Debates of March 13th, 1998

Petitions

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by 28 petitioners.

They call upon the federal government to join with provincial governments to make national highway system upgrading possible.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition I want to present is signed by approximately 230 people.

The petitioners are opposed to the seal hunt which is taking place and call upon the government to outlaw it.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

There have been discussions among representatives of all parties and I believe you would find consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of any debate on any government legislation during government orders this day, a recorded division be deemed requested and deemed deferred to Tuesday, March 17, 1998, at the conclusion of government orders.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the chief government whip have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of Motion No. 1.

Small Business Loans Act

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act.

The bill will extend the Small Business Loans Act to March 31, 1999 and raise the government's total liability under the act to $15 billion. That is a $1 billion increase on where it is now.

It is important to note that the auditor general has criticized the Small Business Loans Act. He is simply not very impressed with it for a number of reasons. For example, taxpayers will already be on the hook for about $210 million in defaulted loans, $210 million of taxpayers' money which has been given away badly by the Small Business Loans Act.

In addition, the auditor general found that studies done for Industry Canada in 1994 and 1996 showed that 40% of the loans did not even meet the requirements of the Small Business Loans Act anyway, that the people could have obtained their loans directly from the financial institutions concerned.

He also found that lenders and borrowers have been abusing the small business loans program. Is that not typical of most government programs? There is no accountability. They are always tied up in bureaucratese. They use other people's money. We simply get into a mess with these sorts of programs.

The auditor general also found that there is little accountability to Parliament. Frankly, although Reform is agreeing with the idea that we should extend the act for another year since so many businesses rely on it, we are really opposed to increasing the liability to taxpayers at this time. It is simply unacceptable to do that. That is why my colleague moved an amendment that we should extend the act but not increase the liability to taxpayers.

In the overall scheme of things, a far better approach to this entire Small Business Loans Act would be to get rid of it and to offer instead tax incentives to private finance options to supply the sorts of financing that small business borrowers need.

At the moment, private sector capital suppliers who maybe would use a person's home as a guarantee for a mortgage in order to supply them with funding for a small business loan end up in a situation where they are classified as investors. Instead of being in business they are considered investors. They end up being taxed at a 50% tax rate, even in a corporate structure. That is such a disincentive for small business entrepreneur financiers to get into financing other small businesses that they simply do not do it.

The government would be far better, instead of taking taxpayer money and spinning it out the window in this Small Business Loans Act, to leave those tax dollars with the taxpayers of Canada, have lower tax levels and allow these small business financial entrepreneurs, who want to lend money to other businesses, to operate at a lower tax rate, at the normal corporate small business rate of maybe 23% to 25%. That would supply such a huge amount of money into the market and we would not need this Small Business Loans Act.

It is typical Liberal government. It just cannot see any other answer to a problem than to throw taxpayer money out. It cannot stop itself from spending money. It cannot help itself.

One of my constituents wrote me a letter:

The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by physicists at the Yale Research Centre. The element, tentatively named administratium, has no protons or electrons, thus has an atomic number of zero. However, it does have one neutron, a 125 assistant neutrons, 75 vice-neutrons, and 11 assistant vice-neutrons. This gives it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together in a nucleus by a force that involves the continuous exchange of meson-like particles called morons.

Since it has no electrons, administratium is inert.

He goes on with quite an amusing description of this. He says any resemblance to the federal government is purely coincidental.

He points out very well the sorts of things that go wrong with government programs. They build into bureaucracies, with layers and layers of administration, often filled with people who have never met a payroll, who have absolutely no idea what it is like to run a small business and have absolutely no idea how to solve the problems of small business. They just think they can throw money at the problem and get it fixed. It simply does not work.

Continuing with the observations of the auditor general, in 1994 the industry committee did call for a review to be done on the Small Business Loans Act. The auditor general points that a complete cost benefit study analysis has never been done.

How can we have a program that has already dispensed $13 billion, plus or minus a billion, of other people's money and we have not even reviewed the program to see if it is working? Mr. Speaker, that is more than you spent in the last election campaign. You mentioned in the committee hearings just a day or two ago that you were not very happy with the amount that was being spent. It is unacceptable that these amounts of money can be spun out the door without our having any idea whether the program is working.

Anyone reading the auditor general's report would come to the conclusion that the Small Business Loans Act simply is not working in its present form, or at least not working very well.

When 40% of the loans do not meet the SBLA guarantees, we have to ask ourselves is what we have here just a group of bureaucrats wanting to keep their jobs and throwing money out the door as fast as they can to justify more increases, more desks in their department, more telephones, more employees, and all the job creation is happening in their department and not out in the small business sector at all.

In any case, as I mentioned, many of the people who are making the decisions on the loans actually have no concept of what it is like to run a small business and what is needed. There are some crazy ideas out there.

Frankly, if private financiers, private capital suppliers and banks are not willing to finance an idea, is it really worth financing? Certainly we have to ask why should the government then take $13 billion off taxpayers and throw that money into ideas which no one else seems to be interested in financing.

Surely it would be better to let the market make the decisions by transferring that $13 billion back. Let the taxpayers keep that money but make it more attractive for private capital suppliers to get into that risk market themselves. I know this market very well because I do have business friends who operate in that market who would put more money into it if there were the right sorts of tax levels to encourage them to do so.

At the moment what most of them are doing is actually investing overseas, in other countries. The bulk of their capital is going overseas where there are lower tax rates.

We are not doing ourselves any favour by creating a situation where the people with the private capital who would invest are sending it overseas to invest in more friendly investor countries while we then take money off the taxpayers and pour it into an ineffective Small Business Loans Act.

Reform would, if we were the government, take steps immediately to study this Small Business Loans Act to find out exactly what is happening in that department and make changes that have been suggested by the auditor general. We would certainly not increase the liabilities to taxpayers by one single dollar.

As my colleague pointed out earlier, there is already about $1.3 billion left in that liability fund, if the comments by the minister at committee were correct a few days ago.

We could use that $13 billion if only the government never set up this act in the first place. We could have better used that $13 billion, leaving it in the pockets of taxpayers or diverting it if we must tax people into meaningful programs, overhauling the Young Offenders Act and properly funding the CPP program. There is a long list of areas where that money would be better spent.

I look forward to seeing other members of this House oppose this extension to the Small Business Loans Act unless it has the approval of the amendment put forward by Reform to not increase the liability to taxpayers by another $1 billion.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in discussing and listening to the speeches on this bill I am reminded of two analogies that I think should be made dealing with putting more money into a program that needs to be re-examined.

When I was a kid I always thought that when my mother gave me castor oil she said one dose was good, two doses would be twice as good. I think if we look at this bill carefully we will see that it establishes a plan which this government and other governments for the past 30 years have carried out.

When something does not produce exactly what is wanted, then instead of fixing it internally, looking at the program, we simply add more money. We just keep pouring more money into something in the hopes that it will cure itself.

That has not happened and as a result of that look what we are adding. We are adding more to this program but we have not brought about any conclusions. We have not solved anything that went awry with this plan ever since it was brought into force.

I am reminded of an incident in my lifetime that relates to governments pouring in more money. A World War I veteran had settled near my community. During the thirties he decided to make a living by raising sheep. On one occasion things were so bad he decided to ship a couple of carloads of sheep down to Winnipeg only to receive a letter from the meat company stating that the sheep did not cover the freight cost so would he kindly remit $4.78. My friend wrote back that he did not have $4.78 but he could send some more sheep. That is exactly how we looked at these programs. That is exactly what the government is doing with this program.

The auditor general's assessment of this states: “The lack of financing on reasonable terms and conditions has often been identified as a significant barrier to the growth of small businesses”. The auditor general is saying that by not properly looking at this bill and this program we are hindering the program and what the bill was intended to help.

I agree with the banks, the credit unions and other local financial institutions becoming involved with the money being loaned. The exception is that the small business loans program does not apply to farmers. I have often wondered why. Is agriculture not a business? If it is not a business, why is it not? There is no question that it is the biggest industry, the biggest business on an individual basis across Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.

The guaranteed loans available to businessmen through the banks, credit unions and so on are not available to farmers. Farmers are disregarded from bringing about loans as such under this act. They have to go to a federal government agency known as the Farm Credit Corporation. The Farm Credit Corporation should be a lending institution. Every major financial institution across the prairies that I have talked to, all the banks and credit unions, disagree in total with this government's giving powers to the Farm Credit Corporation as both the instigator and the banker of these loans. That is wrong.

In our examination of this issue we should consider agriculture, the operation of the farm, as being a business. It is an agricultural business. Farmers should be treated with more equity than they are presently being treated.

Under the present fee structure and the loss sharing ratio, it is uncertain according to the auditor general, and we know this to be true, that the government does not seem concerned about the ratio of losses to the number of loans made each year. When something is broken just pour some more money in and maybe it will go away. I do not think there is a reasonable chance that this government will ever make changes to the manner in which it approaches this very thing.

The auditor general states: “We have found a number of cases where contrary to the Small Business Loans Act the lender has charged administration fees”. We must be careful as we go about adding more money to this loan that those people who need the money and who are borrowing the money are not ripped off in a manner that is not approved by the act itself.

Oftentimes, in my experience in western Canada at least, we find that a loan is made to a business which loan can be up to $250,000. In the small communities in western Canada a $250,000 investment is made in a business in an industry in which there is room for only one business in a particular area or a particular trade. Another business is created in which only one business can normally survive.

What has happened across Saskatchewan in the small businesses in the small communities, the towns and villages and sometimes in the cities, is a new business in an industry is created with government money and government guarantees. That business divides the amount of business in the area in two. The person who has been in business for years suffers as a result of government money going into that business. Both businesses end up being failures. It ends up that the community does not have for example an apple business which was needed in that community.

These things must be looked at in depth. The very program that is designed to help small business often destroys existing businesses and then the other business destroys itself. It is a big problem throughout the areas with this act.

It is a scary thing as we get into the rural areas. There are provisions within this act to prevent a group of related businesses from gaining access to loans beyond what they are really entitled to. I have seen many times and I am sure we could draw a number of conclusions across Canada where groups of businesses have joined together under separate loans. Later they have created a business only to find that the massive debt owing on a guaranteed loan for the venture proves to be a downfall. They have not only ruined the capacity of the community in which they have made their venture but they also have created a debt for the people of Canada.

Instead of putting millions more dollars into a program it seems if the banking institutions were lending the money, more care would be exercised and more caution would be taken. There would be more detail in each loan going out. Instead, what is going on at the present time is all of this money is being sunk into another program and as a result millions of dollars of taxpayers' money will be squandered.

No one would disagree to money going to help small business. However we in Reform believe that it has to be approached in a businesslike manner. We do not think the way the act is right now is achieving that end.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 1.

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, a recorded division is deemed requested and deemed deferred until Tuesday, March 17, 1998, at the conclusion of Government Orders.

The House resumed from March 11 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 third time and passed.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill.

The NDP was very pleased to support the bill at second reading. Everything seemed in order. Consultation had taken place and the First Nations of the Sahtu and Gwich'in were eager to move on with the application of this bill.

However a different story arose when it came to committee. Again, the department assured us that there was adequate consultation and that everything was as it should be. As witnesses appeared however, it became very clear that that indeed was not the case.

Before I go into specific details, I will say the NDP no longer supports this bill as three out of the five First Nations involved in the region of the Mackenzie Valley do not support it. It comes down to a very basic question of democracy.

The three First Nations people who are not in support of this bill believe that their land claims process will be jeopardized if this bill is imposed on them before they finish their land claims.

The Deh Cho people, the Slave people and the Metis of the region came before the committee time after time to ask whether we could wait until their land claims were finished or would we exclude them completely and have this bill apply to the Gwich'in and the Sahtu as part of their land claims. No one objected to that. In fact nobody really objected to the terms of what is in the bill. They thought that it was very good for the Gwich'in and the Sahtu but that it was not good for them. The justification for imposing it on them I do not think is reasonable.

Looking at this in light of the response of the minister for Indian affairs to the royal commission on aboriginal affairs and her statement of reconciliation imposing a bill on First Nations people, it is not consistent with her statement of reconciliation nor her response to the commission. She was very clear. I remember sitting in the Yukon and listening to her and feeling that this was on the right track, that the government's position would be to negotiate with First Nations people and not to litigate.

During the hearings I asked one of the witnesses from the Deh Cho people if they were included in this bill what it would mean to them as a people. The witness said that they would have no choice but to go to court. They would have no choice but to litigate. They would have no choice but to spend very precious resources, both financial and manpower, to direct their attention to fighting for the rights of their people an action which is totally unnecessary on the part of this government. It would be a waste of valuable human resources on the part of the Deh Cho people who are trying only to have some say over their land, their people and their future.

In the spirit of the royal commission, we saw the passage of Bill C-6 as not just honouring a federal government commitment and obligations or a payment of a moral debt to aboriginal people, but we saw it as proof of the new relationship the minister had stated she wanted. Those expectations have not been met and these new facts have caused us to re-evaluate our position on Bill C-6.

Bill C-6 sets a regime to meet the aboriginal needs of the Sahtu and the Dene-Metis under the land claims agreement. That is because the federal government is fulfilling a commitment to those groups. However, the procedures established under the bill will have an impact on the First Nations in the Mackenzie Valley living outside the designated Sahtu and Gwich'in regions.

The Sahtu and Dene-Metis land claims agreement is being imposed on the Deh Cho, South Slave and North Slave groups. These groups should be excluded from this bill, or the federal government should redefine an overall umbrella agreement through negotiations with all of the First Nations of the Mackenzie Valley to clarify the co-management of the Mackenzie Valley and future self-government agreements.

Another point that is important to bring into this is that with the two original First Nations groups that would have been included in this bill, it would have given them an equal say over their land. However, the more First Nations groups that are included with the two First Nations groups one can see that it will dilute the say that each group has over their land, their future and decisions made that will have a direct impact on their way of life.

The Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines advanced a series of amendments to the bill to facilitate doing business in the Mackenzie Valley. The chamber recognized that some First Nations were not really thrilled with Bill C-6 because it was coming before negotiations on their land claims, some started or finished. The chamber was concerned that if these First Nations decided not to appoint members to the boards before they had settled their claims, it could bring development in the area to a halt.

The business community was and is aware that other First Nations in the Mackenzie Valley are either adamantly opposed or are requesting major amendments to Bill C-6. The unwillingness of the government to accommodate these concerns will create in the end a high degree of uncertainty about the final regulatory scheme that will apply to that area.

According to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the legislation treats the whole Mackenzie Valley as one ecological unit. In this sense the department failed to consider the political aspects behind First Nations living inside this ecological unit.

There are serious shortcomings in setting up the political relationship between the First Nations in the Mackenzie Valley and the federal government. The outcome is a relationship on the basis of the old traditional attitude of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development toward First Nations and not one based on the stated objective of the minister which is a new relationship, a new beginning. The inability of the federal government to resolve this contradiction has violated the spirit of the royal commission and indeed the minister's statement.

The Metis Nation of the Northwest Territories supported the implementation of Bill C-6 but not in the areas that have not settled their claims. These people feel that Bill C-6 should not be imposed on them. They clearly indicated that the officials of the federal government were making a serious mistake by implementing the Gwich'in and Sahtu final agreement throughout the whole of the Mackenzie Valley.

The South Slave Metis indicated that while they participated in information sessions with federal officials on Bill C-6, they were never involved in consultations or in the drafting of Bill C-6. They requested that Bill C-6 should not be allowed to take place in their region. This group, like other First Nations, asked the committee to wait to implement the bill.

Again, three out of the five First Nations in the region requested exclusion from the bill.

The option of a dual system linking both areas for the settled and the unsettled was considered feasible by several witnesses but no consideration of the idea was given by federal officials.

It is the position of the NDP that Bill C-6 should only be applied to the Gwich'in and Sahtu area as the bill is a direct result of agreements reached with the federal government by the above groups.

During the committee stage it became increasingly clear that there was a lack of communication, allocation of resources and consultation with respect to other First Nations being affected by this bill. Historically, Canada has a poor record when it comes to aboriginal people. The new relationship heralded by the minister has not yet seen the light in that area.

Another aspect that was brought up over and over again was that sending the package through the mail to elders of a First Nation whose first language is not English or French is not consultation. It does not meet any standard of informing those people of what is going on and how their rights and their lives will be affected. Witnesses who came before us stressed how important it was that their elders be properly informed and that the opinion of these esteemed elders be sought.

It is really regrettable that the people whom this will affect were totally left out of the consultation process. Today this government is imposing legislation on First Nations lands with land claims that are not settled. Decisions will be made on their land before they have finished their claim. The input of these first nations will be diluted once the boards are set up. Decisions could be made that affect their land and their claim process. They will have minimal, if any, say.

What was proposed by the NDP was to exclude those groups from the bill and when the time came, when their land claims were finished and they deemed it proper, they could be included if it suited them. Unfortunately that was not adopted and we have before us a bill which goes against any kind of democratic principle.

Sitting on the committee as a northerner, I was quite shocked to realize the lack of knowledge of the north. I felt as a northerner excluded from the plans of the country because, as one of my Liberal colleagues stated, there are not very many of us.

There is no recognition of the inherent right to self-government by the first nations in the area. People who appeared before us explained historical agreements of goodwill and hope. They told us of the fights they had to take before the courts over and over again. I was hopeful they would not have to take that route, that they would not have to go before the courts to fight for the basic right not to be included in an agreement that will impose upon them, their land and their people conditions with which they may or may not agree or have no knowledge of.

Those are the reasons we do not support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke made a very important point we would do well to remember. Our country is very large and extends right up to the Arctic circle. A lot of southerners are crowded into the warmer belt at the bottom but there are very few northerners. However what is done with huge tracts of land in our country affects them.

Would the hon. member take the opportunity to tell us what we can do as members of Parliament who perhaps are not as sensitive as we ought to be to the concerns and to the perspective of northerners in our great country to communicate effectively with our constituents to make them more aware of this situation?

If we were to give them two, three or four basic facts, what would she recommend we try to communicate to our constituents? I would appreciate hearing that.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this opportunity.

One MP represents the whole of the Yukon territory and two in the Northwest Territories. When things change Nunavut will have one and the Northwest Territories will have one.

The impression I want to make is that the land mass is huge. Possibly people in the south forget or just do not know the difficulty of travel. If they have the opportunity, they should come to the north to see how huge and diverse it is. There are not many voices to speak for life in the north.

Another aspect is that the languages of first nations are very much alive in the north. If members have an opportunity to go to Old Crow to a Gwich'in gathering or into the far north to an Innu gathering, I suggest they take the opportunity. Then they will understand very clearly that the economy of those people still comes from their land.

We want to be heard and understood. We want to be a valued part of the country. Very often we are treated as a colony, as an afterthought, and are barely mentioned unless in passing or if someone remembers the north.

Parliamentarians should have the chance to go to the north, to explore it, to listen to the people and to see the huge size of it. I ask them to imagine if they had to represent a physical area that large.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to make a few brief remarks on Bill C-6 and on its principle. I believe others from my party will eventually make some remarks on the bill, if they have not already done so, and speak to the principle of the bill.

I make my remarks on behalf of my colleague, the member for South Shore, the Conservative critic for Indian affairs and northern development. I also make them as one who over the years has watched from a distance. Quite frankly I was amazed at the length of time it often takes for the valid aspirations of aboriginal people to be satisfied by government.

I am thankful the aboriginal leadership of the Mackenzie Valley has been so very patient over the decades with what has surely been an endless round of negotiations with government officials.

I am told this is no ordinary bill. It represents a principle that is so laudable and so welcomed that Canadians should be thankful it has arrived after so many years of toing and froing.

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

Essentially there were and there remain concerns about a disruption of a way of life, a disruption of the lands and the waters. For anyone who knows anything about aboriginal people and the north generally, for people up there life is land and water.

One of the most remarkable features of the Northwest Territories is the Mackenzie Valley. It is one of the world's longest valleys. It is hard to imagine a river at 4,241 kilometres and a huge valley. It needs to be respected. I am only learning lately the history of the matter. Perhaps it would be useful to cite some of the history respecting that wonderful, great area.

On April 2, 1973 some 16 bands filed a caveat in the lands title office in Yellowknife claiming aboriginal rights to almost half the land in the Northwest Territories. The effect of the caveat would have been to make any future land grants in the area subject to the claim of the Indians if it were subsequently found that they had a valid, legal interest in the land.

There were hearings and an interim judgment was handed down from the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories which upheld the caveat saying that there was enough doubt as to whether the full aboriginal title had been extinguished, certainly in the minds of the Indians, to justify the caveat's attempt to protect the Indians' position until a final adjudication could be made and could be obtained.

The federal government appealed and that hearing, I am told, was to take place before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories in June 1975.

Meanwhile behind the scenes the aboriginal leadership negotiated successfully with the then minister of Indian affairs to engage in preliminary discussions to develop the groundwork for a comprehensive settlement of Indian claims in the Northwest Territories.

Essentially the aboriginal leadership pushed the idea of fairness, not a radical idea at all. They were adamant that a settlement of native claims must precede the pipeline or any other major development projects. That brings us to the present day.

I am told the bill was developed by a co-ordinating group comprised of representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Northwest Territories, government representatives, tribal councils and the Department of Justice. We are all hopeful that the many years of dialogue might have borne fruit.

My party is in favour of transferring responsibility and power to the local level and sharing management and development duties. The joint boards the bill will establish are in principle a good idea. My colleague, the member for South Shore, will be speaking on this matter and giving it closer examination.

The bill is intended to implement obligations under land claims signed five years ago as well as in September 1993. In 1992 a settlement of a comprehensive land claim was made that provided 22,422 square kilometres of land in the northwestern portion of the Northwest Territories and 1,554 square kilometres of land in Yukon.

Subsurface rights; a share in the resource royalties derived from the valley; tax free capital transfers; hunting rights; a greater role in the management of wildlife, land and the environment; and the right of first refusal on a variety of activities related to wildlife are very good things. If they represent a principle it would be one related to good government.

I am sure the current minister would recognize the efforts and success of the previous Conservative government in establishing an excellent partnership.

The bill before us today provides for the establishment of management boards to co-ordinate environmental assessment and land and water regulations in the Mackenzie Valley.

People often think of the north or the Mackenzie Valley as barren wasteland. On the contrary, it is and has been home to Inuit and Dene for 10,000 years. Martin Frobisher's expedition back in the 1570s were the first recorded visits to the Northwest Territories by an outsider.

I hope the bill will go some way to ensure, with all the land and the wealth potential to be found under the surface of the land and water in the Mackenzie Valley, that outsiders respect the land, respect the water and respect the people. Let us call them the insiders of the Mackenzie Valley.

I am sure my colleague, the member for South Shore, will be making further comments on the bill in due course.

[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.