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.

Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):

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?

Mr. 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.

[.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.

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.

Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):

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?

Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

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

Agreed.

Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved

that the bill be concurred in.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

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

Agreed.

On division.

Mr. Siddon moved

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?

Agreed.