Debates of April 25th, 1994

Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will address my comments to the last question first. That is not what I am advocating. When the municipalities of the Sahtu Dene are formed I would think and hope they would be eligible for the same programs and the same benefits as any municipality in Canada.

What I was referring to were programs specific to one group based on race, in other words, specific aboriginal programs. That is what I was referring to. Certainly, once they form their municipalities and have self-government, they should be eligible for the same programs as any other municipality in any province.

I have a couple of other quick points because I know time is of the essence. I agree with the hon. member. The system has failed and part of the reason it has failed in the past is that they have not been treated equally. People were segregated and shoved on to reserves and they had to live there.

That is where the system failed in the past. They were not treated equally. Therefore I still hold on to the long-term goal that gradually we can reach a point where all Canadian citizens will be treated equally. I noticed that the hon. member used the term that she was interested in a fair and equitable settlement for the aboriginal people. Certainly that is my concern and I think the concern of my colleagues in the Reform Party as well.

We go a bit beyond that. I would say to the hon. member that we are concerned about a fair and equitable settlement not just for the aboriginal people but for all the people of Canada. We feel we do not just represent one group. We represent all Canadians and we are speaking on behalf of all Canadians when we raise these issues.

She also mentioned that she had concerns about the Reform Party's position, that we were using this debate and it was not specific to this agreement. I agree with her. Obviously we are trying to bring other issues concerning the aboriginal people to light using the format of the debate here today.

We are very concerned about the precedent that one agreement will set. It might be used in future agreements throughout the country and we are using the debate to bring forward some of these other issues. I thank the hon. member for her comments and her questions.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, MIL Davie shipbuilding; the hon. member for Portneuf, bilingualism; the hon. member for Frontenac, job creation.

[Elijah Harper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken here a few times. I have made some statements but this is my first speech in the House. I am very honoured to be sent to the Parliament of Canada to represent my constituents, not only the aboriginal people in my area but also many non-aboriginal people.

As an aboriginal person and First Nations member, I have been involved in this discussion for many years both as a chief in my reserve, Red Sucker Lake Band, and also as a member of the Legislative Assembly in Manitoba for well over 11 years. I have committed myself to this process for a very long time. What I find is that I have to repeat myself over and over again many times to get my point across.

When we talk about the aboriginal people we have been here for thousands and thousands of years. We have had governments for thousands of years. We had societies. We had political structures, social structures. We had our own languages. We traded with other nations. In that way we have existed as a nation, as a government in this country. When the first European people or the settlers arrived they were met by the First Nations in this country. They welcomed these people on to the shores of what we call Canada today. Whether it was on the west coast or on the St. Lawrence River we were here; even through Hudson Bay, which I am very familiar with, down to the Nelson River to Winnipeg we welcomed these people.

If it had not been for the kindness and the generosity of our people many of those people would have perished. If the Lord Selkirk settlers had not been helped by Chief Peguis, many of these people would have perished.

What surprises me in this country is the lack of understanding or the ignorance of the history of this country. We see the Canadian Constitution being proposed as supreme law in this country, entrenching in the law of this land the recognition of two founding nations, the French and the English. We know very well that the first people here were the First Nations. Yet your Constitution is based upon the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

There is a myth concerning the Canadian Constitution and the truth. Any constitution should be able to tell the truth, built upon strong foundations that will not crumble but will stand the test of time. The Canadian Constitution never did that. That is why it crumbled, it did not acknowledge the truth and reality in this country.

It was the First Nations that contributed so much to this country by signing treaties. What does it mean when you sign treaties? It means that you enter into an agreement with another nation, in this case the settler people represented by the Queen with our representatives of the First Nations.

There were many pre-Confederation treaties and a number of treaties made in Manitoba and today what are called modern day treaties. Treaties are about establishing relationships. That is what it is all about. As a matter of fact, when we say inherent right to self-government, we are exercising the very authority to sign the treaties. We did not need Parliament to tell us we have treaties. As a matter of fact, there should be a formal recognition by Parliament that we always had the inherent right to self-government. It is not something that can be granted by Parliament or by Canada, because we came to the table as equals. That is what the treaty making process is all about, establishing that.

In that process we shared the land and resources of this country from which many people have benefited all over the world. How generous and how kind we have been to the rest of this country. What kind of benefits have we received so far? Look at the situation in Davis Inlet or in my home at Red Sucker Lake. We have poor housing conditions. We do not have running water. We do have unemployment rates higher than in the cities. I am sure that if unemployment reaches 20 per cent it is a national disaster across the country, but it is 90 per cent in many of these communities. Nobody cries about those kinds of conditions.

All we want is governments to honour and respect the treaties they have signed with us. We do not expect anything more or anything less because we have contributed so much to this great country and we have not benefited at all.

We talk about the special relationships. I know we have a special relationship, but I do not mean special in the way that we are better off than anyone. We have a unique relationship which no other group has in this country. We want governments to honour that.

This government has proceeded to do what has not been done, and that is to settle and implement inherent right to self-government. We are not asking it to give us self-government. It has never been anyone else's concern to give us anything. It is a matter of acknowledging that we have always had that.

We talk about the Fathers of Confederation in Charlottetown. What about our forefathers who signed the treaties? Can they not be mentioned in history as contributing to the well-being of everybody else in this country? There is no formal recognition of our people. All we are asking for is to settle the outstanding issues, the treaty obligations. The spirit and intent of the treaties should be honoured.

Many people have risen and spoken here but all we asked for, compared with what money has been spent, has been very little. Consider how much land and resources have been generated in this country and shared by the aboriginal people. I am sure billions and billions of dollars have been made off this great country. Yet when we ask for money we are not asking in the sense that we are begging for it, we have been asking governments to honour their treaty obligations, if only a small portion allocated under the control of First Nations.

If we look at the treaty making process, government officials went back and developed the wording. They never really understood what the native people were saying. First, our way of life and our philosophy is to share what we have so we shared the land and the resources so that we would have respect for each other, that we would live side by side with each and that we would co-exist with each other and help each other. That was the spirit and intent.

It was never our intention to be governed by a government. We have never extinguished or surrendered the right to govern ourselves. It has never been that. When we signed the treaties they were signed nation to nation. As a matter of fact, it was a recognition when we signed treaties that we were nations. As a nation we expect governments not to act unilaterally in the way history has shown us and in which they created the Indian Act which has total control over our lives. It even defines who we are today. This has to be done away with and we have to have a renewed partnership. That is the challenge that faces us today. How can we honour that? I know we have honoured our bargain. We expect the government with the support of the opposition to honour the promises of its forefathers, those they made to us. We do not expect anything more or anything less. That is all we ask for, we do not ask for very much. We have been very patient for a very long time and it is time the government honour those treaties.

That is why I am very honoured to speak on Bill C-16. It is a very small part. We want to be part of this country and we have contributed so much to this country as well, but no one seems to talk about it or at least acknowledge it. If they acknowledge it somehow they seem to be obligated that they have to provide more things or more benefits.

If the governments alone were to provide for their treaty obligations there would really be no need to ask for more funding. We talk about finality. In the treaties it says as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow and the grass grows. That is the terminology used. It is forever, the relationship that we have.

We are very committed to this country. We want Canada to be wealthy. We want Canada to be united. We love this country. We love this land. We love everybody. I often say jokingly that our immigration policy was wide open, and it has been to show what kind of people we have been. We have been very kind but it has been the governments here that have always dictated and put restrictions on. It seems like within our own homeland we are treated like foreigners, we are treated like outside citizens, second class citizens.

The first order of business should be the First Nations business in this country. We should settle the treaties and settle land claims. I speak in favour of this bill. I hope members will support this bill.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Churchill on his first participation in debate. I think we were very appreciative of the words he spoke, his commitment to Canada, and the warmth and conviction with which he speaks.

I have spoken to many Canadians and I am sure I speak for millions of Canadians who would like to express appreciation to the hon. member for Churchill for the part he played in the debate over the Meech Lake accord. I have had many people express to me their appreciation for the fact that the hon. member for Churchill played a major and a significant role in defeating the Meech Lake accord and preventing it from being imposed upon Canadians.

I also want to congratulate the hon. member on his concern over Canada as being a country built on two founding races. I know that my Reform colleagues and I for many years now have shared the view that as a false conception of Canada it is not relevant in very many parts of the country and certainly does not recognize the role played by the true founding race of Canada, the aboriginal people.

I do have a question. On our side of the House and in our caucus we have asked the minister of Indian affairs, we have asked the Prime Minister and we have asked many influential members on the government side to provide us with a definition of aboriginal self-government. I heard the hon. member for Churchill speak about aboriginal self-government today. It is very difficult for us to fulfil our role as an opposition until we have the terms of aboriginal self-government defined for us so we can determine whether they are good and just and will make us a better country and will enhance the role of aboriginal people within the nation, whether it may be divisive and negative on the country. I plead with the hon. member for Churchill. Would he at least be so considerate as to give us his definition of what aboriginal self-government is.

[Elijah Harper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, self-government simply put is to administer our own affairs, to be able to make our own decisions and to determine our own future. It is a very simple statement but very complicated to implement. Self-government entails many things. It means to start developing our own institutions, language, culture, education and our own First Nations government structures.

In negotiations self-government is based upon what kind of agreement is reached. My position has always been that the fundamental basis and foundation from which we negotiate are the treaties. When the first governments met we sat down together and came up with a treaty. That formed a basis for our relationship with the government. In return we were to have certain benefits.

However we have never extinguished the right to self-government. It has never been surrendered. To me the treaty making process has never come to an end. What needs to happen is the government needs to sit down with the First Nations in this country.

One of the reasons the constitutional process failed is that the very question the hon. member asked was raised at the constitutional table. All the first ministers and the Prime Minister asked the same question. They were the ones really to say what kind of structure we have. It was not based on equality. We were not being invited as equals; we were just invitees at the first ministers conferences. It failed because we were not equal in the negotiations.

Sometimes we get invited equally on a level playing field. However often when we are on that level playing field or let us say we are in a skating arena we find we have no ice skates or equipment, yet we play according to their rules. That is the kind of process we have been involved in. We are not being treated equally.

It should be based on the treaties, nation to nation. Once that is recognized instead of trying to determine what is best for us, we should sit down as equals, equal to First Nations. I think that would resolve a lot of the questions.

Self-government is not something which is defined in a paper. It has to be negotiated with the First Nations. It may vary from the Micmacs to the Haida people because they have different cultures and a different way of doing things.

There is the potlatch system. Potlatch is a system of government. We have the clan system which is another traditional form of government. There is Iroquois confederacy. These different systems of government have been here for a long time, whether they will be modified or not. Those are things we go through.

When the hon. member asks for a definition of self-government, it is a matter defining it in the negotiation process or through a treaty process. It is not black and white but it is a process that hopefully the governments are going to be undertaking so we can resolve it.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are competing with each other to be recognized by you.

First of all I would like to congratulate the member for his speech today and the straightforwardness with which he expresses his point of view.

I for one am in this House to help resolve this problem. I definitely would like to see as much consultation and work as possible with the aboriginal peoples, the Indians, the Metis and the Inuit so we can resolve these long term outstanding settlements and agreements.

I know the settler people are here. I know the white man took over, those immigrants when they first landed. Perhaps the hon. member for Churchill would appreciate the current 1 per cent rule the Liberal government has and he would have maintained control.

Repetition is important; it is a fact of life. If he has to give a similar speech again and if he has to repeat it five or six times, I would encourage him to do that.

There have been a lot of wrongs committed. A lot of injustices to the native peoples have been perpetrated over the years. We in this House are not the ones who have perpetrated this crime nor made these mistakes. We are here to learn from these mistakes and we are here to try to make it better.

It is in this light and in this vein I wish to address the hon. member and let him know that what we are concerned about is the consultative process. Will he agree with us or put forward the next time he speaks the type of self-government the native people or the aboriginal people want will comply with the current law? He has his problems with the other tribes and other

nations. There is a problem with that interfacing with the laws of the land as they are today. It is a fact of life that the Government of Canada is here and it has to be negotiated with.

Will the hon. member try to put an answer in the context that what they are seeking for in terms of self-government will in fact comply with the laws we have today? How can we get over that hurdle? What would his response be on that basis?

[Elijah Harper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the problem we are wrestling with is not as a result of our laws. It is as a result of the laws that were passed here a long, long time ago, well over 100 years ago.

Many of our people have been put outside of their communities as a result of laws that were passed here. If we had exercised our own laws many of our people would still be enjoying the benefits of our societies. When we are concerned about leaving out people or people not being represented or losing their rights, the principles of that will be maintained by our people.

Certainly, when we are talking about self-government structures we cannot operate with the kind of laws that have been put in place. If we did that all we would be doing would be implementing the colonial oppressive policies on ourselves. Therefore, a new kind of system would have to be recognized and a level of government would have to be established in which we would be able to exercise jurisdiction within our own territory.

When talking about justice, whose justice are we talking about? Usually the dominant society has the upper hand in dispelling justice which is quite different from ours in terms of value systems. We could get into a big debate about that, but I certainly think the aboriginal people in their own traditions have maintained the kind of structures that would provide all kinds of rights and benefits to our communities.

I do not see any kind of loss of rights if we were to administer our own jurisdiction in our own territory. I have no hesitation in saying that.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise and respond to the hon. member for Churchill.

This really is what Parliament is all about. I am personally very honoured to have been here for the hon. member's first intervention and to have heard him speak so passionately and honestly about his life, his experiences, dreams and aspirations. Obviously it came from the heart. It is not something I could live; I cannot be in the hon. member's skin. We can learn a tremendous amount from each other.

I want to assure the hon. member, other members in this House and others in our land that our role here is to oppose the government, to challenge its program and to try to ensure that by a spirited and healthy debate we end up with a better solution than we would have had without that debate.

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I look forward to more in the future.

What would the member do faced with this situation? The situation is that all across the land on reservations there are all of the social ills and the unemployment the hon. member described. How do we go about changing that, not just on reservations but for urban Indians as well?

[Elijah Harper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all we would like to be in a position to make our own decisions. We would like to exercise our own jurisdiction in respect of our territories. At the same time we would expect the government to honour its treaties so that we would have the resources and the financial wherewithal to address and alleviate some of those problems that are so apparent in our communities such as unemployment, the high suicide rates and the economic conditions.

We are not asking for any special funding or to consider anything special. All we are asking is that the government honour its treaty obligations. Housing, medicare and education are under the treaties, just to give an example of what we are talking about.

What is important is that the government tends to make decisions for us and that has to stop. By not supporting this bill I think what is being said is that the hon. member is agreeing to the policy which exists today. What is being said to me is that he is not agreeing with the government's policy and legislation to allow us to make those decisions.

With respect, the amount of dollars we are talking about is very small compared to the spending government has had. As I said, we have been very generous. We are not asking for billions of dollars in this package. We are asking for a very small amount of money compared to the kind of money spent overall.

My first answer is, allow us to control it and honour your commitment by supporting this bill. Actions speaker louder than words.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, just a point of order to correct what I believe is a small error. In Canada we have reserves, not reservations.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am not sure that was a point of order. However, the point has been made and I thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention.

Let me add also my own remarks that I feel honoured to have been in the Chair on the occasion of the member for Churchill's first intervention and debate on the floor of the House of Commons.

Let me also compliment all members in the House, particularly those who have participated in the debate and even those who did not participate through this intervention but who listened very attentively. The tone was most encouraging and the sensitivity in respect of the debate is much appreciated by the Chair. I compliment all members present.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank the hon. member for Churchill who gave us a lesson in history. He spoke from his heart and also with great wisdom, and I can only hope that his speech will help improve our relations with aboriginal nations, as well as our understanding of those people.

This having been said, we have before us a bill to approve, give effect and declare valid the comprehensive land claim agreement of the Sahtu Dene and Metis, which was signed on September 6, 1993. The region covered is a territory of 280,000 square kilometres, in which live some 2,000 people representing five communities. The Bloc Quebecois supports this legislation.

At this point, I would like, for the benefit of those who are listening here and across the country, to give a chronology of the events which have led to the tabling of this bill today.

In 1976, the federal government started negotiating under a land claim process with the Dene and the Metis of the Mackenzie Valley. In 1981, these negotiations led to a final agreement which was concluded in April of 1990. On September 6, 1993, the agreement was signed by the Queen and the Sahtu Tribal Council, in Fort Norman, Northwest Territories.

A plebiscite was held from July 5 to July 8, 1993, to ratify the agreement. The agreement was approved by 85 per cent of the Dene and by 99 per cent of the Metis. On January 13 and February 11, 1994, the tribal council approved certain amendments to the agreement. Just what is this agreement all about?

First, its purpose is to achieve certainty and clarity of rights with respect to ownership and use of some lands and their natural resources. The agreement is divided in two parts. The first one deals with issues such as self-government, royalties on resources, taxation, financial and economic measures, rights over water, as well as wildlife harvesting and management.

Financial compensations totalling $75 million, in dollars of 1990, are to be provided over a period of about 15 years. An annual proportion of royalties collected on resources from the Mackenzie Valley is also covered by the agreement. As well, an annual proportion of royalties collected on resources from the Norman Wells oil and gas development is also covered. Indeed, 7.5 per cent of the first two million dollars collected by the government during a given year and 1.5 per cent of any additional amount will be used as royalties.

The agreement also includes participation in land use planning, renewable resources management, water and land control, as well as preservation of the Sahtu heritage in the region covered. Federal, territorial and municipal laws will continue to apply to Sahtu Dene and Metis, and also to the land.

A Renewable Resources Board is created. This board is a legal entity, which means that it can take legal action and can itself be sued. It can also set policies and propose regulations on the commercial harvesting of wild animals and on commercial activities related to wildlife. It will be the main wildlife management organization in the region. It is composed of seven members appointed jointly by the federal government and the territorial government, with at least three members chosen from a list submitted by the Sahtu Tribal Council.

I said that this agreement was in two parts. The second part concerns land and distinguishes between areas with rights to underground resources and areas with only surface rights. Property rights cover 41,437 square kilometres in the Mackenzie Valley region, with mining rights for 1,813 square kilometres.

At this time, I think it is appropriate to talk about the aboriginal question in a broader way, going beyond the specific subject before us now and putting it in the larger context in which it belongs anyway and on which the rest must necessarily be based. Perhaps we could begin with the native issue in Quebec.

I remember a song heard fairly often on radio and television in the 1970s, which told the story of what our colleague from Nunatsiaq was talking about earlier, I believe.

In the beginning, in his tent, a very easygoing native man received a white man, who asked permission to plant a stake, just a single little stake. The reaction was, "Well, my God, it is just a single stake, so why object, it is so simple and easy; it is not much, go ahead, plant your stake". Some days passed and he was asked permission for a second stake; a few more days went by and a request came for a third stake. Several months later, after a series of stakes had been installed across the forest, he was asked to let a wire go through. Every time, the native had always agreed in good faith and complied with great pleasure.

Once the wire was installed, he found himself with concrete, highways, houses, buildings and he finally had to move his teepee. The song goes on for about three minutes, but I have to shorten it. However, I believe that it expressed a certain inescapable reality.

Many people have asked me, and I am sure that many of my colleagues in the Bloc have been asked the same question, Mr. Speaker, "What will Quebec do about the native people?" That is the wrong question. Not only is it the wrong question, but it is one which should not be asked in the first place.

First, we are not doing anything about the native people. If something is to be done, it will be done together, as equals. It is not up to us or anyone else to decide what must be done about native issues. This is a matter that must be negotiated and covered by agreements between equal nations. The question arises how this translates in Quebec and how our perspectives on the matter have developed since the sixties.

I may recall that on April 8, 1963, the Government of Quebec resumed contact, administratively speaking, with the aboriginal peoples within Quebec territory. Until then, the federal government's responsibility was paramount and it still is today. The Government of Quebec at the time established the Ministère des richesses naturelles et de la Direction générale du Nouveau Québec. Within New Quebec, the department was responsible, with the exception of those areas that were already administered by Quebec, for the administration of justice, provincial police services and the services of the department of lands and forests. At the time, the purpose was to develop natural resources.

Not until federal responsibility for community and municipal services was transferred to the province 17 years later, in February 1981, was the direction générale du Nouveau Québec able to start concentrating on education, although it had, as in 1963, stated its desire to respect the Inuit language and culture.

By the way, I would like to commend the hon. member for Nunatsiaq on using his mother tongue. I don't understand when he speaks in his own language, but we must realize that language communicates culture. When I speak French, I am able to express ideas in a certain way, and I would be unable to do so in English because language is a reflection of culture. When the hon. member speaks in his native tongue, we don't understand, and I think that is his message to us. We don't understand. And when we realize that we don't understand, perhaps then we will start showing respect, and he has my respect.

To continue this short history, in the early seventies, the federal government published a White Paper on native policy. Quebec established the Commission de négociation des affaires indiennes , whose purpose was to work together with the department of intergovernmental affairs and other departments involved in negotiations with the Confederation of Indians of Quebec, and with the federal department of Indian affairs and Northern Development regarding Quebec's responsibilities vis-à-vis the Indians of Quebec or Indian affairs.

The Commission de négociation des affaires indiennes was also supposed to make recommendations on an integrated policy on Indian affairs and to propose measures to be taken in order to implement the policies concerning Indian affairs.

On November 11, 1975, the Quebec government signed the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement with the Crees and the Inuit. On January 31, 1978, it signed the Northeastern Quebec Agreement with the Naskapis of Quebec.

We were then facing a new reality in Quebec government departments: the aboriginal reality. And the whole of the Quebec policy on aboriginal people was summed up in two agreements only. Therefore, we had to give ourselves a more comprehensive policy; that is why on January 18, 1978, the Secrétariat des activités gouvernementales en milieu amérindien et inuit was created and the Direction générale du Nouveau-Québec and the Bureau de coordination de l'entente were abolished.

Then came the eighties. In January 1987, the secrétariat was given a new name, Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones , and its new mandate was to negotiate global agreements in co-operation with the various departments involved. Let me remind you that the preamble of the Charter of the French Language says that ``the National Assembly of Québec recognizes the right of the Amerinds and the Inuit of Québec, the first inhabitants of this land, to preserve and develop their original language and culture''.

And self-government is certainly the focus of discussions between aboriginal people and governments. It was the subject of four constitutional conferences held in Ottawa between 1983 and 1987. There again, they talked about the principle of the inherent right to self-government, but unfortunately that right was not entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. Natives have to get some political leverage if they want to really exercise that self-government because this is the way to their economic self-sufficiency.

Self-government means giving aboriginal people complete jurisdiction over health, education and social services they receive. It means giving them full jurisdiction also over the administration of justice, environment, public safety and land and forest management.

I would now like to present this House with some statistics that should give it some food for thought. It should interest as well those who are watching this debate at home.

In 1991, there were, in Quebec, 39,590 Indians living either on reserves, in establishments or on treaty lands, whereas 15,794 Indians lived off their reserves. On top of that, there were 6,400 Inuit living in northern settlements in the Hudson and Ungava Bay area.

We are therefore dealing with a native population of 61,754 according to the 1991 Census, which represents one per cent of the total population in Quebec. The lands set aside for them amount to 14,770 square kilometres. The main native peoples or nations are the Mohawks, with close to 16,000 members; the Montagnais, with more than 11,000; the Crees, with a little more than 10,000; and the Algonquins, with more than 6,000.

Nations vary in size from 242 for the Malecites to more than 15,000, very close to 16,000 for the Mohawks. Fifty per cent of these communities have less than 500 members. Their annual birth rate is 2.4 compared to 1.4 for other Quebecers. Seventy per cent of Indians living on reserves do not have a high school diploma. Their suicide rate is three times that of Quebecers. The native infant mortality rate is three and a half times higher than in the general population. Life expectancy for Indians on reserves is 8.6 years shorter than for the rest of the population. Indians account for 2.74 per cent of inmates.

Here are now a few statistics for Canada as a whole, again as food for thought. Twenty-five per cent of natives are unemployed, whereas Montreal, with 19 per cent, has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

The average income is 33 per cent lower. The unemployment rate for native people on reserves is 33 per cent, and 16 per cent of natives say that their race is a barrier to employment, which proves that racism and discrimination are probably fairly prevalent.

In 1990, 13 per cent of native adults did not have any income, compared to 9 per cent for the general Canadian population. Only 5 per cent of natives had an income in excess of $40,000 in 1990, compared to 15 per cent among Canadians in general. Seventeen per cent had an income of less that $2,000 and 29 per cent were on welfare. Forty-two per cent of native welfare recipients lived on reserves.

The main problems encountered by natives are, in descending order of importance: chronic unemployment, alcoholism, family violence, suicide, sexual abuse, rape. Six per cent of natives have diabetes compared to two per cent in the general population, even though this disease was unknown among native people in the 1940s.

Forty-five per cent of Indians on reserves claim that their absence of mobility is a problem. Twenty per cent of native housing is in need of major repairs against eight per cent for all dwellings in Quebec. Ten per cent of native dwellings did not have toilets, less than half were heated with electricity. Nevertheless, the average rent was $410 in 1991.

Crib death among native infants is 4.7 times higher that the national rate, and deaths in the 15 to 44 age group resulting from drowning, fire, shooting and vehicle accidents, can often be linked to alcohol abuse. The suicide rate among young adults is 22 per 100,000, twice the national average.

The only way to give back their dignity to the First Nations is to treat them as equals. Nobody has a secret formula for reaching the results which must be obtained before the next century, but everyone should keep an open mind and a fair attitude. We could thus negotiate on an equal basis and come to suitable agreements like the one signed with the Dene, which is before us tonight.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the Sahtu Dene for the very professional manner in which they have pursued this agreement and the help they have been to me and to others in trying to get a handle on this debate and exactly what is in the bill.

It is my view that in Bill C-16 the majority of what is written is innovative, imaginative and very worth while.

At the outset I want to point out that I will be raising some points while speaking about the bill. The intent is to make it better and to understand what we are talking about. This is probably one of the very first times that there has ever been a debate in the House of Commons over such an important issue. These issues come before the House and because they are politically sensitive or motherhood issues they never end up being debated honestly. It is this lack of honest, vigorous debate which may have allowed us to arrive in the position we are at today.

It is our job, our function, our responsibility not to automatically assume that everything the government presents is right and holy and good. Our job is to assume that everything the government presents is exactly the opposite.

[An hon. member]

And can be improved.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

And can be improved. It is in that spirit I make my comments today and I know my hon. colleagues do as well.

We are all aware that Bill C-16 will pass eventually. It will pass intact or with moderate or very little change. The question then is this: Why am I and my colleagues so impassioned about this debate? That is the question. Why would we even bother?

The other question is: This is a debate of incredible importance, at least in our view, to the nation, and yet how much ink does it get? Where are the priorities in the nation? We are talking about the First Nations, the first people in our country. They have traditionally, we know and acknowledge, been the recipi-

ents of something less than the kind of treatment of which we should be proud. Yet for the very first time it is being debated. Unfortunately it will probably get very little interest outside the House.

Why then do I think this is the most important speech I have given in the House thus far, and why do I care so deeply that what we do is right? It is because the relationship between the first people and the immigrants, that is all of us that they welcomed to this continent, has largely been one of paternalism, of manipulation, of neglect and of isolation.

We acknowledge that there are two sides to every story. While we-I am speaking essentially as a white person in this country-have not much to be proud about, neither do our native brothers have very much to be proud about either. We have to recognize that there are two sides to this story and responsibilities on both sides. We must accept responsibility, but so must the aboriginal people accept responsibility for their lot in life.

That is not to say there have not been examples of inspiration and achievement. But in general, especially on the prairies where I am from, we have nothing to be proud of. By using that as a starting point and as a base, what can we do, where do we go from here?

As in everything we have to recognize the situation as it is, not as we would wish it to be. We have to recognize both sides of the issue; those who will receive the benefits of this agreement, and also those who are going to be paying the bills. Because we are all, as it was mentioned earlier by an hon. colleague, and we have to make it work. If it is not good for both sides it will not be good for either.

Aboriginal Canadians comprise about 5 per cent of the population, and yet aboriginal Canadians are over-represented in every statistic that speaks to failure in our society and they are under represented in most statistics that represent success. This was so eloquently put across to all of us by the hon. member for Churchill when he talked about his experiences. We know this, it is not something we are debating at all.

How did this unholy circumstance happen? Did it happen by accident? I submit it did not. It happened because our forefathers chose not to accept the aboriginals as brother human beings, equal in every respect, in human rights and in dignity. Instead, aboriginal Canadians were treated as innocents, they were in need of the benevolent protection of the state. Aboriginal Canadians were herded on to reserves, isolated from the world, out of sight and out of mind. That has largely been the situation for many years, one of benevolent ignorance, "let's not pay attention to it and it won't be a problem".

It does not matter whether the intention was good or evil. The result today is the circumstance that aboriginal people largely endure, a circumstance in many respects no better than South Africa's discredited system of apartheid, so deservedly denounced in all the civilized world. Aas we debate today, free elections are under way in South Africa. Another nail is being driven into the coffin of the marginalization of indigenous peoples around the world. South Africans should and must be congratulated for this giant leap forward and that indeed is a giant leap forward for mankind.

However, I must get back to Bill C-16, the comprehensive land claims settlement of the Sahtu Dene and Metis. How would the bill lead to a better way of life for those involved and will this settlement lead to self-sufficiency, pride, self-respect and self-confidence of the Sahtu Dene as a people? That is the question. If what we are talking about would lead to self-respect, pride, self-confidence and self-sufficiency, then it would be a very small price to pay. It is what we all want to achieve. It is where we want to be at the end of the day.

Unfortunately I think the answer is a qualified no. I do not know if it is going to achieve the noble objectives which are envisioned for it. While there are aspects of the bill my colleagues have already questioned, I need to point out that 16,000 square miles is an awful lot of land for just 2,200 people, not to mention $130 million over 15 years.

Why do the Sahtu Dene need so much land and why does the government pay them so much money, while at the same time they are still entitled to all the benefits all other status Indians have today or may receive in the future?

Sixteen thousand square miles is a lot of land. However keep in mind that over much of the year it is covered with ice and snow. Also keep in mind there really are not a whole lot of people up there and the traditional way of life for the Sahtu Dene is trapping, hunting and fishing. Not a whole lot of people are trying to get into that land either, except to explore and get at the resources and we still have that opportunity.

As I understand it the Sahtu Dene will be the custodians of the land. We should not make any mistake. The land will be theirs in fee simple. However, except for about 700 square miles all Canadians will have access, with permission where possible, provided they do not harm the land or destroy the environment.

We can look at the immense amount of land and look at the Sahtu Dene and Metis because there will not be any reserves. This is all settlement land. We can look at it as a big national park but the park rangers are the traditional inhabitants, the Sahtu Dene and Metis. While they will be getting the land in fee simple, they do not own the resources of the vast majority of the land. They own the resources of about 700 square miles. That is an important consideration.

However, if resources are found in any of that land, they will via royalties be able to participate in the profit. The money, $75 million to be paid out over 15 years, is intended to help develop a commercial infrastructure and is paid to the band council. With the money they can set up hunting lodges-if handguns or rifles are not banned-and with fishing and guiding try to get some tourist trade going.

The idea of the Sahtu Dene is to participate, to be doing something, rather than sitting back and for this they are to be recognized and congratulated.

The reality is that we, the Government of Canada, are going to pay out $75 million over 15 years. The money is not going to disappear. It will be recycled through the band to the community. I think that financial commitment may turn out to be a mistake and this is the primary reason why I have a problem with the bill. Remember it is in addition to any existing entitlements.

In my opinion the Sahtu Dene would be well served if their commercial activities had to undergo the same checks and balances as any other commercial venture anywhere else in Canada. The band council could consider a system of guarantees but the focus should be to develop entrepreneurs who would repay their stake and be accountable for use of the money. However the most important consideration is: Will the agreement lead to self-sufficiency? Will this get people off social assistance and into the mainstream of Canadian life?

Unless the entrepreneurs in the Sahtu Dene nation have obligations, they are not going to be able to develop skills as entrepreneurs that will allow them to become part of mainstream life. All of us exist in a competitive society and we cannot take ourselves out of it. If we are going to get into business, we are into business. We cannot be half in and half out. Otherwise it will be a black hole in which we will be throwing more and more money.

I think, though, it could be but only if the land settlement and cash payment are one-time deals. That is why the agreement is so very important. In my opinion the agreement will set the stage for future agreements to be negotiated across the country in the months and years ahead.

Most Canadians want to do the right thing by our aboriginal brothers. Most Canadians feel a collective sense of embarrassment over the condition and situation of many aboriginal Canadians. We will not improve their situation by creating still more dependence and throwing still more money at the problem. Therefore this would be a much better agreement if the Sahtu Dene and Metis were to receive the benefit of the agreement or their traditional entitlements as agreed, but not both.

That is a fairly major change. They would receive the benefits of the agreement or their traditional entitlements, but not both. The way it is set up today, they would receive all their traditional benefits plus all the benefits that accrue to them under the agreement.

There are only 982 people to participate in this. How will that do anything to promote self-sufficiency? We must remember that when the settlement is done the Sahtu Dene will get the benefit of the royalties of resources on the land. Those royalties would today give them $200,000. How does anyone know what might be found there in the future?

By accepting this land settlement and the royalties that come with it as well as the cash settlements, the Sahtu Dene should also accept the same rights, freedoms and obligations of any other Canadian in any other part of the country. That is the only road that leads to self-sufficiency, self-respect and dignity.

Continued dependence generation after generation leads to exactly what we do not want whether the recipients are aboriginal or not. This settlement offers at the very minimum hope of a better future for the Sahtu Dene and Metis. I am concerned that the agreement sets a bad precedence because it does not regulate the use of the cash payment. The land settlement is absolutely enormous. It is not clear if there is a provision to make changes in the agreement if it is subsequently seen to be in need of correction. The agreement is entrenched in the Constitution under section 35 because the Sahtu Dene are already covered under treaty 11.

Another consideration has to be the implementation of aboriginal self-government. It is my opinion the Sahtu Dene will be responsible in implementing a combination of band council and municipal government. We have to face it that in this circumstance there are only about 2,800 people in the entire 16,000 square kilometres and they are mostly concentrated in a few communities.

Finally the agreement will be entrenched in the Constitution. Therefore I am of the opinion that the charter rights would prevail as the law of the land despite any future self-government negotiations.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke was a businessman in his previous life. Has he looked at the agreement from the standpoint of the new bureaucracy, how it would affect doing future business and how it would affect existing businesses within the settlement area?

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, no, I have not looked at it carefully from that perspective. I contacted Mr. George Cleary, president of the Sahtu Tribal Council, and talked to him about this settlement. He seemed in conversation to be very concerned that whatever was done on both sides of the table be done right and be done in a responsible manner.

There are provisions in the agreement to set up an enormous level of bureaucracy. I believe there are seven, eight or as many as nine other bureaucracies. He was very clear in saying they understand the potential for problem there and would be very cautious to ensure that did not happen by perhaps having people wearing two or three different hats at one time.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my caucus colleague from Edmonton. I appreciate and understand his concern about the size of the grant of funds.

What about inherent self-government and how that will interface? Perhaps he has an idea of how inherent self-government could be negotiated on the reserves within this large land area and how that would interface with the laws of the rest of Canada. Does he see any potential conflicts there? Should this be negotiated now before we do the land settlements?

He talked about precedent. That is something they did not mention. I would like to know as a businessman how he would be negotiating this deal from that point of view.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that entirely unexpected question.

The implementation of self-government in this particular circumstance will be very different from the implementation of self-government in other circumstances. This is an enormous area with relatively few people who are by and large involved in a traditional lifestyle, with the exception that they particularly want to get more involved in oil and gas exploration. Self-government in this particular model would be one that would be more municipal; it is envisioned as being more municipal than it would be federal.

Something we would want to keep in mind in this whole self-government consideration is that if 5 per cent of Canadians are of aboriginal ancestry, and yet something like 40 or 50 per cent of Canadians in jail are of aboriginal ancestry, then somewhere along the line we have gone horribly wrong. If we need to make a leap of faith to try to right that wrong then it is incumbent on us to do exactly that.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member make a distinction between land use control, oil and gas development and self-government as such? Does he see an intrinsic difference between them?

Obviously oil and gas development would not be compatible with the structure and powers of a municipal set of governments.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the whole question of mineral exploration or exploration for anything the self-government model would have to go to a provincial model. In this particular case the people involved have indicated they would be flexible to do whatever is necessary and to do whatever is right. It is a learning process for everyone involved.

The important thing in the whole aspect of self-government as I envision it is not to replace one with another but is to say: "Give us the opportunity to earn and to have our dignity by making our own laws. This is our land. We know our land. We know how to look after our land a lot better than you do. Give us the power to do so".

I think particularly in this agreement the Sahtu Dene have not tried to say this was their land exclusively. It is very clearly laid out in the agreement that with the exception of about 700 kilometres it is open to anyone on permission. The caveat is not to destroy the environment or harm the land. In answer to the direct question it would not work as a municipal but it might be a combination of municipal and provincial. Who knows?

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's speech. He raised some questions that I might like to refer to and ask him one in return.

He asked: "Is this agreement fair?" If this agreement were arrived at by an equal number of participants who wanted to make an agreement that would stand and serve their interests, those of Canada and those of the aboriginal people, it is probably fair.

He said that 16,000 square kilometres was a whole lot of land. I agree but we do have a lot of land in the country. Then he said they were custodians. I suggest aboriginal people made less impression on this land in 36,000 years than we immigrants made in the past 200. In fact in the past 50 years we have done a pretty good job of changing the face of this land.

It might be a good thing to return some custodianship to those who believe that the land suckles us all and that it is here for our children and grandchildren and not for our exploitation.

He said that the Dene wanted to participate but that the money may turn out to be mistake. He asked: "Will this agreement lead to self-sufficiency?" All members of the House would like to say they hope very much that it will. Certainly what we have been doing up to now has not led to self-sufficiency. Maybe we had better try another approach to see whether it will work.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really hear much of a question in the comments, but I would pretty much echo virtually everything he said. We are basically on the same wavelength.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will admit that I am not an expert on native affairs, land claim settlements or treaties that were signed years ago. However because I am the only Reform member from Manitoba, and Manitoba being probably a model of self-government for the rest of Canada, I would like to point out a few things that could have some effect on self-government for Manitoba which are

kind of laid down in the guidelines in the Sahtu Dene and Metis bill.

Through the agreement the government, as far as I am concerned, has shirked the wider public interest in dealing with aboriginal land claims. North of 60, which is the Northwest Territories and Yukon, comprises 40 per cent of the land mass of Canada. Ownership up to now has been with the federal government, which should control it in the best interest of all Canadians. It would appear however that the government like the one before it is more concerned with being perceived as politically correct than it is in administering the land in the best interest of all.

The people in this part of the country have seen four major territorial agreements. There have been four massive land claim agreements since 1984. The Inuvialuit agreement covered the western Arctic. The Gwich'in agreement dealt with the Mackenzie River Delta and the Nunavut agreement covered the eastern Arctic. Now we have before us the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement which covers the Great Bear Lake region. These agreements typically give vast amounts of land to a relatively small number of people. The land settlement agreement to Sahtu Dene and the Metis includes land equal to 28,000 square kilometres or about five times the area of Nova Scotia.

There are, however, only about 1,755 beneficiaries. This works out to approximately 160 square kilometres per person, an area 10 kilometres by 16 kilometres per individual. If you take that into miles it is 6 by 10 miles which is 60 sections per individual, 36 sections in a township. Each individual will receive approximately two townships of property.

These agreements give generous concessions to the recipients, including the constitutionally entrenched rights for aboriginal fishing, trapping and hunting forever. If any outside group wants to use this area in the future for something like forestry or the development of oil and gas it would have to go through several complex layers of regulations including native negotiations. This could seriously deter any potential investors from setting up shop in these areas.

This bill will also provide cash payments of $130 million over 15 years. This works out to approximately $74,000 per person. Also included in this agreement is a percentage of resource royalties from any gas, oil and mineral development. No indication is given as to how much money this would include.

When combined with the agreements that preceded it we have an area of over half a million square kilometres. That is half the size of Ontario and it is granted to a population of 23,800 individuals. These actions have taken this land with its untold resources out of the hands of all Canadians and put it into the hands of a few.

This bill has special significance to me because I am the only Reform member of Parliament from Manitoba. The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has indicated that Manitoba will be a test case for aboriginal self-government. I am very concerned that this Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement sets a precedent for future Manitoba agreements. Manitoba has a native population of about 84,000, four times the amount that these four agreements include.

I am not sure that this government can define everything that would be included in self-government but to put it in perspective, if the agreement that C-16 deals with is used as a model and the same concessions are eventually given to Manitoba's 84,000 natives, the government would have to agree to land claims of about 13.4 million square kilometres.

Since Manitoba covers about 650,000 square kilometres this is obviously impossible. This would mean that the federal government would have to purchase another 20 Manitobas somewhere to settle the land claims. Maybe this would be a way of selling my farm land which I am told is very valuable, although it is hard to get the money out of it.

Based on the funds that are given under the Sahtu Dene and Metis deal, about $6.2 billion is going to be handed over to the 84,000 Metis. Where will the federal government get that type of money to settle all the land claims? What is the figure eventually going to be for the rest of the native people in Canada?

One week after the Charlottetown accord referendum was defeated a leaked government document indicated that the government had few answers as to what self-government would entail. It had no idea of how much it would cost, where it would get the money or how many aboriginal groups would want to be a part of this.

I am simply not confident that this present government has a better grasp on these matters. Yet, through the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement the government will enter into a future agreement for self-government.

As I stated, the model for self-government is not clear. Thee is a reference in appendix B of the land claims settlement agreement for local law making on a range of powers that are normally exercised federally or provincially. I would hope that the government could assure Canadians that this does not mean a new legislative law making body would be set up with a new judicial system all for the benefit of fewer than 2,000 people.

As I mentioned, huge questions surround how Manitoba will become a testing ground for aboriginal self-government. The number of acres of land that will be set aside for Manitoba natives and the amount of money involved are two more of the

obvious questions, but there are no answers because they do not make sense in this agreement.

What will the related costs add up to, for example the cost of policing a judicial system? In appendix B of the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement there is a framework that considers transferring not only administrative responsibilities but also legislative powers. The extent to which this applies in any self-government initiative remains to be determined in future negotiations.

This leads to a number of questions. Would this include a special and separate native police force? Who will be responsible for the hiring and training of such a police force? Who would be responsible for the incredible costs involved?

There is also the question of whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would apply to any self-government arrangement negotiated in accordance with this agreement. That is a question that is not answered in this agreement.

A very questionable aspect to this agreement is the additional layer of bureaucracy it creates to administer the land, the water, the resource and the wildlife provisions. Renewable resource councils will be established by each community. A renewable resource board will be created by the government. Sahtu Dene and Metis will make up half the membership on this board. An arbitration panel will be formed to settle disputes relating to this agreement without going to court. A land use planning board and a land and water board will each be set up, with 50 per cent membership for the Sahtu Dene and Metis.

There will also be an environmental impact review board and a surface rights board. Together with an expected act on the Mackenzie Valley resource management, this agreement will give rise to a whole new layer of bureaucracy.

Who will pay the salaries and expenses of the members on this new layer of government? Are we just training the Sahtu Dene and the Metis to become bureaucrats? Currently all of these functions are performed by either the department of Indian and northern affairs or the government of the Northwest Territories. I see no commitment to phase out these current boards. I wonder if they will continue to exist even though their jobs have been taken over by someone else.

The department of Indian affairs has a budget of about $5 billion and has a staff of 3,400 people. In this year's estimates salaries and contributions to employee plans amount to $134.4 million. This works out to an average salary of approximately $40,000. Will this department with a huge budget and a large staff continue to exist as we set up another bureaucracy?

This land of course will have roads, bridges and similar infrastructure that will have to be built and maintained. Presumably this will be the responsibility of the new native administration. Will it still be federal funds that will be applied for?

I think it is worth mentioning that health care under this agreement will remain unchanged. It will still be administered by the federal government. As I can expect that self-government will be introduced into Manitoba, this is of concern to my constituents. In the report to the Manitoba standing committee on medical manpower concerning the year 1991-92, I learned that the total health care service expenditure per capita for natives was much higher than for the rest of the province. In my own area of the province, which includes Morden and Steinbach, the average cost was about $140 per person. In Winnipeg it was about $200 per person. The Manitoba average was $185 but on the southern native reserve it was $260 per person. One doctor told me that half the people on the native reserve are afflicted with diabetes-how sad. It is of real concern to the other people in that area that these problems get corrected and how that will be accomplished.

It is similar when we look at the average expenditure for each hospital visit. For towns like Winkler and Steinbach the cost was about $23 per visit which was about the same as the Winnipeg and Manitoba average, but for the reserve natives, the average cost was $50, more than twice as much.

Clearly this indicates that there are special health care requirements for Manitoba's native population. It is a social issue because we should be looking at ways to improve their overall health but it is also a financial issue and I think it is important to realize that these costs will remain after these land claims are settled.

Will there be any provision under self-government for natives to assume their own health care or will they depend on the federal system forever?

The government has also announced its commitment to continue the northern food mail program which I think is a very important program. This program will cost about $14.1 million in 1994-95. I think it is important for Canadians to realize that these programs continue even after these agreements have been achieved. The Canadian taxpayer's responsibility to fund these programs does not disappear just because natives are being given new land rights and more control over their affairs.

I wonder when the time comes for self-government in Manitoba what the government will do in the way of initiatives to improve the health of this segment of the population. I hope it will not ignore the problem and just agree to another wholesale giveaway of land and resources as it has done in the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement.

I think it is very important that we realize that not just the Metis and the native people but the white are responsible to correct some of these problems and they have to be dealt with and there have to be funds for it. Huge land claims will not deal with these health problems.

In closing, I hope I have served to air some concerns and raise some very important questions regarding Bill C-16. The implications are very far reaching and it is very troubling that some of the more important questions seem to be without answers.

As a Manitoba member of Parliament I hope that when the time comes for any self-government or land claim agreement in my own province it is more well thought out than this one is. The current concept of self-government is so ill-defined and open minded there are serious implications to everyone involved, not the least of whom is the Canadian taxpayer.

A large percentage of native bands in Manitoba are millions of dollars in debt because of mismanagement and corruption. By moving toward self-government are we going to clear ourselves out of this indescribable mess created by Indian and Northern Affairs, or will it simply make the situation worse?

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me when members talk, as the previous speaker just did, about giving away land. It seems to me incredibly naive to say that the government gives away land. After all, I cannot describe well enough what has happened to the land that we now call crown land or Her Majesty's land or whatever the case may be.

The member talks about the large size of the land that has been given. He compares it to how Manitoba would fare if it had a similar type of land claim in that regard.

We have to remember that the boundaries were not set down by the aboriginal people. As far as the aboriginal people are concerned those are artificial boundaries when they talk about their land.

The aboriginal people, the Dene and the Inuit of the Northwest Territories, the Denesuline from Manitoba and the people from Prince Albert did not sit down and say: "Okay, here is Manitoba, here is Saskatchewan and here is the Northwest Territories". It was imposed on them. As far as they were concerned they had some boundaries but not necessarily defined when they hunted and survived around that area.

When the member talks about how large the land is in ratio to if they tried to do that with Manitoba, that is not an applicable question.

The hon member talks about how self-government is undefined. I go back to a response I made some weeks ago about self-government.

When the British parliamentary system was being set up here who asked the aboriginal people of Canada? "We are going to set up a government. We are going to set up the Parliament of Canada, but you do not have a choice. You are just going to have to go along with it". That is basically what happened. We did not have a role in defining how the system of government was going to be set up in our land.

There has to be some understanding and I am sure the understanding is there. It is just being chosen to be ignored.

We talk about the bureaucracy which is going to be set up. In the Nunavut area I hope that the bureaucracy is going to be comprised of a large number of Inuit in our area. Hopefully the same will be true in the western Arctic, and there will be a large number of Dene within the bureaucracy.

In order to save time and money in dealing with issues we want a bureaucracy and a government sensitive to the people being served. After all the bureaucracy is there to serve the people. Even though sometimes the bureaucrats seem to think it is the other way around, that is the way it is supposed to be.

Does the hon. member not understand that this is setting up a system or settling claims which are long overdue? The hon. member asks whether the aboriginal people will be paying for their own medical care and so on. He talks about the food-mail program which he says is a good one and I agree. However that subsidy cannot be taken away from the people it presently serves when in large part those people have the least earning power.

In some cases they are paying $4 for a loaf of bread, $4 for a dozen eggs, $5 for a litre of milk. They regard apples and oranges and other fruit as treats rather than a nutritional part of their diet.

Does the hon. member not think this is the settling of some claims which has been long overdue?