Norman E. Doyle

[Nunavut Act, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to say a few words on Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867. My colleague, the member for South Shore, is the critic for aboriginal affairs and northern development but he could not be present today. He is a little late in getting here so he asked me to make some remarks on his behalf.

The creation of the new territory in the northeastern and central region of Canada on April 1, 1999 is a very historic occasion. This will create Nunavut as a separate territory from what is currently the Northwest Territories. This will happen about 50 years from the date of another milestone in Canadian history, the day Newfoundland entered Confederation.

I want to begin with a brief history of the events leading to this momentous occasion, the creation of a new territory in the north to be called Nunavut. It has been a long time in coming to fruition and the journey has not been without a lot of hurdles.

The first attempt to divide the Northwest Territories into two regions was made back in 1965 and was initiated by the western region of the Northwest Territories. The bill died on the order paper at that time. The next event of significance was the release of the Carrothers report in 1966 and its recommendation that a division of the Northwest Territories would not be beneficial at that time to the Inuit living primarily in the eastern region. Instead, the report made a number of recommendations, including the creation of electoral constituencies in the eastern and central Arctic, the appointment of a commissioner who resided in the Northwest Territories and the transfer of federal programs to the territorial government.

It should be noted that at that time the commissioner of the Northwest Territories was based out of Ottawa. His recommendations were to set the stage for division of the Northwest Territories at a later point in time when the regions would be in a better position to assume control of their administration and governance. These recommendations were acted on in the following years.

In 1976 another bid was made for division of the territory, this time by the ITC, an organization representing Inuit in Canada. A plebiscite on the issue of division followed in 1982 and it garnered a 56% rate of approval, particularly strong in the eastern Arctic.

That year also saw the formation of a constitutional alliance consisting of members of the legislative assembly in the Northwest Territories with representatives from aboriginal groups. Its objective was to develop an agreement on dividing the territory. Although an agreement was reached in 1987 it was not ratified by the Dene Nation and Metis Association, which had a land claims settlement in the western area and objected to the proposed boundary. Thus the agreement failed and the group dissolved.

In 1990 the Progressive Conservative government asked John Parker to determine the boundary between the two land claims settlement areas, the Denis-Metis nation in the western area and the Inuit in the eastern region. The proposed boundary was taken to a plebiscite in May of 1992 and received a 54% vote.

One important piece of information that I have not mentioned is that in 1990 it was agreed that a vote on the Inuit land claim agreement would take place. The Inuit ratified the agreement with a vote in November of 1992 that resulted in 85% of the people voting in favour of the settlement. So on May 25, 1993 former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's government signed the land claims agreement into being.

The Nunavut land claims agreement will create the Nunavut territory on April 1, 1999. The agreement is the largest aboriginal land claims agreement in Canadian history.

Nunavut means our land in Inuktitut and it represents 2.242 million square kilometres, roughly one-fifth of Canada's land mass. The capital of the new region will be Iqaluit on Baffin Island.

The land claims agreement sets out the creation of the new Nunavut territory and gives Inuit title to 350,000 square kilometres of land. Along with the land agreement is a cash settlement for $1.1 billion over 14 years. In return the Inuit agree to relinquish rights and aboriginal title to other lands within the proposed Nunavut.

There are a number of challenges that must be overcome before the creation of Nunavut in April 1999. This legislation, Bill C-39, addresses some of these concerns. It confers greater powers to the interim commissioner, Jack Anawak, to enable him to enter into leases on behalf of the new territory and ensures that employees hired for the new government are permanent rather than temporary positions.

Even more important, this amendment to the Nunavut Act provides for an election prior to the date the new territory comes into existence. This is of critical importance since it ensures a government will be in place to begin work immediately without having to go through the process of an election in what is obviously going to be a critical and a dynamic time for the new territory.

Another issue of concern to the western region was the number of elected representatives required for governing after the division occurs. The western region will be left with 14 members but the regulation requires 15 members to form a government. Amendment to this legislation will reduce the numbers needed to 14. This will ensure that the western region is also in the position to offer a continuation of services for their area.

Furthermore, this legislation amends the Constitution Act, 1867 to create another seat in the Senate to recognize the new territory. Currently there is only one seat for the Northwest Territories, but the senator representing the Northwest Territories resides in what will become Nunavut. This amendment eliminates any uncertainty along these lines.

One of the greatest concerns expressed by the Inuit and others affected by the change is the need for continuation of services. This legislation helps to ensure that this will occur. At the same time there are still concerns for those people living in the eastern and the central Arctic area. Is the infrastructure going to be in place? Will financial assistance be provided and will there be enough of it? Are there going to be enough people to fill the expected 600 new positions in Nunavut?

The new territory will consist of approximately 24,000 people, 85% or 18,000 of them Inuit. Inuktituk will be the working language and the hope is to have 85% of the staffing positions filled by Inuit in the long term and 45% in the short term.

The federal government has provided approximately $40 million for training and education to prepare the people living in the eastern and central Arctic for positions in the new government. With the settlement of land claims in this area, however, a number of new positions are available for the Inuit and it may be difficult to find people for all these positions. With Nunavut's plan to have government offices spread out over 11 communities attracting workers to the outlying areas may also present a challenge.

The Nunavut implementation commission has reported that Nunavut will have to attain 50% of the people for these new positions from outside of their region.

At the same time a report by the government of the Northwest Territories suggests that only 10% to 15% of its staff will move to Nunavut. That means Nunavut will not have a large corporate knowledge base from which to build.

Furthermore it is questionable whether the infrastructure will be in place in time and Arctic conditions may also be a factor. Moreover, there is little or no private sector space available since everything is typically built on an as needed basis.

Although the entire infrastructure is not required immediately and it is my understanding that the timetable factors in a delay of two years for a summit, a continuation of services will not be possible without adequate infrastructure.

The division of the Northwest Territories creates some interesting and difficult questions for operations such as the Northwest Territories Power Corporation and workers compensation board. According to the divisional secretariat of the Northwest Territories, economies of scale will be a deciding factor in determining how essential services such as these are affected.

Both territories will likely share hospitals and correctional facilities until Nunavut has infrastructure in place for these facilities. That may create problems, however, since the Yellowknife correctional facility is not large enough to accommodate the needs of the entire region.

The western region of the current Northwest Territories has expressed concern over lack of recognition of the problems facing their areas as well. They also have to ensure that the continuation of services is provided during the division of territories. They are obviously in a better position to do so since the infrastructure exists and the legislative, judicial, financial and administrative systems are in place.

Nunavut will have a public government with Inuit and non-Inuit representation. Although Nunavut was created as part of the land claim agreement, the Inuit chose a public government format. The land claim agreement raises another interesting point about what constitutional rights Nunavut will have. Although one would presume its powers would be equivalent to those of the Yukon Territory and the western region, Nunavut will be created as part of a land claim settlement agreement under section 35 of the Constitution. This is another area that is not clarified for the new territory and may create uncertainty.

A Progressive Conservative government initiated the process when the Nunavut land claim agreement was signed in May of 1993 and will culminate in the creation of Nunavut on April 1, 1999. The creation of this territory is a positive move for the eastern region. The PC Party supports self-government for aboriginal peoples as a means of improving their economic development.

While I agree in principle with this legislation as it attempts to rectify some omissions in the Nunavut Act, there are still a number of challenges, as we are all very much aware, facing the new territory as it counts down to April 1, 1999.

[Division No. 112, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member that I do not have to withdraw because I did not make the comment specifically about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The comment I made applies to the people of Atlantic Canada generally.

This was a bad news budget for the people of Atlantic Canada. There are no job creation efforts in the budget. It is the same old song and dance routine with the Liberals. They talk about the band-aid but they ignore the gaping cut they have created in the budget.

The hon. member talked about transfers to the various provinces. I am sorry I did not have a little more time to go into them. The budget and the CHST cash transfers to the various provinces are unfair. Ontario, Alberta and B.C., the three richest provinces in Canada, are all getting an increase, albeit a modest increase, in their cash transfers. Yet provinces like Newfoundland, P.E.I., Quebec, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia are feeling the pinch from this budget. These are the provinces that have been hit the hardest.

It is the same song and dance routine from this government. I did not make the statement that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador specifically have no future or that there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Many good things are happening in Newfoundland. There is the Hibernia project. The Terra Nova project will soon kick in. Voisey's Bay hopefully in the not too distant future will start up. These are things which will happen in the future.

We need jobs now in Newfoundland and Labrador. Nine thousand two-hundred people a year are leaving our province. It may not be a significant number in Ontario but when there is a population of 500,000, 9,200 people a year is a very, very significant number.

Last year school enrolment in Newfoundland went down by 4,200 students, 4.3%. That is very dangerous in a province with a small population base. If that continues and if the federal government does not make some commitment to job creation, or at least give some indication of a post-TAGS program, then we are going to see the next outmigration from our province double what it is now. I really fear for that little province. Newfoundland should not have that kind of haemorrhaging.

There are young people coming out of university on a daily basis who cannot stop at the university door. They go to the airport immediately and head to other provinces, like B.C. and Ontario. We are educating people, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on education in Newfoundland, to have those people travel to B.C., Ontario and Alberta. We have a great deal of concern about that.

[Division No. 112, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me no great pleasure to stand today in the House to state the budget is not a very big winner back home in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Yes, we are all very much aware the budget has been balanced, but we have to ask ourselves at what price to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There has been a 35% cut in transfer payments to the various provinces to achieve that balance, a 35% cut in moneys dedicated to health and post-secondary education. As a result, health and education services provided by the provinces have been cut severely.

In a poorer province like Newfoundland, the provincial government does not have the financial wherewithal or ability to make up for the reductions. The effect of the cuts in Newfoundland has been more severe than it would be in most provinces in Canada.

I point out to the government that the minister of finance of Newfoundland was quite quick to condemn the budget a couple of weeks ago, and well he should have condemned it.

As a result of the budget, the health care system, which incidentally has made Canada the envy of the world, is now a mere shadow of its former self. In post-secondary education the federal cuts have driven up tuition rates and students, especially those in Atlantic Canada, can least afford these increases. Our students, not only those in Newfoundland and Labrador but students all over Canada, are graduating from various universities and post-secondary education institutions with a debt load that is equal to a small mortgage.

Therefore, while student debt relief measures might be welcome, they should be recognized as a federal bandage on a wound caused by federal cuts in the first place. I do not think the government deserves a great amount of credit for the modest increases it has given to students across the country.

The budget makes a great deal of the $7 billion increase in federal transfers to the provinces. However, in the case of Newfoundland, that only slows down the rate of cuts announced in previous budgets, and there have been cuts in previous budgets. We still receive less and less money in each of the next several years. This budget will cost the provincial government, as the provincial minister of finance has already indicated, in excess of $30 million.

In order to undo the damage that has already been done Newfoundland needs an increase, not a smaller decrease, in federal transfers for health and post-secondary education in particular.

The real tragedy in the budget for Newfoundland is that it contains no real job creation effort. The federal government seems to be quite happy with the fact that the national unemployment rate has gone down to 9%. We rejoice and congratulate the government and everyone who is responsible for bringing the unemployment rate down to 9%.

However, that is cold comfort for Newfoundland and Labrador. We have an unemployment rate that is double the national average. We have an unemployment rate that is officially up around 19.5%. There are many communities within the riding of St. John's East which has an unemployment rate of 60% or 70%. For these people that is cold comfort.

We also had a net outmigration in Newfoundland last year of 9,200 people. If this number were added to the official unemployment of 19.5% in my province, our unemployment rate would be up around 22% or 23%.

In addition, there was news this week that possibly there would not be a follow up on the TAGS program. Thousands of people in the fishery are about to come off the TAGS program who are not yet included in the statistics. If the 20,000-odd people who will be coming off TAGS were added to the 19.5% unemployment rate for our province, the unemployment rate would probably be in excess of 22% or 23%.

In balancing the budget the federal government has laid off as well roughly 15% of the nation's federal employees. Newfoundland and Labrador, the poorest province in Canada, took the biggest hit in terms of federal employees being laid off with roughly 30% of them being laid off.

An economic development fund has been set out in the budget for northern Ontario. I do not begrudge the people of northern Ontario their economic development fund, but Newfoundland has the highest unemployment rate in the country and as yet we do not even have a commitment from the federal government that there will be a follow up program on TAGS.

I will talk about the tax rates in our province and in Canada generally. The tax rates are far too high. They act as a disincentive to job creation. Tax cuts announced in the budget are very modest indeed. They are not large enough to kickstart the nation's domestic economy. No matter how we look at it, this is not a jobs budget.

One more matter of importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is the equalization program. It keeps the province from starving and from moving ahead as well. Revenues raised from major economic projects such as Voisey's Bay and Terra Nova are deducted dollar for dollar from our equalization payments. With equalization payments currently running at about $900 million a year in Newfoundland, we need to raise a billion dollars in revenue to be $100 million better off.

It makes it very difficult for a have not province, a poorer province, to catch up under our current equalization formula. We need a better formula.

In the case of Hibernia a special deal was negotiated that would see us losing only 70 cents on the equalization dollar. We need a more generous arrangement for equalization entitlements. We need that arrangement extended to other resource developments if we are ever to catch up to the various provinces, especially those in central Canada.

In short, the government is celebrating that the federal books are balanced. It sees light at the end of the federal tunnel. However the health and education systems run by the various provinces are in a shambles. They are in tatters.

The bad news for the unemployed people of the country and the people of Atlantic Canada in particular is that they will remain unemployed. For many Canadian citizens, especially people in Atlantic Canada, there is no light at the end of their tunnel. As I said earlier, the books have been balanced, but at what price to some of the provinces and their people?

Having balanced the nation's books, it is now time to start balancing opportunities in the nation. In Newfoundland and Labrador we want to be part of that Canadian dream without having to chase that dream all over Canada.

[The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if there is to be no post-TAGS program, the minister should be aware that Canada no longer has fish in excess of its needs and that foreign countries are presently fishing our resources. Will the minister immediately adopt recommendation No. 5, which would no longer permit foreign countries to fish inside our 200-mile limit, taking resources away from Atlantic Canadians who desperately need them?

[The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, many thousands of people in Atlantic Canada have been waiting in anticipation of the federal government announcement on the post-TAGS program. Can the Prime Minister now confirm that the federal cabinet met last week and has already made a final decision that there will be no follow up TAGS program in Atlantic Canada?

[Trans-Canada Highway, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, businesses on the island of Newfoundland receiving goods from or exporting goods to Canada must run a gauntlet of toll gates on the Trans-Canada Highway in the maritimes. The one-way toll in Nova Scotia is $10 per truck and the one-way toll in New Brunswick will soon be $27.50 per truck.

Therefore, a truck making one round trip a day every day for a year would have to pay over $27,000 a year in tolls. This will drive up the cost of doing business in Newfoundland and will cause us to lose jobs and economic development.

I call on the federal government to exercise its constitutional responsibility and take action to ensure the free flow of goods and services in Canada. We do not have a railway in Newfoundland, so it is up to the federal government to allow us to keep on trucking.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to make a few brief remarks on Bill C-6 and on its principle. I believe others from my party will eventually make some remarks on the bill, if they have not already done so, and speak to the principle of the bill.

I make my remarks on behalf of my colleague, the member for South Shore, the Conservative critic for Indian affairs and northern development. I also make them as one who over the years has watched from a distance. Quite frankly I was amazed at the length of time it often takes for the valid aspirations of aboriginal people to be satisfied by government.

I am thankful the aboriginal leadership of the Mackenzie Valley has been so very patient over the decades with what has surely been an endless round of negotiations with government officials.

I am told this is no ordinary bill. It represents a principle that is so laudable and so welcomed that Canadians should be thankful it has arrived after so many years of toing and froing.

Hon. members may know that the bill represents a conclusion of sorts to the precedent setting litigation and negotiations of aboriginal title claims in the Northwest Territories. Perhaps some people will remember that the native peoples up there were faced with what some saw as the stark reality of a huge development project showing up on their doorsteps without any input from them.

Essentially there were and there remain concerns about a disruption of a way of life, a disruption of the lands and the waters. For anyone who knows anything about aboriginal people and the north generally, for people up there life is land and water.

One of the most remarkable features of the Northwest Territories is the Mackenzie Valley. It is one of the world's longest valleys. It is hard to imagine a river at 4,241 kilometres and a huge valley. It needs to be respected. I am only learning lately the history of the matter. Perhaps it would be useful to cite some of the history respecting that wonderful, great area.

On April 2, 1973 some 16 bands filed a caveat in the lands title office in Yellowknife claiming aboriginal rights to almost half the land in the Northwest Territories. The effect of the caveat would have been to make any future land grants in the area subject to the claim of the Indians if it were subsequently found that they had a valid, legal interest in the land.

There were hearings and an interim judgment was handed down from the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories which upheld the caveat saying that there was enough doubt as to whether the full aboriginal title had been extinguished, certainly in the minds of the Indians, to justify the caveat's attempt to protect the Indians' position until a final adjudication could be made and could be obtained.

The federal government appealed and that hearing, I am told, was to take place before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories in June 1975.

Meanwhile behind the scenes the aboriginal leadership negotiated successfully with the then minister of Indian affairs to engage in preliminary discussions to develop the groundwork for a comprehensive settlement of Indian claims in the Northwest Territories.

Essentially the aboriginal leadership pushed the idea of fairness, not a radical idea at all. They were adamant that a settlement of native claims must precede the pipeline or any other major development projects. That brings us to the present day.

I am told the bill was developed by a co-ordinating group comprised of representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Northwest Territories, government representatives, tribal councils and the Department of Justice. We are all hopeful that the many years of dialogue might have borne fruit.

My party is in favour of transferring responsibility and power to the local level and sharing management and development duties. The joint boards the bill will establish are in principle a good idea. My colleague, the member for South Shore, will be speaking on this matter and giving it closer examination.

The bill is intended to implement obligations under land claims signed five years ago as well as in September 1993. In 1992 a settlement of a comprehensive land claim was made that provided 22,422 square kilometres of land in the northwestern portion of the Northwest Territories and 1,554 square kilometres of land in Yukon.

Subsurface rights; a share in the resource royalties derived from the valley; tax free capital transfers; hunting rights; a greater role in the management of wildlife, land and the environment; and the right of first refusal on a variety of activities related to wildlife are very good things. If they represent a principle it would be one related to good government.

I am sure the current minister would recognize the efforts and success of the previous Conservative government in establishing an excellent partnership.

The bill before us today provides for the establishment of management boards to co-ordinate environmental assessment and land and water regulations in the Mackenzie Valley.

People often think of the north or the Mackenzie Valley as barren wasteland. On the contrary, it is and has been home to Inuit and Dene for 10,000 years. Martin Frobisher's expedition back in the 1570s were the first recorded visits to the Northwest Territories by an outsider.

I hope the bill will go some way to ensure, with all the land and the wealth potential to be found under the surface of the land and water in the Mackenzie Valley, that outsiders respect the land, respect the water and respect the people. Let us call them the insiders of the Mackenzie Valley.

I am sure my colleague, the member for South Shore, will be making further comments on the bill in due course.

[Natural Resources, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the development of this project will significantly assist Canada in its greenhouse gas targets, would the minister not agree that this project is just the kind of project Canada needs to meet its international obligation on greenhouse gas emissions and that funding the project should be a priority?

[Natural Resources, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

In a province-wide TV address Premier Tobin indicated that the Government of Newfoundland will be asking the federal government for financial assistance in order to build a transmission line from the lower Churchill site in Labrador to the island of Newfoundland.

Is the minister in a position to say whether the federal government views that request in a favourable way?

[Immigration, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's legislative advisory group recommended that prospective immigrants meet stricter financial requirements. That would appear to favour immigrants from wealthy countries.

Is the minister not aware that this will lead to the rejection of perfectly viable immigrants simply because they are not rich?