These bridges need to be built for
two-way traffic. Cultural enrichment can cross these bridges in
both directions for the benefit of all Canadians.
In the mosaic of cultures that is being created in Canada,
every culture can receive as well as contribute to the Canadian
mosaic. I am not confusing this concept with that of the melting
pot of cultures. What I am insisting on is that we have as an
ultimate objective a unity within Canada that dynamically
includes all cultures with no benefit or loss of benefit based on
cultures-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Hindsight is 20-20, as we
all know. I suppose that at 6.25 when the member for
Cariboo-Chilcotin began his intervention I could have asked
the House if it wished me to see the clock as being 6.30.
However, I did not.
I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to allow the
member to complete his intervention. We would not have
questions or comments. Maybe the member could give us some
indication of how much longer he would require because I hate
to cut people off half way through.
I am in the hands of the House. The hon. member could help us
possibly.
Mr. Mayfield: I would need about another 15 minutes to
complete my intervention, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Would there be
unanimous consent or should we go to the late show and the
member will have to complete his intervention when we resume
debate on the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I must proceed then to the
orders of the House.
_____________________________________________
PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, on April
12, I informed the Speaker of the House that the Minister of
Industry had still not recommended to the government to make
decisions on two issues affecting the MIL Davie shipyard in
Lauzon, namely the Magdalen Islands ferry and the
multifunctional smart ship project.
I added that, if the government still believed in employment,
it had no reason not to make an immediate decision on the future
of this shipyard. I also informed the House that, with every
passing day, government inaction threatened the survival of the
biggest private business in the Quebec City region.
The employers, employees and people concerned are not at all
satisfied with the answers then given by the Minister of Industry
to these two questions. We cannot be satisfied with a stock
answer such as the one we received. We agree that, as the
custodian of public funds, the government must make decisions
that are in the best interest of taxpayers, but it must still make
them.
3476
In the last election campaign, all local stakeholders told the
parties now forming the government and the Opposition how
important it was to react rapidly in the MIL Davie case because
failure to do so could lead to economic disaster, namely the
closure of the MIL Davie shipyard. The shipyard is now in a
state of panic as no contract has been or is waiting to be signed.
(1835)
At this time last year, 3,000 employees were working. There
are now 2,000 workers but this number will go down to 300 in
December if the government does not assume its responsibilities
right away.
As you can appreciate, people are ready to use any means to
ensure their survival. They do not intend to wait for the
provincial election to be called without the federal government
taking a firm stand. All too often, campaigning politicians
promised the shipyard it would be awarded contracts that never
materialized after the election.
Today I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry to give me a definite answer on the government
position in this case, not on a whim but because the situation is
serious and urgent. That is also the reason why, Mr. Speaker, you
allowed me to address this House tonight pursuant to Standing
Order 37(3).
People on both shores of the Quebec City region who work in
the private sector are dependent on two major industries: pulp
and paper and shipbuilding.
The pulp and paper industry is already facing serious
difficulties in trying to apply certain federal environmental
standards but, Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I will bring this
thorny problem to the attention of the House a little later.
The other industry supporting 3,000 employees has no
contracts left and is about to close its doors. I would like the
government to be aware of the major problems that would be
created by its failure to take immediate action. Three thousand
families represent about 10,000 people who will live on
unemployment insurance for a while. The following year, these
10,000 people will be forced to live on welfare with all the
psychological problems brought on by this situation. These
psychological problems will lead to a significant increase in
health-care costs paid in part by the federal government.
The government, I am sure, analyzed all these repercussions
and I fervently hope that my colleague, the Parliamentary
Secretary to Minister of Industry, is now in a position to give us
the good news right now, namely that MIL Davie of Lauzon has
been awarded the contract for building the Magdalen Islands
ferry as well as the smart ship prototype so that it can survive for
the next few years.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Industry has asked me to comment on the issue
raised by the hon. member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orleans on April 12 and I am sure
he will get a clear answer as he requested.
The future of MIL Davie and its ability to generate
meaningful long-term employment is of great importance to
this government and I know how important it is for the
population of the Quebec region.
With the completion later this year of the Canadian patrol
frigate and trump contracts at MIL Davie the government will
discuss the future of the shipyard with its owner, the province of
Quebec. As a basis for the discussion, the province of Quebec is
assessing a corporate business plan identifying the direction the
company will take to ensure its future success.
I understand that the provincial government has not approved
the draft plan and the MIL Davie business plan has not been
presented to the federal government at this time.
Unsolicited proposals have been made by MIL Davie for two
federal construction contracts. The first is a contract for the
replacement of the Lucy Maud Montgomery ferry operating
between the Magdalen Islands and P.E.I. The second is for a
multifunctional vessel or smart ship for the Department of
National Defence.
In the case of the ferry my colleague, the Minister of
Transport, is evaluating the options available to him in the
context of limited budget resources, other Canadian shipyards
and the provision of timely and effective ferry service.
Regarding construction of the smart ship, the Minister of
National Defence will be able to assess future naval
requirements following the completion of the defence policy
review that the member knows is going on at present.
In conclusion the long term future of MIL Davie and the
well-being of its workers and the community is important to this
government. As my colleague the Minister of Industry has said
many times, we are committed to working with the yard's owner,
the province of Quebec in a co-operative fashion.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): On April 13 last, I had the
opportunity to put two questions to the Prime Minister
concerning bilingualism.
3477
(1840)
Part of his response to one of the questions was as follows,
and I quote:
It seeks to protect its rights.
The Prime Minister was referring to Canada's francophone
and Acadian community.
However, it also deplores the fact that some francophones like the Parti
Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois members are the ones who create the most serious
problems for it.
Mr. Speaker, statements like this call for an apology or, at the
very least, some serious explanations. Here is how I see these
statements and why I find them exceedingly disagreeable. To
begin with, the rights of Canada's francophone and Acadian
communities are not dependent on Quebec. These communities
enjoy them outright. They enjoy these rights because of what
they are. Moreover, these rights are entrenched in the
Constitution and in the Charter.
Whether Quebec is or is not part of the Canadian
confederation does not take anything away from the fact that
these rights are legitimately theirs. The Prime Minister seemed
to be saying that, if Quebec were no longer around, either the
Liberal government could not be counted on to ensure
compliance with the Constitution or the Charter, or Canadians
would not normally be inclined to uphold their Constitution and
Charter.
Are we to understand then that the government wants to hold
Quebec accountable for the future to which Canada's
francophone and Acadian communities are entitled? Are we to
understand that the government wants to hold Quebec
accountable for the way in which other Canadians from coast to
coast will treat their francophone and Acadian communities?
I hope that this was not what the Prime Minister was hinting
at. Therefore, I think some explanations are in order. In short,
either the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Liberal government,
has no intention, in Quebec's absence, of ensuring compliance
with the Constitution or, the Prime Minister believes that, in
Quebec's absence, Canadians from coast to coast will not have
the will, determination or sense of fair-play to ensure
compliance with the Constitution and the Charter.
Which is it? Or should these words never have been spoken in
the first place?
Not only am I waiting for an answer, Mr. Speaker, so too, I
have no doubt, are tens of thousands of other people. There are
900,000 anglophones in Quebec and that province has never
once said that it would treat them any other way but very fairly.
There are 960,000 francophones in the rest of the country,
60,000 more than there are anglophones in Quebec, and they are
waiting for an answer now.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that
nearly a million francophones in Canada live outside Quebec
and their number has increased by 50,000 since 1971. While the
proportion of francophones outside Quebec has diminished
during the same period, this is mainly due to the growing
proportion of Canadians of diverse origins who came to our
country during that period.
Nevertheless, the government recognizes the particular
challenges facing francophones outside Quebec.
(1845)
The hon. member opposite uses statistics on the situation of
francophone communities outside Quebec to make this House
believe that these people will soon disappear and that their
disappearance would end our policy on official languages
throughout Canada.
[English]
French speaking Canadians living outside Quebec represent
about 20 per cent of the total francophone population of Canada.
Through government action there has been notable progress in
recent years, particularly in terms of greater access in all
provinces to French language schooling.
For example, there are now over 185,000 young Canadians in
700 French language elementary and secondary schools outside
Quebec and in 45 colleges and universities which give
instruction fully or partially in French.
[Translation]
The hon. member should keep in mind that a community's
vitality is measured by its entrepreneurship spirit and its sense
of identity and not only by statistics.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, on
March 25 last, I rose in this House to put a question to the
Minister of Finance on the Sainte-Marguerite project.
At that time, all was set for construction to start, except that
one permit was missing. It so happens that it was to be issued by
the federal government. Already struggling with
unemployment, the Sept-Îles region, in Quebec, was faced with
job creation efforts being paralysed by the federal government's
dilatoriness.
To a question as to when the federal government was going to
allow Hydro-Québec to go ahead with this project, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport replied
that the environment had to be protected. I agree. However, that
is putting a bit too much on the back of the environment, seeing
that the BAPE report was accepted on February 24. If the idea is
to harmonize federal and provincial standards, why is the
Quebec report not enough?
As for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he took that
opportunity to emphasize what a great achievement this
agreement between his government and the Quebec government
was. He explained that the permit in question was a complex and
was detailed document and that a few more pieces of
information were needed before it could be issued, indicating in
passing that
3478
the missing information was to be supplied by Quebec. In other
words, it was Quebec's fault if the federal government could not
issue the permit. So much for the great example of
co-operation!
In the end, all that time was wasted for nothing because the
government allowed construction to start without the famous
permit. I am happy that it got under way so that the people from
the Sept-Îles region can work. Let me elaborate on that. It is
clear as day that the federal government allowed construction to
start without permit just to score points with the electorate.
It is clear and it reeks of electioneering when the Prime
Minister of Canada tells the Premier of Quebec that he does not
need his authorization. This whole thing is clearly ridiculous. It
is clear, in particular, that no one is falling for the little game the
Premier and the Prime Minister are playing.
And they call this an excellent example of federal-provincial
co-operation. The fact that the federal and provincial
environmental standards are different has put a wrench in the
works for Hydro-Quebec.
We get along fine on paper, but when the time comes to take
positive action, we hit a wall. When well-intentioned people try
to find out where the blockage is, the process gets so
cumbersome that they can hardly find an answer. My point, Mr.
Speaker, is that the Sainte-Marguerite project incident is proof,
once again, that the federal system is dead. For the people of
Quebec, there is one level of government too many and the
sooner we get rid of that one the better. Then Quebec will be able
to develop to its full potential because all the tools it needs will
be in its hands alone and Quebec will be the master of its destiny.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Transport has asked me to address the concerns
expressed in the House over perceived delays in the granting of
the necessary federal approval for Ste. Marguerite 3 hydro
electric project.
The construction of the project requires a permit under the
Navigable Waters Protection Act, which is administered by the
Department of Transport.
The scope of the work required an environmental assessment.
To that end the federal and provincial governments agreed to
conduct a joint public panel.
On March 28, 1994 the Department of Transport, on behalf of
the federal government, made public the federal response to the
Bureau d'audiences publique sur l'environnement, BAPE, panel
report.
The Department of Transport is moving expeditiously to
complete its statutory responsibilities. Following the minister's
February 24 announcement, departmental officials contacted
the province and Hydro Quebec to explain the requirements for
Navigable Waters Protection Act approval.
In order to finalize the approval documents the Department of
Transport will have to receive and approve the final detailed
plans and drawings of the project. In accordance with the
Navigable Waters Protection Act, Hydro Quebec must deposit
these plans in a land registry office and advertise their project
intentions in two local newspapers and the Canada Gazette and
await 30 days prior to commencing any work which may
interfere with navigation.
To close, Hydro Quebec can and has, I believe, begun the road
work for the project. There is certainly work that is not
associated with the Navigable Waters Protection Act process
with which they can proceed. Contrary to the comments of the
hon. member for Frontenac, I believe the government
commitment to both the protection of the environment and to job
creation have been met.
I might also remind the hon. member that not long ago the
United Nations declared Canada the number one place on the
planet where to live, measured against certain criteria and
thanks to the co-operation of all provinces, territories and the
federal government. He should take that to bed and sleep on it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted.
The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.52 p.m.)