Jack Iyerak Anawak

[Motion To Extend Hours Of Sitting, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent to go back to tabling of documents to table a document that I was going to table earlier.

[Susan Aglukark, September 22nd, 1994]

On Monday, the 1994 Country Music Awards for Canada were handed out. Among those honoured that night was Susan Aglukark, a young Inuk singer and songwriter from Arviat in my constituency.

In 1990 Susan's video called "Searching" won the top cinematography award from MuchMusic. Her first recording entitled "Dreams for You" was followed in 1992 by the critically acclaimed CD "Arctic Rose".

At Monday's awards ceremony, 27-year old Susan won the Rising Star trophy.

Susan and her music are special. Susan sings in her native language Inuktitut as well as in English. She sings about life, its problems and its joys. While celebrating the Inuit language and culture, Susan's music transcends cultural boundaries.

Congratulations, Susan. We are all proud of you.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, rather than lecturing Yukoners, members of the Reform Party should be humbly taking lessons from them. Through compromise and consensus Yukoners of all origins have built a foundation for their future together. This is not social and government engineering, as the member of the Reform Party has called it, it is nation building.

On February 14, 1973, Chief Elijah Smith and all Yukon First Nations chiefs presented a petition to Canada to negotiate a comprehensive claim settlement agreement. The petition was entitled: "Together Today For Our Children Tomorrow". On that same day Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau accepted the Yukon Indian request to commence negotiations.

Our present Prime Minister was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at that time. As the chair of the Council for Yukon Indians pointed out last week in a presentation to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, it is entirely appropriate that the Prime Minister conclude the circle of negotiations of our final self-government agreements. Tomorrow is here.

The Reform's amendment would delete clause 5 from Bill C-33. Subclause (1) of clause 5 allows final land claim agreements and transboundary agreements concluded in the future to be given effect by order in council. Subclause (2) of clause 5 requires that such an order in council be tabled in the House of Commons within 30 sitting days after the order is made. The Reform's amendment to delete clause 5 would mean that 10 remaining First Nations final agreements and future transboundary agreements would have to be brought into effect by other acts of Parliament.

Motion No. 1 is unacceptable because first, the four final agreements being given effect by this bill require this bill to provide that future agreements may be given effect by order in council. Deleting clause 5 would make the legislation inconsistent with the four agreements the bill is bringing into effect. Second, clause 5 does not prevent Parliament from reviewing any further agreements. Third, deleting clause 5 would require consequential amendments to other clauses of this bill, for example clauses 14 and 15.

For all of the above reasons, the government finds Motion No. 1 unacceptable.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the presentation to the aboriginal affairs standing committee from Miss Judy Gingell, the chair of the Council for Yukon Indians, with regard to the agreements that we are debating here today: "These agreements manifest a vision of our elders. Our elders maintained that our homelands must be protected in a manner that allows the sharing and natural resources with other Canadians. Our elders have instilled in us a great respect for other cultures and other people. Their visions of justice and fairness form the basis of our agreements".

We are debating these couple of motions with regard to amendments to Bill C-33. This has to do with the land claims. When we were trying to deal with the issue of land claims, this has taken some 21 years to date to come to this state.

It started by being a vision, a dream. It started by being something that people wanted to talk about but did not really have any understanding of what it would all lead to. Twenty-one years later this is what it is coming to.

I am very honoured to have taken a part in helping that dream come true. As well, I am sure that thanks and appreciation go to all the negotiators over the years on the government side and on the CYI side, and of course all the Yukon Indian people as well as the non-Indians whose hopes and trust are placed in the success of these agreements.

As we have found out in the last few days, these two bills have the support of all the Yukoners. We had the Yukon territorial government, the Council for Yukon Indians, the member of Parliament for Yukon and others all supporting these two bills.

In supporting this bill, we are making the dreams of Yukoners come true. In light of the local support, the position of the Reform Party which has opposed these bills from the outset can only be characterized as decidedly undemocratic.

The Reform Party which professes to uphold and respect the wishes and the will of the people has shown profound disrespect and contempt for the people of Yukon. The Reform's effort to thwart this bill and the will of the people from the Yukon through this process has been appalling.

What is most disturbing about the position of the Reform Party in all this in my view is it does not really even care what happens in the Yukon. It is more concerned about the potential land claims agreements in British Columbia.

By imposing its fears and concerns about land claims in B.C. and Yukon, it forced Yukoners and especially Yukon Indian people to unnecessary stress and indignities.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have a chance to speak to this bill as well as the motion. I would like to start off by acknowledging the presence in the gallery of people from the Council for Yukon Indians who are eagerly awaiting the passage of these bills.

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 21st, 1994]

It is a pleasure to be able to finally speak to the issue. There is such concern from the party for aboriginal people what can I say? It is from the same party that thinks we are giving away large tracts of land to the aboriginal people and that we are giving away large amounts of money to the aboriginal people. All of a sudden there is all this concern for the poor aboriginal people. We have to be consistent when we are talking about whether we are supporting aboriginal people or whether we are against the process they are trying to go through.

Before I comment on the amendment I received a letter attached to the Toronto Sun about the member from the Reform Party apologizing for depicting us as spoiled or denying depicting us as spoiled. The letter quite clearly follows the lines of the attitude of the Reform Party. It says: ``Hey, Jack, if it is any consolation we also think our natives are a bunch of lazy, drunken layabouts who have been fleecing we hardworking fed up taxpayers for too long. Cut all the federal money they get and make them, the whole lot of them, work for their keep. Let's see if they can make it on their own, but I doubt it''.

This letter shows the ignorance of some Canadian people. Who do they think the land came from? Whose land does this person think it is? That letter is ridiculous. It basically follows the lines of the remarks made in the House by a member of the Reform Party.

The Reform's amendment would delete subclauses 5(2) and (3). Subclause 5(1) brings into effect the self-government agreements of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, the First Nation of Nacho Hyak Dun, the Teslin Tlingit Council, and the Vuntut Gwitch'in First Nation on the day this act comes into force. That is subclause (1).

Subclause (2), which they would delete, provides that the remaining 10 First Nations self-government agreements may be brought into effect by order in council.

Subclause (3), another one they would delete, ensures that the effective date of a self-government agreement will be published in the Canada Gazette .

The Reform's amendment would delete subclauses (2) and (3) of clause 5 so that each of the remaining 10 First Nations self-government agreements would have to be brought into effect by other acts of Parliament. The proposed amendment would also move the requirement by the minister to publish the effective date of these self-government agreements.

Motion No. 1 is unacceptable because, one, the process of bringing the subsequent 10 self government agreements into effect should be the same as the process used to bring the land claims agreement into effect. This clause mirrors a clause in Bill C-33. The amendment would create inconsistent processes and

would defeat the intention in the land claims agreement to allow for orders in council to bring future agreements into effect.

Two, clause 5 does not prevent Parliament from reviewing any future agreements.

Three, this bill establishes the parameters of the subsequent 10 self-government agreements. These parameters cannot be exceeded in the negotiation of the subsequent 10 self-government agreements.

For all the reasons I just cited, the government finds Motion no. 1 unacceptable.

[Committees Of The House, June 17th, 1994]

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I present, in both official languages, the third and fourth reports of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development regarding Bill C-33, the Yukon First Nations Land Claim Settlement Act, and Bill C-34, Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act.

I would like to commend the work that was done throughout the night by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois and the government and the great patience they showed while dealing with these two bills.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 14th, 1994]

The lands of the Inuvialuit in the Western Arctic and those of the Blood Tribe in Alberta are a long way from any south sea island, but last week in both regions major aboriginal achievements were celebrated.

On June 5 the Inuvialuit celebrated the 10th anniversary of its land claim settlement. This historic agreement achieved a sharing of lands, resources and decision making that continues to benefit the Inuvialuit, the Northwest Territories and Canada.

On June 9 the Blood Tribe celebrated the first delivery of water under its irrigation project, an impressive project of tribal and government partnership which expands economic and employment opportunities for all.

I salute these positive examples of mutual respect, sharing, accommodation and co-operation. I congratulate the Inuvialuit and the Blood Tribe for their vision, drive and generosity, and I wish them continued success in their endeavours.

[Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was commenting on what we are trying to do as a government to help the aboriginal people. I make these comments because of comments made last week in the House and I think the hon. members from that party could learn an awful lot if they would just listen.

I will quote some more: "I do not know the answer to the native communities and the problems which persist". It should be fairly obvious that if the hon. member could keep the people thinking that he is ignorant of aboriginal issues and kept silent instead of opening his mouth and proving it, then we would all be much better off.

In the debates when we are trying to do as much as we can to ensure that aboriginal people have a rightful place by righting some of the wrongs that have been done over the years, the members opposite would like us to go back a further 100 years and just say it is not your land. We do not have to help you. You should be on your own. We are not asking for that kind of help. We are asking for righting some of the wrongs that have been done over the last 200 years. We have resided in this country for 40,000 years.

I would like to go on to the bill to address the Split Lake Cree First Nation's flood agreement. As hon. members are aware, this is a very short bill. It is nonetheless an important bill because it ensures that certain commitments of the Government of Canada will be met. I would like to explain why it is before the House.

In 1977 the northern flood agreement was signed by the Governments of Canada and Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro, and the northern flood committee which represents five Manitoba First Nations.

It was intended to resolve a number of issues that arose after 11,861 acres of reserve lands were flooded by hydro related projects on the Churchill and Nelson Rivers. This project also flooded up to 528,000 acres of non-reserve land, much of which was traditionally used by the affected First Nations for hunting and trapping. The affected waterways were used as a source of drinking water, for recreational pursuits, for food and commercial fishing, and for transportation.

The northern flood agreement sets out a compensation program to the more than 9,000 status Indians adversely affected by the Lake Winnipeg regulation and Churchill River diversion project.

Unfortunately the northern flood agreement has been very difficult to implement. Its vague and inadequate wording, along with its failure to anticipate all the issues that have arisen, have lead the parties to seek arbitration on many points.

A total of 172 claims have been filed and this has occurred at a great expense to taxpayers. To resolve these problems, in July 1990 the four parties agreed to a proposed basis of settlement for addressing outstanding issues under the northern flood agreement.

This new accord approved a long list of matters to be resolved and provided a basis for band specific negotiations relating to them.

The only such negotiations to be completed to date involve the Split Lake Cree First Nation. An agreement was signed with this First Nation in June 1992 and it is now being implemented with no significant problems.

In addition to providing financial compensation to this First Nation, the settlement agreement increases socioeconomic opportunities for the Split Lake Cree and releases Canada from further obligations to this First Nation under the northern flood agreement in return for compensation provided.

The Split Lake Cree settlement agreement includes a commitment by the Government of Canada to implement certain provisions of the agreement through legislation. This is what Bill C-36 sets out to do. It does not give force to the Split Lake Cree settlement agreement. This agreement has its own legal force and is already being implemented.

It does not include commitments by the Government of Canada which have not already been made by the agreement itself. It does not make any grand promises to aboriginal people and it does not make any new demands on the federal purse. Bill C-36 simply ensures that the government lives up to one of its commitments to aboriginal people. That is something that all Canadians and all members of the House would want to do.

Bill C-36 will achieve four specific objectives. I would like to quickly review them for the House. First it provides, as intended by the agreement, that moneys owed under the Split Lake Cree agreement are not payable to the crown. This means these payments will not be considered Indian moneys under the Indian Act. This is very important for a couple of reasons. First, it means that the moneys paid under the Split Lake Cree agreement will be administered by a trustee at the direction of the First Nation, rather than by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Not only does this reduce our administrative burden but it also gives the affected band much greater control over these moneys than it would have over Indian Act moneys. It also removes a potential source of friction between the Split Lake Cree and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development over the management of its money. This is strictly in keeping with our objective of empowering First Nations to set their own destiny.

The second thing Bill C-36 does is clarify the status of fee simple lands owed to the Split Lake Cree First Nation. Specifically, the legislation ensures, again as intended by this agreement, that 2,800 acres of provincial crown lands that are provided in fee simple title will not become special reserves under sections 35 and 36 of the Indian Act.

The objective is to give the Split Lake Cree more control over the use and management of their lands, including any future potential development than would be possible if they were reserve lands. This stipulation means that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will not have the responsibility for these lands, along with the related costs and administrative burdens.

Third, Bill C-36 ensures that individual band members can continue to make certain claims against Manitoba Hydro under the northern flood agreement. However, settlement or adjudication processes set out in the band specific agreement will have precedence over the process included in the northern flood agreement, which as I mentioned earlier, is cumbersome and costly.

Bill C-36 ensures that the Government of Canada can utilize the Manitoba Arbitration Act when matters are in dispute under the northern flood agreement. Currently Canada is the only party to the agreement that does not have access to these arbitration mechanisms.

I want to assure hon. members that Bill C-36 was developed in full consultation with the Split Lake Cree. The four northern flood agreement bands that have not yet signed settlement agreements will not be affected by the proposed legislation, which is band specific and deals only with the Split Lake Cree First Nation.

As well, the province of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro support the bill, as it simply implements some provisions of an agreement that was signed three years ago. Hon. members should also be aware that the province of Manitoba is now in the process of drafting companion legislation to Bill C-36.

The Split Lake Cree settlement agreement has provided an important new beginning for this First Nation. It has given them control over their own future and the resources needed to support their socioeconomic advancement.

This House is being asked to help fulfil all of Canada's commitments under that important agreement. I urge hon. members to join me in supporting Bill C-36. In so doing we will send an important message to aboriginal people, a message of action, commitment, partnership and respect.

[Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the House on Bill C-36, the Split Lake Cree First Nation settlement agreement. Before I do so I would like to make some general comments with regard to what the government is trying to do to assist aboriginal people to get to a point where they can get more control over their lives.

I would like to go back to some comments that were made last week by an hon. member. It says here: "You do not have to stir the wood in the stove in order to cook meals. Instead of having to tend a garden in the summer you just buy the food from the supermarket".

I just came in from my hometown of Repulse Bay yesterday, which is right on the Arctic circle. I was out seal hunting, along with a lot of the people of my hometown who were out seal hunting for their food. They were not going to the grocery store to buy their food. They were going out to hunt the food.

I do not think the remark that was made is quite correct. I really did not see any people who were staying home because they felt lazy. Even when they were very tired they went out hunting.

As a result of these comments some may be thinking that aboriginal people must be lazy, wearing sun glasses and Bermuda shorts on some island. When we talk about bills like this, and we are trying to correct some wrongs, we do not want to give the wrong impression to the people of Canada.

One of the first remarks that a constituent of mine from Iqaluit made to me yesterday was: "We should invite that person from the Reform Party to come up in February with sun glasses and Bermuda shorts and we will go to some island". I think there was a similar invitation from the chief of the Opaskwayak Cree Nation yesterday.