Debates of Oct. 28th, 1997

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Indeed, there is no quorum.

Call in the members.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We now have a quorum. The hon. member for Skeena.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the fact that we in North America enjoy one of the highest living standards in the world is not an accident. If we look at the resource rich country of the former Soviet Union, we can see very quickly that it did not fare nearly as well as we did. This is simply because it had a political system which did not allow human beings in that country to achieve their potential.

That system is democracy. It is a fundamental cornerstone upon which not only our country is based, but on which our economy is based. We cannot achieve without the freedom to achieve. We cannot achieve without the freedom of contract. We could not have achieved what we have in North America without democracy.

Let us compare that with the situation in the former Soviet Union. The system there said that government and not the people was the centre of all power, that the communist party was the only political party. There was no option or choice. If one were to belong to a political party it had to be the communist party. The communist party determined that it was going to own the means of production and dictate how the economy would run and dictate how people ran their lives. It was going to even dictate whether or not there would be freedom of religion in the country and it determined that there could not be freedom of religion.

There were so many things about the former Soviet Union that I cannot reiterate them all in this short intervention. Suffice it to say that human liberty was suppressed to the point where the economy could not work. The economy crumbled in on itself and the people of that country during that time suffered a very low standard of living which resulted in a virtual collapse in 1990-91 when the Soviet regime finally ended.

Now we see the emergence of a democracy, albeit not a total democracy at this point, but it sure has come a long way from the days when I was a kid and I watched the news at night and saw what little there was coming out of the Soviet Union. Certainly there has been a lot of progress made there and we are very hopeful that is going to continue.

We have a democracy in North America. As I said earlier it is democracy that is responsible for giving us so much in this country. I would argue strenuously that without it we would not be where we are today and we could not be where we are today. If we abandon democracy, we do so at our peril because we will start slipping backward.

But the forgotten people in North America who have always been precluded from joining our democracy are the aboriginal people of this country. They have been precluded from becoming a part of this democracy from the beginning contact and colonization.

The system of governance in this country and successive governments in this country have ignored, belittled and marginalized these people from the beginning of Confederation. They have been largely Liberal administrations I might add, largely Liberal governments. I would ask any aboriginal people watching today to remember that. Liberal governments for the most part have dominated the House of Commons during this century. It is the Liberals who have constructed the welfare state and the dependency.

Native people in this country did not get the right to vote until 1960. How could we possibly consider that they were part of a democracy when for the first almost 100 years of this country they did not even have the right to vote let alone run for office? It is a small wonder that the level of anger and hostility and hopelessness is so pervasive and so high on aboriginal reserves in this country.

It is a small wonder that these people are bitter and angry and confused and are wondering what the future holds for them. They see this Canadian dream being lived all around them and they are not participating in it. They do not know why and they are angry and they are looking for answers. They are looking for some respect.

This government gives them the kind of respect as to set up these phoney baloney management boards and says “Yeah, we are going to give you half the seats on the board”. What kind of respect is that to show to a human being? It is like “You could not make it on your own, you could not do this unless we created this special situation for you so that you would have a chance to sit on these boards. If we do not do this, you cannot do it. You are not good enough to do it on your own”. I reject that 100% completely and totally.

Local control or local input into resource management can be a good thing but it should not be based on anything other than the fact that there are people who are local to the area and who have a vested interest in the decisions that may affect them and may affect the land they are living on. It should not be tied to membership in a native band. It should not be tied to membership in anything other than the community of interest that surrounds the area that could be affected by decisions that are made, environmental decisions, land use decisions and so on.

I will talk for a minute about the welfare state that has been built up around aboriginal people in this country. I am not sure if the House is aware that the dependency on welfare in this country by aboriginal people exceeds $1 billion at this time. It is growing faster than the rate of inflation and the rate of aboriginal population growth combined. That did not come from me, it came from the auditor general.

The auditor general also points out that over one four-year period the department spent an additional $1 billion over its regular spending for economic development. One billion dollars in addition to its regular spending because the department had this elite top down arrogant attitude that it could solve all the problems on reserves by micromanaging from Ottawa. Guess what happened.

That $1 billion expenditure translated into a progressive increase in the unemployment rate, the dependency rate and in the social assistance envelope that the department has to provide every year for social assistance on reserves. In other words, it had no affect. The auditor general said in his report that if it had any effect whatsoever, the affect would have been a negative one rather than a positive one. One billion dollars, it did not help the people it was designed to help and cost every taxpayer in this country a serious amount of money.

I want to talk about what the auditor general said in his most recent report to Parliament on aboriginal health care. The most revealing aspect of the report was that the Government of Canada and the Ministry of Health are so unconcerned about the fate and health of aboriginal people that over a 10 year period dependency on prescription drugs was actually facilitated by the department to the point where in one three month period there were more than 700 people who had 50 prescriptions or more for mood altering drugs. The government has known about this problem for 10 years. The auditor general said so and has harshly criticized the government because it has done absolutely nothing about it.

I submit that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is without accountability. The government is without accountability. What it is trying to do is window dress the whole affair by creating these so-called management boards and land claim agreements to try to give people the appearance that the government is actually concerned, that it is actually doing something. The reality is it sits on its hands and does nothing.

Look at the issue of the Stony reserve in Alberta. The people on the reserve had to cry out through the media. They lived under the threat of their houses being burned down before they could finally get the minister of Indian affairs, kicking and screaming, to agree a forensic audit of that band. Now we see, as a result of the forensic audit, charges are being laid. The truth is coming out. Hopefully the whole truth will come out. I still think there are still some people on that reserve who are concerned that the whole truth does come out.

Again this is the Liberal way. It is the way obfuscating what is really going on by creating the impression that something is being done about the very serious problems which exist on many Canadian reserves.

I was speaking with some aboriginal people yesterday who came from southern Ontario. While we agreed during the meeting that we would not agree on all points, at least we had some common ground. These people said they could not understand why a minister who had fiduciary responsibility to them was actually intervening in a court case and trying to undermine their position in that case. I will not get into the details of it. It is one more example of the Liberal way of speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. It is one more example of creating an illusion for the benefit of your political numbers in the next poll that you are actually doing something when you really are not.

I believe that aboriginal people across the country have caught on to the system. I think they know the system better than the government. The aboriginal people of this country are not going to be satisfied with these kinds of initiatives in the future. I submit to the House and to the aboriginal people of this country that the way out of this mess is for them to be included as full and equal partners in this democracy, for them to be afforded every opportunity as any other Canadian. The way for the future in Canada is the equality of all Canadians, recognizing that aboriginal peoples have unique culture, unique characteristics and a unique language.

I think most Canadians embrace the notion of that. Most Canadians find that something to be proud of, that we have this kind of a culture within our nation's boundaries. We have a culture that people from other parts of the world, Japan, Germany and so on, come over here to see for themselves. I have people coming to my riding from Japan who want to see for themselves aboriginal culture, who want to see a display of aboriginal culture, who want to watch a dance, who want to tour a museum or who want to view aboriginal art. I think that is a great thing for our country.

I submit to the House and to the aboriginal people of this country that being a country that embraces the notion of expressing our culture and our diversity does not mean entrenching inequality and special rights within the laws of our land. I submit that is not the way of the future for this country.

That is principally why I oppose this bill. I believe it is undemocratic. I believe it does not reflect the true values of Canadians and, most of all, I believe in the long run it will do nothing to assist aboriginal people who really want to assist themselves at the present time, who really want to have a future for themselves and their families within this country, who really want accountability, who really want to have an opportunity to see themselves in the future with the same opportunities and with the same economic circumstances as every other Canadian. That is why I oppose this bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo, crime prevention; the hon. member for Vancouver East, health.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Skeena for his speech. I have first of all a comment for the member for Calgary East, the previous speaker for the Reform Party.

We say in French he made une affirmation gratuite. I do not know how to translate it. It could be an unfounded assertion or misleading affirmation about the number of people sitting on the board, the next board and a future board. He talked about patronage. I want to let him know that on the planning board there will be five members for the Gwich'in and the Sahtu. There will be two members from the Gwich'in, there will be two members from the government, one coming from the federal government and the other one coming from the Northwest Territories government, and the four will name a president.

On the next one, the land and water board, there will be seventeen members. Of the seventeen members five will come from the Gwich'in, five will come from the Sahtu and three will be from the first nations, the Dogrib, the Deh Cho and the people from treaty No. 8 who are not part of the negotiations right now, and three other ones will be from governments, two from the federal government and one from the Northwest Territories government. That means we will have two members from the federal government and those sixteen will name a president.

On the environment impact assessment and review board, there will be eleven members, five from first nations, five from government and from the government there will be three from the federal government.

If we are looking at what this government has done as nomination for the Nunavik area we have named dozens and dozens of people for nomination there. If we named them it is because they are good people. They are dedicated people and competent people. All the nominations we have done for the Northwest Territories are very good nominations. What the member said before is really misleading the House.

The member for Skeena mentioned that he would like to have first nations as a full and equal partner. My question is very easy. Does he mean by full and equal partner that he and his party do not recognize the treaty signed between the first nations and the governments? Does he mean that equal and full partner means assimilation? Is this why the Reform Party is voting against the initiative to give aboriginal control over their future?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, when the member refers to treaties, in many cases in Canada treaties were signed more than 100 or 200 years ago. In the case of the Sahtu Dene and Metis and in the case of Gwich'in, those treaties were signed a very short while ago by this government in the last Parliament. These are not treaties the government was bound to 200, 300 or 400 years ago.

The government had a historic opportunity in negotiating with aboriginal peoples in Yukon and the Northwest Territories to change direction and say it was not going to go down the road it had been before because it did not work. We have seen the results and live with the results. It is not an accident that the aboriginal infant mortality rate is twice as high as for the rest of Canadians. It is not an accident that the social pathologies on reserves are so much worse than for other Canadians. It is not an accident that the suicide rate is six to seven times as high in reserve communities as it is elsewhere in Canada.

The Government of Canada has created welfare colonies right across this country, encouraged welfare colonies, built up a welfare dependency cycle around these people and put them in a position where it was very difficult, some would argue well nigh impossible, to break that welfare dependency cycle.

What is the government doing now? It is constructing more of the same. It is finding new and better ways to do the old thing which is separation and segregation rather than inclusion and equality. The people who pay the price every time, by far the highest price, are the aboriginal people who are signed into these treaties.

The government had a historic opportunity to do something different but it is so tunnel visioned and so caught up in the old ways. Here we are about to enter the 21st century and they are talking about 17th century thinking on that side. I cannot believe this.

I cannot believe these people do not understand democracy and democratic principles and that the fundamental principle of democracy is the equality of all people before the law. When those principles are violated there are consequences. The consequences in this case are going to be paid mostly by the aboriginal people who are affected by these agreements.

When the member looks at me and asks if I recognize that these people have rights, they have human rights and democratic rights. They ought to have the same rights as I. They have never been afforded these rights and it has been largely Liberal governments that have denied them those rights.

I would ask the hon. member not to look at me. There was no Reform Party 20, 30, 50, 100 or 200 years ago but there was a Liberal Party and that is where it came from.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to share a perspective of developmental boards, management boards of resources, our lands, our rivers and our waters throughout Canada.

If the government, in its wisdom, had to recognize aboriginal peoples on the vision of the future of all peoples on this land, aboriginal people would be a majority in this House of Commons. Aboriginal people would be a majority in the Senate. Aboriginal people would be a majority on the Supreme Court of Canada, at the infancy stage of this country. We were the majority of the population of Canada.

Today, in hindsight, government is preparing to acknowledge that aboriginal people can have a say on the land use policies and resource use policies of this country and in the regions of Yukon and Northwest Territories.

It is a step in the right direction. I welcome that in my own constituency with regard to the Athabasca lakes and the uranium mining that takes place there. We do not have resource development boards to govern or to look at the future of the environmental, economic and social impact the hon. member is so concerned about.

Resources are the wealth of the country. Without income there would be no economic cycle. To create new wealth the resources are being tapped away. If we include aboriginal people at this level it is a start. It may not be the answer for all, but the Dene, Innu and Cree all have a vested interest in investing their traditional lifestyle of time immemorial in the future development of the entire country.

I challenge the Reform member who boldly stated the country was going in the wrong direction, or had a history of making mistakes, to share with us the vision of the Reform Party for a brighter future for aboriginal people.

The aboriginal people signed treaties in recognition of the British and French nations along with the Dene, the Mohawk and the Haida, all nations of North America. They were willing to recognize the power of the country and the resources that need to be developed for the betterment of all but in co-operation and with respect for each other.

The management boards are a step in the right direction. I ask for his analysis of the new millennium and the relationship between Canada and the aboriginal people.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to respond very succinctly.

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I disagree with him on one point he made. He said that resources were the wealth of the country. I beg to differ. People are the wealth of the country and resources are the tools. I submit the bill being debated today provides no vision for the future.

The very best we could do for aboriginal people is to treat them as equals and with respect, the same respect we have for everybody else.

There are areas with high populations of aboriginal people. There are concerns about land use. There are concerns about resource extraction. This is not because of the aboriginal people but because they have a vested interest in the land. They live there. They are local to the area. I certainly believe they ought to have the right to exercise some control over the decision making but not on the basis of being aboriginal.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to address the House for the first time. I would ask for a little latitude to mention a few things before talking about Bill C-6.

It is certainly an honour to be in the House to represent the good people of Dewdney—Alouette. May I begin by acknowledging the people who chose me to represent them in parliament.

The riding of Dewdney—Alouette encompasses a number of diverse communities which stretch from Pitt Meadows in the west to Mission, to Harrison Hot Springs and to Agassiz in the east. It is a diverse mix of urban and rural settings. For many people in the riding it is the last frontier of affordable housing so that they can work in Vancouver.

The forestry and fishing industries are vital to the economic make-up of the area. I salute the people of those communities involved in that work. It is certainly a beautiful place to visit. I would say it is the most beautiful riding in Canada.

I acknowledge a few of my constituents, in particular a few who live in Mission and those who live right in my house. Those are the most important constituents, my wife Wendy and my children Jordana, Reanne, Kaelin and Graedon. It is this support, as it is for all of us who sit in the House, that make it possible to make this commitment to our country. I thank them personally for that. Family is a very important part of my life. We all make sacrifices to be in the House. Members of all parties appreciate those who are at home supporting us. Family is the life of our country.

It is time for those who have been silent for a long time to get involved. I talked to a number who were disillusioned with the governance of the country. Apathy is at an all time high. People are disillusioned. I believe it is time we restored the commitment of the House to the people of the country.

I am proud to be a member of a party committed to restoring the confidence of people in their government through real structural parliamentary reform. That is where Bill C-6 can be addressed. While it is well intended it does not deal with real structural reforms needed to address the concerns of the Mackenzie Valley.

My own riding has eight bands represented, the Sto:lo nation being the largest in the area. Several bands are part of the Sto:lo nation: the Chehalis, the Douglas, the Katzie, the Lakahahmen, the Samahquam, the Scowlitz, the people of Seabird Island and the people of Skookum Chuck.

As my colleagues have mentioned before when talking about the bill, we recognize the validity of the goals of the legislation and the need to implement commitments made by Canada under land claims agreements. Land and water management and protection of the environment in the Mackenzie Valley are issues of importance both to the residents of the region and to Canadians in general.

Our objection and what I would like to focus on is the creation of another level of bureaucracy as was mentioned earlier by some of my colleagues. I received a phone call during the election campaign from one of my own constituents, a member of the aboriginal community. As my hon. colleague from Skeena mentioned, a co-dependency relationship seems to have been established between the federal government and many aboriginal peoples.

The young lady phoned me and said “I am really tired of the process I have been through. I just want to be a Canadian. I just want to be someone who is treated the same as all other people in Canada”.

Our party's focus on equality and the establishment of equality for aboriginal peoples and all peoples of Canada strikes at the heart of this young lady's comments and a need for real structural change.

When people bring forward legislation they have an idea of what they are doing, at least we hope they do. We argue that the level of bureaucracy to be created would not serve the people of the area well. It would hinder true economic development of the area and the needs of the people there. It is certainly something that needs to be addressed and examined.

Members on this side would like to focus on a new relationship with the aboriginal peoples of Canada, one that focuses on the equality of all Canadians including aboriginal peoples. We have seen and heard from a number of a constituents in ridings across the country of terrible things that have happened in their personal lives. We think about the fact that real people are affected by legislation. We see the effects of legislation on many people in our aboriginal communities and the co-dependent relationship which seems to have developed over the last several decades.

I have spoken with people from aboriginal communities, the rank and file people on different reserves in my riding. People are looking for involvement at the grassroots level and at the governing structure of reserves.

Because the rights of each individual on the reserves are not the same we all know of different stories of people who have been abused. Those are things that need to be addressed. The best way to address them is with fundamental changes, structural changes to the system, the implementation of programs and the implementation of an aboriginal affairs policy that addresses all people of all communities and has a primary function of equality.

Members on this side fully support honouring treaties according to their original intent and court decisions. We also support that aboriginal people be part of the process. We see some trouble with the bill as was mentioned by some of my colleagues before. The levels of bureaucracy would hinder the involvement of rank and file individual people of the Mackenzie Valley. We see the principle of the implementation of the boards as a problem.

The structure of the proposed legislation does not address the real concerns of changing the system to address the needs of individual people. That is where our objections would lie. Many times people will say different things about different groups of people. We fully support aboriginal people.

We look at different people who have come to our offices with troubling circumstances. We shake our heads and wonder how it could have happened. We want to focus on helping all Canadians to achieve equality and to add to this great country.

We support aboriginal people, rank and file individuals who often tend not to have a real voice in their own communities. We see leadership in some bands—not all of course—that does not fully recognize the contributions of all members of the local community.

We object to Bill C-6 on the basis of a number of principles that were mentioned earlier. We look forward to being able to see real parliamentary reform and structural reform in our aboriginal communities to give them a real say at the local level.

As my colleague from Skeena mentioned earlier in his analogy of kingdoms and fiefdoms, the power structure disables the people at the rank and file level from being involved. In essence it shuts down the ability for real involvement by people. It was a very good analogy. We on this side of the House would like to work with the government toward looking at fundamental structural changes for the good of our aboriginal people. The equality of all Canadians is important.

Another person I did not mention or thank at the beginning of my speech whom I would like to thank now is not with us. It is my father. He was a veteran. He served the country and fought in World War II. He really instilled a sense of democracy in me personally. We had many debates about freedoms and democracies. I saw the scars and the pain he carried with him from the horrors of war, the things he saw and had to endure. In fact he lost many of his friends. Even 50 years after the fact tears would well up in his eyes as he thought back to the friends and mates he had lost in the war.

The battles fought by our veterans were for the equality of all Canadians, so that all people would have a say. That is the principle for which he and his colleagues fought.

We would like to see that implemented. We would like to see expressed equality for all Canadians and our aboriginal people who have not had that full opportunity, the full rights and privileges as all other citizens of Canada have had.

I will close by restating our concern for the aboriginal communities and the fact that in Canada we would like to see equality for all people, to bring about a healing, to bring about concern for all people, to help solve the injustices of the past which previous structural policies have put in place. It is time for a change, as my hon. colleague mentioned, not a time to go down the same road. It is time to address these factors of equality and that all Canadians are equal before the law.

The Mackenzie Valley is a great area, part of a great country. While legislation can be well intended, we see structural problems with the implementation of these boards. We need to have that in place in order for it to work well and it needs to be right before implementing it. That is where my main objection lies.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for listening intently to my comments. It is an honour and a privilege to be here and I hope I have many opportunities to speak on different bills.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from the riding of Dewdney—Alouette and I listened to my colleagues from the Reform Party and to their contradictions and misunderstandings about this bill.

One member stated that these new boards will have no power and will be an empty shell. A number of members from the Reform Party stated the opposite, that they will have too many powers. Some are scared about the cost.

The Mackenzie River is long and the area is huge. The Mackenzie River is 4,000 kilometres long. What we are doing right now is transferring power from DIAND to the people of the Mackenzie Valley.

The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, the Regional Land Use Planning Board and the Environmental Impact Review Board will be transferred from DIAND to them. Right now we have many senior employees from DIAND travelling weekly to the Northwest Territories. That costs a lot of money because it is a very large area. They do not move from Yellowknife to Inuvik just like that. It is impossible. We are transferring the power to the people of the First Nations.

I have one question for my friend. How could the Reform Party say this bill is no good for aboriginal people knowing that the elected majority in the legislature of the Northwest Territories is made up of aboriginal people, knowing that the Premier of the Northwest Territories is Metis, knowing that the Minister of Renewable Resources in the Northwest Territories is Metis, knowing that the Gwich'in Council is in favour of this bill, knowing that the Sahtu Council is also in favour of this bill? How could he state that this bill is not good for the First Nations when all the First Nations people in this region are in favour of it?

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

I thank the hon. member for his question.

First, I would look at the leadership versus rank and file aboriginal peoples. We are focusing on the relationship between the two and the fact that while the elected leadership of the area may be in favour of this bill we are looking at the actual process, the actual implementation.

My colleague opposite mentioned returning power to the aboriginal people in the area. We would question, then, why this great bureaucracy, this great number of people involved on the boards from the federal government side? Perhaps we should be turning it over to the local people, with accountability and responsibility being placed on the people within that area, similar to a municipal type of government. That is what my response would be.

It is basically the process we are talking about. The power structure and the implementation of the plan are what we are concerned about. We are not concerned about the intent of the bill. We are concerned about its implementation and its practicality to the people of the area.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from Dewdney—Alouette on his maiden speech and his characterization of his riding. I am sure we all remember when we said equally glowing things. I appreciate that because it makes us remember why we are here.

I worked with the previous member for Churchill, Elijah Harper. He is a Cree Indian. I remember an exchange with the Reform Party in the last House when Elijah was dealing with a bill much like the bill which is before the House today. It was a bill which gave powers to a group of aboriginal people, a unified people. Reform members were saying that it would be far too expensive and that if we carried on that way British Columbia would end up as a native community and all the other people would have to leave and that sort of nonsense.

Elijah stood and he said “My colleagues in the Reform Party, you just do not get it, do you? You do not have the foggiest notion of what I am talking about. I am talking about my people, my ancestors, the people who have inhabited this land for some 10,000 to 15,000 years. They lived here without the benefit of gasoline, internal combustion engines, high powered rifles, airplanes, helicopters and a lot of other things”. I am glad Elijah is not dead. He would be rolling in his grave if he had heard the speech today.

The member used a very poor analogy. He suggested that perhaps the native people were not democratic. Surely my colleague knows that one of the problems is that the 625 First Nations consider themselves to be independent, individual First Nations. They have a system of government and a way of operating.

Before we came along they traded right across the country, from California to Nova Scotia, from Alaska to Florida. They worked out things together. They had regions. They did a little fighting now and then and took a few prisoners. They took a scalp or two, but most of the time they settled their differences at councils, by talking. We have to learn that.

Then there is this nonsense about them all wanting to have equality. That is a very hard term to get hold of. My friends in the Reform Party use it without due consideration. What they mean is, we throw the native people in with everybody else to follow the same rules. If they are in B.C., they will follow the rules of B.C. If they are in Vancouver, they will follow the rules of Vancouver. If they are somewhere else, they will follow those rules. That is not what they want at all. That is not why we have spent a long time trying to redress the balance.

Yes, former governments and people thought we could assimilate the natives. They were not educated. They were savages. They did not have a system of government because we trampled on it. We did not pay much attention to it.

Some of the early treaties, yes, we have read about them. They sat, said nice things to one another and they welcomed them to share this country. That is what they want to do again. That is what this is bill is aiming toward. It is going to take time, goodwill. It is going to take some knowledge of history and some knowledge of what is involved. I do not hear much of that on the other side. I hear catch words and buzzwords.

If my colleague is so concerned about his native people, maybe he would tell us why his party opposed the Nisga'a agreement? Why are Reformers afraid that these terrible native people are going to take over the whole country and throw us out?

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to address the comments of my hon. colleague. I thank him for the compliments at the beginning of his comments. I do not thank him for his comments after.

I do not see Mr. Harper today. I guess he was not supported by his people in a re-election bid. The hon. member talked about ramblings and he actually called aboriginals savages. We would have nothing to do with that kind of comment.

He talked about power structures and abuses of former governments. We agree with that. We are looking for a change in the balance. We are listening to rank and file aboriginal people. There are people that are concerned with power structures within their reserves. Not to acknowledge that is to ignore the facts and needs to be addressed. Equality is not a buzzword here. It is something we believe in and it is something we are moving and working toward. That is where our policy lies.

We have treaty advisory committees in British Columbia. I had an opportunity to talk to all the mayors in my riding and they have great concern about the process. Their great concern is because they have a minor part. The municipalities are living hand in hand with the aboriginal communities but they do not have an opportunity to sit down at the table with each other. The process is structured so that they have observer status but not participatory status. They are concerned about that.

When the federal government leaves, the people of both communities are left to work out the relationship between them. We would like to see that addressed so that they would have an opportunity to work together.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the debate on this bill is not about the degree of respect for aboriginal people held on one side of the House or the other. I know the Liberals would like to make it a debate on that and go into their usual rants about how they see themselves as being the purest of the pure as far as having the best of motives and everyone else's motives are rotten and suspect. That is nonsense.

Members need to examine some of these measures on their merits. They need to get away from some of the rhetoric and some of the emotionally buzzwords that are used, unfortunately, by government, I hope not to obscure clear headed debate on the merits of these proposals. Certainly it should not deter people who are examining these bills in the public domain.

Bill C-6 is called the Mackenzie Valley land and water management act. I assume this is what this bill is about. It is about good management of the resources on the land and the water resources of a huge, beautiful valuable area of our country. It is rightly said that the people who live in that area should have the biggest say in the way the area is managed. That is the principle that we have tried to use right across Canada. Unfortunately we get made in Ottawa solutions that do not benefit the people in a particular area or region of Canada. We have been pretty blunt about pointing that out when it happens. We have just seen in B.C. how the mismanagement by Ottawa of our salmon stocks has erupted into a huge concern and fight with real economic consequences. It is not just people in one or another area of the country who suffer under bad management from this government and I think we need to point that out.

Let us examine the kind of management structure that is being put into place by this bill. First, the bill creates four new boards. It creates a land use planning board in the Gwich'in settlement area. It also creates a land use planning board in the Sahtu settlement area. Then it sets up a Mackenzie Valley land and water board with a regional panel in each of those two settlement areas and it sets up an environmental impact review board for the entire Mackenzie Valley.

The Mackenzie Valley land and water board can create panels besides the two that are set up in the Gwich'in settlement area and the Sahtu settlement area, and of course as other land claims are settled there are other settlement areas and presumably other land use planning boards and land and water boards.

And so we have a proliferation of boards. This is nice. It gives a lot of people involvement and a say in what happens but the simple question is does this lead to power or to gridlock. We can say this scheme is wonderful, we are going to include everybody, we are going to give everybody we can a say and they can sit around the table and give their opinion and make a decision about how this happens. Then a little ways away another group will do the same thing.

Is not the whole purpose of this to properly manage the land and water resources of a very valuable region, to manage them for the benefit of the people there? Just to say that everyone gets a shot at this and is this not wonderful is simply nonsense.

The stated purpose of the bill is to provide an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley. That is a nice purpose. Integrated sounds very nice. That means coming together, meshing, working harmoniously and smoothly together for the protection of the environment and resources that are so important to people of any region, whether it be fish in British Columbia, whether it be hydroelectric power in Newfoundland and Labrador or whatever it is that people are very concerned about the management of land and water resources.

Is this system integrated? By any normal, rational, intelligent definition I cannot see any reason to suppose that this is going to be integrated. There are separate boards and panels being set up in each of the settlement areas and there is a total absence of any logical, coherent framework for doing this. It does not say how the members of these boards are to be selected. It does not give any criteria for eligibility. It has no process for the appointment. It does not lay out who is responsible for what.

There are no guidelines as to how a board decides what is allowable and what is not. It does not say that if a development affects both regions or in future maybe multi-settlement regions if one board decides one thing and then another board has a different viewpoint who sorts all this out.

Are these projects supposed to be sorted out by the courts at enormous expense, enormous delays, enormous frustration where with the resources everyone throws up their hands, as they are starting to do in Voisey's Bay in Labrador, and wishes they had never started the whole thing? Then the potential benefits for the people in the region are completely lost.

I heard the rant by the previous questioner of the last speaker about this wonderful heritage of aboriginal people. The Liberals are not the only ones who know and love, have worked with or have family members who are aboriginal people. They want the same advantages, the same educational opportunities, the same goods and services, the same security and employment opportunities as any other Canadian.

The resources of a particular region are there to be developed to give that quality of life to the people who live there. We must have a way to make sure that there is a logical, well thought out and workable solution so that the people of a region can decide how to protect, enhance and properly develop the resources, but not in such a hodge-podge, mish-mash way that no coherent decision is ever possible.

This decision making process is under resource. It takes a great deal of technical expertise to do environmental impact assessments and all other assessments that have to be made. The development companies will say if they bring in this development or do this or that, it will be great. However, when those kinds of proposals are being evaluated there must be the same kind of technical expertise.

However, there is no indication in this bill that the technical resources will be available to the decision makers who are being put in place. To just put people in place and tell them to go for it and decide without giving them the resources to make well informed decisions is nonsense. Again, the bill does not allow that.

I was in the last Parliament when Reform opposed some of the measures that were brought forward on these settlements. It was on the basis that if we are to set up power, authority, responsible decision making structures, it must be done in a way which will benefit the people involved. We cannot have chaos and expect anyone to benefit.

I challenge the government to clarify the structure of these multi-boards it is putting place. By the way, this is not the only decision making structure in that area. There is the territorial government and the councils of the people. There will be these levels of decision makers, government and authorities. Human nature being what it is, there will also be competing interests and viewpoints.

I have not seen anything in the bill that would reassure me as a legislator, as someone who has the responsibility to examine the structure to see whether it does serve the interests of the people who will be affected. I am not at all convinced that this structure is workable.

To say that it includes aboriginal people in the decision making and therefore it must be wonderful and good and anyone who says it is not must have some sinister motive is complete nonsense. It would be absolutely irresponsible to accept the bill and its structure simply on that soft, fuzzy, mushy basis.

The people who will be affected are looking to us to put in place a workable structure, one they can operate under. In the House we have standing orders, procedure in committees, rules of procedure and Beauchesne. Even then to your sorrow, Mr. Speaker, sometimes order and coherence do not always carry the day. That is the way institutions and organizations and decision making bodies operate. They have to be structured and under some kind of regulatory process which is clearly laid out so that people know what their responsibilities and jurisdictions are and what is allowable and what is not.

Just to say that this is going to happen by magic is like blowing up a print shop and saying you are going to get a complete novel from the debris.

We in the House and this government have a responsibility when we put in structures and make regulatory changes. The goal is laudable. I do not think anybody in this House would say that we should not have environmental protection for the northern regions or good management of land and water resources. Nobody here is saying that.

What we and the opposition are saying to the government is that instead of putting our hands over our hearts and saying we are being inclusive and allowing people to have a say, let us put a structure in place where we have a say in a way that is going to get some results.

If we in this House could just get up and shout at each other and say whatever we wanted whenever we wanted with no structure, no regulations and no standing orders, we would not be able to carry on the business of this country. It is the same with any organization or decision making body that is put into place. There must be some clearly developed lines of how this is going to work. This is entirely missing in this bill. Maybe the parliamentary secretary can reassure us that there are some regulations that are going to be put into place that will remedy this defect. I have not seen them but if they are not there they sure should be.

At this point I think it would be completely irresponsible to foist on the people of a huge, important and valuable region of this country this kind of a hodge-podge management system. I urge members of this House to either see the government rectify these defects or to vote down this bill until these defects are rectified.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague across the way. There were some key words, that it is not workable, we have to examine the structure. She also said that it was irresponsible. The responsibility is not in the bill, the responsibility is standing up on one's feet and criticizing something by saying it is not workable, it is not this and it is not that.

If my colleague across the way has some great ideas that she wants to bring forward I am sure this side will be interested in listening. However, let us not call something irresponsible when it is not. The responsibility here is criticizing something and not putting something down on the table. That is the way the Reform Party has always been. If it wants to call a spade a spade, let us not say the sky is falling. Responsibility is being elected to this place.

If the government does not see its way and the great party across the way has some sense in where it wants us to go, put it on the table. Do not just stand and criticize. If it has some constructive ideas, bring them forward instead of criticizing.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member was not part of the Liberal contingent when it was in opposition because as an observer of the political scene I almost never saw it bring forth anything constructive. The criticisms of the rat pack were a big example of the order of the day. It seemed to be its specialty.

Unlike the Liberal opposition, the Reform opposition has been very careful to bring forth constructive alternatives on major issues where it disagrees with government. We were the first opposition, for example, to propose an alternative budget. We were the first opposition to propose substantial changes to the Canada pension plan which we knew was not working even before the Liberals finally admitted it. In area after area we have brought forth constructive alternatives.

If the government does not have the resources or the brain power to figure out how to bring forward a workable, logical and constructive framework for the management of resources then it probably should resign and let somebody in who can do it.

However, if it is going to get on with the job then the principles it should go on is that there should be clearly defined jurisdiction, responsibility and a line of authority and decision making that is identified, laid out and that people can refer to when these matters go forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first of all thank my colleague for his speech.

My first comment is that I am sure he did not read the bill. He is talking about the criteria for naming the people to the board. There is just one criteria for naming people to boards, and that is competence. I hope by raising this question in the House he does not feel it means the First Nations are not competent.

Second, the member talks about court, about delay and about frustration. We are just replacing what we are doing now. We are devolving. We are giving back to the people living in the Mackenzie Valley what they should have had long ago.

The member said that the boards are not integrated. It is totally the opposite. This system is integrated because the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board will end those issues relating to the valley. It is integrated, totally integrated. One thing is that the GNWT supports this bill because it is integrated valley wide. It is for the people living there.

My question is quite simple. Why does the member of the Reform Party want to impose her view and not take into consideration the remarks, the views of the people, the wishes of the people living in that area?

We told that to the premier of the Northwest Territories and he agreed. The bands living there agree. The minister of renewable resources agrees. The people and the Government of the Northwest Territories agree.

Why does the member not take this into consideration? Why does she always want to impose her view and not take the views of the First Nations?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my view is very simple. That is whatever regulatory and management scheme is put into place must be clear and workable. I would challenge the parliamentary secretary to find anybody who would disagree with that view, including the aboriginal people themselves who are most affected by this scheme. That is the whole point. They deserve the very best. I think it is repugnant to suggest that somehow competence is related to one's view of aboriginal people.

Those are the kinds of tactics that the Liberals continually use when you criticize them. If you criticize something the Liberals do, then you are criticizing the people who might be involved. If you criticize some kind of social program that the Liberals set up, then you are criticizing the people who are accessing the program. This is complete nonsense. I think the Liberals need to get away from those kinds of tactics and on to some valuable, logical and proper examination of what they are doing.

If the criterion is competence, then what is competence? There are all kinds of people who are competent but competent in different things. What kind of competence do we need for people who are managing land and water resources? What kind of background do they need? What kind of knowledge do they need? What kind of perspective of the area do they need? Those are the kinds of things that need to be spelled out.

If the best that the parliamentary secretary can come up with is the bare word competence, then surely we are in bigger trouble than I even thought we were.

I can well imagine that the people of the area are in total agreement that they themselves should have the decision making authority and the authority to manage the resources in their own area. If the management scheme, which is the only point I am making, will lead to gridlock, confusion and disarray instead of to clear, proper and effective decision making, then nobody is well served, whether they are competent or not.

I would ask this government to show a little competence and realistically address the very serious issues that I am raising, that the opposition is raising, instead of indulging in cheap shots and getting away from the real issues that are so important to the future of this area.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I find so interesting about what has gone on in this debate is that none of us would be debating this if it had not been for the excesses of the Mulroney era. All of the legislation from which flowed this current bill was legislation that was initiated during the Mulroney era. These very Liberals in government who are now defending every aspect of every agreement are basically defending the excesses of the Mulroney era.

In those heady days before there was effective opposition in this Parliament to talk about some of the potential downstream problems associated with some of the legislation in the north, we ended up with agreements that were constitutionally entrenched. This led to commitments being made in the north which are now leading to a circumstance where this government is attempting to cover up the cracks and deal with some very problematic circumstances in terms of resource development, how to operate the bureaucracy and how to operate governance in the north.

We had a circumstance here where a member asked why we did not come up with some constructive solutions. Last January I presented a paper on the very subject of how the governance of the western arctic could operate the western Northwest Territories after the creation of Nunavut which we all know is coming and very quickly it will be upon us, the creation of a new territory in the eastern arctic that is a province in everything but name with new governance. We already have the contiguous territory of the Yukon. Left between those two circumstances is a territory that many people are calling the western Northwest Territories. Some people are calling it the western arctic.

Presently the whole seat of government for the Northwest Territories resides in Yellowknife which contains half the population of the residual territory after the creation of Nunavut. Several land claims agreements were initiated and legislated in the last Parliament but they all began during the Tory regime. There are competing interests between tribal groupings, Metis and non-natives. They are often at odds as to what the future arrangement should be in the western arctic.

So it is ridiculous to assert that there is a made in the north solution when it comes to this Mackenzie Valley land and water management act that is singular. It is certainly anything but singular. Bringing this whole arrangement into a workable fashion is turning out to be a very complicated arrangement indeed.

As we know, in terms of resource development the north is a warehouse resources. We need to generate interest and debate in southern Canada on the fate of what goes on in the north. We do not get enough opportunity to debate this very important issue.

Half the people who live in the western territory which wholly contains the Mackenzie Valley live in Yellowknife. We went through a constitutional proposal to try to figure out a way to govern that territory, given all of the aboriginal settlements that have already occurred and those that are likely to occur to try to tie all the community arrangements into that.

After a very lengthy study, my ultimate conclusion was that the best solution would be to carry out the essential housekeeping changes to the current Northwest Territories Act which are necessary to take into account the upcoming division. The western Northwest Territories could readily continue to operate under the amended Northwest Territories Act for the foreseeable future.

The Government of the Northwest Territories putting more service and program delivery responsibilities into the hands of the communities should continue to be encouraged. That is what has been happening because of the reduction in federal transfers during the last Parliament.

When we look at practical and pragmatic ways to deal with resource management in the Mackenzie Valley we have to remember that we have constitutionally entrenched commitments which flow from the agreements already in place. However there is a better way.

There are some laudable goals in the bill. It is not so much the goals that we are concerned about. It is the actual provisions within the bill.

It is important to note that the Northwest Territories is 90% dependent on federal funding. In order to move away from that, the main industry that can accomplish it is mining. There is a warehouse of resources and it is mostly mining oriented.

The BHP mine proposal which will be a major stimulus to the economy of Yellowknife and the western Northwest Territories would not have occurred if it had not been proposed by a large corporation with patience and if the deposit had not occurred outside of one of the litigious land claims settlement proposals. There are lots of warnings from the mining sector that what is being put in place has all of the pitfalls of leading us into the circumstance where those kinds of developments will be very much put at risk.

The mining sector has a world full of experience. We know that most of the large mining concerns and many of the small ones, and more and more Canadians are operating in an international theatre. They view some of the concerns in several ways.

There are new obstacles to resource development in what has been considered by many to be a friendly environment. There are concerns about everything from the staking of mineral claims to a confused enforcement policy.

The reliance on litigation to solve problems when it comes to the way this new board will operate came out clearly in an information session held by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the north. Concerns were raised about the vulnerability of this new process to delay tactics by certain parties. Then there is the lack of clarity in the process for selecting members.

I certainly have not gone through the full list, but what is clear is that the substantial amendments presented by the Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines revolved around two things. One was the lack of clarity in the law and the rules, and the other was that the new system is seriously under-resourced. Those concerns need to be dealt with in a very clear way in this legislation. There should be amendments made to that effect. We would certainly support them.

It concerns me that we do not recognize the complexity of the legislation which we are dealing with.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

If the hon. member for Vancouver Island North would forgive me, it now being 5.30 p.m. we must interrupt the proceedings. I understand that the hon. member will have the remainder of his time when this bill comes up next.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the several deferred recorded divisions.

Call in the members.

Before the taking of the vote:

[The Speaker]

I have been approached by a few members and I want to clarify something. Most of the House will know this already. When we are taking votes may I please encourage you not to leave your seats. We have to keep track of everyone. If you are going to be here for the vote, please stay in your seats.

The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion and the amendment.

Supply

[The Speaker]

The first recorded division is on the amendment relating to the Business of Supply, pursuant to order made Thursday, October 23.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 17

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment carried.

The next question is on the main motion, as amended. The question is as follows: Mr. Charest, seconded by Mrs. Wayne, moved:

That this House recognize the urgent need for action—

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.