Ian McClelland

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the presentation of the members opposite.

I am wondering if the member opposite is aware that the penalties under the migratory birds act are in many respects much more severe than any penalties envisioned under the Young Offenders Act. For those watching this debate on television who may still be awake, I wonder if the member would comment on that.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really hear much of a question in the comments, but I would pretty much echo virtually everything he said. We are basically on the same wavelength.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on the whole question of mineral exploration or exploration for anything the self-government model would have to go to a provincial model. In this particular case the people involved have indicated they would be flexible to do whatever is necessary and to do whatever is right. It is a learning process for everyone involved.

The important thing in the whole aspect of self-government as I envision it is not to replace one with another but is to say: "Give us the opportunity to earn and to have our dignity by making our own laws. This is our land. We know our land. We know how to look after our land a lot better than you do. Give us the power to do so".

I think particularly in this agreement the Sahtu Dene have not tried to say this was their land exclusively. It is very clearly laid out in the agreement that with the exception of about 700 kilometres it is open to anyone on permission. The caveat is not to destroy the environment or harm the land. In answer to the direct question it would not work as a municipal but it might be a combination of municipal and provincial. Who knows?

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that entirely unexpected question.

The implementation of self-government in this particular circumstance will be very different from the implementation of self-government in other circumstances. This is an enormous area with relatively few people who are by and large involved in a traditional lifestyle, with the exception that they particularly want to get more involved in oil and gas exploration. Self-government in this particular model would be one that would be more municipal; it is envisioned as being more municipal than it would be federal.

Something we would want to keep in mind in this whole self-government consideration is that if 5 per cent of Canadians are of aboriginal ancestry, and yet something like 40 or 50 per cent of Canadians in jail are of aboriginal ancestry, then somewhere along the line we have gone horribly wrong. If we need to make a leap of faith to try to right that wrong then it is incumbent on us to do exactly that.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, no, I have not looked at it carefully from that perspective. I contacted Mr. George Cleary, president of the Sahtu Tribal Council, and talked to him about this settlement. He seemed in conversation to be very concerned that whatever was done on both sides of the table be done right and be done in a responsible manner.

There are provisions in the agreement to set up an enormous level of bureaucracy. I believe there are seven, eight or as many as nine other bureaucracies. He was very clear in saying they understand the potential for problem there and would be very cautious to ensure that did not happen by perhaps having people wearing two or three different hats at one time.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

And can be improved. It is in that spirit I make my comments today and I know my hon. colleagues do as well.

We are all aware that Bill C-16 will pass eventually. It will pass intact or with moderate or very little change. The question then is this: Why am I and my colleagues so impassioned about this debate? That is the question. Why would we even bother?

The other question is: This is a debate of incredible importance, at least in our view, to the nation, and yet how much ink does it get? Where are the priorities in the nation? We are talking about the First Nations, the first people in our country. They have traditionally, we know and acknowledge, been the recipi-

ents of something less than the kind of treatment of which we should be proud. Yet for the very first time it is being debated. Unfortunately it will probably get very little interest outside the House.

Why then do I think this is the most important speech I have given in the House thus far, and why do I care so deeply that what we do is right? It is because the relationship between the first people and the immigrants, that is all of us that they welcomed to this continent, has largely been one of paternalism, of manipulation, of neglect and of isolation.

We acknowledge that there are two sides to every story. While we-I am speaking essentially as a white person in this country-have not much to be proud about, neither do our native brothers have very much to be proud about either. We have to recognize that there are two sides to this story and responsibilities on both sides. We must accept responsibility, but so must the aboriginal people accept responsibility for their lot in life.

That is not to say there have not been examples of inspiration and achievement. But in general, especially on the prairies where I am from, we have nothing to be proud of. By using that as a starting point and as a base, what can we do, where do we go from here?

As in everything we have to recognize the situation as it is, not as we would wish it to be. We have to recognize both sides of the issue; those who will receive the benefits of this agreement, and also those who are going to be paying the bills. Because we are all, as it was mentioned earlier by an hon. colleague, and we have to make it work. If it is not good for both sides it will not be good for either.

Aboriginal Canadians comprise about 5 per cent of the population, and yet aboriginal Canadians are over-represented in every statistic that speaks to failure in our society and they are under represented in most statistics that represent success. This was so eloquently put across to all of us by the hon. member for Churchill when he talked about his experiences. We know this, it is not something we are debating at all.

How did this unholy circumstance happen? Did it happen by accident? I submit it did not. It happened because our forefathers chose not to accept the aboriginals as brother human beings, equal in every respect, in human rights and in dignity. Instead, aboriginal Canadians were treated as innocents, they were in need of the benevolent protection of the state. Aboriginal Canadians were herded on to reserves, isolated from the world, out of sight and out of mind. That has largely been the situation for many years, one of benevolent ignorance, "let's not pay attention to it and it won't be a problem".

It does not matter whether the intention was good or evil. The result today is the circumstance that aboriginal people largely endure, a circumstance in many respects no better than South Africa's discredited system of apartheid, so deservedly denounced in all the civilized world. Aas we debate today, free elections are under way in South Africa. Another nail is being driven into the coffin of the marginalization of indigenous peoples around the world. South Africans should and must be congratulated for this giant leap forward and that indeed is a giant leap forward for mankind.

However, I must get back to Bill C-16, the comprehensive land claims settlement of the Sahtu Dene and Metis. How would the bill lead to a better way of life for those involved and will this settlement lead to self-sufficiency, pride, self-respect and self-confidence of the Sahtu Dene as a people? That is the question. If what we are talking about would lead to self-respect, pride, self-confidence and self-sufficiency, then it would be a very small price to pay. It is what we all want to achieve. It is where we want to be at the end of the day.

Unfortunately I think the answer is a qualified no. I do not know if it is going to achieve the noble objectives which are envisioned for it. While there are aspects of the bill my colleagues have already questioned, I need to point out that 16,000 square miles is an awful lot of land for just 2,200 people, not to mention $130 million over 15 years.

Why do the Sahtu Dene need so much land and why does the government pay them so much money, while at the same time they are still entitled to all the benefits all other status Indians have today or may receive in the future?

Sixteen thousand square miles is a lot of land. However keep in mind that over much of the year it is covered with ice and snow. Also keep in mind there really are not a whole lot of people up there and the traditional way of life for the Sahtu Dene is trapping, hunting and fishing. Not a whole lot of people are trying to get into that land either, except to explore and get at the resources and we still have that opportunity.

As I understand it the Sahtu Dene will be the custodians of the land. We should not make any mistake. The land will be theirs in fee simple. However, except for about 700 square miles all Canadians will have access, with permission where possible, provided they do not harm the land or destroy the environment.

We can look at the immense amount of land and look at the Sahtu Dene and Metis because there will not be any reserves. This is all settlement land. We can look at it as a big national park but the park rangers are the traditional inhabitants, the Sahtu Dene and Metis. While they will be getting the land in fee simple, they do not own the resources of the vast majority of the land. They own the resources of about 700 square miles. That is an important consideration.

However, if resources are found in any of that land, they will via royalties be able to participate in the profit. The money, $75 million to be paid out over 15 years, is intended to help develop a commercial infrastructure and is paid to the band council. With the money they can set up hunting lodges-if handguns or rifles are not banned-and with fishing and guiding try to get some tourist trade going.

The idea of the Sahtu Dene is to participate, to be doing something, rather than sitting back and for this they are to be recognized and congratulated.

The reality is that we, the Government of Canada, are going to pay out $75 million over 15 years. The money is not going to disappear. It will be recycled through the band to the community. I think that financial commitment may turn out to be a mistake and this is the primary reason why I have a problem with the bill. Remember it is in addition to any existing entitlements.

In my opinion the Sahtu Dene would be well served if their commercial activities had to undergo the same checks and balances as any other commercial venture anywhere else in Canada. The band council could consider a system of guarantees but the focus should be to develop entrepreneurs who would repay their stake and be accountable for use of the money. However the most important consideration is: Will the agreement lead to self-sufficiency? Will this get people off social assistance and into the mainstream of Canadian life?

Unless the entrepreneurs in the Sahtu Dene nation have obligations, they are not going to be able to develop skills as entrepreneurs that will allow them to become part of mainstream life. All of us exist in a competitive society and we cannot take ourselves out of it. If we are going to get into business, we are into business. We cannot be half in and half out. Otherwise it will be a black hole in which we will be throwing more and more money.

I think, though, it could be but only if the land settlement and cash payment are one-time deals. That is why the agreement is so very important. In my opinion the agreement will set the stage for future agreements to be negotiated across the country in the months and years ahead.

Most Canadians want to do the right thing by our aboriginal brothers. Most Canadians feel a collective sense of embarrassment over the condition and situation of many aboriginal Canadians. We will not improve their situation by creating still more dependence and throwing still more money at the problem. Therefore this would be a much better agreement if the Sahtu Dene and Metis were to receive the benefit of the agreement or their traditional entitlements as agreed, but not both.

That is a fairly major change. They would receive the benefits of the agreement or their traditional entitlements, but not both. The way it is set up today, they would receive all their traditional benefits plus all the benefits that accrue to them under the agreement.

There are only 982 people to participate in this. How will that do anything to promote self-sufficiency? We must remember that when the settlement is done the Sahtu Dene will get the benefit of the royalties of resources on the land. Those royalties would today give them $200,000. How does anyone know what might be found there in the future?

By accepting this land settlement and the royalties that come with it as well as the cash settlements, the Sahtu Dene should also accept the same rights, freedoms and obligations of any other Canadian in any other part of the country. That is the only road that leads to self-sufficiency, self-respect and dignity.

Continued dependence generation after generation leads to exactly what we do not want whether the recipients are aboriginal or not. This settlement offers at the very minimum hope of a better future for the Sahtu Dene and Metis. I am concerned that the agreement sets a bad precedence because it does not regulate the use of the cash payment. The land settlement is absolutely enormous. It is not clear if there is a provision to make changes in the agreement if it is subsequently seen to be in need of correction. The agreement is entrenched in the Constitution under section 35 because the Sahtu Dene are already covered under treaty 11.

Another consideration has to be the implementation of aboriginal self-government. It is my opinion the Sahtu Dene will be responsible in implementing a combination of band council and municipal government. We have to face it that in this circumstance there are only about 2,800 people in the entire 16,000 square kilometres and they are mostly concentrated in a few communities.

Finally the agreement will be entrenched in the Constitution. Therefore I am of the opinion that the charter rights would prevail as the law of the land despite any future self-government negotiations.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the Sahtu Dene for the very professional manner in which they have pursued this agreement and the help they have been to me and to others in trying to get a handle on this debate and exactly what is in the bill.

It is my view that in Bill C-16 the majority of what is written is innovative, imaginative and very worth while.

At the outset I want to point out that I will be raising some points while speaking about the bill. The intent is to make it better and to understand what we are talking about. This is probably one of the very first times that there has ever been a debate in the House of Commons over such an important issue. These issues come before the House and because they are politically sensitive or motherhood issues they never end up being debated honestly. It is this lack of honest, vigorous debate which may have allowed us to arrive in the position we are at today.

It is our job, our function, our responsibility not to automatically assume that everything the government presents is right and holy and good. Our job is to assume that everything the government presents is exactly the opposite.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise and respond to the hon. member for Churchill.

This really is what Parliament is all about. I am personally very honoured to have been here for the hon. member's first intervention and to have heard him speak so passionately and honestly about his life, his experiences, dreams and aspirations. Obviously it came from the heart. It is not something I could live; I cannot be in the hon. member's skin. We can learn a tremendous amount from each other.

I want to assure the hon. member, other members in this House and others in our land that our role here is to oppose the government, to challenge its program and to try to ensure that by a spirited and healthy debate we end up with a better solution than we would have had without that debate.

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I look forward to more in the future.

What would the member do faced with this situation? The situation is that all across the land on reservations there are all of the social ills and the unemployment the hon. member described. How do we go about changing that, not just on reservations but for urban Indians as well?

[Trade, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the reason many people are making such a fuss over this is that many Canadians feel they were led down the garden path in the selection criteria for this environmental secretariat. Had the decision been made to award it either to Montreal or Toronto and that had been done up front, it would not have been a problem.

In any event, the Deputy Prime Minister also told the House on January 24: "Montrealers like all Canadians want a process free of politics which is precisely what the federal government is providing".

This is why my question is so important. When will the government stop insulting Quebecers by offering such transparent bribes when what Montrealers, like all Canadians, really want and expect from the government is a government free of political expediency and a government that would put principle ahead of politics?

[Trade, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns remarks made in the House by the Minister of the Environment on January 24.

At that time she said with regard to the selection of a site for the environmental secretariat of NAFTA:

The selection will be made based on the environmental performance of those cities.

She also said:

The selection would be made with no politics involved.

On Friday the same minister told the House that the reality was that politics was about making difficult decisions in the best interest of the country.

Since the independent consultant's report was submitted on one day and the decision to award the secretariat to Montreal was made the very next day, what actual criteria came into play? Was it environmental? Was it political? Or, was it federal pork barrelling?