House of Commons Hansard #113 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was nunavut.

Topics

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi, QC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the remarks of the member for Saint-Jean. He is familiar with the Inuit situation.

When we talk of Nunavut, of the Inuit of this region, of Nunavik or Nunavut, we are always talking about economic development. The people in the south are always questioning the financial support they are given.

I know that my colleague has a lot of experience—he has done an excellent job on the committee for a number of months, and I appreciate it. Could he describe the economic situation and talk about purchases, house construction, the sources of vehicles, of perishable and non-perishable goods?

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi, for giving me the chance to speak. I believe he is familiar with my concerns about the cost of living in the far north. He is very much aware of it because he shares my opinion that the cost of living up there is exorbitant. My colleague also knows some people who will be coming to tell us how things operate there.

During the 35th Parliament, I raised the problem in order to tell people that it made no sense at all for the cost of living in the North, whether in Iqaluit or in Kuujjuaq, to be twice as high as it is here. The average income up north is half what it is here. So that means the cost of living is really four times greater. Up north, a quart of milk costs $2, three liters cost $8, while here they cost maybe half that. These people have only half our income as well.

The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is currently holding a quite extensive examination of economic development. When I spoke before, I referred to the fact that sometimes that carton of milk or other essential item had passed through 21 middlemen before the aboriginal people bought it at their local Northern Store.

If you traced that milk from the beginning until it was purchased in the Northern Store, it sometimes had passed through 21 intermediate steps, which was not logical. Everybody along the way took a little cut, which ended up making the price exorbitant.

I think we must get to the bottom of this. It is part of economic development. It is one way to help the people of the North by trying to find some way they can obtain their staples at a reasonable price.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to rise in this House to speak on Bill C-39. I have a great deal of interest in this debate. I have listened to it for five or six hours but I have to admit I am not interested in a lot of the discussion that ensues about dragging the debate into other areas and other jurisdictions. I am not interested in the term Balkanization. I am not interested in filibustering and I am not interested in how this affects the Senate.

What I am interested in is what this bill says to the people of Canada about a very historic occasion in this country. This is the first time in over 50 years that we are presenting a new territory, bringing a new territory into the Canadian mosiac. This is a very historic occasion and it is one that as a member of the Indian affairs and northern development committee I am very proud to have participated in.

I think it is time to quickly summarize what this debate is about. The Nunavut Act will create a new territory on April 1, 1999 in the northeastern and central regions of what is currently the Northwest Territories.

This process was initiated in the 1960s. It has been a long process and it has been a long debate. I am sure the people who started that debate in the 1960s would be very weary of it if they were still here. Some of those early participants are still here.

The creation of Nunavut was set out in the Nunavut land claims agreement signed on May 25, 1993 by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. The government of Nunavut will be a public government reflecting the demographics of the area which is 85% Inuit. The official language will be Inuktitut.

During the debate of this bill, during the process of this bill through parliament we made some additions. We made some changes. Amendments to the Nunavut Act were necessary to allow for a smooth transition for April 1, 1999 to ensure the continuation of services.

Because of the complexity of the regulations, the original bill required amendments to ensure this would take place. The amendments allow for additional seats for both a new member of parliament and a new senator to represent the territory.

As well, this legislation removes any uncertainty regarding basic services like drivers licence registration and courtroom proceedings to allow them to continue after April 1, 1999 in an uninterrupted manner.

These are the specifics of the bill. These are the nuts and bolts of what we are talking about here. This is not an occasion for members of parliament to get up, filibuster and ask questions that have no relevancy whatsoever to the piece of legislation we are trying to discuss.

Bill C-39 is an historic piece of legislation that will create the third territory in Canada. It is a step toward provincial status for all territories, Yukon, NWT and eventually Nunavut.

Amendments to the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act were necessary to allow for an election prior to April 1, 1999 and to make a seat available in the House of Commons and the Senate to reflect and provide representation for this new territory.

This is an historic event in the development of our country. I want to let the citizens of Canada consider that for a minute. This is not a time for politicians to stand up, filibuster and talk about issues that are certainly interesting and important, I admit, but which are not relevant to the debate. If we are to have debate in the House of Commons surely we should have relevant debate.

Another thing for which there seems to be a misunderstanding is the size of this new territory. Nunavut will encompass 2,242,000 square kilometres. Approximately one-seventh of that is under Inuit title under Inuit land claims. That land claims area is Inuit controlled land. The rest of that territory belongs to the people of Canada. It is crown land. This is not one huge land claim.

I have listened to comments today. Obviously members have not read the act. I have heard the debate go on and on about 25,000 people and what it is costing the people of Canada. What has it cost the territories of Canada to belong to this nation? How much have we taken from Yukon? How much have we taken from the NWT? How much have we taken from the eastern Arctic in mineral royalties, mining rights, oil and gas revenues? How much have we taken in taxation dollars? How much has been contributed? A lot.

I think it is time to allow a bit of common sense to enter the debate. We are talking about maturity here. We are talking about the maturity of a nation. We are talking about having three territories. Surely it is time we can be proud of this historic occasion and the very fact that on April 1, 1999 Canada will have a new territory. I think it is an historic occasion and a wonderful event.

On those words I take my seat and I hope the filibustering has stopped.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Finlay Liberal Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saint-Jean and my colleague from South Shore. I have been in the House all afternoon and I hoped we would get around to talking about Nunavut and what it means to this country and to the people of Nunavut, and my two colleagues have done that.

I would like to put on the record one or two points about this Senate which seems to have consumed our friends from the Reform Party, that our need for reforming the Senate is somehow more important than our need for having our aboriginal people become part of this great nation, I mean a real part.

There is a senator from Nunavut, Senator Willie Adams, in the other place. He was appointed in 1977. He was not appointed by the present Prime Minister. There is a Yukon senator, Senator Lucier. What we will have to do is appoint another senator for the western Arctic, Northwest Territories, the territory that Mr. Adams represented all these years. With the split another senator is necessary.

I am reminded in this historic debate, as my colleague from South Shore has said, of a comment by a former colleague, Elijah Harper, the former member for Churchill. I remember him standing in his place at the other end of this Chamber and telling the then third party in the House that it just did not get it. My colleague from South Shore tried to put that across in gentle terms. I am not prepared to be quite so gentle. Quite clearly it does not understand.

The chief representative for that party on the standing committee, where we have done a lot of good work on this in my opinion, spoke for a minute and a half. Then like a trained dog he proposed the amendment, completely unknown to anyone else in the committee, his colleagues or anyone who worked with him. We have spent hours debating something that is secondary or tertiary or maybe quaternary instead of the important parts of the act.

One of the Reform speakers said to scrap the Indian Act. We have tried scrapping the Indian Act on more than one occasion. We tried to scrap it when the present Prime Minister was the minister of aboriginal affairs. We tried to scrap it two years ago. The aboriginal community do not want to scrap it.

One of the previous speakers spoke about ownership on the reserves and ownership of land. My colleague for South Shore and I visited villages, both aboriginal and Inuit in the northern part of Quebec. We also visited Iqaluit just two weeks ago.

I ask my hon. colleague whether in those villages that we visited he found a forward looking, positive attitude, a feeling that they were going to get somewhere with their rights as aboriginals, with their homes, health care and institutions. That is what this act is about.

I hope that every member of the House will allow Nunavut to come into being as a fully functioning member of the Canadian federation. I expect all worthy members who see the Canadian federation as first in the world, as I do, will support it.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Oxford for his question.

Very succinctly I would say it is an extremely progressive and very forward looking attitude. It is almost an ebullience of wanting to become a realistic part of Canadian society and an equal partner in Canadian society.

We have a group of people who have always paid taxes. They have always contributed to Canadian society. They have always been full-fledged members in Canadian society. Today I found some of the disparaging comments that have been made or tendencies leaning toward that direction a bit irritating and quite annoying.

We have an opportunity with aboriginal people in Canada with a land base that is sufficient for them to actually be responsible and in control of their own destiny. We have a larger land base over which they have political influence. We have a window of opportunity to be equal partners in our own land. That is an important statement they will be able to make when this is over.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

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

Anybody who introduces petitions behind the scenes does so very cowardly and I have the right to submit these openly. I ask for the consent of the House to submit openly the great stack of petitions I have on the repeal of Bill C-68.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The incredibly persistent hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has asked the House for unanimous consent to revert to the presentation of petitions.

Does the member have unanimous consent?

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Unanimous consent is not forthcoming.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

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

As a member am I not entitled to some reason why the Liberals are—

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

No. Resuming debate.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.

It is abundantly clear that law-abiding firearm owners all across this country want to—

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

That is not a point of order.

Is the House ready for the question?

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

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

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Call in the members.

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

Division No. 189Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Lieutenant Colonel William BarkerPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Reform

Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage prepare and report a bill to this House, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), no later than ninety (90) days following adoption of this motion, that will create a memorial recognizing the outstanding contribution of Lieutenant Colonel William (“Billy”) Barker (deceased), V.C., World War I flying ace, and hero of Canada and the Commonwealth.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to debate this bill today. Unfortunately this bill was not made votable. First I thank the members who will be speaking on behalf of this motion today.

Yesterday I was flipping through some clippings and I came across a book review in the Globe and Mail of November 8. There was a very appropriate caption. This review was on the book written by Wayne Ralph called Barker VC: William Barker, Canada's Most Decorated War Hero which was released this past fall.

The heading for this book review was “The greatest air ace you've never heard of”. Below that in bold was “How Canada's most decorated hero slowly became an unknown soldier”.

Is that not appropriate when we talk about Lieutenant Colonel Barker, VC? I want to tell this House and the Canadian people why we are debating this motion at this time. This has been a personal project of mine since 1996. As a former mayor of Dauphin I began writing all the politicians associated with heritage, certainly the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the historic sites and monuments board of Canada requesting that national historic significance be conveyed on Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, VC.

For those who do not know anything about Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, VC, which is not a surprise to Canadians, this man was the most decorated soldier, not Canadian soldier but soldier, of the first world war, in the world. Yet we are not familiar with his name.

I wrote to the historic sites and monuments board. I received a negative response from the executive secretary, Mr. Friend. He refused to acknowledge Barker's outstanding contributions during the first world war. He said: “Lieutenant Colonel Barker's post-war career does not appear to have been remarkable”.

I will give a couple of pieces of evidence to show how remarkable his post-war career really was. It appears to me with this kind of response that Mr. Friend did very little research, certainly his department did very little research.

Lieutenant Colonel William Barker was the first president of the Toronto Maple Leafs, installed in 1924. He was also the first acting director of the Royal Canadian Air Force at its founding in 1924. If that is not an incredible post-war career, I do not know what is.

If the historic sites and monuments board did its job, I would not be standing here today to talk about this. If the minister took an interest in this subject I would not be standing here talking about it. Unfortunately no one on the side of government took an interest.

I have been asked by the media why am I so interested in this topic, whether it is because he was born in Dauphin. Obviously I am interested because he came from Dauphin, Manitoba. But more important, I am interested because as a country we need to recognize the real heroes of this country, people who have put their lives at stake so we can be free and enjoy the standard of living we have today.

Lieutenant Colonel William Barker was the most decorated soldier not only in this country but in the Commonwealth of Nations during that period. He is remembered not by Canadians but by our European allies, people in Great Britain, in France, in Italy. He is a household name in England but not in his own country.

Canadians have heard of Billy Bishop because of the CBC production which most of have seen at one time or another. Ironically Bishop, as famous as he was, paid William Barker the ultimate accolade and labelled him the greatest fighter pilot the world has every known. Is it not astonishing that most well known fighter pilot and war hero in this country, Billy Bishop, labelled Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, VC the greatest fighter pilot the world has ever known? It is amazing. Yet no one seems to know who Lieutenant Colonel William Barker is.

I want to read a couple of paragraphs from an article written by William W. Walker on the same topic. He asked was this just one Canadian going overboard on the ability of another fellow countryman. If Barker deserved Bishop's appellation of the greatest, why is he almost unheard of today? That is a fair question.

Barker seemed to shun publicity about himself and his exploits. He left no memoirs in contrast to many of the aces who meticulously set down their autobiographies.

There are no known definitive biographies of him or even of the RCAF. The air ministry at Ottawa has only the barest history of one of the most illustrious warriors of World War I.

Perhaps the reason there is only fragmentary information about Barker stems from the fact that he had very little use for systems and no patience for protocol. His job was fighting and killing Germans. It was an employment he pursued with relentless, wholehearted enthusiasm. He lived for the thrill of the chase in combat and for the final blazing minute of the kill which was the pay-off, the raison d'être of the fighter pilot. Each victory spurred him on to new goals. In the air he was as courageous and reckless as any of the young hellions skimming the clouds over France and Germany.

However, once out of the cockpit he seemed more withdrawn, sombre and reserved. He was different from his more lively compatriots who liked all the carousing and wenching they could crowd into the short hours between flights. Most of them reasoned that death would join them in the cockpit soon enough, so why not live it up.

As the squadron commander, Barker was always concerned about his charges. He was anxious to teach them the combat tactics that would enable them to survive. When occasion demanded he would celebrate and drink with them, but unbridled celebrations and uninhibited acts so typical of the flying Galahads just did not fit in with his personality. Compared with some of the more flamboyant young blades like Lufbery, Udet and Frank Luke, Barker was quite restrained on the ground.

Barker's score of 58 was not the highest, but he pioneered fighter pilot tactics that were widely used in the second world war and he blueprinted a plan for fighter armaments that was used by the British in the battle of Britain in 1940. Few airmen have left such a legacy.

I will read a short passage written by Peter Warren, a Manitoba freelance journalist and broadcaster. He asked this question in his column: “Why is this Dauphin man the unknown hero for Canadians? My God, he took a British cabinet minister and dropped one of the allied spies behind enemy lines in August 1918”.

Barker was told by King George V at his investiture on March 1, 1919 that he had set a new record by receiving six gallantry awards, two more than the king had previously presented to any soldier in the British empire.

Mr. Warren raises this question: “Somebody out there help me explain”. I do not know if there is an explanation, except that this country has basically ignored Lieutenant Colonel William Barker. Government after government has forgotten his contribution.

As Canadians we tend to look elsewhere for our heroes, across the border and across the ocean. We are a relatively young nation. As a young nation matures we need to recognize and learn from our history. One lesson we must learn is to acknowledge our heroes, those who can be positive role models for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to make Motion No. 251 a votable motion.