Jim Prentice

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise and speak today to Bill C-55, the wage earner protection program act, which is before the House. I will be speaking generally in favour of the concept underlying the legislation while taking issue with some of the specifics which form part of the government's proposal.

I would like to acknowledge the work of a number of members of the House. First, the member for Winnipeg Centre did a great deal of work in terms of putting Bill C-281 before the House. I have worked with this member very closely. We do not always agree on issues, but I do respect the philosophy with which he has brought this matter forward and the private member's bill that he brought is a precursor to Bill C-55.

I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of the member for Edmonton—Leduc who is our critic in this area. He has worked very diligently, has examined this very complex legislation, and has led the Conservative Party in its very able response to the legislation. The member for Souris—Moose Mountain, our labour critic, has also worked with him and similarly been responsible for the carriage of this legislation.

My comments follow those of the member for Vancouver Island North. It is worth pointing out that he has been a very outspoken advocate on behalf of working Canadians and the protection of working Canadians under this legislation. He served on the subcommittee of the Conservative shadow cabinet which brought this concept to the House earlier this year in May.

There is some unanimity in the House in terms of the spirit which underlies this legislation, but there are important differences between the way the Conservative Party and the government has approached this issue. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the May 3 motion which was put before the House of Commons. It read:

That, in the opinion of the House, immediate steps be taken to amend the Employment Insurance Act to provide for the establishment of a workers' protection fund that is funded and administered under the Employment Insurance Act to protect workers wages, medical and dental premiums, and severance payments to an amount of $5,000 per employee in the event of a business bankruptcy or insolvency.

Herein lies the genesis or the concept behind Bill C-55, but there are important differences between the Conservative position and that of the government which I will underscore in my comments this afternoon.

Generally speaking, I favour the wage earner protection program aspects of Bill C-55 and I will direct my comments exclusively to those provisions of the legislation. There are equally complicated provisions that deal with other aspects of the Bankruptcy Act. I will not be turning my mind to those today. The wage earner protection program features of this legislation are quite important because they provide protection for everyday working Canadians who find themselves caught up in the nightmare of a bankruptcy or an insolvency or a creditor protection scheme.

This is a matter that I have some experience with on a personal basis. In my own family, I recall being a young lawyer many, many years ago and my mother, who was an employee of a company called the Betty Shop, found her employer to be in a state of bankruptcy and insolvency. I remember how difficult it was for her when she discovered that she had absolutely no protection or priority as a wage earner. That company went bankrupt and it was my mother who was out of pocket with her wages because there was no government program to cover the company. She had absolutely no security under the Bankruptcy Act. That was 15 to 20 years ago, so I am pleased to stand here today on behalf of her and other working Canadians who find themselves in similar circumstances.

It is important that the House is drawing together to protect working Canadians, so that they do not suffer those kinds of losses in the event of a bankruptcy.

It is important that the matter proceed to committee and that the committee conduct a very diligent and searching review of the legislation that is in front of the House. Bill C-55 is quite complex and detailed in terms of the priority regime that it creates and the legislative balance that it strikes.

It is important that the committee hear from people in the legal and banking professions and the labour unions to make sure that the appropriate balance is struck with the legislation, because it is a question of balance. It is a question of striking a balance between protecting wage earners on the one hand and making sure on the other that we do not disrupt the balance which is at the heart of creditor relationships in the country. This is something I know in particular the member for Edmonton—Leduc and the member for Souris—Moose Mountain have spoken about but it requires some emphasis.

The priority scheme in the event of a bankruptcy is extremely complicated. It strikes a delicate balance between those who work in businesses and those who finance businesses. We must be very careful with this legislation that we do not disrupt that balance, because the ultimate losers will be working Canadians. It will be working Canadians at the end of the day who will suffer the consequences if it becomes more difficult to finance a business.

No one should think that by according superpriority status to one category of claims, in this case past wage earning claims, somehow it will be simply the secured creditors, the banks, who accept that loss. In fact, the way it works in the law of the business world is that the banks and other secured creditors will make darned sure that they have adequate security ahead of time. They will simply add the wage claims to the security which they seek which will make it harder for people to finance businesses. Essentially it will add to the equity that business people need before they can finance a business, because there will have to be adequate equity ahead of the other business assets to protect the banks. We have to be very careful of the balance which is struck.

There is one thing I am puzzled by. The motion that the Conservative Party put forward linked the employment wage protection, which is so important, and the Conservative Party specified an amount of $5,000 per person, not the $3,000 suggested by the government, but it linked it equally importantly to the Employment Insurance Act by ensuring that those claims would be paid from the employment insurance system. The government in a sense would guarantee wage earner claims in the event of a bankruptcy, up to the amount of $5,000 and it would be covered out of the premiums that had been paid by employers and employees to the employment insurance fund.

What the government is proposing is something that is in fact quite different from that. First, the protection is offered only up to the level of $3,000 per employee, which is much less generous than what had been proposed by the Conservative Party, much less protective of working class Canadians. Second, there is this very puzzling feature such that the money which is paid out under Bill C-55, the $3,000, can then be recovered by the government from the bankrupt estate, yet it can only be recovered in the sum of $2,000. This is very puzzling. I hope that the committee has a look at this.

I do not know why we would put forward a legislated system that compensates wage earners for $3,000, yet allows the government to pursue recompense or security protection only to the tune of $2,000. That simply makes no sense. There is no reason that the Government of Canada, if it is protecting wage earners and being subrogated in its position, should not have the position to step forward and seek full recompense for the amount of $3,000.

There are other features of the legislation which I think are sensible. One concern that we must have in looking at the legislation is whether it puts forward a government system which simply involves more government. I do not find that in the legislation.

I note there are extensive responsibilities in clause 21 which have been imposed on the bankruptcy trustee and receiver. It is their responsibility to police the system, to make sure they have identified the claim, determined the amount of wages, informed the individuals and provided the minister with the report. There is also a sunset provision relating to this aspect of the legislation. From the way it will work, I do not think it will necessarily produce more government in this country, but it will provide protection for working Canadians up to the sum of $3,000 in principal. That is something we support as Conservatives, although we would have sought legislation which provided even greater protection for Canadians.

[Aboriginal Affairs, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today the Auditor General reported that the government has spent $2 billion on aboriginal drinking water and it is still failing first nations people in this country. The government is proposing to spend another $2 billion in the next three years without any performance standards, without any regulatory framework, without providing accurate information to Parliament, zero accountability.

The government's record is one of 12 years of failure. Why are first nations citizens still waiting for clean drinking water and where did the $2 billion go?

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have no urgency or emergency here that would justify the government invoking closure and an extension of the sitting hours, violating Standing Order 28(2). The reason this is being done is political expediency. The reason this is being done, as my hon. friend said, is so the government House leader can save face on a difficult position which he caught himself in last week.

The reason we have Standing Order 28(2) is to balance the interests of the government with that of the elected members of the Canadian people so they can get about the business of government and also see their constituents over the course of the summer. That rule has never been abrogated other than in emergency circumstances in the country. What the government is doing is highly irregular and unnecessary. It shows complete disrespect for both Parliament and Canadians.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words. I have respect for him as well. He did however say that the Liberal government would be protecting the taxpayers of the country. I am sure he believes that, but that is not a thought which should let anyone in the country sleep well at night. I just cannot see that happening.

However, let me come back to the question of how the House has functioned and conducted the business of Canadians. There is no doubt that the House has the capacity to move very quickly when there is an agreement. The difficulty we have is we have two pieces of legislation, in respect of which reasonable people disagree, which require full and complete debate in the House of Commons.

If there were a consensus in the House, as there was with respect to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement of last week, the House could move very quickly. In that case, very significant legislation passed through the House, essentially in one hour. I was proud to support it and to work on it with my colleagues. However, behind that legislation was 23 years of work and a great deal of confidence in the quality of the legislation that had been brought forward. We have not reached that point in respect of other legislation which is necessarily in front of the House.

What is more important is we face no emergency. The point has been made very clear that Standing Order 28(2) has not been arrived at lightly. This was put in place after two separate, non-partisan parliamentary committees reviewed it and decided we needed a House calendar that would adequately balance all the duties members of Parliament have to their constituents.

As far as I am aware, that Standing Order has been abrogated only once in the context of the emergency free trade debate in 1988. What do we find in Bill C-48 that presents emergency circumstances? For heaven's sake, the surplus process that drives the legislation cannot even be determined until the end of the 2005-06 expenditure year, before the legislation even applies. What in heaven's name is the reason for declaring an emergency to rush it through the House?

There are many things we that do need to be reformed in the House. As a first time member of Parliament, I would say it is a 17th century anachronistic place. The real problem is the government has not had a legislative agenda. The government has had ample opportunity since last September to secure approval for its legislative agenda. It dithered, dodged, ducked and woven its way through the House, sometimes filibustering its own agenda.

That is the problem. That is why the government is short of time. It has nothing to do with any of the opposition parties in the House of Commons.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I address the question of the time extension, I want Canadians and the residents of my riding of Calgary Centre-North to be clear on what is happening here.

We have had a motion of closure, which has been addressed, and a decision is now before us to extend the sitting hours of the House. The effect of the closure, coupled with this extension of the sitting time of the House, is to permit the Liberal government to ram through several pieces of legislation. I predict that this is the first in a series of closure motions that will happen beneath the umbrella of this time extension that Canadians will see over the course of the next seven days.

The underlying purpose of what the Liberal government is attempting to do is to override Standing Order 28(2), the Standing Orders that provide for the operation of this House, and to do so in circumstances where there is no emergency. There is no emergency in this country and there is no necessity for this time extension.

What is being proposed is that the government sacrifice the parliamentary calendar, which is constructed into Standing Order 28(2,) and to do so for its own political expediency and its own political purposes, rather than for any national purpose or national emergency, which is required.

At this time there are two controversial pieces of legislation before this House: Bill C-48, which I have referred to as the NDP budget bill; and Bill C-38, the marriage bill. Both of these are important pieces of legislation. I will turn to them in more detail as I proceed, but I think it would be fair to say on behalf of all members of the House that both of these pieces of legislation have attracted considerable attention and considerable controversy. They are bills in respect of which there are many differing opinions in this House and many parliamentarians who wish to speak on behalf of their constituents with respect to both of those issues.

The question that is before us this afternoon is why the government has found it necessary to invoke closure to force the extension of the sitting hours of the House of Commons to deal so quickly with these two pieces of legislation that have been before the House for some time.

As I begin, I note, parenthetically, that this is not the government's calendar which it seeks to change, it is the calendar of the House of Commons. It is the calendar that was arrived at and negotiated with considerable care on behalf of all Canadians. In fact there was a Standing Orders committee that grappled with the whole question of the parliamentary calendar. This parliamentary calendar that we have today was adopted after considerable thought. Two different committees at two different points in time studied this Standing Order, and the purpose of the Standing Order, frankly, was to bring some order to the calendar of the House of Commons and to ensure that we were able to balance the difficult schedules of members of Parliament with the business of the House of Commons.

The Standing Orders were arrived at, as I understand it, with an all party consensus, and they should not be changed lightly.

Earlier today the Liberal member for Sarnia--Lambton objected to what the government was attempting to do here, which is to railroad through these two pieces of legislation. He referred to is as “legislation by exhaustion”. I might add to that terminology, legislation by closure because the use of the closure motion is an essential part of the strategy that the government is pursuing.

I would like to discuss the hypocrisy of the government in proceeding in such an undemocratic way to deal with two pieces of legislation that are very controversial and in respect of which there are a wide range of opinions in this House. I think we can all agree that, by definition, the invocation of closure, coupled with the extension of the sitting hours, involves steps that are undemocratic because the House will not have adequate time to deal with the legislation that is before it.

One only has to examine a handful of documents to fully appreciate the duplicity and the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister and his government House leader.

I would like to take members, first, to the Prime Minister's swearing in. The Prime Minister was sworn in on December 12, 2003, and any analysis of failed expectations and hypocrisy must, by definition, begin on that date.

At that time the Prime Minister said, “We are going to change the way things work in Ottawa...to re-engage Canadians in the political process”. He stated that this would be his number one priority or at least one of his many number one priorities.

Nothing was said at that time about invoking closure. Nothing was said at that time about ramming through legislation at the close of session under the cover of night. Nothing was said at that time about limiting the debate of the elected representatives of the Canadian people.

The only thing we heard was the hypocritical statement, which we now know was hypocritical because there was no intent to honour it, “We are going to change the way that things work in Ottawa”.

We are certainly doing that but to no avail and not to the benefit of Canadians.

The throne speech followed shortly after that. If people want to understand what the government is doing with Bill C-48 and Bill C-38, they need only go back and look at the throne speech of February 2, 2004 where the government said:

We must re-engage citizens in Canada’s political life. And this has to begin in the place where it should mean the most -- in Parliament -- by making Parliament work better.

Further on in the speech it states:

The Government of Canada is determined to return Parliament to the centre of national debate and decision making....

The speech contained references to more free votes and to enhanced roles for members of Parliament to shape laws. It then states:

Significantly enhancing the role of all MPs will make Parliament what it was intended to be -- a place where Canadians can see and hear their views debated and their interests heard. In short, a place where they can have an influence on the policies that affect their lives.

Later in the same throne speech it states:

Canadians expect government to respect their tax dollars. They want to have the confidence that public money -- their money -- is wisely spent.

Is that not curious? There is nothing in the throne speech about invoking closure. There is nothing in the throne speech about closure coupled with extension of sitting times to ram through two pieces of legislation that Canadians consider to be important. There is nothing about closure, nothing about shortening debate and nothing about truncating public discussion.

Perhaps someone from that side of the House, someone with a shred of integrity, would be able to explain how to reconcile what the government promised in the throne speech in February 2004, with the conduct that we have seed from the government over the last several days.

However it gets better from there. On February 4, 2004, two days after the throne speech, the government put forward a document entitled “An Action Plan for Democratic Reform”. The document talks about the three pillars of democracy that the Prime Minister values. The second pillar is about restoring the representative and deliberative role of members of Parliament.

The report goes on to state that “Democratic reform will reconnect parliamentarians with Canadians by giving MPs greater freedom to voice the views and concerns of their constituents.

The document continues on to say:

What this means for individual Canadians is that the people they elect will be able to better reflect their views in the process of government. It also means increased responsibilities for individual Members of Parliament to ensure that these reforms result in real change.

The action plan for democratic reform says nothing about closure, nothing about the extension of time coupled with closure, nothing about eliminating the rights that the members of Parliament in this House have to participate in debate, and nothing about limiting the parliamentary freedom of our constituents by pushing forth two pieces of legislation without having a full and adequate opportunity in this House to carry on with the debate during the regular sitting of the House.

If one looks at the action plan for democratic reform itself, entitled “Ethics, Responsibility and Accountability”, we see that in this document there is of course a letter from the Prime Minister himself, in which he states:

Parliament should be the centre of national debate on policy...Members [of Parliament] should have greater freedom to voice their views and those of their constituents, reinforcing the role of House Committees...

I do not see anything in the letter from the Prime Minister about what the government is attempting to do in this case with Bill C-48, which I will come to in a few moments. I see nothing about that in the letter from the Prime Minister or in the letter from the House leader that accompanies this same document, in which he says:

Secondly, we must restore Parliamentarians' role in generating authentic, thoughtful, and constructive debate.

If the government believes in this, if it has any sincerity in believing in this, why is it not prepared to take Bill C-48 in particular, bring it forward and continue with debate according to the parliamentary calendar? If this means that third reading of this bill is secured when the fall session resumes, then so be it. What is the urgency of proceeding with closure, coupled with an extension of time, to ram this piece of legislation through the House of Commons at this point in time?

If we carry on and read this document it is breathtaking to appreciate what this government has said and how it just does not measure up with its conduct in terms of democratic reform in this country.

On page 1 of the February 2004 document, “An Action Plan for Democratic Reform”, we have the following statement:

Democratic institutions must constantly adapt and change in order to ensure that the process continues to work the way it was intended. Individuals, through their elected representatives, must have a strong voice in the great debates facing the nation. There needs to be real exchanges of opinion and constructive dialogue between Members of Parliament, reflecting the views of the people they represent.

In a statement of general principles that follows, we have item 3:

Parliament should be a national forum for debating and shaping national policies and legislation and for considering regional concerns and issues.

Principle 4 states:

Members of the House should have more opportunity to express their own views and those of their constituents.

Principle 5 states:

House Committees should have the resources and mechanisms necessary to become a central focus of debate, and to shape and modify legislation.

What is astounding is that none of these principles are being followed by this government in its conduct in dealing with Bill C-48, the NDP budget legislation.

Carrying forward from there, just this week we have had this government table in the House of Commons a document dated June 22, 2005, the first annual “Report on Democratic Reform”. It has such a noble title, but it is a litany of hypocrisy to read because this is a government that is not committed to the implementation of the ideas and the concepts that are set out in this report on democratic reform.

Once again there is a letter from the Prime Minister. He says that “Parliament must have greater ability to hold the government to account. Responsibility for democratic renewal rests with all parliamentarians. Democratic renewal must be an ongoing process”.

If the Prime Minister sincerely believes in that, why have they brought forward a closure motion coupled with an extension of time in an effort to ram through Bill C-48, the NDP-Liberal budget, which has flaws that we will talk about in a few moments and which should be carefully scrutinized by Parliament?

The government House leader, who has had the temerity to stand in this House and strong-arm the House with the closure motion, coupled with the motion which is currently before the House, has had the audacity, in the June 22, 2005 annual report, to author several invitations, saying that he looks forward to working with parliamentarians because, in his view, “enhancing the ability of Parliamentarians to represent their constituents and to shape public policy is essential in building public confidence in Canada's political institutions”.

If he believes that, why is he not prepared to have a full, complete and fulsome debate on Bill C-48 in the fullness of time, according to the parliamentary calendar?

He said later in the letter that he looks forward to working with all of his colleagues. The government carries on. The importance of restoring the representative and deliberate role of members of Parliament is discussed, as are the key principles of democratic reform. It is all here, but there is nothing in this document that talks about closure. There is nothing in this document about democratic reform, which talks about abrogating the parliamentary calendar and forcing Parliament to deal with legislation on a shortened process, on what the member for Sarnia--Lambton has referred to as “legislation by exhaustion”.

Paradoxically, there is nothing about that in any of the documents I have referred to, all of which come from the Prime Minister and the government, nothing which talks about that sort of a truncated parliamentary process that we are seeing from the government.

That brings me to Bill C-48, the so-called second budget bill, the NDP budget, which is one of the pieces of legislation which the government seeks to ram through under its current strategy.

I continue to believe that the bill is an abomination which violates the parliamentary expenditure process and which subjects Canadians to overtaxation and to expenditure without representation. I abhor it and I oppose this legislation.

It carries the rather hopeful title of “An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments”. The certain payments total $4.5 billion, and the net effect of this legislation is to create a fund of surplus taxes from which the Liberals have purchased 19 NDP votes in the House of Commons. This is a bill that is two pages in length, has no details whatsoever and authorizes the expenditure of $4.5 billion of public money.

How can that possibly be reconciled with the first annual report on democratic reform from the Prime Minister, where he says that he wants to see a deliberative role for the House of Commons and he wishes to see the House of Commons more carefully scrutinize the public expenditure process?

This, in fact, is not a budget at all. It is nothing more than a vague set of promises made to the NDP with the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians.

It is only within the context of this Liberal government that we could even have something like Bill C-48, because this is a government which confuses the money of Canadians with its own money. This is a government which is spending future surpluses.

Let us stop for a moment and consider that. The government would need to accumulate $8.5 billion in surplus taxes--effectively overtaxation of $8.5 billion--to drive the expenditures which are promised in Bill C-48. In effect, the bill creates a political slush fund which will be financed from surpluses in 2005-06 and 2006-07 and will be spent by the government.

On behalf of the citizens of my riding, I note that this is one of a number of very curious things which have been happening in the House. The bill contains no details as to how these moneys will be spent and what they will be spent on, other than in the vaguest of details.

Let us examine the bill. It is less than two pages in length. It is about 900 words in total, and it is $4.5 billion, and the strategy that the government has embarked on is to limit the debate on this legislation.

Who then will be reviewing these expenditures on behalf of the citizens of Canada? Clearly the way the government is proceeding, it will not be this Parliament. The bill compromises the public finances of Canada. And since when did the citizens of Canada agree to be governed in this fashion? The legislation is entirely inconsistent with our traditional of fiscal responsibility. It is entirely inconsistent with the commitments that were made to Canadians in the last election.

No one, certainly no one in my riding, has ever consented to pay taxes at a level which would cover the cost of administering the Government of Canada and in addition to that the cost of creating a $4.5 billion fund of surplus taxes which the Liberal government can spend on matters sought by the NDP.

This is fiscal irresponsibility. It is good governance stood on its head. It is tantamount to a legislative commitment to $4.5 billion in overtaxation. It requires thorough debate and it requires debate according to the Parliamentary calendar. There is no reason to abrogate that calendar and rush this legislation through.

[Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let us speak about what is happening at the board. The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board has been in complete disarray since this appointment, and we know now, today, that the premier of the Northwest Territories has in fact raised this issue with the minister.

On January 21 of this year, the government's own public appointment process shortlisted three respected candidates, a lawyer, an aboriginal chief and the interim chair of the existing board.

The Minister of Indian Affairs took no issue with those recommendations but unilaterally appointed a friend and associate of the junior minister. Why did the government ignore its own legislative process?

[Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of State for Northern Development defended the appointment of the chairman of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. The government continues to be vague.

When the Minister of Indian Affairs was in Yellowknife on March 15, he told a CBC recorded public meeting that he was not familiar with this individual but that “his name came forward”.

This is an important board and it has significant responsibility in respect of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. The minister has an obligation to set the public's concerns to rest and reassure Canadians of the integrity of the appointment process.

Why did the government ignore the legislation and the wishes of the existing board and appoint this individual?

[Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that would be bull feathers.

This appointment has inspired anger across the north. This individual was not recommended by the board following a public nomination process. He was not recommended by the department. He did not even make the short list of candidates. The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, who appointed him, has said he did not even know who he was.

The view in the north is that this person was appointed for one reason only, because he is a friend of the junior minister, the Minister of State for Northern Development.

Will the Prime Minister explain why he allowed the junior minister to circumvent the government's own--

[Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on February 9 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appointed Mr. Todd Burlingame to the position of chair of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. The board is critical to the approval of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Internal board correspondence in my possession confirms that this board is now in crisis.

Specifically, the new chairman is engaged in personal vendettas, board business has been unilaterally suspended, and other members say the board chair has subverted the fairness, independence and transparency of the board. Will the Deputy Prime Minister intervene and remove this individual?

[Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, June 15th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

It is my pleasure to say at the outset that I have rarely been prouder as a Canadian than I am today in standing in the House to speak to this bill.

As well, it is my pleasure to follow the member for Nunavut, who is an Inuit woman and I am sure a very proud person today. She and I have had our differences, but I am proud to call her my colleague.

I would also congratulate my friend, the member for Labrador, who has just made his maiden speech. I congratulate him on finding his way clear to having his lips and his heart, as he says, support this claim today.

I am grateful as well for the efforts of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I have a number of acknowledgments as I begin. First, with respect to our party, the Conservative Party, we are proud today to support this particular claim. I wish to express my thanks to the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, the member for St. John's East, the member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, and the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. All of these members have worked tirelessly on this legislation. They have worked with our caucus in the review of this legislation and have met extensively with members of the Inuit community and the governments involved. I thank them.

A special acknowledgement needs to be made to a number of individuals today as this claim comes to fruition: Mr. Rideout, the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Mr. Wally Anderson, a member of the House of Assembly, both of whom have worked extensively on this claim.

I think one of the great successes of this claim is the extent to which the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has embraced the claims process and provided a way forward for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. It deserves our support, our thanks as Canadians and our congratulations.

As well, I know that we have many members of the Inuit community here. I will refer only to the president of the Labrador Inuit Association, William Andersen III, who has been instrumental, as has Mr. Barbour, his predecessor, together with the many people from their negotiating team in their community, who have worked for more than 23 years to bring this claim to fruition.

Again let me say that we are proud to have them as Canadians. We are proud to call ourselves Canadians with them. They have worked so hard and so tirelessly for so long to achieve this in partnership with all of us that we say thanks today from the bottom of our hearts.

This claim is one that we are proud to support. So that it is quite clear, let me say that the position of the Conservative Party is that the settlement of outstanding comprehensive claims must be pursued in Canada, and they should be pursued on the basis of a clear framework which balances the right of aboriginal Canadians, in this case the Inuit, with the interests of Canada.

In particular, the policy of our party has been that negotiated settlements must balance the economic and social needs of aboriginal Canadians with our collective desire as Canadians to move forward in a manner that respects the charter, ensures that we have constitutional workability in this country, and respects the jurisdictions of the federal government and the provinces and the emerging jurisdiction of aboriginal first nation governments.

We are proud that this claim can certainly be said to achieve all of these objectives.

I have had the good fortune to travel the length and breadth of this country, both during my time as a member of Parliament and before. As I have said before at committee, in the context of my trip to northern Labrador to meet with the Inuit people I actually did not travel the way members of Parliament sometimes do. I travelled at the back of a cargo airplane where a couple of seats had been inserted into the back of the plane so that I could get Nain and meet the fine people who live in Nain and Hopedale. I would like to think that I saw that part of Canada very much the way it was meant to be seen.

That part of Canada is extraordinarily beautiful. I do not think that many Canadians appreciate just what an extraordinarily beautiful part of Canada the northern peninsula of Labrador is. The Torngat Mountains, rising 3,000 to 4,000 feet directly out of the Labrador sea, are one of the most beautiful mountain ranges in Canada. All Canadians can take pride in the fact that this will be set aside for all time as a national park.

In reviewing the claim, we are pleased to see, in addition, the lands of 28,000 square miles which have been set aside as the Labrador Inuit settlement area, and the 6,100 square miles of land that have been set aside as the owned land, the Labrador Inuit land.

We have reviewed closely the harvesting rights, the fishing rights, the quarrying rights, and the rights which the Inuit people have secured over the ocean zone and the settlement lands. We find all of that to be in keeping with what is intended by the comprehensive claim approach.

For the record, I would like to point out that the 1986 comprehensive claims policy of Canada was in fact a policy that was developed by a previous Conservative government. There have been four Inuit comprehensive claims negotiated in Canadian history, all of them in the last generation. Those agreements have been negotiated by Conservative governments, with the exception of this claim. This claim was started and negotiated under a Conservative government. It was brought to fruition under a different government.

I make that point because I wish to be perfectly clear that the resolution of these claims, in a way which is dignified and provides a way forward for Inuit people and non-Inuit people, is something which Conservatives have always supported.

We have examined this claim with respect to the degree to which it achieves finality and certainty, the degree to which it advances the interests of aboriginal Canadians, and the degree to which it protects Canadian sovereignty and provides for jurisdictional clarity with the other levels of government. We have examined the extent to which the charter applies to Inuit citizens and the extent to which the rights of women are protected in Inuit society.

In all of those respects we as Conservatives are proud that this agreement is one which all Canadians can support and is one which we certainly support. Dealing with a couple of those points, I would reference the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2.18.1 of the agreement itself provides clearly that “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Inuit Government in respect of all matters within its authority”.

When one takes the time as well to examine the Labrador Inuit constitution, that constitution and the founding principles upon which it is based provide very clearly in subsection 1.1.3(j) that:

--within Labrador Inuit society every Inuk is entitled to the same rights and freedoms that all Canadians have under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

The provisions of the Canadian charter are completely clear and unambiguous with respect to this claim.

The position with respect to aboriginal women and this of course has been an issue before the House of Commons and the Senate in other matters is also very clear. I would reference 17.18.3 of the agreement which provides as follows:

Inuit Laws under section 17.18.2 must accord rights to, and provide for the protection of spouses, cohabiting partners, children, parents, vulnerable family members and individuals defined as dependents under Inuit Laws that are comparable to the rights and protections enjoyed by similarly situated individuals under Laws of General Application.

In essence, that means that women in Inuit society will be accorded, under this agreement, protection in respect of matrimonial property and the like which is at least as good as the protection which they have under the general laws of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is important to the Conservative Party. We are pleased to see that in the agreement.

All things then considered, as one looks at everything that has gone into this agreement, it provides hope. It provides future for the Inuit people who have negotiated this agreement.

We are proud today to stand in this House and say thanks to the many people who have brought this agreement to fruition. We offer our support and our encouragement, and at the end of the day we say first and foremost to all of those people that we are proud to call them our fellow Canadians.