Debates of May 2nd, 1994

The House resumed from April 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, be read the second time and referred to a committee; of the amendment; and of the amendment to the amendment.

Pearson International Airport Agreements Act

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government is blatantly guilty of applying a double standard. This very same government, which not so long ago attacked the least fortunate in our society, is now getting ready to protect and compensate persons with no redeeming value whatsoever, other than the fact that they helped fill the coffers of the two major federal political parties.

This is the same government that, less than one month ago, announced restrictions to unemployment insurance entitlement, thereby propelling more workers into the ranks of social assistance recipients.

Unlike the unemployed, lobbyists and heads of corporations with close ties to political parties need not be concerned about incurring losses. There is certainly no question of them losing their benefits, remuneration or compensation. Their interests are well protected since they are directly tied to party finances.

The dealings surrounding the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport are a striking example of how Canadian governments unfortunately resort all too often to playing politics. Many of those who have already spoken in this debate have recounted in detail the saga of this deal. Therefore I will not go over the same ground again.

My purpose in speaking today is to emphasize the odious nature of this affair and the offensive attitude of the two governments who have been successively involved in it.

Take for instance the way the privatization bids were solicited. A 90-day bidding period is highly unusual for such a major contract. Did anyone in the federal administration protest? Certainly not! It was better kept in the family.

With the result that we know: Paxport and Claridge Corporation were the only bidders. The Nixon report had a great deal to say on the subject. While the quote may be a tad long, it is well worth reading and rereading:

The RFP [request for proposals] having as it did only a single stage and requiring proponents to engage in project definition as well as proposal submission and, all within a 90 day time frame, created, in my view, an enormous advantage to a proponent that had previously submitted a proposal for privatizing and developing T1 and T2. Other management and construction firms not having been involved in the manoeuvering preceding the RFP had no chance to come up to speed and submit a bid in the short time permitted.

The winner, as we know, was Paxport, in spite of the fact it was grappling with financial difficulties. Which leads to the next question that has to be raised again: How could the government let a contract of that magnitude to a company without checking its financial statements? Can anyone imagine even for a moment that an unemployed citizen would be granted a subsidy, a loan or a contract, to start up a small business without having to prove profitability?

The answer is obvious. Never, ever, could such a thing happen. Principles like the need to manage public funds soundly would be argued. Always the same double standard! If you are rich and close to those in power, the usual conditions just do not apply to you, or barely.

Another unknown in this matter is the role played by lobbyists in obtaining these contracts. We know that the Lobbyists Registration Act was passed by the Conservative government in 1988 and came into effect in September 1989. It is interesting to stop and look briefly at the basic principles underlying this legislation. There were three principles.

First, accessibility, meaning that the public has the right to express its opinion and have unrestricted access to government; second, transparency, that is to say that activities involving governments should be clear and open; and third, simplicity, which means the administration of the registration system must be simple. To that end, lobbyists must register with the registrar

in one of the categories established by law. In theory, nothing could be simpler.

Assuming I am a lobbyist, I register with the registrar and thereafter, anybody refering to the register will know that I am working as a lobbyist. Depending on the category I am registered under, information concerning my activities will be more or less elaborate. Many problems with the application of the law have been identified, but the gist of it remains valid.

Let us move on to the role of lobbyists involved in the Pearson Airport case and the treatment provided for in the act. We will focus on three major players, namely Donald Matthews, Hugh Riopelle and Patrick MacAdam. Mr. Matthews is president of the Matthews group, which has a 40 per cent controlling interest in Paxport. As you know, Mr. Matthews presided over Brian Mulroney's leadership campaign in 1983. In addition, as a former president of the Conservative Party, he ran fund-raising campaigns for that party.

Mr. Riopelle was chief of staff to former Tory Prime Minister Joe Clark and was later to be appointed to lead the transition team of ex-Prime Minister Kim Campbell. Mr. Riopelle was hired as lobbyist by Paxport's president at the time, Ray Hession.

The third lobbyist is Mr. MacAdam, a friend of Mr. Mulroney and of the Conservative Party. These three men have one thing in common: they never registered as lobbyists.

Should the law not apply equally to everybody? It does not seem to apply to Tory lobbyists. What about Liberal lobbyists? It is an open question. We think it would be appropriate to look more closely at the lobbying firms involved in the Pearson Airport deal. Here are some of them. Working on behalf of Paxport is the Government Business Consulting Group Inc., whose CEO is J.A. Fred Doucet. Surprise, surprise! Mr. Doucet was Mr. Mulroney's chief of staff and senior adviser on Kim Campbell's campaign. It is a small world.

John Legate is president of J.S.L. Consulting Services Limited. Coincidentally, he was hired as lobbyist by Paxport's president when he had access to the Tory Cabinet through the minister then responsible for Toronto, Michael Wilson. As you recall, the airport is located in that city.

Last but not least, Atlantic Research Canada Inc. whose president at the beginning of the privatization affair was Ray Hession, who was also president of Paxport. Mr. Hession was Deputy Minister at Supply and Services under the Liberal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Once the contract was awarded to Paxport, he resigned as president to be replaced by Don Matthews' son.

At Claridge Properties, Earnscliffe Strategy Group Inc., one of the lobbyists, is represented by William J. Fox, a former political attaché and personal friend of Brian Mulroney.

At Near Consultants and Associates Limited, we find Harry Near, who is also involved in the Earnscliffe Group. Mr. Near has long been active in the Conservative Party.

There is no need to continue this litany of names and companies, the conclusion is clear and obvious: they were all related to one another and to the two federal parties which have succeeded each other in office.

Other questions arise. Who exactly do these people and these companies represent? Who are the directors of the various companies involved? We must clear that up. These people have had great influence with political decision-makers, so much so that the former government violated an important parliamentary principle according to which a government at the end of its term makes no decision that could endanger the decision-making power of a future government.

They were so influential that on April 13, 1994, the Liberal government tabled Bill C-22 which is being debated today. This legislation would allow the government to pay corporations, especially the T1 T2 Limited Partnership, large amounts for cancelling the contract. Their influence is such that this government is asking us to ratify another transaction from which corporations tied to the two traditional parties will benefit. Their influence is such that this government is asking us to forget all the transactions between the corporations and the Department of Transport were in flagrant violation of the government policies in effect. Their influence is such that the government is asking us to forget these policies intended to encourage marketing the airports and their contribution to economic development and to make them aware of local concerns and interests.

We want to know whose economy was to be developed. We want to know what local concerns and interests were served by these agreements. We want to know who benefited: the taxpayers, local communities or corporations.

These questions indicate how openly the government conducts its affairs and how easily the public can access information on this. Remember that these principles are affected by the law and that lobbyists must respect them.

The picture we have just painted shows us a group of influential people, well connected with ties to the political parties, who can bend government decisions to their financial advantage.

We have many questions and very few answers. We all know that you must first have your questions answered before you can make a decision.

The taxpayers of Canada and Quebec need light to be shed on this issue, an intense, bright light. That is why the Bloc Quebecois demands setting up a royal commission of inquiry on this matter.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-22.

I wanted to go over the sequence of key events surrounding the drafting of the privatization contract, but since there are so many details, manoeuvres and shady dealings in this transaction, and since some colleagues have already looked at these events, I will instead put the emphasis on a few aspects of this project which involve the alleged transparency of this government in this whole issue.

This government paints a glowing picture of the consulting process to get Canadians' opinion, but in fact all these so-called consultation exercises are nothing but a mirage, because when this pretence of transparency puts the government on the defensive, it quickly states that it was elected to make decisions and that it is doing just that. However, by acting like a bunch of know-it-alls, as Liberal Premier Daniel Johnson said, this government will lead us directly to social chaos. Canadians will not be fooled.

What distinguishes this government from the previous Conservative government? Nothing, except maybe the colour of its program. It is a centralizing government, a government which does not hesitate to maintain duplication and overlappings; a government which continues to violate areas of provincial jurisdictions by unilaterally occupying the whole field. Where is the transparency? Can you not see a pattern between the recent squabbles between Ottawa and Quebec City regarding manpower training, the youth corps program, federal subsidies for education, social programs reform, drug patents, the telephone industry and cable TV? All these issues demonstrate the centralizing actions of Ottawa. Where is the transparency?

As regards Bill C-22, again I will refer to what Greg Weston, a journalist with the Ottawa Citizen , wrote in his column on March 9. Mr. Weston wrote:

The Grits have managed the remarkable feat of turning a highly suspicious and secretive Tory deal into a highly suspicious and secretive Liberal cancellation process-a secret inquiry, followed by the current secret compensation negotiations, which may ultimately lead to a huge government cheque with a secret invoice.

This sums it up quite well. It seems obvious to me that section 10(1) opens the door to arbitrary measures and that the power given to the minister to decide on the payment of a compensation is a discretionary power which this government should not use if it really wants to govern with a degree of transparency and credibility. Indeed, this Liberal government is not immune to patronage, as you can see when you take a quick look at those closely or remotely involved in this scandal. This is why we ask that a commission of public inquiry be set up.

The circumstances around the hasty signing of the contract for the redevelopment of Pearson Airport are very disturbing, but what is even more disturbing is the attitude of this government, which was also in a hurry to designate a former Liberal minister, Mr. Bob Nixon, to conduct a private investigation.

In the awarding of this contract, what was the role of Senator Leo Kolber, former member of the board of directors of Claridge Properties Inc., a group that has close links with the Liberal Party of Canada, and of Herb Metcalfe, a Liberal lobbyist with the Capital Hill group, who represented Claridge Properties and was a former organizer for the present Prime Minister? What was the role of Ramsey Withers, a Liberal lobbyist whose ties with the present Prime Minister are known and who was Deputy Minister of Transport during the bidding process on Terminal 3 at Pearson Airport?

What was the role of Ray Hession, former Deputy Minister of Industry and senior official with Supply and Services, the department awarding the contracts? Mr. Hession was president of Paxport Inc. and hired a battery of lobbyists, including Bill Neville, closely linked to Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Clark and Mrs. Campbell; Mr. Hugh Riopelle, former PR man and representative for Air Canada, who had access to Mr. Don Mazankowski, a leading figure in the Mulroney cabinet; Mr. John Legate, a friend of Michael Wilson, and so forth. What a mess.

Was an agreement reached by the present Prime Minister and Mr. Charles Bronfman, owner of Claridge Properties and principal partner in the Pearson Development Corporation, at that notorious $1,000 a plate dinner among friends during the election campaign? Only investigators without links to current and past governments would be able to force the people involved come clean, not a timid in-house inquiry, held privately, without any judicial powers.

Mr. Nixon himself observed that the role of lobbyists in this deal went beyond permissible norms. A time frame of 90 days for bidding proposals is unusually short. I may recall that this was a very long term contract-57 years-and a very complex one, which was to prevent several groups from submitting a valid proposal. Of course, Claridge and Paxport, already involved in the management of the airport, were able to submit tenders which, by the way, were the only ones accepted. A single corporation was to control all three terminals, despite the fact that the government of the time claimed that one of the criteria

in the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 was competition. We can see now that a monopoly was in the cards.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the list of irregularities is very long, and this is why we are requesting a public inquiry, an inquiry that the Liberals stubbornly refuse. The present Liberal government, claiming openness, wants to cancel the deal. But it keeps a discretionary power, in section 10, to compensate, «if the Minister considers it appropriate», certain friends of the party or contributors who may have been implicated in this scandal. As the leader of the opposition was saying, "this particular case is overrun by lobbyists. It is full of people wheeling and dealing in the corridors of power with the two big parties-"

At the present time, Mr. Bob Wright, a good friend of our Prime Minister, is negotiating strenuously and in private too, in order to determine the amount of compensation to be given to strangers.

In fact, we are shown only the tip of the iceberg and we are asked, a bit too lightly, to forget the rest in order to save money.

The Liberal member for York South-Weston was saying in this House, on Tuesday, that compensations to the Pearson Development Corporation could reach almost $200 million.

Mr. Bronfman and the conglomerate he heads, friends of the Liberal Party, have already submitted claims for $30 to $35 million for non-refundable expenses. That's on top of tax deductions they will be able to claim from Revenue Canada, thus hitting the taxpayer once again.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay was saying in this House:

To be exclusive in looking at compensation for out-of-pocket expenses for Pearson Development Corporation alone is not the right thing to do. We should take in the whole gamut of all those who spent considerable time and expense in developing proposals.

And this, in spite of the fact that these people knew exactly what they were doing since the present Prime Minister had announced that he would cancel the contract.

The facts revealed by a royal commission would allow the government to pass laws to prevent such blatant patronage to happen again. I am asking you: What would be cheaper, holding a public inquiry, not a review and private negotiations, or paying financial compensation to individuals who finance Canadian political parties?

We could talk about political party financing now, but we will do that later. The member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon claims that a royal commission would be too expensive and a waste of time to learn something we already know. Our colleagues opposite may know more about this contract than we do.

As Mr. Nixon himself said in his report:

Failure to make public the full identity of the participants in this agreement and other salient terms of the contract inevitably raises public suspicion. Where the Government of Canada proposes to privatize a public asset, in my opinion, transparency should be the order of the day.

And Mr. Nixon added:

My review has left me with but one conclusion. To leave in place an inadequate contract, arrived at with such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation, is unacceptable.

After such a statement, it cannot be justified to compensate people or companies who tried to take advantage of such flaws.

Can we put a price on government's transparency and credibility? Is it a waste of time to try to maintain such democratic values?

With this in mind, we call for a public inquiry and for the government to get right to the bottom of these sad events.

We vigorously denounce this attempt and this bill.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be sorry indeed if I did not take this opportunity to speak on this bill which shows the true face of the members opposite. As you may recall, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to cancel this deal and to make the political process more transparent. Most likely he was swept up in the media frenzy in the dying days of the campaign and got a little carried away.

His friends, those same friends who shell out $1,000 a plate for the opportunity to gain his ear, were quick to remind him: "Careful, we incurred expenses in connection with this deal". Today, we have a more complete picture and these individuals will receive compensation. This bill is to be passed here in Parliament, and rather quickly. Fortunately, some of us are keeping our eyes open and are criticizing the government's actions loud and clear.

The aim of the bill is twofold. First, it would cancel the deal which is full of irregularities. This is a positive development. Second, however, it would provide compensation, again by way of a closed process, to certain parties. This is far less positive.

From the very moment it came to power, this government made transparency one of its major objectives. It has also made a number of decisions, such as cancelling the helicopter contract and the Pearson airport deal and launching the infrastructure program. Three decisions, and then almost nothing, with the exception of a budget, and a bad budget at that. Since then, it has simply gone about its day to day business. The government seemed to have scored well on these three issues, but now, there is some question about its performance on the airport deal. It is

highly doubtful that the government should be given a passing grade in this case.

It bothers me to hear so much talk about transparency. It has become such a major issue that I would not be surprised to see Liberal members walking around with bottles of Mr. Clean. Yet, when time comes to practice what they preach, all is forgotten. All of a sudden, members stop talking. There is no real desire to shed light on this issue, to examine the root of the problem and to avoid a recurrence in the future. No, now that they are in power, they must not let the public in on their plans for the future.

This is terrible. If we look at the whole privatization process and at the companies involved, that is Paxport and Claridge, and if we look at who is behind these companies-and I will not bother to give you a complete rundown since my colleagues have already done that-the whole spectacle is rather sordid indeed. All these people with very close ties to the federal government used their influence, going as far as having people shifted around, to make sure they achieved their ends.

Many of these people are still alive and not too far removed from the system, still today. How can this government be trusted when many of the people involved are their friends and are still around, and when they refuse to institute an inquiry which would publicly condemn these people who can be linked to their political party?

That is not a possible course of action; it would be far too dangerous. Mr. Nixon, in the very short time he was given to investigate the matter, attempted to shed some light on this, enough anyway to tell us that this contract should indeed be cancelled. This was obvious just from reading a few good articles published in the dying days of the election campaign and around the main events. We knew then that something was wrong with the announcement of a contract to privatize the airport.

During the election campaign, it had been held out that only friends of the Convervative government were involved and the previous government was to be condemned, on this score. Now, we find out -but it had been discovered earlier- that plenty of Liberals are also involved. As the financial stakes rise, the political convictions of these people shrink. They will team up with anybody, whatever the cost.

The bill before us today contains a most interesting provision. It will allow those who are to be compensated to be targeted very specifically, ensuring that only friends get compensated. That is even better. What a great political tool.

This is the sort of attitude that deeply disheartens the public. It generated tremendous cynicism for politicians, for the administration of public funds. Here we have the perfect occasion to shed light on a major matter where certain people have used their influence, where lobbying has been too intensive and too influential in particular. Yet, we have to wait. What for? I wonder.

There are a number of quotes from the famous red book that I would like to bring up, because this government had told us it was going to control the activities of lobbyists when it would come to power. Apparently some things take much longer than others, but I will quote this:

We will develop a Code of Conduct for Public Officials to guide Cabinet ministers, members of Parliament, senators, political staff, and public servants in their dealings with lobbyists.

It goes on to say:

We will appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the application of the Code of Conduct. The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons.

At that time, they were probably far from thinking that the Leader of the Official Opposition would be a member of the Bloc Quebecois. They may find this a bit unsettling. But they had good intentions. Now that they are in office, it is a different matter. They were in opposition for a long time. They had enough time to get ready. A party in opposition since 1984 would have had the time to put a lot of things on the table. People would appreciate it. Instead, they are trying to scare lobbyists into being very nice to the current government. The coffers must be filling up quickly. We should avoid this legislation at all costs or take the time to ensure it will have as little effect as possible.

What is most appalling in the bill before us is clause 9 and especially clause 10. Clause 9 states that there will be no compensation for the parties involved. In short, the main purpose of Clauses 1 through 8 is to ensure that the government will not be sued. Clause 9 bars any compensation-perhaps the government hopes that people will get discouraged after reading it. Clause 10 provides for "the approval of the governor in council" so the minister may allow some compensation but not for lobbyists' fees. It is the least that can be done as these fees are already tax deductible. If they had to be compensated in some other way besides, it need have cost the government nothing. These people see paying lobbyists as an investment, so they have to pay the price somewhere.

We are not at all reassured by knowing that the Cabinet will have the power to do that in secrecy. To pay how much compensation? Who knows? Who will know? Will we know one day? That remains to be seen. For the sake of openness, this should be elucidated. In addition, if compensation is to be paid, people should have access to this information much more easily.

At least some parliamentarians should be able to deal with it. But no, openness will come later.

Before concluding-my colleague wants me to go quickly-I would not want to overlook one of the real sources of the present problem, namely the financing of political parties. I exclude our party because we are subject to much stricter constraints. But when you are financed by people who have very big corporate interests, when you agree to be financed by these corporations and it is even one of your biggest sources of funding, you are subject to that pressure. People who back political parties have some control.

Personally, I much prefer to have a base of party members making small donations and exercising that power instead of business people who make large donations and try to get very close to the government with those gifts. I think that is a constraint from which the government should free itself. If it is serious when it talks about openness, it has a model right at hand. Quebec already has legislation which, although it may not be totally perfect, is much better than what we have here and it could be used as a basis. But no, they refuse to look at it. Why? Because now that they are in power, they want to benefit from it. They have nine lean years to make up for now. They want to make a little hay. Perhaps later they will think of doing something to please the public, but nothing substantial. In conclusion, if there is one thing I would want to give Canadians before leaving the federal system, it is a law on political party financing that would make elected representatives much closer to the people in a much more open system-a real reform, this time.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22, the subject of today's debate, is a rather particular piece of legislation. This bill deals with agreements arising out of the request for proposals for the terminal redevelopment project at Lester B. Pearson Airport, and the negotiations concerning that project.

The bill states that these agreements have not come into force and have no legal effect. Moreover, it provides that no action or other proceeding may be instituted against Her Majesty in relation to these agreements.

This is an extremely serious piece of legislation. The previous government concluded a contract with some corporations, and this government is trying to renege on that deal by pretending that it never took place.

Why is that? Later on I will show how the process was flawed in a number of ways and that indeed the government should not go ahead with this contract.

The bill also authorizes the minister, with the approval of the governor in council, to enter into agreements to provide for the payment of amounts in connection with the coming into force of that act. This second part seems to be a convenient provision to ensure that parties which may have been prejudiced can be adequately compensated following the cancellation of the contract.

However, while it may seem appropriate to do so, the wording of the provision makes you wonder, and so do some connections which can be made between various events. I will attempt to show that, because of these events which may leave public opinion with a bitter taste, it is important to look more thoroughly at what went on before the agreements were negotiated and concluded, as well as to what is going on now.

To put the legislation in its proper context, clause 3 provides that the agreements which have been concluded:

• are hereby declared not to have come into force and to have no legal effect.

Moreover, clause 4 says:

1. For greater certainty, all undertakings, obligations, liabilities, estates, rights, titles and interests arising out of the agreements are hereby declared not to have come into existence.

As for clause 9, it provides that:

1. No one is entitled to any compensation from Her Majesty in connection with the coming into force of this Act.

So far so good. However, everything is spoiled by clause 10 which reads:

10.(1) If the Minister considers it appropriate to do so, -if he considers it appropriate- -Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into agreements on behalf of Her Majesty to provide for the payment of such amounts as the Minister considers appropriate in connection with the coming into force of this Act, subject to the terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.

I certainly do not question the good judgment of the minister or the governor in council. However, I would like to refer to a few excerpts from Mr. Robert Nixon's report, who was appointed last October 28 by the current Prime Minister to look into this transaction. Mr. Nixon's report was submitted a month later, on November 29. What does this report tell us? To quote Mr. Nixon:

Prior to the conclusion of the legal agreement the Leader of the Opposition (now the Prime Minister) indicated clearly that parties proceeding to conclude this transaction did so at their own risk and that a new government would not hesitate to pass legislation to block the privatization of Terminals 1 and 2 if the transaction was not in the public interest.

Mr. Nixon's report goes on to say: "On October, 7, 1993, the chief negotiator for the Government of Canada received his written direction indicating that it was the explicit instruction of the Prime Minister that the transaction be concluded on that very same day. On October 7, 1993, therefore, the legal agreement to privatize and redevelop terminals 1 and 2 was made".

It was a very substantial agreement. In fact, when we talk about terminals 1 and 2, we are talking about a major air transportation hub in this country. To quote the Nixon report:

According to a 1987 Transport Canada study, Pearson has a $4 billion direct economic impact on the economy of the province of Ontario and was directly and indirectly responsible for over 56,000 Ontario jobs. It is by any estimation more than the sum of its parts or the total of its assets and liabilities.

This is a contract which has an enormous impact on a region's economy, by letting private interests manage an air terminal of that size, while for many years, airports near nonheal have been under-used. In Central Canada we have created a powerful magnet for air traffic that can draw traffic away from the country's other major airports, especially those near Montreal.

And how many years would this contract be in effect? I am still quoting Mr. Nixon: "Terminal 3 will be privately leased and operated for"-I was going to say at least 25 years, but no, Mr. Speaker-" a further 57 years". Not only our own generation and the next, but our children's children would have suffered as a result of this agreement. There would be fewer objections if the usual procedures had been followed. Again, I quote from Mr. Nixon's report: "The RFP having as it did only a single stage"- specifications with a single stage are not only unusual, Mr. Speaker, but also extremely disturbing-"and requiring proponents to engage in project definition as well as proposal submission and, all within a 90 day time frame".

I used to be in business, and I received government calls for tenders, and believe me, it is quite a job to read all the specifications. There are pages and pages of the stuff, and you have to read them carefully. And then, preparing a bid is also a complex undertaking. The primary concern is, of course, to make a bid that will not bankrupt the company. The price should be right, but you still have to make a profit, because if you do not make a profit, you cannot deliver. So the first thing is to make a bid at the right price and be able to make a profit.

Second, you have to make sure that your bid will be competitive with those of the other parties who are bidding, so the price has to be fine tuned to give you a good chance to get your bid accepted and win the contract.

You see, Mr. Speaker, when you know that there are only 90 days for something that complex, you can assume that there will not be much competition and, consequently, the price is probably not the best the public could have had. I quote Mr. Nixon again: "In summary, it is my opinion that the process to privatize and redevelop Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson fell far short of maximizing the public interest".

All that happened under the Conservative government. Having the Liberal government cancel the deal is a good thing. However, the clause I was mentioning a moment ago, which will allow the minister to consider compensation when appropriate, is more troublesome, particularly knowing that major actors in this Pearson deal have connections with the Liberal Party.

We could mention Claridge Properties, a company belonging to Mr. Bronfman; we could mention Mr. Colbert, from Claridge, who gave a dinner for Mr. Bronfman and the Prime Minister at a $1000 a plate. I am not questioning the honesty of members and ministers of the Liberal Party, what I am saying is that there is an appearance of conflict and the only way to shed light on this affair and dispel any doubt in the eyes of the people of Canada and Quebec, is to have the public inquiry that the Bloc Quebecois and I are requesting.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this whole deal smacks of political manoeuvring and, as the Leader of the Official Opposition said, only a royal commission will get to the bottom of it once and for all.

People in Canada, and especially in Metropolitan Toronto, have the right to know the truth and to be assured that there will be no undue compensation for these contracts which seemed to favour the friends-friends in the broader sense of the word-of the parties which succeeded each other at the helm of the country.

Mr. Speaker, if the Official Opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, is asking for a royal commission, it is not to delay the work which is to take place at both airports because-let me tell you- Metropolitan Montreal knows only too well the devastating effects of uncertainty about airport development.

Allow me to highlight the devastating effects of the development of what became the two Montreal airports. I will stress how important it will be for Transport Canada and then for the Toronto Airport Authority to take over and redevelop Toronto airport because, otherwise, any future expansion at other airports, including Montreal, will be seriously limited.

But, let me remind the House that when it comes to airports, long term forecasting is very dicey. In the mid-sixties, the federal government decided to build a second airport in Montreal, Mirabel airport.

In 1967, it was projected that, by 1985, passenger traffic would be 14 million. In reality, things turned out quite differently.

In 1985, passenger traffic in both Dorval and Mirabel was only 7 million, half of what was originally expected.

We know how important an adequate airport infrastructure is for the development of a region. Why? Because it is the entrance

point for investors and the departure point of human and material resources going abroad. It is a considerable economic lever.

My colleague mentioned the 1987 Transport Canada study on Pearson airport which states that the direct economic impact of the airport on the province is in the order of $4 billion-that was in 1987-and that Pearson accounts directly or indirectly for 56,000 jobs. On the other hand, when adding both direct and indirect jobs and induced ones, the total number in Montreal is 48,500. Economic development involving airports stems from the carriage not only of cargo but also of passengers.

I would like to point out that Toronto had a narrow escape when the federal government decided Toronto also should have two airports at a respectable distance from one another. The second one was to be located in Pickering, but the people of Pickering protested and managed to convince the authorities not to develop this second location, but to develop a second terminal at Pearson instead-a third one was added later on, as we know-on a site easier to integrate.

Toronto had a narrow escape, but Montreal was not so lucky. In spite of all our protestations-and as we know, farming was precluded for many years on some of the best arable land in the region-two separate airports were built in Montreal, airports that together, did not achieve together the results that had been projected for just one previously. The federal government paid no attention to the wishes of the people or the airlines. It must be noted however that had rapid, direct service been provided between the two airports, things might have turned out differently. In 1975, a high-speed link had been announced; it was to cost $400 million, but the project never got off the ground.

For any number of reasons, the airport in Toronto flourished and today, it is on the way to becoming a hub airport, "hub" being, as I understand, shoptalk for a traffic exchange point, a place that both companies and passengers are interested in.

Because Montreal's two airports are poorly connected, from 1969 to 1983, the gap between Montreal and Toronto increased from 27 per cent to 116 per cent in terms of passenger carriage. That is very substantial. The adverse effects of inefficiency in Montreal impacted not only the development of the airport, but also economic development. Worse yet, the federal government delayed handing over to the municipalities, the community, in Montreal the management of their airport. It is imperative that in Toronto, the municipalities, the community, rapidly assume the management of the airports.

Just think that provided sufficient investments were made by the federal government both in Toronto and in Montreal, we could have two hubs: one in Toronto, with its own potential, and one in Montreal, as a point of entry for the Eastern part of the country.

I therefore conclude that we are calling for a royal commission of inquiry not because we want to slow things down-because we are all aware of the effects of uncertainty on economic development-but because we believe it is absolutely imperative that the manoeuvring surrounding the development of both terminals, as well as that of the third one, be dissolved, reversed and the only way this can be done, in our view, is not by striking a deal behind closed doors, but through a royal commission of inquiry.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief opposition whip to defer the division until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 3 p.m. tomorrow, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent, since tomorrow is an opposition day, that for however long the bells sound at 3 p.m. tomorrow, this time be added to the debate on the opposition motion, so that opposition parties are not penalized.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from April 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-16, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid an agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and the Dene of Colville Lake, Déline, Fort Good Hope and Fort Norman and the Metis of Fort Good Hope, Fort Norman and Norman Wells, as represented by the Sahtu Tribal Council, and to make related amendments to another act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claimsettlement Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

When the debate last ended, the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin had six minutes remaining for debate. I do not think the hon. member is here. Accordingly the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Skeena on debate.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-16, otherwise known as the Sahtu Dene and Metis comprehensive land claim agreement. Before I begin debating the terms of the agreement, I want to make an observation about the big media establishment in the country that I think badly needs to be said.

The debate on Bill C-16 began on Monday last week, April 25, with members on this side of the House speaking openly and honestly about their concerns with the agreement. This marks a precedent, the first time the old style tradition of the old line political parties not debating such issues publicly being broken.

This is because Reformers believe that we must not be afraid to talk honestly about native self-government and land claims. We cannot expect to achieve workable solutions to the challenges we face as a nation unless we engage in such debate.

Following the debate on Monday, I eagerly scanned the newspapers and watched television news broadcasts to see how the media treated this issue. Do you know what I discovered, Mr. Speaker? The press totally ignored the issue. I could not find any coverage on Bill C-16 anywhere.

Admittedly many bills pass through the House that are not very interesting or newsworthy, but this is surely not the case with Bill C-16 which will convey benefits of an enormous piece of land 50 times the size of Prince Edward Island, almost one-third the size of British Columbia, to less than 1,800 aboriginals for all time.

One would think that with all the remaining land claims yet outstanding the press would be somewhat interested in what is going on here. I know the people in my riding are and I am sure the people in British Columbia and all of Canada are. How is that an MP's expense account or the theatrics of question period can remain front page news for days and yet when we see an issue of such profound importance to all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, being debated the media is asleep at the switch?

I have concluded that it is either indifference born out of laziness or a tacit agreement not to provide serious coverage on issues which challenge the Liberal left agenda that has been wholeheartedly adopted and supported by a bunch of the big media in the country.

Having said that, I would like to discuss the elements of the bill which I cannot support. As has already been pointed by many of my Reform colleagues, the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement constitutes a massive conveyance of land and benefits to a group of less than 1,800 people, half of them children.

There is not likely to be much protest coming from non-aboriginals in the land claim area because there are so few of them. Yet the land in question is important to all Canadians. It has the potential to generate an enormous amount of wealth, jobs and tax revenue in the future. That potential will be seriously affected by this agreement.

One cannot help but be struck with the magnitude of the land transfer. Over 42 square kilometres for every adult will be conveyed fee simple. The vast majority of Canadians meanwhile own only their own property, the property that their house is on, and spend most of their working lives paying off mortgages so that hopefully they can own their land fee simple in their retirement years.

According to Statistics Canada's 1991 census, 21.5 million adults live in Canada today. If each one of these adult Canadians were to be granted 42 square kilometres of land by the government one would require a land mass of approximately one billion square kilometres to meet that conveyance.

Given that the actual total land mass of Canada is just over nine million square kilometres one would need therefore an area more than 100 times the size of Canada's total land mass to meet that obligation.

In a world which continues to experience significant population growth and where population density in many countries is measured in hundreds of human beings per each square kilometre it is impossible to reconcile this massive land grant.

I ask aboriginal people to consider this very carefully. Canada's population continues to grow. We continue to accept immigrants and refugees from all over the world to come and make their home here. While we may disagree with the current immigration levels, all Canadians and all members of the House embrace this. Immigration provides benefits not only for the newcomers to Canada but to the people already living here, much like the European migration to North America brought benefits to this land and to its original aboriginal inhabitants many years ago.

Admittedly colonization created much hardship and injustice for native Indians of the day as well and we recognize that as an inescapable part of our history. When I consider the land aspect of this agreement, I must conclude that at best it is 18th century thinking at a time when we are approaching the end of the 20th century.

In addition to the outright transfer of over 40,000 square kilometres of land fee simple, the federal government will pay out approximately $130 million over the next 15 years to the Sahtu Tribal Council. This equates to more than $130,000 for each adult covered under the agreement.

Again, to put this into perspective, if every adult Canadian was given the same amount of money, the government would need more than $3 trillion in the bank to write out the cheques. Three trillion dollars is more than four times Canada's total debt of $700 billion which includes federal, provincial and municipal government debt.

Furthermore, even after such a massive transfer of land and cash nothing in the agreement affects the ability of the Sahtu Dene and Metis to receive existing and future benefits under aboriginal programs. In discussions with my constituents on the land claims question, I hear a diverse range of opinions on how to resolve the issue.

The one consistent theme running through all of this is finality. People want assurance that the resolution of the land claims will entail a systematic reduction and phasing out of taxpayer funded aboriginal programs delivered by the government. This agreement does not achieve this.

I would now like to talk about the beneficiaries of the $130 million to be paid out to the Sahtu Tribal Council. Only some $3,500 will be given to individuals as one-time grants. Virtually all the benefits conferred on the Sahtu Dene and Metis under this agreement will be controlled by Indian leaders rather than distributed to individuals.

All governments, including this one, are notoriously bad managers of wealth and resources. I do not believe a majority of Canadians have any doubts about that whatsoever. If I were a rank and file Sahtu Dene or Metis, I would far prefer that I received a direct personal benefit rather than having money and land given over to the control of a tribal council.

I receive entreaties on an ongoing basis from native people living on reserves within my riding telling me of the injustices they receive at the hands of their leaders. They tell me of nepotism where band jobs and other perks go to relatives and friends of native leaders while others are shut out.

This is typically the way government functions. Look at the federal government's behaviour, if members need any convincing. It is for these reasons that I believe in the value and dignity of the individual over the collective regardless of what collective we are talking about. I am a strong advocate for settlements government to individual rather than government to government.

Incidentally I believe the reason a majority of natives voted against the Charlottetown accord is that the rank and file individuals living in aboriginal communities recognize that self-government was not necessarily in their interest but rather the narrow interests of the Indian leaders. They know that power consolidated into the hands of a few people is rarely a good thing. It has not been good for Canada in the case of our federal governments or the provincial governments. At a time when our national institutions are struggling to become more populous, to break down the barriers of arrogant, political elitism, natives in Canada are not interested in going in the other direction.

Therefore before I can support any legislation for self-government or land claim resolutions, I want to see the affected aboriginal people have an opportunity to decide by referendum whether they want self-government, and in the resolution of land claims, whether they want money and land turned over to themselves as individuals or to the band leaders.

My deepest concern over the bill is the precedent being set for future land claim negotiations. The Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement along with the Nunavut and other agreements entered into recently up north are no doubt being carefully studied by aboriginals in the rest of Canada, particularly in British Columbia.

There are now 38 land claims registered in B.C. with more to follow. The first B.C. land claim to be accepted by the federal government for negotiation is the Nisga'a claim which is within my riding of Skeena. Negotiations have been under way for some time behind closed doors and therefore in a forum where my constituents have no information as to what is on the table in terms of land and resources. When my constituents express their deep concern about being shut out of the process, they are patted condescendingly on the head and told by government officials not to worry, that their best interests are being looked out for. These are largely the same government officials who patted us on the head and told us that the Charlottetown accord was good for us and we should vote for it.

We can therefore understand why people in my riding are very doubtful that their interests are being protected. The Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement will only serve to heighten their concerns.

If the people of Canada had not been given an opportunity to vote on the Charlottetown accord in a referendum we would

have had it imposed on us even though a majority of Canadians and almost 70 per cent of British Columbians found it unacceptable.

It is imperative that the people in Skeena receive an opportunity to vote on a proposed land claims settlement within the riding to ensure that the settlement agreement is not imposed from the top down. In saying that, let me reassure Indian people who may be listening that Canadians are very fair minded and I am sure that any just and equitable settlement proposed will be supported.

I would like to read from a letter I have recently sent to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which encapsulates the concerns of my constituents with respect to land claims:

Dear Minister:

As we are both aware, negotiations between the Nisga'a people of North West British Columbia, the Federal Government and the Province of B.C. are ongoing and have been for some time in an attempt to resolve the outstanding Nisga'a land claim.

The land claimed by the Nisga'a falls within my constituency of Skeena and consequently is of great concern to all people living in the riding. I have received numerous phone calls, letters, and personal entreaties from constituents who are fearful of what a land claim resolution might mean for them.

Given that the foundation of our economy in Skeena rests squarely on resource industries, fishing, forestry, and mining, and understanding that these resources are inextricably linked to the land base, this same land which is being claimed by natives, it is easy to see why people are concerned.

These ongoing land claim negotiations are taking place behind closed doors, out of the public eye, and this heightens concern, worry, and uncertainty.

I wrote to you earlier this spring on behalf of Andy Burton, Mayor of Stewart, asking that you allow a representative of this community to be appointed to the negotiating team. This request was denied.

My purpose in writing today is to request detailed, specific information which may help to re-assure my constituents.

1. What is the timetable for settlement of the Nisga'a land claim?

2. When do you expect to have an agreement in principle signed?

3. Will every Nisga'a have the right, as an individual to vote to accept or reject the agreement?

4. Will members of the Nisga'a band have the option of receiving benefits conferred under the agreement on a personal basis, that is, directly from the Government rather than to the Band Council on his/her behalf?

5. Will non-Natives in the Land Claim area have the right, as individuals, to vote to accept or reject the agreement?

6. Has your department assessed potential socio-economic impacts of a land claim settlement on surrounding non-Native communities? If so, could you provide these to me and if not will you commit to do so before signing any agreement?

7. Have you considered the potential cumulative effect that over 40 land claims could have on the B.C. economy?

8. Considering that the Nisga'a land claim is the First claim in B.C. to be negotiated and will set the floor and not the ceiling for benefits and land conveyance, will you commit to a detailed study of the above mentioned potential cumulative effect?

9. Have you considered the tax base generated by the resource industries in the claim area which provides direct benefits to all Canadians, and how this base may be affected by land claim settlements?

10. Do you intend to provide fair compensation to non-Nisga'a people who are economically injured or displaced as the result of land claim settlements? If so, can you provide details of your policy on compensation? I am not just referring to fishermen, forestry workers or miners, but also the thousands of retail, commercial, and service jobs that exist because of these industries.

11. Will regulations in place to protect and enhance renewable resources apply to resources conveyed to the Nisga'a people?

Will the Nisga'a people be entitled to ship unprocessed round logs for export? If so, what percentage of their timber is subject to this practice?

Mr. Minister, these are serious questions which my constituents need and deserve answers to and I trust that you will respond in a forthright and detailed manner to each one.

What I am getting at with this letter is the fact that the land claim issue is not just about aboriginal people. It is about all of us and how we will continue to function as a society both economically and politically. At the end of the day we all want and need essentially the same things regardless of our linguistic, cultural or ethnic backgrounds. We want an opportunity to live and work in a free country and within an economy that provides decent food, shelter, clothing and education for our children and allows us to enjoy the benefits of modern technology to enhance our lifestyles.

The Sahtu Dene and Metis land claim agreement is not an agreement which considers the long term interests of all Canadians, including the aboriginal peoples involved. It serves to heighten the deep concern my constituents have with the process of land claim resolutions.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in a debate that is historic and I believe precedent setting.

First, it is my belief the Liberals will pass Bill C-16 using their majority regardless of what it might mean to future generations of Canadians.

Second, my colleagues and I want to register our opposition. We believe that Bill C-16 will not create a better Canada for the Sahtu Dene and Metis or for other Canadians. It does not provide for future harmonious relationships among Canadians. My purpose this afternoon is to show why I believe this agreement will not achieve what it was designed to achieve.

The agreement will have difficulty meeting its first objective. The first objective states "to provide for the certainty of rights

to ownership and use of land and resources". It is clear that the intent of this objective is to provide certainty regarding the right of ownership to Sahtu Dene and Metis, called participants in the text of the agreement. Let us examine these rights.

It is for a very small group comprising 153 Metis, 829 Dene and 773 children for a total of 1,755 persons, slightly less than 2,000. More persons can be added to the Sahtu community in the future if the individuals are residents of the settlement area, have aboriginal ancestry and are accepted by a Sahtu community at any time in the future.

Acceptance is not defined in the agreement except that it requires a sponsor who is a participant and following that is approved by a process to be determined by the participants in the Sahtu community concerned.

What are some of the implications here? The agreement, based on the above, relates to a known group of people today. There is no clear definition of who will be affected in the future, except we know it could be any person who is sponsored by a process as yet unknown, determined by the community and solely by the community involved, so that those kinds of people will participate in the future from the benefits of this agreement. Thus it is possible that the beneficiaries of this agreement may be quite different from those with whom the agreement was reached in the first place.

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development suggests that new participants will be few and therefore do not be concerned. Perhaps, but consider growing wealth and growing power as a result of the exploration and development of natural resources, gems, the need for water and the access to it. In such a case is it not reasonable to expect that more and more people would want to become participants? The pressure would be on to become participants in a Sahtu community.

Let us examine some of the details of the land ownership that is being talked about. There are three kinds of ownership.

There is the ownership of the settlement area which covers 280,000 square kilometres which is the equivalent of 108,200 square miles or 108,200 sections of land. That is 54 sections per participant if you use 2,000 as the number for easy figuring. That represents slightly less than one-third of the province of B.C. as my hon. colleague has just mentioned. It contains Great Bear Lake, Horton Lake, Colville Lake and a major section of the Mackenzie River valley.

The second kind of land ownership is the outright fee simple title to 41,437 square kilometres which is equivalent to 16,000 square miles or about eight sections of land per participant. To put that into acres, it is 5,120 acres.

Then there is the third kind of land ownership and that is municipal land. There are two kinds of municipal land: land which is within municipal boundaries and that which is outside municipal boundaries.

What is significant about all of this? The land outside municipal boundaries must be held by one or more Sahtu organizations. I really want to underline the phrase "shall not be conveyed to a person", but the other part is that land inside a municipal boundary may be conveyed to a person. What are the implications of this?

Sahtu land may not be mortgaged or given as security. Sahtu lands when conveyed to a person are no longer Sahtu lands. What is the observation then? Since municipal Sahtu lands may be conveyed to individuals and upon so doing cease to be Sahtu lands, they can now be mortgaged and given as security.

It does not require a great leap of logic to recognize that over time what are described as Sahtu lands within municipal boundaries may indeed be owned by persons who are not Sahtu. Preposterous, you say. All we need to do is look at what is happening and what has happened in other parts of Canada.

At this moment certain financial institutions in Canada have agreed with a certain Indian band to issue mortgages on residential development on reservation lands. If it has happened once, chances are it can happen again. Indeed chances are that it will happen again. That is particularly true if huge profits appear likely.

A further example consists of the problems surrounding certificates of ownership. These are certificates of ownership of Indian reservation land by natives on those reserves having such provisions.

In years past it is my understanding that has not been the Indian way. No individual shall own reservation land, yet it happened. They said: "But it is not selfish in the way the land is transferred". It is my observation that it is clearly known these transfers are fraught with delays, inaccuracies and transfers from one person to another. In some cases they have even been proven to be fraudulent. Will it happen here? I do not know and neither does this government. However the provision to allow it to happen is there. Therefore the stated objective to provide certainty and clarity of rights to ownership and use of land resources is anything but providing certainty of ownership by Sahtu Dene and Metis.

Let us look a little closer at the municipal boundaries. Section 23.2.1 delineates the boundaries of municipal lands. The agreement provides that these boundaries may be changed. The provisions are particularly relevant. They state in part:

Where there is any change to the extent or location of Sahtu municipal lands pursuant to this agreement, schedules XV and XVI shall be amended to reflect this change and such changes-

I quote and directly underline:

-shall not be considered to be an amendment to the agreement.

Schedules XV and XVI describe the Sahtu municipal lands, schedule XV the surveyed lands and schedule XVI the unsurveyed municipal lands.

This list of municipal lands includes Déline, Fort Norman, Norman Wells, Colville Lake and Fort Good Hope. These names are significant to anyone associated with oil and gas and natural resources exploration.

It is my contention that not nearly adequate attention has been given to the possible future development in this region of Canada, particularly in reference to the implications of the provisions found in this agreement on such future developments in the region.

I believe that while the agreement clarifies some matters, it confuses others.

This agreement also is entrenched in the Constitution. The agreement states very clearly: "This treaty, which when given effect by Parliament in settlement legislation"-and that would be Bill C-16-"will be recognized as a land claims agreement under the Constitution Act, 1982".

That means once this agreement has been given effect it can only be amended by resorting to the appropriate part of the amending formula set out in the Constitution Act, 1982. There are six different ways of amending the Constitution. It brings into question which amending formula would apply. According to one constitutional expert:

When the amending formula was designed, no thought was given to devising a formula for amending a constitutionalized land claim agreement between an Indian band and the federal Government of Canada. Section 43 of the amending formula comes closest in that it deals with a constitutional change that affects only one province. In those circumstances an amendment is brought about by resolutions of the Parliament of Canada and the legislature of the particular province involved. But this provision does not really fit either because the Sahtu Dene and Metis collectively is simply not a province. Nor do the territories qualify as provinces for the purposes of the amending formula.

The result of all this may well be that resort might have to be made to section 41 which is described as the general amending formula. If a given amendment does not come within the more specific parts of the amending formula-

I suggest that is probably the case here.

-then section 41 is the only amending formula that would be available in this case. The congruity of that would be that section 41 not only requires a resolution of Parliament but also a resolution of at least seven provincial legislatures. This is inappropriate in the circumstances because the provinces are of course not involved or directly affected by this land claim agreement. Nonetheless, proper constitutional amendment permits no shortcuts or extemporaneous solutions.

Some may observe that the agreement is not the Constitution. It only provides for constitutional protection. If constitutional protection is to mean anything at all then it requires that amendments to this agreement be governed by the appropriate provisions of the Constitution.

Even if we could find ways around the kinds of things we have talked about until now, there remains the question of whether there is judicial support for such claims in the first place.

Chief Justice Allan McEachern in the Gitksan case rejected such claims and went on to say that a summary of Canadian case law was conclusively against the plaintiff's claims for sovereignty of ownership. Is it right for the government to proceed, indeed to accelerate land claim settlements of this kind when the latest word from the courts is that there is no legal basis for such claims?

With an area as large as 50 times the size of Prince Edward Island, which is a province, surely it is almost as if a new province was being created. The Constitution provides that the establishment of new provinces requires the approval of all existing provinces as well as Parliament. This requirement is being bypassed by Bill C-16.

To establish a region that is to be governed under a new set of laws and to convey to a defined group of Canadians known as Sahtu Dene and Metis outright fee simple ownership of 41,000 square kilometres of land is to de facto establish a geographic and political region of Canada that in many respects is like establishing a new province. In my opinion any and all provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982, that apply to the creation of new provinces should apply in this case also.

Some may argue that I am opposed to any settlement or agreement with the Sahtu Dene and Metis regarding land. That would be folly in the extreme and a deliberate misinterpretation of my remarks. It is necessary for all Canadians to be fair minded. That includes recognizing grievances put forward by people such as the Sahtu Dene and Metis and to provide for their redress.

I support that. My contention is that Bill C-16 does not meet its own objectives to clarify and provide for the certainty of land ownership, needlessly complicates administration, costs too much and makes any future amendments a matter of constitutional amendment.

There is a final question. Will this agreement provide for greater Canadian unity and help clarify how Canadians want to government themselves? To answer that question requires answers to three prior questions. First, will giving land and money provide for the harmonious relationships between members of the Sahtu Dene and Metis communities? The answer is no.

Second, will the settlement of land claims bring about recognition, understanding and acceptance of the respective values, social morals, religious beliefs and decision making processes

either among participants or between participants and other Canadians? Again the answer is no.

Third, will creating another bureaucracy of boards, either above or below or within the bureaucracy that currently exists for the administration of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development make governing this land more effective? Again the answer is no.

Since in my opinion the answers to these questions are all negative, how can we justify completing the agreement by passing Bill C-16? I submit what this Parliament should be doing is building a stronger, more united and more globally competitive Canada. I submit to the House and to all Canadians that passage of Bill C-16 will drive wedges between Canadians by creating political power fiefdoms that are economically inefficient, perhaps even unsound and administrative nightmares.

Passage of the bill creates an environment of competing powers that will feed selfish interests to the exclusion of the interests of others. It will create competition where co-operation should exist. Just think of our interprovincial trade barriers that exist in Canada today. Finally, it will make Canada increasingly non-competitive in the global marketplace.

In conclusion, we need to settle and redress grievances of native Canadians. We must agree that the agreement that is the subject of Bill C-16 will not do those things.

I ask all members of the House to defeat Bill C-16 and find an agreement that will redress and solve the grievances that exist between us and the Sahtu Dene and Metis people.