Jay Hill

[Dangerous Offenders, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Since the release of repeat sexual offender Larry Fisher, the RCMP has issued an internal memo stating that he will probably strike again. Over the weekend Fisher was reported sighted in my riding in the city of Dawson Creek. Local residents are deeply concerned about the sudden appearance of Fisher in their community.

Which laws need to be changed so that dangerous offenders like Larry Fisher are never turned loose again?

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague on the other side of the House for his comments and question.

There are a number of programs. The two I specifically referred to were the gross revenue insurance program and the Net Income Stabilization Act. There is also the feed freight assistance program that we talked about. My colleague referred earlier to western grain transportation. There are a number of programs for livestock, feed development initiatives, and economic and regional development agreements. A wide range of programs are presently in place.

Rather than having all the specific programs that actually end up distorting one sector of agriculture to the detriment of another, Reform is suggesting that we should be looking at the whole farm approach to protect farmers regardless of whether they are producing chickens, grain, milk or whatnot. We have to protect all farmers in all sectors against unfair foreign practices. To do so we need to move toward all farm and all sector programs with both our trade adjustment distortion program and our new income stabilization program, which would be an enhanced NISA and applicable to all sectors instead of only the ones it currently covers.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to address the subject of agriculture.

Because of my rather extensive experience and background in agriculture I have a bit of trouble when I read the motion as put forward. It talks about proactive work of the government and uses phrases and words such as co-operation, enhance, building the sector to be among the best in the world, and sustainable agriculture. Sustainable is a good catch phrase. It is one that we as farmers have heard and used ourselves for some time now. Farmers are not looking for fancy catch phrases or motions but some assurance of where we are headed from this point.

As I have said I was born and raised on a farm. As such I have had the enjoyment of learning firsthand about picking rocks on our land. I have been involved in farming virtually all my life. For many years I operated about a 3,000 acre grain farm with one of my brothers who continues our family farming tradition today.

The farm was started by my father with the help of the Veterans Land Act shortly after the second world war. My family has quite a tradition of being on the land. Something I have witnessed and something I have personally felt is what I call the farmer's love of the land. The enjoyment of actually producing from one's own efforts is the very reason so many farmers today continue to struggle against all odds every year

when the economics of their business would dictate that in reality they should just give up and do something else, do something more profitable.

This love of the land could be equated to the similar feelings I am sure aboriginal peoples have for their traditional lands, or that foresters feel for forests, or pilots for the skies. In short, farmers are happiest when they are working on their land or working with their livestock.

Back home right now I know they have started preparing the soil and planting the 1994 crop. As I said earlier, they desperately need some assurance from the government that it intends to support those efforts with more than simply more empty rhetoric.

Over the years I have been involved in many farm organizations working on behalf of my fellow farmers. For a while I was president of the B.C. Grain Producers Association. As such I served as the director responsible for grain with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I have had the opportunity to witness firsthand farm programs that I would say were designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. By that I mean programs that have been unnecessarily cumbersome and heavy in administration, programs designed more to justify an ongoing need for government jobs than for sustaining agriculture.

The reality is that farmers are not asking for a handout. They never have and they never will. They just want to be able to earn a decent return on their investment and labour. In short they need to know if their industry will be protected from circumstances completely beyond their control.

Because farmers sell their products on the world market they are price takers, not price setters. When our competitors, namely the EEC and the U.S., choose to continue the seemingly never-ending trade war, it is our farmers who are caught in the middle.

City dwellers simply do not understand some of the sacrifices their rural cousins are called upon to make. I am speaking about the need for off-farm income. It has been well documented that in order to sustain farm operations farmers' wives are working off farm. Farmers may spend many days themselves in the wintertime away from their families just to sustain their farming operations. Also they have to make do with much lower standards of living in some cases than those of their urban neighbours.

I am concerned that when urban people drive by and see a farmer working his fields they relate his efforts to a small businessman rather than to an industry. They should be better educated about the situation. When they see a farmer and consider the need to sustain agriculture and to assist farmers, they must look at it as a primary industry similar to forestry, oil and gas or mining rather than a small business. It is not fair to equate farming with small business because like forestry, it is renewable.

I have always been somewhat upset when I pick up a newspaper and read about another subsidy to farmers. We have to recognize that all industries at different times, especially our natural resource industries, call upon both levels of government to support them. At different times both levels of government provide tax incentives or royalty holidays or initiate specific programs to assist major industries. As I have said, agriculture should not be viewed any differently.

Over the years there has virtually been a flood of farm programs supposedly designed to assist farms to remain sustainable. As has already been outlined, some programs have taken the form of transportation subsidies, the Crows Nest Pass rate which eventually became the Western Grain Transportation Act. There are various feed freight assistance programs and those types of things. Some have been designed to protect farmers from natural disasters, natural elements. Crop insurance is a program put in place to provide that type of protection.

There have been many others implemented to protect farmers from price fluctuations in the marketplace. The western grain stabilization program was such a program. It was proclaimed in 1976 and was eventually dissolved 15 years later in 1991. I know from personal experience on our farm that in consultations among my father, my brother and I, we chose not to participate in that program because we could see that it was not sustainable. By the way it was initially set up, it was not a good program for farmers.

As president of the B.C. grain producers I was personally involved with the special Canadian grains program that came about because of the trade war. In 1985-86 it was recognized that the WGSA was simply not addressing needs because it did not foresee how badly prices would drop.

We have moved through myriad programs over the years, and now we have come to GRIP and NISA. I am sure I could spend a lot more time than I have available today talking about all the problems that have developed with GRIP and NISA. Actually NISA is the one program that has been a relatively bright light in the darkness of government programs.

Despite all the problems with the programs that have been created in the past, we still talk about being proactive and co-operating with farm groups and farmers. The discussion seems to centre around which commodities to include in new programs on the horizon to replace GRIP and NISA.

As mentioned by my colleague earlier, Reform suggests a different route. It suggests elimination of the present farm support programs and instead the diverting of funds into basically three separate programs. The trade distortion adjustment program is an all-sector program, an all-inclusive program designed to address some of the concerns of my hon. colleague

across the way and what is going to be facing the supply management sector and other sectors.

We talk about a program specifically designed to offset foreign intervention and foreign competition through unfair subsidies our foreign competitors might be granted that we in this country do not have. We talk about other areas. As I have said, NISA has been a relatively successful program. We talk about making it more inclusive and making it applicable to all sectors of agriculture rather than just the grain sector.

We would continue to require crop insurance to offset the elements, the natural disasters that always occur and that farmers must be protected against. That briefly outlines my past history and what I say our government must move toward in relation to farm safety net programs.

[Canada Petroleum Resources Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the bill before us today. Some consider Bill C-25 a minor amendment to the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act, but I would like to think it can be viewed as an important message to industry.

Thousands of jobs in my riding are directly or indirectly dependent on the current boom in the petroleum sector. But if industry's confidence in government intentions were to be eroded many of those jobs could be lost.

Although this amendment only directly affects one oil company and community, I hope it is an indication this government realizes the importance of providing our resource based industries with predictability and stability in the policy environment. If this government starts sending signals to the private sector that it is safe to make long term investment plans, it will lead to economic growth and the creation of far more permanent jobs than government can hope to achieve through any temporary make work projects.

There is a long history leading up to this current amendment. The first oil well was drilled at Norman Wells in 1920. Since then it has grown to be the fourth largest producing field in the country. In 1944 Imperial Oil and Canada signed the Norman Wells proven area agreement which included just under 3,300 hectares within its boundaries. When the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act came into force the Norman Wells proven area was exempted from the new act. Just as the bill before us does

today, subsequent renewals and agreements have been similarly exempted.

This amendment does two things. It extends the timeframe past the current expiration date of 2008 which allows Imperial to plan for long term recovery. The amendment also changes the 1944 boundaries to incorporate the entire field. Changing the boundaries to exclude non-productive portions and include new fringe areas results in an addition of 350 hectares to the old proven area.

Canada and Imperial will not have to determine whether oil comes from pockets inside or outside the former boundaries. This will solve potential administrative problems for royalty and share calculations.

The government undertook numerous consultations when arriving at this agreement. Pursuant to the spirit and intent of the land claim agreement under negotiation with the Sahtu Dene and Metis during the same period, the government initiated discussions with them to ensure that the views of the long term stakeholders would be taken into consideration when contemplating any prospective changes to the proven area agreement.

Most other people living in Norman Wells are in some way directly dependent on the oil and gas extractive industries. Many will leave once oil production ceases, however the vast majority of the Sahtu peoples will remain.

The Sahtu agreed to this amendment at the end of March. It became apparent that Imperial's planned investment of $30 million for this fiscal year might be jeopardized if concurrence from the Sahtu was not forthcoming. Although it is probably not binding, the Sahtu made their acceptance contingent upon the enactment of Bill C-16, the Sahtu Dene and Metis Land Claims Settlement Act.

I am not generally a cynic, but I cannot help wondering about the timing of these two respective bills in the House. What would happen if Bill C-16 were held up indefinitely or even defeated? Would the government also have to repeal this bill?

I fully appreciate that this represents a significant opportunity for the Sahtu peoples to apply some indirect pressure on the government to proclaim an agreement they have anticipated for decades. But is it responsible of the government to enter into verbal agreements of this nature linking any two pieces of legislation?

The government also consulted with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers to seek its views on the principles of the amendment. The government assured CAPP this agreement would not set a precedent for the issuance of rights anywhere else in Canada.

Again the government gave assurances it cannot guarantee, this time promising this agreement would not be linked to decisions in the future. As we all know it is the job of lawyers to find precedents they can use to the advantage of their clients. Governments have also been known to fall. How can this government give a guarantee to other petroleum producers that this agreement does not set a precedent down the road?

Over the past decades the resource based industries have struggled against global recession, depressed prices, unpredictable policy and investment climates and increasing taxation from all levels of government.

Although the Ministry of Natural Resources has just released a report stating that Canada falls somewhere in the middle of the international competitive range with respect to taxation rates in mining, that is not the perception of the industry. The mining industry looks at the high marginal tax rates. Those have driven Canadian exploration and investment dollars overseas to South America. This government has the opportunity to reverse that trend by developing policies to encourage domestic investment.

In the petroleum sector depressed oil prices have resulted in massive layoffs and extensive restructuring of the industry. In the last couple of years we have seen a surge in natural gas prices leading to the current boom, but oil prices remain low and the future uncertain.

The cost overruns at Hibernia would not have been debated so strenuously if oil prices were stable at $50 U.S. a barrel, but they are not. Oil prices have just barely hit $17 on the heels of a five year low, dipping below $14.

In this erratic global market, oil companies must make significant investment decisions based on many factors, not just the price of oil. Confidence in government policy is a critical component in those decisions.

This amendment in giving force to the Norman Wells amending agreement signed in April provides Imperial Oil with the security of tenure it needs for long term planning. It has been assured there is time to realize a return on major investments in new technology. These investments are essential to maximizing production from this field.

This amendment is good for Imperial because it provides a stable planning environment. It is good for the Sahtu Dene and other local residents because they can rely on employment opportunities and a cash infusion into the local economy for

several more years. It is good for the Canadian people because it will generate additional oil revenues and royalties.

I hope this amendment means that the government now recognizes it cannot cripple our natural resource industries through unfair taxation or short-sighted policy initiatives.

Canada is very dependent on revenues generated by the petroleum sector. The imposition of additional taxes such as the rumoured carbon tax could dramatically curtail growth in this sector, throwing many thousands of people out of work. There must be a balance between environmental concerns and jobs for young Canadians.

According to the Ministry of Natural Resources, Canada is expected to remain a net oil exporter until 2008. Within 25 years we will still export 75 per cent of our heavy oil production but we will import almost twice as much light oil. To offset these effects government must encourage domestic exploration for more reserves.

The decline in northern exploration has been so dramatic that even the National Energy Board was scheduled to permanently close its office in Yellowknife in March.

To date, aside from Bent Horn in the eastern Arctic offshore, no new major oil or gas prospects have been found in the Northwest Territories, indicating there are not enough reserves to warrant field development or pipeline construction.

With exploration levels falling off, industry must invest in technology to improve recovery from known reserves.

Since 1981 new technology has increased the yield from the Norman Wells field from 17 per cent to 40 per cent. This is attributable to horizontal drilling, water injection and other improvements in recovery techniques.

More recently, in February approval was granted for a propane injection pilot project in the proven area. It will assess the technical merits of a propane miscible flood for achieving increased levels of recovery over a three year period. At the end of that time Imperial should have a pretty good idea how much more oil is recoverable from the field.

As of December 1992 a little over half of the recoverable reserves remained in the ground, approximately 125 million barrels, but this may improve substantially if the propane injection proves feasible. It could ensure that the field produces far more oil than previously thought possible thus ensuring stability in the regional economy for another 20 to 25 years.

Major investment in this technology is practical in light of the security that this amendment offers.

In summary, I would like to voice my support for this bill because it provides predictability for Imperial's planning horizon and is profitable for the regional economy. It will give Imperial the confidence and security of tenure necessary for it to invest in new technology to maximize recovery from this field. This amendment will also provide economic stability and long term employment opportunities in the Norman Wells region.

Finally, it is my hope that the royalties and revenues which accrue to Canada from maximizing the productive capacity of this field will contribute to the reduction of our national deficit.

[General Agreement On Tariffs And Trade, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicated, four previous investigations have exonerated the Canadian Wheat Board of unfair pricing. Despite this we now have a scenario for counterproductive retaliatory tariffs between the U.S. and Canada.

Is this government prepared to insist that the root cause of this trade disruption is not Canadian durum wheat imports but the distorting influence of the U.S. export enhancement program?

[General Agreement On Tariffs And Trade, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture.

Recently the United States enacted article XXVIII of the GATT in response to what it perceived as unfair imports of Canadian durum wheat. The fact is that American prices for durum wheat have increased approximately 90 per cent in the past year. This totally refutes the claim that the American industry is being harmed by Canadian durum wheat imports.

Could the minister please explain what actions his government is taking to dispute the U.S. claim that Canadian durum wheat imports are hurting its farmers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will address my comments to the last question first. That is not what I am advocating. When the municipalities of the Sahtu Dene are formed I would think and hope they would be eligible for the same programs and the same benefits as any municipality in Canada.

What I was referring to were programs specific to one group based on race, in other words, specific aboriginal programs. That is what I was referring to. Certainly, once they form their municipalities and have self-government, they should be eligible for the same programs as any other municipality in any province.

I have a couple of other quick points because I know time is of the essence. I agree with the hon. member. The system has failed and part of the reason it has failed in the past is that they have not been treated equally. People were segregated and shoved on to reserves and they had to live there.

That is where the system failed in the past. They were not treated equally. Therefore I still hold on to the long-term goal that gradually we can reach a point where all Canadian citizens will be treated equally. I noticed that the hon. member used the term that she was interested in a fair and equitable settlement for the aboriginal people. Certainly that is my concern and I think the concern of my colleagues in the Reform Party as well.

We go a bit beyond that. I would say to the hon. member that we are concerned about a fair and equitable settlement not just for the aboriginal people but for all the people of Canada. We feel we do not just represent one group. We represent all Canadians and we are speaking on behalf of all Canadians when we raise these issues.

She also mentioned that she had concerns about the Reform Party's position, that we were using this debate and it was not specific to this agreement. I agree with her. Obviously we are trying to bring other issues concerning the aboriginal people to light using the format of the debate here today.

We are very concerned about the precedent that one agreement will set. It might be used in future agreements throughout the country and we are using the debate to bring forward some of these other issues. I thank the hon. member for her comments and her questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and comments regarding my presentation.

What I was referring to was that the ancestors of the Sahtu Dene did sign treaty No. 11. As signatories to that treaty certain things were decided on, one of which was that there should be 128 acres granted per person under the treaty. What we see under this new agreement goes far beyond that.

I believe that as a people and a country we are giving up something. If we are not then I would ask the member in return where is the $75 million coming from? It is coming from

somewhere. Someone is giving that money and it is we as a nation, which includes all the aboriginal people, all of us are giving that. I am not saying we as a race or we as a party or we as a government. I am saying we as a nation are giving up some of the things that are in this agreement. I dispute his point.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. I do not think that anyone would deny that there have been injustices done. I detailed some examples of that, how that has taken place down through the history of our country.

I think also that what I was trying to get at in my presentation is that when rights are granted to individuals or to groups there are corresponding responsibilities that go with those rights. I do not see in this agreement where that is taking place within the confines of the agreement. I see all sorts of things being granted to this group of Canadians, and I think we have to distinguish here that we are all Canadians and we have all benefited from this great land of ours in different ways. Even the native people, the aboriginal people, have clearly benefited from Canada. My comment is that they also have to take responsibility. If they are going to go down the road toward self-government-there clearly does not seem to be any definition of that forthcoming from the opposite side of the House-then obviously there should be this devolution of power, to the Sahtu people in this particular case, to the aboriginal people in Canada, but also they should be seeking to give up any further rights to aboriginal programs.

My hope always was that once we came to a reasonable and fair settlement and self-government for the aboriginal people that at some point we would all be treated equally. There would not be any programs specifically based on race any more.

I see that this agreement does not accomplish that, even though the monetary compensation is paid, even though the land use is guaranteed, even though the fee simple land is given over, even though subsurface mineral rights are given to these people from the Government of Canada. The bottom line still appears to be that they do not give up any future access to aboriginal programs, either existing ones or ones in the future. That was the thrust of my speech. That is my concern.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Bill C-16. Although there are many positive things in this agreement, there are also many problems with it.

I wish to direct my comments to the compensation package given to the Sahtu Dene and Metis in this land claim agreement. I have many concerns about the precedent this agreement sets for land claim settlements and other negotiations in the rest of the country.

With every right there comes a corresponding responsibility and obligation. I see many rights in this agreement. The Sahtu are receiving a generous compensation package of land and money, rights to resource royalties, rights to restrict public access over large tracts of land and water, rights to participation in resource management decisions and environmental assessment, and rights to review economic plans and resource development initiatives.

Where are the responsibilities outlined? Where are the obligations summarized? With this agreement the government has lost certain rights by handing them over to the Sahtu peoples, but what is the diminishment in government responsibilities? These are questions which need to be answered.

The monetary compensation package in this agreement is generous. The Sahtu have been awarded a non-taxable $75 million cash settlement to be paid out over a 15-year period with accrued interest. This will add up to approximately $130 million for the current population of 1,755 people.

The agreement does not explicitly state why this money is being awarded. If it were compensation for not having had the use of the land they were entitled to under treaty, they are receiving $1 million for every year the government failed to fulfil the treaty land entitlement provisions of 128 acres per person. But there are few fences in the Northwest Territories so they have had the use of the land for traditional purposes.

In the recent Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Framework Agreement funds have been set aside to enable the First Nations to purchase the shortfall in treaty land themselves. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been set aside for this purpose, but they will not be able to buy anywhere near the amount of land the Sahtu have been given in addition to their cash compensation.

Apparently this money was just part of the settlement. Does this mean that the government would have given them even more land if they had not received the $75 million? This is extremely generous.

What is the responsibility that goes with the awarding of the cash payment and these royalties? If the Sahtu Dene and Metis have not lost any of the privileges which accrue to them under the Indian Act, then what does this mean? Does the crown have a fiduciary obligation with respect to Sahtu monetary decisions? On the face of this agreement it would appear that it does.

Settlement dollars and land title are vested in Sahtu organizations, not individuals. If five or ten years down the road the Sahtu people from a community charge that one of these organizations have mismanaged their money or land, who will be responsible? If, as the former Indian affairs minister implied, this settlement has given the Sahtu the necessary land and resources for a brighter future, do the Sahtu also have the obligation to actively pursue that goal for future generations?

This agreement also provides the Sahtu Dene and Metis with resource royalties. As previously stated they will receive 7.5 per cent of the first $2 million of resource royalties received by the Government of Canada in any given year and then 1.5 per cent of any additional royalties. These royalty shares will be from the entire Mackenzie valley. What is the explanation for this? How can the government justify this royalty deal to the Canadian people?

The Sahtu are given fee simple title to more than 41,000 square kilometres with subsurface rights on 1,800. This agreement gives them traditional use rights and significant input on resource development decisions on over 280,000 square kilometres. Now they will receive a share of government royalties over 900,000 square kilometres of the Mackenzie valley.

All resource royalties are calculated on a different basis. Oil and gas royalties tend to be based on production. Mineral royalties are based on profit. Exploration for diamonds and other minerals is on the increase in the Mackenzie valley. We do not know what our proven resource potential is north of 60.

Just exactly how much money are we talking about here? It appears the Sahtu do not know, the government does not know, no one knows. Only the taxpayers of Canada will know when they have to make up for the royalty shortfall out of their pockets.

As each northern comprehensive claim is settled more groups will receive a share of the government royalties. The Gwich'in are already a part of this deal as was stated earlier. As each group is added on, the government share of royalties decreases proportionately. What precedent does this set for claims settlements in the rest of Canada?

If the government gives up most of its resource royalties based on these precedents north of 60 other taxes will clearly have to go up. The Canadian people are already overtaxed. As a result of this agreement obviously they will have to pay more in the future.

Is this government being responsible? Is it giving hope to future generations of Canadians?

This new right to resource royalties the government has given the Sahtu people does not appear to have any responsibilities attached. The minister talks about giving them some control over resources so they can control their own economic destiny. That is certainly a worthwhile objective, but where does it say any of this money will be used to further the aspirations of the Sahtu people? They continue to rely on the federal government to provide special programs and funding.

The government may suggest Sahtu responsibility for all of these functions will come later after self-government agreements are reached. However this government is taking great pains to point out that no one knows what the eventual form of self-government will be. This government has no idea what

responsibilities the Sahtu or other aboriginal groups will assume under their specific self-government formulas.

We are talking about the rights and responsibilities that arise out of this particular agreement. The Sahtu are receiving many monetary rights without the attachment of any significant fiscal responsibilities. They are receiving a land base and royalties without an obligation to use them to further the economic and self-sufficiency objectives outlined in the agreement. I am very concerned that it sets a bad precedent for fiscal responsibility in future self-government negotiations.

This agreement also establishes a number of boards for resource management and environmental assessment. In some ways this is a positive development. The Sahtu have recognized that many of the board activities, functions and decisions are technical and not political.

Opening up the appointment process allows the Sahtu to nominate technically competent people to represent their views and interests at the table. If those people are not doing their jobs in the future, they can be removed easily without the repercussions removal of a political nominee would create.

Increasing the number of boards also adds to an existing problem. In 1992 one Toronto paper said there were already 6,200 bureaucrats and 800 boards and agencies in Yellowknife. There are fewer than 60,000 people living in the Northwest Territories in 62 communities. That is more than one bureaucrat for every 10 people and one board or agency for every 70. Surely that is enough. Imagine the chaos if we tried to run the rest of the country as inefficiently.

Yet this bill proposes more boards and with one or two exceptions does not propose to eliminate parallel boards at other levels of government. All stakeholders should have the right to have input into resource management decisions and these boards provide the Sahtu people with a mechanism for that participation.

Will these boards provide a more informed and cost effective way for northern residents to ensure that environmentally and economically sustainable decisions are made in the best interests of all Canadians? Will they take the responsibility to represent all interests seriously? I hope that is the purpose of these boards. I hope that this was not just a Tory job creation scheme for the north. Only time will tell.

The Sahtu, Dene and Metis received title to more than 41,000 square kilometres. The settlement lands of the Sahtu peoples fall within the treaty 11 territory. In 1921 treaty 11 was signed by the crown and the ancestors of the Sahtu Dene who are now signatories to this land claim agreement.

Among other things treaty 11 provided for the establishment of reserve lands. It is obvious now and it was obvious then that the whole reserve system envisioned by Ottawa bureaucrats was unworkable.

It was even more irrelevant for the people living under completely different conditions in the Northwest Territories. Reserves do not make sense to people who must follow the caribou to survive. One only has to look at the tragedies of substance abuse and suicides in communities like Davis Inlet to see the end results of past misguided policies of clumping people who traditionally ranged much further afield into small groups.

It is because the crown never upheld its promise in 1921 to provide treaty lands that we find ourselves discussing this agreement here today. The government did not have to make reserves out of this land entitlement. It could have spread the entitlement out as land in severalty in traditional camps or along family trap lines. This should have been a specific claim settlement because it lies within treaty 11, not a comprehensive claim settlement.

During the 1970s the Dene and Metis people took the position that they had never surrendered their rights to all of the land. It appears that the government chose to agree with this position rather than uphold or slightly modify the provisions of the treaty.

Under treaty 11 people were entitled to 128 acres per person. If the government had fulfilled its lawful obligation under the terms of the treaty even at this late date far less land would have been transferred. Although the Metis would not have received land under the old treaty, including them now means that the Sahtu Dene and Metis beneficiaries would have received just over 900 square kilometres of land with subsurface rights.

In this agreement the government doubled the treaty land entitlement to 1,800 square kilometres. Then it stepped completely outside of the treaty and beyond its lawful obligations and added another 39,000 square kilometres without accompanying subsurface rights. Instead of 128 acres per person the Sahtu have received 20 square kilometres per person. I would call this quite generous.

After doubling the treaty land entitlement and after guaranteeing traditional use rights over the entire settlement area of 280,000 square kilometres, why did the government give the Sahtu fee simple title to 39,000 more kilometres? I would ask the question is this fair and is it a just settlement?

Recent court decisions in Canada have recognized aboriginal rights to the land. In the Delgamuukw Court of Appeal decision last June the court clearly distinguished between land ownership and land use. The traditional use rights are to be determined on a case by case basis. The aboriginal rights referred to are for the use and enjoyment of the land according to tradition and culture while recognizing there are other third party interests which also require use of the land base.

The courts do not currently hold that the aboriginal right to the land is a right of ownership but of use. This agreement goes far beyond that. Not only have fewer than 1,800 Sahtu Dene and Metis retained the right to hunt, trap and fish throughout the settlement area, but they have a share of resource royalties in perpetuity, a generous cash compensation and a significant land and resource base.

For all the rights the Sahtu have received, what are their accompanying responsibilities and obligations? Despite the generosity of this agreement, the crown retains responsibility for program delivery and for special economic development programs to encourage self-sufficiency. These programs are in addition to the many government programs the Sahtu and other Canadians are eligible for.

Where is the incentive or the responsibility to become economically self-sufficient if the government is committed to providing programs indefinitely?

The crown has gone far beyond its lawful obligations and is not getting any diminishment of its responsibilities in return. Although the agreement states that government is not liable for damages or losses due to the failure of a Sahtu organization to comply with its administrative obligations, what does this really mean?

If the government does not get any concessions from the signatories regarding their assumption of program funding and delivery in this settlement then it is certainly not going to get it from south of 60 where governments cannot afford to be quite so generous.

The continuation of government's involvement will incur increasing fiduciary obligations despite the fact the Sahtu now have the land and money to begin to take responsibility for these functions themselves.

This agreement is setting a precedent for self-government negotiations down the road. Where First Nations in the future may have a tax base and the economic means to provide for their own programs, will they choose to rely on government funding? Instead of downsizing with the devolution of programs and authority away from Indian affairs, we seem to be encouraging greater bureaucracy with little fiscal responsibility at the local level.

What precedent is the crown setting for negotiators in other treaty territories and in comprehensive claim areas throughout Canada? There is a clause which extinguishes all future Sahtu claims to additional land and water, but treaty 11 also had an extinguishment clause. The government chose to renegotiate the land entitlement provisions and resource royalties even though it takes the position that the Sahtu did surrender title to the land in 1921. The extinguishment clause in this agreement apparently provides greater certainty to the government, but extinguishment is extinguishment.

Modern day treaties are far more complex and it is hoped more equitable, but will they be any more binding on the parties?

The Indian Act was created in an era when paternalistic government believed that the Indian and Inuit peoples of Canada needed protection from unscrupulous land speculators and others, but it evolved into the misguided monster we see today.

The Indian Act created dependencies where none existed before. Government assumed responsibility for all decisions regarding monetary or land transactions and removed all responsibility and decision making authority from the people it sought to protect.

It is time that government got out of the business of making decisions for people. Government must restore the dignity of the Indian, Inuit and Metis people by letting them make their own decisions and allow them to be responsible for the consequences of those decisions.

Government has given the Sahtu a settlement with extensive rights. Now it must ensure that the Sahtu assume the responsibilities that go with those rights.

The government of the day has the right to negotiate fair and just settlements with aboriginal peoples who have outstanding claims, but the government also has the responsibility to ensure that those settlements are fair for all Canadians.