Debates of June 2nd, 1998

Parks Canada Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from June 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, be read the third time and passed.

Nunavut Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act. This legislation will transfer powers to the new Nunavut assembly. It will implement measures for territorial elections and the appointment of senators.

I am going to talk to a number of issues today, but I want to address the long history of dealing with the aboriginal people in a way which has created a welfare state. This dependency has compromised the health and welfare of aboriginal people to a great extent. They have some of the worst health care in this country.

This bill will allow the government to appoint senators for the Nunavut region. That concerns democracy. Should the people who represent the people of Nunavut be appointed or elected?

We have always maintained that the election of individuals representing the people should be the way to go. An appointment circumvents the democratic principles of the country and prevents individual members of the community from getting the person they want as opposed to the person a prime minister would like to have.

If the Prime Minister would take a courageous leadership role in ensuring that from now on senators would be elected by the people and for the people, he would be doing an enormous service to institute an element of democracy in the House that it so desperately needs.

For years we in the Reform Party and others in the community have asked for a triple E Senate, an elected, equal and effective Senate, a Senate that would bring power to the people, not power to the leadership of a political party. We have asked for that repeatedly. If the Prime Minister would take that initiative he would be demonstrating enormous courage and leadership. I implore him to do that.

With respect to the powers of the Northwest Territories, those powers will be transferred to Nunavut through the bill. I want to get to the heart of my speech, the real reason I wanted to speak on Bill C-39.

For decades we have created an institutionalized welfare state. The institutionalized welfare state has been put forth through the Indian Act, an act that is discriminatory. It balkanizes, increases prejudice and keeps the boot on the neck of aboriginal people by preventing them from having the ability and the power to develop, to be the best they can be and to be masters of their destiny.

We have circumvented that by creating a separate act for a separate group of people. That attitude has compromised the health and welfare of hundreds of thousands of aboriginal people and will continue to do so as long as we treat aboriginal people as separate and distinct members of the country.

It is possible and advisable to ensure that aboriginal people are integrated into Canadian society and not assimilated. Assimilation would destroy the incredible culture and language they have to teach all of us. Integration will enable them to become integrated, functional members of Canadian society.

Let us look at the situation in New Brunswick today where aboriginal people are flaunting the law and cutting down trees. The response from those aboriginal people is that there is no way they will allow anybody to take away their chain saws. For the first time in their lives they have been able to earn a living, generate funds and provide for themselves and their families.

The result has been a dramatic decrease in substance abuse and violence. The community is stronger. Individuals have a sense of community. They are pursuing that course because they have the ability to generate the revenues, the funds and the wherewithal to be masters of their destiny and to take care of themselves, as opposed to the situation we have today where aboriginal communities are forced to look to the government to be their paternal father, the one who will take care of them.

We in the House are members of different ethnic groups. If any of us were to come under the Indian Act and be forced to ask permission from the Government of Canada to do a number of things, what would happen? If we were forbidden to own land or we had to ask permission to get services, what would happen? If we had a separate group of services and opportunities different from the rest of the country where things were given to us instead of our being forced to earn it, if instead of being given the opportunity to take care of ourselves and the chance to have the tools to take care of ourselves, and if money were given to us, what would happen?

We would suffer from alcohol abuse. We would suffer from other substance abuse. We would suffer from sexual abuse and violence. Our communities would be in tatters. If a system were created where things were given freely to no matter whom, it would erode the very soul of a person. As a result the society the person lives in would be eroded as well.

The situation on some reserves is appalling. In my job as a member of parliament I have investigated allegations by members of reserves who have said that the resources their reserves are earning are disappearing. It is alleged that those moneys are being taken by members of the reserves.

Generally aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in leadership positions are alleged to be taking moneys that should be going directly to the people for education, health care and treatment programs and to enable them to have the tools and the power to stand on their feet.

The minister of aboriginal affairs said there was no problem and that if I had a problem I could go to the RCMP. The result is that the people on the ground, the average aboriginal people in the trenches, are being hammered.

An aboriginal woman on a reserve I visited said that moneys which were supposed to go into schools had been taken by the leadership of her reserve. If she went to the leadership she would be ostracized in her society. If she went to the department of Indian affairs it would tell her to go to the leadership.

What should that woman do? Her children will be educated in a school that does not have the resources because the money has potentially been stolen. Such people are caught between a rock and a hard place.

This is not uncommon. When I investigated allegations of misappropriation of funds on a reserve in my riding the minister said I could go to the RCMP. Before that happened the people who were allegedly doing it, individuals on the reserve in positions of power, threatened to sue me to shut me up.

What happens to aboriginal people in that community who are seeing the money disappear and do not know where it goes? There is no accountability. There is no responsibility. There is fear that if they complain they will be ostracized within their community or worse.

They come to me. I go to the minister. The minister says that it is not a problem and asks me to go to the RCMP. With the resources going into the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a significant amount of money is potentially in the wrong hands. The Canadian taxpayer would be completely appalled by that.

What are we doing? We are pursuing a course that will balkanize our country. What will the Delgamuukw case that came down in British Columbia do? It will drastically undermine crown ownership of 94% of B.C.'s land mass; put almost insurmountable hurdles in the way of the provincial government over land resource decisions; supplant common law with a new system of law in which equal credence is to be given to aboriginal cases, to the aboriginal perspective; and replace the longstanding rules of evidence in civil cases with two sets of rules, one for aboriginal cases and one for other cases.

The aboriginal title as defined by the court may be supplanted by other forms of land tenure only if there is rigid testament by the government and only if compensation is paid. It failed to confirm in constitutional terms the right to make laws where they are fully vested in either parliament or provincial legislatures. It turned over to the federal government the right to exclusively legislate land management for natives on lands found to be covered by aboriginal title.

The Delgamuukw case also prompted the first nations summit for an immediate freeze on development of land resources anywhere in British Columbia. What did that do for aboriginal people who want to earn a living? It destroyed the ability of that land to be utilized for aboriginal people and for non-aboriginal people.

The attitude in the Delgamuukw case and in the federal government as in previous federal governments has been to divide, which does not bring aboriginal and non-aboriginal people together in an environment of mutual respect and tolerance, with a vision and goal of pursuing a common and united purpose for the betterment of the health and welfare of all people. It pursues a course that will balkanize our country and will tear apart aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.

What has been the outcome? As I mentioned earlier in my speech the health care parameters are appalling. I have worked in emergency rooms and visited aboriginal reserves. The incidence in some reserves of fetal alcohol syndrome approaches 60 per thousand live births. The unemployment rate can be 50% or higher. The incidence of diabetes is three times higher than that for non-aboriginals. The incidence of infant mortality is much higher than for anyone else. The birth rate is nearly 3% higher than in other communities. The tuberculosis rate approaches third world levels. Why?

Does the federal government not understand that the pursuit of separate developments is apartheid in Canada? Does it not realize that will only fail? If its actions are to work we would have seen that by now. Instead we have seen a decline in the health and welfare of aboriginal people.

Members should walk for a few minutes through the inner city of Vancouver and through some aboriginal communities. They will see a scene that is reminiscent of a third world country. This is not to say that some aboriginal communities do an outstanding job of providing for themselves and their people. They have managed to do it because they have the ability to work with surrounding communities and the power to be the masters of their own destiny as we are in our communities.

What is so wrong with giving aboriginal people the same municipal type powers as those of other communities? What is so wrong with ensuring that the traditional rights, responsibilities, goals, objectives and cultural needs of aboriginal people are to be preserved in perpetuity?

It would ensure that aboriginal people could engage in the cultural activities they have always engaged in for the betterment of their society. What is so wrong with that? Instead we have a situation of separate development, balkanization of my province of British Columbia and balkanization of our country.

Nunavut may proceed in that direction. Furthermore who will pay for it? Will the moneys be generated there? The federal government and the Canadian taxpayer will foot the bill for separate development that has been demonstrated so clearly to fail.

I cannot emphasize enough that the apartheid, the attitude of balkanization of the country, the Indian Act and the department of Indian affairs and its goal of creating separate development for separate peoples will compromise everyone but particularly aboriginal people.

My colleague from Skeena has spoken eloquently many times and produced many different constructive solutions to the government along the lines of aboriginal affairs under the umbrella of mutual respect, understanding and tolerance, with an objective to move forward to develop as individual societies linked together with the common purpose of a united, positive and healthier future.

The government is doing a separate development which, without accountability, will only increase the problems of aboriginal communities today. If for once I could get the minister of Indian affairs to sit in the House or to come with us to see what is happening in the reserves, in the trenches, she might change her tune. It does not serve her to meet the aboriginal leadership alone, because the aboriginal leadership has a certain goal. It is forced perhaps by circumstance to pursue an objective that is politically correct, given the current politically correct attitude we see today. It is this politically correct attitude that we have toward aboriginal people, this attitude toward separate development, that is causing enormous problems for aboriginal people.

Aboriginal people want their culture and language to be preserved. They want to be able to work. They want to be able to take care of their own. They want to be able to stand on their own two feet. They want to be masters of their own destiny and they want to interact peacefully with non-aboriginal people. That is the objective we should have. Those are the people we should be meeting with, because if we do not the problems we see today will only get worse.

It breaks my heart to see the situation on some aboriginal reserves with the situation I mentioned before of the incidence of diabetes, tuberculosis, premature death of children, the squalor, the destitution and the hopelessness these people have. Furthermore, it is simply not necessary that this occurs.

We have to change our attitude. If there is to be a creation of separate mini states within a province, say in British Columbia through what the Delgamuukw case would provide, what is going to happen when 110% of the land mass of British Columbia is called for and staked out by aboriginal people?

We cannot go back in history 110 or 120 years and try to use that to justify what is happening today. We have to move forward and look forward. We have to repair the damage of the past, but we can do that only by moving and looking forward.

It is imperative that we are able to use our resources to help the aboriginal people to help themselves and move forward in a constructive united front for all Canadians. If we do not, the blood will be on all our hands.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite carefully to my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I am struck by a couplet of Pope: “A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring”. I am very disappointed in my colleague. I have always felt he is a man of honour and a man of some intellect, but he has talked a deal of nonsense this afternoon.

I am not sure how much he knows about the bill. I was in Nunavut two weeks ago today. The weather was a little colder than here. Eighty-five per cent are Inuit and speak Inuktitut, which will be the official language of Nunavut. There was a feeling of springtime, a feeling of confidence and a feeling of looking at new things. Nunavut will be proclaimed April 1, 1999 and the Inuit have been working some 20 years toward this point.

There was a referendum and a vote in 1982 in which they expressed their strong approval for continuing; the same again in 1992.

Does the member not realize there is a distinction or difference between aboriginals and reserves and what the act is going to provide in the eastern Arctic? Much of what he says is quite true. Being a member of the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee for the last two and a half years, I know they are true. I also know he does not appear to know what he is talking about with respect to Nunavut. I do not suppose he is going to admit that.

The report of the committee on aboriginal peoples made the comment about respect, recognition, sharing and responsibility. It is the Inuit themselves who want this act to be proclaimed and who want to govern themselves. They will be a public government so they will obviously be accountable and they will obviously be assimilated. I do not like the term, but as far as that goes they will be assimilated about as much as the people of British Columbia or Prince Edward Island have been assimilated into the Canadian mosaic. That is what this act does. That is what the department has been working toward. I would like the member to acknowledge that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. The question that really has to be asked is whether the carving up of Canada will help aboriginal people. Who will pay for the development of Nunavut? Who will pay for its establishment and bureaucracy? Where is the accountability?

I use Nunavut as an example of what might happen in British Columbia with the Balkanization and the carving up of British Columbia into mini states. That is exactly what will happen. It is what will happen with the division of a province into separate mini states with separate laws, rules and regulations.

Aboriginal people want to be masters of their own destiny. They want the power to do that. But can they not do that within Canada? Can they not be equal partners in a country in which we are moving forward together? This government and previous governments have taken away power from the people and put them out separately in another field to develop by themselves, to go through different rules and regulations for their own development. As a result, many resources have not reached them. As a result, we have created an institutionalized welfare state. That is the biggest crime of all and that is what has to be addressed today.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss a point used during the hon. member's speech. I consider him to be a very constructive member of parliament who definitely wants to contribute in a very positive way to the process.

In 1993 Reformers were first elected in substantial numbers primarily in the western provinces. When they came to the House they said they were interested in providing opposition politics and in contributing to the process in the most constructive manner possible.

Last night I found myself in a very difficult situation. Before I voted on Reform's amendment to Bill C-39 I looked at our rationale for voting against it. The rationale we were given initially was that Reform wanted an elected senator for Nunavut. As someone who fundamentally believes we need more democracy in the politically system, I believe that senators should at the very least be elected. I would love to have supported the Reform amendment last night.

The amendment was that this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, since the principle of the bill does not guarantee that the government will select senators who have been lawfully elected in a territorial Senate election. Had I supported Reform's amendment I would not be able to support Bill C-39. I was forced to vote against having an elected senator because of how Reformers chose to word their amendment.

I ask the hon. member to work in a more constructive way within his caucus. If the intent of Reformers is to be constructive, when they make amendments of this sort they should use language that would actually guarantee the election of senators, as was done in Alberta. They should not decline the progress of a very important bill. That is not constructive politics.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Fundy—Royal who has always put forth quite a number of intelligent suggestions in this House in the past.

In the crisis taking place today among aboriginal communities there are three things that can be done, scrap the Indian Act, have a phasing out of the department of Indian affairs, and those moneys can be put into developing programs for the aboriginal people to deal with issues such as counselling, substance abuse, economic development, giving the aboriginal people the tools to become employable and take care of themselves.

As my hon. colleague from Fundy—Royal knows from his experience in the maritimes, the people in New Brunswick are chopping down trees. That is illegal and they should be dealt with accordingly but the lesson behind that is that these people now have the ability, albeit illegally, to take care of themselves. They have the ability to work. They have the ability to earn money. They have the ability to take care of themselves and their families. As a result, we have seen a dramatic decline in some of the social ills that are being predatory on aboriginal communities.

If we can do that it would be the greatest gift we could offer aboriginal people in giving them the powers to work with us to build a stronger country.

On the Senate amendment, the member knows very clearly that we have pursued a course of a triple-E Senate for a long time. I am encouraged that he supports that principle and I hope he will continue to work with us to making that a reality.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party likes to talk about listening to grassroots. The most recent polling on the Senate shows that more Canadians would like to abolish the Senate rather than reform it.

If we elect a senator, does that not lock into place the existing Senate, the existing powers, the existing representation which is very unfair to our region of western Canada for example? If we are to do that how do we persuade Ontario, for example, to accept the idea of equality and yet leave meaningful powers with the Senate to make it effective?

All during the constitutional process during the last decade that was the most difficult question to answer, and there is no answer in my opinion to that. It goes right back again as to why I think more and more Canadians are now looking at the abolition of the Senate.

It would take a longer dissertation to make my questions even more clear and I think he would need more time to answer them but I would like a brief answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the NDP asks some very good questions. The first thing that has to be done that can be done is to grandfather those members who are senators today and nothing will change for them.

However, establish a plan right now that all new senators will be elected and will come on the basis of regional representation.

Although the member clearly says it will be very difficult for provinces such as Ontario and Quebec that have the lion's share to accept that, or New Brunswick which has a disproportionate number to British Columbia, that is where leadership comes in. That is where doing the right thing will demonstrate to the Canadian public that this House is not a house of elusions but a house of leadership.

Grandfather current senators. New senators would fit into a system of proportional representation where senators would be elected on the basis of an equal number for each province.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek consent from the House to present some petitions. We omitted petitions this morning. These petitions deal with the repeal of Bill C-68. I would like to get consent to take a minute to present them. There are quite a number of petitions.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

Message From The Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, be read the third time and passed.

Nunavut Act

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, following up on the intervention of my hon. colleague and friend from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, I was not going to talk a lot about Senate reform, because I know that we have covered that off very well already. But in response to the questions that my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party asked, I would say that scrapping the Senate is the easy way out.

The reason that polls show Canadians are in favour of abolishing the Senate is that they feel so frustrated and so angry over a Prime Minister who is only too willing to use the Senate for his own political partisan purposes, much as we had previously with other prime ministers, including the one immediately preceding this one. Canadians are really sick to death of this. I can understand that frustration. I can understand why the polls would indicate that they would just as soon see it abolished as have the ridiculous situation that we have right now which has no legitimacy whatsoever.

I would argue with my hon. friend and I would take this to Canadians and engage in a national debate that if we abolish the Senate, we lose any opportunity in the future for having the Senate provide a sense of regional balance and fairness within this great country of ours where we have a democracy which reflects representation by population. This is an opportunity to have representation by region as a control mechanism or as an overriding safety feature to ensure that the interests of the regions are not overridden by the provinces with large populations, particularly those in central Canada.

It is very important that we engage Canadians in this debate. Yes, at the end of the day we will follow the wishes of the country, but if it were laid out for them and if it were done properly, I am convinced that Canadians would support it.

I thought that was really worth dealing with prior to getting into the substance of my remarks.

A member of the Progressive Conservative Party made a remark during the course of debate. I know it was not on camera and it was not on the microphone, but he was quite right, and the member is still sitting here. He said that this bill and the whole creation of Nunavut is not about creating a new territory, it is about creating a new province. The member understands that well. I certainly understand it well. And there are certainly some legal and constitutional experts out there across the land who understand it.

That is one of the main concerns and one of the main objections I have to this bill and to the bills that preceded it which gave rise to the territory of Nunavut. In effect it does create a new province in everything but name.

Mr. Speaker, you would know I am sure that it is not proper, it is not right and it is not legal for the federal government to create a new province or for this country to see a new province created without provincial consent. That is right in the constitution. A new province has been created in everything but name, and it has been done in a very underhanded and deceitful manner.

The original bill which gave rise to the creation of Nunavut back in the early 1990s was passed through the House. Did it take a week? Did it take three days? No. It passed first reading, second reading, report stage, and third reading in one day. Only one lone dissenting voice voted against this bill and that was Reform's member for Beaver River. Other than that, it went through the House as fast as any bill has ever gone through the House from beginning to end.

Let us consider for a moment what this bill does. I am sure my hon. friend from the Progressive Conservative Party would be interested. I hope he is listening.

This bill creates a new province or pseudo province as it does not use the term province. It does so at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer to the tune of $300 million. That is the cost of implementation, or at least that is the budgeted or projected cost. By the time the Liberal government gets done with it who knows what it is really going to cost because as we all know that is the way things work around here.

There was a tax program that was going to be the program to end all programs. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you were in the House when the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Tobin, introduced it. It was a program to end all programs for the east coast, $1.9 billion. This is it, it will never happen again. Where are we now? We are looking at TAGS two. Just a little aside to remind everybody that the government continues to budget money for programs and then down the road it goes way over the cost. It is likely to happen here as well.

There is $300 million to implement Nunavut. It is a fairly large area but how many people are we talking about, half a million people, or 200,000 people? No, we are talking about a population of 25,000, including children, people below the age of majority. There are hundreds of communities across this land and hundreds of communities in Ontario that have more population than what Nunavut is going to have once it is created.

Can you get any more ridiculous than that. Can you get any more ridiculous than to spend $300 million creating a territory that is going to have a population of 25,000? It is going to create a legislature. It is going to have all the trappings of a territorial government. It is going to have its own environment building, its own fisheries department and its own department of Indian affairs. All those buildings are going to be somewhere, probably in Yellowknife. Who knows where it is going to be, but for sure it is going to have all trappings of this federal government somewhere in the new territory of Nunavut. The long suffering Canadian taxpayer is going to enjoy the right to pay for this politically correct nonsense in perpetuity because in perpetuity it will last.

The amount of $300 million for 25,000 people would be a real knee slapper if it were not so serious, if it was not creating a new province through the back door in such a deceitful manner. It is such an affront to the Canadian taxpayers who are going to be asked to put out hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars over time to pay for this.

It has to be assumed that these are somewhat intelligent people in the government, but why would they create this territory at such a huge expense? Why have they done it?

The only conclusion I can come to is it is nothing more than a bandage, a poorly considered politically correct response to the massive failure of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That is really what this is.

That department has had a demonstrated track record of failure for over three decades. Year over year there are increases in unemployment. Year over year there are increases in dependency. There are increasing rates of social pathologies on reserves across this country where the infant mortality rate is double the national rate, where suicide is seven to eight times higher than it is in non-aboriginal communities, where more aboriginal youth go to jail than go to university.

The government in its politically correct scramble to try to find a way of obfuscating and hiding its own failure is creating Nunavut as a politically correct response. It says this is the way of the future for people in the Northwest Territories.

What we are seeing here is a bureaucracy that is in the process of swallowing itself whole. Frankly, I think the Canadian public, largely as a result of work that the official opposition has done over the last few months but even before that, has common sense and is slowly coming to the conclusion that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is a fraud of enormous size.

I think Canadians are understanding that more than $6.2 billion goes into the top end of this department yet few benefits trickle out the bottom end to grassroots people living on reserves.

I think the Canadian public is beginning to understand that the department of Indian affairs is not much interested in accountability within its own organization as the auditor general has continued to point out year in and year out for decades. This department has no interest in the truth. It is a department which has no interest in looking at the real problems of aboriginal people and trying to find constructive ways of dealing with those problems.

It is the simple things. We live in a country that recognizes, albeit with a whole long list of Liberal governments in a very muted way, private property rights. Our Liberal forebear Mr. Trudeau did not have the courage to put it in the constitution. It is not in the charter of rights and freedoms although everything else is in there. No private property rights are in there.

We do have as a foundation to our economy the notion of private property rights. Way, way back when Mr. Diefenbaker was prime minister it was put into law. We do follow that in most areas of the country.

There is not the right to private property on reserves. That is a huge impediment for aboriginal people. They cannot mortgage their property. They do not own their property. They do not own their own house.

If a family breaks up, there is no process like there is in non-aboriginal society for courts to determine who is going to have custody of the family home and so on. That does not happen in aboriginal communities.

A person cannot open a grocery store or a corner store. They cannot open a gas station on an aboriginal reserve and arrange the capital at a bank because they will be laughed at. The bank will not lend them money against a piece of property that they do not own. It is ridiculous.

In response to the historical and contemporary failure of the department of Indian affairs, the government comes up with these kinds of absolutely ridiculous ideas regarding how to deal with the problem.

We are parliamentarians. We are supposed to be able to come here on behalf of the constituencies we represent and we are supposed to have access to information.

I have a simple question. How much money has the federal government spent in the Northwest Territories over the last decade? I would like to know the answer to that.

I would like to know how the federal government would defend that expenditure against the population in the Northwest Territories. I would like to see that expenditure per person applied to all of Canada in a theoretical sense to see what kind of expenditure the federal government would be engaged in if it expended money on the same basis for all Canadians. I am sure it would be a sum all the countries in the world could not afford, let alone poor little Canada with a population of 30 million.

The whole idea is crazy beyond any words I could use. It is just ridiculous to spend $300 million to create a territory with a territorial government, its own legislature and its own non-elected senator for a population of 25,000 people.

It is one more opportunity for a partisan prime minister to reward his Liberal friends as he is wont to do and as we have seen recently with the appointment of the Liberal senator in British Columbia who just happens to be a long time crony, former business associate and a good Liberal recognized by everyone in British Columbia. It is another opportunity for the Prime Minister to do the same thing in Nunavut.

We in the Reform Party would like to see a little more sense and a more rational approach to the expenditures of federal funds, of taxpayers' money. We would like to see more careful husbandry of scarce resources.

The government says it cannot find the money to compensate hepatitis C victims. Yet it finds money to award contracts in the amount of $2.8 billion to its friends in Bombardier. This is the kind of nonsense that drives Canadians to distraction and has driven the Reform Party into being. In the last election we sent 60 members to this place.

I tell those people across the way as I told them in the last parliament that they should look out. Their day is coming. Canadians have had enough of this nonsense. The $300 million for 25,000 people because it is politically correct and it is such a do good, feel good kind of thing are coming from Canadian taxpayers. They are paying attention. They are catching on and the Liberals' days are numbered.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my friend in the Reform Party on the question I was asking before. What he wants to do is to elect a senator from Nunavut. The people right now are leaning more toward just straight abolition of the Senate and saving $50 million a year rather than trying to bring in a triple E Senate.

Even if he wants to bring in a triple E, I would like to ask him how that would be done. We have been stuck with an appointed Senate for a long time. We have a federation unlike any other in the world with one province which has almost 40% of the people. Another province with 25% of the people is unique and distinct in terms of a different language and culture. How do we persuade those two big provinces that they should have the same number of senators as Prince Edward Island in order to get a triple E Senate?

Even if that were to happen and the provinces agreed to it, what kinds of powers would be given to that Senate? I suspect the powers would be so insignificant, so ineffective and so irrelevant as to wonder why we need a Senate first place. We are stuck. How do we put a round post into a square hole?

This is a very real problem. We have dealt with it for many years in parliament when constitutional issues have arisen. New Brunswick has 10 senators and British Columbia has 6. New Brunswick has about 600,000 people while British Columbia has between two million and three million. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have between them 20 senators. We have 24 in the four western provinces. How do we persuade them to reduce their number of senators and have an effective Senate that makes the Senate worth while to justify spending that $50 million per year?

If we keep going around and around in a circle like a dog chasing his tail, in another 50 or 60 years we will still have an appointed senator from B.C., an appointed senator from Prince Edward Island and so on.

Are we not better off trying to abolish the Senate? That is the way in which public opinion is moving and the Reform Party tells us that it is a grassroots party that wants to listen to public opinion. I would be very interested in knowing how he would square that circle.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The member is being honest in his question. He honestly believes in what he is putting forward, which is unlike the Liberals. They do not honestly believe most of what they say. We know that. They come in the House with these canned speeches and read them off. Half the time they do not even know what they are saying.

This member asks an honest question and I will try to give him an honest answer. He talks about the fact that there are different regions in the country with different representation right now. I think we would all agree, perhaps everybody except the Prime Minister and a handful of his closest friends over there, that the Senate has no legitimacy whatsoever right now, none whatsoever.

It is nothing more than patronage heaven for good little Liberals who have done what the prime minister wanted them to do over a long period of time. It is like going to heaven for them. It is exactly like going to heaven. That is the only way I can describe it. It has no legitimacy whatsoever.

However it is precisely because of the regional concerns of Atlantic Canada, for example Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island. It is precisely because of the concerns of provinces like British Columbia and Alberta that do not want to be overridden. If we could imagine a triple-E Senate being in place at the time the Liberal government implemented the national energy program in the late seventies, it probably would not have gone forward. We do not know because we do not have the benefit of seeing history repeat itself with changed circumstances. The reality is that if there were a triple-E Senate in place when that policy of the Liberals was put in place, it is very likely it would not have gone anywhere.

This is the type of example I can offer of why we should not abolish the Senate. Abolishing the Senate has an appeal to it. I agree we should get rid of it. We are not supposed to talk about the other place, but it represents the most despicable part of Canadian policies and nothing more. It could be much more. How will it get there? It will be when Canadians decide it is time.

We are coming to that point right now. Canadians are coming to the conclusion that we need fundamental changes to our democratic institutions. It is no accident that Reform sent 60 MPs here after the 1997 election. It is not just because people like the name. It is because they like the principles upon which the party is founded. One of the four pillars is democratic institutions being reformed.

I suggest to the member that if the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are not on that wavelength, if they will not tell Canadians that they are in the House of Commons to fight for democratic reform, at some point sooner of later, and I believe it is will be sooner, Canadians will give political parties that espouse changes the authority to make them in a general election. That is coming.

The member asks how. I ask him to stay tuned and he will see it happen.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I am very puzzled by the way the hon. member talked about talking to grassroots people and trying to do what the grassroots people want us to do. We had a plebiscite and the people voted for division of the Northwest Territories.

I do not know how the member could get away from saying that this is what the grassroots people want. The Reform Party says that we have to listen to the grassroots people. This is what they want. They have also stated that they want to be able to make their own decisions. They want the people who make those decisions to be knowledgeable of the departments and the programs they are working with.

The member talked about the department of Indian affairs in Yellowknife. Yellowknife is not even in Nunavut. That is exactly what we are trying to get away from in creating Nunavut. We want to be able to make decisions because we know what the people need.

He talked about the Senate. We already have a senator. Another member said that we would grandfather any senators who are already in place. Nunavut already has a senator so I gather Reform is saying that senator will be grandfathered. I do not see why this has to be an issue with the Nunavut government.

When I think of how the rest of Canada was created it got assistance from the government. People from the east were given plots of land in the west so they would move there. The country was created by people being given help by the government to get started.

Who knows where we will be in 20 years? However we need assistance at the beginning as every other Canadian was given assistance at the start of the rest of the country. I am a little puzzled as to where the member is coming from. Perhaps he could answer that.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my intervention, Nunavut has a population of approximately 25,000 people. The riding I represent has approximately three and a half times that population. If a plebiscite were held in my riding that asked the people if they would like $900 million of federal government assistance to create a new territory, I would venture to say they would probably vote for it. What about the people who have to pay the bill? That is the crux of the issue.

Going to the grassroots in terms of aboriginal people we are talking about going to people in reserve communities and asking how we can introduce democratic and fiscal accountability into these communities. Lord knows we are certainly hearing from enough grassroots people telling us that it does not exist right now. That is the crux of the issue when it comes to plebiscites or talking with the grassroots.

The member cannot suggest in any kind of rational way that because she has the endorsement of 25,000 people who live in Nunavut she has the right to reach into the wallets of taxpayers of Halifax, Vancouver, Toronto and Prince George to take $300 million to pay for it. That does not add up. I go back to the hon. member with that by saying it is a non-starter. She cannot do that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, the Banks; the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Immigration; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Poverty.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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.