Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 237, brought forward by my colleague the member for Churchill River, which deals with the international circumpolar community. I will read the motion for those who are not familiar with it:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the 55th parallel as the identified Canadian boundary for participation in the international circumpolar community.
The motion sounds a little complicated but I think for those who read it carefully its meaning will be fairly clear.
We recognize the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois and her amendment to the motion. She raises a valid point and an interpretation for a greater understanding of the honourable intent behind Motion No. 237.
The motion calls for leadership and a vision for the future of this country. Canada is a large country with diverse regions and economies. This diversity includes our varied cultures and histories. One need only look at the House, at some of the artwork and some of the names of the members of parliament to understand how diverse and rich our culture is.
This land is based upon shared values and a common sense of purpose in the face of geographic challenges. This point is often missed by those who would compare us to our neighbours to the south.
In the debate on this motion we have listened to the different policy spins and an apparent refusal for parliament as a whole to demonstrate leadership and vision in this new millennium.
However, we do acknowledge and thank the members who have spoken in favour of this motion. The members recognize this motion for its intent to include a very marginalized sector of Canada, the northern regions between the 55th and 60th parallels. Broadening the participation and opportunities for these northern regions and communities can provide a better socioeconomic future for current and future generations.
One has to ask the question, why should these northern areas of Canada be delegated to base resource extraction where material shipped south is processed and value added goods and services are repurchased by the north?
Coming from the east, from the island of Cape Breton, I understand all too well what happens when raw materials are shipped to one part of the country to be processed and sent back for us to purchase again. It is ironic that we should talk about that on the night that we will vote on the Devco bill, which was an attempt to diversify the economy after years of doing exactly what has been happening to the people in the north.
The House surely can recognize an opportunity for a region to find greater self-sufficiency and move forward on its own. In turn that would create less dependency on traditional revenue sources and greater equality. There are pockets of the country which are extremely wealthy and are doing extremely well, and there are other regions, and certainly the north is one, where that wealth is not shared. It is time to allow the people in the north greater self-sufficiency and to move forward in that regard.
We have listened as the government commits to one progressive northern circumpolar policy and then does the exact opposite in action. As I have said in the House over the last few days, the government's actions certainly speak louder than its legislation and its words and rhetoric.
If we look at some of the findings on file, the government's response to the 1997 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is almost exclusively in relation to DIAND definitions of the north, that being north of the 60th parallel. The response includes the following points at page 10, recommendation 32:
The government is committed to involving northern stakeholders, especially aboriginal peoples, in international discussions of Arctic issues and Canada has played a lead role within the Arctic Council to ensure that this commitment is met.
This landmark committee report was based on an overall circumpolar community, not on a limitation to a 60th parallel boundary of convenience. The standing committee recommended:
—an explicit goal of federal government circumpolar affairs policy should be to facilitate community based local, and regional level contacts, in close co-operation with provincial and territorial governments and their Arctic constituencies—
We are talking about involving the people who live in the communities in decision making.
—as well as in ongoing consultation with indigenous peoples' organizations, the private sector, and NGOs working on circumpolar sustainable development issues. A concerted effort should be made to avoid the duplication of initiatives, while at the same time assisting co-ordination among the various Canadian actors working towards common circumpolar objectives.
That recommendation is exactly what this motion is intended to expedite. This is not some flighty idea; it has come forward after real thought, consideration and a report.
Decisions are being made not by the circumpolar communities and regions affected, but are based on multinational interests content with maximum development profits with as little interference as possible.
In September 1998 the Minister of Foreign Affairs published his vision for a northern foreign policy. He postulated on core Canadian values and long term national objectives, and “a greater focus in the north itself on self-reliance and sustainable development”. Again we are asking the community to be involved in decision making.
Let me return to the circumpolar community report. I am quoting from page three of the government's response:
For the most part, the Government of Canada accepts the recommendations of the Standing Committee, especially the underlying themes of renewing commitment to northern issues and circumpolar relations, and to the pursuit of domestic and foreign policies that will enhance sustainable opportunities for aboriginal people and for other northerners.
If that is what the government wants, then why should we not support this motion? It is not a bill; it is a motion.
At the 1999 World Summit on Nordicity held in Quebec City last February, there were open and frank discussions on the north and future options for northern communities. It was stated at the summit:
The question of the boundaries of the frigid zone has not yet been settled. A proposed indicator comprising 10 factors establishes the limit of this zone at between 50 and 70 degrees north latitude. Southeastern Russia and southeastern Canada are the two places in the world where polar conditions extend the farthest south.
Varying definitions for the north include temperature factors, geological indicators, and as many of my NDP colleagues have indicated, ecoregions.
The concrete answers and directions for northern participation and involvement in circumpolar affairs vary, as they shall in perpetuity. It is a disservice and unfair to northern Canadians to place limits based on a federal government department's arbitrary boundary.
As my colleague from Churchill River stated, the 60th parallel is a boundary of convenience drawn up by dominion surveyors without credence or comprehension of the peoples and the circumstances through Canada's great north. Shared international circumpolar community resources, culture and sustainable concerns should not be limited by outdated policies. As my colleague from Churchill River, Saskatchewan, likes to say, the south forgets that Canada's north is indeed inhabited.
During discussions with foreign affairs on this motion, the hon. member stated repeatedly that northern interests and stakeholders must be included and indeed encouraged to participate in northern and circumpolar activities and initiatives.
There is nothing radical in this motion. It has been studied. It has been reported. It is a call by northerners to be involved in making their own decisions and a call to recognize that they have a substantial contribution to make in developing their own economy. I fail to see why anyone in the House could not support the motion.