Debates of Oct. 29th, 1997

Parliament Of Canada Act

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-13, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois.

It is definitely appropriate and timely for Parliament to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, so as to reflect what happened on June 2, when Canadians and Quebeckers elected 301 representatives from five different political parties to the House of Commons.

This reality was not recognized in the former act, or in the current Parliament of Canada Act, until the tabling of this amendment, whereby the Board of Internal Economy, which is basically the administrative body for the House of Commons, now recognizes two new official political parties in the House, namely the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party.

However, we would have liked the amendment to also recognize that Canadians and Quebeckers elected to this House not only members from five different political parties, but a specific number of MPs from each of these parties.

I think that if there is one conclusion we can draw from the June 2 election, it is that it has shown how fragmented Canada really is, with five parties, basically representing the five regions of Canada, being elected to this place. The Liberal Party, of course, is primarily concentrated in Ontario; the Bloc Quebecois, as we know, is primarily—in fact exclusively—concentrated in Quebec; the Reform Party has its stronghold in western Canada, except for a few small pockets of resistance from other political parties, and the maritimes are divided between the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party.

That having been said, the point I was making is that there is, in this House, a certain level of party representation that we would have liked to have seen reflected in every body of this House. We have fought to have the Bloc Quebecois adequately represented on the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy.

We must recognize however that, while the bill before us today, to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, recognizes the fact that five parties are represented in the House of Commons, it does not recognize the level of representation of each party in this House for the Board of Internal Economy.

Let me give an example. In the June 2 election, the Bloc Quebecois won 44 seats, or approximately 14.7% of the seats in this House. Under the formula proposed by the government, the Bloc Quebecois ends up a level of representation of 9% on the Board of Internal Economy, which is less than its level of representation in this House. Compared to the representation of all other parties, the Bloc Quebecois is the only one to be penalized in any significant way by the distribution of the seats on the Board of Internal Economy.

The hon. government House leader was right in pointing out that the negotiations between the various political parties were long, painstaking and difficult, but also fruitful. He is right in saying that they were fruitful, because we in the Bloc Quebecois wanted to show our good faith in allowing this Parliament to function properly. We especially wanted to allow the two political parties that have made a new beginning in this House, in this 36th Parliament, to sit on the Board of Internal Economy, as provided for in the bill under consideration.

However, as I pointed out, the Bloc Quebecois is being penalized to some extent because we gave the Bloc Quebecois, the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party the same representation on the Board of Internal Economy, that is to say, one representative. This means that the Bloc Quebecois, which has a few more elected members than the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party combined, now has one less member on the Board of Internal Economy than the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party combined. It is evident then that the principle of proportional representation is not being respected at that level.

I would say—I see my colleague, the chief government whip, nodding to me, and he agrees with me on this—that the negotiations were difficult but also, as I said, fruitful. These negotiations on proportional representation have been held in just about every area since we arrived here on June 2. Of course, on the Board of Internal Economy—and we can see the result today—but also in the case of the Parliamentary Internship Program, the Bloc Quebecois is penalized again by the formula that the various political parties in this House have chosen.

As for House committees, proportional representation was of course recognized for each committee, but when you take all the committees together, the Bloc Quebecois has exactly the same number of members as the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party. Following these negotiations which were, I repeat, difficult but fruitful, this principle of proportional representation was finally recognized when the Bloc Quebecois was allowed two more representatives, one on the foreign affairs and international trade committee and another on the human resources development committee.

But the same problem still crops up, also in connection with the composition of the parliamentary delegations. With all of the good faith that has led us to a consensus on Bill C-13, I am calling upon the good will of all of the colleagues in this House so that, in all of the bodies of the House of Commons, we will acknowledge the will of the people of Canada and of Quebec that was manifested in the composition of this House, which gives Bloc Quebecois members 14.7% of the representation in this House. We would like to see that proportion respected as far as possible in all bodies of this House.

That having been said, to pick up on the words of the hon. leader of the government in the House, it was our desire, along with all the political formations present, to ensure that, to demonstrate that this Parliament can function properly, doing things well regardless of the differences of opinion which separate us.

But, as the House leader of the Reform Party has also said, the Board of Internal Economy is a body which operates on a consensual basis. In other words, the partisan aspect, the confrontational aspect, does not exist within the Board of Internal Economy and this, I believe, has fostered the desire of all political formations to move ahead with this amendment.

Last of all, and the point on which I shall conclude since it appears that the wish is to move through all of the business of the House quickly today, on Bill C-13, and the amendments in which my colleagues and I had a hand, is that I wish to make a clarification. The government was rather understanding when it agreed to not increase its representation on the Board of Internal Economy and it deserves praise for doing so.

Still, Bill C-13 includes an amendment allowing the government to include a member of the Privy Council on the Board of Internal Economy, which was not the case before.

Section 52 of the current Parliament of Canada Act reads:

1. (2) In the event of the death, disability or absence of the Speaker, five members of the Board, of whom one shall be the Deputy Speaker or a member of the Board designated by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker to chair the meeting, constitute a quorum.

No reference is made to a member of the Privy Council. Until now, it was of course the government's prerogative to decide whether of not to send a member of the Privy Council. However, the proposed amendment expressly provides for the presence of such a member in the above-mentioned situation.

The amendment reads: “In the event of the death, disability or absence of the Speaker, five members of the Board, of whom one shall be a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada appointed under subsection 50(2), constitute a quorum. The members present shall designate a member from among themselves to chair the meeting”.

This is a change to include something which, until now, was not expressly provided for in the Parliament of Canada Act. The amendment formally includes a member of the Queen's Privy Council on the committee made up of five members of the Board of Internal Economy.

I will conclude by thanking all those who took part in the negotiations leading up to today's consensus. We are pleased to be a part of this consensus, in spite of everything I pointed out.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to permit New Democrats and Progressive Conservative representatives to sit on the Board of Internal Economy.

The amendment of this piece of legislation is in keeping with the spirit of parliamentary reform that brought the Board of Internal Economy as we know it into existence. I refer to the reforms of the House of Commons which followed from the special committee on the reform of the House of Commons, chaired by the Hon. Jim McGrath in 1985-86.

Fewer and fewer of us will recall that prior to that time the Board of Internal Economy was run entirely by the government. Cabinet ministers and government backbenchers sat on the Board of Internal Economy. There was no opposition representation on the board.

This had dubious advantages in the sense that opposition members never had to take any responsibility for the management of the House of Commons or for the decisions taken in that context. It was the feeling of the special committee on the reform of the House of Commons that the House, like other parliaments in the democratic world, should involve the opposition in the management of its affairs.

A recommendation was made in the report of the special committee, sometimes known as the McGrath report, which led to legislation that permitted members of the opposition to sit on the Board of Internal Economy.

As with many things we tend to be creatures of our own time and context. The legislation drawn up at that time assumed a three party House for ever and ever. The legislation was drawn up to reflect that reality, which turned out to be a contingent and temporary reality.

We found ourselves in this Parliament with five recognized parties and a piece of legislation that did not permit the spirit of reform to be lived up to unless there was an amendment such as the one we now have before us. Once passed it will enable all five parties to be represented on the Board of Internal Economy, the spirit of the McGrath report to be respected in its entirety.

I am very glad, as the last surviving member of the McGrath committee in this House, to see that this report is still alive and well, in some respects anyway, and that the Parliament of Canada Act is being amended accordingly.

To a couple of things that were said by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois I would want to take issue with at least one thing he said when he spoke about the regionalization of the House.

I know he was not intentionally oversimplifying but I want to remind him that there are New Democrats from the west. It is not only Reformers in the west. In my home province of Manitoba NDP members outnumber Reform members four to two.

I notice the obsession with proportionality. Agreed that the Bloc has put aside this attachment to proportionality just as the government had to put aside its initial position in respect of the Board of Internal Economy in order for us to come to a workable solution on this.

I commend the Bloc for that but I ask the member to reflect on the fact that the position of the Bloc and of Quebec in general is not always one of strict proportionality when it comes to other matters having to do with the Constitution, having to do with amending formulas, having to do with the percentage of Quebec seats in Parliament.

In many other debating contexts it is not the traditional position of Quebec that proportionality is the first principle that needs to be held up. Perhaps that is why, in the final analysis, the Bloc was willing to make the compromise that it did.

Sometimes groups or provinces or institutions are entitled to representation by virtue of their status as opposed to their numbers. What we are representing here today is that all political parties need to be on the Board of Internal Economy. That fact has been recognized and I welcome this development.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to lend the voice of the Progressive Conservative Party to supporting Bill C-13 as well. I will be brief.

I want to thank the government House leader as well as all the House leaders present for their participation and co-operation with respect to this agreement. I think it does show an important sign to this House and to the Canadian people that there is a spirit of solidarity and co-operation that can help to facilitate bills such as this.

I think it is important particularly when there is a breakdown in the House as we experience here where there are five parties for the first time in Canadian history.

It is also extremely important democratically to have representation on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party as well as my friend in the New Democratic Party to participate in the important decisions that are made at the board.

This bill continues with a floor level of 12 members of a party that gains access to the board. I believe that the House, at some point in the future, should take a look at this number after an election because it may help to avoid some unpleasantness that arose in the last Parliament.

There is nothing particularly significant about 12 other than the fact that this happened to accommodate the political situation decades ago.

The bill will also make amendments to provide for the operation of the board in the event of the demise or the disability of the Speaker and to ensure that a minister of the crown is included in the quorum of the board if it should have to select a new chairperson. Obviously we hope and pray this will never occur.

I will also acknowledge, as did my friend in the NDP, the spirit of co-operation and the concession that was made by the Bloc. We appreciate that. With respect to the proportionality, there was a concession made and we do acknowledge that.

I want to congratulate all the members who participated in this decision. It is our hope that once we gain actual participation within the board of economy this spirit will continue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)

[The Chairman]

The House in committee of the whole on Bill C-13, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

[The Chairman]

Shall clause 2 carry?

(On clause 2)

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Chairman, further to my earlier intervention regarding clause 2, and for the benefit of members of the House and all those now listening to the debate, I would like to ask the minister a question.

In view of the information provided by the House leader of the Conservative Party, can he explain to us the addition to section 52 of the existing Parliament of Canada Act of the words “a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada”, in the event of the death, disability or absence of the Speaker, for the purpose of appointing a new Speaker?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Chairman, the explanation is a rather simple one. As you know, the amendment to the bill means that there will henceforth be an equal number of government and opposition members on the Board of Internal Economy, which is of course chaired by the Speaker of the House.

In the event of a death, and we all wish the Speaker a long life, but in the event of a death in another Parliament, perhaps, it must be pointed out that the following situation could arise: there could be a quorum on the Board of Internal Economy consisting entirely of opposition members.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Which is highly unlikely.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I know it is highly unlikely, as my colleague opposite quite rightly points out, and we all wish the Speaker of the House the best of health, making it even more unlikely. A situation could nonetheless arise in which there could be a quorum consisting entirely of opposition members on the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy. The addition of this clause means that there would be at least one government member, in this case a minister.

It is merely in order to ensure that there could not be a quorum composed entirely of opposition members. That is the purpose. Naturally, with the Speaker in the Chair, the situation does not arise, but should there be no Speaker, it is still technically possible to have a quorum without government members. The amendment in question is designed to ensure that such a situation, however unlikely, cannot arise.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Chairman, what the minister is saying surprises me. He is saying that of course this will not happen, because the Speaker is there. Are you assuming that the Speaker is partisan?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

No, Mr. Chairman, the situation is this: the Speaker is not partisan. Of course no one wants to imply that. The fact is that with the new board, the quorum is six, that is half of the members plus one. Therefore, since there are only five members from the opposition, this will mean the five members from the opposition plus a sixth member, who must be a government member or the Speaker.

So the fact is that they are not all members from the opposition, since the Speaker, as the member from Richelieu pointed out, is at least neutral by definition. So he is not partisan in favour of the opposition.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I want to pose the question again to the government House leader that is this not covered by the fact that the Deputy Speaker could fill that role.

This seems to be the omission with respect to this. The Deputy Speaker would automatically assume the position of the chairman. I have never seen a situation where there Deputy Speaker would be anyone other than a government member. This seems to be an automatic ascension to the chairperson's position. This would prevent any concern on the part of the government side.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chairman, there was a certain gleefulness in the chair, I seem to detect, when the hon. member was making that statement.

No, that is not the case because the bill in question removes the reference to that effect. From here on in it will be a number of members of the governing party and opposition party, plus the Speaker. There is no longer a reference to the Deputy Speaker from here on in. That is why that is necessary because the deputy speakership will no longer be referred to in the act once we pass this amendment.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Chairman, on the same question, would it not have been wiser to provide that in such a situation, the Deputy Speaker would automatically take charge of the Board of Internal Economy to ensure that its operations can continue, instead of requiring that a member of the Queen's Privy Council be present, because it is clearly specified that it must be a minister and not simply a government member.

I ask the question following my colleague, the House leader of the Conservative Party. Would it not have been better to include in the proposed amendment on those present in such a situation that we do not want the Deputy Speaker to take over the duties of the Speaker until a new Speaker has been appointed?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chairman, this issue of the Speaker and of the number of members from the government and from the opposition has been dealt with in lengthy negotiations.

Without going into the details, because these are negotiations between the House leaders, this was in fact an issue in the negotiations, where it was finally agreed that there would be five members from the government, two members from the official opposition, in this case the Leader of the Opposition, who can of course be its representative, plus another member, and a representative from each other political party. That was one of the issues in the negotiations and it was in fact the last issue that was resolved, so that today we have this agreement.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(Title agreed to)

(Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the motion 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.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and pleasure that I rise in the House today to give my first speech in the Chamber.

By way of my opening remarks, I thank the voters of Nanaimo—Cowichan for allowing me the privilege to serve as their member of Parliament. It is an honour for me to be able to represent the views of my constituents in Parliament, and I will do so to the very best of my ability.

In debating Bill C-6, which is before the House today, I feel it is necessary to discuss the background of the legislation. In this regard, Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Management Act, is the reincarnation of Bill C-80 which was tabled in the last parliament.

As with Bill C-80, the bill provides for the establishment of management boards to co-ordinate environmental assessment as well as land and water regulations in the Mackenzie Valley of the Northwest Territories. In this respect it fulfils the requirements under a land claims agreement reached in the 34th Parliament calling for such co-ordination.

Bill C-6 requires that 50% of the new board members be nominated by first nations, with the other 50% by the governments of the Northwest Territories and Canada. The intent is to give aboriginal people and other northerners a stronger role in resource management decisions. This is a very commendable goal.

As a Reformer I have no problem with giving our aboriginal peoples more control over their destinies. When we in Reform talk about equality for our aboriginal peoples, it is to put them on the same footing with their fellow Canadians.

I must say, however, that in this regard I do get rather tired of pious criticism of Reform Party policy on aboriginal affairs. It comes mostly from a Liberal government which in the main has not put its money where its mouth is.

For many years now a number of us in this party have taken a grassroots interest in our native peoples. From a personal perspective it has been an experience that I have shared with my wife over the past 18 years. During this time, and even now, we have cared as foster parents for many aboriginal children with medical problems. Three of our eight children are aboriginal. We love them as much as we do our first family of birth children.

What really gets me is that we have had to care for these little ones as a direct result of the Liberal and Conservative mismanagement of a system which has effectively abused our native population for decades.

I remind members of the House that when they start to attack Reform Party policy in this area they ought to be prepared to walk in my shoes and in the shoes of others who have actively helped and supported our native peoples.

When I criticize the bill before us, when I indicate that I will not vote for it in its present form, when I state that changes must be made, when I do all this, it is not because Reform is insensitive to the needs of aboriginal people as my Liberal friends believe. To do so would be insulting.

I urge hon. members across the way not to attack my position because they somehow construe it to be anti-native. It is not that at all. It is because the bill is flawed.

Aside from aboriginal concerns, the issue we are addressing also seems to be one of environmental and economic concern. The media communications office of the minister of aboriginal affairs seems to want this to be the focus when it claims that industry will benefit from improved efficiency and cost effectiveness of a regime which purports to build a single environmental impact assessment process and to streamline the process of obtaining water licences and land use permits.

Reform recognizes the validity of the goals in the legislation, in particular the need to resolve commitments made by Canada under land claims agreements. In this regard agreements on land, water management and protection of the environment in the Mackenzie Valley are issues of importance to residents of the region and Canadians in general.

Reform's objections to Bill C-6 centre on the creation of yet another level of bureaucracy and the resulting duplication of services. In addition there are specific industry concerns which need to be addressed, as the Northwest Chamber of Mines notes, “before the confusion, delays and cost of this new system grind mineral exploration to a painful halt”.

The chamber of mines points to the recent decision by Inco to defer development at Voisey's Bay because of the onerous and poorly defined regulatory demands, and this in a system that is ostensibly far better defined and more unified than that which is being proposed for the Mackenzie Valley.

Reform is further opposed to Bill C-6 as it erodes the standards of resource management regulation for the perception of stronger northern influence. But it does so at a price. The new system would repeat the difficulties present within the existing system and would compound them with additional burdens.

Let me illustrate. First, it will create yet another layer of interjurisdictional confusion. Second, there will be even less clarity in the rules and standards. Third, all this will result in an inevitable increase in the costs of compliance.

The Northwest Territory Chamber of Mines speaks for business and individuals active in the area. It outlined its concerns following an information session held by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development officials in Yellowknife on September 25, 1997.

The chamber stressed a number of points. There would be new obstacles for resource development including the potential for interference with staking of mineral claims, the change in the role of leases and land use permits, new powers to boards to suspend permits and leases, poorly defined terms for new rights to compensation, and a confused enforcement policy.

They also felt the lack of clarity would instigate litigation. In this regard attendees at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development information session in September raised many questions and far too many were answered with uncertainty.

Far too often they were given the worrying response that such matters would have to be settled in court. If legal recourse is now recognized as the only way to settle matters the chamber says regularly arise in the north, surely this is the time to amend the legislation before it ever gets that far.

Critics also point to the vulnerability to deliberate, delaying tactics inherent in the legislation. There is the fear that deficiencies in the act will encourage parties to use delay as a tactic to impede environmental review. It is believed that this would be done in order to rest concessions that are largely unrelated to the protection of the environment or to the specifics of the proposal.

While Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development officials dismiss this concern as improbable, the chamber pointed to the region's recent experience with federal environmental reviews. It referred to them as growing pains encountered in Nunavut and to current difficulties in Fort Providence as evidence. On these matters the chamber said:

It is our extensive experience with operating in this region that leads us to put such a high priority on clarity, fairness and consistency in the rules and their application.

The Northwest Territory Chamber of Mines also had reservations about public representation on public boards. In this respect it feels there is also a lack of clarity in the process for selecting members to serve on various panels and boards.

Bill C-6 introduces three new board levels, but it does not spell out what criteria will be used in determining who is a proper representative of the public interest. A process that is not open and clear can surely lead to a perception of mistrust and bias.

Some conclusions reached in regard to Bill C-80 will ostensibly apply to Bill C-6 as well. In particular, conversations with other industry representatives consulted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during the development of Bill C-80 confirmed their belief that a single review process which avoids duplication of time and effort is the single most important issue. The bill does not address this concern.

In addition, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have not made comment since the fall of 1996. At that time they too stressed the need for an agreement with the goal of efficiency.

In view of all of this, amendments at committee stage may well save the day for the bill.

The chamber of mines represents about 600 companies and individuals currently engaged in mineral exploration, mine development and mine operation in the Northwest Territories. The chamber of mines has called for substantial amendments in two areas which we in the Reform Party can support.

First, the lack of clarity in the law and in the rules is likely to produce very uneven regulations. It will do so across the region from one applicant to the next, resulting in a highly litigious process.

Second, the new system is seriously under-resourced, especially in its technical capacity. This will likely prove to be a disadvantage in dealing with the large workload created by transitional arrangements. It will also affect changes to leasing.

In conclusion, unless there are changes which address the shortcomings of this legislation, I serve notice of my intent now to vote against this bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to do the same. As I said earlier, voting against this bill does not somehow mean you are insensitive to the needs of aboriginal people. It does however mean that you recognize that the bill is flawed and that there are changes which are necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for his speech and his dedication to the First Nations. I would like to tell him some of the features of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

First, an advantage to the Mackenzie Valley First Nations without land claims settlements is that the aboriginal and treaty rights will be protected. The act will also be reviewed in consultation with First Nations with respect to any self-government agreements that might be negotiated. It does not affect the Indian Act. First Nations may also nominate members to the boards, providing a much stronger voice in resource management decision making throughout the Mackenzie Valley. It also allows for permanent regional land and water panels upon settlement of claims.

What are the changes for the industry? The implementation of land claims brings the certainty required to enhance the investment climate. The integrated resources management brings efficiency and consistency to the Mackenzie Valley. The land and water system is based on familiar regulations: the Northwest Territories Water Act; the territorial land use regulation with some changes to reflect the land claims; aboriginal water rights, clauses 73 to 79; modernizations from security deposits in clause 71; and a penalty for offences clause.

Finally, it encourages and provides for co-operation to eliminate duplication and environmental reviews.

We know the people living and working in the Mackenzie Valley are in favour of this bill. We know the large majority of the population of the Mackenzie Valley is from the aboriginal population, and the Northwest Territories government with a majority of members coming from the aboriginal people is supportive of this bill. The Council of the Gwich'in First Nation and the Council of the Sahtu Nation are in favour of this bill.

Knowing that this bill brings many advantages to the actual situation, my question to my colleague is, why is it that the Reform Party wants to impose its solution knowing that this proposed solution is one drafted with and for the population of the north?

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member very much for his comments and question. I am sure that the hon. member would agree that in our parliamentary democratic system it is the responsibility of a good opposition to take a very constructive look at government legislation. We would be remiss if we did not say here is an area where we feel there needs to be some changes.

As I have already pointed out, there are some very good things in this bill. At the same time we know there are some concerns. I would hope that the government would take a good look at the concerns that have been raised by the chamber of mines and others. After all, if we run into problems in this thing later on and it is seen that this kind of bill actually does impede the development of mining in the north, then all the people are going to suffer, natives and non-natives alike. It will mean fewer jobs and less money going into our northern areas. No one would want that.

We in the Reform Party are saying we should take a little closer look at this bill. Let us see some areas where there are flaws. Hopefully in committee work we will be able to iron some of these out.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for a very powerful and eloquent speech on this issue. He has worked for many years with aboriginal peoples and has given more than most people ever will.

My colleague brought up a number of very interesting questions relating to this issue and also on the larger issue of aboriginal peoples in this country. I am very interested to know his views on the following.

We know that the social parameters among aboriginal peoples in this country rival those in third world nations: a lifespan which is eight years shorter; an infant mortality rate which is 1.7 times higher; a tuberculosis rate that is eight times higher than that of the non-aboriginal community; and a diabetes rate that is three times higher.

As the member mentioned in his speech, this bill has actually prevented a lot of employment from taking place in the north.

I ask the hon. member the following question. Does he believe that the inability of government policies to work with aboriginal peoples in creating jobs has been a prime motivating factor in contributing to the social ills that they see in a lot of these communities?

I ask whether or not he believes that the factor of aboriginal people not having responsibility and control over aboriginal people's affairs and their inability to develop long term constructive employment within their communities has been a prime factor in contributing to the despicable and horrible situation one finds in some of these aboriginal communities.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague very much for both his observations and his question.

It has been my experience in my own lifetime of observation and working with our native peoples that indeed over a large period of time now, government mismanagement in this whole area has led to the terrible conditions that exist on many reservations across Canada. We in the Reform Party have had a number of concerns in this area for a long time.

What concerns us about a bill like this in regard to our aboriginal peoples is that far too often the negotiations go on with the band chiefs and the band councils and if I might use the term, a band elite. They have very little reference to the ordinary aboriginal person who makes up the majority of the band population.

When speaking to aboriginal peoples, their concerns differ very little from yours and mine. They want a good job. They want to be a useful productive person in society. They want to live a good and peaceful life.

Unfortunately the kind of mismanagement of aboriginal affairs by consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments has just driven our native peoples into a land of despair and one that is without hope. It grieves me tremendously to see what is happening with our aboriginal peoples today.

Somehow we have to fix this problem. We have to work with our native brothers and sisters to do something about it. From my perspective it really does start at the grassroots level, our making constructive contacts with native peoples to work at this whole concern.