House of Commons Hansard #117 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was inuit.

Topics

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

All those opposed will please say nay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Vote #135

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the motion.

Search and Rescue HelicopterPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 346 under private members' business.

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

Vote #136

Search and Rescue HelicopterPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from November 24 consideration of the motion.

Support Measures for Adoptive ParentsPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order please. The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 386 under private members' business.

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

Vote #137

Support Measures for Adoptive ParentsPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I declare the motion carried.

It being 6:25 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 5 consideration of the motion.

Canadian Northwest PassagePrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Motion No. 387. I will take a moment to read the motion into the record. It states:

That, in the opinion of the House, as the various waterways known as the “Northwest Passage” are historic internal waters of Canada, the government should endeavour to refer to these waterways as the “Canadian Northwest Passage”.

This is now the second hour of debate on this motion and I have had occasion to review some of the speeches of the members who have preceded me in this debate. As the Speaker knows, this particular motion is being supported by all parties in the House. In many ways, it is similar to Motion No. 465, the motion dealing with the air passenger bill of rights where all the parties managed to come to agreement that such an action should be taken and such a bill should be brought in, but when action has been taken we find a fracturing of the previously agreeable people.

It is the same principle involved in this motion. The motion is broad enough and certainly finds acceptance with all four parties in the House but when we start talking about specifics that is when we start coming up with differences of opinion.

The fact is that we are also being faced with a threat from outside here. We have, increasingly, the United States and Europe claiming that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway, while Canada's position is that it is an internal passage. We know that with global warming, with the temperature rising up north and with the ice receding, it is potentially possible that within a few years the route may become navigable on a more sustainable basis than it is right now and we will have the incursion of foreign countries, particularly the United States, wishing to consider it international waters, not only for the purposes of shipping but also for the exploration of minerals, oil and so on.

We do have that sort of international issue being dealt with more or less on a worldwide basis.

The north is a beautiful area of the country. I was up in Yukon. The member for Yukon is here tonight and I have read his comments.

At the beginning of September, I was in Yukon meeting with Air North and had the occasion to tour Yukon. It is certainly a beautiful part of the country but it is not unlike my own province of Manitoba where we have a northern port known as Churchill. Both of those areas are very susceptible to even minor amounts of climate change. The tundra is not that stable and in fact is very unstable.

We have a railway that runs up to Churchill and I have been up there many times on the railway. The members will likely know and agree with me that that particular railway requires huge amounts of money for its roadbed. It requires huge maintenance because of where it is running to. It has slow orders on it constantly. I do not think the train is even operating at 30 or 40 miles an hour. I think it is more like 15, if that. I think we could run as fast as the train in some cases. This is as a result of the instability of the tundra in those areas.

We have a railway, which needs a lot of maintenance, and we have the Port of Churchill, which we have been trying to promote as an inland port in order to draw some of the grain trade away from Thunder Bay and from British Columbia to allow our farmers to send their products up through Churchill. We have had occasions of ships, particularly from Russia, coming through and, depending on the year, we have had as many as half a dozen ships show up at the Port of Churchill for loading grain and other commodities and taking them away.

We have the pro development people very interested in the economic possibilities. The people in Haliburton and other companies that rummage around the globe looking for economic opportunities will see the area warming up and the ice melting as very positive and an opportunity to make money and, therefore, more potential for commerce, trade and oil exploration.

However, what people need to recognize is that when we have that warming, when we have a destabilization of the environment and the tundra becomes destabilized, how will people be able to navigate around that area? What we essentially will be doing is destroying the livelihood of the people who are there right now, the people who have been there for thousands of years and who make their livelihood in trapping and fishing enterprises. They have enough stresses on their lifestyle right now. As their environment continues to whittle away, they will not be able to continue their own activities.

In Churchill over the last few years, the polar bears have not been able to get back on the ice and their weights are reducing. This is changing the whole sort of ecology, in some ways, upside down. For those who think this will somehow be a big plus, I guess their plan would be to try to challenge the sovereignty of Canada through the Northwest Passage and try to be available when and if opportunities should arise as far as the resources are concerned.

The four parties in this House have taken the correct action here. I realize that the member for Yukon did introduce a motion in the previous Parliament, which proves the point that nothing is new around this place. When elections happen, the House must start from scratch and all the bills and motions need to be reintroduced. Sometimes it is not the same people who introduced them the first time who end up introducing them the second time. However, the member for Yukon has endorsed this motion and pointed out some of the advantages that will happen because of the warming.

However, the member for the Bloc has pointed out a lot of the disadvantages that we will see as a result of the warming and, in many respects, I think he is right. He talks about the whole process of global warming and about how the ice melting in the north will cause huge instabilities. It will not be an economic opportunity but actually a cost item for Canada.

We need to look at things like oil spills. We think that we will somehow develop, for example, oil exploration. If we are going to develop oil reserves in a certain area and build pipelines across the tundra and take the oil to market, at a certain point, whether we are doing it through the pipeline process or doing it through the shipping process, eventually, statistically, we will have a—

Canadian Northwest PassagePrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, please. Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

Canadian Northwest PassagePrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Madam Speaker, I stand today in support of Motion No. 387. I will use my time to make a friendly amendment to the motion, which received overwhelming support from the House. Let me be clear on this point: Canada is an Arctic nation and an Arctic power and will continue to affirm its sovereignty.

The Canadian government clearly understands the potential of the north. The Arctic and the north are part of our national identity. They make up over 40% of our land mass. The north is home to more than 100,000 Canadians, many of whom are Inuit and first nations peoples who have inhabited these lands for thousands of years.

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Palliser:

That the motion be amended by adding after the words “Canadian Northwest Passage”, the following:

“; recognize the importance of the Northwest Passage to the Inuit; support the identification of an appropriate Inuktitut name for the whole Northwest Passage in co-operation with Inuit land claims organizations and territorial governments; and that this name be used in conjunction with the “Canadian Northwest Passage” when referring to internal Canadian waterways.”

Canadian Northwest PassagePrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

It is my duty to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 93(3) no amendment may be proposed to a private member's bill or to the motion for second reading of a private member's bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings if he consents to the amendment being moved.

Canadian Northwest PassagePrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON

Madam Speaker, I am very thankful for the amendment, quite frankly. It does address a number of the concerns of our northern neighbours, the Inuit inhabitants. I very pleasantly and thankfully accept the amendment.

Canadian Northwest PassagePrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Madam Speaker, as a proud Canadian and as a former proud northerner, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 387 moved by the hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings. I read with interest the speech that he gave to introduce the motion on October 5 as well as the speeches of other members in the House. I hope that I can add to the debate. I want to stress that I am not sure that there is all-party agreement for the motion at this time.

Let me state from the outset that the issue of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, at least a portion of the Arctic region that is undeniably Canadian territory, is not in question in this debate. All parties in the House recognize Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic. However, what we do with this sovereignty and what that sovereignty means are not universal in the House. While we may all recognize Canada's sovereignty, we apparently do not all equally recognize the responsibility that comes with that sovereignty. That responsibility means taking seriously the concerns, aspirations, dignity and responsibilities of the people of the north.

The motion, even in its proposed amended version, does not fully do this. It does not fully take into consideration the outcry of the people closest to the various waterways known as the Northwest Passage. Many of them have been deeply offended not only by the proposed renaming of the passage, but by the government's lack of consultation with the Inuit people on this issue and others.

This lack of consultation, this cultural insensitivity boldly reminds us that the Conservative government's northern strategy is seriously flawed and is certainly not a northern vision. It is a strategy based on southern principles and southern methods with little regard to the reality of the Canadian north as we know it. We repeatedly hear that the government has placed the Arctic on its list of priorities, having developed a so-called strategy designed to protect the environment, to promote economic and social development, to exercise sovereignty and to improve and devolve governance.

These are noble goals and I would like to heartily applaud them, but the government's true understanding of the north is sadly revealed in the remarks of the member for Prince Edward—Hastings when he introduced the motion. While he waxed eloquent about sovereignty issues, and I will say it was an admirable speech worthy of a PMO speech writer, he mentioned the people of Canada's north but once.

One can read his remarks over and over again, but will find no mention of Inuit organizations, their cultural aspirations, or their right to self-determination. Not once is there mention of the duly elected government of Nunavut, or for that matter, the Northwest Territories or Yukon which also have an interest in this issue. Not once is there mention of the right and responsibility of the Inuit to chart their own course and map their own destiny, even literally, using the names that they have used from generation to generation.

Ten years ago we celebrated the establishment of Nunavut as the third Canadian northern territory. I was living in Yukon at the time. I was deeply touched by the wisdom and the hope that were equally bound up in the decision to create a territory in which the majority of Inuit people would become masters of their own destiny. It was a proud day for all Canadians when we turned to the Inuit people and all the residents of the eastern Arctic to take responsibility for the land we now know as Nunavut. In case some hon. members do not know, Nunavut means “the land”, but frankly, that also includes the waters and the waterways of the territory.

While I lived in Yukon for six years and have travelled many times to the western Arctic, my first visit to Nunavut was just a few weeks ago. Landing on Baffin Island was a never-to-be-forgotten moment for me. The quality of light and the quality and beauty of the land is surpassed only by the quality of the welcome I received and the beauty of the people, but we cannot romanticize that. The problems of Canada's newest territory are real and daunting. The recent report card on the territory highlighted a number of significant social problems, cultural challenges and serious environmental concerns. The first way to help Nunavut in its ambitious agenda is to respect its residents' ability to govern themselves and to be a full partner in Confederation.

If the goal of the government is to truly improve and devolve governance to the people of the north, then surely that means consulting with them and respecting them in the naming of their significant places, and not as a parenthesis, not as an add-on, but as an integral part of what we do.

The government is well aware of the people of the north when it wants to promote a sovereignty agenda abroad. It regularly publicizes a Canadian human presence in the north as a way to appear to be sovereign. The government has no difficulty whatsoever in using people for sovereignty. What it is failing to do is use sovereignty for people.

National Inuit leader Mary Simon recently commented, “Ultimately, sovereignty begins at home. Sovereignty is apparent and implemented with healthy communities, not just military hardware. It involves establishing constructive partnerships with Inuit. Canada's position cannot be detached from full appreciation and respect for the rights, interests, and priorities of Inuit”.

Sheila Watt-Cloutier makes the point that Inuit who are connected to the values, principles, traditions and wisdom of their traditional culture are best equipped to meet the challenges faced in and by the north and this important insight should be reflected in our public policies and programs toward the Arctic. That includes giving them the power and the respect to name places that are significant and important to them.

More consultation, more respect, more dignity needs to be afforded to the Inuit people before we hastily make decisions about naming important places in their past, in their present and in their future. It is not good enough to give them a second name. It is not good enough to consider them after the fact. It is not good enough to have ignored their desires, wisdom, hopes and aspirations.

Inuit are not a second thought in this chamber. Inuit are one of the first peoples of this country. Canada is bigger than that and Canada is better than that.

Canadian Northwest PassagePrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House as the member of Parliament for Crowfoot and also, with respect to this speech, as the chair of the foreign affairs and international development committee.

I want to commend the member for Prince Edward—Hastings for bringing this motion forward. I also commend the member for Newmarket—Aurora for the amendment that she has moved.

This friendly amendment to the motion will reflect how the Inuit have used and occupied the so-called Northwest Passage since time immemorial. It will be a constant reminder to the House of the importance of these waters to those Canadians who have long used its ice and waters for fishing, hunting and living. It will remind us that all Canadians have the obligation to protect this vast fragile place for the benefit of the Inuit, for the benefit of northerners and for the benefit of all Canadians.

To be clear, this motion asks the Government of Canada to endeavour to refer to the various waterways known as the Northwest Passage as the Canadian Northwest Passage. The motion does not propose an official name change and it imposes no legal obligations on the government or on Canada.

The various waterways of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago already have proud, colourful, historic names. The Amundsen Gulf, the M'Clintock Channel, Peel Sound, Lancaster Sound and Barrow Strait are names that may not be familiar to all, but they are just a few of the official names already borne by the different waterways in our Arctic Archipelago.

Viewed as a whole, however, these waterways are commonly referred to as the Northwest Passage. It is not a legal name but rather a concept. It is this concept that we will endeavour to refer to as the Canadian Northwest Passage. There is no official name in English for it, just as there is no one Inuktitut word for this concept.

Endeavouring to refer to these waters as the Canadian Northwest Passage is without prejudice to our legal rights, and serves only to honour the fact that the Inuit made these waters Canadian long ago.

This is not an official change or an attempt to erase existing names, but endeavouring to refer to these waters as the Canadian Northwest Passage is a reminder to the House, to all Canadians and to others internationally that these waters are Canadian. It is a reminder to this government and all Canadians of our national responsibility for these vast, beautiful and fragile places. It is a responsibility conferred on us by our sovereignty.

It is important for all members of the House and for all Canadians to be aware that Canadian sovereignty over the various waterways known as the Northwest Passage is not contested. This is a point that bears repeating. The Northwest Passage is and remains Canadian, full stop. Canada enforces its laws and regulations in the Northwest Passage just as it does in all Canadian territory.

Canadian Inuit have used and occupied the Northwest Passage since time immemorial and it is important to note that the friendly amendment proposed today will reflect that fact. Proudly making the effort to use the term Canadian Northwest Passage is simply one more way for Canada to demonstrate its historic title over these waters.

No one disputes that the Northwest Passage is Canadian. Every country recognizes these waters belong to Canada. Canada's sovereignty over the lands and waters of the Canadian Arctic is long standing, well established and based on historic title. The country exercises its sovereign rights responsibly in the region. The issue is not one of ownership but one of transit.

The only dispute that exists about the waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago is with the United States over the legal status of these waters. The United States believes these waters comprise a strait used for international navigation. These waters are not a strait used for international navigation. The various waterways known as the Northwest Passage are internal waters of Canada by virtue of historic title, developed through Inuit use since time immemorial. The limited international navigation that takes place in them is done with Canadian permission and usually with our help. The dispute is well managed. Canada and the United States agreed in 1988 that the United States would request Canadian permission for its icebreakers to enter these waters.

Canada welcomes shipping through Canadian Arctic waters so long as it meets conditions related to security, the environment and Inuit interests. We exercise control over foreign shipping in our Arctic waters. Navigation is taking place under Canadian regulation and control, like any other internal waters of Canada. That said, each year when the passage is navigable, the number of transits remains very low, under 20 yearly.

A second misconception is that the reduction of the ice that covers the waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago somehow impacts Canadian sovereignty over these waters. To be clear, the amount or type of ice that exists in the Arctic has no bearing on Canada's sovereignty, including over the various waterways known as the Northwest Passage. The impact of this reduction of ice is that it could make the Northwest Passage more attractive as a potential shipping route for commercial marine traffic.

However, as I have already noted, because the various waterways known as the Northwest Passage are internal waters of Canada by virtue of historic title, should the ice ever retreat sufficiently to make these waters a viable shipping route, Canada's sovereignty over them will not change. Our laws and regulations will remain in effect. Foreign state vessels will continue to be required at international law to seek our permission to enter these waters.

Our own Canadian Ice Service, however, believes that the various internal waterways known as the Northwest Passage will not likely be a reliable commercial shipping route for decades, owing to extreme ice variability. Canada, however, will continue to regulate shipping through the passage.

Too few Canadians realize that our Arctic is not a place of conflict, but rather an opportunity for co-operation. The importance of the Arctic in Canada's interest has never been greater. We work closely with our partners in the United States, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and Finland, as well as regional indigenous organizations, to co-operate on a wide range of issues, including for example search and rescue, shipping safety and science and technology. We are also co-operating with the United States, Denmark and Russia on the scientific work required to delineate our continental shelf.

There is great interest from other countries in the potential found north of 60. With interest from other countries, including nations that are geographically far removed from the north, Canada's Arctic is increasingly becoming a focus of foreign and defence policy.

Without question, our government has taken deliberate and demonstrable actions to say to the world that it is our land, that we will continue to use it and that we will not waiver in our commitment to keeping Canada's Arctic the true north strong and free.

Our leadership in the north involves consultation, collaboration and, in some cases, the settlement of disputes or differences with our Arctic neighbours. All the Arctic states work closely together in the Arctic Council, which Canada and Canadians did so much to develop.

Make no mistake, however, when an issue of national importance is raised at the Arctic Council, our government does and always will stand up for our interest and ownership over the Arctic. This is why we react so strongly when other countries, like Russia, engage in exercises and other activities that appear to challenge our security in the north and undermine the co-operative relationships that we have built.

Many states and institutions that have historically not paid attention to the Arctic are now turning their attention there. We have seen various actions and initiatives that demonstrate a lack of sensitivity to the interests and perspectives of the Arctic people and states. Canada will continue to address these situations firmly.

Although there is no conventional military threat in the north, we are projecting the operational capability of the Canadian Forces northwards. This is being done by means of investment in offshore patrol ships and berthing and a refuelling station in Nanisivik on Baffin Island.

We are also increasing the number of and improving the equipment of our eyes and ears in the north, the Canadian Rangers, as well as establishing a primary reserve company in Yellowknife. There will also be a Canadian Forces Arctic training centre in Resolute Bay to ensure that our forces are able to co-operate in the most challenging climate in our country.

In short, the motion to endeavour to refer to the various waterways known as the Northwest Passage as the Canadian Northwest Passage will continue to help Canada affirm its sovereignty over its Arctic lands and waters.

Canadian Northwest PassagePrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

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.

Canadian Northwest PassagePrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON

Madam Speaker, I certainly thank the member for Yukon for his comments.

I am admittedly disappointed. I did not believe this to be a highly contentious issue and an issue of legal jurisdiction bordering on land claims. This is not that. This is simply a reference. It does not have clear title, so it is really unfortunate that we have taken something that should be an obvious recognition and tribute to our northern people and the protection of Canadian sovereignty, and unfortunately it is now caught in this little political circus we have here.

The various waterways known as the Northwest Passage, clearly historic internal waters of Canada, have been used and occupied, as has been stated by many people, by the Inuit of Canada since time immemorial. Today, very simply with this motion we are seeking to refer to these waters as the Canadian Northwest Passage.

This really expresses our view as a people, as a nation, that the Arctic is a fundamental part of Canadian history. It is an expression of our deepest aspirations and it is central, really, to our national identity.

Canada's sovereignty over the various waterways known as the Northwest Passage is not contested by any nation. Our right to explore, conserve and utilize the resources in and under these waters is unchallenged. The different position that our friends in the United States take is really about the legal status of these waters regarding navigation rights and certainly not about ownership. The U.S. contends that although these waters are undeniably Canadian, a strait used for international navigation runs through them.

Correspondingly, we signed, in 1988, the Canada-United States Agreement on Arctic Cooperation, in which we agreed to disagree, and really this works well for both countries. However, Canada permits international navigation in and through these historic internal waters as long as the conditions established by Canada to protect safety, security, the environment and Inuit interests are met.

We have worked and we will continue to work with the Inuit to ensure that they can continue to use and enjoy their homeland, their hunting and fishing grounds, and their transportation network that has been established, as has been stated again, since time immemorial. Today, however, we are asking the Government of Canada simply to endorse the endeavour to refer to these waters as the Canadian Northwest Passage. We are not asking that the separate waterways be given an official name in English or in Inuktitut, but simply wish to remind ourselves that the Northwest Passage is and always will be Canadian.

This expresses our view that the Arctic is a fundamental part of Canada's history. Our government understands the history and the vast potential of the north. The Arctic and the north are part of our national identity. They make up almost half of our entire land mass. Canada is an Arctic nation and clearly an Arctic power, and will continue to affirm its sovereignty.

A number of other speakers have demonstrated the government's will and intent, so I will not belabour that point, but I am certainly pleased that our government has made this kind of commitment. We have committed to protecting our longstanding, uncontested sovereignty.

To be clear, this motion simply asks us, those assembled here, the Government of Canada, to endeavour to refer to the various waterways known as the Northwest Passage as, simply, the Canadian Northwest Passage.

Let us be very clear. This motion does not propose an official name change and would impose no legal obligations on the government or on Canada. There is no official name in English for it, just as there is no one Inuktitut word for this concept.

Endeavouring to refer to these waters as the Canadian Northwest Passage is without prejudice to our legal rights and serves to honour the fact that Inuit made these waters Canadian long ago. This is a responsibility conferred on us by our sovereignty, and I trust the members of this House will seek to honour our historic title over these waters.

Let me close by thanking the constituents in my riding who first brought this issue to my attention, the staff of various departments who consulted widely with the Inuit and who assisted me in the research to protect this valuable resource.

This motion is clearly not of a partisan nature but one that respects our history and is central to our national identity. I trust this will find support from one and all in this House.

Canadian Northwest PassagePrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

The time provided for debate has expired. Therefore, the question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?