CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, June 1, 1998

• 1536

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, pursuant to the order of reference of the House dated Friday, April 3, 1998, to study Bill C-38, an act to amend the National Parks Act.

[Translation]

Pursuant to the order of reference of the House dated Friday, April 3, 1998, the committee is meeting to consider Bill C-38, an Act to amend the National Parks Act.

Clause 1 is open for consideration and it is the only clause in the Bill. Let the debate begin.

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): No, no, not so fast. Mr. Chairman, first I'd like to thank you personally for the effort you made to try to get this meeting put back as I asked you last Friday. I bowed to your reasons, in the sense that I have no choice. So as the meeting is being held today, I just had to come. That's quite deplorable.

In the notes we got at the very beginning of the 36th Parliament, I tried to find the description of the work our committee was supposed to do. We were given two tasks: to examine Canadian cultural policy and continue the work on Canadian culture and reorganize Parks Canada. We hadn't then been told about a new subcommittee on sports, that we accepted later on, nor about Bill C-38, that we were handed in quite a rush not very long ago. The consequence of this is that we, the opposition, have problems following the work because despite our huge talent, none of us has yet been granted the gift of ubiquity. It is thus impossible for us to be both in the House considering Bill C-29 at report stage and here to hear the witnesses appearing before us on Bill C-38.

Bill C-38 was presented in a bit of a weird way. Nightly, over the weekend, I proceeded at leisure to do an exhaustive study of the document tabled last week by Ms. Cournoyea, whom I didn't have the pleasure to hear but with whom I had the pleasure to sup, to try and understand the breath, depth, long and short of the problem created by Bill C-38.

I would invite you to be very patient because it is possible that I will be the only member to speak during the time we have allocated this afternoon as I have a lot of things to say about this Bill.

First, the information we got before second reading of Bill C- 38 was terribly compartmentalized.

• 1540

The first time we met people who gave us information off the record on Bill C-38, we were told: "Oh, Ms. Tremblay, there's nothing to this. It's a technical question. Everybody agrees on it and there's no problem. All there is, is to create a park and define its borders clearly. It's as easy as melting butter in a pan." The butter is getting a bit of a burnt smell about it, and it's getting very hard to digest.

My colleague, the member for Verchères, on April 3 last, during the second reading examination of Bill C-38, stated:

The documents concerning the analysis of this Bill, namely a press release and an information note, got to us so late in the game, you can still feel the heat off the presses.

That's what I deplore in a process like the consideration of Bill C-38: we get the documents at the last minute, we don't have the proper documents to really examine the Bill; we had to ask for all kinds of things and nothing is given to us for free; we're called in at the last minute, on a Monday, and this is the first time that the Heritage Committee is meeting on a Monday. We're told that despite their great numbers, there would not have been enough Liberal members here this week to be able to find enough of them for a meeting. And even worse, there were apparently no rooms available. If worst came to worst, we could have emptied one of the parliamentary restaurant rooms as there are fewer and fewer diners there and we could have sit down around the table to discuss Bill C-38 on some more appropriate day.

I am very sorry that I had to cancel a very busy day in my riding to deal with this caprice. This day was organized on a whim, except for you, Mr. Chairman, but when I think about all of the facts pertaining to Bill C- 38, I get the impression that now we have to rush things, rush ourselves and probably set a dangerous precedent for the Aboriginal people who live in this region.

The memo sent to us at the time of second reading—we received the memo on March 30, namely, the very day it was given first reading and four days before second reading—made no mention of the past agreements between the government and the Aboriginal people.

How many members of our committee are familiar with or really took the time to read the final Inuvialuit Convention, an agreement that resolved, once and for all, claims pertaining to certain tracts of land located in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon Territory, which the Aboriginal people used and occupied traditionally? How many members of our committee know about or took the time to read the 1984 Act to implement this agreement, known as the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act? The terse memo we received to help us prepare for the analysis of this bill said nothing about mining opportunities that existed in this area.

My colleague, the member for Verchères, who had to replace me because second reading of this bill occurred so quickly that I could not be available, agreed to read in the house the speech I had prepared. On April 3, he underscored the importance of examining these documents pertaining to Bill C-38 and said:

We will approve this bill in principle at second reading. But we reserve judgment until we have had time to read the agreements that led to this bill and until we hear the witnesses interested in this bill in the course of the public hearings that will be held by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would repeat that, personally, I have not had the opportunity to hear the witness. My colleague, the member for Jonquière, who replaced me in committee last week because we were in the House, told me about what had occurred here, in committee. In addition, over the weekend I read the documents tabled by the Aboriginal group when they appeared before us.

• 1545

I must therefore observe that by wanting to proceed too quickly, the committee has put the cart before the horse by talking only about the agreement and making no mention about the agreements made in 1984 with the Inuvaluit, namely, the Act and the convention that defined their rights, rights that we should have used as a basis for discussing this bill. It should be noted that the convention was to provide the Inuvialuit with the means for preserving their cultural identity and values within a changing northern society and for ensuring that they are full participants in that society and in that society's economy. Moreover, this objective of ensuring participation in the economy is contained in the agreement where, under section 2, one of the objectives is to encourage and support the creation and maintenance of jobs and businesses.

It would appear that the government's current desire to quickly adopt this bill is exaggerated given the circumstances, when in fact the agreement was signed two years ago. The sole purpose of doing this would appear to be to prevent the Inuvialuit from presenting their arguments with respect to changing the park boundaries. This is the only reason why this is being rushed. An agreement was reached in 1996 and the park project was put on the government back burner. This bill turned up again in the House because the Inuvialuit have written the government to ask for permission, under the 1996 agreement, to use section 22.1 and to discuss the park boundaries again.

Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to allow for a future mining project that would provide opportunity for employment and economic development that would be of benefit to the entire Inuvialuit community. When the Inuvialuit appeared before the committee, they first gave us some opening comments first. I forgot to ask my colleague from Jonquière, whether they had read their text in its entirety. If they read the full text, I am highly surprised that no one decided to ask the government to withdraw this bill.

I can understand the Inuvialuit, what they are experiencing and what is happening to them at the present time. To some extent, it is something that we sovereigntists very often feel deeply in this country. Like us, they are dealing with a government that is dominating and centralizing and is insensitive to what is really happening in the community and what the people truly want for their development.

In their opening comments to us when they appeared here on May 28, 1998, they clearly told us that this matter was extremely important for them and for the people in the Beaufort Delta region. I looked very closely at the magnificent color maps that are much more interesting than the black and white ones that we have. I made a special effort to try to understand their basic desires, needs and claims.

The creation of this park sets aside in perpetuity 16,340 square kilometres of territory; namely, an area three times the size of Prince Edward Island. This is a huge region.

• 1550

The Inuvialuit state and repeat on a number of occasions in their document that the important thing for them is to preserve as much as possible the land available to them as a major resource. In their brief they say that the land is central to their life style; it is essential for the flora and fauna that support their people and culture. It is also their source of strength and economic potential. They say:

Decisions about land, and its future uses, are among the most important decisions that we make. This priority is demonstrated in our land claim agreement, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which we concluded with Canada in 1984 and which has since been accorded constitutional protection.

Mr. Chairman, it is deplorable that a group of citizens has totally relied upon officials and bureaucrats seated in Ottawa who probably don't have enough experience to understand what it means to live on these lands where, for a few months of the year, it is summary, in theory, and where, the rest of the time, they often have to survive because they don't even have the resources necessary to feed themselves.

We were told that the purpose of the creation of this park was to protect the caribous, it would seem. Well, it is not even obvious that the caribous will be protected because they have shown that their behaviour is somewhat erratic, since they don't always reproduce and appear at the same place when they are supposed to reproduce. They move each year, and it is impossible to predict where they will be. We now know a lot more than we once used to. This reminds me of photographs that were taken a few years ago from "aéroplanes". At that time, we did not talk about "avions"; we talked about "aéroplanes". This gives you an idea of how long it takes for these photos. The caribous were photographed in one place and they did not return to the same place for five years. So if this is the basis that is being used to say that you want to protect those places for the caribous, I regret to tell you that they may never again reproduce in those places.

These decisions on the territory and on its future use are among the most important ones we will be making. We, who are responsible for making that decision, last week had the opportunity to have with us two colleagues who apparently had gone to the North West Territories and flown over the area in question. When you were on the environment committee, Mr. Chairman, you had gone to the North West Territories and the Yukon at least once. You probably saw these areas.

I have not seen them myself. I have no idea what it means to live there 12 months a year. And I wonder who among us has genuinely had that experience. When people who live in a place everyday tell us that we are about to make a mistake, we should at least try to understand what kind of mistake we might be making.

Mr. Chairman, I can say very sincerely that I am neither for nor against the Aboriginal standpoint at the outset. I never have any preconceived ideas. But I consider this issue to be extremely delicate and extremely important. I want to understand the situation before deciding on one view or another.

I had some reservations at second reading. I was curious. Now, I am worried. Our decisions must be based on all available information, and on a careful analysis of all the interests involved.

• 1555

We must take into account the fact that the Inuvialuit people have been guaranteed a real and significant role in all decisions affecting their territory. Officials were extremely clear when they told them to sign the agreement, stating they were protected by section 22.1. They told them that if there was any problem, those boundaries could be reviewed. They were given that guarantee, and they trusted the federal government representatives. It is absolutely deplorable to have people saying that we, the Whites, we, members of Parliament, are not keeping our word. This would not be the first time the government had failed to keep its word, but I had hoped that, over the years, politicians would have improved their image somewhat and kept their word, when they gave it. I find it extremely deplorable that officials gave their word and then withdrew it in the name of the government.

They came before us to talk about Bill C-38, which compromises the interests of these communities, and which fails to take the concerns they recently brought before the government properly into account. They left their homes and came to meet with officials in Ottawa. We know what it takes for them to come here—about $3,000 each. They came before us because they thought we would really listen to them, and hear their message. They did not express opposition to the entire bill. They just want us to rethink the western boundary of the park, which does not suit them and which should be changed, in line with the objectives of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, the long-term health of the region, and the interests of all Canadians.

I find it extraordinary that Aboriginal communities are able not only to focus on their own interests, but also to tell us—in the interests of Canada as a whole—that if we keep the park boundaries as they are, once we get into more detail we will see that we are making a mistake.

As for that western boundary, a study was carried out in about 1973, which provided a general idea of the mining potential in the area. As technologies advanced and studies became more accurate, a new report was published in 1997, showing that the greatest potential probably lay in the 20% of the territory slated for inclusion in the park.

Now, what did certain members of Parliament say? Personally, I tried to understand it. When the location of the park boundaries was discussed, it was decided that the western boundary of the park should be established where it is. The Inuvialuit then turned to the mine owners and asked them to give the Inuvialuit this 20% and even a little bit more, about 450,000 square metres, to be included in the park. The land was transferred and the government did not even have to give financial compensation to the owners. Everything was settled amicably, it seems.

If the Inuvialuit had not asked for the land, we would probably not be discussing Bill C-38, because the government would still be negotiating the boundaries. If the Inuvialuit signed, it is because they believed in the government's promises, and they said so a number of times in their brief.

• 1600

The bill under consideration can be described as simplistic; it consists of only one clause. Consideration for its approval was described by the government as being direct, but it is quite disappointing. Although it is not mentioned in Bill C-38, the basis for the proposed park comes out of the Park Agreement concluded by the Inuvialuit and the Canadian government on June 28, 1996. There are six signatories to the agreement, four of which are Inuvialuit organizations.

We have not even had time to prepare the necessary amendments; we will do so at the report consideration stage in the House so that certain injustices can be remedied in Bill C-38 before its final adoption. Among other things, we will at least do justice to the agreement signed in June 1996, which makes the creation of this park possible.

There is something else missing from this bill: no explanation is given of what is meant by co-management. Co-management is a new way of doing things. It seems that this park will be the first to be co-managed. In Bill C-29, co-management is not defined anywhere. What is co-management? What does it mean for people who are co- managing something? When I see that this bill has such a shaky foundation, I wonder how the Aboriginal people will be able to trust the co-managers they will be dealing with. Quite honestly, after reading the bill, I said to myself that this was just like the early colonial days: once again, the Indians, as they used to be called, are being cheated.

The principle of co-management requires full and meaningful participation by the Aboriginal people in decision-making and administration of parks established on traditional lands. Co- management therefore must be defined. If it is not defined in this bill, a reference must be given to where the definition can be found elsewhere, or the new Director of Parks must quickly issue a directive or take the initiative of defining co-management as it applies to Parks Canada.

When I see all the precautions we took to define how the Saguenay Marine Park, in Quebec, was to be managed, I cannot help thinking that, for a co-management initiative in the Arctic, we might have taken the same precautions if we were less arrogant and less contemptuous of the people we are working with.

This oft-cited provision, section 22.1, which is a review clause, was included in the Park Agreement. That section authorizes any party to the agreement to call for a review of any of the terms and conditions. I wondered on the weekend what would have happened if the government had been the first to realize that it would be better to amend the boundaries whether on the east, north or south side—that would have been a little bit difficult—on the south or west side and if the native people had refused? Given what I have experienced since I have been here, I came to the conclusion that a majority government, which is quick to throw scorn on others, would no doubt have done without the signature of the other parties and changed things in one way or another.

• 1605

It is certainly unfortunate that the signatories to this agreement are so disappointed by one of their partners, that is the government, which refuses to honour its own signature. We, the White people in Quebec, the Quebeckers have often experienced that: governments in the past often did not honour their signatures.

One of the aims of the agreement is to take into account economic realities and support local jobs and firms in order to strengthen local and regional economies. This is laid out in section 2.4. Moreover, section 1.9 indicates very clearly that the Park Agreement must not abolish or diminish the Inuvialuit rights and benefits under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.

What they told me is that they had already been through the experience of having a park established on their territory and that it did not create any jobs, or at least not as many as were claimed. Most of these Aboriginal people, unfortunately, have to rely on welfare to live. The people that I met were educated people who expressed themselves well; these are the people who came before the committee. I was able to talk to them for an hour at a parliamentary dinner last week. These are very articulate people. They know exactly where they are going. They know what they want for their people. And what is it that they want? Like the rest of us, they want jobs. They feel that maybe, just maybe, there will be a few jobs if the 2.5% of the park territory that they are asking for, on the western boundary, was given to them. That could give them hope if mining exploration shows good results, as suggested by the 1997 studies.

It is important to understand that these communities are made up of just over 5,000 people spread across this territory. I am not sure if we would agree to go and start a business in that area if we did not have work here in the South. I would be very surprised if we were able to live 12 months a year in a region that seems so harsh and difficult to live in.

What did these people come to ask us for? They came to ask us to withdraw 2.5% on the western boundary. In any case, that would not prevent the objectives behind this legislation from being achieved. Of course, they did not hide the fact that they have shares in the mining company. They even told us that they had invited young people to a training school to learn to be miners and that they had had an excellent response from these young people. As they probably indicated in their presentation, since they indicated it in their brief, these communities have a very young population. In Paulatuk, the village that is close to the park boundary, 60% of the population is composed of young working-age people, and families are having more and more children.

These seem to me to be very energetic people. They seem to have built the community structures they needed to be able to live and develop. What they are looking for is a balance. They want to play a genuine role in the economy of their region and their territory, while maintaining their personal and community strengths for their life on the land and preserving their health for the future.

• 1610

The population density, of course, is lower in that area than in the South. And they do not have all the modern vehicles and products that have such an impact on the environment. Yet it seems that all those communities have one priority. That priority is environmental protection.

When we, who are surrounded by concrete, make out as if we can show them how to keep their environment clean, this is really misplaced superiority. It would be much better if we started to listen to what they are doing to protect their environment rather than to play the role of teacher.

They tell us—and repeat in several places—that it is vital for them that we make the right decision. They have always been able to take all the resources of their territory into account so as to protect everyone's interests.

Making the right decision is the priority. It is even more pressing than passing Bill C-38 into law, they say. It was surprising to hear, after two years of inactivity, that the bill had suddenly become urgent. As I was saying in the beginning, a simple request for a change—that is their interpretation—seems to have woken the government up, causing it to make a second effort and introduce this bill.

Why are they asking us to make the right decision? Why have they asked for a review of the agreement? Because there are new data. There is new information that was not available when they signed the agreement, since, indeed, the study on the potential of the area we are being asked to withdraw from the park boundaries was only published in October 1997, whereas they signed the agreement in June 1996.

This new mineral information substantially increases the assessment of the economic potential of the area on the western margin of the proposed park; it identifies several very prospective intrusive- type targets one of which is just within the western boundary of the proposed park. This is the first aeromagnetic survey conducted on the area since 1973, and was undertaken with geophysical technology that is much more advanced than that used 25 years ago on the last survey.

The 1977 survey provides better detection and resolution than was available for the government's earlier assessment of mineral resources of the area in 1994.

At that time, government reports "inferred that the source of that magnetism was at great depth and outside the proposed park". The other result is that the mineral targets appear to be reasonably shallow, within 350 meters of surface. These depths are much less than those estimated by the government in 1994.

So, these people come to the table. We tell them: "A study was done in 1973; have a look at it. We are doing another one". The results of the 1994 study were not very encouraging. But section 22.1 was there: if ever anything is discovered, the agreement can be reopened if everyone agrees.

Everyone agrees except the government. What the government's interests? What benefit will the government derive from having that 2.5% of the territory inside or outside park boundaries? Who would benefit from it? We know full well that the community that lives there on a daily basis would be the one to benefit from its use.

• 1615

What would that take away from us who are sitting here in Ottawa, or in our ridings? Would that really deprive us of anything? I find it appalling that we are not more sensitive to the recommendation made to us by 5,700 people who have the courage to get up every day, often in abiding darkness, and live there on a daily basis.

We are being asked to review the Park Agreement.

As the results of the analysis of the survey became known over the winter months, the people of Paulatuk—who would be closest to the park and the mineral activity—had to give the matter careful thought.

What I find extraordinary is the way in which they describe all of the consultation process step-by-step and all of the associations they met with. They went to collect further information from hunters and fishers in an attempt to better understand where everyone's advantage lay.

When I look at all the work they have done as compared to the relatively brief time we have devoted to studying this bill, I feel much more inclined to believe them than to believe anyone who came before us, even the Secretary of State, who was very well informed when he came to talk about Bill C-29, but who seemed to have stepped off the Planet Mars when he met with us to discuss C-38. He did not seem well informed at all about the matter at hand; he did not have a good command of the issues. His assistant was whispering in his ear and he could not hear half of what he was being told. The assistant was embarrassed to be speaking in front of us. He wanted the Secretary to speak. The hearing was somewhat deplorable, as compared to the first one.

Fortunately I had seen the minister at the other hearing, the one on Bill C-29. I was, thus, favourably disposed when he came to speak on Bill C-38. It's a good thing the opposite did not happen, because I would have been quite discouraged to see him turn up a second time. I thought that that minister, who knew the first file so well, would come before us with an equally good grasp of the second file. But obviously, he knew very little about the substantive issues.

He received a letter from these people and answered them in a cavalier fashion. The letter was probably drafted by a bureaucrat somewhere. If the minister had been better informed about the matter, he might not have signed the letter. At the very least, he would have shown when he came before the committee that he knew what he was talking about.

Since we did not have much information, we did not make him look too bad, but if he came before us today, in light of everything I have learned since about this matter, the minister would probably have to shorten his testimony.

What impresses me is the way these people consulted their community. The hunters and trappers committee is very concerned with wildlife and conservation, as is all of the municipality and the population. People still want to see the park created. They want the park, but they are nobody's fools. They know very well that the park's creation, especially with the agency's new conditions, will not create year-round permanent jobs. They know that there will be no need to hire a great many guides for the visitors to the park, because of its location.

And so, although the population wants the park, they wonder whether it would not be possible to make a small change to the western boundary, a change that would allow for cautious and responsible mining activity that would nevertheless respect the objectives of the proposed park.

Finally, in February, after carefully going over the new geophysical maps, our Hunters and Trappers Committee drew an alternate boundary that would take out the exploration target from the proposed park, while keeping to a minimum the land removed. The alternative boundary was drawn to keep as far away as possible from the calving grounds used most heavily by the caribou and from the LaRoncière Falls.

• 1620

When they came to meet with us, they carefully explained, using the map they gave me, that one of the objectives was to protect the Bluenose caribou herd, and that they were not to be found in this section here, but rather over here, and that had to be taken into account if we wanted to save them. There are a greater number of caribou in the territory of Nunavut than in their own territory. They wrote:

The discussions in the community and the region were not easy or quick.

As for us, we are proceeding quickly as though things were easy. They took the time to think because these are their lands. It is their territory and their home for the duration of their life. We are going to be warm down here in the South while we leave them with their frozen acres and a little park. Their people have worked hard, in good faith, with Canada, and that is why I am disappointed. We are going to have a new reason to leave this country, because once again, the government has deceived a people. It has done it again! You may laugh, gentlemen, but we are collecting these examples and you will see that their cumulative weight will eventually tilt things in the opposite direction.

The people from that community took these questions very seriously and they want to ensure that all opinions are met with respect and that everyone has a chance to be heard.

Some people felt that it is wrong to change our position from the time we signed the agreement [—]. Others were very unsure about what the change would mean for the land and wildlife. But eventually, the people of Paulatuk came to the view that the decision on the park should be amended so that mineral opportunities are not lost for ever, because we did not have the information we needed at the time of the park negotiations.

I am convinced that the woman I spoke to, who once was Premier, is every bit as truthful as the minister who came before us. She stated: "We signed because we had the certainty provided by section 22.1. We signed because we did not know at the time that that territory would prove to be so rich. We signed in 1996, but we only found out in 1997". They still do not know for a fact that they are going to do mining or whether mining is feasible. They did not know that the area was that rich. Further studies will be needed. Environment studies will have to be done that will have a bearing on whether or not they will go ahead. They did not hide the fact that they own 35% of the shares. In the agreement they signed with the mining company, it is very clearly stated that a percentage of jobs will be given to members of the Paulatuk community, or to people from their territory.

They want to find ways of escaping the welfare cycle. They have enough pride to want to find permanent work. We all know that the North West Territories are mineral rich, but there are as many mines that close as mines that open. Why would we refuse to give them a chance to find work? Why would we prefer to keep them on welfare, in a state of absolute dependency? Why does the minister responsible for Aboriginal communities not get involved in the matter to defend the people she is mandated to defend? I find this unconscionable.

• 1625

While it is possible that minerals will be found on the land outside the proposed park, it is equally possible that the only economic deposit may turn up on the target within the park.

It may be included within the existing boundary.

That is just the way geology works. Paulatuk, and other communities in the region, cannot afford to ignore this possibility. The people of Paulatuk are almost entirely dependent on social assistance—

They are the ones who say so, and I repeat it. What do they do to make ends meet? They work as hunting guides. As they themselves say, the jobs the park will create will not be enough to provide a livelihood to their community.

The communities of our region have very young populations, with many children coming along who need opportunities and worthwhile job prospects to look forward to and keep them in school.

Here are some citizens who have a very clear vision of what they want for the future. How can we, around this table, recommend that the government rush this bill through without a full grasp of what is at stake?

The jobs that have been promised by the Park Management Board are welcome, but as other Inuvialuit have discovered from experience with the Aulavik Park, there are too few park jobs and guiding opportunities to make a real difference to the community.

They need this mine. They must absolutely be given this chance to develop. They write:

We need work to get off social assistance and to restore self- reliance to our people. We also know we can use the powers of our land claim agreement to build good working relationships with mineral companies to make sure we get real jobs and benefits from any activity that gets through the environmental approval process.

So, these people are asking us to trust them because they have always protected the environment in the past and will continue to do so. They are making a formal commitment to do so. What they want are jobs for their own people and because of the agreement they signed with the mining company they are guaranteed their share of jobs.

It seems simple to me. What is wrong with owning 35% of the shares in a mine and wanting to operate it if it is feasible to do so, even if that operation crosses some boundary?

I think we could find a solution. We could exclude that territory from the park limits for five or ten years. Should subsequent studies show that it is impossible to carry out mining activity in that specific area, we could include it within the boundaries of the park again to protect it forever.

Why this peremptory, authoritarian, pretentious, arrogant opposition in the face of a request submitted to us by citizens of our country? I really need an explanation.

The people of Paulatuk confirmed their consent to revisit the Park Agreement in resolutions duly passed in February—

They were passed by all of the representatives of the signatories. They did not come to us empty handed, stating that there were two or three of them who thought that. We may think that two or three people own the shares, but we were clearly told, and this was confirmed, and we could ask them to put it in writing if necessary, that the whole community and the six communities around the territory would all benefit from the mine's economic spinoffs. This is a not a situation where one or two people will make money, as would happen in our capitalistic world to the South. By giving them the right to work the mine we will give them the right to share the economic benefits with their community as a whole.

• 1630

They are worried, and with good reason. One has only to read some of the speeches members made during the debate on second reading. I looked at them quickly myself. Their intentions are being impugned, in a way. That questions be raised and that the answers be interpreted and analyzed seems to me legitimate. But I think these people came and spoke to us very openly. They did not want to hide anything. They felt they had been asked some good questions. I hope you feel that they provided good answers. These people have a profound sense of the land, the resources and their management. They were not immune to be told that their initiative might be seen as showing a lack of respect for the environment.

The environment is an inherent part of their concerns. They are concerned about the damage to the environment caused by the Beaufort Sea development and they have the conviction that the local population must be involved in protecting the environment, which was a factor in their working so hard to obtain a land claim agreement in 1984. This population worked very hard to agree with the government and sign an agreement in 1984, an agreement which was made part of the Constitution. When a group of five or six communities representing approximately 5700 people trust negotiators, wants to protect the environment, and asks that an agreement be signed, and has since 1984 shown, and continues to show understanding and a cooperative spirit to government representatives, why would we suddenly want to trip them up by refusing to grant a perfectly legitimate request?

They say that the Inuvialuit Final Agreement between this people and Canada places the highest priority on wildlife conservation and ecological protection.

This priority is reflected in stringent environmental regulation and co-management regimes that have been commended by international environmental organizations as leading the world.

Canada likes to brag that it is number one, the best in the world, but this community is probably helping Canada's reputation in the environmental field, because international organizations have praised its work to protect the Arctic environment.

The priority is also reflected in the fact that any Concession Agreements signed with resource companies explicitly require that all activity undergo the regulatory scrutiny required by the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.

This is a people that assumes its responsibilities, even in its dealing with sub-contractors—something we have had trouble doing with Canadian firms. How many times have we asked the government to make sure that polluters pay? This legislation has never seen the light of day. But here we have a tiny community that is making the environment its priority, and is asking people who will be working in the area and companies that will be established in the region to comply explicitly with the regulations set out in the Final Agreement signed by the Inuvialuit and the government.

The priority they place on conservation is also demonstrated by the fact that they have set aside 29% of their area for parks and protected areas; a proportion unparallel by any other jurisdiction in Canada. They were probably too generous, and that is why we are rewarding them in this way.

• 1635

In bringing forward this request to amend the Park Agreement, the Inuvialuit are not moving away from the commitment to conservation. The matter was discussed at length by the Inuvialuit organizations, [—]. Implication of a boundary change for conservation was our prime concern. But there are good reasons to believe that this area can and will be as well protected as any other in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, without benefit of park status. The Inuvialuit have confidence in our institutions and in their capacity to regulate to the highest standard for the following reasons:

- The area will be subject to the full force of environmental regulation under the IFA. Our institutions subject any activity to close scrutiny, and stringent conditions are regularly attached to permits to ensure that only activity that is fully compatible with long term ecological health and integrity of the land is allowed to proceed.

I wonder how many of us would be prepared to make a commitment to protect our environment and to sign an agreement that is fully compatible with long-term ecological health and integrity of the land. I wonder whether we would give up our cars in favour of bicycles or running or walking. Who among us could do that? Would we agree to change the way we eat and dispose of our garbage? I think the people living on these lands could teach us a great deal.

Here is another of their reasons:

- The precise outline of the area to be removed was drawn after long discussion by the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee, and with their direct participation. Our Inuvialuit hunters know the land and its resources well, and their well-being directly depends on the long-term health of wildlife. The Committee placed the line so as to minimize the area removed from the proposed park, and to keep as far away as possible from LaRoncière Falls and the more heavily-used calving grounds.

When I met with Ms. Cournoyea, she spoke about the problems some communities have with food at certain times if the caribou do not show up in the usual location. They calve and then appear somewhere other than where they were expected. One of the witnesses we heard from required assistance last year. Food had to be brought in, because the caribou simply were not there to hunt for food.

This project is still at the earliest stages of mineral exploration, which is much less intrusive than development.

Here is a third reason:

Various conditions can be applied to minimize the impact of exploration. [—] These requirements are already stronger than in any other jurisdiction. It is possible that nothing will be found in the target within the proposed park boundary. But if something is found, and a development proposed, regulators have time to prepare thoroughly for a review.

Here is another reason they mention:

- Given the normal pace of mineral exploration, it is unlikely that a proposal for development would come forward in the next five to seven years.

Since we have been told that a time frame of this type is possible, what would be lose by removing this 2.5% of the land from the park boundaries for a certain number of years? Is this not stubbornness on the part of the Whites, who think they are right and know better what is good for these people than the people themselves, even though these Whites have never spent five minutes living in the region?

• 1640

They say further on:

The main conservation issue is protection of the Bluenose caribou herd. Protection of the herd and its calving and post-calving habitat is a stated purpose of the Park Agreement and is of vital importance for the Inuvialuit, who—far more than any other Aboriginal people—rely on the harvest of the Bluenose caribou.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): I have a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I'm not quite sure of the routines on this committee, but will I have an opportunity to ask a question after the member is finished?

The Chairman: Yes, sure.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: They go on to say:

We are confident, however, that our regulatory procedures and systems are strong enough to ensure the long-term health and the integrity of the herd, and that by applying careful conditions on permits, activities can be carefully controlled to prevent impact. In particular, the strong role that Inuvialuit harvesters perform through the Inuvialuit Game Council and the Hunters and Trappers Committee will ensure—

The important point is that there will also be some scientific studies done. The Inuvialuit know the caribou very well. That's what they told us, and that is what they wrote in their brief. They need the caribou. They are a "sine qua non" condition of their survival. Caribou is virtually their basic food. They get their essential proteins from the caribou they eat.

We know that while the herd returns each spring to the Arctic Coast for calving, the actual area selected for calving can shift from year to year, sometimes because of differences in weather, or break-up, or ground conditions or predators. The areas used by caribou for calving are occupied for short periods each year, usually in May to June. These changes in location and timing of the calving season are not predictable from year to year. These are areas that seem to be especially favourite for calving; within the Park this area is generally to the north and east of the Hornaday River. But there are heavily used calving areas outside the proposed park, in the Bluenose Lake area and Bathurst Peninsula, and areas not heavily used within the park.

Of course, there's still much to learn about the Bluenose herd.

They say themselves, that they do not know everything about the herd. They have lived with it since time immemorial, but they were not able to make all the observations that can be made using technology or feed information into a computer each year to track the exact location of the caribou. They say that the scientists received DNA results which confirm that the herd that has been called the Bluenose actually consists of two distinct herds.

This was not all that surprising to local people, who have observed for many years that there is a difference between the coats of the two groups of animals.

That has just been confirmed by the scientists.

We do not understand with certainty the sensitivity of the Bluenose or any other herd to interference. At the same time, there is not evidence to warrant a ban on mineral activity. The caribou is a resilient animal, enduring year after year the most extreme conditions on earth. With care, by considering new techniques to manage activity, by incorporating fully the traditional knowledge of local people, by learning from scientific research done both within the new park and outside, we have the opportunity to learn more about caribou. We are not afraid of what we may learn, and will not avoid any hard decisions that this new knowledge may present. Development will only be permitted if the project can be undertaken without damaging the long-term health and integrity of the wildlife and natural resources of the area.

• 1645

That is quite a remarkable commitment, Mr. Chairman. These people have come and told us quite simply that they are not perfect, that they do not know everything there is to know about the caribou. They live with the caribou, with the caribou herds, and that is their source of food, but they say they can learn from the scientists and that there are new ways of managing the choice of activities. They want to draw on the knowledge of the people who live in the area. They want to learn what they can from the scientists. They want to better understand everything about the Bluenose herds. They even say that if the mineral activity were to compromise the long-term health and integrity of the wildlife and the natural resources of the area, they would abandon the mineral activity.

They came to request an amendment. They asked for a review, pursuant to section 22.1 of the Park Agreement, in order to modify the Western boundary of the proposed park, as has been said several times. They also invoked section 16 of the Final Agreement to request the direct issuance of the mineral rights by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Inuvialuit. The Inuvialuit request to the Secretary of State was submitted on February 19, followed by correspondence and representations in Yellowknife and Ottawa, and at considerable expense to their organization.

It is most fortunate, Mr. Chairman, that we had the decency to pay their costs when they appeared before us. That is standard policy, but I wonder, if we should not have gone to see them in their region to get some idea exactly what it means to live in such harsh surroundings day after day. I'm wondering whether this would not have been a good use of taxpayers' money. Having done that, I'm wondering whether we would be inclined to make the decision that we are about to make.

In spite of the support and in spite of the pertinence of the matter to several current public policy statements, the Secretary of State without warning rejected the request on March 25, 1998.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I'm sitting on this committee just for this one session, because I'm substituting. Will I have an opportunity to make some comments—

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Not today.

Mr. John Bryden: —after this session of the committee if the member goes on indefinitely? Will I still have an opportunity to make some comments? I won't be here for the next session, you see.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden, I can assure you that I'll give you all the opportunity to make your comments. If it's a question of staying all night, sir, you can have a chance to make your comments, and if Mrs. Tremblay wants to have all night, she will. And you will have a chance to make your comments.

Mr. John Bryden: I see. But we're probably under some pressure. Do you mean I really have to stay here all night?

The Chairman: I hope not, but anything can happen.

Mr. John Bryden: If I just had an opportunity to make a couple of comments, I'd be more than satisfied.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We also have a committee meeting tomorrow morning.

May I continue, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

The Chairman: We are listening very attentively.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like to thank you for the break.

According to the Inuvialuit, the amendment would help to better balance the long-term interest of the region. They are in a good position, Mr. Chairman, to explain how we should make the decision. Their request was supported by five of the six signatories of the Agreement.

• 1650

They finally received an answer to the request they made on February 19. The Secretary of State rejected the request without warning on March 25, 1998. The government moved at once to accelerate the bill through Parliament "in an effort to foreclose any further consideration of our petition". Those are their words.

I think the government started to feel the lobbying pressure of the community, and wanted to settle the matter quickly. The matter was so insignificant for Ottawa that CBC North broadcast the information about the government's decision even before the government took the trouble to inform the people of Paulatuk that the decision had been made and it was not in their favour.

Mr. Chairman, that is what I call a dominating, centralizing majority that is contemptuous of its taxpayers and its citizens. A group of people living where this group lives explained how their request is in the public interest, in the community's interest and in Canada's interest, and we do not even take the trouble to send them a fax or to telephone them to say that the decision had been made. No, they had to hear it from CBC North.

So insignificant was our request that it did not even deserve mention by Mr. Mitchell in his statement to Parliament.

They are referring here to the statement he made when he tabled Bill C-38.

The clear impression given by that statement is that all is in order, uncontested, requiring only a quick glance by Parliament and this committee.

Mr. Chairman, what is remarkable is that what these people wrote in their brief, which I just quoted, is exactly what we heard in the briefing session, namely, that the impression is that this is a technical matter, involving just the park boundaries, that everyone agrees, that there are no problems, that the decision is uncontested, and that it would proceed without any trouble whatsoever.

They appeared before us to say that that was wrong and that they had been misinformed. There is one extremely important issue for the Inuvialuit: they do not agree with the park boundaries. Their positions and those of other parties involved were misrepresented to us. The reason they appeared before us was to explain the problem as a whole, to present their vision of the situation.

Our request for a boundary adjustment is grounded in long, serious discussion in Paulatuk and the Settlement Region. This government has done a disservice to Inuvialuit people in rejecting our request pursuant to a legitimate section of a co-management park agreement.

We tell them: "Trust us. If there is any problem, there is a provision that guarantees a review of the park boundary". They did trust us, but when they request a review of the park boundaries, the answer they get is: "No, that is impossible. We reject your request, even though it is legitimate". How can these people really trust the government?

The Inuvialuit reminded us that during the second reading debate, some members of Parliament "suggested that park establishment is sacrosanct, that this and similar bills are beyond scrutiny; that the recommendations by Parks Canada are beyond reproach".

We are here to urge the Committee and Parliament to reject that view, refuse to be a rubber stamp—and instead look hard at the foundations of park legislation. These decisions set aside land for ever. It will be impossible to change even if important new information on the natural resources comes to light. Decisions on land must be sound, based on the fullest information, must consider the need for flexibility—and must consider fully the interest of all—the land, the wildlife, the natural resources and the people of the region.

• 1655

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to recognize that the agreement in question was excellent for the land, the wildlife and the natural resources. But after long and difficult discussions, after consulting the six communities located in the region, the people who live there concluded that the agreement did not meet the need of the residents of the region.

This is not a huge wild area that is completely empty. They remind us that this is their land. The land belongs to them. The land was given to them in a final agreement signed in 1984, an agreement that became part of the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, if these Aboriginals were to go to court, if they agreed to really play this game, I am not sure that the court would recognize the constitutionality of a park that violates an agreement signed in good faith by the residents of this region. That is what they say. That is what they wrote in their written presentation. The land is not empty, in case you do not know, in case the maps available down in the South do not show exactly where these people are located. They live here, in this region. It is not empty. There are close to 6,000 people living in this region. They say:

Inuvialuit have travelled the area designated for the park [—], living in it, sometimes thriving, sometimes struggling, and sometimes starving to death in the rough and barren regions of the Tuktut Nogait area. Our stake in this land is recognized and protected by the Constitution Act of this country, and we are determined that this stake will not be compromised.

Mr. Chairman, I would not be surprised, not at all surprised, to find that what is being done here is not in accordance with the Constitution. These people are not opposed to Bill C-38, quite the contrary. They have raised a number of issues that deserve Parliament's attention. These are issues regarding the content and the process. Let us look at some of these issues.

First, there is the principle of co-management. The Park Agreement, signed in 1996, stipulates that this will be a co- management park, subject to the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which was signed in 1984.

Yet in spite of the explicit support of five out of six signatories to the Park Agreement, our request was rejected. Bill C-38 does not even mention the Park Agreement, nor the fact that this is a co-management park. The issue of what "co-management" means and the role of co-management parks in the national parks system need to be examined, both for the public interest as a whole and for any Aboriginal people, not only ourselves, who may be entering into such agreements.

Mr. Chairman, it could very well be that Canada may want to sign similar agreements with other peoples, but given the negative experience of the Inuvialuit, who would now want to sign such an agreement with the government? Who will have any trust in a co-management project in future?

I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether Canada fully realizes the scope and the harmful PR consequences resulting from this project, which shows no respect whatsoever for the people living on this land, where conditions are extremely difficult.

• 1700

The second issue raised by these people is the role for the Inuvialuit in decision-making. This new park will cover an enormous area, 16,340 square kilometres of their traditional land. These are lands they negotiated hard for during the long years of claims discussions. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement, that Canada signed, sets out as a central goal the full and meaningful engagement of Inuvialuit people in the economy of the region and the country. This objective has been further endorsed by the government's Gathering Strength initiative.

These people want to be involved fully and meaningfully in the economy of their region, and in the Canadian economy. Why should we refuse them this right? Why should we be so stubborn? Why should we insist on ensuring that these people have nothing but contempt for us?

Although they took part in the decisions about the Park Agreement, they now find they're being left out. The government of Canada has behaved hypocritically—and those are not my words, but rather theirs. The government actually invited them to come to the negotiating table, so that provisions could be made to ensure that the park would function very well and that jobs would be created. The government did this with a great deal of fanfare. The high- sounding speeches, once again, brought them to the table and got them to sign the agreement. Now that the agreement has been signed, the government is saying "Bye bye, Inuvialuit. Get lost. We don't care now that we've got what we want. We have our park and we protect parks. We don't care about people. All that matters is the park". They say in their brief:

We are told this matter is final—that the review clause is not available to us. Yet it is the opinion of the Inuvialuit that adjustment of the border is in the long term best interest of the region.

We should recall, Mr. Chairman, that the decision made with the Inuvialuit was made after a lengthy consultation process.

We also have the means, through the institutions of the IFA, to ensure that if any development is one day proposed, it will proceed if and only if it meets the needs of the natural environment of the people of the region. It seems to us that this initiative is entirely in keeping with the government's statements on sustainable northern development and Aboriginal economic self-reliance.

Making speeches is not everything, Mr. Chairman. Making speeches is very easy. It is much more difficult to actually do something. When a government states in a very clear policy that people should become self-reliant, whether they are Aboriginals or anyone else, we must take the necessary steps to ensure their economic self-reliance. The Aboriginals tell us that giving back this small area of 2.5% of the land would take nothing away from us, whereas it could give them a great deal.

They say:

This government's stated commitment to full Aboriginal participation in the economic life of this country does not show in their treatment of the Inuvialuit on this matter.

I come now to the third of the six points made in the brief, which I will now quote;

All federal and territorial policy positions on protected areas emphasize the importance of using sound information on all natural resources of the land when making decisions to set aside land.

This is not complicated, Mr. Chairman. It means: "If a decision is to be made, it should be made with full knowledge of the facts. People should have as much sound, relevant information as possible on the natural resources of the territory". When Canada made its decision with the Inuvialuit about the agreement signed in 1996, it did not have all the information that was subsequently made available in the 1997 study. It also did not have all the information about the caribou herds that scientists are observing and trying to better understand. The communities say they are ready to learn what they can from the scientists.

• 1705

So people make decisions without having all the information. The fact that knowledge is evolving constantly with new technologies means that we must sometimes review past decisions in light of our new knowledge.

The land and the resource base may change. For example, animals may change their migration pattern in response to climatic conditions or calving areas. Clearly, if a decision is made based on photographs or information dating back to 1994, and, subsequently, herds are in a completely different location, we will not be protecting the right land. In the end, our attempts to protect the herd will be futile, and we will have to take action elsewhere, because the herd has changed location.

We should remember, Mr. Chairman, there was a herd of caribou in northern Quebec a few years ago that behaved strangely and drowned. No one really understood why the caribou went off in this direction and why they had behaved in that way.

If it is true that we must have the relevant information about natural resources and wild life, about the herds and all these factors, it is also true that before making our decision, we must have all the information about the mineral resources.

Geologists can walk over the same territory many times over many years before anything is found. New technology and new exploration theories can transform a mineral-barren area into a productive one. Ten years ago, the Slave Lake geological province, which has hosted the most dramatic mineral rush this century, was considered barren by the best geologists in the country. Later this year, the country's first diamond mine will start operations, creating new jobs and a new industry.

Mineral wealth must not be dismissed lightly. It too is a scarce resource. Mining is the single largest private sector activity in the NWT—

Mr. Chairman, the private sector is active. Why does the government not want to help it provide greater economic self- sufficiency for the people living in this region? Why would the government replace the private sector in order to keep all these people on welfare? In order to dominate them better? In order to assimilate them better? In order to better cause their destruction? What is the government's real objective? To save these people? To give them the resources they need to develop on the land where they have chosen to live?

Mr. Chairman, there are grounds for some very serious questions about why the government is rushing to pass Bill C-38.

—but over the past winter four mines have shut down, and four others are likely to close in the next few years. The Inuvialuit appreciate how rare and fleeting opportunities can be, having seen the promise of Beaufort development come and go. The Darnley Bay exploration project is the only mineral prospect known in our region. New mineral information on this project cannot be lightly dismissed.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is essential that we think seriously about this request. They say:

This new information suggests that the western boundary proposed by Bill C-38 is inappropriate and will foreclose long-term economic opportunity to an extent that is out of proportion to the small degree of incremental protection that park status may provide to this segment of land.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to repeat this sentence, because I find it very significant:

—the western boundary proposed by Bill C-38 is inappropriate and will foreclose long-term economic opportunity to an extent that is out of proportion to the small degree of incremental protection that park status may provide to this segment of land.

• 1710

They go on to say:

We believe that the balance of interests would justify a different boundary line. Had this information been available at the time of the negotiations, the position of the Inuvialuit signatories would have been different.

Mr. Chairman, some may claim that that is being written today because the government has refused to reopen the agreement. Had they known— they would have acted differently. In their case, had they known, they would not have signed. They have the clear impression that we are deceiving them. As you know as well I, Mr. Chairman, impressions are difficult to eradicate and they are much worse than reality.

They go on to say:

This matter raises another question of policy. There has been far less exploration of northern Canada than other parts of the country and decades may go by before awareness of its mineral potential is as advanced as in southern Canada. The inflexibility of national park status with its inability to adapt to the new mineral resources situation is simply not appropriate for northern Canada. There are other means of protection available to decision-makers and it may be time to consider the need for some degree of flexibility.

Mr. Chairman, this is an appeal on the part of this community telling us: "Listen, people in southern Canada, it's time to wake up. The North is not like the south. Why do we need wall-to-wall measures in this country?" Canada has always been taken in by this, and that's what will lead to its perdition, this stubborn insistence on treating everyone the same way from coast-to-coast, with the same rigour and the same domination. Why are we unable to understand? It's simple enough, Mr. Chairman, when we look at where these people are located in relation to the rest of the country, when we look at the latitude where they live, the climate in this part of the country and the way they communicate from one part of a community to another.

Mr. Chairman, these people are telling us that we are inflexible. It doesn't make any sense to be so strict and rigid and to refuse to listen to common sense. We have to show some flexibility. We are not limited to a six-month period to create this park. Canada will keep on existing during the summer even if we decide to postpone this bill until the fall. There is no great hurry preventing us from taking the time to be sure that we are making the right decision.

Mr. Chairman, I beg you on behalf of this community to do something so that we can pay attention to what these people are telling us. They are asking for flexibility. Will we at least once be able to show some flexibility with a nation interested in the good of Canada and in a better position than we are to know what it is?

They also say:

Although this may be anathema for certain park defenders, let me suggest an example. The caribou often changes its feeding and reproduction grounds; what would happen if a national park were established to protect a particular area favoured for reproduction and the caribou then chose for some reason to frequent an area several kilometres away for a number of seasons?

What are we going to do, Mr. Chairman, if we maintain the park limits as they are and suddenly the caribou go back to Nunavut? This will not have protected them. We will have angered the population for no reason and we will have shown bad faith and ill will. We will have demonstrated that they cannot trust our word and that our only purpose was to lead them into a trap and that once we've got what we want, we wash our hands of the whole business.

• 1715

They say:

In the case of Tuktut Nogait, the reproduction area after which the caribou herd is named, Lake Bluenose is not even in the proposed park. And the proposed limits include certain areas that are regularly used for reproduction and certain others that are very seldom used.

The protection of the caribou is very important. In our view, it is too important to allow these kinds of generalizations and disinformation about the areas and habits of the herd and to circumvent the delicate decisions on conservation and parks. The appropriate tools for protection must be up to the task to be accomplished.

That is what the people are asking us, Mr. Chairman. We are being asked to take into account the challenge represented by the work that we must accomplish rather than obstinately insisting on determining the limits of the park. No one can quite understand why there is this obstinacy on the part of one of the signatories. What does the government stand to win? If only the minister had told us, we might have hade some idea. The people and the representatives of the communities have come to explain to us what they stand to gain by changing the park limits by 2.5%. The minister never really convinced us that he was right in maintaining his decision not to reopen the agreement. None of the documents I have seen, Mr. Chairman, unless you do have a secret document that I could read this evening and that might convince me, have given me reason to believe that the government is right in being so obstinate with this bill.

I can sometimes understand what is at stake when there are friends involved who help out in paying for election expenses, but I don't think in this particular case we are talking about bagmen for the Liberal Party. These people hardly have enough to survive in their country. There must be some reason but the minister was unable to explain to us what it was.

A national park with no development: that is another matter that was raised by the people who came to speak to us. They note:

Even without our amendment, the Tuktut Nogait National Park will be one of the largest national parks in Canada, three times the area of Prince Edward Island.

What they are asking us, Mr. Chairman, is to withdraw 100,000 acres from this park, merely 2.5% of the total acreage of the proposed park.

The witnesses continue:

Certain participants have expressed the view that this request is outrageous, a massive land grab.

That is quite absurd, Mr. Chairman. If it hadn't been for the generosity of the Inuvialuit, we wouldn't have any park at all. Accusing them of grabbing land from us by wishing to withdraw 2.5% of the park's area, something that only might give them employment, shows how heartless people can be, without any concern for the rights of the population.

"It is particularly difficult to understand the government's attitude", they say. I must admit I am in the same situation, I cannot at all understand the government's attitude towards these people. We should remember that during the negotiations for the park, there was talk of making huge additions to the territory of the Sahtu and Nunavut regions. They write:

These additions would have increased the area of the park to 26,000 square kilometres, reducing the segment that the Inuvialuit are asking for. No mention was made of these exclusions in the government's statements, even though part of those areas are at least as used by the caribou as the northern region of Tuktut Nogait.

It seems to us that if matters relating to such huge additions are left open, it is not necessary to set out in the legislation the western limit that is the subject of such a claim. If the southern and eastern limits of the proposed park are still uncertain, there should be no objection to re-examining the western limit.

• 1720

That is a position that strikes me as eminently logical, a matter of common sense. If life goes on and the world continues to turn for Canada and all Canadians, I think that we can let matters be for the time being without offending these people by turning down such a legitimate request.

A fifth matter draws our attention. Is the government of Canada negotiating clause 21.1 in good faith? That's where it hurts, Mr. Chairman. It would seem that the main problem of this community is realizing that the government came to the negotiations in bad faith. They say:

At the time of the park negotiations, the Inuvialuit were aware that the Darnley Bay area, to the west of the proposed park, did have a mineral resource potential.

These people are not coming before us and saying that we didn't know anything at all, we were kept in ignorance. They are saying that some of them knew. They even say that some of them were worried:

Some of us were concerned that if new information confirmed better mineral prospects, the western limit could prove to be an obstacle to responsible economic activity.

These people want to take responsibility for themselves and engage in economic activities that will allow them to preserve their dignity and to feed their families. They continue:

—the Inuvialuit negotiators were specifically told by Parks Canada that clause 22.1 would make it possible to review the western limit should new information come to light.

Mr. Chairman, like you, I was not present at the negotiating table, but there are reliable people who tell us: "Parks Canada representatives reassured us that there was no need for apprehension, that we could trust them to write in clause 22.1 that if it were ever necessary, we would be able to reopen the agreement and discuss the park limits."

In view of this assurance, what did the negotiators do? They convinced Darnley Bay Resources Limited to give up their prospecting permit for the 472,461 acres of Crown land in the proposed park.

The Inuvialuit went to see the people and told them: "We'd like you to give us this land parcel where you had prospecting rights so that it can be put within the park. If ever something comes up, you have a guarantee that the matter can be reopened." The mine owners agreed to give this land back to the Inuvialuit. They did so voluntarily and did not ask for any compensation.

The Inuvialuit are now asking us to withdraw this 100,000 acre area from the 472,461 acres that the mine gave them to be included in the park. "Thus the government's decision was a great surprise to us", they say. If the company had not given up the land, and it's important to remember this, if Darnley Bay Resources Limited had not agreed to return the 472,461 acres of Crown land to the Inuvialuit, we would not be dealing with Bill C-38 here today. They would still be negotiating an agreement. The agreement on the park would have been delayed by several years and opportunity for mineral exploitation would not have been lost.

If the Inuvialuit had not believed that the examination clause would be sufficient, their decision would have been different with respect to the western limit.

That is what we must understand.

• 1725

How will we be able to sleep at night knowing that these people are convinced that we, members of Parliament, deceived them, that we who are responsible for administering the public good, came before them to claim that if they signed this agreement, they had no reason for concern? We are white. We are superior. We give our word. We respect our word.

They believed us and that is what is tragic. We are all tarred with the same brush now. We look as if we are dishonest. We are a discredit to our job that we are doing as best we can by going back on our word and taking in an entire population.

The negotiators for Canada were of the opinion that clause 22.1 did not allow the possibility of responding to a request to change the limit—

That is what they write and that is what they have come to say to us. Now they know that the representatives of Canada, the bureaucrats of Parks Canada were acting in bad faith. They know for a fact that clause 22.1 was phony and that it didn't mean anything. They negotiated in bad faith. They say:

Or else, if the government decided to set aside joint management and the spirit of the Inuvialuit Convention, the Secretary of State must then be acting in bad faith.

It's one or the other: either the representatives of the government and Parks Canada were acting in bad faith, or else it was the Secretary of State. That is the conclusion drawn by the people from the experience that they are now going through.

A sixth matter also draws our attention, the expropriation of interests without compensation.

A fundamental principle of Canadian justice is the requirement that the State fairly compensate those who have lost rights or interests through expropriation.

It is a fact that Darnley Bay Resources Limited voluntarily transferred the prospecting rights for 472,461 acres of territory in the proposed park and renounced—

This renunciation was voluntary and done in full knowledge.

—compensation so that the park agreement could go through without a delay of five years or more. But it is also true that the company did so at the request of the Inuvialuit on the understanding that if there were an improvement in the mineral prospecting of the area, the position of the limit could be changed under clause 22.1.

Do you see the dishonourable situation that we will be put in towards the Inuvialuit because of our failure to live up to our word? They are also placed in a situation where they will be going back on their word to Darnley Bay Resources Limited. They went to see these people and they said: "Give us your rights and if something happens, there's a guarantee in clause 22.1."

Now this community has to go back to Darnley Bay and say: "We were tricked and you also, because the Crown, which obtained lands subject to a permit properly held by a mining company without paying a cent in compensation, now refuses to reopen the agreement to allow 100,000 acres of this transfer, that is approximately 20%, be returned to outside the park limits.

That is a very serious matter. The Inuvialuit worked hard to build a co-operative and constructive relationship with the government of Canada. We merely asked for what we were due under the Inuvialuit Convention. It is difficult for a small community and a small region (the population of Paulatuk is approximately 270 people and the region in which the Inuvialuit are established approximately 5,700 people) to resist the army of bureaucrats and negotiators who want their land.

• 1730

They tell us and they are serious: "We deserve better treatment."

Likewise, mineral prospecting companies must be able to occupy land in keeping with the laws of the country sure in the knowledge that these rights will not be lost because of false claims.

The costs that these people have had to pay to go meet federal representatives here in Ottawa or in Yellowknife are astronomical for a small community with so few people and resources. They are absolutely terrified of having to support the burden of a decision that may prove to be a disaster for them. We are the ones who will be responsible for such an obnoxious decision, I am convinced of that, but I am willing to change my opinion if someone can prove to me that I am wrong, because we don't have the full information. Something is being hidden from us. If what these people are telling us is true, we are about to make a bad decision.

One of the things that opened my eyes is our realization of our insufficient knowledge of the realities of life on the Arctic coast, something that came to light during the debate on second reading.

We have no idea of the kind of lives these people have. It's not enough to travel a few days and fly over a part of this land. Personally, I have spent some time north of the polar circle where I lived for 10 days in the land of the midnight sun. The day was never over. The sun never set. People told me I should come back north of the polar circle during the winter when the day never dawned or almost never. Then I would be able to see the difference.

Of course, it was pleasant to be warm at 2 in the morning, to have a coffee as though it were 8 p.m. on a summer evening here, to write our postcards without any extra light, to read and even to drive without headlights until 10 p.m. or 11 p.m., but the people told us: "You have no idea what our daily life is like on the Arctic coast." Personally, I confess that I have no idea of what it's like. They say, and I quote:

With respect, the distance and the unfamiliarity with the realities of life on the Arctic coast showed in second reading debate—

And here we are coming to the most important part, Mr. Chairman.

—in misapprehensions about the social, the geographic, the ecological and the economic context of the region.

That is the view expressed by 5,700 people spread over a huge area. People may well say that I am overstating things, but I don't think so. I am not overstating things for the simple reason that I am quoting the brief presented to us by the people who know first- hand the reality of life in Paulatuk: "Despite the respect we have for you as members of Parliament, we must say that you are unfamiliar with the social, geographic, ecological and economic context of life on the Arctic coast".

• 1735

Without overstating things, I must make an intellectual effort to try to understand what it might be like to live in this region. I confess very honestly that in this case, it is preferable to have practical, rather than theoretical knowledge. I was hoping that the committee would hold hearings. They ask that hearings be held in their region. I think it is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that this request was not passed on to committee members so that we could debate it.

These people have asked that we go to their region. We have discussed travel of all sorts, and we have postponed it for various reasons, but here we have a community that has asked us to come and see how concerned people are. Rather than seeing three people, we could have seen hundreds of them, who would have explained which decisions of ours would have affected them the most. They could have made their points themselves, rather than having to send representatives here.

We are always afraid that the representatives might be representing themselves only. When we hear from representatives, we are not always sure that these people are really in tune with those they represent. Sometimes we think that they represent only a few individuals whom they consulted before they got on the plane. However, in this case, these people were prepared to represent themselves, to come here and explain what they were doing, so that we could get a clearer idea of their life and their land.

Their request was rejected, and I'm wondering who did that. However, I think it is unfortunate that committee members were not informed of the request. We could have discussed it and, for cost reasons, might have come to the same decision, but we might have been able to organize a videoconference, or perhaps that is impossible from that region. Another possibility would have been to send some representatives from our committee to the area. It is most unfortunate that we did not take any steps to ensure that the people really had a chance to state their views other than through a few representatives.

It worries me that decisions with such consequences for the Inuvialuit will be made by people who may be deeply unfamiliar with our realities.

It worries me too. They further state:

You must remember that our people have already suffered from decisions that were made "for our own good".

It is true that on a number of occasions we have made decisions for the good of others without actually consulting them.

With respect to these decisions, they say:

Such attitudes have already cost our people a way of life: in my mother's and father's generation, families could still make a good living from the land by fur trapping. The destruction of the fur industry destroyed a land-based way of life, and by leaving no option but dependence dependents on government has debilitated our society and culture.

That is a very harsh historical judgement of what we have done, Mr. Chairman. We claim to make the right decisions. But we are acting for others, and the others in question are rarely in the same place as we are. That is why we make such bad decisions. We think we know the truth. We think we are superior because we live in the south. We think we are better looking, smarter, the best, most enlightened, most knowledgeable people, and yet we made some decisions, and they tell us that these decisions "have debilitated our society and culture".

Decisions to set aside vast areas may give comfort to some southern Canadians, bombarded by well-funded environmental organizations, and unlikely ever to risk keeping body and soul together through a winter on the Arctic coast.

I wonder whether we would really be able to adapt and survive for a year where they live.

• 1740

Decisions to use parks to protect caribou calving grounds, in spite of the fact the caribou have an inconvenient trick of moving those grounds across set boundaries, may give comfort to the ignorant diplomats—

So this is how they see us, as ignorant diplomats.

But it is the Inuvialuit and the people of Paulatuk who will bear the cost of this smug comfort.

Could we please take a five-minute washroom break, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes, fine. We will suspend our proceedings for five minutes.

• 1741

• 1745

The Chairman: We are resuming our meeting, Ms. Tremblay.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Gigantes spoke for about 14 hours, Ms. Tremblay. I therefore move that you continue until 2 a.m., together with the Chairman.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): As far as I'm concerned, we can go until 8 a.m.

Mr. Mac Harb: Until 2 a.m.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I am not here to take on any challenges or to try to beat someone else's record. I am here to express my party's position. I am doing that, and when I have finished, I will accord the same respect to others who have something to say. I don't think it will take 14 hours. I am told that the bells will ring at 6:30 p.m., Mr. Chairman, and that the vote is scheduled for 6:45 p.m.

So when the witnesses came from their region to talk to us, they said that they had not come to Ottawa to defend their interest against those of other Canadians. They came to represent their community, of course, their people, the Inuvialuit, but they did not want to attack our goods or our interest. One of them spent a number of years in various public service positions, and most recently was premier of the Northwest Territories.

It is not clear that it is in the best public interest to favour one group over another. They say something here in their briefs that I find very interesting and that I would like to quote, because I agree with it fully. They say, and I quote:

I do not believe that Canadians are served by bad public policy, however comforting and easy the decision may be. I believe that all Canadians deserve sound and accountable policy and decision-making.

There's an extremely important lesson to be drawn from this opinion. We have all been elected as members of various parties and I am absolutely sure that none of us says, when we get up in the morning: "Today I'm going to my best to act contrary to the interest of my taxpayers". Not at all. Every morning, we get up with the firm intention of using our resources and talents, of pushing our limits, because we do have them, and with the intention of doing our very best for our constituents, because they are the ones who elected us in the first place. Our second priority is all our fellow citizens generally.

We want to make the best decision. In order to do that, we must have the best possible information. Since we are about to make a decision, and we have received new information that could shed some light on the decision, we do not have the right to disregard the new information.

• 1750

Let us come back to some of the questions we have a right to ask.

The Inuvialuit signatories to a co-management park are asking that the western boundary be modified to remove a modest area, about 100,000 acres or 2.5%.

We have been asked that question, and it is something we should think about.

This request is pursuant to section 22.1 of the Tuktut Nogait Park Agreement of 1996, to which the Inuvialuit were signatory, which allows any party to the Agreement to ask for a review. At the time of the park negotiations the Inuvialuit were given to understand by Canada that this section would be available to adjust the boundary, should new mineral information warrant an adjustment.

I come now to the third point in the summary:

The request is based on new mineral resource information obtained since October 1997 from a new aeromagnetic survey, which reveals several strongly promising exploration targets, one of which is just within the proposed park boundary.

There are a number of points here.

At the time of the park negotiations, government reports implied that many minerals were at great depths and outside the park boundary.

[English]

The Chairman: On a point of order, Mr. Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb: I would like to propose a motion, to save a little bit of time for everyone, that the whole report my colleague is reading from be deemed as having been read and be included in the record of the committee.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Twenty four hours' notice is required for a motion.

[English]

Mr. Mac Harb: With the unanimous consent of the committee, I suppose.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Notice of motions must be given 24 hours ahead of time. Had it not been for that Standing Order, I would have started by tabling a number of motions, and we would have been at this for several days.

[English]

Mr. Mac Harb: No consent, Madam Tremblay? No.

[Translation]

Just to save time. Nothing more.

[English]

The Chairman: You can't raise a motion on a point of order. I think we'll let Madame Tremblay carry on.

Thank you.

(Motion withdrawn)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Have you finished, Ms. Tremblay?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The request made by the Inuvialuit "is based on long and serious discussions in Paulatuk and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region".

The lands involved are Crown lands within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, and are subject to the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, a constitutionally protected land claim agreement.

The Inuvialuit signatories believe that the area can be removed from the proposed park without detracting from the conservation purposes of the park. We have confidence in the regulatory processes and co-management institutions under the IFA to ensure any mineral activity is only conducted in a way that protects the environment.

The area requested is on the western edge of the park, and the alternate boundary was drawn by those people with the most extensive knowledge of this area and its wildlife, members of the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee—

In my view, that is much better than if the decisions were made by bureaucrats and technocrats sitting at Parks Canada in Ottawa. The hunters and trappers of Paulatuk know the land better than people who live here.

—in such a way that it would avoid any of the environmentally sensitive features of the proposed park—in particular to leave LaRonciere Falls and the most heavily used calving grounds of the Bluenose caribou.

The area requested is approximately 2.5% [—] on the western edge of the proposed park.

• 1755

This initiative is not asking the federal government to deviate from existing policy: it is consistent with several major policy commitments of this government.

The brief now mentions certain aspects of the policy:

-Gathering strengths, which commits Canada to a renewed partnership with Aboriginal people; to support community-based initiatives; to support initiatives toward economic self-reliance for Aboriginal people; and to support sound working partnerships between Aboriginal people and mineral companies.

We must listen to this request from the Inuvialuit, who have asked us to gather the strengths required to enable them, as a community, to develop freely and to prosper.

- The 1998 federal budget commitment to northern economic diversification.

The Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which commits Canada to equal and meaningful participation of Inuvialuit in the northern and national economies and society.

Here is another policy point in support of the request:

-The Minerals and Metals Policies of Canada, the Whitehorse Mining Leadership Accord and the NWT Protected Areas Strategy—

Mr. Chairman, could we ask this visitor to respect the rules of our committee, and not speak while someone else has the floor?

The Chairman: I think people are listening to you with a great deal of respect, Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: He's speaking too loud, Mr. Chairman. He is bothering me.

—each calling for the use of sound and current mineral resource information when protected areas decisions are made. This was also a requirement of Paulatuk's own Conservation Plan (1990), which was the foundation of the Tuktut Nogait Park Agreement.

On its own merits and because of its relevance to these government policies, our request should have been granted.

So these people analyzed government policy, and are surprised that their request has been turned down.

The principle of co-management alone demands that a request by five out of six signatories to a co-management park agreement receive positive consideration. Yet the Secretary of State for Parks rejected our request out of hand, accelerating legislation to foreclose further discussion even while both the southern and the eastern boundaries remain in limbo.

I think one thing is clear from this paragraph: the government seems to have a double standard. The decision to establish some parks was made a very long time ago, yet things south of that region have been dormant. But all of a sudden, a decision is made to set the park boundaries, even though the decision is not satisfactory to the people who are primarily involved.

Instead of considering this an issue of substance, of importance to the Inuvialuit people, the government is acting on short-term political convenience.

I would like to know what the political convenience is, so that we have a proper understanding of exactly why we must oppose the project when it would be so simple to get unanimity for the creation of the park.

Signed commitments to Aboriginal people are seen as threats by from southern environmentalists. Furthermore, Mr. Mitchell had the temerity to raise before us the concern over the Porcupine caribou herd, even though the Inuvialuit, through the commitment to Ivvavik Park, have done more to protect the herd than any other Canadians.

We are here to ask the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and Parliament to redress a serious disservice done to the Inuvialuit. Having made a massive commitment to Canadian conservation by giving up 16,340 square kilometres, we are admonished, our motives impugned and our request for a modest adjustment of the western boundary of the proposed park refused.

• 1800

Rather than accepting their request, or at least explaining why they were being turned down, their motives were impugned. The government is rushing to pass a bill that will make these people unhappy. This is not an established park. The issue of creating a dangerous precedent was raised. When the minister came he said that if he changed the boundaries there would be problems with various individuals. The request is not to change the park boundaries, because the park does not yet exist. The park will only exist once the Act has received Royal Assent. So we are not being asked to change anything that already exists. They are not asking to change the boundaries of a park that is already established under a particular Act. This is a proposal, Mr. Chairman. If proposals cannot be changed, I really wonder why the government presents legislation in bill form.

We had understood that the foundation of this park was the Tuktut Nogait Part Agreement, yet the bill makes no reference to the Agreement. Now that Parks Canada has our land, clearly the federal government sees no need to honour the Agreement—notably the inconvenient section 22.1.

In other words, the community is criticizing the government for not living up to an agreement it signed. I find this an extremely serious accusation. I think the government could have sat down with the communities and discussed the matter rather than rejecting it out of hand and announcing the decision to them by radio, rather than holding an official meeting to explain things to people with whom they are about to enter into a co-management arrangement.

These people told us:

We believe this situation illustrates very serious faults in this government's decision-making on protected areas, flaws in both the decisions and the processes by which lands are obtained. For this government, the end justifies the means: obtaining new parks justifies almost anything—from the violation of stated policy, expropriation without compensation, negotiating agreements in bad faith, and even violation of the spirit of constitutionally protected land claim agreements.

These communities have told us that they certainly do not have a very good opinion of the government. They are sure that the government can use any means and that the end justifies the means. In other words, the government can do anything in order to achieve a certain objective. And what objective is the government pursuing here? The government wants to create a park to protect natural resources, and wildlife, and to please a community as well. We are not in the process of doing our best to destroy an environment that is essential to a community.

So these people tell us that the government is prepared to do anything, even violate its own policy or refuse to negotiate in good faith and even to violate the spirit of existing agreements. When the government starts violating the spirit of an agreement, it has gone very far in its contempt for a people.

Obviously, the people who appeared before us oppose the bill. As you have have known for a long time, Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Québécois will also be opposing this bill, regretfully. We do not like opposing for the sake of opposing, but I must tell you, with regret, that the Bloc Québécois will oppose the passage of Bill C- 38, because it shows no respect for a community, because it shows no respect for an agreement negotiated in good faith, because no one has convinced me beyond any doubt that this request had to be turned down.

• 1805

The Inuvialuit community maintains there are political reasons for the government's refusal to accept its requests. I would like to hear what they are.

The Inuvialuit say they deserve much better from the government, and they're asking for respect and for a genuine role in making decisions that affect their land and their lives. Could there be a more legitimate request?

These are people who have worked in good faith for a very long time. They got an agreement in 1984, an agreement that was included in the Constitution. They continued working in good faith and they have already turned over 29% of their land to Parks Canada. They were probably more generous than any other group in Canada. I don't think any province turned over as much of its land, Quebec certainly has not, in any case. We have certainly not turned over 29% of our land to Parks Canada, and we certainly have no intention of doing so. The government's behaviour in this case will not encourage anyone to enter into an agreement with Parks Canada.

I think the Canadian Parks Agency is coming into being in a very poor context. I would like us to give the agency a chance to come into being in a decent, non-problematic, non-turbulent context, and to see us make a genuine effort to find out what is going on. I don't think we have studied this very complex problem in enough detail to understand it thoroughly.

Unless people have a mandate to abstain, all reasonable individuals around this table will want to understand the issue better, unless I'm the only one who does not understand, and that would surprise me. It is unusual for me to be the only person who does not understand, but a person may be the only one to hold a particular view and nevertheless be right. However, I think that if anyone is informed about anything at all— Our colleague said that he would have some comments to make. I hope he will have some relevant information for us.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. Can I ask the chairman to provide me with the regulation in the standing orders that permits this member to go on indefinitely?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It is Standing Order 116, sir.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: What the Inuvialuit are asking for is respect. I don't think that costs the government much. They are asking to play a genuine role in decisions that have an impact on their land and their lives. They all said very respectfully, in various ways, on a number of occasions, that we had no idea of what daily life was like in their region.

I met with them here on Parliament Hill for one hour. They all look very happy to live where they live; they seem very comfortable with that; they look very happy. They told us that they acted in good faith when they negotiated with the government, but they are very disappointed because they feel they have been had. They say that they are in the process of organizing their territory, that they have the equivalent of what we have in our areas—namely someone in charge of economic development who would very much like to create jobs for local young people.

They told us there were many young people, many births, that their people had a future and that they wanted their children to get an education. But we all know that in order to motivate young people to continue their education, they have to have models who are active and resourceful, and not on welfare.

• 1810

I know communities that have been on welfare for generations: the grandfather lived on welfare, the father is living on welfare and the child is after only one thing: to be old enough to leave school and meet the conditions to live on welfare too.

Mr. Chairman, if we want to give the Inuvialuit community the means to develop, and to be proud of belonging to a great country that considers itself the best nation in the world, maybe we should respect that community and give it the basic respect it is asking for. They want to be respected and to participate in decisions that affect their territory and their lives. They add that it is not just for themselves that they are making these demands, but for all Canadians who deserve a better decision-making process. They say:

All Canadians deserve a decision-making process for protected areas that is better, more honest and more responsible.

These people are criticizing us. Of course, we could say to ourselves that in any case, we are right. They do not know anything. We know everything. But they are telling us that the decision-making process is far from honest and responsible with respect to protected areas. Mr. Chairman, is there another way of protecting this territory? Perhaps you could provide us with information. Could a park not be created? Could something else be done to protect this territory?

What are these people asking us for? They are asking us to correct a shortcoming. They have submitted recommendations to us. They are offering us a choice in one area. Personally, Mr. Chairman, I do not know the difference between the two. They have a preference, of course, but they would like to see one of two things, in particular an amendment to Bill C-38 to change the western boundary of the park in keeping with the request submitted February 19, 1998, by the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. They provided us with the amended wording they recommended for Bill C- 38. After the line reading "Northwesterly in a straight line to a point having a latitude of 68 degrees 30 minutes north and longitude 123 degrees 20 minutes west," to add the following:

North along longitude 123 degrees 20 minutes west to a point at the intersection with latitude 68 degrees 55 minutes north;

Easterly along latitude 68 degrees 55 minutes north to the intersection with longitude 122 degrees 49 minutes west;

Northeasterly to the intersection of longitude 123 degrees west and latitude 69 degrees 13 minutes north;

Westerly along latitude 69 degrees 13 minutes north to the intersection with the surveyed boundary of Paulatuk lands at longitude 123 degrees 10 minutes west;

They also recommend that we delete the next two clauses, starting again with “Northerly along the surveyed boundary of the Paulatuk 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a) lands to the surveyed corner of the 7(1)(b) land at approximate latitude—”

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden, do you have a point of order?

Mr. John Bryden: I have looked at section 116 and I've looked at the explanation from Beauchesne, and I point out to you that what section 116 actually says is that the standing orders do not apply to length of speeches that a member might give. In other words, the standing orders don't apply whatsoever.

• 1815

That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that you have the opportunity to intervene and cut the speaker short at any time you like, and indeed the rest of us do, because the standing orders do not apply.

The Chairman: That is not correct. The point is that the standing orders apply. Section 116 says that the committees are ruled by the orders of the House and the procedures of the House, but in regard to speeches, there is no limit of time within committees as there is in the House. That is the clear interpretation, and she has the right to carry on.

Mr. John Bryden: If I may say so, Mr. Chairman—and I will seek a ruling on this because I think we need to review the interpretation—again, I have to persist. I am familiar with the English language, at any rate, and this does not appear to be what is said by this standing order.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden, I'm going to rule that Mrs. Tremblay has every right to continue to speak.

Mr. John Bryden: And I accept that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: If you want to get an interpretation from the Speaker of the House, we are completely willing to do so, but for the time being, that's what we'll do.

Mr. John Bryden: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's exactly what we shall do.

The Chairman: All right.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I was at the last paragraph, which I will give again, Mr. Chairman, so that it is easier to understand. Following the list of four points, they ask us to delete the next two clauses starting again with “Northerly along the surveyed boundary of the Paulatuk 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a) lands to the surveyed to the corner of the 7(1)(b) lands at approximate latitude 69 degrees 19 minutes north and approximate latitude 123 degrees 10 minutes west—”

Mr. Chairman, I feel that it would be very appropriate to consider the wording that was recommended here, unless someone can prove to us that what these people are proposing makes no sense and is unacceptable. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I will take into account their request because it is the people living in an area who know about things, who have a full knowledge of the area they live in and who know their territory and what would be best for them. They have consulted at length with hunting and fishing associations and everyone. Their communities spent nearly a year discussing these issues and they have come to make recommendations on the park boundaries. I must acknowledge that I do not know if their proposal is better than what is provided for in the bill. However, I do know one thing: these people live there and they probably know better than we do what the boundaries should be.

The other possibility they are offering us is to suspend consideration of Bill C-38 until the definitive boundaries to the west, south and east are clearly established and three requirements are met. Here is the first one: thorough consideration by all signatories pursuant to article 22.1 of the Tuktut Nogait Park Agreement; second requirement: conclusion of a park agreement in co-management with the Nunavut on the appropriate eastern boundary of the proposed park—in other words, a discussion to conclude an agreement with the Nunavut on the appropriate eastern boundary for the proposed park—; third requirement: conclusion of a park agreement in co-management with the Sahtu on the appropriate park boundary.

What they want, Mr. Chairman, is for us to agree to their request by amending the bill and by limiting the area of the park or by suspending consideration of Bill C-38 and resolving the various park boundary problems involving communities and peoples across the vast Arctic region of Canada.

• 1820

Until the boundaries are considered to be definitive, no one can evaluate the compromises between environmental protection, economic potential and the social and cultural well being of the communities. Without such an evaluation, it is premature to ask Parliament to decide on how well interests are being balanced.

Of course, the inhabitants and the representatives who submitted this brief and who appeared before us clearly favour the first option, that is establishing new boundaries for the proposed park. Their desire is to amend Bill C-38 so that the problem is resolved at least for that park. All they are asking is that 2.5 per cent of the land from the park, be withdrawn.

I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that if the government shows good faith and if Parks Canada representatives, the future employees of the Canadian Parks Agency, want to get off on the right foot in their new career and show good faith, they can go to the community and try to negotiate a compromise. The 2.5 per cent of the territory could be withdrawn for a certain number of years and then put back into the park. They could negotiate the possibility of including that 2.5 per cent in the park at a future date.

I too feel that once the park boundaries are established, they can be extended, but it is rather difficult to reduce them. It is much more plausible and much easier to add land than to subtract it. I understand the minister's point of view on that, in that he does not want to create a precedent and have communities all over calling for changes to already existing park boundaries. But I would not want to have the problem of refusing a legitimate request, given that the park does not yet exist, out of fear of creating a dangerous precedent.

The Inuvialuit have committed themselves to protecting the land in the protected areas and the Northern caribou herds to a greater extent than any other Canadians up to this point. All they are asking for is a modest change to the proposed park boundaries to serve the interests of the people living in their region, in keeping with the final agreement they signed with the Canadian government. The Inuvialuit negotiated their land claims for many years. In 1984, they came to an agreement with Canada. In their view, they should not have to spend so much time, resources, energy and money to fight to get the federal government and the bureaucrats to be honest about their obligations.

Mr. Chairman, they are certain that they have been deceived. After studying their documents and the 1996 agreement, I realized that, like them, I would have felt sure that article 22.1 was clear and that it gave them the possibility of reopening the file, if people acted in good faith. When the minister appeared before us, our colleague from the Conservative Party very generously replaced our colleague who was taking part in an official mission abroad. In response to his question, the minister told him that he was not reading the wording of article 22.1 correctly.

• 1825

I went back to my office, reread article 22.1 and asked myself whether, by any chance, the minister did not have another text of the agreement. Article 22.1 is very clear. It says that if one of the signatories to the agreement calls for it to be reopened, it will be done. At least, that is how I interpret it.

Why is the minister refusing to agree? Why is the minister refusing to return to the bargaining table? My Conservative Party colleague, the other day, was expressing the same reservations. With a Liberal colleague, he had flown over the area. I think that the plane even landed. He seemed very sympathetic to those communities living in a part of Canada that is so arid, remote and difficult to live in.

We know how long it took for the witnesses to come here and how much it cost them. It would have been so easy to tell them: "It is not worth the trouble to sign an agreement, since the government will never keep its word. Why do you believe the government?" That is what I find so deplorable. These people have been deceived, and it seems to me that deceiving a community is the most unacceptable thing.

What are we going to do from here? How are we going to ensure that the next groups that negotiate with the Parks Canada Agency will even want to meet with a Parks Canada official?

If there is ever an attempt to adopt Bill C-38 as it is, the Bloc Québécois will vote against it, but I feel that we will have damaged forever the reputation of Parks Canada, which I held in quite high regard. I see the extent to which people have knowingly—I cannot use any other term—deceived a community by leading it to think that it could hope for changes. If people ever learn about the new things, it would be very difficult to accept.

They explained to us many things about the importance of caribou in their culture. That certainly left its mark on me, because they told us a great deal in one hour. I thought that caribou were very important, but I did not think that they were so important.

We find it quaint to go to Gaspé Park and see caribou. They are protected, we look at them and take pictures from a distance because they are somewhat wild. The people who came here explained to us the real importance of caribou for them and everything they do not know about the herds. How can we claim to know so many things when the people who live with the caribou know so little about even basic things? They told us that the scientists observing the herds, who have been gathering data for several years and have done DNA analyses are now able to give them more scientific information and information that is important for the future of their community. I find it extremely pretentious of us to refuse to listen sympathetically to a community that has come to explain to us the extent to which this request is so important to them.

If only we could have heard the other side, but we did not. I have no documentation proving to me that the department is right. The witnesses spoke to us and wrote saying that we had been misinformed, and even wrongly informed, as to the aim of this and that it was wrong to claim that everything was fine and dandy, that this was a small thing, that it would not take much time, that nothing would happen and that there was nothing to worry about.

• 1830

We were told that it was a matter only of park boundaries and that no one had any problems with this, whereas the people most directly involved came to tell us here and wrote to us at length saying that it was deplorable.

All in all, they were nice. They no doubt know that there are certain words that cannot be used in the House of Commons. They were very respectful and did not use those words. But we in the Opposition are less worried about which words we can and cannot use, at least in certain cases. I think they are right to claim, with all due respect for the people at Parks Canada, that Parks Canada missed the boat this time.

Parks Canada gave us poor information or even wrong information. Parks Canada is responsible for the situation we have today, where a community is very unhappy, is very critical of the government's attitude and does not understand it, feels penalized and believes that its request should be followed up on. Personally, I feel that it would be easy to find a compromise with this community and accept its request, so that Parks Canada could re- establish its reputation as an organization capable of meeting the challenges before it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that my intervention will be somewhat briefer than Madame Tremblay's.

Over the six or seven months that we've been working together, I've found the group very open to working well together. I don't know where the whole situation came from, but as Madame Tremblay has said, this was quickly put in front of us and we had to deal with it— you know, “We have to do this, it's okay, it'll be speedy, let's deal with it”.

In principle, I supported this bill on first reading. A few weeks ago I asked that we have some witnesses come forth and tell us their concerns. We also heard from the Canadian Wildlife Federation.

Last week when I saw what we were faced with, we were in the House debating Bill C-29 and we had witnesses who were here to share with us some very important things. It bothered me that we had very few members from the government side there and today we had a whole ream of people in case the opposition sprang a quickie or some kind of fast one. That bothers me a little bit and I wanted to say that.

However, coming back to the bill, I spoke in favour of it in principle then. I have not changed my mind, because I've asked the other side to show me what should have been different and a couple of the concerns that were expressed to me were that “We were led to believe— ”.

Well, I can't imagine that a negotiation of this stature would take place without having counsel there who would say that the document says this and this is how you will get out of it if you choose to change your mind. That is probably one of the big reasons that led me to not change my mind. This agreement was signed, it was agreed upon, and if not all parties agree, then it cannot be reopened.

Well, at this point, the group that was before us last week would like to change it. But I guess an agreement is an agreement, and what happens down the road if the shoe is on the other foot?

There are quite a few other points that I'd like to touch on, but because of the bell I will stop at that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Are there any other interventions? If not, I'll call the clause. We'll proceed with a nominal vote.

• 1835

(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: On division.

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?

(Bill C-38 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.