Debates of April 25th, 1994

Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those comments from the hon. member.

As I said, I am not that familiar with the history of the native people but when I read the history books, it seems to me the native people were immigrants at one time too. They did come to Canada from the Soviet Union across the Bering Strait. North America was settled to some extent by them. I do not know who was replaced.

I can also tell the hon. member that I stood on the ruins of Chichén Itza. That was a Mayan civilization which totally disappeared from North America before there was any white man around. It was because agriculture failed in that area.

I can also tell the hon. member that my forefathers came to this country and bought a quarter of land for $10. After 100 years and having cut down every tree to provide food for this nation, they have lost everything. I buried three of my neighbours who committed suicide just like the hon. member explains because the system we have today took away from them what they had worked for, just like their people have done.

This land has been given to us by our creator. We should use it for the benefit of all people. We cannot totally disengage ourselves from the kind of situation where we want to try to grab more for this person or more for that person.

We have to realize that problems were here before the white man came. I am just wondering what the natives would be like today if it had not been white men who defended these borders against the communist regime in the Soviet Union.

I had the opportunity to talk to some of the native people at Flin Flon or Pine Falls recently. I listened to their problems. We have made a lot of problems but we have also done some good for this country. I wish that was acknowledged once in a while.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are here to debate hypothetical questions. That is a totally hypothetical question.

I suspect if Christopher Columbus had not come over, North America would be a lot more cleaner place to live. I would hate to think if not the aboriginal people but the people whose forefathers came first, what state of affairs the aboriginal people would be in. I cannot imagine the despair we would be in.

However I acknowledge what the hon. member has stated, that he is ignorant about the aboriginal issue. I accept part of his comments. Ignorance is bliss.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering. Do we then say that our history books are full of lies and there is no truth in that when I read about the 1400s and 1500s of how native people in this area were fighting among themselves? Whole nations were wiped out. People starved to death because of famines. Is that all a myth? Did the white man create that in Europe before he was even here? Is our history that false? Should we rewrite our history books?

What would the hon. member suggest? Does the hon. member want to take the facts or do we want to work on as he said, hypothetical questions, solutions or answers? We have to be honest about this issue. We have to try to resolve that, not just for the native issues or their grievances but there are also grievances on the other side.

I think if we want this country to survive we have to come to a realization that this is a joint problem and we have to work together to solve it or else we will destroy ourselves.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks of the land tenure system that has been put in place from the beginning with the earlier settlers, those who settled this land and stayed put versus what those settlers may have found here as a group of people not necessarily staying on the land, and did that actually help develop this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, after hearing the hon. member speak, I do not know how to respond to that. I always thought that we as a people who developed a country should have some respect or some benefits from it.

My forefathers were driven from Prussia to the Soviet Union. They lost all their land and came over to Canada and started over again. Maybe it is just natural for us to be on the losing side all the time. Maybe it is the other side that should always win. I also have feelings and needs.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my comments by saying that there is a legitimacy about the comments that the Reform Party members are making in this debate.

I am honoured to be here. I am honoured to participate in this debate and express concerns and questions of my constituents.

Far too many aboriginal people struggle daily with the economic and social conditions that are overwhelming and tragic. Few Canadians would argue that their standard of living is acceptable. For far too long aboriginal people and the state of their affairs were out of sight of most Canadians. However, as Canadian people become increasingly aware of what life on reserves has meant in terms of humiliation and loss, there is a justifiable reaction. Let us remedy the situation. Let us make it right. There is a will for this to happen.

Some people are saying there is no way that we can move too quickly or do too much to remedy the unacceptable state of aboriginal affairs. I have heard non-aboriginal people in their enthusiasm and guilt say things like it is the white man's turn to live on the reserves with no vote and do what the department of Indian affairs tells him.

In my mind, however, what we must accomplish is somewhat less reactionary. I believe that what we should be doing is bringing down the barriers and co-operatively opening up the way for aboriginal people to come as far into the mainstream of Canadian life as they individually choose to come.

I have heard aboriginal people respond to this guilt of the white man. In very natural human terms aboriginal people are prepared to take whatever the government will give up; money, land, special rights. Aboriginal leaders are justifiably proud that they have learned how to get money out of the government, as one western chief described it. They have learned that in the present climate of political correctness the government has little if any will to deny aboriginal demands.

As an example of this the media reported recently that the minister of aboriginal affairs was handed a memorandum of understanding by Chief Phil Fontaine and after quickly reading the memorandum, without a word of clarification or consultation and to the surprise of everyone in the room, the minister took out his pen and signed it. All involved were so surprised at the minister's action, to quote the reporter, you could have heard a pin drop.

I see the Sahtu Dene and Metis comprehensive land claim agreement that we are debating today in much the same light; a willingness to give to the Sahtu Dene and Metis whatever is demanded. Once again there is a willingness to relinquish large tracts of land, water, surface and subsurface rights with little public consultation south of 60. There is also the unanswered question of the federal government's legal ability to enter into such an agreement without at least consulting the provincial governments.

I am not suggesting that past wrongs and present day inequities should not be addressed. They must be addressed. But inasmuch as there are now no secrets about what happened on the reserves and in the residential schools, by the same token neither should there be any secrets about what the government of the day does behind closed doors.

So far the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement has been made behind closed doors with little public consultation. When the facts become known, as surely they will, what will be the reaction of mainstream Canadians? They will feel they have been deceived by the government. Will their reaction stall and delay and even prevent the kind of programs that fair-minded aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike have been struggling to achieve? Will the reaction move against and stifle the agreement?

Bridges can and should be built between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. These bridges need to be built for two-way traffic. Cultural enrichment can cross these bridges in both directions for the benefit of all Canadians.

In the mosaic of cultures that is being created in Canada, every culture can receive as well as contribute to the Canadian mosaic. I am not confusing this concept with that of the melting pot of cultures. What I am insisting on is that we have as an ultimate objective a unity within Canada that dynamically includes all cultures with no benefit or loss of benefit based on cultures-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Hindsight is 20-20, as we all know. I suppose that at 6.25 when the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin began his intervention I could have asked the House if it wished me to see the clock as being 6.30. However, I did not.

I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to allow the member to complete his intervention. We would not have questions or comments. Maybe the member could give us some indication of how much longer he would require because I hate to cut people off half way through.

I am in the hands of the House. The hon. member could help us possibly.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

I would need about another 15 minutes to complete my intervention, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Would there be unanimous consent or should we go to the late show and the member will have to complete his intervention when we resume debate on the bill?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I must proceed then to the orders of the House.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 12, I informed the Speaker of the House that the Minister of Industry had still not recommended to the government to make decisions on two issues affecting the MIL Davie shipyard in Lauzon, namely the Magdalen Islands ferry and the multifunctional smart ship project.

I added that, if the government still believed in employment, it had no reason not to make an immediate decision on the future of this shipyard. I also informed the House that, with every passing day, government inaction threatened the survival of the biggest private business in the Quebec City region.

The employers, employees and people concerned are not at all satisfied with the answers then given by the Minister of Industry to these two questions. We cannot be satisfied with a stock answer such as the one we received. We agree that, as the custodian of public funds, the government must make decisions that are in the best interest of taxpayers, but it must still make them.

In the last election campaign, all local stakeholders told the parties now forming the government and the Opposition how important it was to react rapidly in the MIL Davie case because failure to do so could lead to economic disaster, namely the closure of the MIL Davie shipyard. The shipyard is now in a state of panic as no contract has been or is waiting to be signed.

At this time last year, 3,000 employees were working. There are now 2,000 workers but this number will go down to 300 in December if the government does not assume its responsibilities right away.

As you can appreciate, people are ready to use any means to ensure their survival. They do not intend to wait for the provincial election to be called without the federal government taking a firm stand. All too often, campaigning politicians promised the shipyard it would be awarded contracts that never materialized after the election.

Today I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry to give me a definite answer on the government position in this case, not on a whim but because the situation is serious and urgent. That is also the reason why, Mr. Speaker, you allowed me to address this House tonight pursuant to Standing Order 37(3).

People on both shores of the Quebec City region who work in the private sector are dependent on two major industries: pulp and paper and shipbuilding.

The pulp and paper industry is already facing serious difficulties in trying to apply certain federal environmental standards but, Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I will bring this thorny problem to the attention of the House a little later.

The other industry supporting 3,000 employees has no contracts left and is about to close its doors. I would like the government to be aware of the major problems that would be created by its failure to take immediate action. Three thousand families represent about 10,000 people who will live on unemployment insurance for a while. The following year, these 10,000 people will be forced to live on welfare with all the psychological problems brought on by this situation. These psychological problems will lead to a significant increase in health-care costs paid in part by the federal government.

The government, I am sure, analyzed all these repercussions and I fervently hope that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, is now in a position to give us the good news right now, namely that MIL Davie of Lauzon has been awarded the contract for building the Magdalen Islands ferry as well as the smart ship prototype so that it can survive for the next few years.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry has asked me to comment on the issue raised by the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orleans on April 12 and I am sure he will get a clear answer as he requested.

The future of MIL Davie and its ability to generate meaningful long-term employment is of great importance to this government and I know how important it is for the population of the Quebec region.

With the completion later this year of the Canadian patrol frigate and trump contracts at MIL Davie the government will discuss the future of the shipyard with its owner, the province of Quebec. As a basis for the discussion, the province of Quebec is assessing a corporate business plan identifying the direction the company will take to ensure its future success.

I understand that the provincial government has not approved the draft plan and the MIL Davie business plan has not been presented to the federal government at this time.

Unsolicited proposals have been made by MIL Davie for two federal construction contracts. The first is a contract for the replacement of the Lucy Maud Montgomery ferry operating between the Magdalen Islands and P.E.I. The second is for a multifunctional vessel or smart ship for the Department of National Defence.

In the case of the ferry my colleague, the Minister of Transport, is evaluating the options available to him in the context of limited budget resources, other Canadian shipyards and the provision of timely and effective ferry service.

Regarding construction of the smart ship, the Minister of National Defence will be able to assess future naval requirements following the completion of the defence policy review that the member knows is going on at present.

In conclusion the long term future of MIL Davie and the well-being of its workers and the community is important to this government. As my colleague the Minister of Industry has said many times, we are committed to working with the yard's owner, the province of Quebec in a co-operative fashion.

Bilingualism

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

On April 13 last, I had the opportunity to put two questions to the Prime Minister concerning bilingualism.

Part of his response to one of the questions was as follows, and I quote:

It seeks to protect its rights.

The Prime Minister was referring to Canada's francophone and Acadian community.

However, it also deplores the fact that some francophones like the Parti Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois members are the ones who create the most serious problems for it.

Mr. Speaker, statements like this call for an apology or, at the very least, some serious explanations. Here is how I see these statements and why I find them exceedingly disagreeable. To begin with, the rights of Canada's francophone and Acadian communities are not dependent on Quebec. These communities enjoy them outright. They enjoy these rights because of what they are. Moreover, these rights are entrenched in the Constitution and in the Charter.

Whether Quebec is or is not part of the Canadian confederation does not take anything away from the fact that these rights are legitimately theirs. The Prime Minister seemed to be saying that, if Quebec were no longer around, either the Liberal government could not be counted on to ensure compliance with the Constitution or the Charter, or Canadians would not normally be inclined to uphold their Constitution and Charter.

Are we to understand then that the government wants to hold Quebec accountable for the future to which Canada's francophone and Acadian communities are entitled? Are we to understand that the government wants to hold Quebec accountable for the way in which other Canadians from coast to coast will treat their francophone and Acadian communities?

I hope that this was not what the Prime Minister was hinting at. Therefore, I think some explanations are in order. In short, either the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Liberal government, has no intention, in Quebec's absence, of ensuring compliance with the Constitution or, the Prime Minister believes that, in Quebec's absence, Canadians from coast to coast will not have the will, determination or sense of fair-play to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the Charter.

Which is it? Or should these words never have been spoken in the first place?

Not only am I waiting for an answer, Mr. Speaker, so too, I have no doubt, are tens of thousands of other people. There are 900,000 anglophones in Quebec and that province has never once said that it would treat them any other way but very fairly. There are 960,000 francophones in the rest of the country, 60,000 more than there are anglophones in Quebec, and they are waiting for an answer now.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that nearly a million francophones in Canada live outside Quebec and their number has increased by 50,000 since 1971. While the proportion of francophones outside Quebec has diminished during the same period, this is mainly due to the growing proportion of Canadians of diverse origins who came to our country during that period.

Nevertheless, the government recognizes the particular challenges facing francophones outside Quebec.

The hon. member opposite uses statistics on the situation of francophone communities outside Quebec to make this House believe that these people will soon disappear and that their disappearance would end our policy on official languages throughout Canada.

French speaking Canadians living outside Quebec represent about 20 per cent of the total francophone population of Canada. Through government action there has been notable progress in recent years, particularly in terms of greater access in all provinces to French language schooling.

For example, there are now over 185,000 young Canadians in 700 French language elementary and secondary schools outside Quebec and in 45 colleges and universities which give instruction fully or partially in French.

The hon. member should keep in mind that a community's vitality is measured by its entrepreneurship spirit and its sense of identity and not only by statistics.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 25 last, I rose in this House to put a question to the Minister of Finance on the Sainte-Marguerite project.

At that time, all was set for construction to start, except that one permit was missing. It so happens that it was to be issued by the federal government. Already struggling with unemployment, the Sept-Îles region, in Quebec, was faced with job creation efforts being paralysed by the federal government's dilatoriness.

To a question as to when the federal government was going to allow Hydro-Québec to go ahead with this project, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport replied that the environment had to be protected. I agree. However, that is putting a bit too much on the back of the environment, seeing that the BAPE report was accepted on February 24. If the idea is to harmonize federal and provincial standards, why is the Quebec report not enough?

As for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he took that opportunity to emphasize what a great achievement this agreement between his government and the Quebec government was. He explained that the permit in question was a complex and was detailed document and that a few more pieces of information were needed before it could be issued, indicating in passing that

the missing information was to be supplied by Quebec. In other words, it was Quebec's fault if the federal government could not issue the permit. So much for the great example of co-operation!

In the end, all that time was wasted for nothing because the government allowed construction to start without the famous permit. I am happy that it got under way so that the people from the Sept-Îles region can work. Let me elaborate on that. It is clear as day that the federal government allowed construction to start without permit just to score points with the electorate.

It is clear and it reeks of electioneering when the Prime Minister of Canada tells the Premier of Quebec that he does not need his authorization. This whole thing is clearly ridiculous. It is clear, in particular, that no one is falling for the little game the Premier and the Prime Minister are playing.

And they call this an excellent example of federal-provincial co-operation. The fact that the federal and provincial environmental standards are different has put a wrench in the works for Hydro-Quebec.

We get along fine on paper, but when the time comes to take positive action, we hit a wall. When well-intentioned people try to find out where the blockage is, the process gets so cumbersome that they can hardly find an answer. My point, Mr. Speaker, is that the Sainte-Marguerite project incident is proof, once again, that the federal system is dead. For the people of Quebec, there is one level of government too many and the sooner we get rid of that one the better. Then Quebec will be able to develop to its full potential because all the tools it needs will be in its hands alone and Quebec will be the master of its destiny.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport has asked me to address the concerns expressed in the House over perceived delays in the granting of the necessary federal approval for Ste. Marguerite 3 hydro electric project.

The construction of the project requires a permit under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which is administered by the Department of Transport.

The scope of the work required an environmental assessment. To that end the federal and provincial governments agreed to conduct a joint public panel.

On March 28, 1994 the Department of Transport, on behalf of the federal government, made public the federal response to the Bureau d'audiences publique sur l'environnement, BAPE, panel report.

The Department of Transport is moving expeditiously to complete its statutory responsibilities. Following the minister's February 24 announcement, departmental officials contacted the province and Hydro Quebec to explain the requirements for Navigable Waters Protection Act approval.

In order to finalize the approval documents the Department of Transport will have to receive and approve the final detailed plans and drawings of the project. In accordance with the Navigable Waters Protection Act, Hydro Quebec must deposit these plans in a land registry office and advertise their project intentions in two local newspapers and the Canada Gazette and await 30 days prior to commencing any work which may interfere with navigation.

To close, Hydro Quebec can and has, I believe, begun the road work for the project. There is certainly work that is not associated with the Navigable Waters Protection Act process with which they can proceed. Contrary to the comments of the hon. member for Frontenac, I believe the government commitment to both the protection of the environment and to job creation have been met.

I might also remind the hon. member that not long ago the United Nations declared Canada the number one place on the planet where to live, measured against certain criteria and thanks to the co-operation of all provinces, territories and the federal government. He should take that to bed and sleep on it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.52 p.m.)