Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-39.
The last time Bill C-39 was under consideration was during the week before the House recessed. Unfortunately, on the day in question, I was busy in my riding. I felt badly missing the beginning of the debate, but I was happy to learn on my return that debate was not over and so today I have the opportunity to go at it anew.
As has often been said, the bill amends the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act of 1867 permitting Nunavut to have a senator. I will have something to say later on the Senate, and I will also consider a number of what I consider gratuitous remarks by members of the Reform Party.
I recall the speech by their leader, who was the first, at second reading of the bill, to talk on Nunavut and who never once used word “Inuit”. He spoke for nearly two hours on the Senate. I found it totally deplorable and I note that we are continuing in the same vein today.
I think that I will suggest to my colleague, the member for Abitibi, that when we have a first meeting with the Reform Party, we should fill them in a bit on the aboriginal and Inuit issue. We are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this one and later on I plan to respond to certain statements that have been made today.
The bill provides for a harmonious transition toward the new territory of Nunavut. In 1993, the issue of the territory of Nunavut and self-government was worked out. Since we also know that there are provisions in this legislation for a legislative assembly to be in place as of April 1, 1999, we cannot wait until the day before to say that an election may now be held.
If the legislative assembly is to be operational effective April 1, action must be taken now, and the people of Nunavut then allowed to decide when they will hold it, as long as they are ready to fly on their own by April 1, 1999. I think that is what we are looking at today. We are not necessarily looking at Senate reform, or land claims. We are looking at allowing the people of Nunavut to govern themselves beginning April 1, 1999.
We are also looking at transferring the administrative powers of the federal and territorial governments to the government of Nunavut. This legislative election will precede the installation of the legislative assembly on April 1, 1999.
What will the purpose of this election be? Its purpose will be to elect people to represent the Nunavut Inuit. As many have said, 85% of Nunavut's population is Inuit. The Nunavut parliament will therefore be largely Inuit. The purpose of the election will be to make the legislative assembly operational.
The bill will also allow the transfer of government services, and this is important. It is important because, for too long, the Department of Indian Affairs has settled matters directly from Ottawa. This is basically still the case, because the Indian Act gives them this power. The Inuit are not covered by the Indian Act. This legislation does not apply to these people because, in Inuit communities, they have municipal governments. Nevertheless, the federal government has a responsibility since everything above the 60th parallel falls under its jurisdiction.
It is important to ensure that, as soon as this devolution of powers takes place, the Inuit will have their own public service. This point was made at second reading but I want to make it again: The government must ensure that, when the Nunavut legislative assembly becomes operational, on April 1, 1999, the people of Nunavut will have duly elected representatives walking through the front door of the legislative assembly, as well as a public service capable of assuming its new responsibilities.
Ottawa will no longer be in charge. The purpose of the bill before us is to allow the people of Nunavut to take charge and break away from their age-old dependency on Ottawa. This is very important.
We already have indications of what kind of government they want to have in Nunavut. There is much talk locally of an extremely decentralized system. We must understand that, in such a huge region, some communities are hundreds of kilometres away from one another.
They are already talking about a given community assuming certain responsibilities on behalf of all the others. That is interesting because this goes to show that the people of Nunavut and the Inuit are prepared to take charge. They already have a vision of the type of government they want.
In the discussion on the composition of the legislative assembly, there was a debate about having half the elected members be women. Those are debates we have had here for a long time, and ones we have great difficulty in putting into practice. Yet they are already addressing this issue.
Bill C-39 calls for an amendment to the Constitution Act of 1867, because one senator has to be added. I shall be stating the clear position of the Bloc Quebecois on this. We have already called for the abolition of the Senate.
We have already had an entire opposition day on a motion to abolish the Senate and I intend to develop the Bloc Quebecois position a bit further on why we agree a senator for Nunavut should be appointed.
From all the testimony we heard in the aboriginal affairs committee, the people who appeared before the committee, whether they represented the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Nunavut Implementation Commission, which is currently in charge, Nunavut Tunngavik company, which is sort of administering the funds until the Inuit really assume power, as well as the representatives of all the Inuit in the country, and Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, were unanimous in saying that it is absolutely essential for this bill to be passed.
No amendments have been moved. We want our dream to become reality quickly. These people have been negotiating an agreement for 25 years. They have succeeded in doing so, and now they are anxious, like any other free and democratic society, to take charge of their own destiny and to move forward.
So a new territory is going to be created in Canada, after 25 years of work. Moreover, the bill is a bit the end result of the land claims and of discussions on self government. The negotiations, the agreement reached and the legislation passed in the House of Commons in 1993 meant these people had achieved their objective.
For the objective to be fully met, the legislative assembly must now begin to function as of April 1. I think that will happen.
It is easy to say the Indian Act will be scrapped. Even the aboriginals oppose the scrapping of the Indian Act, because so long as there are no discussions on self government and land claims or on the financial independence of this type of society, they will be forced to rely on outdated legislation.
It is therefore our responsibility to create the conditions that lead to self government and that help resolve land claims that will make financial independence possible.
We have two reservations. I mentioned the first during second reading in the House of Commons, just before the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I spoke, among other things, about the Belcher Islands, and I am happy to see colleagues here who were with me. All the committee members went to Iqualuit not so long ago, either last week or the week before.
We were told in Nunavik and in Nunavut of the importance of the boundaries of Nunavut and Nunavik. Understandably, for our viewers things are a bit confusing. But Nunavut is the eastern part of the Northwest Territories that will have a new legislative assembly as of April 1, 1999, while Nunavik is the northern part of Quebec. There are boundary waters along these two territories, which explains why negotiations are still going on.
We were told that the issue had been settled in the case of the Belcher Islands. The Quebec Cree and the Nunavik Inuit feel that the Belcher Islands should be part of Nunavut. But there are other islands around, and there are other waters around Nunavik, and this is why people say it is important to continue negotiating.
The Cree made it an issue when they appeared before the committee. They told us that they have been negotiating since 1977 for the ownership of certain islands that are very close to their territory. But the federal government did not act on their claim.
The same goes for Nunavik. We are told that negotiations with the federal government broke down in 1993. The people from Nunavik say they should have ownership of certain islands which are not part of the continent, but which should naturally be part of Nunavik.
I urge the minister to reopen the negotiations with the Quebec Cree and the Nunavik Inuit. I promised these groups that I would pressure the minister to reopen negotiations as soon as possible, so that this unresolved residual aspect of land claims can be settled once and for all.
I think that the minister must sort this out and I urge my Liberal colleagues to speak to their minister so that an agreement can be worked out for the islands and the pack ice bordering the territories both of Nunavut and of Nunavik, and the Cri territories.
I see my colleague opposite, who is responsible for the Quebec Cree. I am glad to hear him say he is in total agreement and I am sure he will join me in trying to persuade his minister to see that this gets sorted out.
The Bloc Quebecois' other reservation concerns the Senate. As I mentioned earlier, we are calling for the abolition, pure and simple, of the Senate. As long as this is not done, and should a new territory be formed, however, we are not prepared to be so objectionable as to say that, since we are opposed to the Senate, we are opposed to adding a new senator.
In the present context, I think that people must be treated fairly. If a new territory is created and if it is entitled to be represented in the Senate, we should not stand in the way. Nor should we say that, because of the Senate, we will stand in the way of Nunavut or use a major political problem to prevent people from attaining the fullest form of self government possible. Our position differs radically from that taken by the Reform Party.
Where we are in agreement, however, is when we say that, since senators are accountable to the Prime Minister who appointed them, it amounts to nothing more than a cosy little nest, with people flying out during election campaigns in search of funding here and there. It is an institution that is costing us $50 million a year.
Not only is our position clear; it is based on representativeness. When you mention senators to the people of Quebec, they are not interested. When they hear that the annual bill for the Senate is $50 million, they say they have no further use for it. Our position is therefore clear, but we are not going to take the Nunavut Inuit hostage and say that we will resolve the problem of the Senate by not voting in favour of their plan, the way the Reform Party is doing right now.
I repeat what I said earlier. I was extremely disappointed when the leader of the Reform Party, the leader of the official opposition, spoke for two hours about Senate reform. We all wondered if he had the wrong bill. I is true, however, the Standing Orders allow us to focus on a narrow aspect, even a single word. If the word “Senate” appears in the bill, this gives someone the opportunity to speak about the Senate without getting to the bottom of the problem. I criticized the leader of the official opposition at the time, and still do, for speaking for two hours on Senate reform without ever saying the word “Inuit” once.
Today I must also correct my two colleagues who spoke earlier. The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca told us that in British Columbia 110% of the land is being claimed. True, but I do not believe that the aboriginal population there, which is incidentally very large and spread over 225 different communities, is going to tell the people of Vancouver to vacate their homes, to go back to Europe or the east, and then take over those homes. That is not what it is all about. When someone says things like this, it encourages myths and bad attitudes toward native people and is a completely gratuitous act.
Lets us look at how things were settled in British Columbia, with the Nisga'a for instance. The Nisga'a were claiming a huge territory. They settled for 7% of their claim. So, if the Nisga'a claim becomes a precedent for British Columbia, the people will not be getting 110% of that province, but 10%.
Then he told us that the territory will leave Canada. That is not the case at all, either. To my knowledge, Nunavut will still be Canadian territory. It will still belong to Canada. I am sure it is funny to hear that coming from a sovereignist, because everyone is aware of what our option is, but we are open to questions of self-government.
Wanting more autonomy, that is an approach we are familiar with in Quebec. We have worked on that a long time, built on it, built our party on it. It is perfectly normal, therefore, for the Bloc Quebecois to say “So, you want more autonomy, we are agreeable to your having more”. Our way of seeing it is Quebec sovereignty, and their way is self government within which they would have a legislative assembly.
I think it important to correct my two colleagues, who always seem to be trying to throw oil on the fire when it comes to the aboriginal question. I find this particularly regrettable.
We are somewhat at odds with the Reform Party position on the whole issue. Knowing along which lines the House usually divides on the aboriginal issue, I think that the Reform Party will find itself isolated, because the issue, as the Bloc Quebecois sees it, is very clear, as I have just explained.
The Bloc Quebecois thinks that it is constructive to debate greater self government. It is also a vote of confidence in the aboriginal peoples. You will never hear Bloc Quebecois members saying that they do not want to give aboriginals or Inuit certain responsibilities because they cannot handle them. That is not our approach. We think that these people, who occupied these lands long before we did, have their own approach. They had legal, political and financial systems. They had everything they needed before the Europeans arrived and upset their systems.
Today, when people tell us they are capable of governing themselves, they must be given an opportunity to do so. One way of doing this is to give them powers and responsibilities, and ensure that they have the necessary instruments to make it on their own. This is why we insist they be given funding for training, to make sure they will be ready April 1.
I have nothing against giving significant sums for Nunavut— $300 million or $225 million—for agreements with the Micmacs or with the Nisga'a or the Cree. This is one way of putting an end to dependence on the federal government and to the practice of saying “Here are millions of dollars. Next year we will evaluate your needs and send more millions of dollars”.
Once people are given self-government and a territory sufficiently large to permit financial independence, I am sure they will be able to take charge.
The Bloc considers the matter of Nunavut, like the native issue, a constructive one, a debate of confidence in the native peoples and of the issue of greater autonomy for them. On this, the Bloc will continue to follow them, unlike, unfortunately, our friends in the Reform Party.