moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-38, in Clause 1, be amended
(a) by adding after line 15 on page 2 the following:
“Thence north along longitude 123 degrees 20 minutes west to a point at the intersection with latitude 68 degrees 55 minutes north;
Thence easterly along latitude 68 degrees 55 minutes north to the intersection with longitude 122 degrees 49 minutes west;
Thence northeasterly to the intersection of longitude 123 degrees west and latitude 69 degrees 13 minutes north;
Thence westerly along latitude 69 degrees 13 minutes north to the intersection with the surveyed boundary of Paulatuk lands at longitude 123 degrees 10 minutes west;” and by”
(b) by deleting lines 26 to 37 on page 2 and lines 1 and 2 on page 3.
Mr. Speaker, so that it can be noted for posterity, I would like to take the time to read this motion, which is a very lengthy one and which would amend the park's boundaries in line with what the Inuvialuit themselves are requesting. I will read the motion, which is also somewhat technical, for the record.
The amendment I am moving would delete lines 26 to 37 on page 2 of Bill C-38. The amendment reads as follows:
“Thence north along longitude 123 degrees 20 minutes west to a point at the intersection with latitude 68 degrees 55 minutes north;
Thence easterly along latitude 68 degrees 55 minutes north to the intersection with longitude 122 degrees 49 minutes west;
Thence northeasterly to the intersection of longitude 123 degrees west and latitude 69 degrees 13 minutes north;
Thence westerly along latitude 69 degrees 13 minutes north to the intersection with the surveyed boundary of Paulatuk lands at longitude 123 degrees 10 minutes west;”
This lengthy amendment gives a very clear idea to inhabitants of this region of exactly where the park's boundaries lie. The average person would need a course in advanced geography to know exactly where the park is located. We have specified the boundaries.
Why am I moving this amendment? I find myself in a rather difficult situation. For the first time since being elected to the House, I really feel that I have not had enough time to do my homework and I am still a little uncomfortable with the situation.
First of all, I wish to thank the secretary of state responsible for parks for agreeing to see me and for providing me with additional explanations. It helped me understand some of the government's arguments.
First, there was the Western Arctic claim, which led, in 1984, as I mentioned earlier, to the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. This agreement states clearly—I will not read the entire agreement, rest assured—in paragraph 16(2) that:
16.(2) Canada and the Inuvialuit agree that the economic measures set out in this section should relate to and support achievement of the following objectives: full Inuvialuit participation in the northern Canadian economy; and Inuvialuit integration into Canadian society through development of an adequate level of economic self-reliance and a solid economic base.
This was the agreement the government concluded with the Inuvialuit in 1984. A lot of water has flowed into the Beaufort Sea since then and government representatives have met with the Inuvialuit to try to reach an agreement on park boundaries.
That agreement was concluded in 1996. I must acknowledge that there were five parties involved in signing with the government. One of those parties now wants to reopen it and ask that 2.5% of the land be removed.
One of the government's arguments is that acceding to this request from the aboriginal people would set a precedent which could led to a whole series of debates to discuss the borders of the parks that have not as yet been developed.
Another of its arguments is that the caribou breeding grounds need protection. However, if that is what the aim is, a still bigger park should have been created in order to protect all of the lands occupied by the caribou.
Caribou do not stay in one place. They move around, and so we should have gone over to the Nunavut side to create a bigger park so as to protect all the herds. One day, perhaps, that will be done, but at that time it will have to be seen as a new park.
This matter of the caribou is an argument raised by the animal protection people and the associations of ecologists who have tried to lobby my office. They could not understand why I did not accept Bill C-38 with my eyes closed. My biggest problem is that I have met people who were used to seeing caribou in their area, but had had to have food animals brought in specially. Caribou had to be brought in from elsewhere because there was no herd in their area that year, so they would have had trouble finding game for food.
We cannot pretend that the caribou herd is that strong an argument for not taking 2.5% away from the park.
Restricting mining exploration is an excellent thing in itself. However, what I see as important is the arguments of the Inuvaluit themselves, who see the mining potential of the territory as a means of creating more lasting employment, more worthwhile jobs, so they may be more independent economically. I think it is important that subsection 16(2)(b) of the final agreement be a concern of the government.
Without prejudging the results of the vote, several parties have already made their position known on this motion. I hope the government will make a firm commitment, which will encourage the community to ensure they are given a chance to develop economically and open up alternatives to always relying on welfare.
I seems important to me to give them this economic tool and I very much regret that this bill had to be considered in such haste that we did not have an opportunity to really weigh the pros and cons. There is no environmental study showing there is any risk in changing the park's boundaries and none showing it would be a good thing either. This is very unusual for me since I was elected to this place, but this dilemma I am facing is making me feel uneasy.
I think the government moved too quickly for me to have time to assess the situation properly. The government will probably proceed with the current boundaries. Obviously, it does not need the opposition's support, it has a majority. Still, I really think that the government should commit, in this House, to promoting the economic development of the Inuvialuit outside the park.