Gerald Keddy

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education.

Bill C-30 is a historic piece of legislation that will provide the Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia with jurisdiction over education on reserve. This will be the first piece of legislation transferring jurisdiction over education to first nations and it will set a precedent across Canada.

Education is a provincial matter, but the federal government is responsible for programs and services for aboriginals living on reserve. As such, the federal government, the provincial government and the Mi'kmaq first nations worked together to bring about this legislation.

To give a little history and background to this legislation I would like to point out that the process which led to Bill C-30 began in 1991. At that time the Mi'kmaq first nations in Nova Scotia, namely a group of band chiefs and concerned citizens, approached the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development requesting control over education.

This led to the signing of a framework agreement in 1992 between the federal government and the 13 Mi'kmaq first nations in Nova Scotia. These first nations are: Acadia, Annapolis Valley, Bear River, Chapel Island, Eskasoni, Horton, Membertou, Millbrook, Pictou Landing, Shubenacadie, Wagmatcook and Whycocomagh.

Following the signing of the framework agreement meetings were held between the federal government and the Nova Scotia chiefs and culminated with the signing of a political accord in November 1994. This accord began negotiations for the transfer of jurisdiction over education.

A process of consultation with band councils preceded this event and consultations were conducted with the Mi'kmaq people and the general public to apprise them of the current state of negotiations and the extent of jurisdictional control requested by the Mi'kmaq first nations.

My point here is that we have had seven years of negotiations and discussion on this bill already. It has been in the public eye for seven years. This is not the first time the public has heard of it. Parliamentarians should not think that all of a sudden there is some type of conspiracy going on which will threaten education on native reserves across Canada. This is a piece of legislation that has been discussed prior to today, which will hopefully be enacted after this discussion today.

The corporation, known as Mi'kmaq Education, was established to help with the anticipated transfer of jurisdiction to the Mi'kmaq communities. Mi'kmaq Education's purpose is to facilitate and support the Mi'kmaq communities in the setting of objectives to ensure a program and structure is in place to deal with the administrative requirements associated with such a transfer.

Mi'kmaq Education established by the 13 Mi'kmaq first nations hired three Mi'kmaq people to consult with the Mi'kmaq community members and the general public. These consultations were carried out in a number of ways, including newsletters and information booths, in an effort to reach as many people as possible.

As well, the team met with Nova Scotia first nations schools, Nova Scotia universities and the Nova Scotia School Board Association. The team visited each community twice, meeting with both the band council and community and business members. This led to the negotiation of an agreement in principle which was signed on May 3, 1996.

The final process at the community level was conducted through the signing of band council resolutions which demonstrated that each band council had the support of its community and there was support for the chief to sign the final agreement on their behalf.

However, no referendum was conducted to determine community support and the Millbrook first nation later raised this as a point of contention.

Nine of the Mi'kmaq first nations signed the final agreement on February 14, 1997. The four that did not sign, Afton, Bear River, Horton and Millbrook, did not feel they had informed consent from their respective communities. However, clause 12 of the legislation allows these bands to join the process at a later date if they have the support of the band council to sign the agreement. The governor in council may then add the name of any Mi'kmaq first nation in Nova Scotia, thus granting the band jurisdiction over education.

The reverse may also occur. If the band council authorizes the withdrawal of the first nation from the agreement, the governor in council may do so. Both these procedures would be effective as of April 1 the following year.

It is important to note that the act allows for bands that have not signed on to this agreement to come into it. It also allows for bands that have signed on to the agreement and that may later see it does not suit their purposes to leave the agreement. It encompasses all Mi'kmaq first nations.

Four of the thirteen first nations in Nova Scotia did not sign the final agreement for various reasons. Horton first nation consists of a small number of Mi'kmaq, most of whom live off reserve. The advantage of the legislation is therefore minimal for this group. Two of the others, Afton and Bear River, still have questions regarding the process and are content to wait and see how the legislation progresses and how successful the program is. It is expected that they will join at a later time which the process allows for.

Millbrook was looking for legislation that would establish an inherent right process. While Bill C-30 is a step in that direction it does not go that far toward self-government since this remains a delegated jurisdiction. Chief Lawrence Paul of the Millbrook first nation expressed concerns over the funding arrangements supporting this legislation. Chief Paul felt the funding should be guaranteed for a period greater than five years agreed on by the federal government.

Twenty-seven Mi'kmaq first nations currently exist in Canada. They are located in four of the Atlantic provinces and in Quebec. Thirteen of these bands are in Nova Scotia. They are situated across the province. They have a long history and a strong culture. There are approximately 9,000 Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia, with 6,200 living on reserve. There are 2,200 Mi'kmaq students in Nova Scotia with this number split evenly between those living on and off reserve. Half the on reserve students go to public schools off reserve. This legislation does not provide the Mi'kmaq with greater powers or control over schools that are not on reserve.

Mi'kmaq culture historically relied heavily on story telling as a means of entertainment and communication. It incorporated songs and dances into these stories which were a means of passing on Mi'kmaq history. It is a goal of Mi'kmaq education to preserve Mi'kmaq culture and traditions. Giving control of education to Mi'kmaq communities ensures this is possible. The goal of Mi'kmaq education is to incorporate traditional languages and cultures back into the school system. This was one of the reasons the 13 Mi'kmaq first nations requested the federal government to transfer jurisdiction to their Mi'kmaq communities in 1991.

This legislation covers elementary and secondary jurisdictions and the allocation of funding for post-secondary education. Thus first nations will have control over what is taught to their students but they will have to ensure the education is equal to that of other students in Nova Scotia and that it meets university entrance requirements.

Without this legislation, the Mi'kmaq have no opportunity to make laws for education on reserve. The Indian Act gives the federal government this authority. Bill C-30 repeals sections 114 to 140 of the act and delegates jurisdiction to the Mi'kmaq. This will force the Mi'kmaq to develop structures to properly manage education and to make laws in line with standards set out in a constitution. Each community will first have to develop a constitution before it makes up its laws.

This legislation should increase accountability for the Mi'kmaq with regard to their education system. Currently band councils are not accountable to members. Instead they report to the federal government. Bill C-30 will increase community involvement, and accountability will improve through the preparation of financial statements and the annual report.

There are some detractors to this important piece of legislation but if we read the legislation thoroughly and carefully, which I would encourage all hon. members to do, this is a very precedent setting piece of legislation and increases accountability. It does not diffuse accountability.

Mi'kmaq communities recognize there will be challenges ahead such as the construction of schools on reserves, in particular for those bands outside Cape Breton. Moreover, there are challenges of finding Mi'kmaq who can teach students their own language and there are challenges of maintaining standards as required to meet both school board and university requirements.

Most first nations in Nova Scotia seem to be happy with the proposed legislation and feel this is a step in the right direction not only toward self-government but to improving the education their students receive.

When I spoke with a number of bands affected they stated they were pleased to be getting control over education. While they expect some hurdles along the way ultimately this is seen as a positive move.

This legislation also has its critics within the Mi'kmaq community but the legislation is designed and written to encompass those critics and to give them the opportunity to have their say and also to perhaps make changes in the legislation.

Bill C-30 would be a stepping stone for other first nations across Canada to begin taking an active role in educating their own people. Taking an active role would mean that the 53% of natives living on reserve under age 25 would have some say in their education process. This is an area of great importance to the first nations and its students. First nations want to ensure their traditions and heritage continue while the young people want and need an education that will prepare them for the future.

First nations in Manitoba and Ontario are looking at the process but because of different treaties they will have to tailor it to meet their own needs and circumstances. Furthermore, this is a move toward self-government, something my party has and continues to support as a means of improving economic development for aboriginal peoples.

This is a historic piece of legislation. The Mi'kmaq first nations in Nova Scotia have requested and are prepared to administer it and I am pleased to support it at this stage.

I look forward to examining it in greater detail as the process continues in committee.

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. There are two huge holes in the minister's excuse not to compensate all hepatitis C victims.

First, the government was responsible for blood products prior to 1986 because it refused to allow blood users to bank their own blood, thus forcing them to use untested blood.

Second, if the government has only so much money, so be it. We still have an obligation—

[Nunavut Act, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my intent to speak to Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867. It is not my intent to speak on other matters which have nothing to do with this bill, as other members of this House have done. I would like to make that very clear at the outset.

This is a historic piece of legislation which will create a new territory on April 1, 1999, Nunavut, meaning our land in the Inuit language. This new territory is being created as part of the Nunavut land claim agreement signed by the Progressive Conservative government in 1993. The new territory will be 2,242,000 square kilometres, approximately one-fifth the size of Canada and 69% of the existing Northwest Territories.

The idea of creating a new territory in the northern region of Canada was brought to the Parliament of Canada in 1965. It was not until the plebiscite in 1982 that the residents of the Northwest Territories voted on the creation of a new territory. The 1982 plebiscite achieved 54% approval with a 90% yes vote in the eastern regions. Those eastern regions will become the new territory of Nunavut.

The next step was to determine a boundary between the two regions and a plebiscite was held in 1992 to ratify this selection. This was followed in 1993 with the signing of the Nunavut land claim agreement that sets out the creation of the Nunavut territory. This land claim agreement is the largest of its kind in Canada.

Along with setting out the creation of Nunavut it gives Inuit title to 350,000 square kilometres with about one-tenth of this including mineral rights. It also gives the Inuit a stronger voice on some management boards and a share of royalties from oil, gas and mineral development on crown lands. As well it sets out the creation of three new federally funded parks.

I had the pleasure of visiting the Northwest Territories last fall and spoke with a number of people who expressed concern over the readiness of the new territory to meet the deadline in 1999. There are still a number of questions that need to be addressed to ensure a smooth transition to the new territory and no loss of service as this occurs.

This piece of legislation we are now speaking on today addresses a number of concerns arising from the division of the Northwest Territories on April 1, 1999. Specifically the legislation decreases the number of members required by the western region to form a government. This recognizes that the 14 members left after division will be sufficient to govern, not the current requirement of 15. As well the legislation will provide for two seats in the House of Commons and the other place, again to ensure that both regions are represented and have a voice in federal government.

Division of assets and liabilities is also considered, as is the establishment of a judicial system that will be prepared to operate in a fair and ongoing manner.

The eastern and western regions of the Arctic however have not satisfactorily dealt with the division of some of the essential services.

Just a few weeks ago the Nunavut leaders rejected a proposal by the Government of the Northwest Territories to divide the Northwest Territories Power Corporation. The proposal was for 60% ownership by the western region and 40% by the eastern region. While the two sides agree that economies of scale and other such factors support maintaining one enterprise for the two regions rather than the establishment of two separate bodies, it is necessary to reach consensus on how this should be achieved. The eastern region feels anything less than a 50:50 split is insufficient.

I use that as an example of some of the hurdles that are still in the way of this becoming reality by April 1, 1999. It is this kind of problem that must be dealt with by the western and eastern regions prior to that date to ensure continuation of operations and services when the new territory comes into being.

Although this legislation states that the law which is currently in place in the Northwest Territories will also apply in the new territory, any disruption in service could have a significant impact on the new region's ability to govern. Financial considerations must also be addressed.

The western region will also be facing significant changes as it is downsized from its current operations and focuses on service provision for the western residents. This will mean changes in government office space and staff requirements. Conversely the eastern region will be building and hiring.

A report prepared by the Government of the Northwest Territories regarding transition costs and the creation of the new territory estimates that $3.8 million will be needed by the western region to modify office space for new requirements as the size of the government changes the focus on the western region.

As well the western region will continue to provide services in the eastern region on a contractual basis until the new territory is well established. This will be an additional cost to both sides. The Government of the Northwest Territories estimates the cost of retention and recruitment of staff to fulfil these contractual obligations will be in the vicinity of $2 million in the first year, 1999 to 2000, and $1 million for each subsequent year.

At the same time the cost of contracting services from the western region will be an extra cost for Nunavut as it pays for the construction of its own infrastructure and staffing requirements. The cost of having to rent space in the western region while also facing the cost of infrastructure in Nunavut is an additional cost that has not been accounted for by the government in making this plan.

Another estimate by the Government of the Northwest Territories report is that only 10% to 15% of its workforce directly affected by division will seek employment in Nunavut. This will exacerbate a problem already faced by Nunavut, obtaining the necessary workforce estimated at 600 people. As well, employment opportunities created by other provisions of the land claim agreement could create competition among employers for experienced staff.

The federal transition funding plan estimates that only 150 Nunavut staff will be hired by the time division occurs. This means Nunavut will not be in a strong position to assume control of operations necessary for the daily operation of government services. At the same time, according to the transition action plan of the Government of the Northwest Territories, experienced staff are already leaving because of job insecurity.

This is an immediate problem for this government which certainly needs to be addressed by this government. To date we have not seen anything put forward by the government to recognize the fact that there is even a problem.

This legislation will address some of the concerns I mentioned earlier. These amendments will provide the interim commissioner with the authority to enter into contractual obligations with staff to ensure that employees do not have to be hired on a short term or temporary basis. This should alleviate some of the problems with job insecurity.

A major component of Nunavut public government that will represent all residents of the eastern region, Inuit and non-Inuit alike, is the decentralization of government. This was an important provision in the land claim agreement that set out the government's structure.

Decentralization it is hoped will provide everyone, even those people living in remote areas, with a voice in government. Given the size of Nunavut and its sparse population, this is laudatory but harder to implement. The chances of attracting qualified staff to the 11 communities of the decentralized government may be difficult especially in the short term. These uncertainties increase the risk of stoppages in services at a critical time when Nunavut is to be created. With the infrastructure not scheduled to be in place until the year 2000 for the outlying communities of the decentralized government, this will place an additional burden on office space in Iqaluit which will be the capital of Nunavut.

Although there is some uncertainty surrounding the creation of Nunavut, and I have tried to set that uncertainty forth today so that everyone in the House can understand it, this is a historic event that is deserving of praise for those people who have worked so long to see this happen. The Inuit both as individual community members and through the different organizations operating on their behalf have worked hard to see their goal achieved. This will be accomplished on April 1, 1999. This legislation ensures that a government will be in place to begin operations at that time. At least we hope this legislation ensures that a government will be in place to begin operations at that time.

I would like to congratulate the people of both the eastern and western Arctic regions who have helped to attempt to bring this to reality.

I am pleased to support this bill in principle and look forward to studying and amending it at the committee stage. It will be at the committee stage that we will continue to try to address some of the inadequacies and some of the problems that threaten this piece of legislation which is by far a piece of proactive legislation and should be commended.

[Canada Grain Act, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, those are some excellent questions from the member for Prince George—Peace River.

There have been a number of sticky points in this piece of legislation. Bill C-26 offers some promise, but as the hon. member already mentioned, the inclusion clause, as it exists in Bill C-4, the fear of such a clause being utilized in this act and the fear of other grain commodities coming under this legislation are all very important issues for the Progressive Conservative Party.

This has tentative support. The bill has merit. If we go through it clause by clause it has a perfect chance of becoming a good law of the Government of Canada. However, several serious changes need to be made to the bill before it gets to that point.

[Canada Grain Act, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-26. Our critic for this area, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, could not be here today so I am taking his place.

I will begin with a little background on the bill. We have divided it into three parts.

On December 4, 1997 the minister of agriculture tabled Bill C-26 in the House of Commons. The bill is composed of three parts.

First it would repeal the Grain Futures Act. In essence it allows for the province of Manitoba through the Manitoba Securities Commission to regulate the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange instead of the federal government through the Canadian Grain Commission. This is related to the Manitoba Commodities Futures Act which was enacted by the Manitoba government.

This was an idea that was suggested by the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange itself. The WCE wants to access the hog industry so instead of working with two separate regulators, the WCE will conduct all its business through the Manitoba Securities Commission.

This is a positive change for the agricultural industry. The PC Party will support this aspect of the bill.

Second it would amend the Canada Grain Act to allow speciality crops such as soybeans to fall under crop insurance plans. This would also permit the separation of licensing and security provisions for special crops dealers.

This government believes that the inability to separate these two activities has been the primary problem in developing an insurance plan for the special crops industry of western Canada. By forcing such a separation in law and by putting the administration of a voluntary insurance plan under the Canadian Grain Commission, Bill C-26 would remove the onus on special crops dealers to post costly security against the possibility of their default in payment to special crops producers. The Canadian Export Development Corporation, CEDC, would be the insurer.

Although the government may feel that this aspect of the bill is positive, there are many people in the farming community who will differ. I will comment on the insurance program later.

Third, the bill will also incorporate the Canada Grain Act within the agriculture and agrifood industry, thereby allowing the Canadian Grain Commission to impose fines for most violations of the Canada Grain Act and its regulations. This aspect of the bill also needs a closer look when the bill is sent to committee.

There are a number of aspects of this bill that must be looked at closer for the House's consideration. Before I do so I must mention to the government that there has been little discussion on this bill thus far in particular in the farming communities out west. There are people in the farming communities who do not know anything about this bill.

It is the responsibility of this government to properly inform Canadians about this legislation, especially when it comes from the House of Commons of Canada. It is the government's responsibility to effectively communicate to Canadians what is about to become law and what is going to affect their livelihood.

That being said, I will comment on some of the aspects of the bill before this legislation goes before committee. I will comment on some of the thoughts expressed by the farming organizations out west.

A resolution was passed at the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association annual meeting. Similar motions were also passed at the Western Canadian Wheat Growers convention, the Western Barley Growers convention and the Saskatchewan Pulse Development Board. The motion reads as follows:

Whereas the majority of Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association members also are growers of specialty crops; and

Whereas the proposed Special Crops Rural Initiative Program would appear to favour the Canadian Grain Commission and not necessarily special crop growers; and

Whereas the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program is promoted as being voluntary, it is in reality a form of negative billing which all consumers reject (i.e. cable TV companies); and

Whereas the scheme has questionable support at the farm level; and

Whereas the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association rejects the compulsory nature of the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program; and

Whereas the special crops industry has flourished without such a program;

Therefore be it resolved that the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association inform the federal and western provincial ministers of agriculture of their concerns and at the very least that the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program be truly voluntary for both the growers and the special crops dealers.

This resolution aptly describes what Bill C-26 fails to do. It fails to give farmers choice, not unlike what the government did with Bill C-4 which failed to give farmers choice in how they sell their wheat.

The compulsory nature of the special crops insurance plan is a form of negative option billing. Today's producers run large operations and should not have to apply to opt out and then receive their money back if they do not wish to participate. Farming businesses should have the right to decide themselves if they want to be bonded or licensed and if so, pay the bill themselves.

Bill C-26 only adds more red tape and paperwork for farmers to be subjected to while placing extra costs on farm businesses already operating on small budgets. Producers should have the choice to decide for themselves if there is too much risk selling to an unlicensed buyer. Special crops producers would be better off having the choice between selling to large licensed grain dealers and small unlicensed grain dealers. That would make sense. I hope the government considers giving farmers this choice.

There are a number of elements of this bill which need to be looked at closer. I expect that the committee will look into the bill in great detail when it does the clause by clause analysis.

In principle the PC Party supports this legislation. However, there are a number of changes that will have to be adopted at the committee stage with respect to choice before this bill is acceptable in full to the PC Party of Canada and to the farmers of western Canada.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke a couple of times here today. I realize there is five minutes left and I will try to sum up my feelings and I am sure some of the feelings of our party on this issue.

For all the Canadians who are watching Parliament today, for the men, women and children who are watching the parliamentary station, I think there are some things that have not been said which need to be said and need to be understood.

This is not about patriotism. This is not about whether or not we love the flag of this country. I am going to point out a couple of reasons why it is not about that.

We have here a motion which on its surface sounds positive. However if this motion goes forward it will only serve to perpetuate the problem. The problem will continue. The Bloc members will get up next week and will want to know why they cannot have the Quebec flag on their desks alongside the Canadian flag. Then maybe a member from Nova Scotia will want to know why the Nova Scotian flag cannot be on his desk.

I will tell members why we do not have those flags on our desks. It is because they are represented in this House at this time.

I want to address veterans. I have heard our veterans mentioned time and time again today by the party which proposed this motion.

My grandfather fought in World War I and in World War II. My father was a soldier in World War II. I can tell this House, and I have no shame in saying it, that my father never, ever, for one day, accepted the new Canadian flag. His flag was the flag which he served under. It was the red ensign. Does that make him less of a Canadian? I presume that it does not. I insist that it does not.

There are a couple of other issues at stake here. We have talked about cost. I have heard the name of the Minister of Canadian Heritage mentioned today and the $25 million which she spent distributing flags. Today it has cost us $700,000 to stand in this Parliament to debate the flag issue.

There is also a cost to this institution, to the respect of this institution.

I have heard today that we need to stand to be counted. We will see if the flags go on the desks who will stand to be counted. If I put a flag on my desk does that make me a better Canadian than someone who does not have one on their desk? I do not think so. I will insist that it does not.

I have heard today an excuse as to why the flag was thrown on the floor of the House during a heated debate. It is something I am sure that the member who did it would like to forget. I am sure he would like it to go away. I can understand that.

The excuse was made that he had been eating greasy food and it slipped from his hands. Surely we are above making such ridiculous and petty excuses in the House of Commons of Canada.

The car that was painted to resemble the Canadian flag, did that red and white paint fall from the sky? Was the car just driving along and suddenly it got painted? No, it was a deliberate act meant to incite the Parliament of this country.

There is one thought I would like to leave with the House. It is not about the flag. It is not about patriotism. It is about levers. We all have agendas in this building. Should we ever use the Canadian flag, a flag which I honour and respect, as a lever to push our agenda in this House? I say that we should not.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to address my concerns to the Chair and keep them very brief.

There is a greater question here and I would like to ask the former speaker what she thinks of this. If we display a Canadian flag on our desk, what does that tell the people who do not display the Canadian flag? It does use it as some type of a weapon or some type of coercion to convince everyone else that they too should have one.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a passion filled debate today. I do not think for a second that members of the House should forget why we are here and what this is about.

I listened closely to the words of the hon. member and I have some serious problems and difficulties with where he was coming from and what exactly he was talking about. There are a number of people who are watching this debate who may not understand it. It is simply a question of respect and trust.

There is one group in the House of Commons, along with some members opposite, who wave the flag and use it as a type of sledgehammer to beat upon someone else who may not be willing to wave it. That is why we do not have flags on our desks. That is why there are flags beside the Speaker.

This is not about the Canadian flag; this is about a waste of time. We are wasting the Canadian taxpayers' time to debate whether we should have flags on our desks.

I want to add another point. We are listening to talk about the flag today. On February 15, 1995, the leader of the member's party was the guy who stated that the debate over the Canadian flag on Canada's flag day at that time was frivolous and a waste of time.

You don't wear the flag—

[Canada-Yukon Oil And Gas Accord Implementation Act, March 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-8, the Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas Accord Implementation Act.

The bill represents the first bill I have had the opportunity to work on both at the parliamentary level and the committee level in the Indian affairs and northern development portfolio. I feel it represents a step in the right direction. It is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction.

The bill transfers authority to the Yukon territorial government regarding exploration, development, conservation and management of onshore oil and gas resources, oil and gas pipelines, the raising of money in respect of oil and gas in the territory and the export of oil and gas.

At the same time the bill allows the federal government to regain control and administration of oil and gas on Yukon lands in order to settle or implement land claims for aboriginal groups.

The bill was formerly known as Bill C-50 but died on the order paper with the call for the election in April 1997. It incorporates some changes to the original Bill C-50 in order to address concerns raised by aboriginal groups, specifically the effect of the bill on their land claims agreements and self-government. I will speak in more detail on this matter later.

Bill C-8 is the implementation process for the Canada-Yukon oil and gas accord. The accord was the product of a process begun in 1987 under the minister at that time, William Hunter McKnight. It was a beginning of a process to devolve responsibility from the federal government to the government of Yukon with the intention of conferring powers analogous to those held by provinces.

Currently all oil and gas management authority in Yukon is controlled by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in its energy policy area for the territories. With Bill C-8 control over oil and gas passes to the Yukon government with the application for onshore resources and an area adjacent to the northern coast, including Shoalwater Bay and Philips Bay.

The area referred to as the north slope was of special concern to the aboriginal peoples, and in particular the Inuvialuit Regional Council. The council representing the signatories to the Inuvialuit final agreement in the Northwest Territories expresses reservations about the extent of protection for this area in the bill.

Shoalwater Bay is an area of significant importance to the Inuvialuit for the harvesting of beluga whales. As such it wanted reassurance from the federal government that this area should be protected from development so the traditional hunt would not be jeopardized.

The Inuvialuit was assured by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that the area would be protected with part of the area being a national park. This is explicitly removed from the development in Bill C-8.

At the same time the federal government informed the Inuvialuit that Shoalwater Bay would not be developed but did not include this area specifically in the legislation. Instead it is protected by implicit understanding outside the bill. It will be imperative for the federal government to honour this commitment to the Inuvialuit.

Of the 14 aboriginal groups in the Yukon area eight have yet to settle land claim agreements with the federal government but are presently involved in negotiations. This was another area of concern for first nations, specifically how the bill would affect land claim negotiations.

These concerns were expressed during consultation with Yukon first nations, especially the eight bands who are signatories to the Inuvialuit final agreement but have not yet settled land claims.

To alleviate uncertainty clause 8 was added to the legislation allowing for the administration and control of oil and gas to revert to the governor in council for the settlement of land claims. With this addition, the rights of aboriginal groups are preserved while ensuring that future land claims will be resolved and implemented properly. Nothing in the legislation is to abrogate or derogate existing aboriginal and treaty rights. This is to protect aboriginal rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

While the transfer of authority is to the Yukon government, the federal government will disperse an amount equivalent to revenues from all onshore resources since April 1, 1993. With the oil and gas revenues in Yukon currently valued at $2 million, this represents a significant amount of money that would be accruing to the territorial government. Following the transfer, onshore resources will be collected by the Yukon government with offshore resource revenues divided according to a formula for revenue sharing.

Under the royalty sharing formula Yukon first nations will receive 50% of the first $2 million collected by Yukon. For any amounts greater than $2 million the reparation falls to 10%. The average per capita amount received by the first nations cannot exceed the average Canadian per capita income.

This is a bill the Progressive Conservatives started and we continue to support it. The one weakness or complaint that should be raised in this House is the inadequate job the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development did in involving public participation in this process.

When I visited Whitehorse after this bill had received first reading in the House and after we had already had a video conference with Yukon region representatives, I met with many groups who would have appeared before the committee but were not given an opportunity by the present government.

With that said I will still support this bill because in the end it helps Yukon. It recognizes aboriginal rights and moves the Yukon government closer to self-sufficiency and hopefully one day to provincial status.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, since time is running short I will be very direct in my question to the hon. member.

The crux of this issue seems to come down to sovereignty, who is going to control the affairs of the nation. Will it be a multinational corporation deciding the affairs of the nation from abroad or will it be the nation itself?

We are a resource rich country. We need resource management. Who is going to manage our resources? Who is going to be in charge of our fisheries? Who is going to be in charge of our mining and our forest resources? What protection is in the MAI now?

I have read the information on the MAI on the Internet. I have followed it for over a year. There is a scarcity of it. You can say there is a lot there, but there is a scarcity of it.