Debates of Oct. 28th, 1997

Canada-Yukon Oil And Gas Accord Implementation Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[David Kilgour, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill C-6, an act to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley resource management act.

I am extremely pleased to be sponsoring this bill which will build on two other legislative initiatives that are already redrawing the political, social and economic face of the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories.

In December 1992 legislation was enacted to implement the comprehensive land claim agreement of the Gwich'in of the Mackenzie Valley. In 1994 the Sahtu Dene and Metis comprehensive land claim agreement was also given effect by legislation passed by this House. We are also continuing to negotiate agreements with the other claimant groups in the Mackenzie Valley. These are historic agreements for the beneficiaries, for the residents of the Northwest Territories and for all Canadians.

The aboriginal beneficiaries now have the land base and the financial resources that will enable them to more fully manage their own affairs. Residents of these areas in the territories as well as the territorial government and industry have the certainty of land ownership and resources rights that come with settlement agreements.

I am pleased to inform hon. members that many provisions of these land claim agreements are already being implemented. After many years of difficult negotiation, the Gwich'in and Sahtu Dene and Metis are finally beginning to enjoy the benefits of land ownership and financial security.

However, the government has a number of important issues to resolve on these agreements.

Chapter 24 of the Gwich'in agreement and chapter 25 of the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement provide for the establishment of a system for co-management of resource use in the regions covered by the agreements.

More specifically, two agencies will be set up for each region covered by the agreements: a land use planning board and a water and land board.

Moreover, an environmental impact review board will be established for the Mackenzie Valley, which includes the whole western part of the Northwest Territories, with the exception of the region inhabited by the Inuvialuit.

Bill C-6 will establish these bodies. Also, in order to ensure responsible management of the environment and to strengthen the government in western Arctic, Bill C-6 will create a land and water board for the whole Mackenzie Valley.

The board will ensure a co-ordinated and consistent process to regulate the use of land and water throughout the Mackenzie Valley. This is very important to the residents of that region, since activities taking place upstream can have a major impact on communities living downstream.

I would like to take a few minutes to expand on the provisions of Bill C-6 so that hon. members can appreciate why it is a good bill for the Northwest Territories and for Canada.

Bill C-6 provides a co-ordinated system of regulating land and water use throughout the Mackenzie Valley. In so doing it ensures regulatory consistency between the settlement areas and adjacent lands within the Mackenzie Valley. Bill C-6 also meets the government's commitment to give aboriginal people a greater role in determining resource use as provided for in the two land claim agreements.

Within each claimant area the representatives of aboriginal people will make nominations for half of the members on each of these new boards. This will ensure that the traditional activities and lifestyles of the different aboriginal groups in the Mackenzie Valley will be considered in the making of resource management decisions.

It is expected that this type of resource co-management will allow traditional aboriginal activities and lifestyles to successfully coexist with other forms of economic development. This is resource co-management in the truest sense of the term and in the form of co-management that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples fully endorsed.

In addition to guaranteeing a voice for aboriginal people, the new land and water regulatory regime will provide more opportunities for the public to participate in decision making. People from the Mackenzie Valley will sit on these boards and there will be an opportunity for input from private citizens and interest groups through public hearings.

Bill C-6 defines how the new system will work and the interaction between the various bodies. However, I should point out that the bill does not deal with surface rights. A surface rights board designed to settle any dispute relating to private land access in the Mackenzie Valley will be established under another bill. In the meantime, land claims agreements include provisions for the settling of such disputes.

The bodies established under Bill C-6 are government boards whose mandate is to look after the public's interests. Members will be appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to whom they will be accountable.

Each body will have to consult the public, more specifically aboriginal groups, government organizations and industries, before making decisions or recommendations.

This new system is patterned on the Northwest Territories' resources regulating system which puts, as it should, the decision making process in the hands of local people.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is currently responsible for managing and regulating crown lands in the Mackenzie Valley, while the Northwest Territories' water board monitors the use of water.

Under Bill C-6, each region that will be governed by an agreement will have its own regional land and water board.

Outside the areas covered by the agreements, and with respect to transregional activities, the Mackenzie Valley land and water board will be responsible for making regulations. In other words, the land and water boards of each region covered by the agreements will become a standing committee of the main Mackenzie Valley land and water organization, which replaced the Northwest Territories water board.

Bill C-6 also provides for the establishment, in each of the regions covered by the agreements, of a land use planning board responsible for developing a land use plan, whose approval it will recommend to the government. These boards will develop land use plans for all land in the regions covered by the agreements.

An important purpose of land use planning is to protect and promote the social, cultural and economic well-being of the residents of the settlement area by setting goals and priorities for governments and industry. While the interests of all Canadians must be taken into account, special attention will be given to the rights and well-being of any affected aboriginal group.

Bill C-6 will also create a new environmental assessment regime for the Mackenzie Valley. The environmental impact review board will be established as the main instrument for environmental assessment and will carry out the duties currently performed by the northern affairs program of the department under the CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

While this new assessment regime has adopted many of the features of the CEAA, including extensive consultation requirements and the same assessment criteria, it goes beyond the CEAA in that it applies not only to the federal crown lands and projects but to settlement and commissioner's lands as well.

This means that virtually all lands in the Mackenzie Valley will be subject to the same rigorous assessment process. Industry will welcome the certainty, consistency and efficiency of the new regime. Great effort has been put into ensuring that duplication is avoided and all will receive equal treatment.

Additionally Bill C-6 undertakes the creation of a cumulative impact monitoring program. This program will carry out periodic environmental audits and will pull together the data which will help track the cumulative impacts of development activity throughout the Mackenzie Valley.

I want to assure the House that the Government of the Northwest Territories and First Nations were thoroughly consulted on this proposed legislation.

These past few years, federal officials met on a number of occasions with their Northwest Territories counterparts and with representatives of the Gwich'in and the Sahtu Dene and Metis to develop an approach to the establishment of these organizations that would be acceptable to all parties.

We also conducted extensive consultations about the legislation per se. Drafts of Bill C-6 were distributed to various interest groups to get their input and feedback. In addition, a background document on the proposed resource management scheme was released to the public.

After this information was distributed, Indian affairs officials went on a public consultation tour in the Mackenzie Valley. These consultations have proven highly productive. Government employees have prepared information kits on the bill and the regulations for the public to provide the private sector and the aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents of the Mackenzie Valley with a clear understanding of the entire process leading up to the resource management clauses in the bill.

I am pleased to announce to the House that there was a great deal of support for our bill. A number of the aboriginal groups in the Mackenzie Valley, however, have not yet settled their land claims, and therefore feel that the establishment of regulatory bodies for the entire Mackenzie Valley is premature.

Although the government acknowledges their concerns and is dealing with them, we feel that it is important to move ahead with the establishment of these bodies so as to avoid confusion later. These aboriginal groups will be entitled to appoint members to these bodies without jeopardizing their ability to negotiate their land claims.

I firmly believe that the new resource management regime offers these groups better representation than they currently have within the decision making process.

The establishment of a new regulatory mechanism for the Mackenzie Valley cannot be done piecemeal. The hon. members will readily understand that we cannot end up with more than one regulatory mechanism for the same territory.

A cohesive regulatory process for land and water use will be to the advantage of the entire Mackenzie Valley. It will provide the private sector with the transparency and certitude required to enhance the attractiveness of investing in the area.

From an environmental review perspective, it is also important to have a valley-wide regime. More and more we are looking at environmental problems in total. Rivers and streams cannot be arbitrarily separated by artificial boundaries. We must deal with entire ecosystems and adapt to a new way of managing environmental regions.

I want to assure the House that the proposal to establish valley-wide boards for the regulation of land and water use and environmental impact review is fully consistent with the Gwich'in and Sahtu agreements and has their support. These are examples of good planning and good public government.

First Nations that have not yet settled their claims will have the opportunity to be represented on these new boards. For all residents of the Northwest Territories the new regime will mean more immediacy in decision making.

This bill also is fully consistent with the devolution of provincial type responsibilities to the territories and with, as I mentioned, the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples which endorsed this unique type of resource co-management for the north.

The Government of the Northwest Territories will over time assume the federal role of responsibilities in each of these areas. The territorial government strongly supports the concept of public valley-wide boards.

As hon. members can appreciate, Bill C-6 will accomplish three important goals.

First, it will meet the requirements of the agreements with the Gwich'in and the Sahtu Dene and Metis on regulating the use of land and water. Bill C-6 therefore represents a major step toward meeting our obligations under territorial claims and will form the basis of new partnerships with aboriginal peoples and other residents of northern regions.

Second, Bill C-6 will provide a new system for managing the Mackenzie Valley, which will be more user friendly, more transparent and easier to understand.

It will ensure that all residents will be involved in decisions on issues involving them. It will also ensure a fair assessment of proposals by allowing all residents of the region to give their opinion when positions are taken.

These improvements will encourage investment and economic development in the regions covered by the agreements and throughout the Mackenzie Valley. The people in the north, like all Canadians, will reap the rewards of this economic activity.

Third, Bill C-6 will also establish a system that complies with standards of prudent environmental management. In keeping with our national goal of protecting and preserving the environment for generations to come, the bill will guarantee that environmental assessments will be standardized and thorough.

I will now ask my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-6 so that the government's obligations under these regional land claim agreements can be fulfilled and that the evolution of strong, local public government can continue in the Mackenzie Valley.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to speak in the House, I would like to congratulate you and your colleagues on your election. I am from that part of Canada lying between the Pacific salmon dispute and the Atlantic groundfish strategy called Saskatchewan. Since this is my first opportunity to speak in the House, I do want to thank the people of Prince Albert for the trust they have placed in me.

Prince Albert has been called Canada's most illustrious constituency. This is because of its history of having elected three of Canada's previous prime ministers. I contend, however, that Prince Albert remains Canada's most illustrious constituency for more reasons than that.

The Saskatchewan River runs through my constituency. Historically it was a major trade route for the fur trade. Today it provides hydro-electric generation and recreation areas enjoyed by people from across Canada and around the world.

The constituency has a progressive and innovative farming community which, by the way, has a strong interest in the Canadian Wheat Board legislation which passed quickly before this House.

We have forestry. We have diamond exploration. We have small towns and the city of Prince Albert. We have pioneers and visionary business people. We have it all. We are Canada's most illustrious constituency and I am proud to represent it.

One other thing I would like to mention this morning is that I am proud to wear the red poppy that commemorates the sacrifice by so many Canadians in defending our nation, its democracy and its freedoms. I trust that we will be worthy of their sacrifices which were supreme.

Having said that I will now turn to the business at hand which is the consideration of Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley resource management act.

The stated purpose of the bill is to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley and to establish certain boards for that purpose. The bill is enabling legislation which implements obligations between the federal government and the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene and Metis.

Those agreements, proclaimed September 22, 1992 and June 23, 1994, called for an integrated system of land and water management to apply to the Mackenzie Valley through the creation of certain boards.

The Gwich'in claim was negotiated, debated and proclaimed during the 34th Parliament by the Tory administration. The Sahtu Dene and Metis land claim, Bill C-16, was debated in the spring of 1994 and was opposed by the Reform Party due to the excessive size of the land claim agreement. Its provisions called for a settlement area of about 108,200 square miles or about 280,200 square kilometres which comprised roughly 27% of the entire Mackenzie Valley.

To put this in perspective, the land area alone included in the agreement was roughly five times the area of the entire province of Nova Scotia. It was for the benefit of only 1,755 persons, of whom only 982 are adults. Taken on a per person basis, the claims average about 61 square miles each and the economic cost of the agreements was in the order of $130 million.

The Reform Party opposed Bill C-16 because there was no legal rationale for this fee simple conveyance. A new bureaucracy was created and, furthermore, the commitment to self-government made really no sense given the small and highly dispersed population.

The Reform Party's position respecting land settlement claims is clear. It supports honouring treaties according to their original intent and according to court decisions. The agreements made in that legislation and those which this legislation enables were negotiated rather than subjected to court decisions.

In addition to the foregoing, the Reform Party's policy further states that settlement of land claims will be negotiated publicly and all settlements will outline specific terms, be final and conclude within a specific timeframe and be affordable to Canada and the provinces. I believe that the agreements on which this bill rests fail the test of finality and affordability and as such have serious consequences for Bill C-6, which is currently under discussion.

Lastly, in setting the background, the Reform Party supports the right of individuals entitled to reside on settlement lands to choose to hold their entitlement privately or in common. Nothing in the agreement gives the people any individual rights over the land in question. All rights are held in common.

This is a context in which the bill is drafted and for our party's consideration of it.

As a new member there is a lot to learn and, like most members, I suppose there is far more teaching than there is learning at times. As this is the first piece of legislation for which I have prepared, I was not sure where to begin. I found out, though, that the office of the minister transmits the pertinent information to the office of the critic who in this instance forwarded it to my office for review in preparation for the debate.

Included in the material is a list of the organizations with whom the minister has consulted in drafting and reviewing the proposed legislation. I found in the material several one page letters. Some congratulated the minister on the initiative and some were non-committal in tone, but they all expressed a hope that the proposed legislation would be useful in pulling together some of the loose threads in the regulatory and approval processes.

I submit that will be a vain hope as we look further through the legislation.

One letter which came to my attention later and did not come through the office of the minister was not so very complimentary. It was submitted by an organization by the name of the Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines which has an interesting motto, especially in the context of the debate over debt, spending and taxes “digging Canada out of debt”. I would think that any organization or for that matter any person committed to digging this country out of the debt hole in which it finds itself is worthy of serious attention.

I do not believe these people have been consulted in the preparation of the legislation and certainly I feel that is a serious deficiency. They believe “that the sheer complexity of the new regime will overload the capacity of northerners to deal effectively with resource management issues”.

This House must listen to the concerns of all those outside the land claims process and take immediate steps to review the legacy of a former administration which was out to right every wrong, whether real or perceived. Canadian taxpayers will be burdened for years to come because of their policies. Job creation will suffer and resource development may be slowed down and investors will begin to look elsewhere for investment opportunities as the cost of doing business in Canada's north increases as a result of Bill C-6 and similar legislation.

Legislation of this nature is the reason for many mining development hold-ups such as Voisey's Bay. We know the importance of development in the north due to the unemployment figures in the north.

Resource companies, we know, must conduct their affairs in an environmentally sound manner. There is a necessity for regulatory regimes and they must ensure compliance with the regulations developed for the common good. Those facts are not in dispute.

What is also not in dispute is the need for rules which are capable of clear interpretation, fair and equal in their application. The standards set by regulators must be high but must also be capable of being achieved. The decisions rendered must be timely and arbitrariness must be minimized. The process should be unified so as to minimize cost and uncertainty for those to whom the system applies.

Finally, it should provide for predictability both in the cost of compliance and in the likelihood of approval being granted after review of the application. The system as it exists today is both complex and cumbersome and achieves none of the goals previously set out.

The express goal of the new legislation is that it would address the flaws in the current system, but instead it delivers the same uncertainties and adds yet another layer of bureaucracy with poorly defined jurisdictions. The net result of the legislation as it stands would be to substantially increase uncertainties and cost to development while failing to deliver benefits to the environment or to the stakeholders identified in the agreements.

Among the many concerns this bill has raised among stakeholders are the potential for interference in the staking of mineral claims, change in the status of leases and land use permits, new powers to boards to suspend permits and leases, poorly defined terms for new rights for compensation, unfair enforcement policy, poorly defined jurisdictions which have the potential for serious delays in even beginning a review of an application to develop a promising area.

The proposed legislation does not address, apart from a numerical formula, how members of the committee are to be selected, although one of the letters supplied to my office mentions beginning the process of training members of the various boards and panels before the proposed legislation was even introduced in the House. That letter was received in the office of the minister in the spring of 1996.

The bill does not specify what criteria will be used in determining who is eligible for appointment to the boards and panels, if any, nor does it specify the process for appointment.

The proposed legislation calls for the creation of separate boards in each settlement region with offices to be maintained in each. There is a mere suggestion in the bill that the boards could share technical facilities but there is no requirement to do so. This arrangement is likely to cause uneveness in the development of regulations and in their application. Developments crossing jurisdictional lines may be subject to several boards with the likelihood of different results from their review process.

The fears of developers as litigation will be required to resolve the disputes arising from lack of clarity in the proposed legislation were not put to rest in departmental briefings. The possibility of litigation is a major concern and need not have arisen had the government held extensive public hearings throughout the process of developing Bill C-6 rather than waiting until it had passed the point of no return.

Given the immense area of land to be administered and the possibility of duplication of technical resources with lower individual budgets and staffing as a result, the boards will be unable to perform adequate evaluation of projects stretching over those vast distances. This is particularly troubling in transitional times when everything must continue without interruption. We know that people's livelihoods depend on these things.

During the debate on Bill C-16, Reformers warned of the potential for the creation of a massive bureaucracy as a result of those agreements. Those fears have now been realized with the proposed boards and panels exercising broad powers over both claim and non-claim territory. Hunting, trapping, resource development, forestry and more will fall within their authority.

With a population of only 40,000 people, the western Arctic will be subject to a proliferation of administrative authorities. There is also no limitation of the board's authority within the settled claim areas.

For these reasons the Reform Party respectfully opposes this bill. Opposition to this bill should not be seen as opposition to the settlement of outstanding land claims with Canada's aboriginal people. As has been stated earlier, the Reform Party does support final affordable settlement of all outstanding claims. We believe that wider consultations are the answer to those negotiations.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a bill that I consider extremely technical. It is difficult to relate to this bill on a personal basis, as can be done with Bill C-8 dealing with the Yukon, because it concerns the establishment of certain boards to manage water, land, etc. For this reason, I will stick rather closely to my text.

When I have the opportunity, and because debate on native issues can often be uninspiring and difficult, I like to stimulate and enhance the debate by relating incidents we may have witnessed during our visits. Unfortunately, I have never been in the Mackenzie Valley. Because of the technical content of this bill, I will perhaps stick more closely to my text.

So I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-6 dealing with the establishment of certain boards to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, and with consequential amendments to other Acts. This wording is found in several pieces of legislation, including Bill C-8 to amend certains acts, which we discussed earlier.

In other words, Bill C-6 sets up a coordinated and integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley. In fact, this bill meets a statutory obligation under the comprehensive land claim agreement with the Gwich'in and with the Sahtu Dene and Metis.

The Gwich'in comprehensive land claim agreement was signed April 22, 1992 and the Sahtu Dene and Metis comprehensive land claim agreement was signed September 6, 1993. I have some concern here about the land claim agreement. In the last Parliament, after the October 1993 election, the House resumed sitting in February and it seems to me that this bill was introduced at that time. The agreement was probably signed on September 6, 1993, but the implementing legislation was most likely introduced in February 1994.

These agreements provide for the establishment of an integrated joint management regime for land and waters in the Mackenzie Valley by establishing three boards. My hon. colleague listed them, but I will repeat anyway: the land use planning board, the Mackenzie Valley land and water board and the environmental impact review board.

As in Bill C-8, in developing legislation to implement agreements, an effort was made to ensure as much as possible that the economic development and environmental aspects are taken care of. As we can see, this bill meets its target in this respect.

These boards will be established as government organizations with their own staff and budget, using government approval procedures and funding terms. A land use planning board will be established in each of the Gwich'in and Sahtu Dene and Metis settlement areas. These will be five member boards. The first nations and the federal and territorial governments will each appoint two members, who, in turn, will appoint a chairperson.

The goal is to have a kind of parity committee, given that the boards are funded in part by the government. This type of parity for committees can be found in several bills. We in the Bloc Quebecois are always inclined to say that this parity should be achieved as early as possible in the process. As a general rule, when the designated members meet, they are supposed to select a chairperson, who will often also be a first nations leader. I think this is a laudable effort.

The boards will have the power develop and review plans as well as propose changes to be made to plans concerning the use of all land outside the area assigned to local administrations and within the designated areas for the entire Mackenzie district. As soon as a plan is approved by a first nation and by the government, it will be used to guide the region's development.

The second board, the Land and Water Board, will consist of 17 members. The permanent regional panels will consist of five members located in each of the Gwitch'in and Sahtu Dene and Metis settlement areas. In addition to these 10 individuals, seven members will be appointed by the government and by the first nations of the three settlement areas located outside these areas.

Once again, the goal is native participation. In this regard, it must be admitted that such participation is a given and is commendable.

The board will have authority for issuing land use permits and water licences with respect to development activities outside the Mackenzie Valley settlement area, or affecting more than one of these areas. The area is fairly specific. It is inhabited by Dene exclusively and there are sub-areas often bearing names related to the Dene culture: Gwitch'in, Deh Cho, Dogrib, names you will often hear, which are significant for the bill before us today.

A permanent regional panel will issue licences according to the needs of the settlement area. This new settlement system will make it possible to implement land claim agreements based on the Northwest Territories Water Act. Before these agreements, certain laws had been put forward by the federal Parliament. These laws will be amended by the bill before the House today.

The agreements will be implemented by means of new land use regulations based on the existing regulations, on the Territorial Lands Act, another law that will be amended by the present bill.

Finally, this bill provides for the creation of the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. You have to picture the area, which the Mackenzie River cuts right through.

So, whenever an economic development project is implemented, it has an impact on the environment. While the purpose of the bill is to ensure some consistency, it also creates problems. I will explain why in my conclusion.

The environmental impact review board is the counterpart of an economic development agency, which assesses projects from an economic development perspective. So, the Mackenzie Valley environmental impact review board is being established and will consist of 11 members, including a chairperson. Again, the aboriginal community and the government will be equally represented. This is a positive development.

All development activities on the lands and waters of the Mackenzie Valley, including those affecting Indian reservations or lands governed by a settlement with a first nation, will be subject to the environmental impact review and assessment process.

I said earlier that it will create problems, and I will explain why in my conclusion.

Reviews and assessments in the Mackenzie Valley will be conducted primarily through the board and will partly replace measures relating to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Once again, the bill amends an existing act. That board may recommend to the minister responsible for a development activity that a proposed project be rejected or that the environmental and socio-economic conditions in which that activity can proceed be defined.

So it is more than just the environment. The social and economic impact of a development project on the aboriginal peoples will also be considered. So we must admit that we are pleased with this item because the considerations will include not only the environment for aboriginal peoples, but also their economic development and the impact of the project on the community. It is important to assess these, and the bill provides for this.

These boards, the three boards that I have just mentioned, will replace the land and water regulations applied by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and by the Northwest Territories Water Board.

The bill provides for a procedure to monitor the cumulative effects—and this also is important—of land and water used on the environment in the Mackenzie Valley, and also for regular independent environmental audits that must be made public. It can happen very often that the immediate environmental impact of an economic development project will be examined, but not the cumulative effect.

I mentioned this earlier. At the time of the gold rush in the Klondike, the immediate impact was not the only concern, but we are now stuck with huge hills of dirt and rocks that were extracted and left behind. This definitely has a very adverse impact on the environment. The impact was immediate and cumulative. So this is a bill that deals with these two concepts and we are pleased with it in that respect.

This could be the job of a board or a department. The Gwich'in and the Sahtu Dene and Metis must play an important role in carrying out these functions. So, I think the famous parity for all boards achieves this objective. I would remind you that there are sub-regions that are not necessarily affected, that have no agreement for the moment; these will be covered by the bill, and this will soon become a problem.

I think it important, particularly because I did so earlier for the Yukon, to situate the Mackenzie Valley for you. It is the part of the Northwest Territories not included in Nunavut. As I said earlier, the Yukon is bordered in the north by Inuvialuit, one of the four Inuit regions in Canada.

Therefore the region we are looking at, which is covered by the bill, runs right alongside Nunavut, which, I remind you, will come into its own in terms of self-government and territorial claims on April 1, 1999. I would like to acknowledge the interim commissioner, who is ensuring a smooth transition. He is our former colleague, Jack Anawak, who was appointed to the position and who is in charge of the entire transition process that will lead to self-government and land claims settlement in Nunavut.

The region affected by the bill before us today is the one immediately adjacent to the Nunavut. It is bordered on the west by Inuvialuit—as has already been said—and by the Yukon, by the Nunavut to the east and the 60th parallel to the south. On the shores of the Mackenzie River are towns that have also been the subject of bills, Fort Norman, Fort Franklin, Norman Wells, Fort Wrigley, Fort Simpson, many regions that are particularly rich in oil.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, these places served both the whites and the Indians as trading posts or winter command posts. There was, of course, no oil exploration, or need for it, at the time. These places were needed instead for the fur trade or as command posts.

The renowned Hudson's Bay Company, for instance, had a trading post at Fort Franklin between 1945 and 1950. A Catholic mission also settled there, in a teepee like construction. Only during the sixties did the Dene settle permanently in Fort Franklin, which they called Deline.

Fort Norman, was also founded as a trading post in 1810, with the aboriginal inspired name of Slavey Tulit's, meaning “mouth of two rivers”. At first, this place was of seasonal importance for the Dene, then became a permanent settlement in 1872. Then, as an undeniable sign of the colonization of the Northwest Territories by westerners, the English in particular, a hewn timber Anglican church was built at Fort Norman. A great tourist attraction, this building is also a sign of the impact of development by the English.

In the 18th century, the Northwest Company, a subsidiary of Imperial Oil Limited, operated there. This company also operated out of Norman Wells on the east bank of the Mackenzie River. It was there that it obtained mining concessions in 1918 and discovered oil in commercial quantities the following year. So it is an area very rich in oil and gas.

The demand for oil from Norman Wells understandably reached its height during World War II. The need for oil was great. Canada and the world were at war. The war machine depended on oil. Their production therefore reached a peak at this time. This was followed, in 1947, by a dramatic drop because the demand was no longer there. Demand went up dramatically later and Imperial and Canada mined these deposits jointly.

Norman Wells is the easternmost point of the Canol pipeline. This pipeline was built during World War II so that the community could ship its top quality light crude, a strategic resource, to the Alaska route and to centres in the south. The oil pipeline that extends from the Northwest Territories to Zama, Alberta, also ends at Norman Wells in the north.

I recall, by the way, discussing the Canol pipeline when we looked at the bill concerning wells at Norman Wells.

As I have tried to show, the Mackenzie Valley is rich in natural resources and in history. It represents an important chapter in the history of relations between Canadians and the native peoples. It seems obvious to me that those settlers bold enough to do business in this area of the country made their fortunes.

I do not want to repeat everything I said about Bill C-8, but it is pretty much the history of Canada all over again. The first settlers arrived, took possession of the land and the resources and made vast fortunes. The native peoples are still stuck on reserves waiting for the day when they will reap the economic benefits. We know that they are practically living like a third world nation, in very difficult socio-economic conditions. It is a shame that a way has never been found to share equitably the wealth generated by the multinationals and by Canada.

Was this done at the expense of the native peoples? I have just told you that it was. That is the big question. Naturally, there are grey areas. Some people blame the multinationals or the Canadian government, while others argue it is the fault of the native people for refusing to assume their responsibilities. But there is no denying that the socio-economic conditions of native peoples are far inferior to those of all other Canadians.

So even if this needs to be qualified, we believe that this great epic did not always benefit aboriginal peoples. It did very often benefit Canadians who struck it rich, but at the expense of aboriginal lifestyles.

A number of Canadians settled in the Mackenzie Valley and spread their culture there. Many Indians also live there. There are first nations, including the Dene in certain subregions, who are extremely proud of their subregion and who have been living in these areas since time immemorial. There are, among others, the Gwitch'in, the Sahtu Dene and Metis, the Deh Cho and the Dogrib, all subregions of the Greater Mackenzie Valley where aboriginal peoples have shaped Canadian culture through their ancient aboriginal heritage. They have also preserved their culture.

The information we have today on the aboriginals living in the valley is still incomplete. However, observations made by western explorers and traders who travelled through this area confirm that the Dene nation split into three cultural groups: the eastern group, which includes the Yellow Knives, the Dogribs and the Hares, the Slaveys, the Chipewyan and the Beaver; the southwest group that includes the Nahane, the Sekani, the Babine and the Carriers; the northwest group that includes the Kutchin, the Loucheux, the Ahtena and the Khotana.

We can see that in the Dene culture, there are also subcultures, and these people inhabit areas in the Mackenzie Valley covered by this bill.

The word Dene comes from one of the main language groups, the Athapascans, who spread out across Canada, from the Rocky Mountains to Hudson's Bay. In fact, I have in my office a lovely map representing the 50 aboriginal languages still being used across Canada. I must say that Athapaskan is indeed a widely used aboriginal language and one of the main aboriginal languages in Canada.

Incidentally—if I may open a brief parenthesis here—the retention level of these languages is probably better in Quebec than in the rest of Canada. In fact, statistics show that language retention is better among natives in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada. I will close this parenthesis by saying that 50 languages is not insignificant; it goes to show how rich the aboriginal culture is.

The Athapaskans came up with a word that is both very simple and very rich to describe any human being, male or female, any individual or people, including themselves: Dene.

Recently, this word was given a narrower meaning in the political arena. It has become identified with the first nation settled in Denendeh, in the Deh Cho Valley—the Mackenzie Valley—also called Dehogà by the K'ahsho got'ine. In the Dene language, earth, the land, is called “ndeh” or “nne”, hence Denendeh, the land of the people, of the Dene.

I know the parliamentary debates translation team will no doubt be calling my office, as they did after my speech on Bill C-8, but we must keep the aboriginal names. I find it important to keep repeating these names in this House so that we do not forget the great aboriginal culture. I think it is only doing them justice to mention these peoples' names. I also appreciate that it is not easy to keep track for those recording our proceedings. I can assure them of my full co-operation in providing them with any information they might need after I conclude my remarks.

According to the writings of Father Morice, aboriginal nations in the Mackenzie Valley lived off fishing and caribou hunting. They also trapped. Their means of transportation were, and still are, canoes in the summer and snowshoes or dogsleds in the winter. With whatever they hunt or trap, they make toboggans, clothes, including mittens and coats, and fish nets.

In fact, when I visited the neighbouring region, where the Dene influence is also noticeable, I was impressed by the beautiful and warm mitts, coats, moccasins and clothes that are made and decorated in the great aboriginal cultural tradition of that region of the country.

Since the early days of colonization, relations between the Dene and westerners have always been marked by struggles for territorial ownership. These disputes concern Canadians, who are not very familiar with their object and primary cause. In fact, conflicts occur when the government does not consult aboriginal peoples regarding the development and disposal of their lands. The problem is not a new one: it has always existed.

The disputes essentially relate to the fact that aboriginals and westerners do not share the same vision of the world. Their values are different and often opposed. Let me give you an example.

We westerners have a tendency to say that the land belongs to us. We set boundaries, we mark out the lands we buy in the cities and in the country. In aboriginal culture, the land belongs to everyone. This major philosophical difference has often generated problems. The solution is, of course, to establish the kind of relationship that will benefit both cultures.

It must be realized that, for the first settlers and for the immigrants who followed them, Canada represented an opportunity for a new life. But in the case of aboriginal people, their lives would never be the same. In precolonial times the aboriginal people were autonomous and independent, with their own political system, their own social system, their own educational system. Afterward, they saw their property and their lands slip from their control. A number of historians and ethnologists feel that Canada's prosperity in the north was achieved at the expense of the Indians, as I have already said.

Colonization concentrated initially on the agricultural lands of the south. The resource-rich lands were, however, exploited almost as soon as they were discovered, for instance the treaty 8 and treaty 11 lands in this particular region. Gold was discovered in the Klondike in 1896, and the gold rush began. That is what prompted Canada to sign treaty No. 8 with the Dene, who were opposed to prospectors and miners coming through their territory.

I referred to Voisey Bay when I was speaking on Bill C-8. The same thing is still happening today. We arrive, we explore, we find huge deposits, and we move into lands that have always been inhabited by aboriginal nations as if they were our own. We churn out millions of dollars without any concern for fairness, for paying back part of it in the form of royalties, at least to the aboriginal people.

The treaty was signed in particular because of the 1920 discovery of oil deposits at Norman Wells in the Mackenzie Basin. We can see the spirit behind the treaties, that they were mutual agreements. From the moment that wealth was discovered, there was an interest in signing treaties in order to avoid problems. However, when there was no wealth, we left people alone.

Canada put a lot of effort into trying to convince the Indians that signing Treaty No. 8 and Treaty No. 11 would mean no encroachment on lands and no meddling in their life, which was based on hunting, fishing and trapping. As I said, the signing of Treaty No. 8 and Treaty No. 11 has to be seen in the context of the political and economic events of the time that were shaping Canada's future. These treaties came about as a result of the Klondike gold rush between 1896 and 1898 and of the development by both individuals and businesses of resources like oil and gas, which we looked at earlier in connection with Bill C-8. These events created a very fevered climate.

The Indians, furious at the damage to their economy and the fires in their forests—people did not bother to cut down trees, the forest was simply burned so mining equipment could be brought in—reacted strongly to the invasion of their lands. In June 1898, the Indians around Fort St. John refused to allow police and miners onto their land until a treaty was concluded. The government felt that a treaty had to be concluded with them on their rights to the land.

The treaty commissioners met the Cree and the Dene, who owned 324,900 square kilometres from northern Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia to south of Hay River and of Great Slave Lake in the Northwest Territories. Under Treaty No. 8, the crown continued its policy of offering benefits to Indians who allowed settlers to move onto their land.

This treaty includes the usual clauses on the surrender and transfer of land in exchange for government protection, although the commissioners did not discuss these clauses with the northern aboriginal population. There were no discussions, these clauses were simply applied. So these are the infamous clauses referred to as the extinguishing clauses.

The negotiations went on for many months, and as can often be seen throughout the history of Canada, these negotiations show a lack of understanding by officials of the conditions laid down by the Cree and Dene nations. When these treaties were negotiated, the commissioners did not explain clearly to the first nations the meaning of the concepts of surrender and transfer contained in these documents.

For the Indians, any talks on these lands were based on the assumption that they would keep what they considered to be sufficient land in their respective areas, while allowing newcomers to share them.

As I said earlier, while according to western philosophy the land must be owned by someone, according to aboriginal philosophy, the land belongs to everyone.

Many nations thought they were signing peace and friendship treaties, not land transfer treaties. It is also unlikely that, in their eagerness to close these deals quickly, commissioners spent very much time explaining the concept of land transfer in any great detail.

What I am saying has been faithfully reported in the report of the royal commission on aboriginal peoples.

In a word, the concepts and principles of land transfer contained in these two treaties reflect a different reality, depending on whether one is an aboriginal or a Canadian. No sooner were the treaties signed that the authorities started passing legislation and drafting regulations limiting the fishing, hunting and trapping activities of the aboriginal peoples, which is exactly what they had been afraid of. As a result of these measures, the Dene were condemned to live in poverty and the very foundation of their economy was undermined, while the newcomers on the land benefited and continue to benefit from the godsend that the natural resources in the Mackenzie Valley truly are.

Ownership of the land and resources covered by Treaty No. 8 and Treaty No. 11 has given rise to lengthy discussions on politics and economics, court challenges, comprehensive claims and an inquiry, the one conducted by Mr. Justice Berger.

I find it important to give an overview of the purpose of the two agreements. The bill before us today stems from two agreements, one concerning the Dene settlements on Sahtu land and the other concerning the Gwich'in.

If we pay attention to the way the agreements are worded, we can see that the purpose of both the Gwich'in and the Sahtu comprehensive agreements are identical. It is worthwhile taking a closer look.

The Dene, Metis and Gwich'in people of Canada negotiated the agreement with the following objectives in mind: first, to clearly define the right to own and to use the land and its resources; second, to confer the rights and benefits set out in the agreement in exchange for waiving certain claims which the Dene, Metis and Gwich'ins have, in any part of Canada, by treaty or otherwise. That is the famous extinguishing clause I referred to earlier.

Third, to recognize and promote the way of life of the Dene, Metis and Gwich'in, which is based on their cultural and economic relations with the land. For them, the land is something that belongs to everyone. So, this treaty attempts to reconcile the two philosophies.

Fourth, to promote self-sufficiency for the Sahtu Dene, Metis and Gwich'in, and to recognize their ability to fully participate in all aspects of economic life. They want to move away from the infamous Indian Act. They want a land base with adequate resources to ensure their own economic autonomy.

Fifth, to grant specific benefits, including allowances, lands and other economic benefits, to the Dene, Metis and Gwich'in. Sixth, to grant to the Dene, Metis and Gwich'in rights regarding wildlife harvesting, as well as the right to take part in the decisions relating to wildlife management and to hunting, in accordance with aboriginal culture.

Seventh, to give to the Dene, Metis and Gwich'in the right to take part in the decisions on the use, management and conservation of land, water and resources. The bill before us today applies specifically to this part.

Eighth, to protect and to preserve wildlife and the environment in the region covered to the settlement, for the benefit of present and future generations. Another cultural trait of aboriginal people is that they often think of future generations. Mohawks, among others, often speak of the seventh generation. In other words, their current decisions are based on the fact that the seventh generation must also benefit from them.

Finally, to guarantee to the Dene and Metis the possibility of signing agreements on self-government. These changes are being negotiated and could become reality in the days and months to come.

The Dene, who live in the south of that territory, continue to consider Treaty No. 8 and Treaty No. 11 as the legal and political basis of their relations with Canada. It is the same everywhere. People say there have always been problems regarding the implementation of these two treaties, and there are still problems today.

They want to review the original treaties and interpret them. At the time, in certain numbered treaties, there was a reference to providing a medical kit. Today, aboriginal peoples feel they are entitled to full medical services. And the government is rejecting this wholly or in part.

So, aboriginal peoples would like to see effect given to Treaty No. 8 and Treaty No. 11.

This brings me finally to the position of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, is giving an excellent speech before the House, a speech that required a great deal of research, because the member is concerned about aboriginal communities. He is giving an excellent speech in the House, having spent much time and effort, and I find it unfortunate that there are only two Liberal members, and even only one Liberal member out of the 155 in the House. I ask therefore for a quorum count.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

An hon. member has called quorum. Do we have a quorum?

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair has determined that there is a quorum in the House.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all the significance he attaches to the aboriginal voice and to the aboriginal nations in Canada. It is a pity that people are more interested in having lunch than in hearing about the future of the aboriginal nations. This may be a reflection of government behaviour toward aboriginal issues in recent years. I feel it is quite symptomatic of what is going on. I would like to thank my colleague nevertheless.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all the respect I have for my colleague opposite, and in particular his commitment to and work in the area of aboriginal affairs, to somehow want to leave us with the view that having lunch is more important than the issue before the House is total rubbish. On the other hand, I do not think it is parliamentary to reflect on the absence of members. It does not serve well either side of the House.

I do not want to take any more time of the House because the issue being debated is very important. I salute my colleague opposite who does a tremendous amount of work on this issue. However I hope he would stay to the debate and substance of the issue rather than reflect on the presence or absence of members.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The government whip is quite correct. It is an established precedent in the House that we do not reflect on the absence or presence of members of the House.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me, however, that the procedural question as to whether there is a quorum does not mean that the House is full at that time. It means the opposite rather. I think that is what my hon. colleague meant to say. I agree with the hon. government whip that I may have gone further than I meant to when I said that the Liberal Party was more interested in having lunch than in looking after the aboriginal nations.

As for the position of the Bloc Quebecois, and I will conclude with this since I have not much time left, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this bill on the following grounds. There are two agreements, one with the Sahtu Dene and the other with the Gwich'in. The government said it would use those agreements as the basis of a bill which would handle the entire question of water and lands in the Mackenzie Valley. By that very fact, all of the other communities have not settled their claims are being included. That strikes us as a major problem.

We have consulted these communities and they have told us that they had pulled out of the negotiations and that now legislation was being applied to them, implementing follow-up or application of an agreement that does not concern them. In other words, no land claim agreements were concluded with them, and here we are imposing one because of agreements that were reached elsewhere.

Specifically, the Deh Cho and the Dogrib withdrew from the agreements and were not consulted on anything further. Today they are faced with a bill that will be including them.

There are implementation problems of such proportion, in my opinion, that the Bloc cannot today support such a bill.

Another point was raised in discussions, particularly with the Deh Cho and the Dogrib. They wanted complete sovereignty over their land. In other words, they no longer wanted to be a part of Canada, and the federal government is totally opposed to that sort of thing. I wanted to raise the point because I did not want this example to be used to tell Quebec that the native peoples in northern Quebec were entitled to separate from northern Quebec.

If it is not permitted in Canada, it should not be permitted in Quebec either, and if this is the case, the sovereignists and the federalists should not be going at each other over the ins and outs of this debate. I felt it important to say that.

Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-6, because it wants it to apply only to the native peoples in the Sahtu region and to the Gwich'in, with whom the government has agreements. We oppose having the bill apply to the others as well. Accordingly, the Bloc Quebecois opposes the bill at second reading.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the aboriginal royal commission, the passage of Bill C-6 is not just about honouring federal government obligations or paying moral debt to aboriginal people. It is about the development and implementation of firm and consensual foundations for a new relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. In this case it is about a fair sharing of Mackenzie Valley land and water resources and the strengthening of a relationship of mutual and peaceful co-existence.

It is my pleasure to rise in the House to participate in the debate on Bill C-6, an act to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The bill implements obligations under land claims agreements between the Government of Canada, the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene and the Metis respectively. The main purpose of the bill in accordance with the land claims agreements is to create an integrated co-management regime for land and waters in the Mackenzie Valley that would be applied through the creation of certain boards.

These boards will be comprised of 50% first nations representatives and the other 50% federal and territorial representatives. This will give the first nations a far stronger role in decision making. It is the result of extensive consultations and a co-operative effort among the northwest first nations, the territorial government and the federal government.

The Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated supports the enactment of the bill. The Gwich'in Tribal Council is on record supporting the bill. The Government of the Northwest Territories supports the intent of the bill. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the Canada Energy Pipeline Association support the bill. We support the bill and speedy passage of the legislation. One of the main reasons for our support is the co-operative effort behind the drafting of the bill.

The bill provides the land use planning boards with the power to develop land use plans and to ensure that future use of the land is done according to the approved plans. The land and water boards and their panels are given the power to regulate the use of the lands and the water, including the issuance of land permits and water licences. The Environmental Impact Review Board will be the main instrument for the examination of the environmental impact of proposed development, including public review.

With an increase in local accountability and responsibility, particularly when the northwest first nation and the territorial government will be in the majority position on each of the boards being created, there is no question that the new integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley will be far more sustainable in the long run.

For example, the Kluane first nations and non-aboriginal people who live in an area of Kluane have land use planning boards. The population in that area is just over 300 people and those meetings regularly draw out over 150 people to participate in the planning and care of the land in that area.

The Liberals have made polluters responsible for policing themselves. Degradation of our environment including air, soil and water has increased under the government. Canada is falling behind its international obligations to protect the environment. Our Arctic is polluted because of specific actions or policies of the federal government. The federal Government of Canada is failing to protect our air, water resources and ecosystems, and there is a long record to prove it.

We are all aware of and have experienced the dramatic implications, including in my own riding, of the cuts in spending and staff the government has imposed on Environment Canada. The impact of such a policy has been compounded by provincial and territorial cuts in the same areas.

Canadians have seen the environmental protection service of Environment Canada hard hit with the downsizing of the government. This was the branch that set unenforced regulations on industries like mining, chemical production, and pulp and paper. We are aware the federal government with its ideological doctrine of business competitiveness and deregulation is imposing declining standards on our environmental conservation programs.

We are optimistic that the devolution process and the implementation of land claims agreements like the one being completed by the passage of the bill will stop the trend to degrading our environment.

The relationship between the first nations and the environment is one embedded in a different cultural relationship and is not there for short term economic gain.

The report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples grasped the spiritual relationship of the first nations with their environment. The final report of the commission indicated the ultimate importance to aboriginal societies of the spiritual relationship to the land. The relationship arises not only because of dependence on the natural world for life itself but out of a belief that human beings were placed on earth at creation and given special responsibilities for the stewardship of our environment.

The views of aboriginal society will now be included in the new resource policy for the valley. It will be its responsibility to manage land and water in the valley in the most appropriate way.

It is a pleasure to be present and participate in the debate of a bill promoting a more positive relationship between aboriginal groups and the rest of Canadians. Bill C-6 has implemented a new approach concerning the recognition of the rights of aboriginal people in the management of land and water resources. This new approach ratifies respect for the treaty relationships that Canada is creating with our aboriginal societies. That is good for aboriginals of the country and good for Canada as a nation.

In conclusion, I reiterate our support for the bill and will work for its passage in a quick and speedy way that shows respect for the people who so carefully drafted the bill.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to make a few remarks about the principle of Bill C-6. I believe in and will speak to the principle of the bill. I make these remarks as the Progressive Conservative critic of Indian affairs and northern development. I also make them as someone who has over the years watched from a distance. Frankly I have been amazed at the length of time it takes for the valid aspirations of aboriginal peoples to be satisfied by the Government of Canada.

I am most thankful that aboriginal leadership in the Mackenzie Valley has been so very patient over the decades with what I am willing to bet was an endless round of negotiation with government officials.

This is no ordinary bill. It represents a principle that is so laudable and so welcome Canadians should be thankful it has arrived after so many years of toing and froing.

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

Essentially there were and remain, of course, concerns about a disruption of a way of life, a disruption of the lands and the waters. For people in the Northwest Territories, life is the land and the water. One of the most remarkable features of this land is the great and powerful Mackenzie River, one of the world's longest at 4,241 kilometres. It and its huge valley need to be respected and protected.

I am only just learning the history of this land myself. Perhaps it would be useful to cite some of it respecting this matter so that other members might better understand this legislation.

On April 2, 1973, 24 years ago, some 16 bands filed a caveat in the land titles office in Yellowknife claiming aboriginal rights to almost half the land in the Northwest Territories. When they did that, they got the government's attention. The effect of that caveat would have been to make any further land grants in the area subject to the claim of the Indians if it were subsequently found that they had a valid legal interest in the land.

That may sound like legalese and I suppose it is, but it is very important legalese and it was very important to the eventual settlement of the land claims in the Northwest Territories and in Canada as a whole.

Hearings were held and an interim judgment was handed down from the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories which upheld the caveat saying “that there is enough doubt as to whether the full aboriginal title has been extinguished, certainly in the minds of the Indians, to justify the caveat or to protect the Indian position until a final adjudication can be obtained”.

This process has moved slowly and if you will pardon the pun it has moved glacially slowly. Of course, the federal government appealed. That hearing was to take place before the appellate division of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories in June 1975. Assuredly, this has been a slow process.

Meanwhile, tired of waiting but wanting to get on with the job, behind the scenes the aboriginal leadership negotiated successfully with the then minister of Indian affairs to engage in preliminary discussions to develop the groundwork for a comprehensive settlement of Indian claims in the Northwest Territories. Essentially the aboriginal leadership pushed the idea of fairness, not a radical idea. They were adamant that a settlement of native claims must precede the pipeline or any other major development projects.

This evolved slowly. Maybe for some it was terribly slow. Certainly a great many people got tired of waiting. Finally it evolved to the present date, until Bill C-6 is before us today.

This bill, I am told, was developed by a co-ordinating group comprised of representatives from DIAND, Northwest Territories government, representatives of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, the Sahtu Secretariat and the Department of Justice. We are all hopeful that their many years of dialogue have borne fruit.

The Progressive Conservative Party is in favour of transferring responsibilities and power to the local level and sharing management and development duties. We believe, as most Canadians believe, that this is an important step in empowering all residents of the Northwest Territories. In principle, the joint boards this bill will establish are a good idea. However, I am looking forward to the hearings before committee to give it closer examination.

This bill is intended to implement obligations under land claims signed five years ago, as well as in September 1993. In 1992, the Gwitch'in Tribal Council settled a comprehensive land claim that provided for 22,422 square kilometres of land in the northwestern portion of the Northwest Territories and 1,554 square kilometres of land in Yukon. It also provided for subsurface rights, a share in the resource royalties derived from the valley, tax free capital transfers, hunting rights, a greater role in the management of wildlife, land and the environment, and the right of first refusal on a variety of activities related to wildlife.

These are good things and surely we have made some headway since 1973. Yet if they represent one principle it would be one related to good government. I am sure the current minister would recognize the efforts and the success of the previous Conservative government in establishing this excellent partnership.

The bill before us provides for the establishment of management boards to co-ordinate environmental assessment and land and water regulation in the Mackenzie Valley. The valley is 4,241 kilometres long. This is a huge undertaking by the government of this country and I commend the government for it. People often think of the north or the Mackenzie Valley as a barren wasteland. On the contrary, it has been home to the Inuit and the Dene for 10,000 years. Martin Frobisher's expeditions back in the 1570s were the first recorded visits to the Northwest Territories by an outsider.

I hope this bill will go some way to ensure that with all the wealth and the potential to be found under the surface of the land and the water in the Mackenzie Valley that outsiders respect the land and water and that they show some respect for the people who are called the insiders of the Mackenzie Valley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me as the representative for the Conservative Party to participate in this debate. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada supports this bill. We support its goals and aspirations. Furthermore we support the goals and the aspirations of the people who live in the north and who have brought this bill forward.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points with respect to the hon. member's speech. He claimed that the aboriginals have claimed up to half the territory of the Northwest Territories. This rather ambitious claim could have been dealt with in two ways, through the courts or through negotiation.

In the years following that claim, governments have decided not to use the courts as a method of resolving these claim disputes. When a dispute arises if one partner feels he is in an advantageous position it is very unlikely that he will be willing to go to court. He obviously wants to negotiate.

He lauded the past Conservative government for negotiating away large tracts of land and many rights and benefits not on the basis of long term residency in the Northwest Territories but on the basis of race. Could the member comment on whether he believes this is the way to go?

He talked about first rights of refusal on many activities. Is that the correct way to go? He knows that when one group obtains rights it is usually at the expense of another group. I would like him to clarify some of these things for me, especially the issue of adjudication or negotiation.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. He raises some valid points. We in this House have to remember that these issues are not completely settled yet. It is second reading of the bill. We have a way to go yet. I was alluding to the general thrust and the point of the bill. Certainly we support that.

The hon. member commented on the size of the land claim agreement, the fact that it deals with surface rights and that the north is a polyglot of people and represents more than just the native peoples. Many people have moved to the north in the last couple of hundred years. The bill applies to everyone in the north. It is our belief that there is room for everyone and there is room in this bill to include everyone.

It is not the intent of this party to leave any group out and I do not believe it is the intent of the bill to leave any group in the north out. I think it is all-encompassing and reflects the rights of everyone.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley resource management act. I have been listening to my colleagues on all sides of the House speak to this bill. It has been a very interesting and rewarding experience, to say the least, that we have agreements on various aspects, if not the total intent and principle of the bill.

First, the principles on which this bill is based are sound and acceptable I believe to most members. The obligation to provide a bill to help us to give life to provisions of those claims that have been settled is quite clear.

We have an obligation because we have enacted legislation at another time that clearly indicates that in order for those claims to have full effect and force, this regime needs to be enacted. That is quite clear. It is indisputable.

I believe that Bill C-6 is proposed to enhance local public government in the Mackenzie Valley, to provide certainty and consistency for residents and industry and fulfil outstanding obligations under the Gwich'in and Sahtu Dene and Metis land claim agreements.

It is not unusual for any government to find itself in a catch-22 situation because not all things happen at the same time or at the same speed. There are those in the Mackenzie Valley area who have yet to settle their claims. There are those who have concerns but we are only at second reading of the bill. It is quite plain to see that the democratic process will allow them to have their say, that will make provisions for them to speak their mind to the bill and to quell their fears.

Some features of the Mackenzie Valley resource management act will act as an advantage to Mackenzie Valley First Nations without claim settlements. These are to be interpreted. When we interpret them each individual and group comes up with its own interpretation.

First, clause 5(2) should give some comfort to those individuals. It speaks to the aboriginal and treaty rights being protected under that clause. It is an act that would be reviewed in consultation with First Nations, which I just spoke to previously. Clause 5(1) states that it does not affect the Indian Act.

Clauses 99 and 112 provide for the nomination of members to the boards, thereby providing a much stronger voice in resource management decision making throughout the Mackenzie Valley.

Clause 108 allows for permanent regional land and water panels on settlement of land claims.

There are also advances for the Government of the Northwest Territories. It clearly support this. We have in writing the support of the territorial government for this integrated management resource regime. It is a system it feels holds the principles of equality that will allow for all groups to come forward and to participate with a good sense of fairness and equal participation.

It also talks about public boards in parts 4 and 5 while integrating the regions. It provides a form of public government that may accommodate self-government, co-management of resources endorsed by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

Many of these issues and nuances that relate to it or aspects of it could be debated by various members but generally the obligation for us to enact this bill is clear. The principles that it holds are democratic, fair and representative and I believe have a fair buy-in from all parties concerned.

The government is not into a regime of overregulation so that industry cannot move. That is not what this government is on about. We are not about exclusion and hiding a set of guidelines that preclude everyone else. That is not the extent to which the government would like to operate. What we are on about is to make it so that the goals are commendable and that there are clear reasons for this House to support this legislation.

The parliamentary secretary has informed the House that the regional land claim agreements of the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene and Metis commit the government to establish a new resource regulatory regime in the respective settlement areas. They have also heard from NDP members, members opposite, and my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party who just spoke about some of these issues.

The boards created under Bill C-6 are public government boards which will operate in the public interest. These boards are extremely important. Not only is the process important but the ensuing products of this act will be extremely important because they are integrated and they are meant to serve all people. They are meant not to prejudice, nor to abrogate or derogate the rights of those who have yet to settle their claims.

The intent of the government is to serve all fairly. That is what raises the whole spectre of a catch 22. In trying to serve all members of its constituencies fairly, we face this dilemma. We are at second reading. We know that those individuals who have concerns have the opportunity to be heard. That is extremely important.

Under the new regime, people from the Mackenzie Valley will sit on the boards. There will be an opportunity for increased input through public hearings. As well the nominees of different groups will bring their own perspectives to the boards resulting in a balance of interest and best overall decisions.

I would like to speak to why it is absolutely important that we have this regime. In the Northwest Territories we are about to become the producer, a significant producer of quality diamonds in Canada's north. By 1998 the first mine will account for about 6% of the world's diamond production by value. With other prospects coming into production this could climb to 15% or more within the next 10 years.

We do not hear much about that. We hear about Voisey's Bay and all of the other regimes which are coming forward, but this is significant. This is the largest diamond development in the western hemisphere, outside of a small diamond development in Colorado to the south of us.

The diamond industry is unlike any other. Canada will soon join an exclusive club of producers of one of the most valuable and coveted commodities on earth. We are believed to be in the top percentage of the highest value of diamonds in the world. Diamond mining produces an exceptionally high return on investment at approximately 50%.

For example a company which is currently in diamond development in the north will recover the capital costs associated with its first mine at Lac de Gras within the first five years of operation. How many businesses do that? Usually there are long term strategic goals for economic recovery in a new business. This is significant. The company will go on to generate over $14.3 billion in income during 25 years with just one mine. There are other proposed mines. Its profit over that same period is estimated at $4.3 billion.

Yes, I am aware that there are fair returns for the people who live there, but there are other things we must consider.

The Government of Canada will also be a major beneficiary of the north's new diamond mining industry. It will earn $2.4 billion in taxes and royalties just with the first diamond mine. The federal government's net fiscal benefits increase to $4.4 billion when royalties, corporate and personal income taxes, indirect and induced fiscal impacts and grant offsets to the Government of the Northwest Territories are factored in. These are all new numbers. They are not generated by our government but they are out there.

Of all the parties involved, the Northwest Territories stands to gain the least from this lucrative industry. It will receive only $.2 billion. So far that is the information we have and the information I have. All this to say that the $7 million raised annually in tax revenues by the territorial government will be far less than what it will spend on infrastructure and social programs over the lifetime of the mine. That is significant considering the cutbacks various levels of government have experienced.

Despite advertising claims, diamonds are not forever. The governments and people at the territorial level feel that the newest industry in Canada, developing diamond value added industries in Canada should be done in the north. Billions of dollars and potentially hundreds if not thousands of manufacturing and retail jobs are at stake.

Every diamond producing country in the world demands valuation and sorting take place within its borders before diamonds are exported. This apparently is the standard. Many require that diamonds be set aside for domestic production or insist on a cutting and polishing industry domestically.

As a result, thriving diamond industries exist in places as diverse as Gaborone, Botswana, Freetown and Perth. In the Northwest Territories the residents and the leaders believe no less and we share the same view that those value added activities should happen within our own borders. What happens in the Northwest Territories is good for Alberta, Manitoba, B.C., Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Quebec and Ontario because we have a small population. We attract those people by way of service contracts and workers.

When I go home I travel almost every week with workers who are going out to those activities including the other mines that had a rough ride with their stocks and shares last night. Nonetheless there is that kind of development in the north.

In the Northwest Territories we have other activities that are ensuing. Lots of land has been put up for bid for exploration. Some very welcome contenders have put bids on those. I cannot say the names of those groups. They are in the oil and gas field and we also have gold and other mineral resource development in the north.

Oil and gas is a major industry for our people in the north and we value that. That is why we seek a balance with this legislation. We know we need to have that kind of a balance. We know we need to be able to speak to all the parts of this bill, all the constituents of this bill, not just one aspect.

It is extremely important that the recipients, the major benefactors in terms of resource development, be northerners. That does not mean them exclusively. It means other levels in this country, the federal government, the territorial government, the municipal governments, industry and various other industries from abroad should benefit as well. There is a balance to be struck but there is far greater opportunity than I think we recognize.

This is an important bill because it is a step forward in the devolution process in the Northwest Territories. It will ensure government for and by those directly affected by the decisions. It will ensure better overall planning of development, as well as a better understanding of the cumulative environmental effects of development. These boards will serve the interests of land owners, developers and the public alike.

I am not a stranger to the views that prevail out there on this particular bill. I have had access to industry members who do not necessarily favour it. I have had access to aboriginal groups who do not favour various parts of this bill but who think the principles if they apply to everyone are fair and okay.

I have had access to the groups that will be well served by this bill but who understand and are sensitive to their colleagues. They know that nonetheless unless they have this bill they will not be able to enact those provisions in their claims. They cannot move forward to actualize and implement their claim the way they should unless they have this bill.

Therefore the dilemma we have is that we must do our level best in this House, as members of the House, to serve all of those who would best be served by finding the balance in the legislation to respect the rights of all those who will be affected by it. That does not mean we do not do anything, that we are caught in inertia or that we are paralyzed. It means that we must be careful and thoughtful, which is what we do as legislators, and we should be.

The new boards will have powers under the legislation. The boards will have the right to summon witnesses and order them to give evidence or produce documents necessary for carrying out the board's responsibilities. This will be enforceable in the same manner as an order of the courts.

Decisions and orders of the boards may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. If there is a conflict between this legislation and a land claim settlement, the settlement agreement will prevail. That is apparently the law.

The law is subject to interpretation and it is subject to the way it is enforced. Laws are not meant to be brutal. Laws are meant to be enforced considering the human factor. The human factor is a multifaceted one. It is one which has many sides.

We do not live in the Northwest Territories, especially in the Mackenzie Valley, in a homogeneous setting. We live in a heterogeneous setting. We have many cultures and many groups. We have many people with different levels of education and skills. We have people who are in industry. We have people who have an extreme attachment to environmental issues.

We continue in our own way in the Northwest Territories to find the balance. I as a legislator am tasked with this. My view is that it is important that we fulfil the crown's commitments to the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene and the Metis.

As the parliamentary secretary has indicated, extensive consultations have taken place regarding this legislation. I appreciate the concerns and issues which have been raised by the First Nations in the Northwest Territories. It is my obligation as their member of Parliament to see this time as an opportunity for discussion and debate to continue. Let them come forward with their views. They can best speak to them. I cannot speak on their behalf.

I therefore urge my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-6. It speaks to many of the issues I have raised, such as the profile of one of the major developments in the western hemisphere, the whole diamond industry, which is unprecedented in North America.

We have an opportunity to build. We have an opportunity to share. We have an opportunity to work together. I do not see any mitigating factors which would prevent us from doing that. I do not see anything stopping us from engaging in a process that is fair, consultative and that looks for the best product for our citizens. It is our obligation to do that as members of Parliament, as ministers of the crown, or whatever role we are engaged in in an official capacity.

I hope we will take this opportunity to invite those who have questions to come forward and to speak for themselves.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly impressed with the content, passion and the obvious understanding with which the hon. member presented her arguments in favour of Bill C-6.

There are a couple of questions I would like to address to the hon. member which deal with some of the words used which reverberate very favourably in my mind. These are words like fairness, balance and the development of the economy for individuals and entrepreneurs as well as for the country at large.

I ask the hon. member if she would please tell the House to what degree would her government be prepared to amend the proposed bill which is now before the House to accommodate some of the questions and concerns that the first nations, the Metis and business people have, as well as other people across Canada. She states rather correctly that many of the things that will be done here will affect not only the Northwest Territories but Alberta and other provinces and the federal government in particular.

I wonder if she would address to what degree will she and her government accept amendments to accommodate the various conflicting interests at this time.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in Parliament for nine years, now in my third term. It has been my experience that amendments are a way of life when we are dealing with various acts and bills.

We are talking very strongly about the principles of this bill. I have not heard any amendments come forward. I do not have a list of amendments. Those groups that will best speak for themselves, that have those concerns have not come forward and given me those lists or inventories of amendments. I am not the minister to speak to those or the parliamentary secretary. They will be dealt with in a fair and judicious manner.

However, we must remember that the principles of the bill should be upheld and not be undercut by amendments which would take the bill down. That would not be acceptable. It would defeat the original purpose of the bill.

I believe that we have a consultative process and ideas are brought forward which will best reflect what is needed for all constituents concerned with this bill. I think those will be entertained.

I cannot come forward today and say that certain sections of the bill will be amended. I cannot do that because it is unrealistic. I would assume it does not undercut the principles of the bill or undo the bill generally. At various stages amendments are entertained. However, I do not know of any specifics from the constituent groups yet.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I congratulate her on her remarks.

I want to comment on a couple of things in the bill in general and specifically on the devolution of power to the NWT. I would like her to comment on the government's position about the devolution of power. Is there a willingness on behalf of the government to follow up Bill C-6 with necessary bills and regulations which will eventually lead to some type of provincial recognition by the government of Canada, as many other provinces have evolved in the country? Is there a willingness on behalf of the government to follow that through?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak on behalf of the minister responsible for this bill. However, within the confines of the territorial government's legislative assembly a speech was given about the support for devolution. Following there were arrangements with regard to health and we transferred responsibilities for that. We are in the process of looking at various other opportunities on both sides which will speak to honouring the whole process of devolution. However, we must take caution.

In devolving responsibility we must understand that there are many players and many people are affected. There are the Inuit people, the first nations people, the Metis people, the non-aboriginal people who come from all parts of Canada to be permanent residents of the north, whom we love and respect, who share with us in our toils every day in building a wonderful part of this country. We must be cautious that we do not exclude, undercut or destroy the rights of those people in achieving what we might perceive to be a higher goal. We must be conscious of that and that is not easy to do. It is complicated. It is complex and is something that requires a great deal of sensitivity and a great deal of care.

My hon. colleague will know that there is a commitment but it is one that is undertaken with great caution.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on her commitment to bringing jobs to the Northwest Territories, to the diamond mines that are currently under development and the classification and sorting of the diamonds, these highly skilled and quality jobs. It is vital that we recognize that they could quite easily be located in the north and add value to the development of the northern economy.

I am a little concerned about the numbers of boards and jurisdictions we are creating. This bill creates about five or six different boards for a very small population. I appreciate the environmental concerns and the fragility of the environment. I have two questions for the hon. member.

First, how can we ensure that development will proceed apace as it can and perhaps as it should to provide job opportunities and skills and economic development for the north?

Second, I am concerned about the devolution of powers by the minister. The bill gives the minister powers to delegate responsibilities to the Government of the Northwest Territories. It is not clear to me whether these boards will always report back to the minister specifically or whether it is within his power to delegate the reporting responsibility of the boards back to the Government of the Northwest Territories or to him always.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises some very important points. There is no doubt in my mind that this bill is directly aimed at dealing with the issue of certainty which will give comfort to the various constituent groups that they can proceed in a balanced and sustainable way with development. That is easier said than done. We do not always have friendly partners in that process.

The north has exemplified through the kinds of agreements it has reached over the years under various development regimes that it can work together and I think this bill will aid that. When this bill comes to its final resolution it will do that.

The issue of devolution is a little more complicated. I am not sure of all the micro managing details and all the tasks assigned to the various members of the board. I am not that familiar with the bill. I am aware of the general structure of what would result from this bill.

The boards are designed to have an adjudication process that would serve itself well without too much interference, but there is an overriding obligation because it is government legislation. It would not be guided on every detail of what it does. There is a process for them to be the masters of their own destinies, as we would have in the House standing committees but on a higher level. It requires legislation to enact those boards. They have the power to guide themselves.

I am not totally familiar with the reporting system but I know they have a great deal of autonomy. They must be arm's length and I believe the bill speaks to that quite clearly.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I sat here too and listened to the member opposite speak with regard to this bill. Bill C-6 was originally introduced in this House on December 12 as Bill C-80.

I would like to get back to the speech of the member opposite if I may for a moment. She mentioned quite proudly the diamond mines in the north, and justifiably so.

I remember not that long ago standing in this House raising some concerns about the length of time it was taking to come on stream through the red tape and bureaucracy that we tend to create in this country.

It has taken years of frustration for the owners and the participants in the BHP diamond mine to get up and on stream while the competition in other countries went ahead.

I want this House to be well aware of the legislation that we create in this House, how it can hamper the development and the process in these areas.

Make no mistake about it, the legislation that we developed here hampered the diamond fields of the north. It never helped them, not one bit. I want to make sure this House is fully aware of that. I want to make sure the member opposite is also aware of that and takes that into consideration as we debate this bill.

There are many concerns with regard to this bill in the north. Some I have heard from the opposite side, and some from this side too have tried to address this. The main concern here is that when we pass legislation, it is far easier to pass it than to repeal it.

As we go through Bill C-6 and talk to all the players involved, not just one or two, we find there is an abundance of concern with regard to where this bill is going and what we are attempting to create here.

We have no problem with setting up some of these boards to help the people in the different areas but we do have concerns when we hear from people in these outlying areas saying about the lack of consultation with regard to this, the complexity of the laws, the complexity of the language used in order to create these laws not fully understood by the participants involved.

That has to become a concern of every politician in this House when we allow this to take place. We all know legal language is probably the hardest language to understand next to a politician.

We have to be very aware of what we are doing when we create laws formed basically by lawyers here in the House so that when we go out to the people to try to put through legislation they fully understand the legislation being put in place.

From some of the letters we have we know this is not what happened here. We know that the concern is there due to this legal language. We also know there is concern. I heard today that there was concern that this was legislation by exhaustion.

We are talking about over 30 drafts of this legislation going forward to these people and basically being online until this got through some of these areas. I have concern about that.

I also have concern when we talk about areas such as this regarding cost. We know these people cannot afford to come to Ottawa to address these concerns. We also know there are some areas they cannot get to, say Yellowknife.

What is wrong with our sending people out there to talk to them? I have done it. I am sure other members of the House have done it too.

These people deserve to be heard. We are enacting legislation in the House pertaining to the way they live, make their living and in many cases raise their families. We in the House have to be very aware of that. We have to make sure there is absolute clarity when we make such legislation.

The Sahtu and Dene Band information session in September raised many question. Far too many of them were answered with uncertainty. It scares me when I hear that their questions were answered with uncertainty. Why? Often the response to such matters was that it would have to be settled in court.

I am just an ordinary person from a place called Vernon, British Columbia, just outside Armstrong. When I read people are afraid we are creating policy that will wind up in court, I have grave concerns about where we are going.

Are we sitting here as a government, as opposition members and as other members of the House to create legislation to further lawyers? Or, are we supposed to be here to further the benefit of the people so they do not have to worry about legislation that introduces the idea it may have to be settled in court. I question that and I worry about that.

There is also question of the extra time limits that will be imposed and the extra level of bureaucracy and the red tape that will be created, especially in the further exploration and development in mining.

We all know what happens in the mining industry. We all have grave concerns about what will happen if the industry ever decided one day that perhaps Canada was not the place to do business in. We have to address some of these concerns. We hear from exploration companies that unnecessary red tape is already creating this distinct possibility.

I sat and still sit on the natural resources committee. I can remember agreeing with all parties in the House in the last session to preparing a draft policy entitled “Keep Mining off the Rocks in Canada”. We worked very hard on it. Yet not one decision of that committee has come to the floor of the House. It sits on some shelf gathering dust. Maybe that is a make work project for government, keeping people busy dusting off policies that would benefit the Canadian populace as a whole. We supply people to dust them off every now and then so that maybe they can refer to them but never in the House.

It makes me wonder about the legitimacy of much of the committee work, as I am sure many members of the House wonder. We put in many hours trying to clarify legislation, only for it to be taken from our hands and drafted into language that very few of us really understand. The lack of clarity has to be the first concern.

We also have to be concerned about what we are creating in the process with regard to the legality problems that could be created and fostered. We have to consider seriously a system that could be under-resourced. I have not heard much about this concern, but we have to consider it, especially its technical capacity. We have to be aware that it might put us at a disadvantage in dealing with the large workload the bill will create by agreements and changes in leasing permits. We have to be concerned about many of these areas.

When the legislation goes to committee I would like to see the amendments seriously debated and considered instead of just washed over. If we were to address some of the amendments that come forward with regard to the bill it would take away a lot of the worry for the people living up there, both native and non-native. It would definitely take away some of the worry for mining exploration companies, the biggest employer in the area.

This has to happen in legislation if we are to go forward with good pieces of legislation that benefit everybody. These are legitimate concerns. I hope members of the House understand them, look at them and are willing to address them through committee work.