Claude Bachand

[Indian Affairs, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, the Minister of Indian Affairs recognized the problem of band councils overestimating Native populations. These figures are then used to set the amount of federal subsidies. According to La Presse , this overestimation may cost over $1.2 billion in expenditures for non-existent Natives.

My question to the minister is this: Given the drastic state of the federal government's finances, does the Minister of Indian Affairs undertake today to ensure that Statistics Canada census takers will have access to aboriginal lands so that these populations can be counted accurately?

[Indian Affairs, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that the only way to determine the native population on reserves is by ensuring that Statistics Canada census takers have access to these lands?

[Indian Affairs, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada figures published in the daily La Presse , Ottawa makes overpays native band councils by over $1.2 billion every year. This money is paid to over 70,000 apparently non-existent natives and represents nearly one quarter of the overall $5.5 billion budget allocated annually by Ottawa to native communities.

My question is for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. Can the minister confirm this report?

[Food Distribution In Canada's North, June 16th, 1994]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the necessary steps to make food distribution in Canada's North more effective and therefore more economical, in order to enable the Inuit to purchase higher quality food at a lower price.

Madam Speaker, like my Inuit colleague on the other side of the House, I will try to say a few words in Inuktitut and I will also provide a translation.

It means that I am pleased today to introduce this motion. It follows my trip to Iqaluit when I did not feel pleased last winter. I arrived in an extremely harsh climate, with temperatures around-30o". This motion is before the House today to draw the attention of Canadians and Northerners to the astronomical cost of food in the Far North. Not only is the cost astronomical but the living conditions are surely the most difficult in Canada.

I often spend two or three days on location talking with people. I was troubled to see how they live and I think that the proposal before us today at least has the merit of trying to do something for them. I do not know how far we will go, but I was very happy that my motion was drawn and that I can make this presentation today.

As I usually do, I will give a brief introduction and give you a summary of the historical background. The Inuit's ancestors immigrated from northern Asia 8,000 years ago. They must not be confused with other native people; they do not want to be called Indians, they are Inuit. It is very important throughout our discussion not to treat them as Natives; that would be a mistake.

Originally, the hunters used flint stones as weapons with which they eked out a living from day to day in extremely difficult conditions, as I explained to you briefly. A little later, they started using bows and harpoons. One may wonder why people from northern Asia would stop in such a hostile land with such a harsh climate. It is fairly easy to understand. Indians from South America had invaded North America and the lands further south were already occupied, so they simply decided to stay in the Arctic.

Of course, hunting is part of the tradition of many Inuit and Natives. In 1839, the Hudson's Bay Company embarked upon its economic incursion into the Arctic. At the time, it was mostly interested in whaling, and when the whale population began to

decline over there, it went as far as Ungava. When it realized that the fauna and the flora, but mostly the fauna, were getting scarce due to hunting and trapping, the Hudson's Bay Company changed its economic approach somewhat.

It focused more on trapping, because fur trading was becoming a very lucrative operation for the Hudson's Bay Company. That is when a change in the way of life of the Inuit was first noticed. They went from subsistence hunting to commercial hunting, and became more and more dependent on Europeans. That led to a progressive decline in the number of animals and made the Inuit more dependent on us.

Later, during the 1940s and 1950s, with the building of military bases in the area came the modernization of the economy, which did not necessarily please the people over there, because, as I will explain later, there are a lot of problems with the standard of living in Canada's North.

There was more and more state intervention. In 1955, for example, the federal government started a housing program in the Far North, which I will address later, because, as we know, housing is a big problem for Inuit as well as Natives. But I do not want to dwell on this. I would rather talk about the cost of food and I am just coming to that.

Still in the same context, the education level is very low. On average, the 30- to 40-year-olds have only completed grade 4. Unfortunately, in a modern economy, these people are left out. That is why their unemployment rate is so high, around 35 per cent. With a very unqualified labour force in a modern economy, they end up with a very high rate of inactivity.

As for health services, the Far North is huge and can you imagine that there was no health support in the area before the first community clinic was opened in 1947. Two years later, a second clinic was opened in Kuujjuaq, Quebec.

As many as 42 per cent of deaths in the area are caused by violent incidents. That is terrible! Of course, alcohol and drugs play an important role. These people have no hope, they are fed up with life and they turn to alcohol and drugs, thus causing many violent deaths.

Regarding the contamination issue, the modern economy which was brought to the region by the Hudson's Bay Company and which was perpetuated by other companies has caused a major mercury and heavy metal contamination problem in the North. Significant levels of toxins are found in the breast milk of Inuit women.

These people can no longer hunt for food. Instead, they have to buy products in a grocery store, just like you and I do every week.

The situation is not much better with regard to housing. A two-bedroom house costs about $150,000 up North, as opposed to about $70,000 here. We have to understand that all the materials must be shipped to the North, and that is why the cost of housing is so high.

Those people have a standard of living that is still much lower than ours. Their life expectancy is very short, much shorter than ours. Since they live in such a vast territory, when they need health care, they often have to travel over huge distances to get treatment. In fact, this causes many deaths. As for the birth rate, which also causes housing problems, whereas we have 13 births per 1,000 people in Quebec, the rate for the Inuit in Northern Quebec is 34 per 1,000. We can see that their population is growing rapidly.

The cost of living index is revealing: the average income of an Inuit is about $9,700. That is an important figure and, according to my calculations, that works out to about $187 a week. That is not much. As you and I will see, Madam Speaker, when we finish shopping for groceries later, there would not be much left to live on.

I will mention the study I have in my hands; it was made by a group suggesting that they could provide food distribution in Canada's North much more efficiently. The company's name is Tikisaivik and they did a market study. Market studies can be done by anybody, but this one clearly shows us that food prices could be reduced by 10 to 20 per cent. That naturally would have a major impact on those people living on a budget averaging, as I mentioned earlier, $187 a week. As you will see, after we finish shopping for groceries later, there would not be much left to live on.

With your permission, Madam Speaker, we will now go grocery shopping with our friends across the way and my colleagues on this side. We will go to the Northern Store in Resolute Bay. I will give you a price list for groceries compared to the prices in Ottawa. A litre of milk costs $3.69 in Resolute Bay, but $1.25 in Ottawa; a loaf of bread costs $2.85 in Resolute Bay, and $1.59 here; a five kilogram bag of flour costs $11.25 there, and $4.49 here; a dozen eggs costs $3.85 there, and $1.29 here; a bag of apples costs $3.63 there, and $2.62 here; a sack of potatoes costs $4.95 there, and $2.99 here; a can of peas-I like peas with turkey, it is very good-a can of peas costs $2.95 there, and 69 cents here; apple juice costs $4.50 there, and $1.19 here. We could go on and on; ground beef costs $8.97 there, and $3.72 here. At the end of the list, I have Tang orange juice which costs $2.85 there and $1.09 here in Ottawa. If we add all items together, the total will be $124.77 in Resolute Bay, compared to $49.28 in Ottawa. If your salary is $187 a week and your groceries cost you $124.77, there is not much left for the rest of the week.

Why is this? It is due of course to the great distances and to a very complex distribution network which starts in Winnipeg, Ottawa or Montreal; for somes places, the goods are moved by train before being sent by plane; in others, they are moved by truck. In Quebec, they travel over something like 2,000 kilometers by truck before being shipped by plane to the Far North. So, the proposal that is being made, and this is only an example, there could be other proposals, as I said earlier, is that big

carriers with a single supplier could go directly from Montreal to Iqaluit, where I went, and I explained a bit earlier the living conditions that exist there. So, we would avoid all the go-betweens, those who make a profit along the way.

These people are simply proposing that big carriers be used to bring everything to Iqaluit and, from there, the food would be distributed by small planes to villages of this huge territory.

That proposal has the merit of reducing by about 10 to 20 per cent the cost of a shopping basket, as I explained. This is not insignificant. And there is also a series of other measures that would not only make this project viable, but also contribute to the Inuit really taking control of their lives in the Great North. This project would create 55 direct and indirect jobs in the Great North, particularly in Iqaluit, which is not insignificant, because in a context where 35 to 40 per cent of our people are without jobs, 55 jobs would be very welcomed in the Great North.

There is also the whole issue of the federal government that is already paying a lot. Canada Post-we are talking about the famous local transportation-is paying $20 million a year for food distribution, while the study that we have here suggests that we may be able to do the equivalent for $9.8 million. So, not only the cost of food products may decrease, but shorter transit times would allow for fresher products, while in the present system, when the food gets there-and I saw it myself- it is anything but fresh and barely acceptable. I think that we would not accept that in our shopping centres.

I do not want to talk too much about investment, but the federal government might be asked to invest in this area. However, considering we could save between seven and eight million dollars annually on the way food products are distributed, it seems to me that the initial funding requested is negligible.

Before I forget, I would like to say that Tikisaivik is 60 per cent Inuit-owned. Most of the shareholders are Inuit. Madam Speaker, I certainly do not want to be seen as playing favourites, but I took this company as an example because it had the best and most effective studies. Five students at the master's degree level did a market survey, and I have it here today.

I will try to be brief, because I see that my time is running out. The objective is lower food prices. I think that is essential. In fact, it is the focus of my speech today. It is important for the well-being of the Inuit in the North, whether they are in Quebec, on Baffin Island or even closer to the Arctic, to have a food distribution system that would not be a drain on the family budget. Reducing the price of food will enhance the quality of life of the Inuit in the North, and that is the most important factor.

Another point is improving food quality. Earlier, I talked about freshness. It will be possible to eat fresh vegetables at their peak and to improve the way they are handled, as opposed to what I saw in the shopping centres up there.

Job creation. This is also a very important factor, as I said before. Fifty-five Inuit jobs could be created.

Variety in the type of foods and creating a local economy. I think this is where the government could make a contribution so that the Inuit can escape the cycle of dependency in which they have been kept for too long. This plan for a modern economy will ensure that people can work in the food distribution sector in the North. In fact, this should be done by local people instead of companies from outside that do not know the local situation and operate on the premise that they have to give their shareholders a decent profit.

Local people have a stake in the quality of life of the Inuit, and I think that is important.

I will conclude with a few words in Inuktitut-I hope I pronounce them properly-"nakurmiik toma", which means we look to the future with confidence, and I hope that if the government takes a good look at how food distribution in the North can be made more economical, I think we can look forward to the future and ensure that the Inuit will have the quality of life they should have had many years ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like by way of introduction to note that living conditions in the territories covered by this agreement, like those in many parts of Canada's North, are in no way comparable to those of South Sea islands. This needs emphasis, because in these territories the temperature can drop to 30 or 40 degrees below zero. It is often sunny, and you do have to wear your dark glasses, but bermuda shorts and sandals are not recommended. I have been there myself, and I can tell you that I was very happy to have my heavy parka, because even all bundled up I was very cold. So bermuda shorts were quite out of the question.

So living conditions are very difficult there. The cost of living is very high, as well. That has to be borne in mind, because I think it's important to set the scene before we zero in on the bill, so that we understand why the bill is important. I was very surprised to find that three litres of milk, for example, cost about $11 there.

I would also like to invite my colleagues to listen to me on Thursday afternoon, because I am going to table in this House a motion dealing with this very question of food distribution in the North, setting out and demonstrating clearly and in detail that it is in Canada's best interests to ensure that food is distributed more cheaply. Many of the families there pay up to 100 per cent of their income for food alone. So not only is life hard, but the cost of living is extremely high.

As for working conditions, in the rest of the country we talk about the unemployment rate; there they talk about the employment rate. The First Nations north of 60 are often said to have an employment rate of 20 per cent. While we are indignant because we have an unemployment rate of 20 per cent, they have an employment rate of 20 per cent, which means an unemployment rate of 80 per cent. So of course they are dependent on government social programs. There are certain things in this bill that I have reservations about, but it is a step in the right direction, toward helping them regain control of their future.

As is my custom, I would also like to put these people's past in perspective. It is, I believe, important for seeing how the new situation fits into the old. The name "Cree", like certain others, probably comes from a French word. When the Europeans came in contact with the Cree about 200 years ago, they called them the "Cristinois". The word "Cree" probably derives from that.

Five hundred years ago the territory occupied by the Cree was extremely vast. It stretched from the eastern shore of James Bay along the rivers that run north into the Bay to the northern tip of Lake Winnipeg. Pottery has been found that marks the Crees' travels through that territory almost 1,000 years ago. Here again is evidence that the first occupants of this land were not Europeans at all but aboriginal inhabitants. Their traces go back 1,000 years.

By some estimates there were 15,000 people speaking Cree at that time, and today there are about 11,000. I will talk about that a little later. The plural form "Crees" sounds rather like the French word "crise", meaning crisis; I trust there is no connection, and I do not think there is.

Cree women were noted for their traditional embroidery, made with moose and reindeer hairs. Those are other traces they left in their territory.

Having read up on the Cree, I can tell you that they were regarded by the first Europeans as spirited people, very attractive, good at getting along with others, great admirers of eloquence. They would certainly have been at home here. I do not know whether my hon. colleague has any Cree ancestors, but he is certainly eloquent. Native people as a general rule do appreciate eloquence, so he is in his element in the House of Commons.

I would now like to move quickly to the bill that is before us at this time. In 1977, Manitoba Hydro decided to flood 11,861 acres of land belonging to the Cree, about 10 per cent, by the by, of their territory. The flooding completely destroyed the traditional trapping and hunting territory. Finally it was realized that an agreement had to be reached with the Cree.

As I mentioned earlier, there are now 11,000 Cree living in five bands on the land in question. I will name them because I think we are coming to the nub of the difficulty; we will not be able to give the bill our full support and the question will have to be referred to committee. There are five bands involved. The agreement is with the Split Lake Cree First Nation but there are other First Nations affected by the agreement and they are the Cross Lake, the Nelson House, the Norway House and the York Factory First Nations. These four other First Nations will be indirectly affected by the bill. I think this point ought to be clarified.

In 1977, an agreement was reached with the Northern Flood Committee. The Northern Flood Committee is made up of the five First Nations I just listed. Manitoba Hydro, the government of Canada and the Northern Flood Committee reached an agreement, but many matters were left unresolved in that agreement, among them the question of what form compensation for the flooded land would take. Perhaps employment of band members on hydroelectric projects is an option, because the bill before us today deals with compensation for which the government of Canada recognizes it has a responsibility as well as Manitoba Hydro.

At the time, people said that compensation would be paid for the flooded land, but there were ambiguities. Among other questions, how many band members could work on hydroelectric projects? How much would it cost to implement the agreement? What about environmental monitoring? These were all questions that there was no time to deal with in any depth. The result was 174 claims for arbitration. It was evident that the agreement was far from clear and was contributing to increased numbers of claims. This led to new negotiations in 1989. In July 1990, the four negotiators of the agreement relating to the flooding of land in northern Manitoba reached an agreement on settling the claims.

Unfortunately, only one band accepted the negotiators' recommendations, and that was the Split Lake band. There are 2,129 Cree registered as members of that band, but only 1,400 live on the reserve itself. I will cover the salient points of the agreement. As I have said, only the Split Lake Cree are involved. Other agreements are under negotiation but none has yet been concluded. The objective is to settle with the Nelson House band in 1994, but as far as I could tell from discussions this morning with the Northern Flood Committee, not much progress has been made in the negotiations.

The trouble is not the financial compensation; the trouble is the water level, because in the agreement itself, Manitoba Hydro is exonerated from any responsibility if the water flows fall below a certain level. There is the trouble: below a certain level.

The Split Lake First Nation reached an agreement. However, the York Factory band, the other Indian band with direct access to the lake, is not included in that agreement, and its members are saying: "Listen, we realize you have reached an agreement with the Split Lake First Nation. But if Manitoba Hydro intends to do anything that will affect the level of the lake and if it has an agreement with the Split Lake First Nation, that will have a direct effect on us".

There is the trouble. And yet-this is something noteworthy that I must point out-the Split Lake Cree have become very skilled in water cleanup. I find it important to note that, because with very traditional, very limited means, these people have managed to set up a small, inexpensive laboratory, and they are treating the lake water. It is well known that the water in that kind of lake contains a great deal of lead and that, if you want to clean it up, there certainly is a lot of environmental work involved.

These people have become so skilled that they are setting up an exchange of information network with South American countries, including Chile, and I think that is noteworthy.

The agreement also specifies which lands are to be transferred to Canada by Manitoba and set aside as reserve lands, some with flooding rights. All that is in the agreement; the legislation simply clarifies some of those provisions. Of course, resource management and environmental monitoring are a capstone of the agreement.

As is the case in several agreements affecting the First Nations, -this is something that is of very great importance to them, as I keep repeating, because it is noteworthy-First Nations always attach a great deal of importance to the environment and consequently, where resource management is concerned and when a major player like Manitoba Hydro comes along, they often have to set up joint systems to accurately monitor the environmental effects. I think it is important that it be done that way.

I now come to the compensation fund. The compensation fund is a fund of $20 million; a series of trust accounts will be set up and administered. That is important because, in practice, the money will not go directly into the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the Department of Indian Affairs, but will constitute a fund to be administered directly by the Cree.

Of course, there were other negotiations, on consultation and arbitration jurisdictions, because an agreement is often subject to arbitration and disputes occur, and there must be systems that ensure that these disputes can be settled. Then, Canada and Manitoba are exonerated from any obligation or claim having to do with the Split Lake Cree under the agreement. So exoneration from obligations and claims is provided for.

Bill C-36, I repeat, affects only the Split Lake First Nation. So, that means that the four other nations I mentioned earlier are not affected by this agreement, although, according to what we claim, according to the discussions we had with the main parties concerned, the bill has significant effects on the four other bands and that is why we have reservations about the bill.

There is one statement, contained in the usual explanatory notes accompanying a bill, that this version of the bill was developed in co-operation with the five bands. It would appear that this is not the case, because I have here a document signed by the four other chiefs saying that they did not have any part in this bill's being tabled in the House and were not adequately consulted.

Another odd thing in the explanatory notes accompanying the bill is that the English version states that there was consultation only with the Split Lake First Nation, while the French version states that all the bands were consulted. There seems to be an inconsistency there, and I think it would be worthwhile for the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to consider the true background for this agreement.

I mentioned the $20 million fund. I have the details about how this fund will be allocated. Of course, the Government of Canada and Manitoba Hydro are the ones paying into the fund. They have agreed on shared contributions to be spread out until 1997.

As well, at present, money is owing that came due in April 1993 and April 1994. This money owing will be paid as soon as the bill is passed. So it is important to note that Canada and Manitoba Hydro have acknowledged their responsibility concerning the flooding during the early 1970s.

Instead of going into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the money is to be put directly into a trust account set up for the Split Lake Cree. As I was just saying, the money will be transferred as soon as the Act comes into force. Lands will also be ceded to the Cree, and a provision in the Act states that they will not be special reserves. That is important to those people. Normally certain provisions of the Indian Act should apply but, at the express request of the Split Lake First Nation negotiators, they will not apply in this case.

Provision has also been made for arbitration in the bill. Some systems are provided for, so that, in case of disagreement, the Cree and Manitoba Hydro can reach agreement under a system of arbitration.

In conclusion, I think that, like most bills that have been tabled concerning aboriginal peoples, including Bills C-16, C-33 and C-34, this one is in fact a step in the right direction. The clear intent is freedom from guardianship of the aboriginal peoples; through this type of agreement, we are freeing ourselves from it in part, by providing compensation fees and by setting up committees.

We plan to address the 80 per cent unemployment rate by giving the aboriginal peoples a chance to take charge of their lives. These are not programs applied from Ottawa. They are the ones in charge of certain aspects of jurisdiction. That is entirely in accordance with what the Bloc québécois wanted: the dismantling of this legislation that is, to some extent, the equivalent of apartheid in North America.

I must also give high marks to those who paved the way for this type of agreement. I must mention the James Bay Agreement, a very sophisticated, very advanced agreement in Quebec that, in my opinion, paved the way for the type of agreement we have before us today and the type of bill we are considering today. Quebec is very proud to say that we gave a great deal in compensation to the Cree and that the agreement and the legislation were reached in common agreement among the Cree, the Province of Quebec, and the Government of Canada. I think that is noteworthy. Quebec has something to be proud of. The agreements like the one we have before us today will be largely based on and similar to the James Bay Agreement.

Lastly, I must tell you that the Bloc Quebecois will ask simply that the bill be referred to the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, solely because of the lack of consultation. I do not think that we are in an emergency situation, as was the case in the Yukon, where people waited for 20 years and exerted tremendous pressure for the bill to be passed before the end of the session.

Negotiations surrounding this compensation agreement have been underway since 1977. I do not think waiting a bit longer will be catastrophic. The Bloc Quebecois would be hard put to agree to the bill concerning the Split Lake Cree First Nation without taking into consideration its effect on the other four nations. Having examined the agreement and the scope of the bill, I think it does impact on the other nations. In my opinion, therefore, it would be entirely appropriate for the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to closely assess the impact of this whole decision on the other four nations.

Therefore, we will simply propose, after second reading, that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs for a closer study of its scope.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, after listening carefully to my colleague, particularly to his introduction and the early portion of his remarks, I must admit that I would like to say something on the subject of loyalty. It is my impression that I am being disloyal strictly to the Reform Party this evening because, in fact, I think that the government agrees with Bill C-16. We have already made it known that we support the bill as it now stands.

I also tend to want to react to this type of argument; although I respect it, I do not agree with it at all. I do not think the Bloc Quebecois has been termed left-wing intellectuals in Canada or in Quebec. Nor do I believe that we are disloyal to anyone in saying that we share the views expressed in Bill C-16.

I will go over some of the points I raised previously during the second reading of the bill-fairly quickly, because we are in the final stage before passage. During second reading, I said that one of the premises for this type of agreement, land claims, is the importance of having confidence in both parties.

Concerning the Dene, the Metis and the Sahtu Tribal Council, we fully agree that these people were representative, and they can rest assured that we have complete confidence in their negotiations and the outcome of those negotiations.

With respect to the agreement per se, Sahtu means "great bear" and naturally, reference is made to Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories. This vast territory is steeped in history, much of which has to do with oil. As you will see, the financial agreement which has been finalized is based on the price of oil, particularly at Norman Wells.

There are five major communities within the territory covered by the agreement. Colville Lake is home to a tribe of Slavey Dene. The community was founded in 1962 on ancestral lands. Colville Lake is the only community in the Northwest Territories where all buildings are constructed entirely of logs. I believe this is worth mentioning because these are features of the landscape and communities covered by the agreement. Colville Lake is a very rustic and very beautiful village, and I felt that this was important to mention.

Déline was formerly known as Fort Franklin. In 1825, Sir John Franklin made this community his winter headquarters. When oil was discovered in Norman Wells during the 1920s, Fort Franklin became a major trading post owing to its close proximity to transportation routes.

Fort Norman has long been important to the Dene because of the excellent sites for placing traps. Trapping is a seasonal activity which is an important part of the traditional Dene economy.

Fort Good Hope is the oldest trading post in the lower Mackenzie Valley; although it is within the territory of the northern Slave Dene, the Vuntut Gwich'in, as they are called, the mountain people and Inuit of the Mackenzie Delta used to go there regularly. But in Norman Wells, I think it is known-besides, we will soon have Bill C-25, which will allow more wells to be dug in Norman Wells and extracting oil from existing wells using a new method such as water under pressure, so that a well can produce in a much more healthy environment.

Norman Wells is important in the discussion and I will come back to it soon. We shall see that the financial agreement is based on the oil resources at Norman Wells, among other things.

The agreement before us was signed in 1993 at Fort Norman and the Act will simply implement that agreement. It also has constitutional protection. Some people think that is awful but we do not think so. It is simply one of the new treaties covered by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

My colleague raised a very important point about how representative the process leading to the signing of that agreement was. I think that the figures I will give will reassure us on that point. More than 90 per cent of eligible voters participated because that agreement was put to a vote and 90 per cent of the people on a territory of 28,000 square kilometres went out and voted.

This goes to show how important this agreement is to them and, in my view, we cannot doubt the representativeness of the people who have signed the agreement, not only because of this 90 per cent participation rate but also because 85 per cent of the Dene and 99 per cent of the Metis are in favour of this agreement. It think it is important to point out that in terms of representativeness, a 90 per cent participation rate leaves no doubt about the representativeness of the signatories; they were backed by a democratic vote of the people they represented.

Turning to the development of this agreement at the political level, it arises from land claims but does not put self-government in issue. In fact, these are two entirely different matters. A list of agreed subjects negotiators will have to look into again, self-government being one of them, has been appended to the agreement.

For now, it must be understood that this is simply a bill which approves a land claim agreement.

I will move along quickly because I mentioned many of these facts at second reading. The Dene and the Metis receive title to 41,437 square kilometres of land, 1,813 square kilometres of which include mining and mineral rights. This is entirely consistent with the European economic tradition of the day: the subsoil teeming with precious metals and black gold, representing a considerable amount of wealth in the territory as such.

Now about the settlement. The agreement does call for compensation of $75 million over 15 years.

This settlement is based on the value of oil taken out of the ground at Norman Wells. Statistics indicated that approximately $75 million was extracted from the ground each year and shared by Esso and the Government of Canada, which are partners in the Norman Wells venture.

This agreement is based on this $75 million. It simply acknowledges that it costs $75 million annually, that they incurred a loss of income of $75 million annually, and it is being conceded to them for a period of 15 years. The famous issue of economic development is also considered. Economic development is vital, in my opinion, for the aboriginal nations of this country and, in particular, the Dene and the Metis; the economic development that this $75 million will bring is certainly not negligible.

It will be up to them to combine economic development and development of their traditional resources. Based on what I have seen in the agreement, they will surely succeed. This is a successful example of economic development, and I think congratulations are in order. I also want to draw an analogy with the Cree and Naskapi in Quebec. As you know, the James Bay

agreement also provided certain amounts of money to be administered by a company headed by the Cree. I want to say that what is happening with the Dene and the Metis is not a precedent and that a precedent was definitely set in Quebec in the eighties with the Cree and the Naskapi.

The agreement contains provisions on wildlife. As you know, wildlife management is part of their tradition. They have an inborn respect for the environment, so to them it is important to preserve, both in the agreement and in this bill, this particular aspect of their tradition, which includes hunting, trapping and fishing rights. These are all included in the agreement and reflect the traditional culture and the traditional hunting grounds of the Dene and the Metis.

I would like to add that a number of interest groups were consulted, not only the Dene and the Metis. These included the Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines, which approved this bill, the Mining Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Northwest Territories Wildlife Federation, the Mount Mackenzie Outfitters and the Lynn Graham Trail Association.

As far as outfitters are concerned, this is an interesting aspect of the agreement. There are people already involved in trapping and hunting activities in the territory who are not necessarily Dene or Metis. What is interesting in the agreement is that these people will be able to continue those activities. This is further evidence of the philosophy of aboriginal people when the Europeans arrived. To them, the land was something to be shared. The Dene and the Metis, like all other aboriginal peoples, have always agreed to share their land. What happened is that the Europeans got a lot of money out of their land and restricted them to reserves and certain territories.

This agreement enables them to throw off at least partially the yoke of the Indian Act because this will be in fact the first step we will allow them to take toward financial autonomy and it is something we should consider for a few minutes.

This financial autonomy is important to them because we know that, in fact, the Indian Act maintains all Native nations under trusteeship, where all decisions are made for them. The statement that we are witnessing the birth of a new bureaucracy must be toned down a bit.

I think that the time has come for us, the people of Quebec and Canada, to end this trusteeship and allow these people to take control of their own destiny. Given the financial agreement before us and their eventual right to design and prepare special programs for the regions and, at the end of the day, to administer themselves, I do not think we are witnessing the birth of a new bureaucracy.

We are simply giving them the power to take control of their own future. Ottawa will no longer decide what programs are good for them. They will decide for themselves what programs they want. I think that, in this regard, the negotiators' efforts were commendable. I see that, according to the agreement provisions that are, of course, linked to the bill, this bureaucracy or pseudo-bureaucracy will enable them to really administer their lands with their own programs while respecting their culture and promoting a new economic development.

Finally, I must salute them. These people venerate their elders and often think in terms of the next seven generations. I am sure that seven generations ago, native people were in possession of their territory, but the situation changed drastically with the arrival of Europeans. These people have always wanted to regain control of what had been theirs as first occupants, and I think that, in these negotiations, they had future generations in mind.

In fact, negotiators and representatives from the territory in question came to my office and told me that their elders had always persevered, and that they were very pleased to have the support of the Bloc Quebecois. Consequently, I am pleased to say once again that our party will fully support Bill C-16 in third reading.

[Indian Affairs, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last February 21, the Official Opposition asked the Minister of Indian Affairs what Mr. Jerry Peltier's responsibilities and status in that department were during the Oka crisis, in the fall of 1990. The Minister of Indian Affairs was not able to provide an answer. Can the minister now tell us what Mr. Peltier's mandate was as a civil servant working for the Department of Indian Affairs during the Oka crisis, in 1990?

[Yukon First Nations Land Claimssettlement Act, June 9th, 1994]

-I will be pleased to accept the invitation and I will not need a passport or visa to go there. I intend to go and see for myself whether this is really true, because people who go fishing often like to brag about the fish they caught, and when they do not have a photograph, they often say the fish was that long. I intend to find out whether what they said about fish weighing 25 pounds is true, and I promise to get back to the House on this and tell you whether there was some truth in all this.

Oral traditions are also a very important part of their heritage. Nowadays, we have the tendency to say: I'm buying a house. Now, I would like to see what the last contract, the contract with the previous owner, looked like". They, however, have an oral tradition. We used to have that in our society as well, a long time ago, but today, that has been lost as a result of our whole legal perspective. But to them, oral traditions are very important.

They often have agreements without having a contract as such. As far as their heritage is concerned, they reserve the right to emphasize such agreements, and I think they are right. There will be a water management board, because the waters of the Yukon are very special. There is very little pollution in the Yukon, and some people would like to take advantage of this. For instance, our American friends might want to import water. This is something we are hearing more and more in some parts of the United States where the water table is going down. People often talk about diverting certain waterways to try and get more water.

The agreement states that as far as domestic needs are concerned, there is no problem. However, to handle specific needs, the people in the Yukon decided to set up a water management board. To me that is not a bureaucracy, because one-third of the board will consist of members appointed among aboriginal people, which is one way for aboriginal people to control their own affairs.

We see this as a way to stop having all the decisions made by Ottawa and then transmitted to regional headquarters and from there to the Indians or aboriginal peoples or First Nations. And now, the government says the will boards will be created.

You want boards to protect your waterways and your environment, so the government will ensure that most of the people on those boards will be local people who are knowledgeable about the area.

I do not think we are getting a new bureaucracy as much as more effective management, because these will be local people who know their area, and we hope this will help to dismantle the Department of Indian Affairs and the Indian Act as soon as possible, and what the people of the Yukon proposed is a step in the right direction. As I said earlier, there are provisions on fish and wildlife on class A lands where they will have exclusive harvesting privileges. The agreement maintains 70 per cent of the trap lines, which was very important for them because this is one of their traditional activities.

Forestry is also an interesting area, and here I would like to draw an analogy, using forestry as an example. Aboriginal people often say that they see the world as a big forest. In a forest, there are many kinds of trees, like pine and maple, and they often say that the way they see the forest is more or less the way they see society. I wanted to draw this analogy, because to them, the forest is a vital resource, and the fact that this resource is also included in the agreement means that these people will have better control over their forest resources. I mentioned economic development, and the hon. member on the government side also raised the matter of transboundary agreements. These people will be able to take a part in transboundary agreements. For instance, as I said before, we have the Porcupine caribou herd, and these herds do not necessarily stay within certain borders. Since for aboriginal people, the caribou is part and parcel of their traditions, it is important for them to participate in discussions on transboundary agreements and the Porcupine caribou herd.

Incidentally, we must conclude agreements with the Americans because the caribou herds that migrate through the Yukon Territory spend part of the year in Alaska, and the Americans are thinking very seriously about developing Alaska's oil and mineral resources. That is why it is important for First Nations in the Yukon to be able to participate in transboundary agreements. An example that comes immediately to mind is the caribou herds.

In concluding, I would like to say once again that I want to congratulate the First Nations of Yukon on signing the agreement. And I want to say to them that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-33. And as I said earlier, these people stood their ground, they were painstaking and stubborn and probably very hard on the federal negotiators who, I am sure, returned the compliment, and in spite of all that, there was no hostility. And as I said when we considered Bill C-34, and I say it again now, with respect to Bill C-33, there are aboriginal peoples that

would be well advised to follow the example of the people of the Yukon and the First Nations of the Yukon and persevere in their land claims and their demands for self-government, but peacefully, which can be very difficult when it comes time to negotiate.

However, taking up arms in a modern society, whether we are talking about aboriginal people or white people, is hardly if at all acceptable, and these people have demonstrated in what will become another historic turning point, that thanks to their perseverance and their ability to negotiate, they concluded an agreement that was satisfactory to all concerned, an agreement that was welcomed by many people in the Yukon, including the territorial government and mining companies involved in mining exploration in the Yukon.

Once again, these people have demonstrated that co-operation exists in the Yukon. They made that clear, and I think we have cause to welcome Bill C-33.

In concluding, I want to say to the people of the Yukon that they can count on the support of the Bloc Quebecois for the passage of Bill C-33.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claimssettlement Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, true to form, I will state forthwith the position of the Bloc Quebecois. Following discussions with appropriate authorities, the Bloc will support Bill C-33.

I take this opportunity, while the cameras are on me, to pay my respects to the people from the Yukon both at home and in the gallery. Their perseverance is rewarded today, after twenty some years of discussions, with agreements that will be given effect by Bill C-33.

As I said when I spoke to Bill C-34, perseverance is one of the characteristic traits of native culture. We often think in terms of future generations and these peoples must be commended for their perseverance. Year after year, decade after decade, they persevered in their pacific approach toward a potential agreement. Here it is today. I am pleased to greet and congratulate them.

A number of things were said in this place this morning as well as this afternoon. I may have given my speaking time up to my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley but understandably, it does not mean that I agree with every single remark he made.

I heard someone say: "I gave my son a bicycle as a child; then, he asked for a motorcycle". To listen to the people across the way, you would think that native peoples, Indians and first nations are nothing but spoiled children. I want to make it quite clear that I do not agree with that opinion.

I think we must bear in mind the social contract they have concluded with us, white people, people with our own laws, procedures and parliamentary democracy. We must also bear in mind that we settled on their land. Let us not forget that these nations have been established in the Yukon Territory for 10,000 years. They were here long before us. Yet, we have enjoyed the use of that land. Regarding the financial compensation provided for in this agreement today, I do not think it is really a matter of giving them everything they want and them more or less rubbing us of these $240 million. It is more a matter of recognizing the fact that for generations, for decades, in fact since the Europeans set foot on this continent, we have enjoyed the use of this land and are now granting appropriate compensation.

As far as I am concerned, the native peoples are no spoiled children. They are people perfectly capable of negotiating. They are very good at it too, as I have seen for myself on many occasions. Having been a negotiator myself for 20 years, I must admit that while being pacifists, they are formidable negotiators.

We must also understand that with an agreement such as the one before the House today and with this enacting legislation, the objectives of the two parties have not been fully met. At best, they agreed on a common denominator, this agreement before us which to my mind is the end result of discussions between persons who took care to ensure that they had all they needed in the way of services from legal or consulting firms.

Far be it for me to think that the first nations are merely being treated like children who have grown up and are finally being allowed to fly on their own. Basically, I believe that this is a good agreement for the people of the Yukon and I also think it is good for the Parliament of Canada. These are very important considerations.

Mention is often made of ending the guardianship. I believe we need to discuss how to go about doing this. Some people may argue that the agreement and legislation before us do not end the guardianship and naturally, I disagree with them. I think this agreement enables the first nations of the Yukon to take charge of their own destiny, much like Bill C-34 adopted on second reading speaks about self-government. Certain powers are being given to these nations and the logical follow-up to

Bill C-33 would be to give them the land base over which to exercise these rights.

Therefore, I feel that this agreement is one way to end the state of guardianship and as everyone knows, particularly those who took part in the negotiations on the native side, no set pattern of self-government or land base has yet been decided on.

It is clear from this agreement that the land in question is splintered. The government did not take one piece of the Northwest Territories or one piece of the Yukon and say "Here, this is yours now", as it did with other agreements or with the Sahtu Tribal Council. In those cases, a homogenous parcel of land was turned over and the people were told that they could exercise certain powers within that territory, based on agreements that were reached.

As I said, the government has not taken a general or uniform approach. What we have here is a splintered agreement between the government and four first nations of the Yukon. They have finalized agreements with the federal government and made decisions about the land involved. Ten other agreements are slated to follow.

When I hear that these ten other agreements will be negotiated behind closed doors, I have to disagree with that way of seeing things. On reading the text of the four agreements before us, we see that they are virtually identical.

So of course, subsequent agreements are likely to be carbon copies of these four ones. I think we should take the time to look at the contents of this agreement which the legislation enacts. Exactly what provisions are being enacted today?

The agreement involves a total area of 41,439 square kilometres which, as I said earlier, cover a broad area. If one first nation was able to prove to federal negotiators that its traditional lands were located in area X and the government agreed, then these lands are included in the final agreement with that first nation.

We have here before us today an final umbrella agreement which covers all land claims for a total area of 41,439 square kilometres which the federal negotiators have agreed to make available to 14 first nations. Four have already availed themselves of this right and have negotiated final land claims agreements with the federal government.

Regarding the government's economic proposal, as I mentioned earlier, this is not simply a matter of extending charity. For decades, even centuries, from the moment the Europeans arrived on this continent, we have benefitted from these lands.

Today, we give back to them a number of settlement lands with compensation in the order of $242 million over 15 years. In my opinion, that does not necessarily keep these people under trusteeship because, as we will see later, they will have capabilities. They will have at their disposal financial structures that will administer this money and free them from this dependence in which we have kept them for too long.

We also see that the lands given back will be divided into Class A and Class B lands. It may be important to explain the difference between the two classes.

On Class A lands, people will have not only surface rights but also subsurface rights, including mining, minerals and oil. That is not to be sneezed at either. Not only are we liberating them by compensating them for what we took from them before, but we also give them the right to administer surface and subsurface resources on some settlement lands. It is another step toward the goal of freeing them from this trusteeship.

The agreement contains interesting clauses which I must point out.

Earlier I referred in passing to the final umbrella agreement but I would like to come back to it. We have before us today four final agreements for the four Yukon nations who negotiated and reached a settlement with the government. All future agreements will always have to refer to the final umbrella agreement covering all 14 final agreements, one for each nation. It may be important to point this out.

Regulatory agreements-this is important-will be guaranteed under Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act. Unlike Bill C-34, where Section 35 does not apply to modern-day treaties, these agreements on the land base will be protected under Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act.

The agreement also outlines some interesting options I would like to point out. Among other things, people will have some time to decide whether or not they want continued protection under the Indian Act, particularly with respect to Indian reserves. In other words, there are two options. The people will have the option of preserving the Indian reserve concept for a while. The other option will be that of settlement lands, meaning that they will move away from the Indian Act and the reserve concept and exercise their full autonomy on settlement lands, which are different from Indian reserves.

This whole agreement, of course, required a lot of mapping and surveying work. Today, I would like to dispel a rumour that circulated in the Yukon. I am mentioning it at this time because people in the Yukon are now watching us. The Bloc Quebecois has never considered for one second blocking the introduction and first reading of a bill because maps had not been translated. We admittedly consulted the party, but we never thought of

blocking an agreement that took decades to negotiate just because maps had not been translated.

The document before us is printed in English and in French. As far as we know, we told the minister we would appreciate it if he could have the maps translated as soon as possible. But in the meantime, we will not tell people who have been waiting for so long that we will not even let the bill pass first reading. That was out of the question.

I must point out today that the Bloc Quebecois did in fact agree to the introduction and first reading of this bill. The agreement also contains many interesting things such as the special management areas.

You know that we whites and the natives agree on certain territories. There are boundaries and limits on these territories. This applies very well in a city or municipality, but in the wide open spaces of the Yukon, it is obviously hard to apply, especially for everything that has to do with wildlife, flora, fauna, the natural environment.

I give the Porcupine caribou herd as an example. It is very difficult to ask the caribou herd in the Northwest Territories in the spring not to go to the Yukon in the fall and not to go to Alaska because of the U.S. border. We understand that there will be specialized management areas. What is interesting about it is that it again highlights the traditional aspect of native peoples. Some areas will be specialized to concentrate on the local flora and fauna.

Another interesting point is the great emphasis put on land use. I was just telling you that it is a fragmented agreement; eventually 14 nations will have territories that are not necessarily contiguous. In some areas, native self-government will not apply and the Yukon first nations will not have a land base.

However, the agreement provides a process to ensure compatibility in decision making so as to avoid grey areas where the local authorities could make laws or regulations that would impinge on their neighbours. A process has been put in place for that and it is worth mentioning.

This process takes the Yukon Indians' cultural values into very serious consideration. It is very interesting because for once it lends weight to sustainable development, a concept of great importance to me. Our consumer society has too long overlooked the concept of sustainable development. We build and develop rapidly, often at the expense of the environment, and then we find that the environment has been destroyed. The economy enjoyed a boom and then declined when the resources on the surface and underground were completely used up. So sustainable development is a cornerstone of land use. We note that very great importance is given to sustainable development. We must be glad that this concept of sustainable development is in this agreement.

There will also be a development activities commission. This in a way is what I have always called a happy marriage of the traditional and of modern economic development. All the economic activities that developers want to propose on the lands covered by the agreement or on the reserves will have to be submitted to a development activities review board. Of course, we can see that sustainable development will be a key, as I said earlier, but the traditional methods and culture of these peoples will be taken into account. The agreement provides that developers will have to reduce the environmental impact of their projects so that this happy blend of the traditional and modern economic development is an everyday reality.

I think that another very important commission for them is the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. In the agreement, the federal government agreed to set up a joint fund to restore and rebuild everything that has to do with wildlife, fish and flora. We know that unfortunate developments in some areas depleted the resources on the surface or underground. The Fish and Wildlife Management Board will seek to restore the resources which have characterized the Yukon for centuries.

A great deal of attention should also be paid to their heritage. That is something which is not often talked about and I am pleased to address this subject, as I did in my speech on Bill C-34. All issues related to language will be extremely important on those lands.

I must, once again, draw an analogy between the Quebec people, a French-speaking minority in the vast country that is Canada, and the aboriginal nations who are also linguistic minorities. So I am happy for them that attention was paid to their languages and traditions. As far as I am concerned, their rich traditions often add to my own culture.

I have noticed among other things that legends are very important to them. What could be nicer than a legend told in a traditional language spoken by the ancestors? That is provided for in the agreement. It is not the federal negotiators, I am sure, who insisted on inserting these provisions in the agreement as such. I think these people felt their culture was very important and saw to it that it was protected, just as we Quebecers want to preserve our culture. I think we ought to congratulate them for their similar views on this issue.

These people are not hegemonic because it is not a part of their culture. When the Europeans arrived, they did not object to sharing their huge territory. This attitude is reflected in the agreement: there will be quite reasonable access for all the

people who want to go to the Yukon. Obviously, we will not need a visa or a passport to travel to the Yukon.

By the way, I have been invited to go fishing for 25-pound trout in the Yukon-

[Yukon First Nations Land Claimssettlement Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have something to ask you. My hon. colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley must catch a plane and, if you have no objection, I agreed to give him the floor immediately. I would like to come back and respond to the speech given by the hon. member on behalf of the minister. I would be very grateful if you told me whether I can use up to 40 minutes which are allotted to me for a reply.