Madam Speaker, it is a delight to again speak to this very important motion in a symbolic way. The Inuit leaders of the country are being hosted right next door in your the boardroom.
So the public knows what we are debating, the motion recommends that the Northwest Passage be renamed to the Canadian Northwest Passage. I give credit to the mover. I do not think anyone is against the spirit of the motion. However, the reason we cannot support it is the processes established for naming places in the Canadian Arctic have not been completed sufficiently to make such a symbolic change in someone's backyard.
For those people who are watching CPAC, I wonder how they would feel if a members of a first nation from the far north went to their subdivision in southern Ontario and said that they were going to change the name of their street. They would not have a say or any consultation. It does not make any sense. In the first hour of debate on this motion I said we could not make any changes unless we consulted with Inuit organizations because it was in their backyard.
As soon as the first hour debate was over we started an extensive consultation with NTI. I wrote to all the mayors along the Northwest Passage and tried to work out a process with them so we could have a name acceptable to the local inhabitants. All members of Parliaments would want to support these very precious Canadians who live in the Arctic, the indigenous peoples, and come up with a name that is agreeable to everyone, by working with the mover and the Inuit people.
Unfortunately, at this time we have been unable to come to a consensus among all of us in the House and the Inuit people. We have come up with a motion. I have tabled it. It was on the order paper a few weeks ago. That motion would be acceptable to us. It takes into account the spirit of the mover, talking about adding the word “Canadian” to Northwest Passage, but it also takes into account what the Inuit people have said to us in these consultations. One of the things they said was that there was already a name for the Northwest Passage. It has been used for generations. It is related to some tattoo markings on a rock as one enters the Northwest Passage.
First, since time immemorial, there is already a name. That name adds to our sovereignty claim, not detracts from it. Canadian Inuit have been using the passage, as the member from Toronto, the land the water and the ice since time immemorial, and that adds to our claim. The fact that the Northwest Passage has had an Inuit name for generations also adds to our claim.
The second point is the process. There is a legal, symbolic process in our land claims for approving such names. There is a board to consult with our Inuit land claims. There is also a Canadian board and, as the member said earlier, we would want to consult with the people of the three territories who also have an interest. In this short timeframe, unfortunately we have not had time to do that and come up with an acceptable name.
I give credit to the member on the amendment. In it he does refer to the Inuit, but the problem is, it appears to be an afterthought. The first part of the motion suggests referring to the Northwest Passage as the Canadian Northwest Passage. Once again, it has not gone through the legal process. It has not gone through the land claim process. It has not gone through the appropriate naming boards. It has not met with the agreement of the Inuit people with whom we have consulted. The second part of the motion says that could be done later, but I am sure the Inuit do not want to be an afterthought to this motion.
I was hoping all parties in the House could come to an agreement. Unfortunately, I have to recommend against voting for either the amendment or the motion for these reasons: the lack of consultation with the people whose backyard this is in; the lack of following the agreements that Canada has signed with the Inuit, the land claims agreement; and the lack of using the appropriate naming boards. In Canada we go through these processes.
In our discussions with the Inuit, we can easily come to agreement still, as can be seen in my motion on the order paper, which the government is welcome to use. In recognition of the spirit of what they are trying to accomplish and what all the parties in the House would like to accomplish, we need a symbolic name that reflects the interests of the Inuit people who have lived there since time immemorial, and the fact, as we all agree, it is Canadian passage. That is reflected in my motion. It also recognizes the boards that have to make these decisions and the Inuit organizations that have had consultations with their members and the various organizations we talked to.
The last member who spoke for the government went off on a tangent, talking about us protecting the Arctic. I cannot refrain from commenting on that, as he was also basically quoting what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said this week, that we would protect our Arctic. Unfortunately, the words are a bit hollow because of the number of broken promises the government has made about protecting our Arctic.
As the House will remember, the Prime Minister's first promise was to build three armed icebreakers. As we know, those are not going to be built.
He then suggested that perhaps we would build one icebreaker and some patrol boats. The patrol boats are now tied up in endless contracting. There are no patrol boats in the Arctic.
The government also promised ice-strengthened supply ships. Where are they?
The government promised search and rescue planes to revitalize the fleet. Fortunately, we just passed a motion related to that, but those are nowhere in existence. The Government of Canada agreed six years ago to replace that fleet. But new search and rescue planes are not there to protect northerners or for us to have a presence in the north.
The government talked about protecting Canada from other countries making incursions on our sovereignty. The only major economic incursion is the suggestion that the Alaskan government with its oil leases, and the American government with its fishing prohibitions, are making major economic incursions into the Canadian Beaufort Sea.
On November 9, in a 437 page document, the Alaskan government put out 20,000 square kilometres of oil leases in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. It is a huge area. What is the government's reaction? What has it told the Canadian public? It has said that it is going to protect our economic interest when another country impinges on Canada.
As we know, it was only a few months ago that the American government suggested a moratorium on fishing in what we believe is the Canadian part of the Beaufort Sea. Where is the government protecting our interests? I think there should be a process. The government should stand up publicly and say it is going to protect those interests. Not only that, but it should also then do something about it. It should sit down with the Americans and see if we can come to an agreement in these disputes.
In closing, I would like to support the speech of my colleague on this and say that we want to work in partnership with both the government, because we agree with the spirit of the motion, and also with the Inuit people whose land this has been since time immemorial. With the naming process that is set up, hopefully we can all come to agreement on something that will be acceptable to everyone.