Pat Martin

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to ask my friend a couple of questions of clarification. We want to be historically accurate when we tell stories in the House of Commons because there is a permanent record of everything my colleagues say.

First he said, “We supported the original budget”. History will show the Conservative Party members sat on their hands during the vote and had no opinion. The Queen's official opposition had no opinion on the budget. That would be the historically accurate way to portray what really happened in the evolution of the budget as we know it today.

A second inaccuracy I would ask my colleague to correct, when he gets a chance, is this. He has said that the NDP proposals would cost the taxpayers an extra $4.6 billion. The $4.6 billion was already spent, squandered in even more corporate tax cuts. All we did is redirect some spending that was already scheduled. The dutiful ties to Bay Street were withdrawn somewhat and redirected to the interests of taxpayers.

If there is a champion of the taxpayer here, it is the New Democratic Party that has redirected taxpayer dollars to serve the needs and interests of taxpayers instead of shoveling it all to Bay Street with reckless abandon and with no real strategy or plan.

Where is the empirical evidence that giving the fourth tax cut to corporate Canada in a row will create jobs and that the money will not simply be invested offshore or taken as dividends or profits to shareholders? Where is this orthodoxy, this near religious fervour of the Conservatives clinging to this concept that tax cuts for corporate Canada will yield to job creation?

The final point I have to add, in the interest of accuracy, is there are still tax cuts in the budget that the Conservatives are being asked to support now for small and medium businesses. The only tax cuts that were postponed is the fourth tax cut in a row for Bay Street and corporate Canada.

I hope the member can correct these inaccuracies he has--

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to have to shout to be heard over the caterwauling and the gnashing of teeth and the rending of garments by my colleagues with the Conservative Party, but I will point out that the Conservatives have the worst track record in history: the deficit went from $100 billion to $500 billion. It is a good thing that Mulroney was booted out when he was or this country would have been irreversibly bankrupt.

It is a huge contradiction and it is a tragic irony for us to have these guys suggesting fiscal management policy to those of us who actually know what balanced budgets are all about. It is part of our policy, for heaven's sake.

All the spending in Bill C-48 is within the context of a balanced budget that includes $2 billion to debt repayment as well and tax breaks to small and medium sized businesses. There is very little to criticize here, which is why the Conservatives find themselves with very little to say. They are sitting on the sidelines. They are irrelevant, more irrelevant than they have ever been in Canadian history, because in actual fact the issues that they stand for are out of vogue. Neo-conservatism has had its heyday and now it is yesterday's news.

In actual fact, the very things that the NDP was created to fight for are the top of mind issues of most Canadians: security, pensions and poverty reduction. All of them are issues about which Canadians now are asking. What about our quality of life and what about our environment, they are saying. Frankly, those are the things that we stand for and that our party was created to fight for.

The Conservatives are irrelevant because the things they were created to do in their most recent incarnations are no longer in vogue and they have abandoned their grassroots policy. They now have embraced 35 senators and Bay Street to the point where they are really just corporate shills. I cannot tell the difference between a Conservative corporate shill and a Liberal corporate shill. There is no difference: Liberal, Tory, same old story, right? It rhymes.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Nobody should ever listen to the Conservative Party of Canada, in any incarnation, for guidance on accountability and spending.

I point to the NDP, with balanced budgets--

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that minority governments are good for ordinary Canadians. Minority governments are good for progress on social issues, depending on who is using the political leverage to motivate the ruling party of the day. The NDP, with our 19 seats, down in this dark corner of the House of Commons over here, has used its political leverage very well to move the ruling party on the issues that we care about.

The last thing Canadians would want to do is take advice from the Conservative Party, because many of us remember that the Mulroney government was the most wasteful government in Canadian history. It almost bankrupted this country.

The Grant Devine government holds its cabinet meetings in prison because the members were all so corrupt that they not only bankrupted the province of Saskatchewan but 18 of them were convicted of criminal offences.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pick up where I left off the last time Bill C-48 was before this House. I will try and limit my remarks to wrap up the comments I put on the record last week.

Let me simply restate how very proud I am to be a New Democrat member of Parliament today in that in Bill C-48 we are doing something constructive for the people of Canada. We are, as a good opposition party should, taking advantage of a minority Parliament situation, all according to the rules, all within the parameters of a balanced budget. We are moving our legislative agenda forward.

That is a virtual civics lesson for the members opposite. I find that all we see with the official opposition is those members standing on the sidelines shaking their fists, gnashing their teeth, rending their garments and trying to tear down what we are trying to build up today.

I had to watch the late night debate on Thursday that went until midnight where speaker after speaker not only were loaded with misinformation about the reality of this balanced better budget, as we are calling it with the NDP's influence, but they were trying to state that they have an alternative.

All that is being offered by the 98 members of the Conservative Party, and it used to have 99 members but it now has 98 members, is negativity and a negative influence. Canadians are sick of that. Maybe that is why the Conservatives are plummeting in the polls because all that people hear from the official opposition is “Tear it down”. “Burn baby burn” seems to be their motto these days.

On this side of the House, I am proud to say the New Democrats are putting forward realistic, reasonable arguments that the social spending should be increased, so that the surplus in taxpayers' dollars actually gets directed toward taxpayers. There is a very grassroots sensibility to this. I am surprised that the people who used to call themselves the grassroots party do not see the contradiction. They are objecting because we interrupted yet another tax break for corporate Bay Street.

We left in the tax cuts for small and medium size business. That is another piece of misinformation the Conservatives are guilty of. In actual fact, the balanced budget that is before the House today has tax relief for small and medium size business. It has debt repayment. It has spending on affordable housing, post-secondary education, the environment. This is good news for ordinary Canadians.

The Conservatives have missed the boat. They are misreading the mood of the public out there. After eight surplus budgets in a row, we want some spending to go to taxpayers again. There is no rule that every bit of surplus has to be shovelled dutifully to Bay Street. That is where those guys as corporate shills do not get it.

On behalf of ordinary working Canadians, I am proud that we managed to use our political leverage and political influence to make some gains for ordinary Canadians. Let us spend our money on our needs at this point in time in Canadian history.

I am very proud to be here to speak in favour of Bill C-48. I hope it achieves speedy passage. Then we can all go back to our ridings and tell people that we used this opportunity to do something for them for a change.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity in the final few minutes of debate on the bill to add my strong support for the idea of special recognition for the historical significance that lighthouses played in the development of Canada and the history of our maritime development. Although I know many of the speakers today were referring to the importance of light stations to the east coast of Canada, Nova Scotia and Cape Spear and the many tourist attractions that exist there, I want to point that I have travelled in western Canada and it is worthy to note the role that our lighthouse system has played in the maritime navigation history in that part of the world too.

I come from downtown Winnipeg where the issue of lighthouses would not be expected to be of significance. I do point out the role of navigation on the fifth largest lake in North America, Lake Winnipeg, which does in fact have federally regulated lighthouses. The largest freshwater fishery in North America is on Lake Winnipeg. Many people do not realize that Lake Winnipeg has had a productive, healthy, multi-million dollar fishery and a lighthouse system throughout history, since the 1880s when the Icelandic people first settled in Gimli, Manitoba. They found this great inland sea that mirrored much of the topography where they came from, which gave them the opportunity to engage in fishing. The existence of the lighthouse system in the province of Manitoba is invaluable.

People may think it odd that in the middle of a budget debate members of Parliament would pause to deal with an issue on the preservation of our historic lighthouses. I do not see this as a contradiction at all. This is time well spent for members of Parliament to take note of the historic role that lighthouses play not just in Atlantic Canada, although it is obviously paramount in the minds of the people there, not just on the west coast from Gabriola Island up to Port Hardy, where the network of lighthouses is critical to the safe navigation in that part of the world, but also in Manitoba. Manitoba may not be known for the maritime influence on the lives and well-being of people especially in the interlake region and in northern Manitoba where that great inland sea is a key economic engine for the province of Manitoba.

My compliments to the senator for initiating this bill. My compliments to the member of Parliament who was the conduit to bring a bill that originated in the Senate into the House of Commons. There is strong support for the bill on behalf of myself and my NDP colleagues in the province of Manitoba.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Ottawa Centre has reminded me of a graphic illustration. Seven years of Grant Devine's Conservative government almost ruined that province. Eight years of Allan Blakeney budgets were all balanced. Eight years of Roy Romanow budgets were all balanced. Now the current premier has actually turned that province with balanced budgets into a have province instead of a have not province. That is a good track record.

I do not say that to be smart or critical of my colleagues in the Conservative Party, but let us be historically accurate when we make these kinds of claims. It is not fair to do it at midnight when I am not here to defend my party.

I am proud today that with 19 members of Parliament, I believe we have made a difference. I compliment my colleagues from the ruling party, the Liberal Party, for listening to our legitimate concerns and the legitimate concerns of Canadians and accommodating through consultation some of those spending measures.

It should be noted as well that there was another inaccuracy that I want to correct. Some people said that the NDP came in and negotiated an end to the tax cuts that were in the original budget. That is not accurate. We negotiated an end to the corporate tax cuts. Small business and medium size business will still get the original tax cuts that were contemplated in the original budget.

We believed that because there had been four successive cuts in a row to the corporate tax rate, it was time to balance things out a little bit and spend a little bit of our taxpayers' dollars on taxpayers. Not all money has to be shovelled dutifully to Bay Street. It is not written or carved in stone anywhere on the threshold of this place. Sometimes we are allowed to spend some of our surplus tax dollars on the needs of individual taxpayers. What is wrong with that concept?

I cannot understand the party that used to call itself the great grassroots party not standing up for the interests of grassroots Canadians who would enjoy a little bit of relief in terms of tuition for their children going to university, and who would thank the House of Commons.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-48. I realize we are getting close to question period, so I will try to make my remarks brief and make the most of this opportunity.

I honestly believe that people watching today, whether they are present physically or watching on CPAC, are in for a bit of a treat. Not only has the debate been of a very civil tone today--and it has not always been civil in recent days; last night was something that no one should be proud of--but they are also having an opportunity to watch a minority Parliament work as it should.

This is an interesting lesson in history. It is an interesting observation. What we see in Bill C-48 is the manifestation of the cooperation that has typified this minority Parliament. The NDP has used its political leverage, as a good opposition party will, to advance our agenda with the ruling governing party. It is almost a civics lesson in how it is supposed to happen. I have never been more proud to be a New Democrat. In the eight years that I have been here, the last six months have been the most gratifying and satisfying in my short political career.

I am here today with my colleague from Ottawa Centre who has lived through the experience of minority Parliaments before, with great success I might add. It gives me an enormous sense of pleasure and pride to stand today with my colleague from Ottawa Centre present in the House to relive that experience. I honestly believe, without any partisan politics involved, that minority Parliaments are good for Canadians. History and the empirical evidence bear that out. We are experiencing that again today with Bill C-48.

My colleague from Edmonton--Sherwood Park made a very good speech. He started it with an interesting observation, as he often does, about the role of an opposition party in a parliamentary democracy. I think he would agree there is another role for an opposition party in a minority Parliament, and that is to advance the agenda of that opposition party to the best of its advantage within the rules. It is a good thing for Canadians that there is more diversity in the intellectual dealings of this House, in that the ruling party, by the nature of a minority Parliament, has to do more consultation and more cooperation. Consultation in the strictest sense of the word means accommodation of what the government members have heard as well. There cannot be consultation without accommodation of the points being heard.

We are proud to stand here today and say that the ruling party, the Liberal Party, has accommodated the legitimate concerns of the New Democratic Party. That has manifested itself in Bill C-48, and I am delighted to be able to say that. I say it with great pride and modesty as well. Canadians have made their views known. The whole neo-conservative agenda, well, I will not even go into that. I do not want to be partisan today.

In the few moments that I have, I rise simply to celebrate the fact that we have managed to turn the political agenda back to the interests of ordinary Canadians, all within the context of a balanced budget. I want to emphasize that again and again, because last night, laying in my bed watching CPAC and watching some of the speeches by the Conservatives, I felt like putting on my suit and tie, coming down here and challenging some of the misinformation. They would have people believe that our agenda of adding some social spending to this year's budget in some way is going to break the bank. Everything is within the context of a balanced budget and that is in fact the historical record of most NDP governments.

I do not have to remind Canadians that the most wasteful, spendthrift government in Canadian history was the most recent Conservative government. That is when the national debt ballooned to $500 billion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 15th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, as I listened to the parliamentary secretary give his address on Bill C-43, I was glad to hear both the tone and the content with which he enlightened us about the merits and benefits of Bill C-43.

He will probably remember that the initial NDP reaction to the first Liberal budget that was put forward was less than enthusiastic. In fact, we voted against that original budget. It did not strike us as addressing the needs and priorities of Canadians as we had identified them as New Democrats.

Certainly, the information reaching us, in terms of the priorities of Canadians, differed dramatically from the nature of the budget cobbled together by the Liberal Party. Luckily, and this is the magic of a minority Parliament, a good opposition party can use a minority Parliament to advance its own agenda. It is the advantage of a minority Parliament in terms of benefits to ordinary Canadians. A successful opposition party measures its success if it achieves its agenda.

Thankfully, through negotiations with the government of the day, the NDP, as an effective opposition party, did manage to convince the ruling party that some of our priorities were the priorities of Canadians. To the credit of the Liberals, they listened. It is the magic of a minority Parliament at work.

Even though we are debating Bill C-43 today, which has many of the core elements of the Liberal government budget, would my honourable colleague not agree that the budget process as a whole benefited greatly from the cooperative exercise that took place? There was an effective opposition party using its political capital and political leverage to achieve the agenda that it stands for, which is social spending, the reduction of poverty, affordable housing and a clean environment.

In other words, would my colleague agree that it was a good thing that, by using our political leverage, we have convinced the government to use taxpayers' money in the interests of taxpayers, to use taxpayers' money in a way that Canadians were asking? Would the parliamentary secretary care to expand on that?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a true honour for me to join the debate on Bill C-56 and to represent the views of the New Democratic Party caucus.

I would like to begin by saying I rise to enthusiastically support Bill C-56, known as the Labrador Inuit land claims and self-government act . I am deeply honoured to be able to participate in the consideration of the bill. I applaud the spirit of cooperation that exists in the House of Commons today and the goodwill expressed by all my colleagues from all parties. It serves as a testimony to the level of interest that we see and take in this issue and the genuine goodwill that we express to the Inuit people of Labrador today.

It is my belief that with today's debate, the House is taking a significant step toward our ultimate objective, and I honestly believe that is making self-government a reality for the Labrador Inuit.

Self-government for the Labrador Inuit is embedded in the provisions of a historic accord, the Labrador Inuit land claims agreement which is, I point out with great pride, the first modern day treaty in Atlantic Canada, a pact that truly marks the beginning of a new era in partnership between the Labrador Inuit and Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada.

The agreement is a product of extensive consultation, deliberation and negotiation. In that spirit the agreement represents the successful conclusion of 28 years of patient work by the Labrador Inuit and the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. I can imagine the degree of commitment that has to be demonstrated by all of the parties to navigate and negotiate a complex agreement on a subject matter as critical as the inherent right to self-governance and to maintain that stream of thought for 28 years to a successful conclusion.

This is a lifetime worth of work for the principals engaged in this undertaking. It is the fulfillment of a dream, not only of the people but of the leadership who have dedicated their lives to this diligent study, collaboration and effort that began as long ago as 1977 with the filing of a statement of claim by the Labrador Inuit Association.

Negotiations may have been lengthy, but since the agreement was finalized on August 29, 2003, I am pleased to say that progress has really been swift as it moved toward official ratification on May 26, 2004, with 76% of Inuit electors voting in favour of the agreement. On December 6, 2004, the Newfoundland and Labrador house of assembly adopted the enabling legislation, the Labrador Inuit land claims agreement act.

On January 21, representatives of the Labrador Inuit, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada affixed their signatures to the agreement, the final step toward ratification. The passage of Bill C-56 is for the House now to undertake. Again, it is my great honour to be a part of that historic agreement.

The pace may have seemed glacial in those early years, but in actual fact the timeframe since August 29, 2003, by the standards of legislation, is really quite speedy and it demonstrates the genuine goodwill of the people of Canada toward the interests of the Labrador Inuit.

A number of devoted men and women are responsible for this agreement and for bringing us to this threshold of such a remarkable accomplishment. I would like to recognize and pay tribute to all those who played a part in the development of the agreement: the negotiators for all sides, the Labrador Inuit and their wise leader, William Anderson III, the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador and representatives of the provincial and federal governments. In particular, it is only fair to take note of and to recognize the efforts of the current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his provincial counterpart, the hon. Tom Rideout. Genuine cooperation, painstaking work and unflagging patience have been the hallmarks of their efforts on all sides.

It is not an overstatement that the result of their work, Bill C-56, is truly historic. The legislation sanctions the landmark agreement signed between the Labrador Inuit and the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador, an accord that defines and provides certainty about the rights of the Labrador Inuit as they relate to their lands, resources and self-government.

An examination of the agreement reveals the care and the thoroughness with which negotiators had to go about their work. It is a testimony to their diligence that the complexities of this agreement did not cause the whole effort to collapse under its own weight. I have nothing but admiration for the people who had the fortitude, the intelligence and the enduring, endless patience to plough their way through the minute details necessary in such an historic nation to nation agreement.

The agreement creates two categories of land, the Labrador Inuit settlement area; and Labrador Inuit lands. The settlement area consists of more than 72,000 square kilometres of land and some 49,000 square kilometres of ocean, extending to the limits of Canada's territorial sea. The settlement area includes Labrador Inuit lands and five Inuit communities: Nain, Hopedale, Makkovik, Postville and Rigolet.

In the northern part of the settlement area, approximately 9,600 square kilometres of land will be set aside for the establishment of the Torngat Mountains National Parks Reserve.

Within the settlement area, Inuit will own 15,800 square kilometres of land known as the Labrador Inuit lands. It is in this area where the Labrador Inuit will exercise the most rights and enjoy the most benefits. These rights and benefits cover a wide range of essential matters such as surface and subsurface resources, water use and management, ocean management, economic development, national parks and protected areas, land use planning, environmental assessment, wildlife, plants and fisheries, harvesting, archeology and place names. These are meaningful significant areas of jurisdiction that the Labrador Inuit will have the right to self-determination and control of these aspects of their lives and their livelihoods.

I again recognize and pay tribute to how difficult it must have been for the negotiators to convince an unwilling Government of Canada and an unwilling provincial government, at times, to acknowledge the inherent right to self-determination of a people and the inherent right to self-governance and the inherent right to their land, their resources, surface and subsurface, in minute detail. It is an astronomical feat. I do not know if the people at home watching this can appreciate the hurdles. This makes putting a man on the moon seem like a small achievement. I know how difficult our bureaucracies can be.

In addition to this comprehensive resolution over land claims and resource rights, the Government of Canada also agrees, by this legislation, to pay the Labrador Inuit $140 million over a period of 15 years. Unfortunately, the flip side of that coin is the Inuit will have to repay their negotiation loans of some $50 million during that same 15 year period. With every ray of sun, there is a cloud, I suppose.

Although the agreement is detailed and far-reaching in a number of respects on lands and resources, on capital transfers, on environmental protection, I am most enthusiastic about the agreement's provisions concerning self-government.

As a forward thinking community, the Labrador Inuit created a constitution several years ago. This constitution, which comes into effect with the agreement, establishes two levels of government, the regional Nunatsiavut government and five Inuit community governments.

All governments will be democratically elected and accountable to Inuit electors. The Nunatsiavut government may make laws to govern Inuit residents of Labrador Inuit lands and the five Inuit communities on such matters as education, health, income support, child and family services, meaningful aspects of the day to day life of the people who will now be the proud beneficiaries as the agreement unfolds.

The regional government will also have jurisdiction over its internal affairs, including traditional language and culture and the management of Inuit rights and benefits under the agreement. The Nunatsiavut government may also choose to establish a justice system for the administration of local laws. This is not simply smoke and mirrors. This is significant, meaningful, self-administration, self-determination and self-governance.

In all the research that we have seen, all the empirical evidence shows that the economic development and financial success of first nations and Inuit communities around the world is directly proportional to the degree of self-determination afforded to those individuals and those communities. In other words, it is a necessary prerequisite for a healthy, successful and sustainable economic community to have control of their own self-determination and their own destiny.

Five Inuit community governments will replace current municipal governments. The community governments may enact bylaws respecting local or municipal matters within their local jurisdictions. It is interesting to note, and I think this is an example of a modern day agreement, that both Inuit and non-Inuit residents alike in these communities will be able to vote and serve as councillors. That is in the best spirit of reality, generosity and a willingness to make this new community work.

I believe it is important to point out to anyone listening that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply to all Inuit governments and to matters under their jurisdiction and control, and federal and provincial laws will continue to apply to all Inuit.

Just to be abundantly clear for anyone who may be uncertain about what aboriginal or Inuit self-government looks like, they do not need to have any fears about this. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has primacy, equity and equality exist and the federal and provincial laws will continue to apply. The Labrador Inuit will have the jurisdiction and control for those specific areas of their lives that are so important in the interests of self-determination and self-control.

The Labrador Inuit will also remain eligible for federal and provincial programs and services, like all Canadians. They are still Canadian citizens. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Canada and the Nunatsiavut government will negotiate a fiscal financing agreement every five years to provide funding to the Nunatsiavut government, enabling this regional government to provide agreed upon programs and services to Inuit and, where appropriate, to other residents.

Meanwhile, the Labrador Inuit will contribute to the costs of their own governance, programs and services. The first fiscal financing agreement has been negotiated and will take effect when the agreement comes into force. We hope that is within the very immediate future.

These self-government provisions will make a genuine difference in the daily lives of the Labrador Inuit by helping them to build a solid foundation for future economic growth and prosperity. Indeed, the profound benefits of self-government for aboriginal peoples are no longer in question. The link connecting aboriginal self-government and economic self-determination is far too obvious for anyone to doubt.

Self-government promotes open, transparent and accountable community decision making for aboriginal peoples. Responsible local governments lead to certainty about land ownership and management. It creates a stable environment for development and for investors. This certainty helps to attract investors and business partners and it fosters economic growth.

Investors seek stability and certainty. This agreement would give the certainty that people can invest in confidence. Outsiders can invest in confidence, in cooperation and with permission of the Labrador Inuit. Rising prosperity and optimism encourages self-reliance and leads to improvements in housing, employment and quality of life. It enables aboriginal communities to break down barriers and participate more fully in our nation's economy.

Clarifying jurisdictions, establishing elected, effective, accountable governments and creating a climate for economic growth and self-reliance, Bill C-56 would set the stage for all of these goals, helping the Labrador Inuit to continue their vital integration into Canadian economic life, hopefully, while still protecting their unique, cultural traditions.

In this fundamental respect, Bill C-56 represents a sensible response to the changing and challenging conditions of modern life and I hope enables a proud and ancient people to flourish.

In fact, through three key Inuit economic, political and health organizations, the Labrador Inuit have been hard at work for a number of years addressing the pressing social needs, forging partnerships with local governments and organizations, and striving to develop the physical infrastructure required to generate and sustain that economic growth.

The Labrador Inuit Development Corporation, an agency that strives to improve local living conditions by creating employment opportunities and promoting training and skills development, has successfully established several joint ventures. The corporation owns and operates two anorthite quarries near Nain and a stone processing plant near Hopedale.

In addition to these natural resources projects, the development corporation has reached an impact and benefits agreement with the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company. Through the agreement, Inuit are recruited and trained for work on the Voisey's Bay project and businesses with significant Inuit content are given special consideration as potential suppliers.

What is more, the Nunatsiavut government receives 5% of the provincial revenues generated by the subsurface resources in the Voisey's Bay area. These revenues, as it should be, go directly into a post-secondary support program that enables approximately 100 Labrador Inuit to pursue advanced studies, surely an idea we should celebrate.

The Labrador Inuit Association, the political arm of the local Inuit population, provides a wide range of training, investment and purchasing programs designed to increase aboriginal participation in the Canadian economy. This agency also participates in a number of environmental initiatives, such as fish population studies and forest preservation activities.

The Labrador Inuit Health Commission delivers programs targeted to community health needs and addresses concerns, such as drug and alcohol addiction and mental illness. The Labrador Inuit Association meanwhile supports an alcohol free social club, conferences on fetal alcohol disorder and the local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Given those activities and those accomplishments, the Labrador Inuit are clearly prepared to take the next fundamental step toward true independence and self-governance to safeguard their lands and culture and to wield the levers of economic power.

I believe the legislation before us today will enable them to accomplish that. I am urging my colleagues to fulfill their role in this historic achievement by lending their prompt and unqualified support to Bill C-56.

Let me conclude my remarks by quoting some of the comments at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on June 9 when the Labrador Inuit Association made presentations to us, particularly comments from Mr. William Andersen III, the president of the Labrador Inuit Association.

I will be brief but I thought it was powerful testimony, and for those Canadians who may be watching this historic event, they should hear the voice of Mr. Andersen who said:

I'm also someone whose life was changed by factors I could not control at an early age. In 1956 when I was eight, my family was relocated from our home in Nutuk without our consent. So I've seen a lot of change and I understand why this bill is so important to our people.

The Inuit of Labrador continue to live a traditional lifestyle. We camp, live on the land, hunt and gather food and most importantly, maintain an active connection with our Inuit heritage and language. At the same time, we're building on our traditions to create economic development and social programs for the future. The approval of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement will address concerns that are vital to us now and in the long term.

Nunasiavut is the Labrador Inuit name for our homeland and in English it means “our beautiful land”.

I was moved by the presentation of the president of the Labrador Inuit Association, as were my colleagues in all parties. As a representative from the province of Manitoba and as a representative of the New Democratic Party caucus, I want to throw our enthusiastic support and best wishes to the Labrador Inuit for the successful passage of Bill C-56 and the historic agreement that would give them the right to self-determination and self-governance.