1993-06-04

Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-15, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (sexual orientation), to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-133, an act respecting an agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut settlement area and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
He said: Madam Speaker, I want to speak this morning to my hon. colleagues about Bill C-133, which would give effect to the Nunavut land claims agreement.
One of the happiest moments of my life as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development occurred when I joined with the Prime Minister last Tuesday in Iqaluit to sign the Nunavut land claims agreement.
As a result of this agreement there is a new spirit of optimism and a new energy among the Inuit of the eastern Arctic region. I noted the applause of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq. We very much appreciate his support and enthusiastic participation at the event last week.
I was struck by the tears of happiness and joy by the elders who gathered at Inukshuk School in Iqaluit with the children and the people of the eastern Arctic to celebrate this historic signing.
As we listened to Susan Aglukark sing O Canada in Inuktitut we sensed the confidence, joy and pride, especially of the children, as they anticipated a new future relationship with all the people of Canada.
I am personally committed to ensuring implementation of the land claims agreement by guiding this bill through Parliament. I know I am supported in this process by the Prime Minister who has given his unflagging support to this project. He has shown exceptional vision and commitment in addressing aboriginal and northern issues, including the recognition of Nunavut. I am also supported by my cabinet colleagues, who have approved the Nunavut land claims agreement which we debate today.
I am supported by the Inuit of the eastern Arctic. Without their determination, without their commitment to settling this land claim, we would not have reached the critical stage we are at today.
Bill C-133 gives effect to the Nunavut land claims agreement to settle the land claim of the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut which represents Inuit in the eastern Arctic. This agreement, which has been pursued over a period of 17 years going back to 1976, was endorsed last November by 69 per cent of Inuit living in the settlement region, and of those who actually voted 85 per cent approved the land claims settlement. This is an overwhelming show of support and it sends an important message to this House of the commitment that the Inuit wish to make to be partners in Canada.
The TFN land claim is the largest in Canadian history. It encompasses approximately one-fifth of the entire Canadian land mass, an area of some two million square kilometres in the central and eastern Arctic as well as adjacent offshore areas. That is known as the settlement area but is not to be confused with the actual lands to be owned by the Inuit, which are approximately 20 per cent of that amount.

June 4, 1993
Government Orders
This area, as well as the adjacent offshore areas, is the traditional homeland and hunting grounds of some
17,500	Inuit. It is in this area of the eastern Arctic that their ancestors have lived for many thousands of years and in a remarkable way have persisted and survived on the Arctic tundra. Today they wish to continue to live with the freedom to guide and choose their own destiny within Canada.
The Nunavut land claims agreement ensures that the Nunavut region will always be home to the Inuit. It provides lasting protection for Inuit land-based interests as well as the rights and benefits that will enable them to pursue socio-economic development.
The agreement provides Inuit with ownership of more than 350,000 square kilometres of land in the settlement region out of the total area of two million square miles. On more than 10 per cent of the area they will own, the Inuit will also own the mineral rights. In the rest of Nunavut, Inuit will share in the management of wildlife and the environment and in the economic benefits of future development.
The land provisions of this agreement are extremely important not only for Inuit but for all Canadians. By replacing the legal uncertainty of aboriginal claim to title with clearly defined rights to lands and resources, by establishing certainty of ownership and the delineation of those boundaries and by clarifying the rights of natives and non-natives in the settlement region, the Nunavut land claims agreement will open up this huge area of Canada for future orderly development.
That will mean jobs for Canadians, including Inuit and other aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples living and working in northern Canada and throughout Canada. It will mean additional wealth and prosperity for northerners and other Canadians as we replace uncertainty with a stable and predictable economic and legal framework.
The Nunavut land claims agreement will bring enormous benefits to the north in the form of new investment, an improved standard of living and a brighter outlook for the youth of the region.
The agreement also includes significant financial benefits for Inuit of the settlement region. Over the next 14 years capital payments totalling $580 million in 1989 dollars will be made to the Nunavut trust, which will manage the money for the benefit of Inuit.
I should indicate that in comparison, the government through the programs of financial assistance to Inuit is presently spending hundreds of millions of dollars to support the eastern Arctic. We want to replace welfare with self-reliance. That is the purpose of this settlement payment and the land base and the accompanying public government which we will speak of when we debate Bill C-132 later today.
The Nunavut land claims agreement foresees the day when resource developments will generate significant revenues in the settlement region.
Inuit interests are well protected in that each year they will receive 50 per cent of the first $2 million in royalties paid to the government on any resource development for which royalties accrue within the Nunavut area. They will receive 5 per cent of all royalties in excess of $2 million on the public lands which are outside of land owned by the Inuit.
This agreement is about much more than land ownership and capital transfers. It is about acknowledging the special needs of the Inuit. It is about protecting their traditional lifestyles and pursuits.
One of those needs is employment training. To ensure that the Inuit can play a full and meaningful role in the institutions of government and in the private sector economic initiatives, a $13 million training trust fund is to be established under this agreement.
It is a great misfortune that much of the work done in the administration of projects in the eastern Arctic is done by southerners, non-Inuit. We want to make a visible change to provide much greater opportunity for Inuit to be involved in the architecture and production of their own destiny.
As well, Inuit employment by government will be increased. Firms owned by Inuit will be assisted in competing for government contracts.
As hon. members know, a common feature of land claim settlements is to guarantee the aboriginal claimant group a central role in wildlife management. The Nunavut land claims agreement is no exception. Inuit will have equal representation on a board that will be established to oversee wildlife harvesting in the settlement region.
June 4, 1993

Inuit will be guaranteed specific wildlife harvesting rights, including the right to harvest their basic needs as they have for thousands of years. Inuit will also have economic opportunities related to guiding, sports lodges and the commercial marketing of wildlife resources.
The Inuit of the eastern Arctic are perhaps more dependent on traditional pursuits than any other group of aboriginal people in Canada. Therefore, the agreement recognizes this dependence and safeguards Inuit interests.
Inuit will be entitled to compensation where developers cause provable damage to property or equipment used in harvesting wildlife. They will also be compensated when development projects cause loss of harvesting income or loss of wildlife harvested for personal use.
In addition to their role in wildlife management, the agreement ensures equal Inuit participation on boards responsible for land use planning, environmental and socio-economic reviews of development projects and water management.
Finally, I am pleased to inform hon. members that the Nunavut land claims agreement will help the government achieve one of its key green plan objectives. That is to complete Canada's system of national parks. Following consultations with Inuit and other local residents, at least three national parks, one in each of the three regions of Nunavut, will be established in the settlement region within four years of proclamation of this agreement.
I want to emphasize that the Nunavut land claims agreement and Bill C-133 which will implement it do not affect or diminish any rights of other aboriginal peoples guaranteed under section 35 of the Constitution Act. In fact, the final agreement explicitly protects the traditional livelihood and hunting activities of all other aboriginal groups on lands within the Nunavut settlement area. This was a key objective of the government.
As a sign of their commitment to accommodate the interests of other aboriginal groups, the Nunavut Inuit have negotiated overlap agreements with the Inuvialuit in the western Arctic and the Inuit of northern Quebec.
Government Orders
Negotiations are also proceeding with the Sahtu Dene-Metis in the western Arctic.
We are pleased that similar agreements have now been negotiated with the Dene of northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba, who also claim traditional use of certain lands north of the 60th parallel.
I remind hon. members that the Federal Court has ruled that the Nunavut land claims agreement protects any interests that the Saskatchewan and Manitoba Dene bands may have in the Nunavut settlement area. In fact this agreement may even give them legal rights they do not currently enjoy under treaty. Thus the Manitoba and Saskatchewan bands have agreed that they will not oppose ratification of this agreement. I compliment the hon. members who helped to facilitate that agreement.
Article 4 is a key element of the Nunavut land claims agreement. It requires the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories and the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut to negotiate a political accord to divide the Northwest Territories into two parts and to establish a new territorial government, a public government, in the eastern Arctic.
In this way Bill C-133 will lay the foundation for a new partnership between Inuit and Canada in the creation of Nunavut. It will enable a proud and self-reliant group of aboriginal Canadians to achieve long sought economic and political goals in the north.
It builds on the traditions and culture of the elders whose ancestors survived in that Arctic barren land for so many thousands of years. Yet this agreement passes on a lasting legacy to the children of the Inuit of generations to come.
It will guarantee Inuit a land base and give them the means and the rights to continue traditional pursuits that are at the very heart of their culture and to do it in harmony with all other Canadians.
Therefore, I urge all of my hon colleagues to give this bill their firm and decisive support. In that sense, Madam Speaker, I think you will find consent to move through all stages of Bill C-133 today, including Committee of the Whole, so that we might complete consideration of this bill.

June 4, 1993
Government Orders
This debate is being witnessed by Inuit members of the executive of the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut and others. They dearly hope that the members of Parliament will show the commitment they seek from us today.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I asked for unanimous consent and it has not been given.


ALLOCATION OF TIME
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1), I move:
That, in relation to today's consideration of Bill C-133, an act respecting an agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut settlement area and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, one hour and 45 minutes be allotted to 1he consideration of all stages of the bill, including committee of the whole;
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6), any recorded division requested shall be taken immediately;
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 24, the House shall sit beyond the hour of daily adjournment, if necessary, to complete all stages of the bill;
That, at expiry of the time provided for this order, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the remaining stages of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, as the House knows my caucus has not supported time allocation in the House. We have opposed it in the past because it tends to be a unilateral action by the government of the day.
On this unique occasion we are supportive of the motion the government House leader has just put forward. This is not a unilateral action; this is a collective action on behalf of the people of Canada. They support it. We support it.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, I would also like to indicate on behalf of our party that we were consulted.
I agree with the comments of the New Democratic Party Whip that this is not a unilateral action on the part of the government. We support this motion giving effect to the legislation under discussion.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make note that it is not so much a matter of the content of this particular legislation we have a problem with. It is the process in the Chamber.
We have not been consulted on the process. We see a process in place here such as we saw earlier with the New Brunswick legislation where something slides through quickly on the last Friday of a parliamentary session.
What I would like to say is that we have a problem with the process. Although I would like to congratulate the Inuit who are here today, we see that the government is able to put just anything through.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are getting into debate at this point. The motion the minister has put to the House under Standing Order 78(1) forbids debate.
If there is agreement among the parties, under Standing Order 78(1) I will now put the question. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


An hon. member:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion is carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Government Orders

It is a great honour and privilege for me to speak today on the Nunavut bills, the bills to ratify the Nunavut land claim agreement and to establish the new territory of Nunavut. Both bills before us impact profoundly on the future of Canada's north and Canada as a whole. Both these bills change the course of history. Canada is evolving and the Inuit of Nunavut are in the forefront of that evolution.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: For the benefit of hon. members, there is English translation on channel five and there is someone translating from English to French so that all members can understand what the member is saying in Inuktitut on this very special day.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: This is a momentous and proud occasion for the Inuit of Nunavut. For me it is also very special for another reason. Today I am speaking both as a member of Parliament for the region concerned and as a beneficiary of the Nunavut land claim agreement.
I do not believe such a set of circumstances has occurred before in the House. This is a first, and for me this is a humbling experience.
For the Inuit the settlement of the land claim and the creation of Nunavut represent a bold new start and a chance to participate as partners in the development of our homeland and our country. Underlying everything is the hope of a better future for our children.

The land claim and the establishment of Nunavut are basic expressions of Inuit self-determination. For too long Inuit have been left out of the major economic and political decision-making process affecting our lives. Through the land claim agreement and Nunavut we are re-establishing some control over our own affairs. We are also ensuring the preservation and enhancement of our identity as distinct peoples: our culture, our language and our way of life.
Later today I will have more to say about the meaning of Nunavut when we deal with the bill to establish Nunavut.

The bill before us now, Bill C-133, is the land claim ratification bill. It is difficult, however, to talk about the land claim without talking about Nunavut because the two are inseparably linked.
Inuit have always tied the establishment of Nunavut to the settlement of the land claim. Obtaining a commitment to the territory of Nunavut was a fundamental component of the Inuit land claim negotiations from the beginning. It was in fact a prerequisite for the settlement of the land claim.
Bear with me while I continue in French. [Translation]
What we are doing today is very important for all of Canada. The bill concerning the territory of Nunavut, which is connected with our claim, will confirm through legislation federal recognition of the new territory. However, hon. members and Canadians should realize that Nunavut already exists and has always existed in the minds and hearts of the Inuit. We know that Nunavut is our land.
We want to thank Canada for recognizing our rights and our desire to take control of our destiny and of our territory and help create a stronger Canada.

To continue in Inuktitut, I want to congratulate the Inuit of Nunavut for their achievement and thank those who represented them at the negotiating table throughout the years for their hard work, their determination, and for all the sacrifices they and their families made.
Many of the individuals involved were present at the formal signing of the land claim agreement in Iqaluit on May 25, but there were others who for a variety of reasons were not in Iqaluit on that day. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the contributions made by so many.
Thanks are due to current and past negotiators, board members and staff of the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut and the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada: Paul Quassa, James Eetoolook, John Amagoalik, James Arvaluk, Tagak Curley, Perer Emerk, Donat Milortuk, Bob Kad-lun, Jack Kupeuna, David Aglukark, Louis Tapardjuk, Mark Evaluardjuk, Louis Pilakapsi, Thomas Suluk, Simon Taipana, John Maksagak, Peter Ittinuar and Kane Tologanak.

June 4, 1993
Government Orders
I could go on and on and still probably leave someone out inadvertently. If I have I apologize.
I also want to recognize the contributions of the elders such as Peter Kaminguak and Abe Ookpik and those who are no longer with us.
The history of this land claim goes back many years. It spans several federal governments and numerous ministers of Indian and northern affairs. Very few people realize that prior to 1973 the Government of Canada did not have a policy to negotiate land claims. It was the current Leader of the Official Opposition, under whom I am proud to serve, who, when he was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, brought forward the first policy to negotiate and resolve land claims.
In 1975 the Inuit of Nunavik achieved the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The following year, in 1976, the Inuit of the Northwest Territories, as represented by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, presented their land claim to the federal government for negotiation. Their submission included the proposal for the creation of the Nunavut territory.
The claim proposal was subsequently revised in 1977. In that same year, the Inuvialuit of the western Arctic filed their own land claim. In 1978 they signed an agreement in principle with the federal government and the final agreement was reached in 1984. Between 1976 and 1979 the Inuit of the central and eastern Arctic experienced difficulty with their negotiations. There was an impasse over dealing with Nunavut at the land claim table.
In 1980 a breakthrough was achieved. Agreement was reached to deal with the Inuit proposals on Nunavut through a political development process in the Northwest Territories separate from but parallel with the land claims negotiations. In 1982 the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut was formed for the specific purpose of negotiating the Inuit land claim.
In April 1990 an agreement in principle was reached. Article 4 of that agreement in principle affirmed federal, territorial and Inuit support for the creation of Nunavut as soon as possible. In December 1991 negotiations were finalized on outstanding items in the land claims, including the creation of Nunavut. In November 1992 the Inuit of Nunavut voted to ratify their land claim agreement.
It has been a long journey filled with many rough spots and roadblocks. I want to focus now on the actual land claim and some of the obstacles Inuit encountered in their negotiations with the government. From the beginning the government set out all kinds of preconditions and restrictions. In return the Inuit were more than generous.
Some of the comments I am about to make I have made on other occasions over the past several years and many of the people watching or listening today will be familiar with them. However, I feel I must restate them for the record.

First I want to take issue with the term "land claim ", It is highly inappropriate. I wish there were a better term to use but I will try to describe what I mean by inappropriate.
When aboriginal peoples talk about their lands, we are talking about our homelands. We are talking about the territories and resources upon which our people have survived for thousands of years. We are talking first and foremost about our cultures and our way of life on these territories. The land, the waters, the wildlife and we, the people, are one and the same. We are not separate from our environment. We are part of it and it is part of us.
Yet non-aboriginal governments have looked upon land claim negotiations as real estate transactions. This is not our view. It is difficult for us to understand the non-aboriginal concept of individual land title and ownership.

We see these negotiations primarily as the means to preserve our relationship with the land and ensure our survival as peoples in the larger society surrounding us. Therefore we are also talking about economic and political power. We require the economic and political means to control what happens on our lands.
In claim negotiations aboriginal peoples are not seeking something that someone else already owns. We dispute that implication. We are not asking the government to give us anything that does not belong to us. We are only seeking recognition of what is rightfully ours. We are trying to take back what was taken away from us by governments without our consent in the past.
June 4, 1993

We are reasonable peoples. We have always been willing to share our lands and resources. We recognize that all peoples and all governments must work together for the benefit of all. This is why Inuit and other aboriginal peoples have entered into land claim negotiations.

We start from the premise that we are the rightful occupants and owners of the land. The government should be asking us for permission to occupy our lands and use our resources and should negotiate with us on that basis. Instead the government takes the position that it owns the land and it believes it is being generous by sharing some of our land with us.

The government has never even admitted that the Inuit have aboriginal title to Nunavut. The preamble of the Nunavut claim bill begins with the following statement:
Whereas the Inuit of the Nunavut settlement area have asserted an aboriginal title to that area based on their traditional and current use and occupation of the lands, waters and land-fast ice therein in accordance with their own customs and usages;
I want to say for the record that Inuit do not just assert title to Nunavut. Our title is real. It is the Government of Canada that has asserted title to Nunavut. Our title predates any claim by the government whether the government recognizes it or not.

The government would not be negotiating land settlements with us and with other aboriginal people if it did not believe we had aboriginal rights and title. I do not know why the government refuses to acknowledge this.

*
I also cannot discuss this land claims settlement without repeating my objection to the extinguishment clause. The clause appears in the Certainty Section of the claim agreement as clause 2.7.1:
Government Orders
In consideration of the rights and benefits provided to Inuit by the
Agreement, Inuit hereby:
(a)	cede, release and surrender to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, all their aboriginal claims, rights, title and interests, if any, in and to lands and waters anywhere within Canada and adjacent offshore areas within the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Canada; and
(b)	agree, on their behalf, and on behalf of their heirs, descendants and successors not to assert any cause of action, action for a declaration, claim or demand of whatever kind or nature which they ever had, now have or may hereafter have against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada or any province, the government of any territory or any person based on any aboriginal claims, rights, title or interests in and to lands and waters described in Sub-section (a).
I repeat the words: "if any" from part (a).
This comprehensive extinguishment of rights was a government demand and condition for settlement. Inuit did not and do not want to extinguish their rights but this was the price the government asked us to pay.

The government made sure it exacted a heavy price for rights that it was not even sure we had. It did so in the name of certainty.
This land claim settlement is a good deal for the Government of Canada in another way. There is a perception that Inuit are getting the bulk of the land they claimed. That is not the case.

It is true that this is the largest land claim settlement in Canada but this is because the Northwest Territories represents about one-third of Canada and the area claimed by Inuit covers a large portion of it.
The Inuit claim encompasses two million square kilometres within the Northwest Territories. Under the land claims settlement, Inuit will have surface title to 350,000 square kilometres. Inuit will have subsurface title to about 36,000 square kilometres within the 350,000 square kilometres.
What this means is that the Government of Canada is getting title to about 82 per cent of the land claimed. Inuit are getting title to about 18 per cent of the total area claimed. If we look at the area to which Inuit are getting subsurface title, the percentage drops to about 2 per cent.

Government Orders

The government ended up with so much land because it set preconditions at the outset. The government said the Inuit could only have a certain amount of land in total. Inuit were prohibited from from making land selections in certain specific areas. The government had the power to do this because it was bigger and stronger.
Canadians should understand the tremendous power imbalance that exists in land claim negotiations between aboriginal peoples and the federal government. The federal government makes the rules. It changes the rules. It breaks the rules. It has the money and all kinds of high-powered expertise at its disposal. It has armies of bureaucrats and relies on legalese.
Aboriginal negotiators do not have the same resources. They are also communicating with government representatives in a language that is not in their mother tongue, and then they have to try to explain to their people government terms and concepts that simply do not exist in aboriginal languages. In addition, there are totally different decision-making processes involved.
While some revisions to policies and practices have been made from time to time, the system and the policies are still heavily weighted in the federal government's favour.
There are other matters in this agreement that continue to cause me some concern.

I still think $580 million is a small price for the government to pay for the extinguishment of Inuit rights and for 82 per cent of our territory. Nevertheless that sum could be of significant benefit if invested wisely. We will have to be very vigilant and cautious.
I am also worried about the number of boards and institutions that will be set up under this claim. We are headed into a very complex system of administration and I hope we do not find ourselves overwhelmed and overburdened.
I also want to touch briefly on implementation. Previous claim settlements, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Western Arctic Inuvialuit
Agreement have experienced serious implementation problems. Since an entire section of the Nunavut claim agreement is devoted to implementation, we hope to avoid the implementation problems of the past.

In this context I want to urge the government to be forever mindful of the spirit and intent behind this agreement.

As I said earlier, what Inuit have tried to obtain in this agreement is a better future for our children. The right to harvest wildlife on lands and waters throughout Nunavut is a major component of this agreement. In addition, Inuit will have equal membership with governments on institutions established to manage the land, water, offshore and wildlife of Nunavut and to evaluate the impact of development projects on the environment.
As well, Inuit will get a share of the royalties the federal government receives from oil, gas and mineral development on Crown lands. On lands where Inuit have surface title, Inuit will be able to negotiate with industry for economic and social benefits from non-renewable development.

The agreement also specifies an amount of $13 million for a training trust fund and includes measures to increase Inuit employment within government and to increase access to government contracts.

There is much promise here. There are opportunities to be seized. There are challenges to be faced.

This agreement must benefit all us Inuit. This agreement is for us. We must make it work for all. We must never forget the people in the communities.
We must focus on our education and training needs. We must encourage and support our youth so that we can benefit from their talents and energies. We must integrate the wisdom of our elders. Together with the co-operation of government and all the people of Nunavut we will utilize this agreement to build the better future we envision.
June 4, 1993



I would like to complete my remarks by acknowledging again the support and hard work of the people of the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut and the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, as well the countless number of people who have had to endure a lot of travel time or being away from their families. They spent a lot of time not quite knowing what was going to happen next but they always had the intent to get the best deal for the Inuit of Nunavut.
With that I am very confident that the Inuit of Nunavut have embarked on a future that will be beneficial not only to the Inuit but to the people of Canada.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, a point of order. You will note there is only about three minutes remaining until Question Period.
It is very difficult to put a speech forward in that period of time. I wonder if the House would consider suspending debate for three minutes so that we can go through Question Period and then I can make my presentation.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree that I should suspend the House until 11 a.m.?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: A very short suspension.
The silting of the House was suspended at 10.57 a.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 11 a.m.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, is medicare in serious trouble in Canada? If it is then
sacrificing physicians, especially young doctors, will not solve the problems.
Ontario's NDP government proposes to reduce payments to entry physicians to a level that will drive them out of the province and very probably out of the country. Even worse, there could be a chain reaction affecting other provinces.
An enormous public investment is made in every medical school graduate. The national benefit is a medical profession that is second to none in the world and the heart of Canadian medicare. If we allow government policy to undermine entry physicians, we will lose a whole generation of the best and brightest among young Canadians, a group that includes the future Bantings, Bests and Penfields.
I urge the minister of health to intervene, not just to aid young physicians but to preserve a Canadian medical service that has taken more than a century to establish and develop.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, four years ago today the world watched in horror as Chinese government troops opened fire on thousands of democracy campaigners in Tiananmen Square. Yet four short years later the present Canadian government seems to be indicating that it has forgotten the atrocities.
Recently the vice-premier of China, who is acting premier and one of the highest ranking members of the Chinese government, was invited to Canada not by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who was frozen out of the meetings, but by the Minister for International Trade. Incredibly, in his speech welcoming the vicepremier, the minister of trade never once mentioned human rights. This is typical of the importance accorded human rights by this government which sees human rights as a minor irritant.

June 4, 1993
I understand the importance of trade. However there has to be a better understanding of the link between trade and human rights, particularly given that a month from now the world will be meeting in Vienna at a human rights conference, a conference at which China will be opposing any strengthening of human rights standards and mechanisms.
As a nation we should be saying to the business community that we will stand behind it if it ties trade to human rights. Reebok and Sears, Roebuck are to be commended for their efforts in this regard.


SERVICE INDUSTRIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Girve Fret/. (Erie): Madam Speaker, are Canadian businesses, including those in the service sector, trying harder? Recessions are painful for those who lose jobs and for business owners.
However, as a result Canadians have become more competitive, more productive and more service oriented. While our exports continue to surge to new records monthly, something else seems to be occurring on the home front. Businesses are offering greater warranties and guarantees and service has become the watchword of the day.
My congratulations to all involved in service industries, in wholesale and retail, and in manufacturing. They provide jobs for millions of Canadians. It is the result of their vision, their initiative and their industry that Canadians enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Madam Speaker, I will be rising later today to present a petition containing approximately 5,000 names which were gathered by two residents of Scarborough, Mr. and Mrs. Crawford, who are with us today in the gallery.
This petition, which calls for strengthening the provisions in the Young Offenders Act, came about after the son of Mr. and Mrs. Crawford was viciously murdered in a Scarborough storm sewer by three young offenders. Crimes such as this must not be dealt with in a superficial way. Changes are needed in the legislation and needed today.
Canadians from every corner of the country have
called for changes for many years now and this government has failed on all accounts. I would like to call on the government, which indicated in the House on Wednesday that it might table a white paper on the Young Offenders Act, to stop its delaying tactics and use what time is left in the life of the session to table sensitive changes to the YOA. Failing this, I ask it to set up a public inquiry over the summer to let the people of this country have the opportunity to express their concerns over this flawed act.
The time for change is now.


MICHAEL HO
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, this being National Access Awareness Week, in which you have shown special interest, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the hon. member for Calgary West, as well as the members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, to recognize the recipient of the 1993-94 Centennial Flame Research Award, Mr. Michael Ho of Calgary, who is visiting us in Ottawa today. This award is funded by the coins thrown into the Centennial flame fountain.
Mr. Ho, a lawyer who because of a head injury is no longer able to practise, has been active in organizations providing services to individuals with head injuries including the Head Injury Association of Alberta.
He is proposing to research the success stories of survivors of head injuries to serve as guiding lights for people dealing with this type of disability.
The main subject of his study will be Laurie Cormack, who not only experienced a head injury but has struggled with the trauma of being a battered wife.
It should also be recognized that Mr. Ho's contribution to Canada was acknowledged when he received the Canada 125 Award in 1992, as well as a personal testimonial from the Prime Minister which he received in 1989.

June 4. 1993

Congratulations are in order for Mr. Ho who is an inspiration to his fellow citizens.


MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, concerns have arisen about the Minister of the Environment and his performance in office. Under legislation that creates the Department of the Environment, the minister is given responsibility to promote and encourage practices and conduct that lead to the preservation and enhancement of environmental quality.
Where was the minister when cabinet acted to accept the Kemano project, an action recently declared illegal by a Senate-Commons committee? Where is the minister on other pressing environmental concerns addressed at Rio a year ago?
I agree that the minister should come under closer scrutiny, closer scrutiny for failing to protect our precious environmental resources, in particular our water resources.


TAXATION
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, as the Ontario government concludes its social contract talks and is looking for ways to reduce its deficit, it is sadly missing a very simple action it could take.
According to Ontario government treasury figures it would realize a net gain of $500 million if it harmonized the provincial sales tax with the goods and services tax. That represents 25 per cent of the money it is looking to save through the social contract talks.
Second, according to federal finance department figures, Ontario businesses would stand to gain a net benefit of between $2.1 billion and $2.3 billion in 1992-93 figures. This money could be used for investment and job
creation rather than losing it to time required to administer two separate sales tax systems.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business strongly endorses one harmonized system because of lower compliance costs to business in Ontario.
Rather than practising crass politics the premier should harmonize the sales tax system for the benefit of the people of Ontario-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but the member's time has expired.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Madam Speaker, Statistics Canada has released some numbers on unemployment today. My riding has the highest unemployment rate of the province of Ontario, well over 13 per cent, and places among the top unemployed centres in Canada.
No matter what the OECD says, it is obvious that Canada is still in a recession. The statement made by OECD that our country is on the upswing offers cold comfort for my constituents looking for a job and, at times, looking for the next meal.
The government could help us in our riding through funding of the Peter Street bridge in Thorold. If we lose the bridge through inaction or lack of help from the St. Lawrence seaway, it will mean greater loss of jobs for us, not only for the city of Thorold but for the riding. The loss of the bridge would substantially affect the dollars we need from tourism, and that is not to mention the safety factor.
I urge the government to pay immediate attention to my riding by giving us very desperately needed funds and helping us create new jobs.
# * *


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Agriculture kicked the legs out from under the Canadian Wheat Board and the co-operative grain marketing system.
By unilaterally opening a continental market for barley, the minister is threatening the work of four

June 4, 1993
generations of farmers to use democracy and mutual self-help to improve their position in the market.
It gives me pleasure today to announce that it remains the position of the New Democratic Party to fully reinstate barley under the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
We know where the government stands. I would like to challenge the Liberal Party to make its position crystal clear as well.
Why is the minister doing it now? By making his announcement in the middle of the Alberta election campaign, he is clearly signalling that a few votes in southern Alberta are more important than maintaining the most successful grain marketing system in the world.


CASH FLOW ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Agriculture announced that the Cash Flow Enhancement Program has been extended to the 1993-94 crop year. The cash flow program will provide low interest cash advances on crops farmers have produced but not yet sold.
For the 1993-94 crop year the federal government and farmers will share interest costs on cash advances of up to $60,000. The previous program provided cash advances of up to $50,000. Increasing the cap from $50,000 to $60,000 will help farmers and corn growers with high carry-over from last year's crop. Florticulture and row crop producers who traditionally take out larger advances will also benefit from the increased cap.
This announcement in advance of the crop year will help producers plan cash flow requirements for this year's harvest. This program, with a cost of $32 million to the government, will direct up to $1 billion to the farm sector this fall.
Despite cuts in the federal budget, programs designed to stabilize farm income have been protected.


FISHERIES
Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie -Bathurst):: Madam Speaker, the fisheries in northeastern New Brunswick are in dire straits. The compensation and training program announced by the federal government is not even-handed and fails to meet the expectations of an
industry that has been severely affected by the reduced quotas for groundfish.
The sit-in at the offices of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Tracadie-Sheila is one more symptom of the desperation and frustration of the plant workers and fishermen of Acadie-Bathurst. I understand why the fish plant workers in my region feel powerless and discouraged. They can only look forward to another year without a hope of finding decent jobs because, once again, there has been a lack of planning on the part of Fisheries and Oceans and Employment and Immigration.
I urge the Government of Canada to announce, as soon as possible, programs to help all workers affected by a situation that has become intolerable.


861 SILVERFOX SQUADRON


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the young people involved in 861 Silverfox Squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets.
I had the pleasure last Saturday of attending the Silverfox Squadron's fifteenth annual inspection at the Matsqui-Abbotsford recreational centre. It was an enjoyable afternoon as the cadets of 861 squadron presented a number of demonstrations for the crowd in attendance. The marching band deserves special recognition for an excellent performance.
I also want to note specifically the squadron's commanding officer, Captain Ian Anderson, for his efforts. He has a large responsibility in guiding the training and recreational activities of the cadets under him. In the process these cadets are improving their own skills and positively contributing to our community.
Again, well done and congratulations to 861 Silverfox Squadron of Abbotsford and Matsqui.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, according to the treaties signed with Indian peoples, status Indians must have suitable housing, modern education and health care equivalent to that available in Canadian society. Populations on Indian lands are growing. In Saskatchewan that population doubles every 20 years. Therefore housing becomes an urgent need.
June 4, 1993

There are bands in my riding that have a housing backlog of more than 20 units but no funds are available from the federal government, so band members have to move off reserve. What happens then? By the refusal of the federal government to live up to the treaty right for shelter, the Conservatives are forcing band members off the reserve who then become the financial responsibility of the province's welfare system.
The federal government is saving twice by not providing housing and by forcing provinces to pay sustenance costs through their welfare systems. This is cheating. The government should be ashamed.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, the effects of unemployment are becoming increasingly widespread from year to year. The higher unemployment rate experienced by regions like Chicou-timi-Jonquiere, which at 16 per cent has the highest rate in Quebec, followed by Trois-Rivieres, Montreal and Sherbrooke, confirms the failure of the policies of the Conservative government that will not recognize the destructive impact of the free trade agreement it negotiated.
Although media reports mentioned a recovery in the manufacturing sector, we see that in Quebec, unemployment continues to rise in this sector. The lack of programs to help industries through the transition during the past four years is a sign of the weakness of this government. The negative impact of free trade, combined with a lack of training in technological skills and the increased tax burden on the middle class, have not only further weakened the Canadian economy but also led to the creation of an underground economy, unfortunately.


CHILDREN
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, people who I represent have always expressed concern for law and order issues. However recently there has been a dramatic increase in their communica-
Oral Questions
tions to me in regard to two issues that are now before us in this House. One issue of course is child pornography. The other issue relates to child abuse. I have been overwhelmed by their support for these pieces of legislation.
To date I have heard from over 1,000 people living in my riding, from the communities of Williams Lake, Quesnel, 100 Mile House, Alexis Creek. The list of communities goes on. This legislation is seen by them as a commitment to the children of Canada. The people I represent want to see this commitment embedded in the Criminal Code.
They have asked me to express to all members in the House the importance of ensuring that these issues receive our careful attention. Therefore, when we rise for the summer it will be with the knowledge that Canadian children will be better protected.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
This government has one week left and all we are hearing from the leadership candidates is what a great economic job it has done. What a joke.
At the time of the last election there were one million Canadians looking for work. Today there are 1.6 million Canadians who do not have jobs. Since the last election the unemployment rate has shot up by 60 per cent.
There are 41,000 jobless in Hamilton and more to come, thanks to this government's ridiculous trade policies. There are 45,000 jobless in Calgary. Almost
500,000	people in Toronto are looking for work.
How can the government say it is on the right economic track when so many more people are hurting today?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, I want to draw to the hon. member's attention the good economic news that is coming out daily.

June 4, 1993
Oral Questions
For example, sales are up dramatically for our domestic auto makers. Just yesterday General Motors announced a third shift and that 650 more workers are to be hired. The figures for Chrysler, the company that builds its cars in Brampton, Ontario, rose 16.1 per cent. The figures for trucks are up 15.3 per cent and for cars, 17 per cent. These domestic auto makers are doing extremely well.
Capacity utilization is up strongly in our manufacturing area. Statistics Canada attributes that to our strong exports.
For the hon. member to stand up and blame the woes on the free trade agreement or other things is totally wrong.
What is happening is that the economy is recovering from a very serious recession and the recovery is very slow. However the signs are now there. Canada is going to come out of this recession much stronger than all the other OECD countries. This was just expressed this week by the OECD. It is the strongest growth not only in economic terms but in employment terms as well.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I am surprised the minister can afford to brag about a 60 per cent increase in unemployment since the last election. We are talking about 1,600,000 Canadians who are out of work. In Montreal, 80,000 jobs were lost just since the last election. In Toronto, 150,000 more jobs were lost. How can the minister say he is doing a good job when the government knows that the employment figures and statistics tell an entirely different story?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the hon. member failed to mention that since our government was elected, 1.3 million more people are working today than there were back in 1984. That was a slight oversight, I am sure, by my hon. friend.
I think the hon. member fails to recognize or refer to the fact that we have come through a very serious recessionary period in that period of time. The hon. member knows because when her party was the Government of Canada it experienced the same problem, that in recessionary periods there is the problem of high unemployment. That happens.
What we have been able to accomplish is to get interest rates and inflation down and to get Canada positioned to take advantage of the growth we are going to experience both this year and next. Jobs will follow with that growth.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I was in the House four years ago when the Minister of Finance announced he was going to bring about a recession in Canada. I was also here when both Tory leadership candidates fully supported the policies of that same minister.
He was talking about jobs, so I will ask him why, in one month, we lost 78 full-time jobs? Part-time jobs at a fast food outlet are fine, but when will we have a policy for creating full-time jobs that will pay Canadians a decent wage?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I could go through the list of companies that in the last few weeks have talked about increasing employment. That includes General Motors to which I just referred with 650 additional jobs in Oshawa. Other firms are making those announcements.
I might also say that the help wanted index-


Sheila Maureen Copps: How many did they lay off this month?


John Horton McDermid: The hon. member is not listening to the answer. She is yapping away there as she usually does. She delivers her best speech from the seat of her pants-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for York North.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Madam Speaker, according to Statistics Canada the unemployment rate is stuck at 11.4 per cent. That is unchanged from last month and is higher than the month before.
The Minister of Finance must agree that unemployment in this country is a serious problem. He must also agree that it is draining the energy from our economy, hurting consumer confidence and hampering the recovery.
June 4, 1993

Canadians want opportunities. Canadians want to get back to work. Why does the government continue with trickle down economics, the hands off, do nothing approach when there are millions of Canadians looking for opportunities. They are eager to put the Canadian economy back on its feet.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that unemployment is unacceptably high. It is unacceptably high in other countries as well. The OECD ministers of finance and international trade discussed that this week at the OECD meeting. There is no disagreement on that.
The Liberal Party's idea of boosting employment is to take money and throw it at part-time, make-work projects. That is that party's policy. It has a policy where it wants the federal, provincial and municipal governments to borrow this money and throw it at part-time work to provide 10,000 or 15,000 jobs. That is not the answer to the problems we are experiencing.
People want full-time, meaningful jobs. The importance of that is to get the basics in place, which we have. We are coming out of a serious recession. Jobs will follow. The projections are that Canada will lead in employment and economic growth over the next two years. That is very important.
I have no argument with my hon. friend that unemployment is a very serious problem. However there are different ways of tackling it.
The hon. member wants this government and the people of Canada to borrow more and to throw it at make-work projects. That is their idea of stimulating the economy. It did not work in the 1980s and it will not work today.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, what this member and this party want is that the government exercise its role, a caring role, to put the unemployed back to work. We want the government to give an opportunity to young people to finish their schooling.
The hon. minister speaks about building a strong economy based on full-time jobs. Our economy lost
78,000	full-time jobs. They were replaced by 77,000 part-time jobs.
Oral Questions
Is the minister's vision of Canada one of a jobless recovery and a part-time economy?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, no it is not.


AGRICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
I have been at farm meetings where the Prime Minister has spelled out very firmly his support of supply management and single desk marketing agencies. I listened to the minister of trade say a week or two ago that that was still the policy of the government.
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture announced what he calls a dual marketing system for barley which seriously undermines the single desk capabilities of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Can the minister explain why this change in policy?


John Horton McDermid: Unlike the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative Party makes changes where changes are necessary, important and go with the changing times in the world today. The NDP are stuck way back in the past. It will always stay in the past because of those attitudes.
The minister announced yesterday that beginning on August 1 western barley producers can choose between marketing their feed and malt barley in Canada and the United States either through the Canadian Wheat Board or privately. The Canadian Wheat Board maintains the jurisdiction of barley marketing outside of North America. That gives a choice.
The hon. member stands up here trying to convince Canadians that this will be the downfall of the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to point out to my hon. friend that barley sales from the Canadian Wheat Board account for only 1.2 per cent of the total sales.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, the government does not seem to have paid any attention to the Canadian maltsters. That is one of the few processing industries which is still Canadian owned.

June 4, 1993
Oral Questions
The maltsters pointed out to the agriculture committee that this proposal adopted by the government would mean that they would be less competitive in the Japanese and Chinese markets in supplying a very high-priced malting product. Those are burgeoning markets with a huge potential for increase in consumption.
This move takes away the advantage the maltsters had. Now the U.S. maltsters will have access to that same high-quality barley at ostensibly lower prices because there will be those offerings that occur when it is not through a single desk marketing system.
How is it going to be better for Canadian industry when the government kills the potential and competitive advantage the malting industry had before this move?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I may have misunderstood the hon. member's question. If what he is saying is that this is going to increase sales of barley to the United States and is going to allow growers to grow some more barley and sell more barley, then I am going to say that the decision is an absolutely good one.
I have to remind the hon. member that it is a choice. I also want to remind the hon. member that the Canadian Wheat Board will continue to market barley other than in the North American market, and in the North American market if the farmers choose to market their barley that way.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, surely members of the government know the problems with choice. They do not give us the choice of making decisions for the government. They do not give the Liberals the choice of making decisions for the government. Those decisions are made through one place. That is the advantage the Wheat Board has given to Canadian farmers over the past 50 years and the hon. minister should understand that.
As well, the announcement said that the border would be opened between Canada and the U.S. This means that American barley which is subsidized over 47 per cent will be competing head to head on an equal footing with Canadian barley which is subsidized at 24 per cent. Under chapter 7 of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement this becomes irreversible short of abrogating the deal.
Why was that done? Why were Canadian producers put at the disadvantage of being put up against U.S. imports of highly subsidized barley at a time when it was not required under the terms of the trade agreement? This was offered and put on the table. It is part of the announcement. It makes no sense at all.


John Horton McDermid: What the hon. member is saying is that Canadian producers are afraid of competition. Wrong. They are not afraid of competition at all. They are prepared to compete fairly and will compete fairly.
We grow a great product in this country. It does not need protection from the NDP or from any government. That product can be sold world-wide because it is recognized world-wide as a top product.
The hon. member is wrong. There is no question that some people disagree with this move and others support it. After weighing all the evidence that was presented, the decision was made to go with a system of choice for selling barley in North America. That is what is being contemplated.
I might remind the hon. member that there is a six-year review of this program to see, after it has had an ample opportunity to operate, if it is working well like the people who are supporting it say it will. In that six-year review we will take a look at it then.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I want to pursue the issue of barley because there is a lot of anger on the prairies today, anger brought on by the government's decision to move to a continental barley market.
The minister who has just spoken should know that for the past several months thousands of farmers and every major producer organization in Canada told the minister not to do it. The minister did not listen. Instead he turned his back on farmers. He abandoned farmers, the very people he was supposed to protect.
The president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture calls this a betrayal. Why was it done? Why did the minister not listen to farmers?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, organizations representing barley farmers support this move.
June 4, 1993


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I really find it interesting that on the day after a major announcement of this kind there is no agriculture minister here to speak on this issue.
If the minister responsible had not been so doctrinaire the issue could have been decided amicably and democratically. If push came to shove farmers wanted a plebiscite to decide the issue. That was a reasonable demand. After all, this is not the minister's barley and the wheat board-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have a question?


John Harvard: I have a question. Do I have some time?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will put his question now, please.


John Harvard: My question is very simple and it is for the minister responsible today. Why was this matter not put through a plebiscite which was wanted by farmers? It is as simple as that. Why not a plebiscite? Let the farmers make the decision.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I want to make it very clear that the farmers who are opposed to it can still market their barley through the Canadian Wheat Board. That is there for them to do so. They have the choice. They can market independently in North America or they can go through the wheat board.
Those farmers who want to go through the wheat board can. There is nothing to stop them from doing that.
[DOT]k	*k


PORT OF CHURCHILL
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for whoever is speaking for the Minister of Transport.
Yesterday a group of private investors, aboriginal leaders and residents of northern Manitoba announced the establishment of a consortium to establish the world's first commercial polar space board.
Essential to the development of this major high-tech project in western Canada is the maintenance of the railway and port facilities of Churchill. Yet for over a year the Minister of Transport has dithered and withered and done nothing about any kind of ongoing commitment for the maintenance of that port.
Oral Questions
Can we get a commitment today that the facility, the port and railway infrastructure of Churchill will be maintained?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Madam Speaker, for the last year the Department of Transport has not been dithering on Churchill. We have been working with Churchill. We have been consulting with the people involved. The port will open this year and will stay open this year.
I am pleased to hear a consortium has been put in place in order to bring more industry to Churchill which is badly needed there.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I do not think the minister understood the question. It is not a matter of the port staying open this year. It is a guarantee that the port has an ongoing, continuing future over the next several decades and not for one year. The minister has made no announcement, no statement, no declaration, to ensure the continuation of the port and railway facilities at Churchill.
Why is it that the western diversification fund rejected this project without any support whatsoever? The space agency has rejected any support and the Minister of Transport is rejecting any support. Why is the government standing in the way of a major high-tech development for western Canada?
.(1135)


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, the government is not standing in the way of any high-tech development in western Canada or any place in the country.
This consortium has not come to the Department of Transport for any financial assistance for what it is trying to do. It is a group of private citizens who have come together to make new business.


Lloyd Axworthy: They were turned down by your government. You should know that, if you read your brief, they were rejected.


Shirley Martin: I do not need the hon. member's instruction on how I do my job or how I read my briefs. I am answering for the Department of Transport to the hon. member. I am telling him that the port of Churchill is open this year. It will stay open this year. We are working with the port, with the railways and with the members up there to ensure that whatever can be done for the port will be done.

June 4, 1993
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment.
Labour force data released today tragically reveals more of the same for unemployed Canadians: no jobs, no hope. The unemployed rate remains unchanged at 11.5 per cent. Full-time jobs continue to disappear as parttime jobs increase. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Youth unemployment is rising and the number of students who have work is dropping.
An entire generation of Canadians are losing hope. Unemployment has remained at double digits in Canada since February 1991. Meanwhile the unemployment rate in the U.S. has dropped to 6.9 per cent.
What hope can the minister offer Canadians without jobs while his government continues to accept a tragically high unemployment rate in Canada? When will this government realize that Canada works when Canadians are working?


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration)):: Madam Speaker, the news of unemployed Canadians is never one that we are accepting. We are working very diligently in order to get people back to work. I would like to bring a number of indicators to the member's attention.
One is that the manpower temporary services survey showed that 21 per cent of those firms surveyed planned to hire people in July and August.
There are 116,000 more Canadians working now than there were last year. The help wanted index has taken the biggest leap in six years. Unemployment insurance claims have decreased 18 per cent in the last quarter from last year. There are some good indicators of how things are going in terms of people getting back to work.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, among the young people who were neither students nor in the labour force, 72 per cent were women and just over half of them were mothers. Women in this group outnumber men four to one and 60 per cent of
these women reported that child care responsibilities kept them from looking for paid employment.
It should also be noted that women outnumber men in part-time positions, the only job creation in the country, by more than two to one.
How can the government continue to refuse to implement a national child care program when these figures clearly demonstrate that a lack of child care prevents women from entering the paid work force? How can this minister continue to support the economic marginalization of women in Canada?


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. member that some
944,000	more women are working today than in 1984. Between 1984 and 1992 the number of working women in managerial and administrative positions climbed 85 per cent. These positions accounted for 31 per cent of all jobs created for women between 1984 and 1992.
I think that is very good news in terms of women being in administrative and managerial positions.


CANADA POST
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
We are in a devastating recession. Unemployment is at
11.4	per cent, two million people are on welfare, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians, including children, line up at food banks every day. The government claims it has no resources to solve those problems, yet in the face of this economic and social turmoil how can cabinet and Treasury Board approve $55 million for the purchase of Purolator?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I read in the paper where the hon. member said that he was in favour of the purchase if the alternative was sale to the United States led companies, which is the alternative. I regret his partisanship or his colleagues got to him and caused him to depart from his original, quite reasonable position.
June 4, 1993

Oral Questions
There are no additional tax funds going into it. It is all financed internally. If he wants to know where the money is coming from, in part it came from a decision by Canada Post to contract out to the tune of $100 million a year all its internal data processing activities to another Canadian company, Systemhouse. That has generated cash so there is no cash problem.
He might be interested to know and want to applaud Canada Post for the fact that its productivity has been increasing significantly. Even during a recession it has been able to post a profit this year and there will be no increase in stamp prices effective January. Over all I think if he examines the record he will want to applaud Canada Post for an outstanding performance.


Jerry Pickard: Madam Speaker, he is quite wrong in my comment. I said it was an evil, probably a lesser evil than an American company purchasing it. However these arguments do not wash.
During the past few years this government sold Air Canada, Petro-Canada and Telesat. When the country is so financially devastated, how can it announce a $55 million purchase of Purolator? Why does the minister feel we need to own another parcel post delivery system?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite a salesman for Canada. In OECD the finance ministers are meeting and there is agreement that out of the 21 or 22 leading industrialized nations, Canada is going to lead the world in growth, job creation and prosperity for the next two years.
The hon. member insists that Canada is not the great place that they think it is; it is a terrible place where there is great deprivation. Why cannot the hon. member accept good news? This is a good business decision that makes sense for Canada Post.
When the Liberals were in charge of Canada Post they were receiving subsidies from the taxpayers to the tune of $300 million to $400 million a year. Does he want to go back to the good old days when the taxpayers get the chance to dip into their jeans to subsidize Canada Post, or does he want to accept the record that it is an outstanding corporation that has done an outstanding
job and this makes good business sense? Come on, join us.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the government House leader.
We know that the Minister of the Environment has currently senior officials of his leadership campaign who were previously employed on untendered contracts in the Department of the Environment. They include Mr. David Small and Mr. Tim Ralfe.
Today we have the Minister of the Environment quoted as saying the following in The Globe and Mail, and I ask the government House leader to pay close attention to this quote: "The people working on our campaign are not on the government payroll as is the case from what I understand for those who are working on other campaigns".
I want to ask the government House leader, given that the Minister of the Environment has alleged quite clearly today in The Globe and Mail that other leadership campaigns are being bankrolled by the public purse, what is the government House leader doing on behalf of the taxpayers to put an end to this practice?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, first off, as I listened to the quote the Minister of the Environment said no one working full time on his campaign is on the government payroll and that is the case with other leadership campaigns as well. What is wrong with that?
Yesterday the hon. member stood in the House and he quoted, for example, from an unsigned, unsolicited document. He might have got it from the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Who knows where he got that document from? He stated that Mr. Ralfe's contracts exceeded $50 million in the last fiscal year and his contract was renewed in April although he seems to be working full time on the Charest campaign. That is totally false and is in fact defamatory.
If the hon. member has any respect for this institution he will apologize because the contract was not renewed. It terminated March 31. It was not for more than $50,000. Mr. Ralfe started working on the campaign after that and is not receiving anything from the Government

June 4, 1993
Oral Questions
of Canada. That is a slanderous, defamatory statement and the hon. member should have the decency to apologize for it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, to set the record straight, what the minister just quoted from is not Hansard or my comments in the House. What the minister has just quoted from is the document that I made available to the press yesterday. He is not quoting from anything that I said anywhere inside or outside the House.
Let me quote again. What I have said with respect to Mr. Ralfe and Mr. Small is that both had received contracts, both have ended up in senior positions on the campaign, and I stand by that.
Let me quote again the question at hand. The Minister of the Environment is quoted in today's Globe and Mail-let us be careful and let us listen carefully, minister-as saying: "The people working on our campaign are not on the government payroll, as is the case from what I understand for those who are working on other campaigns".
The story goes on to say: "The minister refused to name which candidates he believed were bankrolling their campaigns from the public purse".
I want to ask the minister, given that the Minister of the Environment has alleged that campaigns other than his are currently bankrolling their leadership campaigns from the public purse, what action will he take to investigate this allegation? Will he talk to the Minister of the Environment and will he put an end to this abuse?


Harvie Andre: What we are seeing here is an abuse of the principle of parliamentary immunity, where the hon. member stands up and slanders and libels individuals. He said he was quoting a document, therefore he is immune. In other words, if somebody puts a piece of libellous material in his hands he feels it is perfectly reasonable and appropriately responsible to stand up and damage reputations.
I would to remind the hon. member of what Shakespeare said: "Steal my purse, you steal trash; steal my
reputation, you steal my life". The hon. member should think a little more carefully and be a little more responsible before he goes after someone.
I repeat again: What he just said-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Answer the question.


John Harvard: He is quoting your own minister.


Harvie Andre: If hon. members would keep their mouths shut and not interrupt me I would continue.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister may finish.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member is incapable of keeping his mouth shut apparently, Madam Speaker. The hon. member quoted, saying that "no one on our campaign is on the government payroll, as is the case I understand". In other words, that is the case in other campaigns as well. It is clearly, clearly contrary to the rules set down by the Prime Minister when we announced the leadership campaign that nobody working full time on campaigns can be on the government payroll. That is clearly the policy.
The hon. member has no evidence. Yesterday he made allegations, his colleagues made allegations about David Small. They are all false. Have the decency to withdraw those allegations unless you have proof.


FORESTRY
Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forestry. It relates to a decision made by the government in the recent budget to allow forest agreements between the federal government and the provinces to expire once those agreements have run out.
The minister will know from previous statements in the House and other comments on the record that the government had at one time viewed these agreements as an excellent demonstration of effective co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, which have joined with the forest industry and private forest managers to work toward a more economic wood supply, along with providing very important funding for work in replanting, silviculture work, research and the management of woodlots.
June 4. 1993

My question to the minister is this. Will the minister and the government reconsider the decision of the Minister of Finance to allow the forest agreements to expire?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is right; these agreement did all of the things that the hon. member mentioned.
The fact of the matter is that our needs change, society's needs change, and new arrangements need to be made to satisfy both Canada's public need and the obligations that we have internationally.
The ministers of forestry and the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers are not surprised at this decision because we have been working over the last few years and have designed a more legitimate role for the federal government in forestry, one through which we can make much longer term commitments.
The model forest program for instance is an indication of what the future role of the federal government will be in this area, with increased research and science related activities and it is in these areas that the public demands our activities.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
The minister and other members of the government will know that the former President of the Treasury Board has conducted, as we understand it from news reports, a detailed internal review of the make-up of the Government of Canada. Some of the leadership contenders from the government side are talking about scaling back the federal cabinet.
I wonder if the minister would have any advice for us as to whether there will be a Minister of Forestry in the future. Does he support keeping the job he has now at least for a short period of time and will there be a cabinet post to protect one of Canada's most important resources in the future?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, obviously I cannot predict what a future Prime Minister will do in terms of responding to the clear demands of society to streamline, modernize, and rationalize the operations of government in the same way
Oral Questions
that the private sector and other institutions need to be adjusted to meet modern demands.
The hon. member ought to look at the record of this government over the last eight years in terms of what it has accomplished in forestry, the new national forest strategy, the Canada forest accord, the model forests program, all of these great institutions that have made this department indispensable in terms of how the federal government discharges its obligations. That would give him an indication of where we might be moving in the future.


DISABLED PERSONS
Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport.
This being National Access Awareness Week it is important we note that one of the greatest obstacles disabled Canadians face is the availability of accessible transportation whether for employment or for recreational activities. It has been a major concern of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons.
I would like to ask the minister whether she or the government have had any success in providing assistance to our struggling transportation industries in trying to make accessible transportation more available to disabled Canadians.


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member and the members of all parties who served on this committee for the outstanding work they have done to make life easier for disabled people in Canada.
Certainly within the transportation industry we have made big strides in the last year under the national strategy that was announced by the Prime Minister in 1991.
Just yesterday at Ottawa airport I was able to announce the contribution of $120,000 to Air Canada to provide loading bridges not only at Ottawa but at Moncton, Vancouver and Calgary along with the regional airlines to allow a dignified access to small aircraft.
At the same time there was another $98,000 given to Thrifty Car Rental and to Hertz Rent A Car in Ottawa to provide hand controls and accessible vehicles for wheelchairs.

June 4, 1993
Oral Questions
These are taking place right across the country and I am pleased with the co-operation we have had from the airlines, even under difficult times, to make sure that transportation is better.
There is one disappointment I do have if I may just take this one minute. The national press has not focused on any of the work that has been done in this area, so that those people who are not able to leave their homes are able to see what is available for them and that the world and certainly Canada has opened up to allow them to travel.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry -Prescott -Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the government House leader and it relates to the issue raised by the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.
A few moments ago the minister refused to answer the question in regard to the statement of the Minister of the Environment yesterday who said "the people working on our campaign are not on the government payroll as is the case from what I understand for those who are working on other campaigns".
The next statement was the following: "Mr. Charest did not say which of his opponents he was referring to". In other words, which of his opponents was cheating taxpayers.
The minister has to answer the following questions: Has he been made aware of the charges made by the Minister of the Environment? What is he doing to protect the taxpayers as is his duty as Acting Prime Minister today?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I did answer the question, if the hon. member had chosen to listen. He knows full well that the rules of the Progressive Conservative Party, as set down by the Prime Minister, are very clear. Nobody shall work on a campaign during the time they are being paid to work for the government in any capacity. He knows those are the rules.
I would ask the hon. member, since he stood up in the House with his colleague from Newfoundland and slandered Mr. David Small and Mr. Tim Ralfe, whether he would have the decency to stand up and apologize for those slanders.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I will let you decide whether the minister can make that claim of slander without any backing to make that charge against another member of the House. You may do that at the appropriate time.
Right now the minister has to answer, not about accusations I made but accusations made by the Minister of the Environment, accusations that he refused to elaborate upon when he was asked to do so by Andre Picard of the Quebec bureau of The Globe and Mail.
Will the minister now finally answer the question that has been asked here today? Will he tell us what he intends to do to find out from the Minister of the Environment who the Minister of the Environment was referring to about the breach of the rules and about the fact that people on government payroll, according to him, were bankrolling campaigns of other Conservative candidates? Will he answer that question?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, to begin with I would suggest that the hon. member reread what was said. It was not the Minister of the Environment who made that statement, it was Andre Picard.
The reality is, and particularly with respect to this leadership campaign, that which is written by reporters is sometimes a significant departure from what in fact actually happened.
I would ask the hon. member again, if he is suggesting that the allegations that he and his colleague made in respect to Mr. Small and Mr. Ralfe are substantiated and he believes them to be true, to make those allegations and take the traditional posture that if he turns out to be wrong in his allegations he will do what tradition requires and resign his seat.


FOREIGN AID
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of External Relations.
June 4, 1993

Privilege
As we all know, if the global environment is to be protected, poverty in the developing world must be reduced. One year ago in Rio at the earth summit this government made a commitment to provide additional funds to the Third World.
How is it possible for Canada to do that if it is cutting its foreign aid?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of External Relations and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Madam Speaker, CIDA continues and is determined to pursue and actively support the program approved at the Rio summit. The environmental guidelines for sustainable development published in 1992 have been observed in all CIDA programs.
I also wish to confirm here in the House that sustainable development, as a fully integrated policy component, is a priority and indeed a requirement in all our international development assistance programs.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, the minister has difficulty in dealing with my question.
In an op-ed article today in The Globe and Mail the minister herself praises her foreign aid policy program but does not mention the poor nations.
The question therefore is this: Is it still this government's goal to help the poorest countries as promised in her department document Sharing Our Future! How does the minister explain the cancellation of aid to Ethiopia, Madagascar, Burundi, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, as we have repeated time and time again since December last year, there were some difficult decisions to make, following the cuts in funding for international development assistance. We have maintained our government priorities, including, of course, aid to the poorest nations.
Through our programs we are maintaining our support for the poorest nations, who need the assistance of the Canadian government. We have set up special programs under which these nations can request assistance. These include environmental programs and programs with an economic and commercial framework.
Very briefly, Madam Speaker, the government is meeting its commitments, protecting sustainable development and helping the poorest countries throughout the world.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have received notice of a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege regarding actions that are being taken. I believe these actions interfere with my ability to do my job as a member of Parliament.
I received in the lobby a minute or two before Question Period from the law firm of Radnoff, Pearl, Slover, Swedko, Dwoskin notice of its intention to reserve the right to bring action against me unless I make certain withdrawals. This notice was served to me in the lobby of the House of Commons a few minutes ago. I regard it as a deliberate act to prevent me from doing my job. I shall explain why.
Even as I speak, the government House leader is reading from that legal notice given to me. The government House leader obviously had in his hand in advance of the notice being served on me in the lobby, a copy of the letter from the law firm in question. During Question Period the government House leader quoted directly from the letter in question served on me. He is looking at it now, as I speak.
You quoted from it earlier, Harvie. Somebody sitting behind you in the Chamber watched you quote from it. I tracked you as you quoted from it.
I am prepared to make the letter available to the Speaker. I am prepared to have you, Madam Speaker,

Privilege
check Hansard and see that the government House leader quoted directly from this letter.
It is crystal clear that the communications manager of the Charest campaign, Mr. Ralfe, his law firm, which I have just named, and the government House leader are acting in consort in attempting to intimidate and prevent a member of Parliament from doing his job and to undertake his duties.
Madam Speaker, I ask you to investigate this co-ordinated attempt to shut up a member of Parliament, to introduce libel chill. If you find a prima facie case for this question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
I ask the government House leader to table the letter he quoted from in Question Period. It will be crystal clear that it is exactly the same document I myself only received a minute or two before Question Period. Clearly he had it in his hands. As part of a co-ordinated attempt to shut down, to intimidate, to shut up a member of Parliament who is doing his job, the minister opposite chose to use it. I am sure by now he regrets his rather foolish action.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, finally at the end we got the truth.
Indeed I was told that this letter had been given to the member.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You have it.


Harvie Andre: I was given a copy of the letter and he admitted that he received the letter before Question Period. I received it after it was sent to him.
The quote I read-and he can check the "blues"-was right from the document the hon. member circulated. The point is the quote is exactly what I read from the letter. It was exactly out of this document. The word is this:
Ralfe whose contracts exceeded $50,000 in the last fiscal year,
had his contract renewed in April. Although he seems to be working
full time on the Charest campaign, Ralfe has an active contract with
the department.
That is a false statement.
The hon. member distributed this false information outside in the lobby during the scrums endeavouring to ruin another reputation. Somehow he thinks it enhances the political system and his own reputation by going out and spreading false information.
I will let the recipient or victim of this deal with it on his own.
I maintain the point is that the level of respect in which this institution is held is not aided by hon. members using parliamentary immunity to stand up and slander individuals who do not have the privilege of coming in to defend themselves. I will let the hon. member deal with that.
In any event, at no time did I hear in his comments anything having to do with the rules of privilege in this House. I fail to understand what his point of privilege would be in respect to how he was prevented from doing his duty in the House by whatever is happening.
He has the letter in his hand and if he chooses to table it he may do so. I do not care. The point is I believe the letter deals with what the hon. member said in particular out in the scrum by handing out material which is slanderous and wrong.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I think the electronic Hansard will show that during Question Period the minister did quote directly from a two-page letter. I believe that the tradition of the House is that when a minister or a member quotes from a document that person is required to table that document.
I would ask that the minister table the document he used in his response, which was a two-page letter.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, in your examination of this letter I would also draw to your attention the fact that my hon. friend opposite indicated that the Liberal Party does have people sitting in the gallery who are reading mail and the documents that ministers have in front of them. If there was ever a question of privilege to be raised that ought to be it.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think when deciding upon this decision there are two points which you might want to consider.
The first thing that you might want to consider, Madam Speaker, is whether this is an attempt to intimidate an MP in the exercise of his function.
The second point to consider is the fact that the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte was served with this letter from this law firm here on Parliament Hill. As Madam Speaker will be well aware, a member cannot be served with a legal notice of this nature here if it is a court document. In a civil case that cannot be done on Parliament Hill. Given the fact that it cannot be done,
June 4, 1993

the purpose of this letter is to have the same effect, in other words, to serve this upon the member in like manner from what I have described previously. Therefore I claim, and I ask Madam Speaker to consider the fact, that particular letter should not have been delivered to the hon. member on Parliament Hill by the law firm in question.


Howard Edward Crosby: Delivered not served.


Don Boudria: I regret to interrupt the member for Halifax West who undoubtedly has something terribly important to tell us. However if the government maintains that everything is appropriate here, then surely it would welcome the parliamentary committee investigating this situation and reporting to the House forthwith. If not, I will be left with the conclusion that the point of the hon. minister is hard to defend.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of having a committee of Parliament look into the slanderous and false accusations of the hon. member to see whether that is appropriate parliamentary behaviour.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, he has not tabled the letter. Table the letter. Madam Speaker, you should secure that letter. It was quoted from in this House. The minister is now running out of the House without tabling the letter. Madam Speaker should not allow the government House leader to run from Parliament, to run from the House of Commons, with the letter still in his pocket. This gives proof to my suggestion that this has been a co-ordinated attempt by people outside the House and inside the House to shut up a member of Parliament.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to what was said during Question Period and during the exchange following the hon. member raising that question of privilege. I have listened to all sides. I will, of course, take everything under advisement.
However two points need to be made at this time. The hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte kept asking me to force the hon. minister to table the letter. The minister can only be forced to table a state document, which is not the case at this point. I cannot force the hon. member to table a document that is not a state document. This document does not come from the Government of Canada.


Don Boudria: That is not in the rules. I am sorry.
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We can discuss that later on. At this point this is my decision.


Brian Vincent Tobin: He is burning it as we speak.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will review Hansard.
There is also a question about legal documents being served or delivered on the precinct without the Speaker's express permission. That is also something that causes me some concern.
The whole situation will be reviewed and I will come back to the House as soon as possible.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, the following proposals to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act, the National Transportation Act 1987, the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the Farm Income Protection Act.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 62 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* * #


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-106, an act to amend certain petroleum-related acts in respect of Canadian ownership requirements and to confirm the validity of a certain

June 4, 1993
Routine Proceedings
regulation, without amendment, in both official languages.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-121, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend another act in consequence thereof, with amendments, in both official languages.
While I have the floor I would ask the consent of the House to waive the notice requirement for the report stage of Bill C-121 so that the bill can be called for on Monday, June 7.
Madam Speaker, I think if you were to ask the House there would be consent from all sides.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

John Henry Reimer: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 111 residents of Waterloo county.
They draw attention to the fact that the depiction of sexually explicit actions involving children and violence against women offends normal standards of decency, portrays an abnormal view of societal values and is harmful to the family unit.
These petitioners call upon the federal government to pass strong Criminal Code sanctions against the publication and distribution of films, videos and television programs depicting explicit sexual acts and the use of children and violence against women in a sexual context.


Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, I was contacted some time ago by a group of people who are very much concerned about the killer cards that are being sold in Canada. I have eight petitions I would like to present which have literally thousands and thousands of names upon them.
These people wish to make known their disapproval of the sale of what is known as killer cards in Canada. They urge the government to stop the entry of these cards into Canada.
The petitioners, and I include myself, abhor crimes of violence against persons. They believe that killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate but rather contribute to violence. Therefore they think these should be banned from Canada.


Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, I am rising today to present a petition of many thousand signatures gathered by Mr. and Mrs. Crawford, who are here with us today in the gallery. Their son was viciously murdered and left in a Scarborough sewer by three young offenders.
The petitioners state that the need to protect society is much more important than the need to protect young offenders.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition that is signed by well over 100 citizens of Canada, mostly in New Westminster in my constituency, who express their concerns about child poverty.
They reflect back to the motion that was passed unanimously in the House of Commons in November 1989 which said that we as a country would eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
They cite the ever-increasing cost to the administration of health care, justice, and social welfare. They say that poor children are inhibited in learning and preparation for employment. This constitutes a large cost to future national productivity and the country.

June 4, 1993

They call upon Parliament to take the actions necessary to reaffirm its commitment to seek the elimination of poverty among children in Canada by the year 2000 and to develop a plan for the implementation of this commitment.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to table in the House two petitions signed by 72 of my constituents in Fraser Valley East, and more specifically in the Chilliwack and Sardis
area.
They call on the government to take the necessary steps to provide a national referendum on the subject of the official languages of Canada.


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present two petitions on behalf of the constituents of Lincoln and the towns of Jordan, Vineland, Beamsville, Grimsby, Stoney Creek and surrounding areas. The petitions concern the killer cards and the serial killer board games that are entering this country.
In the first petition the petitioners request Parliament to consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading materials such as the serial killer board game can be kept from distribution in
Canada.
In the second petition the petitioners ask that we amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that their product, if destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a similar petition.
It calls on Parliament to consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading material such as the serial killer board game and the mass murder trading cards can be kept from being distributed in Canada.
Routine Proceedings PHARMACEUTICALS


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I also have a petition from a number of petitioners throughout the province of British Columbia.
They call on Parliament to not proceed with Bill C-91-it is a little late for that-and to repeal Bill C-22, which was passed in 1987, so that Canadians will have full benefit from lower priced generic drugs and provincial and private drug plans can serve Canadians without being forced to charge higher fees and/or to provide less coverage.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I also have a petition from people throughout the province of British Columbia. Thousands of names have been presented in the past on this petition.
It is presented in memory of Dawn Shaw, a six-year old girl who was murdered and sexually assaulted in my riding. It calls for a number of changes in the criminal justice system and in the way that sexual offenders are handled through the justice system or when being released from prison so that they can be monitored in the community.
The petitioners, in memory of Dawn Shaw, request that Parliament enact legislation to change the justice system to provide greater protection for children from sexual assault and to assure the conviction of offenders.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table in the House petitions signed by 1,253 Canadians from Saskatchewan, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Vancouver Island, Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Kitchener, Niagara, Elmira and many other communities in Canada.
The petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to establish a peace trust fund which would allow Canadian taxpayers, who for reasons of conscience or religion, choose to direct a portion of their taxes paid to the government away from military uses and to a fund which would use the resources so directed for peace education, research, humanitarian aid and other peaceful purposes.

June 4, 1993
Routine Proceedings
As the author of a private member's bill calling for the establishment of such a fund, I would like to thank all of the people who have worked so hard across the country to make this effort a success.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont -Dundas):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition on behalf of 29 constituents of Stormont-Dundas who call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the acceptance or rejection of two official languages, English and French, for the government and the people of Canada.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition I received from Notre-Dame-du-Saint-Rosaire School in Crysler during education week on May 7, when I attended the official opening of their public awareness campaign against violence.
I was given a petition under the theme: "Hand in hand for a violence free world", supporting the efforts of Ms. Cleroux who condemns the sale of violent games, especially the serial killer board game, first edition.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to table a petition today signed by residents of British Columbia who are expressing their concerns about a company by the name of Multinational Resources whose plans are to dam and divert the North Thompson River into Kinbas-ket Lake for eventual sale to California.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today. The first petition has about 175 signatures on it concerning representations to the government to maintain the manned weather station at the Gore Bay-Manitoulin Airport.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, the second petition has 36 names on it calling on the government to enact legislation to provide for a referendum on the two official languages of Canada.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, I rise to table a petition today signed by hundreds of Canadians from Chatham, Wallaceburg, Sarnia, Renfrew, Arnprior, Caledonia, Guelph, Hamilton, Burlington, Whitehorse, Calgary, St. John's, Sudbury and, among others, one individual signed it "Homeless, Canada". The petitioners call on the government, as is their right, to repeal Bill C-113, which has been passed. They cite it specifically because of the reduction from 60 per cent to 50 per cent in UI benefits and also that the bill has frozen Public Service wages without collective bargaining. It has increased the cost of grain transportation and has decreased public utility tax returns to the provinces. They call upon Parliament at this time to repeal C-113.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 472 and 492.


Mr. Duhamel: What is the total number of aboriginal women employed in a legal capacity within (a) the Department of Justice (b) other federal departments (c) crown corporations and governmental agencies (d) human rights commissions?


Rob Nicholson: (a) Three lawyers and one articling student have self-identified. *(b) and (c) Legal services to the Government of Canada, with the exception of those provided to certain independent agencies, PCO and External Affairs are exclusively provided by the Department of Justice.
June 4, 1993

Routine Proceedings
In so far as PCO and EA are concerned: none.
(d)	One lawyer has self-identified at the Canadian Human Rights Commission*.
*Figures are based on voluntary self-identification and may not therefore accurately disclose the number of employees who are aboriginal women and who are lawyers or articling students.


Miss Grey (Beaver River): During the period November 1, 1992, through December 15, 1992, did the Department of Justice produce firearms amnesty television advertisements and, if so (a) how many types of ads (b) what were the lengths (i.e. 15 or 30 seconds) of these advertisements (c) how many times did each of these advertisements appear on television (d) what other attempts were made to alert firearm owners of the amnesty (e) was direct mail used in the advertising campaign (f) was any attempt made to contact firearm owners through their clubs or through the police (g) what was the cost of each of these methods of contact and the cost of the firearms amnesty advertising campaign asa whole (h) what efforts were taken to train police officers in the proper procedures necessitated by the new regulations (i) what costs were incurred by the Department of Justice to train these police officers?


Rob Nicholson: In response to the above noted inquiry, it is important to emphasize that the Department of Justice Canada developed and implemented a comprehensive public information and advertising campaign (PLIA) for the firearms control legislation in August 1992 in joint co-operation with the provincial and territorial governments. The firearms amnesty advertising, which included television ads, was but one component of this campaign.
(a)	There was one ad produced, in English and in French, for the amnesty. When the amnesty period was extended, the same ad was re-run with a caption highlighting the extension period.
(b)	The length of this ad was 30 seconds.
(c)	TV advertising spots were purchased on all major English and French networks for a total of 630 gross rating points, with the ads likely to have reached on average 70-75 per cent of adults in Canada.
(d)	In addition to the television advertising, there was a householder distributed nationally in September 1992 to 11 million Canadian households which highlighted the
key components of the new firearms control legislation. It included a section devoted to the firearms amnesty.
Amnesty ads (total of 400 lines) were also placed in all weekly and ethnic newspapers during the first two weeks of November 1992.
A brochure on the firearms amnesty program was also produced and sent in large quantities to the offices of the chief provincial and territorial firearms officers and to police services across Canada for distribution to the general public. This brochure along with several press releases announcing the amnesty were sent to the members of the media in advance of the amnesty period. During the course of the amnesty and more than one month after it was all over, results were reported by police detachments across the country on a weekly basis and then issued to the members of the media.
In addition, senior federal and provincial justice officials and members of the RCMP, provincial and local police services across Canada did a great many interviews about the amnesty with members of the national, regional and local print, radio and television media, the week leading up to the start of the amnesty and during the amnesty period.
(e)	As mentioned above, a national householder (news sheet tabloid format) was distributed in the form of direct mail to 11 million Canadian households prior to the amnesty.
(f)	Beginning in April 1992, a substantial effort was made to notify firearms owners about the firearms amnesty through a direct mail-out of press releases. This information was sent to firearms organizations, most gun clubs, firearms interest groups and police services across the country.
As well, a firearms amnesty training and information video was developed and distributed to police services agencies across Canada and to firearms owners and users and to the general public. This video enabled police officers to respond to inquiries made by Firearms owners and the general public about the firearms amnesty.
(g)	The total federal costs for the firearms public information and advertising program for the firearms amnesty include the production, printing/duplication and distribution of the following elements:

June 4, 1993

Government Orders
Householder**	$1,076,329
Television advertising	1,512,452
Amnesty brochure	58,424
Amnesty information packages	50,000
Amnesty training and information video 122,275


[Stage Direction]
** The householder included a small section devoted to the firearms amnesty. The cost of $1,076,329 is for the complete tabloid copy.
Therefore, the estimated federal costs for the firearms amnesty information campaign were approximately $2,819,480.
Costs borne by the provincial and local police services across Canada to advertise and inform (television, radio, print) their public about amnesty are not reported.
(h)	In order to ensure police were trained in the proper procedures necessitated by the legislation and regulations, and the conduct of the amnesty program, a police training program was developed, in partnership with the RCMP and provincial and territorial governments, and delivered in four regions of Canada. This program included:
(1)	a developmental workshop in Ottawa,
(2)	four regional workshops (Vancouver, British Columbia; London, Ontario; Montreal, Quebec; and Halifax, Nova Scotia);
(3)	a comprehensive police training manual; and
(4)	a series of training and information videos.
Over 400 police officers from across Canada (recommended by the chief provincial and territorial firearms officers to become instructors) were trained during these sessions. Upon completion of the training program, these police instructors returned to their respective provinces and police services and trained their own personnel using materials developed by my department (training manual and information videos). The training and information videos have been distributed to the general public, and are now being distributed to firearms safety education trainers as part of the safety training program.
(i)	The total cost to the Department of Justice Canada for the conduct of this training program was $1.2 million. The costs incurred by the provinces and territories to train other police officers in their respective jurisdictions are not reported to the department.
Rob Nicholson: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, my point of order concerns the tabling of a document this afternoon by the Minister of State for Transport which concerned Western Grain Transportation Act draft legislation.
When legislation of that type is tabled in the House it should be made available to members. My understanding is that an inquiry to the Table has resulted in this document not being available. It should be available to members today just as it is available to the minister. The minister is having a press conference at this moment in western Canada. He should be making that statement in the House of Commons. If he cannot do that then at least the document which is tabled here should be made available.
I would ask that the officers of the House take action to ensure that that document named the Western Grain Transportation Act draft legislation be made available to members immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. I will inquire. I was not aware of the situation. What has to be done will be done and as soon as possible.
Questions No. 472 and No. 492 as enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall all the other questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Siddon that Bill C-133, an act respecting an agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I want to say that on behalf of the leader of my party, the member for Yukon, and on behalf of my caucus I am pleased to take part in this debate as aboriginal critic for the New Democratic Party.
June 4, 1993

I am also grateful to the House for the kindness in allowing me to delay my participation in this debate until after Question Period, but I feel I must extend an apology to those who are visiting us from the Inuit community for having to submit them to the debate that took place during Question Period. Hopefully we are now getting on to better things.
The Nunavut claim settlement and the creation of the territory of Nunavut is something of which all Canadians can be proud. It is something that all Canadians and this Parliament should be celebrating today. We should be recognizing it as a great event in the progress of Canada's Confederation and Canada's political development. This is the first political boundary change in Canada since the addition of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1949,1 think it was. This is the first great change in the structure of Canada since that time.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Nunatsiaq who congratulated all of those Inuit people who took part in the negotiations from the very beginning, initiating the proposal in the first place and pursuing the proposal over a 20-year period-a fifth of a century-with patience, persistence and persuasiveness until they reached this point where Nunavut is almost a reality, depending on the outcome of the debate in this House today and where the land claims settlement is finally to be ratified by the House of Commons. I would like to associate myself with that member in indicating that the Inuit people who have been involved in pursuing this issue and involved in the negotiations have done a terrific job.
I would also like to add something because it occurred, I suppose, right up until the last couple of days. The Inuit negotiators have always been understanding, open and willing to negotiate with those aboriginal groups on their borders who felt that there were conflicting claims within the Nunavut settlement area. They wanted to do what they could either to facilitate resolving those claims when the need was to approach the government or other parties, or when it was helpful to change the wording in the agreements themselves.
They were always willing to provide agreements that satisfied in particular the Denesuline from northern Saskatchewan and from northern Manitoba. They were
Government Orders
willing to provide them with assurance that this agreement and this legislation did not prejudice any treaty rights or any process to resolve their concerns about treaty rights north of 60 degrees.
The Inuit negotiators have always been open, understanding and willing to discuss with the people on their borders the methods for resolving the difficulties that they may have with the creation of Nunavut and also how those aboriginal groups can still retail their right of action to pursue their treaty rights.
I am not really feeling comfortable about doing this next part but I would also like to congratulate the government and the minister of Indian affairs for the role he has played in finally bringing this process after a fifth of a century to a conclusion. I think it is a happy conclusion for all concerned.
This is something that can go on the credit side of the ledger as far as this government is concerned. I am not willing to say that about a lot of the other things that the minister has done or neglects to do. However in this case I think one will find that the House almost universally accepts that in this case he has done a good thing.
He might have been prodded into it and in many cases persuaded and cajoled. In any case the government for the most part has responded in the right way. For that reason we see the creation today of the settlement of the Nunavut land claims settlements and also the creation of the new territory of Nunavut.
I do not want to be too positive about the minister in these discussions for reasons one may find out later. However we have some concerns about the legislation. They are concerns that result from leaks of polling that were done by a Decima poll which suggest that Canadians are concerned about the amount of money that is being given to the Inuit people under this legislation.
The newspaper reports on this issue have indicated that it could be anywhere from $580 million 1989 Canadian dollars meaning something like $1.14 billion discounted Canadian dollars over time. Really, if we analyse the situation closely then the wording of these agreements should actually reflect the truth of the matter.

June 4, 1993
Government Orders
As my colleague from Nunatsiaq pointed out, the greatest transfer taking place in these land claim settlements is the transfer of vast areas of land, resources and potential for royalties and revenues from those resources that are not going to the Inuit people. These are going to the people of Canada by finally settling an outstanding dispute over land and resources between the people who owned them originally and have occupied them for 4,000 years at least as far as we can see on that time horizon.
In order to make it possible for us as non-aboriginals and as Inuit to live together it has been agreed to turn that land over to the administration of a public government which is one of the governments of Canada to which all Canadians will have access. They will keep for their own use a very small amount which is as my colleague from Nunatsiaq said. It is something like 2 per cent of subsurface areas and up to 18 per cent of the total land surface. The people who are the real beneficiaries of this agreement are the people of Canada.
The minister in his education programs on this issue and in his polling should be asking the question in those ways rather than leaving it distorted in people's minds. They feel that the aboriginal people are the recipients when truly the aboriginal people are the givers in this case.
Canada is the beneficiary. In part as well aboriginal people are the beneficiaries. We have settled this issue for the time being. There is an opportunity for Canadians as a whole and for Inuit people in the eastern Arctic to co-exist and work together. The mechanisms have been put in place for us to do that.
The wording of the agreement talks about the Inuit people receiving certain rights with respect to fish, wildlife and land. In fact those were their inherent rights from time immemorial.
I am concerned that the wording of the agreement does not really signify that. Nor does the agreement recognize, as my colleague pointed out, that there is an aboriginal title to these areas. The agreement stops far short of that by saying there is an assertion of a claim to aboriginal rights.
At some point the government really has to get to the point and start telling the truth about the fact. We came close to recognizing that truth during the Charlottetown debate. We began a debate around the issue of inherent
rights, where those inherent rights derive from an occupancy of the land and the organization among aboriginal people of states with virtual national capabilities on the land..In the future our claims settlements are going to have to recognize the reality of the situation that first, aboriginal people have these rights and second, they are giving the rights to Canadians and that Canadians are the beneficiaries.
I am going to say a bit about the negative things the minister has either done or things he has neglected to do in the past, only because they may reflect on the legacy of problems that the new government of Nunavut may have to deal with. There is no question about it. When looking at the report cards on this government and previous governments of Canada, both nationally and internationally, there is a great deal of business that has been left undone with respect to the aboriginal people in this country.
Essentially this agreement still talks about a colonial type of relationship between Canada and its aboriginal people. That kind of relationship causes serious social problems. It takes power away from the colonized people and gives it to the colonisers. To some extent this legislation is now turning that around so that the colonisers are now giving up power and empowering the colonized people.
Members of the aboriginal affairs committee travelled around this country. We found one thing in virtually every case we studied, whether it was post-secondary education, aboriginal literacy, or aboriginal housing. That is that the most effective people in identifying the problems that needed to be recognized in their communities and the most effective people in developing solutions and delivering programs dealing with those problems were the aboriginal people themselves.
There is a tremendous advantage both to the aboriginal people and the Government of Canada to make sure that they have the resources and the power to deal with those programs. By far they are the best and most effective people to solve those kinds of problems.
The minister bears a lot of responsibility for things that have been left undone. Things like the Lubicon Cree and Davis Inlet, names like Shamattawa and Big Cove are going to come back in his dreams to haunt him. A lot of problems have not been dealt with fairly, accurately and effectively by this minister and his government. Unfortunately those are going to become a part of the legacy the people of Nunavut will have to deal with.
June 4, 1993

I am confident that when aboriginal people handle their own affairs, they will be more effective and better able to quickly get to the solutions than this federal government has been.
The government we are talking about deals with a population of 17,000 spread over that which is now one of the largest territories in Canada. It is going to be a very difficult issue for a government to deal with.
Fortunately in these agreements there is access to royalties. Therefore a percentage of revenue coming from minerals and other sources will go to the government of Nunavut. There are also other means for obtaining revenues. However, it is going to be a tremendous problem for this government to deal with the problems they have experienced over such a huge area.
We have already seen in the Northwest Territories where a government is spending something like 20 per cent of its total resources on housing. Those are the kinds of legacies being left by the minister to the people of the new territory of Nunavut.
How are they going to deal with housing? Is the minister going to have the responsibility for transferring the money with respect to housing with other social services to the territory of Nunavut? Is it going to be done in the same way that finances are transferred by the federal government to the provinces under various equalization programs or the Canada Assistance Plan?
Is it going to be a line item in the budget of the department of Indian affairs? Is it going to be on a government to government relationship where there is a system of transfer programs that go directly to the new government of Nunavut without having to go through the filtering process down at the department of Indian affairs? As the minister will know, there is going to be a lot of baggage attached to his department.
We have just seen the case in the last week or so where a predecessor in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs defended what he did with the high Arctic exiles using the same kind of logic and the same kind of arguments that he would have used back in the 1950s. Clearly this man is still thinking in the 1950s and is being defended by his current brethren in the department of Indian affairs in order to protect his reputation of 40 years ago. There is that kind of problem in the department of Indian affairs.
Government Orders
One of the ways to eliminate the need for the paternalistic approach of the department of Indian affairs is to allow this territory to obtain its transfer funds and to establish its relationship with the government through federal-provincial relations. It should be some other aspect of the government, not the paternalistic agency they have been used to in the past and that is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In any case, my party very strongly supports the changes taking place in Canada with respect to the legislation coming down today. One is the settlement of the aboriginal land claims of the Inuit people of the eastern Arctic.
The other is the creation of a public government which in dealing with a majority of Inuit people will probably strongly reflect the views of the Inuit people living in that area. As a result, it will be a government that more clearly identifies the need and more clearly reflects the vision of those people. It will be more effective in translating those needs and those visions into the kind of action necessary to resolve their problems and take them into the future.
On behalf of my party I would like to thank all the people who were involved in the development of the new territory of Nunavut and of the land claim settlement. On behalf of my leader, the hon. member for Yukon, and on behalf of our party, we wish them all the very best of success. I know they will have success in the future. If there is any way that my party or I can assist, we look forward to being there anytime it is requested. The best of success to them.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the last speaker, the member for Nunatsiaq certainly, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for bringing this bill, as a result of the agreement, to the floor of the House.
That is why I speak in a somewhat mixed way. The hon. member for Nunatsiaq lived through a great deal of the negotiations. Many positive things were said about this agreement by him. For all those who participated in the negotiations that produced the agreement, I do believe it is Parliament working and the process of people working with their government agencies and officials.

June 4, 1993
Government Orders
I speak almost with a forked tongue. That gets into the substance of the agreement I am glad to say is here today. It has to be put on the record that I am totally against the process. To have had the minister of Indian affairs speak for 18 minutes as he did in introducing this bill at second reading does not even begin to equal the 15 or 16 years it took to get the agreement. The member for Comox-Alberni said 20 or 25 years. I guess it depends on where one starts to define this very complex issue.
If there was ever an example of a dead Parliament doing dangerous things, this bill sadly is it. This bill should not have been brought in in the closing days of Parliament, the last weekend before we rise. Whether we come back, we do not know.
With all the good things the minister of Indian affairs and other speakers have said about it, this bill has the potential of nation building, of bringing the Inuit into the federation on some of the major points of the agreement.
The minister spoke this morning for 18 minutes. Then the government House leader stood up and used Standing Order 78(1) with the connivance and the complicity of the opposition and they are always railing against allocation of time.
However, an agreement of this size and magnitude should be in the public domain as a bill. The negotiations went on for 15 to 20 years, depending on the time frame used. Have that percolated and focused and then have people decide that perhaps something said in Parliament at second reading or in Committee of the Whole deserves further attention.
The rule is supposed to be used to move things along when there has been an excess of debate, when there has been obstruction. Yet we have had a horrible example in the dying days of this Parliament of the government using Standing Order 78(1) with the connivance and collusion of the opposition. In effect it says that the parties have agreed, yet other members who may not belong to political parties have not had a chance to speak out for their constituents or for other people in Canada.
We know from the history of this Parliament that this party has had no credibility on constitutional matters. There were three parties that agreed to Meech Lake some many years ago. In effect that went down the drain.
More recently we know the three major parties all got together on the Charlottetown accord. Three or four of us spoke out in a negative way on the Charlottetown accord and we were unable to get a vote then. Under the rules it is well known that five members are needed to provoke a vote and look what happened to the Charlottetown accord. The parties, the member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell and members of the three major parties, all went one way on the Charlottetown accord for the greater good of Canada. Yet the people of Canada had some misgivings, to put it kindly. The people of Canada said no to the Charlottetown accord in a referendum.
That is another reason that a government in its dying days to exercise Standing Order 78(1) to close off debate on something of such magnitude and importance to the people involved is not doing justice to the issue.
That is why I certainly agree with the point of order that was raised in a very short period of time. Under the rules we cannot get into debate when Standing Order 78(1) is used. The member for Beaver River did raise a point of order about the process. I had just stepped outside; I was on the phone. I came back in and found out the government House leader had used it.
Members of the opposition, whether Liberal or the NDP, are always protesting with vigour how they have been raped by allocation or closure. Yet when they are not gored they will get into bed with the government. It was never intended to be that way. This is the second time in the last month the government has used Standing Order 78(1).
The earlier matter, and certainly the one I was associated with, was the Elections Act which affected all members. They were able to use it because there were only four or five members in the House.


June 4, 1993

However, on this one I feel sad for the hon. member for Nunatsiaq who made a great speech and the people in the gallery who have lived this. This should not be snuck in as though people are ashamed of the deal. It should have been given a proper debate and historic debate.
Mr. Speaker, you are from the west. The provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta entered Confederation in 1905. You can go through the Hansard for that time. I am not going to take time doing so because my time is limited.
The member from Comox-Alberni started. According to the table we have exactly one hour and 13 minutes left to pass this bill on the basis of this rather complicated agreement; one hour and 13 minutes from the time the member from Comox-Alberni started, to pass this bill in all stages including Committee of the Whole consideration if we ever get to it. Then the old hammer chops and that is it.
I could compare that with what happened in earlier days. I am not going to over-dwell on it, but there was debate on Bill C-69, the Alberta Act, 1905, and debate on Bill C-70, the Saskatchewan Act, 1905. There were different indices then to get the material. Just a quick review of the index in those days when new provinces were being brought into Confederation and being made part of Canada shows that it was not done in the dying days of Parliament. It was not done on a late Friday afternoon or in the dark of night. It was done in open daylight. It had debate at first, second and third readings. There were 84 pages of index of both bills. I think 52 members participated in debate on one bill and over 52 participated in the other debate. That is what used to happen.
I say this is a perversion of the rules and I say it sadly. It is a travesty of Parliament which by its very name, as we all know, means we are supposed to speak. We are supposed to be able to speak. The government House leader stood after 18 minutes and in effect invoked closure, allocation of time. We were to have one hour and 45 minutes from when he moved that and we are now down to one hour and 13 minutes when the member from Comox-Alberni stood. It boggles the mind.
After all, as we have heard quite properly, this is a mammoth exercise by government and the people. According to the maps, some of the briefings and the
Government Orders
material I have assembled that I think is correct, we are dealing with one-quarter the size of Canada in terms of defining a new territory. Undoubtedly and with full credit to the people of that territory, be they 16,000 or
17,000	Inuit of the total of 20,000, over time there will be an emancipation process as there should be perhaps to develop a state or a province.
We have a bill affecting one-quarter of the land mass of Canada as a result of negotiations for, I thought, 15 years or 16 years. The minister's speech does not even begin to represent one year for each of the years of negotiation. In that sense it is not doing justice to the Inuit or to Parliament because it is a travesty of Parliament to have this type of motion at this time.
There are so many questions one could ask. However this is second reading and perhaps a better time would be at Committee of the Whole if that is what we are going to do. I know some of these things have been negotiated. This should not just be done in the dying days of a Parliament but when the focus of public affairs is on many other matters. There has not been the public focus on the implications of this bill.
I listened to my friend's speech because I respect him very much. There were many matters that could perhaps have been examined in the brief time we have. There will be a new public service in the territory. There may be an influx from the south coming north. There may not be the majority that would presently be the majority in the territorial Government of Nunavut. There are many things.
When this was first announced as recently as 1991 Ovide Mercredi raised questions about the inherent rights of aboriginals being adversely affected by this process. There is something else that I do not think many appreciate. It was part of the give and take and one of the reasons we were able to get an agreement. The creation of this bill, for the first time as I understand it, actually transfers the land ownership. I am not talking about aboriginal title. I am talking about the actual land ownership over a good section of this land. It affects all Canadians because until now all Canadians north and south of 60 have had an interest through the Crown in that land. I am just not sure where the interests of Canadians from coast to coast north of 60 lie under this bill.

June 4, 1993
Government Orders
There are many other matters that could be mentioned. I do not even know where the implementation agreement is. Is the bill we will be debating after passing Bill C-133 the implementation agreement that was supposed to be here as a condition precedent before this bill was to be ratified? There are different elements of the ratification processes for Parliament, not for the Inuit who have had their ratification and their votes. That is something I wondered about. Perhaps we can deal with it in Committee of the Whole.
I give compliments to the minister because it has been a trying experience. I have not shared a lot of the general criticism that the minister has had in his department, because it is a very tough department. I frankly think he has handled it fairly well with all the difficulties of not just this bill but of many other matters.
I am very saddened he felt it necessary to speak in the ear of old jack hammer government House leader or jackboot House leader, the member from Calgary or from wherever. He invoked Standing Order 78(1) to cut off debate on something of such magnitude when we should have been singing hosannas as we found out more about the details of the agreement.
I think we could move it along to Committee of the Whole because of the process and because I feel so strongly about the process regardless of the subject matter. You are indicating, Mr. Speaker, that my time is almost up. I hope I am here to say no, as perhaps my friend from Beaver River would have done, when this bill is called for second reading. I feel strongly that this was the wrong tactic to use on something so fundamentally important for the people affected. It certainly is a poor reflection of the state of this Parliament. The sooner we can have an election and have a variety of parties in the House, the sooner we will not have the conspiracy of silence, the Official Opposition and the NDP agreeing with a government that they usually condemn every day.
Ever so often on a Friday afternoon they get in bed with them and commit political incest. That is what the opposition parties have done. I do not want to hear them protesting any more about allocation of time when they happen not to like it.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect
and have listened carefully to the comments of my colleague from Annapolis Valley-Hants on this issue.
The clock is running under the provisions of the motion adopted earlier this day under Standing Order 78(1). However this would be the appropriate point at which to respond to the concern the hon. member has expressed about the shortness of time.
This land claim agreement has been under negotiation for about the same length of time the hon. member has sat in the House. Perhaps he has not been here quite that long. In that period he has witnessed many debates on aboriginal issues and has seen the passage of important land claims legislation in the past.
The first point I would submit is that it would be a tragedy if Parliament could not complete the work begun so many years ago, in particular given the will and the dedication not only of the TFN and the Inuit people but of the territorial government and the federal government to settle this matter now.
I understand the hon. member's concern about the shortness of time, but the life of this Parliament is very short and there is also important business to be transacted in the next few remaining days. With the co-operation of the two official opposition parties, the majority of the members in this House has expressed the will to have this piece of business done.
While I respect the view of the hon. member I would point out it was three years ago on April 30 that I signed the agreement in principle. All members of the House through parliamentary committees have had a chance to follow the development of this legislative package. I appeared before the standing committee in the month of February and was questioned extensively. Some members present were there for over three hours while we went through the elements of this agreement.
The Inuit ratified the agreement last November. Drafting and language translation were required, but I must point out to the hon. member that it was only on Tuesday of this week that the final overlap matter was resolved with the co-operation of some members of the House. It was only last Tuesday that it was possible for the Prime Minister to sign because there was a matter before the courts until three weeks ago.
June 4, 1993

It is not simply a matter of saying we should have done this earlier or we might lake a little longer. Time has run out. A large group of people in the gallery feel it is now time for the Parliament of Canada to do its duty and adopt Bill C-133 and the companion legislation which we will come to momentarily, Bill C-132.
I would plead with the hon. member to understand that this is an extraordinary circumstance, but it is an extraordinarily wonderful opportunity for the people of Canada to do something good; to reach out to the Inuit who, after all, for thousands of years have managed and husbanded that wonderful territory, their land they call Nunavut; and to accommodate that in this legislation.
I might point out the hon. member has had since last Friday when first reading occurred and the bill was tabled to study this bill. He was offered briefings. He was given a briefing, I gather, by the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut in recent days. I hope he will be prepared to focus on the essence of the bill so we might get on with passing it and Bill C-132 today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member want to comment on the minister's remarks?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just very briefly. If there is another question I will take it in the short time for comments.
I understand what the minister explained and I gave him some credit. We had discussions yesterday as the minister well knows. I am sorry about the position I am in because of the Standing Order 78(1) closure motion.
After the discussion yesterday and knowing that some of it happened very recently, I thoroughly expected the proper thing would be to have the debate. I not surprised with the turn-out in the House on a Friday afternoon we could have got into second reading without a closure motion, had exchanges on certain questions and the matter would have still proceeded. If it did not get through this Friday, I certainly feel with the Prime Minister taking such an active interest, and with the consistent interest of the minister, it is not be beyond the realm of probability or possibility that there could be third reading debate and a vote next week in the extended hours we will have then.
Government Orders
The minister speaks very sweet language. He has worked with this and I give him credit. In his own speech he said he was very happy when it was finally consummated. I am saddened that from his work and the Prime Minister flying north the parliamentary process as far as I am concerned has been abused in trying to do a good thing.


Mr.   Jack@: [.Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]

I would like to just make a very brief comment to the hon. member from Annapolis Valley. As a member of Parliament for the area concerned, as a beneficiary under the claims and as a representative for all the people who will be benefiting from this agreement, I have absolutely no hesitation in stating here that we have no problem whatsoever with the tactics that were taken earlier today to limit the debate in order to get this very important bill for the Inuit of Nunavut passed today.
I say to my colleague that it is the Inuit who approved and ratified the agreement, and consequently the bill was presented in this House on Friday. A great majority of the Inuit in the eastern Arctic ratified the agreement.
I have absolutely no hesitation in saying let the bill go through third reading and be passed and sent to the other House today.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, to reinforce the point just made by my colleague, the distinguished member of Parliament for Nunatsiaq, this is one of those rare occasions in this House where there is consensus on every side of the House and on the part of every political party. Therefore there is a desire to see this proposal go forward. The time allocated may not even be fully taken up, who knows, by the time we conclude. We will see.
I would only like to make the following brief remarks. My first remark is that Bill C-133 is an historical bill and therefore this is an historical day and an historical step. It contains a decision of enormous importance for the Inuit. It is a chance for them to participate as partners in the development of their homeland, as the member for Nunatsiaq already very eloquently put it.

June 4, 1993
Government Orders
It is an agreement that shows the desire by the Inuit people to achieve self-determination. It is a measure and a law that will at least give some control or will re-establish, to use the actual words of the member for Nunatsiaq, some control by the Inuit people over their own affairs. It is therefore a very enlightened initiative.
Therefore there is nothing wrong in complimenting the minister and the government for having taken this step. We all see this as a very positive initiative.
By way of background, it is important to also see the geographic magnitude. The Nunavut will cover an area that is one-fifth of that of Canada, some two million square kilometres. It has a population of some 22,000 people, of which 17,500 or so are Inuit. It has a mean temperature in January of minus 35 Celsius and a mean temperature in July of plus 10 Celsius. It has a population per square kilometre of one, compared to a population of 20 to 25 per square kilometre in the rest of Canada.
It is blessed by one great thing for someone like me who comes from Toronto. It has only 20 kilometres of highway. Imagine that. This is a sign of high civilization. These are people who know how to move around without polluting their environment.
One of the things that strikes the visitor is to find out that one litre of milk can cost up to $4, one loaf of bread can cost anywhere from $2.50 to $3, and a kilo of potatoes can cost as much as $2 to $3.
The cost of living in the Arctic and in the Nunavut territory is extremely high. That fact emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the natural resources of Nunavut are conserved, protected and made available to the present and expanded future population so that the Inuit people can continue to draw from the land the nourishment they need without having to depend more and more on imported food.
The member for Nunatsiaq also made a very interesting reference to the land, the waters and the wildlife and the fact that the Inuit people are not separate from their environment. They are part of it and they consider the environment to be part of their culture. This is a very
impressive way of defining their life and it is an attitude from which we non-Inuit could learn.
The member for Nunatsiaq went on to say that the land claim negotiations are seen by non-aboriginal people as a real estate transaction and this is not the view of the Inuit people because for them it is difficult to understand the non-aboriginal concept of individual land title and ownership.
They have a far better concept than the one we have. I do not believe that land belongs to anyone. We can rent the land while we are on this earth and we can use it, but basically the land belongs to the environment. If we were to borrow this concept from the Inuit people I think we would treat the land with much greater respect and we would have many fewer problems in the environment than we are facing now, particularly with regard to the disposal of waste.
I think it is a far superior concept to see this transaction not as an individual land title and ownership transaction but as a way of ensuring that there is a relationship with the land from which people draw their livelihood. This is highly commendable and a concept from which we could learn a lot.
The member for Nunatsiaq also stressed the importance for Canadians to understand that there is a tremendous power imbalance that exists in these negotiations between the aboriginal people on the one hand and the federal government on the other. The federal government makes the rules, it can change the rules and it can even break the rules. It has the money, all the expertise and armies of bureaucrats at its disposal. He put it very well. That is the history. The aboriginal negotiators, on the other hand, do not have access to all of these resources.
The motive and intention is to ensure a better future for present and future generations of children. We understand and respect this long-term concept. In looking at the agreement I am glad to see that it has a strong article 5 on wildlife and that it has a fairly strong concept of conservation. In future this concept could possibly be strengthened, particularly article 5.1.5(a) which says that one of the principles of conservation is:
the maintenance of the natural balance of ecological systems within the Nunavut Settlement Area.
June 4. 1993

Maybe it is more than a question of balance. It is a question of the indispensable recognition that conservation and natural resources are the pre-condition for survival in the Arctic.
I was glad to read about the establishment of a Nunavut wildlife management board. I share the concern already expressed by the member for Nunatsiaq that there may be far too many structures, but let us hope that these structures will be positive and will not become bureaucratic and self-serving.
There is an excellent article 8 on parks. I fully support article 8.3.4, which speaks about the involvement of the Inuit people. It is absolutely essential that the process of the planning and administration of the parks in the Arctic be accelerated in terms of making it one that is administered and run by the Inuit people themselves.
This concept was established some 10 to 15 years ago. I am glad to see that the government has continued along that path. All I would urge is that this process be accelerated so that one day under Nunavut administration all of the parks in the Nunavut portion of the Arctic will be administered by the Inuit people, thereby creating jobs for them.
Article 9 on conservation areas is also a good one. I was glad to see that it was so thoroughly expanded. I wish that part 9 of article 11, which deals with waste clean-up, could have been stronger. I wish that it could have been more detailed. I am glad that it deals with the abandoned DEW line sites. Perhaps in future documents, reference will be made to the importance of tackling the pollution coming from the south, namely from the industrial parts of Canada, the United States and Mexico.
Pollution does not know boundaries. It does not respect boundaries. The Arctic and the Nunavut territory are constantly the recipient of transboundary pollution which is considerably harming, as we all know, wildlife and the health of the animals both in water and on land. As a result of harvesting it is used by humans and will eventually settle in human tissue.
The question of waste clean-up is important on land within Nunavut but also needs to be addressed in terms of transboundary pollution in the future.
Government Orders
I was glad to read part 6 of article 12 with regard to the federal environmental assessment panel. I wish only to express the hope that future governments will when they receive the conclusion and recommendations of federal environmental assessments also respect them and implement them in their decisions.
In schedule 12-1 there is a list of types of projects proposed as being exempt from screening. After a cursory read I found that list a bit too big. I wish the exemptions could be narrowed. I hope that through experience and as the years go by this fairly long list of exemptions could be reduced.
Article 15 deals with marine areas. I did not have the time to study it or the balance of the document in depth.
In conclusion, Nunavut will require a very good and highly motivated environmental policy. Since we know that energy plays such a major role in the quality of the environment I would take the liberty of urging that the Nunavut develop a very advanced energy policy for the use of its population.
The challenge is to reduce the dependence from very expensive fuel oil that is brought in every year by sea lift. From Iqaluit to Grise Fjord the cost of oil brought in every year is immense. There are alternative sources through wind power and even through solar power. They are still not competitive but they will soon be competitive. I think that Nunavut could become a model of ways to demonstrate to the rest of the world community how it can be done and how it is possible to shift gradually over the years from dependence on fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy. The technology is there. It is still not competitive, as I said, but it can be done. In the long term actually the cost can be amortized very well and the future therefore looks rather promising.
It seems to me from my limited knowledge of the Inuit people and of Nunavut that the ultimate goal of this agreement and this bill would be to preserve these lands ecologically in good quality and in good condition forever for all the generations still to be born. We do that from the recognition that basically the economic well-being of the Inuit people depends on a healthy and strong environment. So long as that pre-condition is established, then this bill will have probably fulfilled its implicit purpose.

June 4, 1993
Government Orders
For those who have visited the eastern Arctic this is a most beautiful part of the globe. It commands respect and admiration. Therefore we are in a way very proud to be part of this process here today because it holds great hopes for generations to come.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise in this House on this historic occasion and add my sentiments to this debate and particularly to associate myself with the remarks of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the member for Nunatsiaq and the member for Comox-Alberni.
I have the privilege of representing one of the overlapping groups, the Denesuline of northern Saskatchewan, in this House of Commons. I would have liked to make more extensive remarks in this particular debate. I will however reserve those remarks because the next bill is of a very similar content to this one and I think those remarks can be appropriately made there. I would like to save enough time to ask the minister a few questions during Committee of the Whole.
With that I would just like to say that this is an historic occasion. Canada is changing profoundly because of what we are doing here today. I appreciate being here for this event.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Thomas Edward Siddon: that the bill be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Edward Siddon: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Thomas Edward Siddon: that Bill C-132, an act to establish a territory to be known as Nunavut and provide for its government and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to address the House a second time on this important historic day to deal with the transformation that is under way in our relationship with the Inuit of the eastern Arctic.
Bill C-132 which has just been read the second time is entitled an act to create the territory of Nunavut. What we will be discussing for the next hour or so is the political development of a new legislative assembly in the eastern Arctic, a commitment that ties to the Nunavut land claims settlement agreement which we have just passed through third reading in this House.
It has long been a goal of the Inuit of Nunavut to have their own territorial assembly or government and not be tied to the government of the Northwest Territories. Article 4 of the Nunavut land claim settlement agreement establishes a commitment on the part of the federal government to recommend to Parliament the establishment of a Nunavut territory.
The land claim agreement and as well the political accord setting out the means of establishing Nunavut have already been signed. Indeed after the ratification vote on October 31 of last year, as we have already recognized in this House, the Inuit of the eastern Arctic ratified the creation of Nunavut by a very strong majority. I think it was 85 per cent of those who voted on that date endorsed the creation of Nunavut.
June 4, 1993

As well the people of the Northwest Territories have held two referenda on this question. This was most recently in the spring of 1992 when the question was put by the decision of the assembly of the Northwest Territories and with the sanction of the government leader and cabinet. The question was put to all the people of the Northwest Territories with respect to the western boundary line of the Nunavut settlement agreement being adopted as a new political boundary to establish Nunavut on the eastern side of that line.
I remember the night here in Ottawa, I think it was December 15, 1991, when we had a long and fruitful discussion about whether the federal government had the will to make this commitment which we are about to endorse today. I remember in a sense taking a risk but I did in fact call the Prime Minister and we decided that we could make that commitment which is reflected in article 4 of the land claim agreement. It led to the negotiation of the political accord which I spoke of a moment ago and the ratification vote by the people of Nunavut.
The legislation before us today will literally redraw the map of northern Canada. As well this bill will provide for a new and improved political and economic future for the Inuit of the eastern Arctic. In so doing it will bring benefit to all Canadians.

I seek the support of distinguished members on both sides of this House today, because I am confident their support will be forthcoming.
I have every reason to believe that my colleagues will have the vision and foresight to approve this bill, so that the Inuit and other residents in the north will be able to build a better future.
The Nunavut political accord was signed on October 30, 1992, and it will become effective once the legislation before the House today, Bill C-132, is passed.
The creation of a new territory, with its own government, has been a fundamental objective of the Inuit of Nunavut for more than 20 years. An act of Parliament is required to make this dream come true.
I would like to point out that Bill C-132 was drafted with the close co-operation of the Government of the
Government Orders
Northwest Territories and the Tbngavik Federation of Nunavut, to ensure that it reflects the objectives and intent of the Nunavut political accord.
Bill C-132 provides for the creation of a new territory, Nunavut, translated in Inuktitut meaning "our land", new institutions of government similar to those of the existing territories and will come into effect by 1999 on April 1.
This legislation provides for a transition process to lead us to that point. This will not be a form of aboriginal self-government in the usual ethnic sense of the word. It will be a public government to be elected and fully responsible to all the residents of the new territory, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.
Nevertheless given the Inuit predominance in the region this new public government will naturally reflect and be responsive to their aspirations and ways of doing things.
Bill C-132 is modelled on the Northwest Territories Act which has existed for many years. By this bill the act is modernized and adapted specifically for the needs of the people of Nunavut.
I want to draw members' attention to some of the key features contained in Bill C-132. In keeping with the terms of the political accord, Bill C-132 will provide for the creation of a Nunavut implementation commission. This is an important feature because we are talking about a transitional process.
This commission independent of the governments and of the people of Nunavut through the Nunavut Tbngavik will advise the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories along with the successor to TFN to be called Nunavut Tungavik on a range of issues.
A majority of the commission's members will be residents of the Nunavut region. I believe it will be six of nine. The governments of Tungavik will share equally in nominating members of the commission with the other governments, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada in establishing the commission.

June 4, 1993
Government Orders
We intend to establish the commission in the near future. Indeed the bill provides that it must be established within six months of granting royal assent. The commission will continue its critical role until it is disbanded no later than three months after the creation of the new territory. When Nunavut is created it will have a commissioner as is the case in Yukon and the Northwest Territories. That would be after 1999.
In the past commissioners for the territories have often wielded considerable powers. In recent years as responsible government in the north has grown the office of the commissioner has become largely symbolic. Some would say it has evolved to a lieutenant governorlike function.
This new role is reflected in the Nunavut bill. Bill C-132 also provides for the creation of an executive council for Nunavut. This council will be similar to a provincial executive council or cabinet and will be appointed by the commissioner on the advice of the legislative assembly of Nunavut. This is a reflection of the way in which the cabinet is currently appointed in Northwest Territories.
The new territorial government will have a comparable range of law making powers now enjoyed by other territorial governments. In addition the Nunavut act specifically provides that the Nunavut legislature may pass laws to implement the Nunavut land claim agreement and to preserve and enhance the Inuktitut language.
Nunavut will have the authority to enter into agreements with the federal and provincial governments and will be authorized to manage and sell public lands that are under the care of the commissioner.
I should also point out that there will be an interim commissioner established during the transitional period to begin to prepare for the establishment officially of the office of commissioner after 1999 and to begin to exercise commissioner-like authorities in the transitional period.
Hon. members should also be aware that Bill C-132 makes necessary consequential amendments to other federal legislation. These are essentially housekeeping amendments to reflect the division of the current Northwest Territories into two separate territories.
Bill C-132 will also move the government down the road to achieving its vision for the north, a vision of social and economic development that respects the
environment and that first and foremost brings benefit to the residents of Nunavut.
There have been questions about the costs and the necessity of this government. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to discuss that during the Committee of the Whole. I would like to suggest that there is always an appropriate form of government to be found which best suits the needs of a people.
It seems rather obvious to me that a government in Yellowknife or Ottawa comprised of non-Inuit people is not the best government located 2,000 or more miles away to serve the interests and purposes of the Inuit people.
There is an appropriate structure of government to be established within our traditions of Parliament, a government which will be largely comprised of Inuit people who are the majority in that area and whose children will become the architects and the beneficiaries of the authorities which that government will exercise into the next century.
This legislation provides for initial powers to be established in 1999 involving a territorial assembly, a-forgive me the word-bureaucracy and a court. Over the period between there and the year 2008 there will be other powers and authorities added as it becomes appropriate to devolve or relocate those powers from Yellowknife or Ottawa where they presently reside.
I think this is an eminently logical approach. I should say, in regard to the question of cost, Canadians cannot afford to continue the cost of an insensitive system which is remote from the needs of the people. Canadians cannot afford not to support the creation of Nunavut. I believe with the kind of wisdom, the persistence and the practical creativity of the Inuit people who have existed all of those centuries in Nunavut, we will see an appropriate form of government established which will not be a burden to other Canadians but indeed something which we can all celebrate.
Before I sit, I should pay a debt of gratitude to the negotiators who served the federal and territorial governments so well. I will not name them right now, but perhaps there will be a moment toward the end of the debate. However, I do want to name here and to recognize in the gallery Mr. Paul Quassa, Mr. Louis Pilakapsi, Mr. James Eetoolook and other members of the Board of the Tbngavik Federation of Nunavut, together with those who have guided this process in other ways such as John Amagoalik, Jack Anawak, if I might be permitted to name a member, Thomas Suluk, Rosemary Kuptana, Dennis Patterson, Titus Allooloo.
June 4, 1993

The people of Nunavut have been the architects of this transformation.
While it might be unconventional I would like to ask Mr. Quassa and Pauloosie Keyootak, the representatives here today, to stand and be recognized by the House of Commons in view of their wonderful contribution in a new partnership with Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I have enjoyed a wonderful relationship with some people who have become genuine friends and have shown me the way to find a better future for Canada.
I sense that you might find within the House the disposition to agree at this stage to proceed through all stages and to conclude this day before we rise the adoption at third reading of Bill C-132, the Nunavut Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Before I get to my comments I would also like to acknowledge the support of people like Raymond Ningeocheak, Pauloosie Keyootak, Joe Allen Evyagotailak, Rhoda Inukshuk, the former President of Inuit Tapirisat of Canada whom I omitted for no reason but forgetfulness. They have worked very hard toward the negotiations.
I would also like to acknowledge the ongoing support I received from my family who are in the audience from our smallest to the oldest. I acknowledge their support.
I want to comment on the minister's comment can we afford not to. It reminds me of the commercial can we afford not to? I think that is the question. I cannot remember which commercial, but can we afford not to? Canadians should be asking themselves that in getting Nunavut as part of the Canadian federation.
As I said earlier, it is a real honour to be here today to speak on the Nunavut bill, Bill C-132. This is the bill that
Government Orders
will create the new territory of Nunavut. This bill flows from the land claim agreement. Article 4 of the agreement in principle signed in April 1990 committed the parties to the political development of Nunavut.
The article committed the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the hin-gavik Federation of Nunavut, on behalf of the Inuit of Nunavut, to the creation of a Nunavut territory, and the financing of a Nunavut government, outside of the claims agreement, as soon as possible.
It is important to note that the commitment to create the Nunavut territory is outside of the claims agreement. Government policy would not allow the Inuit to negotiate the political development of Nunavut within their land claim agreement.

Nevertheless, the government support for Nunavut, even though outside the land claim agreement, was a key victory for Inuit. Without this commitment to Nunavut, Inuit were not prepared to settle their land claim. Settlement of the land claim depended on obtaining the commitment to Nunavut.

Article 4 of the agreement in principle also committed the parties to a territory-wide plebiscite on a boundary for division, and an agreement on the division of powers.
That plebiscite was held, a boundary was approved and the Nunavut political accord was signed.
Flowing from all these prior decisions and agreements is the bill before us now, Bill C-132, the act to establish the new Nunavut territory. This is a proud and historic moment for me and for all the Inuit of Nunavut.
As I noted in my earlier speech on the land claims bill, I do not believe that ever before in this House has a member of Parliament spoken in such a capacity, both as a representative for the region concerned and as a beneficiary of the land claims agreement to which this bill is tied. It is a very special feeling for me and today is a very special day. This is a proud and historic moment for the people of Canada.

June 4, 1993
Government Orders
What we are doing here today is welcoming a new partner into the Canadian federation.

I want to congratulate and thank the people of Nunavut for their vision and for their determination to achieve that vision. I also want to thank all the people of the Northwest Territories who supported our aspirations by voting with us in the plebiscite a year ago. The dream of Nunavut, of getting recognition of our Inuit homeland, and recognition of our right to participate in the government and development of that homeland is a dream that goes back many, many years.
I remember a meeting of the Inuit Tapirisat in 1975 in Tuktoyaktuk at which we were discussing a name for our new territory. I moved the motion at that meeting to call the new territory Nunavut. In English, Nunavut means "our land". That motion was adopted, and now here I am today, 18 years later, speaking on the bill that will recognize the Nunavut territory.
[English ]
For the benefit of non-Inuit, Inuit means "the people" and I repeat that Nunavut means "our land".
I want Canadians, including members of this House, to understand that Nunavut exists now and has always existed in the minds and hearts of Inuit. We know Nunavut is our land. What we have been seeking throughout the years is the acknowledgement by the Canadian government that this was, and is, our land and that we have the right to control what happens to that land, our homeland.
This bill, the Nunavut act, does not give us Nunavut. However this bill does give us Canada's acknowledgement and Canada's legal recognition of the reality we have always known. It also gives us the opportunity to participate in the government of our land on terms we have helped to develop. This is very important.

When the non-Inuit arrived in our homeland, when Canada was confederated, no one asked us for our opinion. No one asked for our consent to the terms of union. No one asked us for our advice. No one asked us how we felt.
Foreign governments and foreign laws and foreign regulations were imposed on us. For years we have lived with the burden of an alien system.
With the establishment of Nunavut, we hope we will finally be able to get out from underneath what has been imposed upon us. For Inuit, the Nunavut political accord and this Nunavut bill are essentially our terms of union, the framework for our entry into the Canadian federation.

We want to be able to control our destiny by making our own laws and regulations. We want the chance to make our own mistakes and learn from them.
. (1355 )
We want to contribute our unique knowledge, skills and talents to the building and strengthening of this nation. The creation of the Nunavut territory gives us the opportunity to do this. I want to talk for a short while about the history behind this bill and the concept of two territories instead of one in the Northwest Territories.
It seems to be the fate of the Northwest Territories to be continually divided. The province of Manitoba was created from the Northwestern Territory in 1870. The Yukon was established in 1898 and the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were carved out in 1905. The current Northwest Territories is what remained after the creation of all those other jurisdictions. However it is still a huge area. It encompasses fully one-third of the land mass of Canada.
Further division of the existing Northwest Territories is not a new idea. It is an idea that has been around for a long time. It is an idea whose time has finally come.
For the record this is not the first time this House has seen a bill to divide the Northwest Territories. In 1963
June 4, 1993

Government Orders
the federal government of the day tabled a bill to divide the Northwest Territories but it did not get passed.

The people of the central, eastern and high Arctic have always felt isolated from the western part of the Northwest Territories. There are very real differences between east and west that can only be appreciated by the people who live there.
As I mentioned earlier, the Northwest Territories is one-third of the land mass of Canada. If one looks at a map of Canada, east of the border with the Yukon and south of the 60th parallel, five provinces fit under the same area covered by the Northwest Territories. The difficulties and complexities involved in administering one-third of Canada as one single jurisdiction are enormous. Variety, differences, and distance characterize the existing Northwest Territories.
The Indian and Inuit peoples of the Northwest Territories are different peoples. Their histories, cultures and languages are different. The Dene homeland, Denen-deh, is in the western Arctic, whereas the Inuit of Nunavut live in the east and along the coasts. The geography is different between east and west, the wildlife is different and the lifestyles are different. As a result of these many differences, there has always been a strong push by the aboriginal peoples of the Northwest Territories for governments that are closer and more responsive to them and for governments that respect and reflect their cultures.

Numerous proposals for division and political development have been put forward over the years by Inuit, Dene and non-aboriginal people. The existing government of the Northwest Territories has been involved in many of these efforts. The people of the NWT have also been fully involved.
On April 14, 1982, 56 per cent of NWT voters in the territorial plebiscite supported division. In May 1992 NWT voters supported the boundary line for division, which is reflected in this bill. It is the land claim boundary line.
I want Canadians to get a good understanding of how far away the seat of the existing territorial government is from the people in the eastern Arctic.
Currently, if people live in the Baffin region, say in Broughton Island or Pangnirtung they live north of Montreal, Quebec but their territorial capital is in Yellowknife, north of Edmonton, Alberta. No other Canadian citizen has to deal with a capital city that is the equivalent of four or five provinces away.
With the establishment of the Nunavut territory we hope to establish a capital and a government that are closer to the people.
That is just part of the hope of Nunavut. There is much more promise here but there is also much challenge.

I want now to turn my attention to the substance of this bill. This bill provides a framework for the establishment of the Nunavut territory. Much hard work is yet to
come.
Under this bill, Nunavut will not be created tomorrow. The government of Nunavut will be established over time, gradually taking over powers, programs and services at a pace it is to determine itself. In 1999 the first legislative assembly of the new Nunavut territory will be elected. Assumption of the full range of territorial powers is not foreseen until the year 2008.
Initially, the Nunavut government will look very much like the existing Governments of the Northwest Territories and Yukon. It will have an elected legislative assembly, a cabinet and a territorial court.

The government of Nunavut will be a public government, open to the participation of all residents, Inuit and non-Inuit. The legislative assembly will be elected by all residents. So it is not aboriginal self-government in the sense of a government exclusively for and by aboriginal peoples.
Bill C-132 contains five parts, 79 clauses, and three schedules. Seventy-six other acts of Parliament are amended as a consequence of this bill.
Part I of the bill deals with the establishment and government of Nunavut. It covers matters such as the seat of government, the commissioner of Nunavut, the executive council of Nunavut, the legislature of Nunavut, legislative powers and judicial powers.

June 4, 1993
Government Orders
Part II of this bill deals with official languages, the Nunavut consolidated revenue fund, territorial accounts, lands and cultural sites and property.
Part III deals with the Nunavut implementation commission.
Part IV involves transitional provisions, expenditures and the interim commissioner of Nunavut.
Part V includes the coming into force dates and the consequential amendments.

I regret that we have not had more time to study this bill. This bill and the land claim legislation were only tabled in this House last Friday. Exactly one week has passed. This is hardly enough time to absorb all the details, and consider all the consequences.
Nevertheless, because of the importance of these bills to the people of Nunavut and to the people of Canada, all parties have agreed to fast-track them.
I hope we have not missed or overlooked anything major. I am reassured by the fact that Tungavik was involved in the drafting of these bills. If there was anything out of the ordinary, I am sure it would have been picked up.

In terms of the details of the bills, I want to raise a couple of areas of concern. The first involves the transition process and implementation, the second involves the funding and the third involves education and training.
Probably the most significant part of this bill is the Nunavut implementation commission. This commission will determine the face of the future government of Nunavut.
It will consist of a chairperson and nine other members. Three members will be nominated by the Government of the Northwest Territories, three will be nominated by Tungavik, and three will be nominated by the federal government. At least six of the members must be ordinarily resident in Nunavut.
The mandate of the commission is to advise the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and Tungavik on the establishment of Nunavut.
The mandate includes: (a) the timetable for the assumption by the Nunavut government of responsibility for the delivery of services; (b) the process for the first election of the Nunavut legislative assembly, including the numbers of members and the establishment of electoral districts; (c) the design and funding of training programs; (d) the process for determining the location of the capital of Nunavut; (e) the principles and the criteria for the equitable division of assets and liabilities between Nunavut and the Northwest Territories; (f) the new public works necessitated by the establishment of Nunavut and the scheduling of the construction of the works; (g) the administrative design of the first Government of Nunavut; (h) the arrangements for delivery of programs and services where these are to be phased in; and (i) any other related matter referred to it by the minister.

This is a heavy, loaded agenda. These negotiations, particularly the financial negotiations, are going to be difficult and lengthy. All parties to these negotiations, naturally, will be looking to protect their own interests. The representatives for Nunavut will have to be very vigilant. The new territory must be able to start out on the best possible footing.
I also want to deal for a moment with the transitional provisions of this bill that could establish the office of an interim commissioner of Nunavut. This individual, under the provisions of this bill, could wield a great deal of power. The bill says the federal cabinet can appoint an interim commissioner until the first commissioner is appointed.

The interim commissioner is to act according to written directions given to him or her by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The minister will be able to determine the manner in which these directions are made public.
The powers of the powers include: (a) recruiting persons for employment by the government of Nunavut;
(b)	prescribing the duties and conditions of employment such persons; (c) establishing systems and processes for the government of Nunavut, including the organization and administration of the territorial courts; and (d) carrying out any other functions as the federal cabinet may determine.


June 4, 1993

Agreements regarding employment that are entered into by the interim commissioner will be binding on the government of Nunavut.
The government of Nunavut will, however, be able to alter, revoke or replace any systems or process of government put in place by the interim commissioner. We hope this will not be necessary.
The interim commissioner, with federal cabinet approval, will be able to enter into agreements with the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, the government of any province or any other body for the carrying out of programs previously carried out by the Government of the Northwest Territories.
The interim commissioner will also be able to enter into agreements with the Government of Canada or the Government of the Northwest Territories for funding in respect of Nunavut.
The interim commissioner will be able to enter into agreements with the Government of the Northwest Territories for the division of its assets and liabilities between Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Nowhere in these sections is there any requirement for the interim commissioner to consult with the Tungavik and the people of Nunavut.
I should point out that the commissioner of Nunavut is required under this bill to make any instructions he or she receives from the federal minister or the federal cabinet available to the Nunavut cabinet. They are, furthermore, also to be given to the Nunavut legislative assembly.
Since the legislative assembly will not be constituted during the time period envisaged for the interim commissioner, the federal minister gets to decide how the instructions to the interim commissioner will be made public.
There seems to be a bit of a vacuum here. I would like the government to give some assurance of consultation with the people of Nunavut during this very important transition phase. I would like to know more about the relationship between the interim commissioner and the Nunavut implementation commission.

The second area I want to deal with concerns funding. The interim commissioner, as I just pointed, will have authority to enter into agreements with the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories for funding during the transition period. The
Government Orders
funding agreements he or she negotiates will terminate two years after the establishment of Nunavut on April 1, 1999, unless there is provision for an earlier termination.
Following the establishment of Nunavut, different financial arrangements will be put in place. A backgrounder prepared by the federal government indicates that as services now provided by the government of the Northwest Territories are transferred to the new Nunavut government, there will be a proportional transfer of federal funds and government positions from the Government of the Northwest Territories to the Government of Nunavut.
The government backgrounder points out that a number of studies have estimated the possible costs of establishing the new territory and Government of Nunavut, but that since the exact form and structure of the Nunavut government is yet to be determined these studies have been based on probable scenarios and assumptions.
The most recent study, by the firm of Coopers Ly-brand, has estimated the cost of setting up the new government in the period from 1992 to 2008 at an average of $50 million per year, a 7 per cent increase above the 1990-91 federal formula funding grant to the existing Government of the Northwest Territories.
According to the government backgrounder, this figure includes operating costs for the Nunavut implementation, operating costs for the new government starting in 1999, as well as one-time costs for training and for the construction of government facilities. The determination of final costs for the establishment of the Nunavut government will be based on the work of the Nunavut implementation commission.

The third area I want to focus on is education and training. Success in this area is critical to the success of Nunavut. Nunavut offers great opportunities but the people of Nunavut must be in a position to take advantage of these opportunities.
Inuit education levels have improved over the past couple of decades, but we still have a long way to go. It is a sad fact that right now there are very few Inuit graduating from high school. If we do not improve further our education levels we risk being left out of the development of Nunavut. If we do not increase and upgrade our training we risk being on the sidelines.

June 4, 1993
Government Orders
Nunavut will generate significant employment opportunities, but Inuit must be qualified to fill these jobs. If we are not, the majority of these jobs will simply go to outsiders as they have in the past. We cannot permit this to happen. All of us must work together to ensure that the people in the communities of Nunavut benefit from the establishment of Nunavut.
We are embarked upon a long journey. Today is but a milestone along the way. We are far yet from our destination.
Passing this bill today does not change the world for us tomorrow. The lives of the people of Nunavut will not be suddenly different tomorrow or the day after or even a year from now.

The bill before us sets out a path to follow. It sets out a transition process, the importance of which cannot be overemphasized. Major mistakes during the transition process could prove to be serious impediments for the new government of Nunavut.
The work of the Nunavut implementation commission, as I mentioned earlier, is the key to the smooth and equitable establishment of Nunavut. I have already noted the complex and heavy mandate of this commission. The representatives of Nunavut will have to be cautious, vigilant and forward looking.
We know that when the Government of Canada transfers powers to other jurisdictions it usually does so without handing over enough resources to carry out the tasks.
A prime example that comes to mind is the health transfer agreement between the federal government and the existing Government of the Northwest Territories. The Government of the Northwest Territories is presently suing the federal government for non-payment of health bills.
Another funding problem involves housing. For the past several years the federal government has chipped away at the social housing funds it transfers to the provinces and territories. In the case of the Northwest Territories, cutbacks have been imposed over the past couple of years and recently Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation decided to altogether eliminate its cost sharing program for new social housing starting in 1994.
Yet there is a housing crisis in the Northwest Territories as 25 per cent of NWT households are in need and this need is growing as the population growth rate is twice the national average. Some 41 per cent of NWT children under the age of 12 are living in overcrowded housing. There is a backlog of almost 3,600 units. About half this backlog is in Nunavut.
Health and housing are major areas of concern within Nunavut. If adequate funding is not provided to deal with these needs, Nunavut will be starting out with a serious handicap.

In other areas, the federal government has broken financial commitments. I am thinking here of the formula financing agreement that the federal government had with the existing Government of the Northwest Territories. Several years ago the federal government unilaterally changed the formula and the Government of the Northwest Territories has received less than it should have for the past several years.
Another example involves grants in lieu of taxes. Last December the Minister of Finance announced that he was freezing these payments to municipalities. Municipal budgets had already been prepared on the assumption that the federal government would be contributing its expected share. This freeze has affected the municipality of Iqaluit.
I want the federal government to realize that when it comes to funding Nunavut, Nunavut is not like an already developed province with its own large and stable source of revenues. We are just starting out, our population is small and our people do not earn much income. Unemployment reaches 80 per cent in most communities. Nevertheless we pay taxes.
Our economy is underdeveloped. Distances between communities and from major centres in southern Canada are vast. There are no roads. Transportation costs drive up the cost of everything. Our cost of living is several times higher than the southern Canadian average, as was pointed out by my colleague from Davenport. We lack the community infrastructure and services that other Canadians take for granted. We do not have control over our resources and the Nunavut bill does not give us that control.
June 4, 1993

We need a break. We need the federal government to invest in us and our future. Give us a chance. Have faith in us. Give us the tools to manage our affairs and we will do it and we will do it well.
Invest in us and Canada will get a return that will be of long-term benefit.

Together, in partnership, we can build a better Canada for our children in which all peoples are respected. It would be a Canada in which all children have the same opportunities and where our elders can feel secure and at peace in the knowledge that the land, the people, the culture and the language are strong and will survive.
What will make Nunavut work is the people. All the people of Nunavut need to participate in the establishment of Nunavut. Everyone must get involved. Everyone must feel a part of Nunavut.
Nunavut's representatives on the Nunavut implementation commission will be carrying a very heavy burden of responsibility. They will need the help and advice of the people. It is important for the people of Nunavut to talk to them, assist them in their work and tell them what needs to be done.
For the next few moments I want to speak directly to the youth of Nunavut. I want first to express my regrets to the graduating class in Broughton Island. I had promised to be at their graduation yesterday but had to cancel so I could deal with these bills in the House today. My next words are for them and for all the youth of Nunavut.
Nunavut needs you, all of you.
I want to recognize the achievements of all the students who are graduating this year. I want to recognize the tremendous obstacles many of you have overcome to get this far. You have coped with poverty and sometimes not enough food to eat. You have coped with overcrowded housing conditions with no quiet place to study. Many of you have struggled with family responsibilities in addition to your studies. You have struggled through sickness, possibly the deaths of family members and friends, some to suicide and some of you may have even attempted suicide yourselves.
Government Orders
However, through it all you have kept going despite all the hard times and often without any support at all you have achieved your goal.
To those who have been discouraged and dropped out I say that they should not give up. Go back to school. Nunavut needs its own people to run it. We do not want to import all the expertise from elsewhere. We need the people of Nunavut to run the Government of Nunavut.
In closing I would just like to say that when we talk about Nunavut we speak in reverential poems about the area of Nunavut. I would just like to read a poem on how we feel about Nunavut. It is entitled "Nunavut You Hold Such Promise". I will read it:
My father died believing in you-That you already were-that you had always been.
He thought that he had known you all along
That you had looked after him and his people since time began.
Nunavut you hold such promise.
My mother spoke of you as she sewed And told the stories of long ago That taught us young ones That we would be protected
Nunavut you hold such promise.
My grandmother spoke of you In her soft, lilting voice As she sang us to sleep Content to know of you
Nunavut you hold such promise.
My uncle smiled as he spoke of your bounty On the trail, near the coast, in the hills As he drew on his old pipe And captured our imagination
Nunavut you hold such promise.
My small ones spoke of you too Curiously, asking what you were And why we all spoke of you In quiet, respectful tones
Nunavut you hold such promise.
And I must ensure that all that I know-All you are-must be known as I know it So that the ones that spring from me Will grasp your gift of wonder
Nunavut you hold such promise.
Guide me as you have guided many.
Comfort me, lead me, show me What it is I must come to know I shall listen, watch and leant

June 4, 1993
Government Orders
Nunavut you hold such promise.
My family knew you and knew you would provide My memories of you are many As my memories of them are precious And now I speak of you as they did
Nunavut you hold such promise.
If we could only remember the lessons Entangled with the memories And take care of the stories And pass on the wisdom
Nunavut you hold such promise.
For you are something that has been A part of us for so long We cannot remember when we first met But know you will walk with us tomorrow.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.
I appreciated the opportunity to hear the remarks of the member for Nunatsiaq and the experience he has from which his eloquence is derived. I think he really made a tremendous contribution on this piece of legislation today.
I simply want the House to know that the New Democratic Party will be supporting this legislation.
I have perhaps one concern and maybe it is not a concern at all. When we negotiate to set up a new government and a new territory it seems to bear the cultural stamp of the one we left here in Ottawa which again bears the cultural stamp of the one which was derived from Great Britain in Gothic cathedrals, more like a European model than a North American model. In fact some of us North Americans still have difficulty living within the cultural constraints of this place that is two sword lengths apart between the government side and the opposition side.
There are a lot of things in this type of parliamentary and government structure that do not even make sense to us who are modern Canadians living 400 or 500 years remote from the time in which this institution was established. Many of us would like to bring it up to date and more culturally in line with the way North Americans think, act and believe.
I am a little bit worried that we have taken the cookie cutter approach and decided as Lord Simcoe I think once said that we are going to take the image and transcript of what we do here and perhaps try to plant it in the new territory of Nunavut. I hope that there might be some flexibility on the part of the people who have drafted and
will pass this legislation to allow the people of Nunavut to put their own cultural stamp on their legislative and government institutions so that they do not necessarily reflect the kind of institutions we are trying to pass on to them from here in Ottawa.
If there is that kind of flexibility in the legislation, then I definitely am prepared to support it and I know that our party will support it. Again, we look forward to the successful implementation of a public government in the territory of Nunavut over the next six or seven years.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-132 which establishes the new territory of Nunavut.
Truly it is an historic event when we as parliamentarians get to witness the establishment of a new kind of government over one-fifth of the land area of our country. The creation of this territory fundamentally changes the dynamics of this country in ways which we will only come to know gradually over the generations, but truly it is a turning point in our history.
I would also like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the people whose vision, foresight and leadership have made this possible, not only today but over the last 17 years. A lot of people have been very patient. Many people have spent a lot of money and have been separated from their families and so on for long periods of time to make this happen.
I would also like to pay tribute to the role of the Inuit people in the history of Canada because although this is a public territory we are creating, I profoundly hope that the majority of people in Nunavut remain Inuit people for time immemorial. I hope this is a government and a territory which will be truly theirs.
First I would pay tribute to the member for Nunatsiaq. His efforts in educating us as to the realities of Nunavut and of his people have truly been exemplary. His co-operation in working out the many difficulties that have stood in the way have been a model for all of us. I very much appreciated the amount of speaking he did in his own language because representing aboriginal people myself I know how much aboriginal people, and especially the elders, value hearing their leaders speak in their own languages. I was listening hard and I thought maybe I could learn a few words over the course of the afternoon, but I do not think I will try it.
June 4, 1993

As well I have had dealings with the Inuit people and their organizations as the critic for co-operative and community development in my party. The co-operative model of development where people work together, pool their resources, work in the self-help and democratic kind of way, has been developed by the Inuit people to a larger extent than virtually any other people in this country. Many of the economic, social and artistic successes that that community enjoys are because of being able to work co-operatively. I hope this provides a model for the way the new government of Nunavut and the people of Nunavut will conduct their business in the future. That would be part of the model which all of the rest of us could learn from.
I would also like to pay tribute to the Inuit leadership which is here in the gallery today. I have not had the opportunity to get to know enough Inuit people over the years-I have met a few-to know whether they are representative of the community in general, but I suspect they are. It has been a real pleasure to get to know these people and to deal with them. To have the government of Nunavut represented by people like that I think will add a positive new dimension to our national life.
I would be remiss if I did not comment on some of the other people who have been involved in this debate, particularly the Dene people. They are the Denesuline of Saskatchewan who I represent and those of Manitoba and the territories.
The Dene people are among the most isolated people in Canada geographically. Through no fault or decision of their own they are divided by geography as well as political boundaries. There are no roads between their communities. There are no scheduled airline services between their communities. There are hardly even telecommunications services between their communities.
At the same time, they are divided politically by the boundaries of other people that place them in the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. All of that has made it very difficult for the Dene people to coalesce as a people and to participate in many of the discussions and developments which directly affect them. Certainly the negotiations around the creation of Nunavut are a prime example of that.
In large part due to their isolation, the Dene people are also among the most traditional people in Canada. There are many people in those communities for whom English is a second language. Many people in their forties, fifties and certainly the elders do not know the English language at all. That has created another barrier
Government Orders
toward active participation in the discussions that so profoundly shape their lives.
The Dene people can and do point with pride to the fact that they too have had use and occupancy over one comer of the Nunavut territory for a long period of time.
Certainly when Samuel Heame led the first fur traders into that territory it was Dene people who were there and who helped facilitate the contact between the fur traders and the Inuit people. That is a historical fact that is well known.
As a result of the discussions and negotiations that have proceeded and the Dene concern about what might be happening to their treaty and aboriginal rights there have been land use and occupancy studies done that indicate to this day the Dene do use and occupy one comer of the Nunavut territory for hunting, fishing, trapping and other traditional pursuits that are so much a part of their lives.
In fact the Dene are often described in other aboriginal languages as the caribou eaters. Their historical way of life has been to follow the caribou herds back and forth across boundaries that certainly do not exist for caribou and never did exist for Dene people either.
I must say that I am pleased that this agreement came about. It looked, as the minister said a few days ago, as though the overlapping claims, particularly with the Dene people in Saskatchewan, might well stand in the way of this historic event. This is something that we all would have profoundly regretted. We worked very hard to avoid this.
The reason that happens I am sad to say is that the role of the Government of Canada, although positive in the sense that it wanted to achieve an agreement and committed time and resources to it, has had an element to it that I describe as moving from negligence to intransigence to virtually blackmail.
Certainly no individual can be held accountable for that litany. However if you look at the record there are elements of that in the way the Government of Canada has approached this whole situation.
When I first got elected in 1988 this was an issue that was just coming to prominence among the Dene people. In February 1989 I attended a meeting with people who had been working on these negotiations for at least a dozen years on behalf of the federal government. I found to my amazement that these people who represented the Government of Canada were not aware that Dene people cross 60th parallel to hunt, fish and trap let alone have some treaty interests in that area.

Government Orders
This is unacceptable because the Government of Canada is supposed to be the trustee for certainly aboriginal people but the rights and interests of treaty people are supposed to be protected by the government. Their trustee in 1989 at that late stage was not even aware they had any interest whatsoever in that territory. That is negligence.
Then it became very inconvenient to deal with this new factor which had come into the negotiations. Therefore when it came to dealing with the fundamental question of treaty rights, the attitude of the Government of Canada can only be described as intransigent.
Certainly, it made resources available to document use and occupancy through negotiating section 40 of the agreement. It did everything else virtually except that implied treaty and aboriginal rights. It could never bring itself to fundamentally address the question of treaty and aboriginal rights.
Then regrettably in the closing moments of this whole process, after the agreement had been signed, members of Parliament are aware of the kinds of threats that circulated around this House of what would happen it' there was any delay in this legislation. That is really unfortunate. However, wiser heads prevail.
The hon. member for Nunatsiaq and I always had the feeling that if the Inuit and the Dene people were able to meet face to face to resolve these issues, the resolution would not only be possible but it would also be an important part of this whole process.
Indeed on Tuesday that came to pass. An agreement was signed between the Denesuline of northern Saskatchewan and the Inuit. I have that in my hands and I would like to table it when my speech is done.
Part I of this letter says that the Inuit of Nunavut recognize that Saskatchewan's Denesuline have traditionally used and continue to use certain lands north of the 60th parallel based on their treaty and aboriginal rights.
That was a very important milestone, not just because of the substance of the agreement. Even more important, it demonstrated that two aboriginal groups could themselves arrive at agreements that the Government of Canada in some ways was virtually irrelevant in.
I would like very much to compliment everybody who was involved in negotiating this overlap agreement. It recognizes that Nunavut is much stronger as an entity if it has allies rather than adversaries on its borders. It points to a new partnership in that part of the world which will be of benefit, not just to the people involved, but to all Canadians.
It might also be recognized that an agreement was signed between the Dene of Manitoba and the Inuit some time prior to that. That agreement forms an important part of the movement forward in the creation of Nunavut as well.
I add the caveat that there are court cases outstanding to establish Canada's recognition of the treaty and aboriginal rights.
With the creation of Nunavut, the tide of Canadian history is turning. For far too long, since the time of contact, there has been a sense that what needed to happen was for aboriginal peoples to learn from Europeans, to adopt their technology, ways, governments, languages and cultures. It has been a one-way street, at least as far as the records are concerned. Certainly for the explorers, the fur traders and many others, there has been two-way communication but overwhelmingly it has been a one-way street.
With this agreement the tide starts to turn. We start to learn from aboriginal people. We start to learn about consensus decision making that transcends the petty partisanship which often characterizes our politics. It talks about respect for the elders and their history. We also get to learn a profound sense of the sacredness of mother earth and our responsibilities as her creatures.
I would like to conclude my remarks by saying what a pleasure it has been to be involved in this very important occasion in Canadian political life.
June 4, 1993


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in committee on Bill C-132, an act to establish a territory to be known as Nunavut and provide for its government and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 79 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedules I to III inclusive agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the title carry?


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Chairman, I do not have a great deal of questioning but there are two questions I would like to pose to the minister that deal with the bill as a whole. Therefore I think this is the appropriate time to deal with them.
My questions are with respect to the claims that have been made by the constituents I represent, the Denesu-line people in northern Saskatchewan and by extension in Manitoba.
The Dene people present the argument that they have an unextinguished treaty and aboriginal right in one corner of the Nunavut territory. The elders have put forward this argument very forcefully. Those of us who believe one should listen to the wisdom of the elders cannot help but be impressed by the sincerity in their belief of their treaty rights, that their signing of the treaty in 1899 did not extinguish in the way the federal government claims it did, their rights over their traditional territories.
I remind the House that in the Charlottetown agreement there was a recognition by all the governments in Canada, including the aboriginal people, that the wisdom of the elders was to hold equal sway with what was written in English with respect to the modern meaning of treaty.
I am not a lawyer and I have not read all of the documentation with respect to these kinds of questions. To me however, there has always been a fundamental illogic in the government's position.
Government Orders
The government has said to my constituents, the Dene that live south of the 60th parallel, that their treaty and aboriginal rights were extinguished by the signing of treaty eight. At the same time the government has given de facto recognition in the way it is proceeding with comprehensive claims negotiation to five bands north of the 60th parallel, the Snowdrift, Fort Resolution, Hay River and Dene bands. They have remaining treaty and aboriginal rights in the territories, at least to the extent that a comprehensive claims process is proceeding on their behalf with their involvement.
I cannot understand how it is possible that the same extinguishment clause in treaty eight, which was signed in 1899 before the current Northwest Territories boundary existed, could have extinguished the treaty and aboriginal rights of the treaty eight bands south of the 60th parallel while at the same time it did not by the de facto recognition of the government extinguish similar claims to those bands north of the 60th parallel.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The hon. member raises a question about the territorial delineation of the treaty's benefiting the Dene people of northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but particularly those within his constituency. They are the Denesuline.
Treaty five applies to the Dene and Chipewyan people of northern Manitoba. It clearly specifies that land rights did not extend north of the 60th parallel. The treaties in northern Saskatchewan extending up to what is presently the western Arctic, treaty eight in particular, does not have such a boundary limitation in it.
It has been our view that where a territorial area was established for any of the numbered treaties and where the beneficiaries of those treaties accepted the treaty land quantums that those established the territorial ownership under aboriginal title of those particular signatories to the treaty.
That in itself in no way extinguished other aboriginal rights which might persist. It has always been our position that treaty rights which may later be defined or on which the treaties may not be clear and treaty or aboriginal rights which at some future date might be proven to exist are not foreclosed by the numbered treaties which were signed in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

June 4, 1993
Government Orders
The question of whether treaty land rights persist north of the 60th parallel has been raised before the Federal Court in both a Saskatchewan case last autumn and another case on appeal this year. The Federal Court has found that those treaty rights to land do not persist north of the 60th parallel.
The TFN final agreement specifies that it does not affect in any way aboriginal or treaty rights that may persist, that these bands might have. In addition the agreement has provisions that protect hunting activities, cabin sites, archaeological sites, and other traditional uses that can be demonstrated by proper historical research by any of these parties.
It is for this reason that negotiations first commenced between the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut and the Dene of the northern parts of the provinces. That goes back to 1985. In fact the hon. member may know that an agreement was reached in 1986 by the negotiators for both parties.
Therefore, it is not correct to suggest that this was left to the last minute or that the government has been unaware or inflexible on this issue. We have attempted to bring the parties together to come to an agreement on how this question might be resolved in the future.
Apparently the parties did not ratify the agreement reached in 1986 but there have been ongoing discussions. The member says he became aware of the problem in 1988. In 1990 when we signed the agreement in principle,
I was not approached or made aware of any residual difficulty.
It has always been my view however where the beneficiary of a comprehensive land claim has an unresolved dispute with a neighbouring first nation or people, it is desirable but not essential that those disputes be resolved before the land claim is settled to the benefit of the beneficiary party.
I am delighted that as recently as this week an understanding has been reached by way of the letter the hon. member says he has tabled. As well the department of Indian affairs is providing $75,000 in financial support to the Dene of northern Saskatchewan to further their case before the courts. I wish them well. I am confident, as some of us have observed, the conclusion of the TFN land claim agreement and the Nunavut accord will give
them a stronger case from which to maximize their rights and interests in the TFN settlement area.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his remarks. I had hoped he might come to the same position as the TFN did a few days ago, but perhaps that was unrealistic.
I would also like to make one small correction to his remarks. The court finding, at least in the case of the Saskatchewan Dene, did not rule on questions of substance but rather of process. The court case had to do with an application for injunction to stop the plebiscite from moving forward. The court found that holding the plebiscite did not in itself jeopardize the position of the Dene. At the same time the court said there were questions of substance that needed to be addressed.
The agreement of 1985-86 to which the minister referred was between the Manitoba Dene people and not the Saskatchewan Dene people. I just want that to be correct on the record.
I would also like to table with the House the recent and current land use study which supports the contention that land use and occupancy do occur in the Nunavut territory on a current and ongoing basis.
I have a final question for the minister. As he is aware several weeks ago in Fond du Lac there were hearings of the Indian claims commission chaired by Harry Laforme respecting the the treaty right question. That commission has not said precisely when it might be ruling. Obviously it was not in time for this process; perhaps it will be by the end of the summer.
Will the minister commit the government to accepting the recommendations of that commission? What attitude will the Government of Canada have toward that commission? Being a new commission, there are no precedents on how the Government of Canada will treat recommendations from that particular commission?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Before I recognize the minister, does the hon. member have consent to table the document?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Agreed and so ordered.
June 4, 1993


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Chairman, in so far as the Indian Specific Claims Commission is concerned, the hon. member knows the commission was set up under the powers of the Inquiries Act to provide advice to government as commissions of inquiries do on the extent to which particular claims the government has rejected might be readdressed by the government because, it may be argued, there is a lawful obligation on the part of Canada.
The specific claims commission has criteria by which it is to conduct itself in regard of claims or alleged claims which result from a lawful obligation. Therefore it is important the specific claims commission address itself to issues. While we have rejected them on the basis of legal advice from the Department of Justice that we do not have a lawful obligation, those claims must stem in some way from a document or a legal commitment of some sort which is arguably binding upon the government.
In the case of any of the claims Mr. Laforme's commission is addressing, if we receive that advice we expect it to be backed up with thorough research and legal arguments. Then we will make a decision which remains to be the minister's prerogative with respect to any such claims.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, there has been agreement that there would not be closing speeches. I just wanted to thank all members of the House for their co-operation this afternoon.
I would like to say to the people of the western Arctic whose interests have not really been addressed today that we are very conscious of their feelings regarding the future.
We are all very grateful to the negotiators who served so well for the two governments of the Northwest Territories and Canada, and especially the representatives of the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut who are here today.
Government Orders
In conclusion I would like to say the following to our guests today.
[Editor's Note: Minister spoke in Inuktitut.]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure all members of the House will concur in whatever the hon. minister said.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I can safely say there were no derogatory remarks.
I would like to close by saying as I mentioned earlier that this has been a very humbling experience. It is a very proud day for the people of Nunavut as represented by the people in the gallery from Nunavut area.
I am very proud to have been part of the deliberations on the two bills: on the land claims bill and on the bill dealing with the creation of Nunavut.
Along with my colleagues from the north we are able to say that June 4, 1993 is a very important day for the people of Nunavut. It is a day to remember and tell our grandchildren about.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the minister once I get a translation. I trust the member for Nunatsiaq who assured us there was nothing derogatory in them.
I agree with his statement that June 4, 1993 is an important day for the people of Nunavut. It is almost equivalent to the July 1 celebration Canada enjoys on its birthday.
I am very proud to have been here representing the New Democratic Party at the birthday of Nunavut. I wish the young territory all the best in the future. Given the talent brought to bear on the negotiations, that talent will be brought to bear on the government of Nunavut and we will have a very successful territory.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I want hon. members to know those last three little speeches were congratulatory speeches, not speeches on third reading.
It being 3 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
June 4, 1993
{English]

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of protecting the family farm through stable returns to producers and funding for assembly and long-term lease-purchase of farmland.
He said: Mr. Speaker, for a few moments this afternoon I take my privilege and right as a private member to introduce some ideas I hope the government will attend. It seems to me it has been pursuing policies on agriculture and trade that are not serving the best interests of local and rural communities. I was hoping this afternoon to put a few ideas before the government that would make it change its policy so they would be more helpful to rural people.
In all debates on agriculture, trade and economic policies these days from the government benches I will begin by saying that we have to face that we are a global community and we must be competitive in that global community. We must have sustainable production and things will taper off after that.
We should make it quite clear there has never been anything but a recognition by Canadians of all persuasions, whether they are Progressive Conservatives, New Democrats, Liberal or political non-believers, that we are living in a global economy. I am from western Canada. Most of its economy is dominated by people who originated in Europe. They came to that part of the world because they thought there were some opportunities. The products they produced had to go to other parts of the world to find markets. We have always been a global economy in terms of the thinking on the farms of western Canada.
We have contacts in all parts of the globe. We sell to all parts of the globe. There has never been any doubt that we were a global economy. It leaves me somewhat sad and baffled to see the front benches of the Conservative government trying to pretend that they are inventing globalization. They have not.
What they have invented is a different kind of globalization. It is becoming evident in the economic models. When one looks at the practice of the three or four larger trading blocs of the world one sees that there are emerging three global models.
One model is the American-British model, the sort of Reagan-Thatcher view of life, that looks at the world working in an economic system wherein there are very few rules other than the devil take the hindmost and the one with the most bucks wins. This kind of economic model means the lowest price and the cheapest wage will always get the jobs. That is a model that has no great future.
Granted, it is the one the government is attempting to tie itself to, a deregulated kind of economy with no rules and nothing limiting the power of the transnational and international corporations. It has not worried about what happens to the people who have to stay in the country and cannot move as readily and as easily as transnational corporations. We can forget about that model. We have to worry about it now because the government that adopted it as its code of practice is now in power. Hopefully it will not last very much longer.
Another economic model that has been pursued globally with some success is the Japanese model wherein business and government form a very cosy alliance and various corporations do joint ventures. The Japanese for Japanese business take on the world and usually win. That model is beginning to show some signs of having difficulties. Mostly the problem is that we have great difficulty from a societal sense accepting the close regimentation workers have to follow and the loyally to their company for a lifetime.
It goes both ways. The company is also loyal to its workers. That has not been part of our practice in this country and so we probably would find that somewhat difficult to adapt to.
Most futurists see the third model, the European model that has developed, as the kind of model that is most likely to survive because it is a more communal kind of model involving labour, workers, rural people, governments and corporations all working together for a set of combined common goals that are good for all of the participants in the effort to expand their influence in the world community.
June 4. 1993

The Europeans have come together economically and to some extent politically. They have taken all of the players in the economy and come up with a fairly workable mix of labour, business and government decision making that most closely copies the kind of thinking that exists in New Democratic philosophy and political policies.
I think that model is the one that we have to look at as the one that is most likely to survive. I believe the reason that it will survive is that unlike the first model that I mentioned, the British-American system in which the objective is to get to the cheapest labour and the cheapest raw resources, the European model looks at ways of improving standards of living, wages and prices in a way that will improve all of the society together. Instead of depressing society it attempts to improve it.
That is the model that we would do well to copy. The proposals I am putting on the table today for agriculture tend to copy some of those ideas but they are essentially Canadian solutions made for Canadians in Canada.
Members will notice that the motion asks the government to do two things. I will deal with the first one first. It says:
The government should consider the advisability of protecting the
family farm through stable returns to producers-
In the past we have not had systems of stable returns that will withstand the onslaught of international trading rules. To be fair neither have the Europeans, Japanese, or Americans. Everybody is searching for this kind of solution. We are saying, after lengthy discussions and consultations with various farm organizations over the last five or six years, that perhaps the place to start is to look at the amount of the domestic market that is supplied by Canadian farmers and divide that among them and provide some price guarantees and assistance through tax dollars so that we are not put at a disadvantage to those countries we compete against. In particular we should not be at a disadvantage to our American cousins and neighbours.
We have said, and I will use the grain sector as an example, that we will take the amount of grain that is utilized within Canada and is fed and consumed here and divide it among all the farmers. That will amount to between 8.000 and 9,000 bushels per existing farm.
Private Members' Business
For a beginning, why does the government not simply offer to meet the price guarantees that the Americans are giving their farmers on that domestically consumed grain so there would be no exportation of subsidies. The way we are proposing to do it would not impact upon secondary users whether hog feeders, beef feeders, or dairymen.
It would simply be a guarantee equivalent to the guarantees that the United States gives to its producers. At the current American target prices and at the current exchange rate between Canadian and American currency that would amount to about $5 per bushel on delivery at the elevator. It would be approximately $2.75 a bushel on delivery for corn, $6.25 a bushel for canola, $2.95 a bushel for barley and $1.80 a bushel for oats.
The farmer would receive the guaranteed price on his initial deliveries at the elevator until he had made approximately $40,000 in sales. The subsidy that would be available on the product that he was presenting for sale would be paid by the taxpayers of Canada.
The cost of this kind of system would be no more and perhaps even less than has been the case with the ad hoc programs that have been proposed and the programs that have been put in place through GRIP, which are paid for by federal and provincial taxpayers as well as by farmers.
Therefore the subsidy levels would not be much different but the effect of the subsidy would be felt very directly in the rural communities. Instead of spreading those taxpayer dollars across all the production we would instead be dividing it among the producers.
The smaller and middle sized producers would reap a proportionately larger benefit from this kind of system than would the very large producers. Very large producers at the moment receive tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of dollars through the various subsidy programs that are available.
I do not think it makes much sense for large growing entities to be receiving taxpayer dollars to continue to grow and prosper when they could do that all very well on their own as good, efficient and effective producers.

June 4, 1993
Private Members' Business
The emphasis has to change. In addition to the changes in the way that government assistance from the over-all community through the country is dispersed to the farming communities there has to be further consideration than has been shown at this point to the future of those rural communities.
In a deregulated market, which the government is hell bent upon moving us toward, there is very little opportunity for young and beginning farmers to become farmers. The young people are virtually elbowed out of the farm community at the moment.
I know this is a problem under deregulation for all young people. It is extremely difficult if not impossible for anyone under 25 to find a position at all. That is a result, to a large extent, of the deregulation and the mean-spirited approach that we have been insisting and persisting in following lately.
It is even more difficult to establish a young family on a farm because of the investment requirements, even though land values have dropped considerably and there is not a lot of hurry to go out there and bid up the price of farmland. It is very difficult for young people to find the kind of credit and raise the kind of funds they need in order to establish their own family on a farm.
There is a lot of farmland sitting available. It is not all sitting idle. A lot of it is being farmed by lease. However institutions like the federal banks, the big five, hold a great deal of farm property. The Farm Credit Corporation, the Crown corporation which was struck to lend money to farmers, holds over a million acres of Canadian farmland right now. More than 85 per cent of that is in my home province of Saskatchewan.
It is loathe to sell those lands because it will not recover the amount of money that is owed against them. The value of the lands has dropped about 50 per cent since those loans were made in the last eight or ten years. As a consequence nobody wants to pay Farm Credit Corporation's debt for it. The only way that FCC will be able to move that land into the private sector is to take a loss on it, something it is of course not anxious to do, although the government does pick up a considerable amount of its losses every year.
The proposal that I think the government should be looking at is to take these lands that the Farm Credit Corporation has available, lands that the banks, some of the credit unions and some of the trust companies might have available, and form a local community trust or a community trust in each of the provinces, because land holding under our Constitution is under the aegis of the provinces.
It should allow them to continue to be shareholders in the land if they insist but should set up an agency whose mandate it is to lease land to beginning or younger farmers, not to the older, established ones but those under 30 or 35. It should make the leases relatively long term, 20 or 30 year leases, once the lessees show that they have the ability to do a competent job of farming the land. It should put local boards and directors in charge of the leasing, the administration and the overview of the lands to make sure that they are well handled so that younger people do have an opportunity to get a land base and to remain in those rural communities.
Without a regeneration of those rural communities there will be no children to go to school for the teaching jobs, there will be no children to be born in the communities so that there are hospitals, nurses and doctors, and there will be nobody to look after the elderly population that is filling up the nursing homes that are there now. The communities will continue to wither and die.
To a degree that has been happening now, but there have been magnificent efforts by those rural communities to sustain themselves and find production facilities they can invest in.
I continue to be amazed at the amount of money and effort that rural communities are willing to put into a new processing plant, regardless of how difficult it might be for that new product to come on to the market. The local communities put up their money, expertise, time and effort to make certain that some of these groups do have a chance to get started.
They do not do it because they think they will make a profit. Most of these people are buying shares in these community processing plants with the view that this is virtually a donation. They are doing it because they think that if they can get this plant going it will employ 15, 20 or 30 people and that will mean 15, 20 or 30 young
June 4, 1993

couples who can stay in that community, fill up the houses and keep the community going.
It is vital to the future of not only rural communities but the viable operation of Canada as we have known it. These modest changes to the way we view globalization and economic development could go a long way toward humanizing the kind of economic development and social structures that we have in our country.
I would hope that the government would begin to see the futility of following the Reagan-Thatcher model of globalization and look a little more closely at some of the things that the Japanese and the Europeans are doing because those countries have accepted a lot of socialist ideas that are good for people, are good for the economy and can even be good for global business.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have a chance to say a few words on the motion of the hon. member for Mackenzie.
The motion before the House sets out the need for constructive and worth-while government programs. It is very beneficial that it should happen to be before the House today because the Minister of Agriculture, during the last 24 hours, has practically adopted a scorched earth policy toward Canadian farm organizations, groups like the Prairie Pools Incorporated and the Ontario Corn Producers. Many of the policies adopted are just unbelievable.
It was announced this morning by the Minister of Agriculture that he planned to open the border with the United States even though support programs have not been balanced as is required under the free trade deal. He is moving the marketing of barley from the Canadian Wheat Board to individual shipments. This means that we end up with a flooding of the market in Montana. It will drive down the price-setting mechanisms in the United States for barley that are set in Seattle and we will see lower prices and less returns. We will see an industry that is not going to be doing very well.
On the other hand, it is the government's wish to remove that barrier which was put in place by the FTA. It is the government's decision to take the exclusive re-
Private Members' Business
sponsibility for the marketing of barley in North America away from the Canadian Wheat Board.
We proposed in the agriculture committee that if the government is hell-bent on doing this, then it should put it to a plebiscite and let the producers decide. The Canadian Wheat Board is not an agency of the Government of Canada, it is an agency of the Canadian barley and wheat producers. Therefore, it is the barley and wheat producers who must decide if they want to have this exclusive responsibility, even though the Canadian Wheat Board has served the industry very well.
The studies that were done by Prairie Pools Incorporated suggest there is going to be a major cost to Canadian producers.
We started discussions in the agriculture committee and within a week government members on the committee shut down the whole review process. It is unbelievable the government is taking the marketing of barley away from the Canadian Wheat Board and then imposing its majority in the committee and not even allowing the Canadian Wheat Board to appear. I guess this is because the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board had been so critical of the proposal to take away barley marketing.
The government will argue that the marketing of barley is only a few percentage points of the total wheat board operations, but in fact barley is a major coarse grain commodity. It is not just the volume, but the fact that the marketing of barley is removed from the wheat board weakens the wheat board and will have a longterm, disadvantageous effect on that board.
The second area in the trilogy of the scorched earth policy which has been adopted by the minister is to take away the interest-free cash advance.
The House will recall that the government moved in this direction two or three years ago and within six months of removing the interest-free feature of the cash advance program it had reinstated it. The economic situation was so desperate in the fall of 1990 that it suddenly reinstated the interest-free feature even though it had to do it by Order in Council. It had removed it as a statute program. We received an endless number of letters from the Ontario Corn Producers, the prairie pools, the corn producers in Manitoba, all making

June 4, 1993
Private Members' Business
the same argument, that this is one of the best programs the government has.
If everybody markets their corn or barley or wheat, or whatever the commodity is, at harvest time in October, prices are driven down. Everybody is desperately strapped for cash so this has the impact of driving the price of the commodity down. Under the interest-free cash advance, the mechanism is spun out so that the individual producer markets the crop in December or January or later on in the season and has a tremendous advantage. The advantage is not one for one, that you get an advantage of whatever the interest-free portion of the cash advance is, in some cases it is as high as 15 to 1.
I cannot for the life of me see why the government is removing that interest-free portion because the interest rates are at the lowest rate they have been in 10 or 15 years and it is the least costly of programs. When the government was driving the interest rates through the ceiling in 1989 and 1990, and interest rates for so many commodities were 14 and 15 per cent, at least double what they were in the United States, in a free trade environment one can imagine the impact it has had on the entire Canadian economy, but especially on Canadian farmers. Now when the interest rates are very low we have the ridiculous situation where the government is putting that additional burden on Canadian farmers.
That is the second part of the trilogy of the scorched earth policy that has been adopted by the government this spring. Beyond that, the government has moved today to table a bill in the House to change the method of payment of the Crow benefit.
This is the third part of the trilogy. Last December the government moved to chop the western grain transportation assistance program by some $72 million, roughly 10 per cent of the benefit itself. When the Minister of Finance brought down his budget a few months ago he said: "Okay, I have taken away $72 million. If you people do not adopt my policy I am going to double that". Well, it is a hollow threat because he is not going to be around. The idea of blackmailing producers with an either accept our policy or we will remove more of it is horrible.
This is a great historical support program. It was adopted because it is part of the Crow rate agreement dating back almost a hundred years. If the farmers do not agree to the change in the method of the Crow benefit,
the government will reduce the benefit. It is breaking faith with thousands of producers.
I hope the government will back down on this. There may have to be changes if the GATT agreement determines that this is an export subsidy and subject to a mandatory reduction. But at this stage there is no consensus and the government should not be cutting that support. It should not be blackmailing Canadian farmers at this time, or any other time, by threatening to reduce their support programs if they do not agree to the changes that the government is threatening.
I am glad to have had this opportunity to make these few comments this afternoon on the hon. member's motion because clearly this is a black day for Canadian farmers in what the government is proposing in these three scorched earth policies.


Robert Harold Porter: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Mackenzie for his concern about the future of the family farm. He and I have shared a considerable amount of time on the standing committee as has the previous speaker. While we do have those concerns, we may have different views on how to achieve them.
The government understands the important role of the family farm operation in our rural communities, economically and socially. That is why we have stood by Canadian farmers in times of need. Certainly these last few years have been times when farmers in all areas have gone through difficult periods as a result of markets, of weather conditions and of a variety of problems that they have faced.
In 1986-87 we provided $2 billion to help farmers cope with low grain prices caused by an international subsidy war. In 1988, when farmers were dealing with one of the worst droughts in the history of this country there was $800 million in special support through the Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program.
As well, one may recall the program that was brought in for the deferral on breeder stock which had taken place that year where livestock had to be culled. If the tax had been paid and those cattle been replaced at the higher market value, that would have had a detrimental effect. This government did recognize, after 20 years of previous agricultural groups trying to initiate that program, the fact that breeding stock is like the machinery
June 4, 1993

we use in any manufacturing plant to turn grass into beef and not tax it in times of disadvantage.
There was a further $500 million through the Special Income Assistance Program in 1990. It was followed by the Farm Support and Adjustment Measures, one and two, which provided $1.4 billion in federal support.
Between 1985 and 1992 almost $17 billion in direct federal payments have gone to producers. The government has been there for Canadian farmers. However I share the hon. member's view that the long-term viability of the family farm cannot and will not be brought back with programs that put a cheque in the mail. Farmers do not want it that way. They would rather in all cases- those I talk to-get their returns from the marketplace.
The success or failure of the family farm will depend on its ability to compete. As the hon. member has said, we have always had to compete in world markets. It has been emphasized before. There are some commodities which are more regionalized. Some are on a North American market and obviously in our grain sector on world markets.
To ensure fair and stable returns the industry needs long-term solutions and certainly better prices, improved market opportunities, diversification and world development opportunities. Those needs are driving our reform of agricultural policies and programs. This reform is being carried out with the participation of provinces and the industry.
The key to that reform is securing access to markets. The Canadian agrifood sector depends on trade. One of our priorities is to get a reduction in the subsidies used by Canada's major competitors in international grain markets. We can do all of these wonderful things that have been suggested, but if there is $320 billion in agricultural subsidies throughout the world, supply and demand has little impact on what will happen to individual markets.
Obviously if we could resolve some of the problems that we are trying to do under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and end the trade war that still plagues our grain sector, it would not end all of our problems. It would perhaps bring some stability to world markets.
Private Members' Business
I noted with some interest the hon. member talking about other ways of doing things. I commend anybody who has suggestions for improving the situation in agriculture.
Land banking is something that has been tried. I think, Sir, that it has been tried in your province before. I can recall it a number of years ago in the 1950s and the 1960s. I do not know whether there were positive results.
Rural communities are going through changes in most areas. Some of it is going to happen regardless of the policies of government or with markets. There is a change in the lifestyle of some of the people who live there. Schools systems are changing. The road system has changed. Most people from small, rural communities are retiring into the larger centres.
.(1535)
We have seen that happening. I come from a community where the largest growth industry involves retired Saskatchewan farmers moving into Medicine Hat. They move there for a number of reasons. They want availability of health care, a recreation facility and better housing. They are not going to stay, as they did a number of years ago in the small, local community when they retire from the family farm. I do not think any of the programs that we are talking about are going to have an impact there. It is a change that is taking place throughout this country and others and I think it is a reality that perhaps we have to face.
We know the benefits of secure market access through our trade agreement with the United States. Our share of American markets is now larger than it has ever been. I am looking at headlines from about two weeks ago in The Calgary Herald. It indicates that the annual revenue from cattle and calves has grown by 64 per cent or $700 million since 1984 to achieve a forecast of $1.8 billion this year. This is in the province of Alberta. The trend is accelerating, fed by growth in exports to the United States. Canadian cattle achieved a five-fold growth in their share of U.S. beef markets to 5 per cent since 1987. We are now slaughtering roughly 60 per cent of all the cattle in Canada in the province of Alberta. Even with that taking place I noted last week that 11,000 head of slaughter cattle were going across the border.

Private Members' Business
We have access to another market is one of the things which has added some stability to our market. It is also closer than providing a shipment to the Montreal market as we have done in the past. Some of the trade is moving on a north-south basis rather than being forced east or west as it was for the last 100 years has served the industry well on both sides of the border. We can perhaps see that happening in other commodities.
We hope to see access extended through the North American free trade agreement to include Mexico, which is a market that is growing quickly. Earlier this year a thousand Canadian firms attended a trade show in Mexico. These were not large conglomerates and huge corporations. They were small firms from 10 to 100 employees. There was interest shown there. Some contracts were signed that could develop through this initiative. Further, other countries of the southern hemisphere have shown an interest in trading with Canada.
We do have things like malt barley going into Colombia. We have trade in energy resources. We have firms in western Canada at the present time that were developing markets in some of those countries there. There is an interest on behalf of other countries in opening up trade.
Last November we announced a trade opportunity strategy that helped the agrifood sector improve its marketing success abroad. The strategy will see Canada establish positions in our embassies in key growth markets. These people in these positions will promote our agrifood products and help link up sellers in this country with buyers.
As part of that strategy we have established an agrifood export council chaired by Ted Bilyea, vice president and general manager of international trade for Maple Leaf Foods Inc. Canada. This council will help develop policies that will help us improve our agrifood export performance. At the same time we are working with industry to help the sector become more competitive even in the face of international pressures over which they have no control.
We recently passed amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act which gave the FCC more flexibility to help farmers who want to diversify their operations with off-farm-but related-opportunities. A number of farmers have expressed over the years an interest in being able to finance some of the farm-related businesses that they have developed. We have seen that taking place across western Canada.
We passed Bill C-54 which is the national check-off legislation that is allowing innovators like the Canadian Cattlemen's Association the flexibility to respond to market and research opportunities as they see fit. Last year the federal government launched a review of the regulations within Agriculture Canada. This involved the Grains and Oilseed Branch, including the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Grain Commission and the Food Production and Inspection Branch. Industry representatives have played a central role in this process. I think the objective of this review is to reduce unnecessary policies and regulations which impede competitiveness without compromising in any way the safety of Canada's food supply.
Probably another area that we should look at is the interprovincial trade barriers, not just with agriculture but within a lot of other areas. There are 500 impediments to trade between provinces across this nation. Obviously agriculture gets caught up in some of the problems that we face in trying to deal within our own country.
We have made progress in a number of areas. For example we are holding discussions with the provinces on setting up pilot projects to eliminate duplicate inspections between the two levels of government.
We have tabled changes in the Canada Grains Act this spring including plans to eliminate maximum tariffs at grain elevators.
I guess we are simply posing the question: Are there other ways of doing things that in the end help the farmers' bottom line. I think it is only right, I think it is only fair that regardless of where we come from or which side of the House we are on that we must look at any way that we can which has some viability for improving the situation of those people who make their living producing an agricultural product.
We are posing the question regarding western grain transportation. It is an issue that has been sensitive. It has been coming up for generations. Most of us have heard both sides of that issue. I have listened to that ever since I was very young. We have not resolved it yet. I think it is going to have to be focused on regardless of what happens in the international marketplace. It is
June 4, 1993

coming to a focus and I think we should be seriously considering what we do with that.
Our goal is to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do regret the hon. member's time has expired.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I hate the fact that another member had to be interrupted for me to speak. I always listen carefully to the comments of the hon. member across. I know he has a very strong attachment to the agricultural community. I am always pleased to hear what he has to say, as I was to listen to the comments of the hon. member for Algoma and of our colleague from Saskatchewan as well.
We are debating today the motion to consider the advisability of protecting the family farm through stable returns and, second, for the funding for land assembly and long-term lease-purchase of land.
The funding for land assembly is not always a popular issue depending on how that is put. I am sure my colleague from Saskatchewan will agree that it has not always been a popular idea. Certainly the lease-purchase kind of initiative I think would meet the approval of many Canadians.
When the hon. member spoke a little earlier about some one million acres that the Farm Credit Corporation owns right now, shall we call it a reluctant owner of one million acres or so, I was not surprised at that figure because I had heard it many times. As the hon. member will know I have a large agricultural constituency as well. What I did not know was that 85 per cent of that land was in his own province of Saskatchewan.
There is a very sad message in that. That message I believe is the following, that for those areas of the country which depend on cash crops the cash cropping business has been so bad over recent years that many farmers have unfortunately gone out of business and have lost their farms.
We all knew that, but in other parts of the country where supply managed agriculture is a more popular form of agriculture, for a whole variety of reasons fewer farms have ended up being foreclosed or otherwise getting into the Farm Credit Corporation's hands.
Private Members' Business
If that happens with the Farm Credit Corporation I am sure it is also true of other banking institutions as well. Banks have become owners of large tracts of land and of course they are reluctant owners. I am sure they would rather be doing the business of banking rather than owning farm land and they are reluctant owners there.
Where there are no instruments to ensure stability in the farming area, the absence of those instruments has made it such that there is a higher rate of failure in those particular sectors. That brings me to the following topic.
I want to speak briefly about supply managed agriculture in Canada. The hon. member across, a colleague from Alberta, will know of my strong attachment to supply managed agriculture. He and I participated in a series of international meetings only a few weeks ago at which we had some occasion to raise these issues with leaders of other nations. He will know that I have a strong attachment for that particular method of ensuring the stability of the agricultural sector.
I want to talk a little bit about an area that perhaps I am a little bit more familiar with than I am with other areas, the area of dairy farming. There are a large number of dairy farmers in the riding of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell.
There are some 33,000 dairy farms in Canada. They provide approximately 100,000 jobs in this country. Operating a dairy farm is no bed of roses. It is a very difficult industry but it is at least more stable than other areas of farming where there is no supply management or other tools to ensure stability of income.
What is interesting is that the Canadian dairy industry receives approximately $266 million from subsidies right now. If anyone thinks that is a large amount of money, as a percentage of income it is actually very small. Something like 7 per cent of what dairy farmers get is from subsidies.
In the United States where there is no such initiative as supply management as we know it for dairy farmers, $66 billion is spent annually on agricultural subsidies and 34 per cent of the revenue of a U.S. dairy farmer comes from governments. If anyone likes to say "why do quotas exist, why can they not just compete freely and it would be a lot cheaper", it depends on whose mathematics.

June 4, 1993
Private Members' Business
No one can tell me that $66 billion of U.S. agricultural subsidies indicate there is something efficient about that particular form of marketing or doing business there. Indeed I would argue that the reverse is true. With our system only 7 per cent of income to dairy farmers comes from governments. That is indeed far more efficient.
We all know that the price of milk in both countries is substantially the same. I know someone will phone me up tomorrow and say: "Mr. Boudria, we saw this on television. We want you to know that last week milk in Massena was selling for one-third less than it sells for in Cornwall".
Of course they forget to say that was a loss leader designed to get people to cross the border to do a little bit of cross-border shopping and has nothing to do with the average price of milk sold in that area because it is substantially similar. I enumerated statistics some months ago comparing Detroit, Windsor, Cornwall and Massena and a number of other border communities in both Canada and the United States.
I think I argued at that point, and quite successfully if I may be so presumptuous as to suggest, that the prices were essentially the same in both countries notwithstanding the fact that the Canadian dairy producers get very little direct assistance from government as opposed to what they do south of the border.
The difference is that the stability that exists in the system here has been good for the Canadian dairy industry.

That is why I support Canadian farmers and especially the marketing boards that want to preserve supply management systems in Canada, including my own province, Ontario, for dairy farmers.
I must say today that I am very concerned. This may be my last chance to make a speech in the House before the election. Next week the House will probably adjourn and is not expected to come back. Those members who are re-elected by their constituents some time next fall will come back.
Finally, I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for sending me
to this, the highest court in the land, as their elected representative.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we are nearing the end of this session and the GATT negotiations are continuing. I must say that I am concerned about the future of supply management. A few weeks ago I had a chance to talk to the delegates and presidents of Venezuela and Colombia, both members of GATT. I must say that neither country supports our position on supply management. I know the government keeps saying it wants to preserve article XI of GATT, which allows us to have supply management, but I am not at all convinced that the other countries support us in this.

In the event that I do not have an opportunity to speak again in this Parliament, it is only a week from its adjournment, I know that you, Sir, may not be a candidate for office. I am going to take this opportunity to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, my strong and sincere best wishes on whatever future plans you have.
I have particular affection for this particular Speaker. He was a member when I was on staff on Parliament Hill many years ago.
I do wish for you, Sir, that the future will bring many good things to you.
I also take this opportunity to say to my colleagues in this House in all parties how much I have enjoyed working with them. Of course it may not be a surprise to hear me say that I hope I am back to discuss issues again in this Chamber with many of the members who will be re-elected and new ones who will be coming in. It may not shock anyone to hear that I hope many of those new ones will be of my political affiliation.
Perhaps the day will come soon when I will have the opportunity to address the Speaker from the other side of the House. I hope that opportunity does come soon because I have been in opposition for many years.
With that I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and say to all my colleagues and our staff here in the Chamber how much I have enjoyed being a member for all these years.
I do hope I am back again to continue my work on behalf of my constituents.
i


June 4, 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I thank my hon. colleagues. I know one thing. When I leave here I will have a few black suits and I can always get myself a hat and be a taxi driver or a chauffeur.
There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Private Members' Business
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being four o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.54 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 7,1993