Deborah Grey

[Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have all the answers. In some of the considerations I brought forward we want to make sure that ministerial powers are not too strong. It is a good thing that this gives more autonomy to the Inuit, but my colleague and I share the same view. We want to make sure there are good homes, clean water, health care and education.

I know he has been a proponent of the head start program. These are practical and good things that we can work on. I am looking forward to hearing from my colleague from Nunavut.

[Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33 which deals with the Nunavut land claims agreement of 1993 and ensuing and enabling legislation from that with regard to the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal.

I am very pleased to see the member for Nunavut in the House today. I would have appreciated her viewpoint on this issue and hopefully we can still get it. I would be very interested to hear her views. I know she will be giving good advice in committee. It will be a good viewpoint from someone who lives there and understands the place and the culture and the impact of this legislation far better than I.

It is interesting to note that this legislation has gone through many lives. This is the third round at it. The bill comes from other legislation from previous parliaments. The Nunavut water board has been operational since 1995 and we are playing catch-up six years later to get it implemented into law.

The Nunavut water board will consist of nine members appointed by the minister. Half of them will be nominated by the designate in a reorganization. One-quarter of them will be nominated by the territorial minister responsible for renewable resources or other designated territorial ministers.

When any board or tribunal is struck, it is important that its members know what they are doing and that there is ultimate accountability. I know government members and opposition members would agree with that as well.

It is interesting to note in the bill that adequate public notice will be given of applications to the NWB. Public hearings on applications will be held as the board deems necessary. When one sees that it is when the board deems it necessary, that raises the alarm bells. It should be brought to the attention of the board that it is probably necessary quite a bit of the time. It would not be wise for the board to say that public hearings were unnecessary and shuffle off the applications. It is very wise to have more rather than fewer hearings when people have concerns. They should not just say "By the way there will be a meeting tomorrow night", or whenever. Great distances are involved. It is very important that adequate public notice be given. When the applications are being studied and ruled upon, the board should be keenly aware of how important it is that the process be made absolutely transparent.

The Nunavut surface rights tribunal has been operational since 1996 but the legislation will establish that tribunal as required under the Nunavut land claims agreement which took place in 1993.

The tribunal will resolve disputes regarding subsurface rights and sand and gravel on Inuit owned land and losses to Inuit from damage to wildlife. I speak here of oil spills for example as they are entirely possible. I think back to the week after I was elected to parliament in the spring of 1989 and the Exxon Valdez crisis and the long term ramifications which occurred from that. This is something we need to deal with seriously and have proactive, organized methods in place to deal with these things before they happen so that when they do occur, we are prepared.

The surface rights tribunal also establishes terms and conditions of right to access to Inuit owned lands and can determine liability, and an amount of compensation due to Inuit in case of damage. It is very wise that this be put into place beforehand rather than face crisis management. The September 11 crisis affected all of us. We saw how important it is to be organized and ready for disasters rather than wondering the day one happens what could have been done to deal with it.

The surface rights tribunal consists of a chairperson plus two to 10 other members appointed by the minister, two of whom must be resident in Nunavut. There will always be an odd number of members on the tribunal and that is very wise. If I had to ask any questions about it in such a vast territory as Nunavut, I would have to ask why only two members would come from there.

The tribunal can only hear applications where an individual has first attempted to negotiate an agreement with the other party. In other words, people cannot go to the tribunal first. This makes sense. In many instances, differences or problems can be worked out. In many respects it is like us as members of parliament. People have tried to work with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Revenue Canada, the CCRA, Agriculture Canada or who knows what and they come to us, their members of parliament. They say they are having problems and they need us to facilitate or mediate or who knows all the things we do in our offices.

That is what the tribunal is set up to do. It would hear the applications. People would have attempted to solve the situation first, but it was at a stalemate and they would go to that body.

There are some pros and some cons to the bill. I would like to look at a couple of the positive things and then bring some concerns to the table with the hope that we are able to deal with those more fully in committee.

The Nunavut water board and the surface rights tribunal assure the Inuit greater control over the affairs of their region, and what a region it is. It is a huge land mass with a fairly small population. It is concerned about the thing that is probably of most concern to us, or certainly should be as Canadian citizens, water.

Some of the things we have seen over the last couple of years across the country have caused great alarm. Many reserves are having problems with water. It is important for all of us to say that water is essential. We need to make sure that it is as clean and as safe as possible. The bill is good because it gives the Inuit more control over the affairs of their water.

Both the water board and the surface rights tribunal would be subject to an annual audit. The water board would be audited by the board's auditor and at the direction of the minister, the auditor general. If the minister thinks there is something of concern, he can pass that on to the auditor general. I do not think we could ever go wrong by asking the auditor general to step in and ensure that the books are above board. That is a good step.

The surface rights tribunal will be audited automatically by the auditor general. Again we think that is a good thing. I am sure the tribunal and the water board themselves know there is safety in being audited by someone. They know they are clean, absolutely above board and under the protection of that. They can operate with a clean conscience and a clean bill of health because they have been given the okay and that is a very good feeling for everyone.

The legislation improves on its predecessor, Bill C-62 in its last incarnation, by removing the $20 million limit of liability for developers. This change was supported by the Inuit groups. Twenty million dollars sounds like quite a pile of cash to me and probably to most of us in the House, but think of the Exxon Valdez . I do not know what the cleanup costs were for that, but in that kind of enormous cleanup operation, $20 million liability is not a lot. It certainly could be higher. The $20 million limit was removed from the bill and that is a good thing.

One of the concerns that we do have is the whole idea of ministerial power. It is a pity to have to say it but politics enter everything in life. It is not just here in the political arena, but we see so much of it in community groups, churches, schools and businesses. It does not matter what it is, but politics creep into everything and that is the way it is. We want to make sure that the minister puts people on the board because of merit and merit alone, not just because they were a candidate or gave money or whatever. That is good advice for all of us, just to make sure the minister does not have too much power. He appoints the boards and can dismiss members after consulting with designated Inuit organizations.

I know of an organization that will probably be doing some consultation over the next short while. It will, it is sad to say, consist of one phone call and then it will be said that consultation took place. There is probably nothing healthy about that. The minister needs to make sure that he or she, or whoever the minister will be over the long haul in this business of consulting, puts some parameters in place and makes sure that real consultation takes place.

The issuance, amendment, renewal and cancellation of licences are subject to the approval of the minister. We should make sure that there is not too much power attached to the minister. If we listen with only one ear and not the other, whoever the stakeholder is, we may get a skewed view of things.

Like every good parent, teacher, or manager we should listen to all sides and then step back for a short while and weigh the consequences before a decision is made. We would encourage the minister to do that.

We have concerns that the federal government is trying to manage from afar. There are incredible distances in Canada. It is a very long way from here to the west and from here to the north. Although we are unbelievably connected and wired, this is still a huge country. We need to be careful not to make Ottawa the centre, the be-all and end-all. That would probably not be wise.

There is the idea of having a minimum of two members appointed from Nunavut to the surface rights tribunal. It would be wiser to make sure that there are more than that because people at the ground level always know far more about what is going on. The more distant the level of government, the more distant the actual intimate knowledge of issues.

The best example is the city council and the aldermen of my city of Edmonton. They get many more phone calls at home if sewers back up than I do as a federal legislator, because constituents know their aldermen. They know me too but I cannot do anything about the sewers. They will talk to me about taxes or whatever. The more distant the level of government, the more distant the personal communication.

I am sure my colleague from Nunavut would agree that it would be very wise to have as many people as possible operating at ground level in Nunavut. Given that surface rights and land access issues are very important to Canada's north, the majority of the tribunal should be individuals who reside in and fully understand the issues of Nunavut.

I do not claim to understand the issues there. I hope to learn a whole lot more about them. I would be very nervous if I had to tell them that I was from the government, just appointed to the surface rights tribunal, and there to help. They may be a little nervous about anyone coming in with that kind of attitude.

We should make sure that the tribunal works on a practical basis. It should not be a group that is set up to just have meetings. If there is supposed to be a dispute settling mechanism, let the tribunal do it and do it well.

We also have concerns regarding the streamlining of regulatory processes. Are they needed? Are they too slow? Are they too complicated? We need to make sure when we address this issue in committee that those are the things we look at and that it is the best tribunal it can possibly be.

Our position is that we would support the bill at second reading. I look forward to getting it into committee. I am hoping that we are able to hear from some excellent witnesses because all of us want to learn more about it. If this place is about making practical legislation so that people's lives are a little easier and better at the ground level in terms of claims, damages, liability or loss, those are the things we need to look at in a practical vein.

This piece of legislation seems fairly lengthy and substantial. However there are some good things in it. I have reiterated some of the positives about it and some of the concerns about it.

The member for Nunavut should be able to tell us from the ground level some of the practicalities of it. I will give the hon. member for Nunavut a hint. Even though there are good things in the legislation, I am sure there are concerns held by her family members, her constituents and stakeholders, whether they are private landowners, have businesses or operate on crown land.

When the issues are addressed that to me is practical. I do not want to hear just one side of the story. I want to hear from her, not just in the House but also in committee, what some of the positive things are. I want her to tell us in her own words and from practical experience some of her concerns.

There are always two sides to every story and I would be pleased to hear some of her concerns or hesitancies because we want to get them fixed. I am sure the minister wants to get them fixed as well. If she has waited this long, I am sure that like the rest of us she wants to get it right. I would love to hear her concerns about it.

[Terrorism, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking about terrorism yesterday, the Prime Minister told the Americans, “These people might be your neighbour. They have cells perhaps in Canada and there is no guarantee that we can stop that easily”. Yet last night the Prime Minister told his Liberal supporters that Canada will not be diverted from its overall agenda and the focus remains on health care, education and water safety.

Was the September 11 attack not enough to alter his agenda to move security to his number one immediate priority?

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was elected in March 1989 in a byelection. I have been in the House almost 13 years now. A great deal of my speech was given to the fact that the reason we are here is to vote.

I do not mean that opposition members are here only to give endorsements or whatever. It is for government members as well to tell their people back home, if nothing else, that they did something: they acted on it and they voted. The reason we are sent to the House of Commons is to vote. That is the important point.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point. Military force should be used as a last resort, but there are many things that we could and should be doing before that.

Tightening our border crossings is essential. Part of the friendship we enjoy with the United States is free and full access back and forth. In times like these when there are people who live along those borders, it is essential to make sure that we have very strong and secure borders.

I noticed in today's newspaper that after its 1993 election victory the Liberal government cancelled a high level and high powered security agency that was to do something good and practical. When all a person needs to do when crossing a border is to sign up for tee time at the golf course through North Portal, surely there is more to it than that.

We need more than the minister responsible for CCRA ranting in the House about what a great job it is doing when people are living in fear near border crossings across our country. They are concerned about how easy it is to get into Canada and how difficult it is to get into the United States. We must work together on that.

That is something concrete the government could, should and must do to say that it has taken action by tightening up that border crossing. That is something the government can point to and be proud of when it says that it has at least made some difference and has taken some action in this regard.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the entire world is gripped by the events of the last couple of weeks and how we were all horrified. Every one of us will remember for the rest of our lives where we were, who we spoke with first and these kinds of things. This was a world changing event.

Although you and I, Mr. Speaker, were here in 1991 when the gulf war occurred, and it certainly was a frightening time as well, it seems to me that this is perhaps the culmination of many of those events. We are able to have the privilege to be here in this country as well as the responsibility, and not just to participate in take note debates. This is a whole lot bigger than just that. The world has changed permanently because of what happened and because of the events in New York a couple of weeks ago. I do believe that take note debates just will not be good enough.

If we look at what is going on in the United States, George W. Bush is not just saying “let us take note” of something. This parliament should be seized with what we can actually do rather than just taking note, and what we do here is vote. That is part of our job and our responsibility.

My colleague just said how important it is. If we are calling on the military to do its job, then so should we be doing our job, and our job is to vote on and participate in this. Whether the government thinks it has all the answers or does not need a whole lot of input is immaterial right now. It is absolutely immaterial.

If I were on the government side, I would want to know that I had the safety, the security and the blessing of all hon. members of the House because in numbers is that strength with which we are all able to go forward.

If we just look at the idea that we do not really need to vote on it, and the minister this morning said we do not really know if the House of Commons will be sitting at such a time, that is just inane. Surely we could think ahead on something. So much of what has happened over the last couple of weeks is due to us thinking ahead a little bit, but not a whole lot. We have had clues. We had ideas as to what could happen in some of these attacks. No one could have guessed it would happen on that day or in that way, but we should all sharpen up and be ready “in the event of”, because there are enough clues coming forward. It is no surprise now that something will happen.

My colleague talked about this amazing initiative that he has undertaken and will continue to participate in, the peace forum. What a great idea that is: to look at diplomatic ways to ensure that military force will be used only as a last resort.

The government, especially in the United States yesterday, talked about the wisdom of economic sanctions or cutting off the taps of amazing amounts of profit flowing to these groups. That is a good thing, to look at economic freeze out and the diplomatic moves we can make, but it seems to me that it is evident and inevitable that sooner or later there will have to be some use of military force. Why is the government not thinking ahead on this thing, saying that if such and such happens then let us be ready and let us have the umbrella, strength and protection of this place to be able to move forward and move forward agreed on how important it is?

In regard to the idea of take note debates like we saw last Monday, where it was not voted on, the Alliance then brought forward a motion which I thought was very good. On Tuesday it was voted on but defeated. We just have to wonder how forward looking the House of Commons is.

When I said earlier that voting is what we do here, that is part of our job and our responsibility. A vote is nothing more than standing up and being counted on something. People participate like that in elections. In the House people participate like that on behalf of their constituents.

I am amazed when I talk to people on the streets or in coffee shops or whatever. Everyone is horrified.

A common question we are being asked is what we will do about it. The government says it is taking action. We try to appreciate that in the fullest sense of the word. Receiving an endorsement from parliament for any kind of action is the number one step. I do not know for what reasons that is not happening,

During the gulf war crisis the member who spoke before me and I were both here at the time. We remember it as a very frightening time. He alluded to the fact that we talked about it several times in the House of Commons.

On October 23, 1990, the House passed a motion condemning Kuwait. On November 28 and 29 the second motion was brought forward. War was declared on January 16, the very evening I was to give my speech. It was a huge shock for the entire world that war had been declared. Later that week the second motion was passed

Partisanship politics is so ridiculous and unnecessary at a time like this. It is sad to watch. My colleague talked about the forum and quoted from the Globe and Mail where it said, and I agree 100%, that “we must talk to each other”.

In this place we talk through each other, we talk past each other, or we make some grandiose statement thinking that was wonderful and maybe we will be on the news tonight. We must talk to each other, not just in this place but at home and on the news.

We must talk to each other, those of us in Canada with those in the United States. It could have easily happened here and we are afraid to say that it might because they will not strike the same place twice in the same manner. We need to be thinking ahead.

When we get our brains together and begin to really talk to each other, that will be the most important message that comes out of this. Let us look at Mayor Giuliani of New York and the amazing turnaround in that man's life over the last six months. What is he doing? He is talking to people. He is at ground zero holding press conferences and keeping people up to date. He has done a marvellous job, simply because he is talking to people. That more than anything else will be the lesson we need to learn from this.

If this was an important issue to parliament in the past it should be important again. In 1994 the special joint committee on Canada's defence policy issued a report entitled “Security in a changing world”. Is that not a prophetic title? We have a changing world now or a changed world, and we need security to the maximum. There were recommendations made concerning the role of parliament. At page 58 the committee noted:

At the time of the Gulf War, for example, the government of the day introduced and debated a motion regarding the deployment of our forces to the combat theatre.

Not a whole lot has changed in the ensuing years in terms of how important that committee report was under a Liberal government. We need to make sure that we are together on the deployment of forces. The government would be very wise not to spurn this. We need to come before parliament. We need the strength and security of all of us working together in a non-partisan way.

[Terrorism, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, they have virtually nothing to work with on that.

Yesterday the solicitor general told me, “There were no planned attacks on Canada”. He could hardly assure us of that.

Former CSIS director Ward Elcock warned that terrorist cells are active in Canada. Now Dave Harris, the former chief of strategic planning for CSIS, has issued a warning. He said: “As far as Canada is concerned, it is coming, it is guaranteed”.

Why is the government continuing to ignore the good advice of its own security professionals?

[Committees of the House, September 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to run through a few numbers with the government House leader. He said that the Tory-Conservative program for the EH-101s was $6 billion. He will know that I was not a member of that minority government and I would like to ask him a couple of questions about the math on the Liberal side.

The EH-101 cancellation fees were $500 million. The Sea King maintenance and upgrades to the year 2008 amounts to $600 million. Canada's search helicopter program consisting of 15 helicopters is $790 million. The CSH long term service support over 25 years is $1.7 billion. These are Liberal numbers. The maritime helicopter project consisting of 28 helicopters was $2.9 billion.The MHP long term service support over 25 years was another $1.7 billion. The administrative cost in splitting that procurement was $400 million. The total cost of Liberal programs with zero inflation was $8.6 billion.

There are still zero helicopters in that of course and he is talking about the Conservative program for the 43 EH-101s being $6 billion. That is an extra $2 billion plus. That is an amazing amount of money.

What about the lives of the pilots? Of course we could never ever put a dollar figure on that.

Would the government House leader somehow explain and try to justify that since 1978, under the Liberal government of Trudeau, cabinet acknowledged the need to replace the Sea King when in fact those machines had gone into service in 1963. Even after only 15 years of service the Trudeau government said there was a need to replace the Sea King. The Sea Kings have outlasted Trudeau.

Could the government House leader explain that for us, please?

[Terrorism, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the King of Jordan on television last night uncovered this series of operations. He admitted that they were taking place in Europe, the U.S. and Canada. He immediately co-ordinated with those countries' agencies. However, this Prime Minister continues to claim that he knows nothing about terrorist cells in this country.

Canadians deserve to know what is going on in parliament without finding out about things on Larry King Live .

Will the Prime Minister tell parliament, before he tells President Bush, what he plans to do?

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, again I agree with much of what my colleague has said. These are difficult days and although we can assume that maybe we will get back to some sense of normalcy, I really do not think that we will go back to the way things were.

I do not think my colleague was here in 1991 in January when the gulf war was declared. I remember that I was ready to come into the Chamber and speak on that and war was declared right before I was due to speak. The impact that has on any person, let alone the images that he was just referring to, which we will never, ever forget, those things have been etched on our minds. Also there are the people who are trying to do the rescue efforts right now. It is such a difficult time. We realize that this is monumental in history, that we are here for such a time as this, to be debating this and also to stand firm with our colleagues in the United States.

Although the circumstances were certainly different in 1991 when we went to the gulf war, we know that there was something identifiable. We know that there were targets that we were after. I am wondering if I could get a commitment from my colleague in the government to realize that even in that gulf war in 1991, Canada was willing to act as quickly as possible, as forcibly as possible, to help the United States and the allied countries to stand for democracy. So we must be willing now to do exactly the same to eradicate this terrorism. We must remember that if it is not Osama bin Laden then there may be 15 other people to stand in his place. How do we eradicate that, not by jumping to the gun in terms of avenging but by realizing that this may be long term. Even as we were willing to stand shoulder to shoulder in the gulf war in 1991, so we must be willing to do it now, 10 years later.