AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 10, 1999

• 0910

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik, Lib.)): Today, June 10, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our committee undertakes its study of the crisis in the emergency medical evacuation system in the North.

Before we proceed to the first item on our agenda, Jill would like to say a few words.

[English]

Ms. Jill Wherrett (Committee Researcher): I just want to let the committee know that I'm going to be leaving the parliamentary library. When you come back in the fall, I won't be here.

Some hon. members: Oh, no!

Ms. Jill Wherrett: I'm going to work for the public service. I'd hate to say where, given some of the comments made in the committee sometimes about the department.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I want to take this opportunity to let Jill know how very much we have appreciated her work for the committee. Wherever she goes, I know that she will keep abreast of our committee's activities. We would like to thank her for her professionalism.

The first item on the agenda is a letter to the Minister of Transport, and perhaps to the Minister of Health as well, further to a request made by the Inuit. I'm sure you are all well aware of the problems with medical evacuations in the North.

[English]

Monsieur Keddy, do you have a point?

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): No. I just would like to see the motion in writing.

[Translation]

The Chairman: On that point, a member has already put forward a motion concerning medical evacuation in the North. Ms. Fisher can give you a copy of the text she received.

[English]

You will receive a letter from Mr. Peter Horsman.

[Translation]

We will draft a motion to that effect which we will consider once we have dispensed with the second item on our agenda, namely Mr. Bryden's motion respecting the Musqueam leases. Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): You have before you the motion I'm proposing. I have to explain that I took it upon myself to not only attend the meetings involving the Musqueam residents and the Musqueam Band, but also, after both those meetings, to meet privately with the residents and with the band for an hour in each case. That was to try to come to some type of resolution of a situation that I feel is very difficult and very human. It's something this committee should try to resolve if it can.

If I may say, my conclusion from both the official testimony and my talks with them was that, in effect, the residents really didn't have much of a case at all. As a matter of fact, they didn't have a case.

• 0915

Similarly, the Musqueam certainly were very badly treated by a lease that went on for years. It gave them a very, very bad return on the value of their lands. However, the Musqueam have a situation where the lands do have a value beyond what they would even currently receive with the revised rents that have been proposed.

The motion I have suggested reflects these three situations. On the one hand, it's 66.66% of the leasehold interest that the tenants would have, to reflect the fact that the tenants, who went into these arrangements with their eyes open and made in effect a bad investment, should not in any sense get 100% compensation for the situation they find themselves in.

The fact that the remaining 66.66% of the buyout would be divided between Indian and Northern Affairs and the Musqueam Band reflects the fact that, in my opinion—and I'm speaking only for myself—having heard what both parties have said, the government does have some responsibility for this, for having created a situation where the Musqueam received far below what would have been proper in the original lease arrangements.

Therefore, I feel that the government does have a certain obligation, a moral obligation, to contribute to the resolution of the situation.

I feel, having listened to all sides, that the Musqueam themselves don't have any responsibility whatsoever for the situation. As a matter of fact, they're the victims. However, they do stand to recover some of their losses—as a matter of fact, all of their losses—if the land can be reclaimed for new development.

So in that sense, the Musqueam have an opportunity to profit in the future and, I would hope, recover the losses they incurred as a result of the very low leases.

I have proposed this motion, which, I have to say, comes entirely from me. Even though I've had these discussions, this is not a brokered motion in any sense. It reflects merely what I hoped would be another way of approaching a resolution of this problem.

In the end, I feel what is very difficult about the problem is that it's a very human problem. It's had very negative overtones across the country. I have to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that I don't think it's instructive whatsoever about leases in general. I think it's a unique problem.

If, by putting this recommendation forward, this committee can, without binding any parties to the recommendation, further the resolution of this conflict, then I think we will have done some useful good.

That's all I have to say.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Scott, followed by Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): The very first thing I'd like to do is thank Mr. Bryden very much for putting the thought and effort he has into drafting this motion.

Obviously the testimony we've heard from both parties in this dispute has had an effect on committee members, as has all the mail we've been receiving. As recently as a couple of days ago we were still receiving pleas for help. I certainly support the intent of this motion, which is to get the parties together and to get them to resolve this.

I'm not certain, at this point, whether or not it's appropriate to put an actual percentage of buyout into the motion. I'm certainly prepared to listen to and entertain discussion on that before I make my own final decision on it.

I certainly appreciate what Mr. Bryden's put together here, and I am very interested to hear what other committee members have to say.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I echo what Mr. Scott has said. I would be happy to second this motion.

I would, though, seek a little further information on the point that I think Mr. Scott was making. The intent here is to suggest, as Mr. Bryden pointed out, that certainly Indian Affairs and certainly the leaseholders....

I share his feeling; the Musqueam Band, it seems to me, has acted very appropriately, perhaps with some provocation and so on. If anyone's reputation has been injured, it's been theirs.

• 0920

I'm sure Mr. Bryden doesn't mean the 66.66% is necessarily where it should end up; it is a suggestion that there are three parties involved, and that some type of equitable, or as equitable as possible, arrangement be made.

So with the understanding that we're not tying anything to that number, I'd certainly be happy to second the resolution.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Chairman, maybe you can enlighten me. Several committees require motions to be presented several hours or days in advance of a vote. Is that also true of this committee?

The Chairman: No. In some cases, we require 48 hours' notice, but our committee doesn't object to a member bringing an urgent matter to its attention by way of a motion, without giving prior notice. This is left to the discretion of all committee members. We don't adhere to a hard-and-fast rule.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You must understand that I have just now acquainted myself with the motion,. I am not the party's spokesperson on this matter. Had I had several hours' notice, I could have contacted Mr. Bachand, asked him for his opinion and shared it with the committee. I feel quite useless and powerless. Consequently, I cannot support this motion point-blank or even agree that it should be voted on, should unanimous consent be required for a vote.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Nault.

[English]

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'm having a little bit of trouble with this motion, for a number of reasons. One is the fact that we're dealing with this somewhat blindly. I wasn't privy to the conversations Mr. Bryden had with the band, and if you read this particular motion, you get the feeling that somehow the band would like to buy out the leaseholders' interests. I don't know whether that's true or not.

The other issue that is causing me a great deal of concern is that some of the leaseholders themselves, some of the tenants, have said that the appraised value of their interests are zero based on the situation in which they find themselves now. So we're talking about 66.66% of nothing.

Before we go too far down the road with this, I would recommend we table this motion and look a little bit at the details before we decide on specifics like this. Based on the information we've received already, which is somewhat limited, they say at this point, if they tried to sell it to another person on the open market, they would get nothing for it.

I think we need to reflect on the wording of the motion, because the motion suggests that you go out and get an appraised value. A number of people have already told us in front of the committee that the appraised value of their land and their property is nothing. They couldn't sell it if they tried to sell their lease to another individual. I think it certainly is important for us to look for solutions. What is being suggested is one of them.

I'm just a little concerned that we may be moving too quickly in a vacuum, and that we don't really know all the details of this particular issue. Quite frankly, I think we should put a little more work into this before we decide to support or not support it.

I'd like to support this motion of Mr. Bryden's for a number of reasons—I do think we need to do something—but I'm not sure whether this is the right way to proceed, based on what I know. At this point, I just don't know enough about it to say, well, this is the best step to take, or the best recommendation to make.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I can't support the motion at all, the way it's written. I agree with Mr. Nault that there's too much information that we don't have. If we want to look at changing the motion, then perhaps I could support it.

You know, I'm hearing mixed messages here. We're in a discussion where we're saying the Musqueam Band has acted in good faith all along, and perhaps they haven't received the moneys they should have received from the federal government. The leaseholders are in a binding agreement that has been set up, and maybe they made a bad investment. That hasn't been said here, but maybe they made a bad investment. It's been argued from that side of the table all along that it's certainly not the federal government's position to bail them out.

• 0925

What we're doing here is embarking on a course when we haven't listened to all the players. We've met with the Musqueam Band, we've met with the leaseholders, but we haven't met with the band or the leaseholders....

Actually, the leaseholders would support a buyout. The Musqueam Band never commented on a buyout, one way or the other. We're putting numbers in here that are going to set parameters that somehow we're then asking the government to maintain. We didn't give them carte blanche to go and negotiate. I could be in favour of a motion that would ask the federal government, or the Department of Indian Affairs, to sit down with the Musqueam Band and the leaseholders and try to negotiate a buyout, but I don't think we can put terms to that.

So 66.66% may be fine, but I just don't think we can put terms to that. I think Monsieur de Savoye had a very good point, that the notice of motion should be 48 hours.

No? I thought the notice of motion was supposed to be 48 hours, but perhaps it's not. I won't argue that point.

But we have a motion in front of us. I think we could ask...because we're assuming that the Musqueam Band is in agreement with this.

An hon. member: No, we're not.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, the motion, as I read it, makes that assumption.

I think you'd have to take that out and put in that we would recommend that over the summer, the federal government—and I'm not trying to tear your motion apart—should meet with the Musqueam Band and the Musqueam Park leaseholders to try to reach an agreement on a buyout, if that can be done. I would support that.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise a point of order. Before we get too far down the road in this discussion, would you clarify something? I'm fairly new in this committee.

A number of committees have passed a procedural motion that says you have to give notice before you can put a motion on the floor. Is this committee one of those? If so, then this motion is out of order.

Mr. John Bryden: No, I gave notice.

Mr. Robert Nault: Did he give notice? I'm just trying to get it clarified.

I mean, we just started having a conversation about this. Could you clarify for us when the motion was sent, and whether that is a procedural part of this committee's work in the sense that people are to give notice? I don't know that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault. Each committee sets its own rules. We have already discussed the tabling of motions, but we did not come to any particular decision or determine that 48 hours' notice was required. Occasionally, a government or an opposition member may wish to bring an urgent matter to the committee's attention and may table a motion the very next day calling for the committee to consider the matter. If committee members want us to specify that notice of x number of hours must be given, then by all means we will think about it. Mr. de Savoye's point is well taken. Each committee operates according to its own rules and, if that is what committee members want, we could require 48 hours' notice of motion.

Mr. Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): For some reason, Mr. Chairman, I didn't get notice of the meeting. As well, I do believe there is to be a notice of motion of 24 hours to 48 hours.

In any event, the Devil is in the detail, as they say, and I agree with Mr. Keddy; I think all three parties should be around the table.

I hold the view that what has happened, for whatever reason, isn't fair morally or any other way. Simply because something was not right in 1999 terms, I don't think....

You know, we're great in this country for victimization history. We do this all the time. I don't buy the argument that, well, they were paying low rates for years, therefore we're suddenly going to change the formula and suddenly they're going to be hit with bills that are, I think, extremely excessive. I don't buy the argument, and I wouldn't vote for anything that would continue on that line. I don't think it makes any sense.

• 0930

Certainly the cases are here. I mean, you can't get blood out of a stone. Whether they're valued at zero, or somebody suddenly has to pay a $60,000 increase over a very short period of time, as we heard in some of the cases, I think there has to be a fairer way to deal with it. I think the only way to deal with it is to have all parties, which I thought was what we originally we were looking at, around the table to discuss the issue.

If you can't pay, you can't pay, and if the land or the property in question is valued or appraised at zero, nobody wins.

I would also be interested, Mr. Chairman, in whether we would be setting any precedent in terms of whether there are other cases that we may or may not be aware of at the present time where this also could occur across the country, where people have bought land on reserves and suddenly this might be a case. It may not have come to light.

So I think it certainly needs more study. Until we get more parties around the table...and I think reasonable people around the table can always produce reasonable results. I don't think we have enough information today to be able to do that, whether the motion is binding or not.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Hardy.

[English]

Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): I don't think we can compel the Musqueam Band to negotiate, but I think this would set a precedent. It would be very clear that we would expect the department to have processes that are fair, and that where they have been unfair and made a mess, they have to fix it. We can't expect those older people to lose their homes because of an arrangement where our department is responsible for the terms of that lease.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for us to expect them to address the situation in a fair way so that both the band and the leaseholders have something in the end. I don't think we can compel the band to do anything, but we should be compelling the department to clean up after themselves.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam.

Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): I support the idea of getting the Department of Indian Affairs involved in this situation. I don't think we should set 66.66% as a floor. If a house is worth a quarter of a million dollars....

Despite what Mr. Nault says, you can look at similar houses. That's the way they showed us how their land was being valued, by comparing similar houses in and outside the area. I'm sure that would be the rationale applied in this case.

You're asking people to walk away from maybe $80,000 or $100,000 of equity just to get out of a bad situation. I think we should be calling on the government to sit down and negotiate a fair settlement that's acceptable to the band and to the residents, and leave any dollar figure off it. We should definitely call on the government to involve themselves. I think we should continue on with our study of leases so that we don't come back and deal with this somewhere else.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: Just in response to your questions, we've done a fair bit of looking into lease situations across Canada. We don't know of another situation like this anywhere at the present time. That's not to say there isn't, but we're not aware of any other situations like this.

This has been a situation that's been around since 1994, basically, or 1995, and it's getting worse. It's creating all kinds of problems. It's creating animosity between aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people in British Columbia.

The department may not be totally responsible, but the department certainly had a hand back in 1965, and from then on has had a hand, in creating the situation. The leaseholders certainly have some responsibility.

As to the band, I can understand their feeling of being very unhappy with the lease rates they've had to put up with from 1965 through 1995.

I'm going to agree with Mr. Bryden that this is a human situation. This is a situation where real Canadians, 74 families, have invested in many cases their life savings. Many of these people are retired. Many of these people are World War II veterans. They have nowhere to go. They're looking to us as parliamentarians to do something to make this right.

• 0935

I don't know where she went, but I'm going to agree with our colleague from the NDP that the federal government does have a real role and responsibility here.

I'm also going to agree with Mr. Nault. I'm not sure that we should put handcuffs on the department and tell them that they have to do one thing or another in terms of percentages and so on.

I don't know how you resolve this, but if there is a will to resolve it, particularly on the department's part, I know it will get resolved.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I need to respond at this point or I'm going to lose track.

The Chairman: Allez-y.

Mr. John Bryden: With regard to Mr. Keddy's points, the Musqueam, in their open testimony here, did say that a buyout was more valuable to them than the new leases, but they're sticking to the new leases because they are in honour bound to a contract. They have not sought a buyout, even though a buyout is more profitable to them.

I have only taken that point because the buyout is, in effect, a way of compensating them without actually compensating them directly for their losses as a result of the bad leases in the past.

Secondly, the department has said that it does not want to broker the deal between the Musqueam and the tenants. The department, if I understand correctly, has made it very clear that it sees this as a landlord-tenant problem, and doesn't want to set the precedent of intervening in something like this.

With regard to the percentage of value that Mr. Nault is worried about, we're talking about the percentage of the leasehold interest. This is the bricks and mortar that was added on top of the property. It has nothing to do with the value of the land.

If somebody bought in recently and they have no interest in the property, of course they get nothing back from the deal. So it's a percentage of whatever is there, whatever individuals have there.

I would point out to you that they have, in my view, no legal access to any of that interest right now. There is nothing there for them. They bought into a lease that is now up, and they have to honour the investment they have made. If they lose everything because the Musqueam stand, quite properly, on their legal rights, then that's too bad for them. This is merely a way of saying that if we're going to bail them out, or if we're going to offer an arrangement that bails them out of their bad investment, I don't want to see them get a 100% bailout.

Now, if it would be preferable to the committee, we could change 66.66% to “a percentage”—anything other than 100%, because it would be improper to do so.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the members that whether this motion succeeds or fails is actually relatively immaterial. What's very important is to have had this debate to show that the committee is very concerned that the department resolve this issue.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: When I arrived here this morning, I did not know a great deal about this problem. However, your comments have helped to enlighten me as to what is at stake here. Thank you.

To begin with, the department should have acknowledged its responsibility in this area and not pulled out and left the community to fend for itself. One interesting realization to emerge from this debate is that someone in the department should be working to bring the parties closer together. If we want this issue to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, then we cannot impose a decision on the parties, even one reached by this committee. Success will be achieved if the parties agree to negotiate, if each side gives a little and everyone goes away a winner. The department will, however, need to get involved. We also need to bear in mind that these people aren't the only ones in Canada to have made a bad investment.

• 0940

[English]

Bad deals are not only for these people. Plenty of people are doing bad deals, year in and year out.

[Translation]

Not everyone who has made a bad investment can come before a parliamentary committee and ask to be heard in the hopes that we will resolve their problem. I think we need to be careful. We can instigate the negotiation process through the department, but we cannot secure bad investments in aboriginal affairs. We need to maintain some kind of balance.

Consequently, I would tend to agree with Mr. Bryden that the important thing here is that we are holding this debate, not necessarily that we adopt the motion. I plan to vote against the motion, but I'm happy that we are having this debate.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy, followed by Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the comments of Mr. de Savoye, but I think there's some agreement around the table, or at least there appears to be, that something needs to be done. I'm just remembering that when the Musqueam Park tenants were here, they talked about just walking away from their leases if people would take them over. That was one of the offers they had put down.

I would suggest that we change the motion to simply say, at the end, “share equally in the cost of a buyout of the leasehold interests of the tenants in Parcel A at a negotiated value of the appraisal”. By not putting in 66.66%, we're then not trying to pre-set terms that may or may not be acceptable.

As well, we're assuming that the Department of Indian Affairs and the Musqueam Park tenants and the band would be able to sit down and negotiate some type of settlement. If they can, then I think everyone wins. If they can't, well, we've at least tried to come to some type of resolution on this.

So instead of the percentage figure, I would prefer to put in, after the word “at”, the words, “a negotiated value of the appraisal”.

I have never, ever agreed that the land has no appraisal. The bricks and mortar have the same appraisal as any other pile of bricks and mortar in Vancouver. It's ridiculous to say that they don't have an appraisal.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. You've made a good point.

Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I appreciate that a number of people here didn't meet with the Musqueam Band, didn't meet with the Musqueam leaseholders, and haven't had time to study the whole background. I would remind you that the Musqueam Band put forward, back in 1982, an offer that if 50% of the leaseholders of parcel A were interested in buying this lease out for 99 years, as the leaseholders of parcel B were allowed to do, at 50% interest, they would have everything appraised and offer it at fair market value and so on. Then 25% of the leaseholders agreed it wasn't enough.

They made a similar offer 10 years later, and it too was rebuffed. This was in the time when the 30-year lease, 1965 to 1995, had been set up at $300 or $400 a month—or a year, John?

Mr. John Bryden: A year.

• 0945

Mr. John Finlay: So it was set up at $300 or $400 a year, with an allowable 1% increase over the 30-year period.

Land values in the city of Vancouver, as we all know, paid no attention to a 1% or 2% increase in inflation. This is what they were battling with. They made a couple of attempts to improve the situation in a very businesslike way. That's why the committee feels...and they've gone to court to establish what were decent rates. They didn't set the rates; the superior court in B.C. set the rates based on normal affairs. You appraise the value.

So I agree with Mr. Keddy. I would go along with seconding the motion if Mr. Bryden would reconsider the wording, and not put a figure in there.

I think the committee has examined this problem very extensively, and we want something done. We at least want to indicate that this problem is a festering sore, as Mr. Scott knows well and has told us on many occasions.

Let's do something directly, not ultra vires or anything. Let's say it. If nothing happens, well, nothing happens. When we have the ministry before us, we can quarrel about it again, but....

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Should we ask the Minister of Indian Affairs to set up a working group to study the matter over the course of the summer and gather information for us to consider further in the fall?

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: What one could do is change the 66.66% to “a percentage”. To come back to Mr. Keddy's point, with a leasehold interest what we're talking about is what the people have invested in buying the superstructure, the building, that type of thing, and any other kinds of improvements.

I would just emphasize that we're merely making a recommendation. What we're trying to do is what Louise is suggesting. That is, we're trying to force the department into this debate, because the department does not want to be in this debate. I myself feel that it has a certain obligation, because, as Mr. Finlay just said, the Musqueam have suffered for years a very low return on land that basically is some of the prime land in the country. So we have to reflect that.

If you want, Mr. Chairman, I can move an amendment that replaces that word. Then I think we should have a vote on this, because I don't want to take up the committee's time.

Can I make that amendment, then, to change it simply to “a percentage” of the appraised value of those interests?

The Chairman: That's fine.

Mr. John Bryden: Then let's have a vote called.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: You see, I'm opposed to putting percentages, simply because if I was the lessee, the tenant, I would be very upset at the suggestion that somehow I'm going to take a loss. That's not what anyone's looking for. What they're looking for is an opportunity that if the Musqueam Band is interested in buying out the leases—it's what seems to be suggested around this table—then Indian and Northern Affairs somehow participate in that.

Now, there are many different ways to participate. First of all, if that land is as valuable as Mr. Bryden says, it's not necessarily that important that this be some type of grant to the Musqueam Band. It could be a loan in order to buy them out and then they get their money back.

So I think it's not acceptable to suggest that INAC and the Musqueam Band share equally in the cost of a buyout. As far as I'm concerned, it should say they share in the cost of a buyout in some form. I mean, that's what you want, some type of arrangement where it will work. If you tie the hands of the motion to suggest that somehow the band—or the Government of Canada, in this case—is going to put so much money on the table, and taxpayers will eat it, that's not acceptable, because that land is worth a lot of money.

I still suggest, Mr. Chairman, for the sake of this debate, that this motion is extremely flawed. We should rethink it. I think we should stand it down, think about it, and put in a decent one that meets the needs.

• 0950

I'm not interested in suggesting that the tenant take a reduced amount of money in something they put their whole life savings into. I'm not prepared to do that, as a committee member. If it's possible that they can get the value out of what they put into it, and the Musqueam Band is willing to do that with some loans from the federal government, and then redevelop that land such that the federal government gets their money back, I think that would be a pretty good win-win for everybody.

But this motion doesn't say that. That's why I think we should stand it down, rejig it, and then bring it back so that it makes a little more sense, unless you want to start amending it a hundred different ways, in which case we'll be here all morning.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault.

Mr. Jackson, followed by Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): I'll try to be short, Mr. Chair, because this has been going around, this discussion.

I haven't been party to it, but what I've heard—and I'm usually a pretty good listener—is that throughout our great country we have situations like this. When people go on leased land, it's caveat emptor. It doesn't matter what you construct; when the lease expires, you either take your structure down or you're “S.O.L.”

Over the years, the longer it goes on, future generations forget the initial concept, and they think they own the land. What compounds this problem is the fact that it's happened all over Canada.

So I agree with Mr. Nault. We want to do something, but by making some instructions from here, we would create a precedent that could mean horrendous costs to the Government of Canada.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Keddy, followed by Mr. de Savoye.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I appreciate all the comments that are being made here, but I think it's important that we get to the motion. Many of us have another motion coming up at 10 a.m. I think we should keep it short.

I will make only one comment for the members who are not usually at this committee, that I think part of the reason....

I don't know the reason behind “share equally”, but I happen to really like the term, because part of the problem for first nations straight across the country is that many Canadians feel that they have had a free ride, to put it very bluntly. To share equally means it's not going to be negotiated 70% paid by the federal government and 30% by the band. It means they would share equally in it.

Certainly all Canadians would benefit if we had first nations on solid economic footing. If they share equally, then, I have no problem with the wording. I would still sooner see a negotiated value of the appraisal instead of a percentage, but I think we should get to the question.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

[English]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: If we want the parties to negotiate, we should not tie their hands. Any clause that indicates a direction, even “share equally”, I think will just prevent the parties from an agreement.

What if it's 55%-45%? That would probably be okay with us. But if we say “equally”, then we don't support 45%-55%.

Let's not put any constraints. Let's get the message out that we want negotiations to happen, we want the department to get involved, and we want results. That is the only thing we want, whatever it is. Let's not go into those details, or again, I'll vote against this.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I'd like to take Mr. Nault's point and stand the motion down. The point is, we've had this discussion.

I take Mr. Jackson's point as well, that we have to be very careful about setting precendents. We don't want to tie people's hands.

I think by having had this discussion—and this discussion will go into the committee Hansard—this committee will, in effect, be sending the message we want to send to the minister.

So I'm perfectly happy to stand the motion down, which indicates that we are prepared to bring a substantial motion forward if there's no action taken.

An hon. member: I didn't come here to go through all this and not vote on the motion. Come on, John. Let's vote on the motion.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Our proceedings are being conducted in camera and no transcripts will be published.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: It's broadcast.

The Chairman: No, it's just inside.

Mr. Konrad.

• 0955

Mr. Derrek Konrad: On a point of order, I understood you to say this would go into Hansard, but when I look at the top of the agenda, I see this is in camera.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, then, Mr. Chairman, I would move that this debate be taken out of camera and recorded. First of all, I hadn't realized—I should have noticed—that it was in camera. It's absolutely essential that people hear what this debate is all about.

If it is in order, the minutes of this discussion should be published.

An hon. member: I second your motion.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm happy to stand down the motion. It means we can bring the motion back if there's no action by the department over the summer, shall we say, when we reconvene in the fall. But it's absolutely essential to have this discussion in the public realm.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are you withdrawing your amendment?

The Clerk of the Committee: Which is it, the motion or the amendment?

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I would like to stand down both the amendment and the motion, as recommended by Mr. Nault, on the condition that this committee agree that this discussion is open.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Is there consent to continue in public from this moment forward and to stand down Mr. Bryden's motion?

[English]

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Mike Scott: I think we agree that the committee was not in camera right from the very beginning of the meeting, correct?

An hon. member: Yes. It's the only way to do it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. C'est fait.

Ms. Hardy.

[English]

Ms. Louise Hardy: I really object to the appearance of total manipulation that in order to try to pacify people who have legitimate concerns, whose livelihood is at stake, we would bring this motion forward, discuss it, and then yank it away at the last minute just so that we can say we had discussion and not be serious. Even though some people might say they think it's flawed, if we are serious about sending a message to the department and to the minister and to the people who are counting on us to do something—they have nowhere else to turn—then we're just playing games.

I don't want to be part of what looks to me like manipulation and game playing.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam.

Mr. Nault.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, that's a very interesting comment by the member. If she's so concerned, why didn't she bring a motion herself? The fact remains, the motion was brought by a member of the government side, who showed a significant amount of interest in it. No one is stopping anybody in the opposition from bringing any motion to this committee at any time for a debate. We can do that.

The issue is, if we have a flawed motion, we could spend all morning here trying to rejig it and do something of that nature. I think the importance of this is the debate itself. Members here really do have a concern. That should be, of course, a voice to the minister, loud and clear.

I don't buy the argument of the member that somehow this is not taken seriously just because someone pulled their motion.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, can we go to number one before everybody leaves? I think that's the most important part of the business. I don't mean to diminish Mr. Bryden's motion, but I think he has a right to pull his motion if he wants. He doesn't need to have the consent of anybody to do that. Then let's get into this one.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent to withdraw Mr. Bryden's motion?

[English]

An hon. member: We don't need that.

The Clerk: You need unanimous consent to withdraw the motion.

Mr. John Bryden: It's up to you, then, Louise. We need unanimous consent to withdraw the motion.

An hon. member: That's news to me. I've never seen that before.

Mr. John Bryden: I would prefer to do it. I acknowledge your concern, but I think we need to—

Mr. Mike Scott: Maybe with another resolution we could amend the motion.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: We can table the motion.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We can always write a letter to the minister requesting her opinion.

• 1000

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I'm concerned about Louise here.

I think it's important to move on to the next motion. If the committee wants to vote on the motion, I don't care. If it wants to table the motion, I don't care. I think the debate has been had, and there'll be an opportunity to come to the motion later.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: The motion can stand down. When we proceed to do a clause-by-clause study of a bill, we either adopt a clause, or we can stand it down. In French, we use the term “réserver”.

The Chairman: That's right. In English we use the expression “stand down”.

[English]

The Clerk: Standing down the motion.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Yes.

Let's stand that motion until further notice from the chair.

Right, Mr. Nault?

Mr. Robert Nault: We can stand the motion until further notice, Mr. Chairman.

The Clerk: Do you want to vote on it, that the motion be stood?

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I would quibble with the clerk here. I've seen it happen in committee probably a dozen times, but I'll double-check. She's referring to what happens in the House of Commons. In committee it's been common practice, one I've seen over and over again, that if a member changes his mind on his motion, he can withdraw his own motion. You don't need unanimous consent, or not that I am aware of. I'm going to double-check that, but I'm not of the view that the situation that occurs in the House of Commons is the same here.

I just want to put that on the record, because I think it's important.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden, are you prepared to withdraw your motion?

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I'm prepared to withdraw the motion, if that is possible, and I'm prepared to see the chairman stand the motion and bring it back when he sees fit. That would be perfect.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Agreed?

Some members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Then it's settled.

We will now move to the first item on our agenda: a letter to the Minister of Transport concerning a request by Air Inuit. You have in front of you a letter from the President of Air Inuit.

You are all aware of the problems that arise in the North when it comes to emergency evacuations and transporting accident victims who require intensive care as quickly as possible. We have here a letter from Mr. Peter Horsman who asks on page 2 that the committee make three recommendations to the Minister of Transport.

Yesterday, I learned that a working group has been struck by the departments of Indian Affairs and Health to examine the shortage of doctors in western Canada. A government committee of some kind has been set up to examine the shortage of doctors in northern regions and in Inuit and aboriginal communities. Should this working group also be given the mandate to examine the problem of emergency medical evacuations, regardless of whether the request comes from the Inuit and from other residents of the north?

Air Inuit recommends in its letter that the Minister of Transport consider doing three things. If we forward this letter to the Minister of Transport, we would also have to pass it along with the ministers of Indian and North Affairs and Health. Three departments should have a say in any decisions made. We shouldn't be passing the buck on this issue given that a working group has been set up. You've all read the letter. Are there any comments?

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Has a motion been drafted? If not, one should be.

The Chairman: No, a motion has not been drafted. We only received the letter late in the day yesterday.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I would like to move a motion to this effect.

• 1005

I move that the committee forward to the ministers of Health, Indian and Northern Affairs and Transport the three recommendations submitted to us by Air Inuit and that it urge the department to take follow-up action.

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I have a great amount of difficulty with this particular issue for a number of reasons. First of all, Air Inuit, because of its business practices....

What I mean by that is, it's very easy for Air Inuit to have a couple of pilots on standby who are not past their duty time and who are available to do these kinds of emergencies in the north. What we're suggesting is that we change the rules for the north in a way that's different from rules for the south. Even though they're suggesting “odd and extreme events”, they're taking the safety and health of the pilots and putting them at risk, suggesting that they can, in fact, work longer duty time, if necessary, whereas we've already decided in this country that they can work only so many hours and then they're off-duty. It's only done because it's the safest for the Canadian passengers, the travelling public.

What we're suggesting in this committee is that because of an extreme situation, a very unfortunate one, and because of Air Inuit's own business practices, we change our rules. I have a very large amount of difficulty with that, because I think it is a dangerous precedent to set as a committee to suggest that we should go back to the old rules.

The rules were put in place to protect the travelling public and for safety reasons. If anything, we should suggest to Air Inuit, in consultation with the Minister of Transport, that some situation be structured in the business practices that occur in the north such that there will be people on standby who will not be already over their duty time and can then be available. Obviously, they would be paid to be on standby, and then they could deal with some of these very important issues.

I'm concerned that the committee is buying—hook, line, and sinker—what this letter says, a letter from the president of a corporation who is looking for a significant amount of waivers, as he puts it, “to be conditional upon a strict operational specification, to be determined in conjunction with Transport Canada.”

Mr. Chairman, if this occurs with this corporation, I can tell you point-blank that in northern Ontario, a company called Bearskin will come calling five minutes later to say they would like the same, because they have 27 first nations that are totally isolated.

These things do occur in a lot of other parts of the country. To suggest that we are going to treat the safety of the passengers and the travelling public differently in the north than in the south is not, I think, an acceptable position. I can't support these recommendations as an individual who happens to represent a significant number of northerners who have to travel in wee little airplanes.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I usually agree with Mr. Nault, and I take what he has said very seriously. I don't agree with him, however, on this point. I don't care whether the letter comes from Air Inuit or one of the other five carriers who were all called that night by the chair of the local health board and by the president of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. I really don't care. The point is, what would have been done in the past without these regulations was not done. The regulations have gotten in the way of the people and the needs of people.

Now, I'm not going to decide how it should be done. I quite agree with Mr. Nault. Perhaps air carriers in the north have to have a built-in factor, or they can rotate it—day-about or week-about or month-about—among the five or six carriers. I don't care.

The point is, if a fishing boat goes down off the coast of Nova Scotia, we don't say, even though some of our equipment is not necessarily the best any more, oh, we can't go, and we're not going. We are going.

What hurts these people—and this is what we heard on Tuesday in this committee—is having to spend five and six hours on the phone, being told that because of this regulation and that regulation or because somebody hadn't slept for 26 hours or something or other....

• 1010

I mean, I'm sorry; I'm not buying that at all. I've already sent Mr. Horsman's letter—Mr. Chair, I want to be honest with you—to Roy Cullen, the chair of the Ontario caucus. I've sent it to the Minister of Indian Affairs. I've sent it to the Minister of Transport. I forgot about the Minister of Health, but I'll certainly do that too, if you like.

These are not stupid people. We have to sit down and figure out a way to adjust something. If you have to have another pilot, as Mr. Nault suggested, that's fine, and if Bearskin.... They should be bound by the same regulations in Ontario and in northern Manitoba and in the Northwest Territories and in Nunavut, or have the same ability to respond. They're all Canadians, and that's what we need.

If this isn't the right letter, that's fine, but I want the committee to know—or at least I want the powers that be to know—that this is not satisfactory.

I don't want to lay blame. Everybody worked according to the regulations. Well, somebody died according to the regulations.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

When we had Mr. Horsman speaking to the committee, I understand it was to some extent almost financially impossible for the company to have the extra staff on standby for these types of flights, and that they would need to have that ability to respond without...well, the ability to respond at all, in fact.

What this committee is asking is, they're looking for reconsideration; however, there is also the question of affordability, and whether it can be done under the current terms with Air Inuit and other companies working on a contract basis, where they're being paid per flight, and they have to pay so much for people to stand around waiting for a flight and so on. We just can't make a decision based on some set of rules applicable to, say, an hour outside of Calgary by air ambulance and so on.

I think we should ask for a reconsideration. We're not asking them to do anything. They can do anything. If we send this as a set of recommendations or, as Mr. Finlay said, any other set of recommendations, at least we're asking the government to look at this. If people are dying while waiting for help, I think this government needs to act. This committee has a responsibility to ask the government to look it over again and to see if something can't be done to help these people out.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Ms. Hardy, followed by Mr. Bryden and Mr. Jackson.

[English]

Ms. Louise Hardy: We need to ask for adequate medical response in emergencies, particularly in the north, where distances are so far, and not ask for regulations that are prejudicial to the north: “Well, if you live in the north, that means we won't necessarily provide safe transport for you, whether it's an emergency or not.” I think we have to ask for a quick medical response wherever we are.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Hardy.

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I do point out that throughout society we commonly expect our emergency service personnel to risk their lives when they go to the aid of people in a medical or any other kind of emergency, whether it's firemen, policemen, or whomever.

What we have here, at least in my view, is a situation where the regulations were changed such that the pilots would never be in a position where they would risk their lives because of fatigue or because of this type of thing. It seems to me that all that's being asked here is a reconsideration—I take Mr. Konrad's point—of regulations that ensure that the pilots are never in a position where they could possibly be in a situation of fatigue and that type of thing. We don't demand that of firemen. We don't demand that of policemen or paramedical personnel. When an emergency arises with these personnel, whether they're tired or not, we expect them to respond. They always have the option, if they feel they are in a state that poses a danger to themselves or to the public, of not responding, of backing off from the event.

• 1015

What I think you have here is a situation where the new regulations may have been applied too stringently. The answer, of course, is to create a situation where there are always pilots on hand who are fresh and within the regulations. But I submit to you that it might cost an enormous amount of money to expand the air services so that you always have pilots on hand to fit the regulations for a standard amount of occupational hours spent.

I would suggest that since this is simply a reconsideration, it is not an unreasonable thing to ask.

The Chairman: Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: I'll be quick, Mr. Chair.

I don't mean to prolong these discussions, but I think both Mr. Bryden and Mr. Nault are right. The problem is, you can't put a price on a human being's life.

We always learn from experience. Obviously there was an emergency. There's an old saying that if you fail to prepare, then you prepare to fail. I think any community has emergency preparedness. There are all kinds of schemes and so on. I know the Government of Canada contributes towards it. A whole series of people may respond, including the search and rescue people.

This situation should never happen again. We are not going to do it by changing regulations, because regulations were there. We can have another situation where somebody's going to get tired and crash, and maybe a whole planeload of people dies: Well, gee, we used this regulation.

I'd say the committee's very concerned. The loss of a human life obviously is not acceptable, and there should be a way to make sure it never happens again.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Yesterday, the Minister of Health sanctioned the cultivation and use of marijuana by persons with life-threatening medical conditions. In northern regions, equally serious cases requiring medical evacuation can arise. I'm sure you're aware of the recent case involving a woman who had suffered burns to her entire body. She was unable to be transported to hospital for 12 hours because there was no adequate transportation available. I may not have a problem with the minister sanctioning the use of marijuana by a seriously ill person to help him cope, but I think it's equally important to consider the survival of the Inuit and other northern residents who are injured in an accident. If a member of Parliament became seriously ill while travelling in the north, steps would be taken to evacuate him or her immediately because that person is a public figure. When an accident occurred in the Lac Saint-Jean area, the injured were transported by helicopter to nearby hospitals. However, in the north, communities are isolated. It's not even possible to call in the Canadian forces stationed to the south because it would take them too long to reach the scene. I believe we can find a solution to this problem, just like the Health Minister was able to resolve another problem by allowing certain individuals to grow marijuana. While I do have some reservations about this new policy, I realize that it is one solution for people struggling with a life-threatening illness.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if anybody's seen this letter written by Jean Dupuis, chairman of the Nunavik Regional Board of Health and Social Services, and then another letter written to our colleague, the member from Nunavut. Both of these deal with the real issue.

From past experience, I can tell you that built into the agreements we have in northern Ontario with the private firms that do medevacs is a 24-hour emergency service, where pilots are on standby and the abilities are there. That money is available for that particular need.

I see here that earlier this week—and I don't know which particular week this was, Mr. Chairman, although it must have been about two weeks ago now—you yourself made a motion in the House of Commons that air transportation medical evacuations being made available on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week, was an absolutely necessity for your region.

That's the issue. It's not that you change the ability of pilots to work an extra two or three or four hours of overtime. It's the agreement that either INAC has with the region....

I cannot accept that they have an agreement in this particular region that six air transportation carriers operating were not able to fly in medical personnel for care and medical evacuation on that particular day. That tells you what the problem is.

• 1020

The problem isn't, as suggested by Air Inuit, that we waive all the health and safety regulations so that they can work their pilots 16 or 18 hours a day. I think it's an extremely dangerous precedent for any member of Parliament to suggest that somehow that pilot's life isn't as important as the poor other person they're trying to save.

I would think that we would present a motion that suggests—as you have in the House, Mr. Chairman—that INAC and Health Canada, in conjunction with Transport Canada, enter into an agreement with these particular airlines in this region to have 24-hour, 7-day-a-week medical evacuation service, period.

That's the motion that should be presented at this committee today, not some skewed view of making pilots work 16 or 18 hours a day. That's a dangerous precedent to set.

If you want to send the signal that it's unacceptable, your motion in the House is the right one to present in this committee today. I would strongly urge that we do it that way instead of suggesting that somehow we reconsider the rules of how we govern the safety of pilots in the air.

I would be very nervous to find out that all of a sudden the pilot who's flying me in northern Ontario has been on duty for more than the maximum 14 hours. That's a long time to be on duty, with your eyes on where you're headed. I've already had a couple of planes crash in mid-air in the last year. Part of it was, as the pilots suggest, a significant amount of stress and the fact that they're tired.

I don't think we as members of Parliament should be suggesting that, even for a short period of time. We should suggest the real solution at this committee, which is the motion you presented, right in this letter. I wish everybody had received a copy of it, because it....

It was written to the Prime Minister, right?

Those are my comments. Either way, if you want to vote, let's do that, I suppose.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I take Mr. Nault's point, but I would point out that in what's before us, clause 3 says, “Such a waiver to be in force until the permanent ability to respond...is reasonably ensured.”

The way I'm looking at the situation, it's simply an interim thing to cover us, over the short term, for an accident that may occur. What happens if we have another burn incident next week if we don't have some type of motion that gets Transport Canada to at least modify, or reconsider modifying, the regulations until such time as we have the full 24-hour...? That would be in cases of odd and extreme events. It's very limited.

Perhaps what we need to do is add a fourth clause to this, that this committee recommends that Transport Canada moves as quickly as possible to provide 24-hour medical service.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Nault, followed by Mr. de Savoye.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: As a point of information for committee members, the medical services branch out of Health Canada can change this tomorrow. This is not an issue that takes months and months and months. All they have to do is say there is more money available for 24-hour service, and we're going to make it available to you right now.

It has happened in my region. We've changed medical services regulations in two minutes. The minister can do that at any time if it's needed for emergency purposes.

So I don't buy the argument that we have to put this in place in the meantime.

Your motion is the right one, Mr. Chairman. I stress that this is the issue, not eroding the health and safety of airline pilots.

There's enough stress up there already. When you're out in the middle of nowhere, if you do it on a regular basis.... I mean, those pilots don't have a lot of the tools you have when you fly around the urban centres. They lose contact, and a lot of times we've lost planes. They disappear.

My region, my riding, and the chairman's, is larger than the country of France. That's a big piece of territory in which to be flying around in a little plane that seats half a dozen people. To suggest that all of a sudden, well, let them work 18 hours a day, that's all right—

An hon. member: No, that's extreme, and that's not what—

Mr. Robert Nault: That's what we're saying.

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Robert Nault: It is.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are being asked here to propose an interim measure until such time as a permanent one can be put in place. No one will complain about the fact that a permanent measure should be in place in 24 or 48 hours' time, and there's nothing to stop us from agreeing on an interim measure. It's just that because of the time factor, voting for an interim measure won't have served any purpose.

• 1025

[English]

The fact of the matter is, this interim measure will be useful inasmuch as, and as long as, we don't have a permanent solution in place. If a permanent solution is in place tomorrow morning, having voted for the interim measure would have been useless. Nevertheless, there was a bit of thought to it.

If, on the other hand, it takes one month to put a permanent measure in place, this could save one life. Because it can save one life, it is worthwhile.

I just cannot understand how it could happen that someone so severely burned was not cared about for one full day because of air regulations. Regulations are made for people. It's not the other way around. I don't understand how this could have happened.

I happen to be the holder of a private licence for piloting, so I know a little bit about these things. One thing I know—this is the first thing you're taught—is that the last word on whether you take off or not is the pilot's. If the pilot thinks he can make it, whether he has flown only 2 hours of the day or 10 hours, he looks at the weather, he looks at himself, and he knows—or she knows—who is in the cockpit. The last decision is always the pilot's.

What I'm reading here is that we want an interim duty-time waiver. Second, Transport Canada will determine what this waiver's conditions will be.

I have the highest respect for Transport Canada. The book of regulations is that thick, and I am still getting all the amendments to it. There are all kinds of modifications for all kinds of circumstances. Air safety is not the same all across the country. It's not the same over Toronto as over the countryside. It's not the same crossing toward the States as going over to the north.

Air regulations have safety standards that accommodate specific situations. Transport Canada is very skilful at managing these issues, and always has been. So when I see here in the second part of the recommendation that Transport Canada will be part of the decision-making process on this waiver issue, I'm very confident they will make the right decision.

Third, this is in force only until a permanent response is in place. That could mean 12 hours, 24 hours, or a month, but if we vote on 1, 2 and 3 here, at least we know that we have done our duty to save a life if the occasion should occur.

I don't want to leave this committee having it on my mind that the life of someone might be in jeopardy because I didn't do my job. Let's do it.

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

In response to Mr. Nault's concerns about Air Inuit, I think this could be changed to take out the Air Inuit reference and also the Nunavik reference. That would make it a more broader application to remote areas. Really, that should be the thrust of this committee. It should not be simply to deal with Air Inuit and Nunavik.

I think I would be in agreement with Mr. Nault to attach your motion in the House as a final recommendation here so that it covers the range and gives the government some direction as to what we want to do until they do the fourth thing, which is also a recommendation of this committee.

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert Nault: I just wanted to ask, Mr. Chairman, if the research staff or the clerk or someone had talked to the other five airlines. As I understand it, according to the letter I read, six airlines are vested with the contract to supply services to the north.

We're taking a lot of stock in one particular airline. We haven't talked to the pilots. First of all, I think the pilots association of Canada would be outraged to find out that we didn't bother to ask them what they thought about extending their hours in any kind of circumstances.

• 1030

This is from Peter Horsman, the president. He's management. I understand he'd like to change the rules so he can get more mileage out of his pilots. I'm as concerned as the members across the way, but I'll tell you this, I would change the direction of this committee completely, as I said before.

The issue is not extending hours of pilots. The issue is that there is no 24-hour medevac service in these particular regions. That becomes a problem and an issue of finances, either from the Province of Quebec, in your case, which is a provincial jurisdiction off reserve, as I understand it, or the medical services branch in the territories, once we get out from under Quebec's jurisdiction.

It's too simple to take the views of one president of one particular airline and say this is the route we should take as a committee of the Government of Canada. I have grave difficulty with that.

I know people's hearts hurt when someone gets really hurt. I'm not debating that. I'm not trying to sound callous or anything like that. I just think the approach being suggested is that maybe people are in a hurry today, and they want to leave fairly quickly, but they're just accepting hook, line, and sinker what one president of one airline thinks about how we fix the problem. I don't think this is the solution at all to our particular difficulty.

I would certainly recommend that we see your motion in front of us and vote for that. I'd vote for that in ten seconds here. But I have very grave difficulties with our accepting these particular issues.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I'm well acquainted with Peter Horsman, the President of Air Inuit, as well as with Bob Davis, the President of First Air. When Peter testified before the committee earlier this week, he told us that the issue here wasn't the number of hours pilots fly, but rather the survival of northern residents. In the south, when an ambulance arrives on the scene several minutes too late to save a victim, then the story makes the headlines and there's hell to pay. In the north, the delay can often be up to 14 hours. Peter Horsman sent us this letter, not in his capacity of President of Air Inuit, but as someone who lives in the north. I know he has contacted several airlines, including Air Wemindju in Iqaluit, Nunavut, and that this doesn't seem possible.

Mr. Myers.

[English]

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Merci beaucoup, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not part of this committee, but I've listened intently to the arguments. I think there's some strength of feeling in terms of what's going on here, and I think it's a very healthy discussion, but with respect, I would ask you, Mr. Chair, that the question now be put on the motion you have.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

[English]

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

Yes, I would agree with my colleague, but I want to point out—and I know we're not taking attendance—that Mr. Horsman was not the only person here that we listened to the other day. We listened to the chair of the Makivik Corporation. We listened to the chair of the overall health committee, Mr. Dupuis.

He personally called, as did PATA, the six airlines. They showed us a map of where they were. We got the same answer in every case.

Mr. Horsman, with all due respect, is trying to provide something. He has made some suggestions. Apparently over the last year—I think there's even a task force on it, if I remember one of the letters I read—they're looking at this.

Again, it's not this committee's job, and neither mine nor Mr. Nault's, to decide how this should be done. It's Health Canada's or Transport Canada's job to decide how it should be done.

Let us send a message that we want it done. If it means somebody in authority has to overrule a regulation....

Whether it's 14 hours, 16 hours, or 10, or whether it's three pilots, two pilots or one, I really don't care.

[Translation]

The Chairman: The motion reads as follows:

The Government of Canada, in conjunction with the provinces, should move to establish a 24-hour emergency medical evacuation service for remote and northern regions.

• 1035

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Can we add “on an interim basis”?

The Chairman: Mr. Nault prefers “24-hour service”.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I agree with Mr. Nault, but until such time as permanent measures are in place, we must adopt some interim measures.

I support the recommendation made earlier. There are four recommendations to consider.

The Chairman: Three recommendations in the letter, along with a fourth.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: That's right, the fourth one I just mentioned.

The Chairman: The fourth recommendation is this:

The Government of Canada, in conjunction with the provinces, should move to establish a 24-hour emergency medical evacuation service for remote and northern regions.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: This, along with three other recommendations, should be passed along to Transport Canada and to the ministers of Health and Indian and Northern Affairs.

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: I just want to get some clarification before we vote.

There are two separate motions, as I understand it. One is this one here, the three points.

The Chairman: No, there's one motion.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if you would separate them, because I have no intention of voting for this, but I certainly would like to vote for the other motion. If you put them together, then I can't. I have no intention of putting people's lives in jeopardy.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Nault on separating them, but I can't vote for this motion where it says “an interim duty-time waiver for Air Inuit”. I would have to take Air Inuit out of that. They're not the only airline in the business.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Might I repeat the motion? I made the motion originally, remember? I'll repeat what the motion was.

The motion was that this committee transmit to the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Indian Affairs the three recommendations of reconsideration that we have in front of us. We just transmit it for action, whatever action.

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Finlay was just suggesting something that's pretty obvious. These three points suggest that we're really only helping Air Inuit. It says “waiver for Air Inuit”. It would make some sense to make sure that all airlines are—

Mr. John Bryden: It's simple; if we go along with this, we take out “Air Inuit” and we take out “in Nunavik”.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye's first motion reads as follows:

That the committee forward the following three recommendations to the ministers of Transport, Health and Indian and Northern Affairs:

[English]

The Clerk: The first is:

An interim duty-time waiver for carriers in northern and remote areas approximating pre-CARS standards, in cases of odd and extreme events.

So it's just taking out “for Air Inuit” and replacing it generally.

The second one is the same.

The third would read:

Such a waiver would be in force until the permanent ability to respond to extreme emergency events in northern and remote areas is reasonably ensured.

[Translation]

(Motion agreed to)

• 1040

The Chairman: The second motion reads as follows:

That the Government of Canada, in conjunction with the provinces, establish a 24-hour emergency medical evacuation service in remote and northern regions.

Does someone wish to change the wording of the motion? I'll repeat it.

That the Government of Canada, in conjunction with the provinces, establish a 24-hour emergency medical evacuation service in remote and northern regions.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We also have item 3, a letter concerning the Nisga'as and item 4. I know that some of you are pressed for time. Therefore, we will conclude with item 4, travel.

[English]

The Clerk: As you know, there won't be any travelling this summer. We haven't approved the budget and haven't looked at an itinerary. The budget subcommittee isn't meeting, and the House is adjourning today, I understand.

However, we could draw up a very nice itinerary and program for visits in the fall, if the committee wishes to start on something for its economic development study. Or we could do it in the fall.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Fisher could draw one up during the summer and forward the documents to the members in their riding so that they can ready themselves.

[English]

The Clerk: For those members who are planning to travel north individually, there are two letters from the Gitksan and from the Gitanyow hereditary chiefs concerning their attitude toward the Nisga'a agreement. If you're travelling up in British Columbia, you might like to go and visit these people.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: It was most enjoyable.

The Chairman: Indeed. We appreciate it very much.

I want to take this opportunity to wish all of you a marvelous summer and to thank you for your hard work and dedicated efforts on behalf of Canada's aboriginal peoples.

I would also like to thank our staff, that is our clerk, our research officers and all those who have worked with us, including the translators and interpreters assigned to this committee throughout the session. Thank you all very much.

[English]

Have a good summer.

[Translation]

The meeting is adjourned.