Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me considerable pleasure to bring this motion before the House today. I believe that it is an important resolution and one that deserves the full support of this Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is not presently a member of the International Whaling Commission. The motion before this House would state clearly and unmistakably that the government and the people of the NWT do not favour any changes in this status. We should not join the International Whaling Commission, Mr. Speaker, There should be no mistake about this. As elected Members of the Legislative Assembly of the NWT, we should convey this message to the Government of Canada.

History And Importance Of Subsistence Whaling

Honourable Members will be aware of the long history we have, as Inuit people, of subsisting on resources from the land and sea. Our relationship with the animals of the sea is based on more than just subsistence; in many ways, it is part of who we are. The aboriginal peoples of Canada have been described as "the world's best conservationists." This is true. For centuries we have cared for the resources of the land and sea, and they have sustained us. Throughout the NWT we have had an historic relationship with all species of whales. We have relied on them for food, fuel and bone. But we have also been mindful of the need to balance our needs with a sense of respect for the species and a commitment to their survival.

I believe that our traditional relationship with the resources of our natural world is part of the character of aboriginal peoples. That character is continually protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The International Whaling Commission

The International Whaling Commission is not an idea that was ever supported by aboriginal organizations. It was founded on December 2, 1946, with the signing of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. As an organization, it is supposed to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and orderly development of the whaling industry. It has established a scientific committee and a technical committee. Generally, the scientific committee provides information which forms the basis on which the technical committee develops regulations through which the IWC then attempts to control whaling.

The International Whaling Commission is presently made up of fewer than 40 member nations and is headquartered in Cambridge, England. Although Canada was originally a signatory to the convention, we withdrew as a voting member of the commission in 1981 because of IWC policy directions. Increasingly, the International Whaling Commission has become subjected to the influence of the same animal rights groups that caused the demise of the fur and sealing industries. These organizations have demonstrated that they have little interest in, or respect for, the traditional lifestyle pursuits of the aboriginal people of Canada.

This is reflected in the activities of the International Whaling Commission. Although the commission recognizes "aboriginal subsistence hunting" as a management category, it has been closed to accepting the right of the circumpolar groups to self-govern their own harvesting practices. In fact, as aboriginal people, we have been dismayed to see the humiliating and degrading way in which the reasonable requests of the last surviving Becquian of the West Indies, the Greenlandic Inuit and Japanese small-type coastal whalers have been dealt with by the other nations in the commission.

Over and over, decisions of the commission have been influenced by radical environmentalists and animal rights activists whose positions have been based on emotion rather than on any understanding of sustainable development or of the aboriginal way of life.

The decisions of the commission are supposed to be based on scientific evidence, Mr. Speaker, but the credibility of the commission's scientific committee is very questionable. In fact, at a January, 1990 conference at Aarhus University in Denmark, the commission and its so-called scientific approach to whaling management were roundedly criticized by members of the Society for North Atlantic Studies. One well-known anthropologist, Dr. Milton Freeman, dismissed the recent history of the IWC as one that has been based on politics and sentimentality. He described it as "the end of an era of attempted scientific rationality," and he argued that the resulting management decisions have caused serious and pervasive damage to a number of human communities. As Canadians we must ask ourselves why we want to be involved with an international organization that is responsible for that.

A politician from Greenland, Finn Lynge, attended the same conference as Dr. Freeman and pointed out that at the IWC, science is simply a costume that one puts over the attitudes one already has. He argued that the emotions stirred up by the animal rightr lobbyists are then cloaked in statistics or other scientific garb in order to sell them to the member countries of the IWC.

When one regards the low esteem in which the scientific community regards the International Whaling Commission, it becomes clear that the organization is now dominated by member nations whose long-term goal appears to be the pursuit of a policy of arbitrary protectionism to ultimately prevent the killing of any whale species for any purpose.

This should not be the goal of Canadians. As Northerners we have learned to be a little suspicious of claims that scientists have made about the animals and resources of our land. We should be especially suspicious of "bad scientists," and I believe this is what the Government of Canada would be buying if it paid for a membership in IWC.

The situation at the IWC, charged with international politics, has recently led Iceland to withdraw from the commission, and Norway has threatened to do the same. I think that Canada's Ministers of External Affairs and Fisheries and Oceans should be mindful of the comments made by Iceland's Minister of Fisheries when he stated, "The IWC is, and will remain, an outdated and ineffective organization."

Management Of Bowhead Population

I would like to talk for a moment about the most recent instance in which IWC has demonstrated its disregard for Canada's aboriginal Northerners. That has to do with the subsistence harvest of bowhead whales. Honourable Members will know that there has been a strong interest across different areas of the NWT in resuming the harvest of small numbers of bowhead whales. These populations have been well studied, both in the Eastern Arctic and in the Western Arctic. Today I will table two scientific articles that report on the status of the bowhead population in the Beaufort Sea and in Isabella Bay off Baffin Island.

Not withstanding this scientific data, member nations in the IWC has opposed the rightful interest of aboriginal people in resuming the bowhead whale harvest. Since the late 1970s, the commission has been driven by a policy that has placed a priority on reducing numbers of bowheads taken. That policy, Mr. Speaker, has been based on the so-called Brenham-Breiwick Report. Let me read you a description of this report by David Boeri's book entitled "People of the Ice Whale":

"Their report was based not on data actually collected out on the ice, but on results derived from a computer model they had designed to resemble the population of bowheads. After entering hypothetical data into the model and running the program, scientists had concluded that if their assumptions were correct, the population was declining and would probably continue to decline even if the hunt was stopped."

Based on this sort of shoddy analysis, the IWC embarked on a program which has been aimed at opposing even the subsistence harvest of bowhead that our elders remember clearly.

Mr. Speaker, during the 11th Assembly, Mr. Arlooktoo and Mr. Kilabuk both called on the GNWT to support bowhead hunting. Mr. Allooloo did his best, I believe, in bringing this issue to the federal government. The House passed a motion on March 13, 1989, supporting Inuit hunting of bowhead whales, but the truth was that the Government of Canada was placed under significant pressure from environmental lobbyists and seemed to resist our interest in exercising this inalienable right to harvest the bowhead. When approval was finally given for Inuvialuit to take a single whale, the International Whaling Commission had the audacity to raise objections to it. Mr. Speaker, we do not need, and we do not want, to belong to such an organization.

Management Of Small Cetaceans

Currently the International Whaling Commission does not have responsibility for the management of small whale species like beluga and narwhal, but some members of the commission have shown no hesitation to make poorly advised comments about the harvest of these species. And current pressures from the international animal rights community have raised the notion that the commission should assume this responsibility.

At its annual meeting in 1989, the commission adopted a resolution that the scientific community should begin to draw together available information on these species. It was agreed that a report on this work should be forwarded to the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

It would seem as though it is almost inevitable that the commission will attempt to assume management responsibility for small whale species in the near future. It is also likely that this action will be catalyzed by resolutions that are expected to come from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development later this year.

Mr. Speaker, the IWC has not been sensitive to the cultural aspects of the traditional harvest of large whale species, and we can only assume that its approach to the management of small cetaceans will be equally insensitive. I believe that it is important that the Government of Canada not participate in any process that will be interpreted as supporting IWC involvement in the management of small cetaceans. Clearly, the commission lacks the competence, either in terms of scientific background or in terms of aboriginal knowledge, and it is listening to the wrong people in terms of the input it is receiving.

Economic Reasons

Mr. Speaker, there is another reason why Canada should not become a member of the International Whaling Commission. With the prevailing fiscal climate, Canada simply cannot afford to rejoin the IWC. Membership fees are substantial, and there would almost certainly be substantial unseen costs.

Further, one only has to take a quick look at the recent financial history of IWC to realize that this is not a well run organization. At almost every meeting a substantial amount of time is devoted to discussions of the commission's serious financial problems. In 1989, it was announced that the organization had a cash shortfall of over $245,000, and almost no progress has been made in correcting that since then. Certain member nations are allowed to overlook membership payments and carry serious debts from one year to the next. Yet the commission continues to require increasing amounts of money from those member nations that do pay. Between 1988-89 and 1989-90 the budget of the organization grew by more than 35 per cent, while the budget for research funding was reduced by about 15 per cent. In fact, the chairman of the commission's scientific committee has even suggested that members should consider making direct voluntary contributions to fund research activities of the committee and seek funding sources within their own countries. If that is the case, what, then, is the benefit of joining the commission?

The commission is, in my estimation, a top heavy and ineffective body. I do not agree that Canadian tax dollars should be used to fund the interests of governments in other countries who need to satisfy animal rights lobby groups for their own political purposes.

Conclusion

A decision for Canada to renew its membership in the international Whaling Commission would not make sense from a moral perspective. It would place the aboriginal people of this country in constant conflict with the federal government over management issues, and it would make bad financial sense. I am not alone in this view, Mr. Speaker. The Inuvialuit have been able to experience the workings of the IWC first-hand as members of the Canadian observer delegation at the last three annual meetings. They will also be going to the upcoming meeting this year in Glasgow, Scotland. The Inuvialuit are, therefore, probably in the best position to comment on the issue of whether Canada should renew its membership in the IWC. Their stance is very clear on the subject. They have stated, "Our carefully considered position is that it is not in the best interests of the Inuvialuit of Canada to rejoin the IWC."

Based on the history of the commission I would have to go even further, myself. It is not in the best interests of the aboriginal people of Canada to rejoin the IWC. I understand that consideration is now being given in Ottawa to the idea of reconsidering Canada's position on membership in the IWC. This review seems to be happening with little consultation between the ministries involved and the First Nations of Canada. I think that it is important for the Legislative Assembly of the NWT to send a clear message to the Government of Canada that our people do not want to see this country resume its membership in the International Whaling Commission. I would urge all Members to support this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe Ms. Mike has articulated the arguments quite explicitly as to why it is important for Members of this House to support such a motion. I have had my opportunities to speak to a young man by the name of Billy Archie, who was a participant in the Inuvialuit delegation to the annual meetings, and he has explained to me on many occasions how difficult it is to convince the International Whaling Commission even to address the matter of a bowhead whale for the Inuvialuit community and how difficult it was to even explain to them the aboriginal harvesting rights that existed and how difficult it was for the delegation to try to assure the International Whaling Commission that they would continue to maintain their traditional concern with regard to harvesting of whales in Canada.

I only can say again that Ms. Mike has articulated extremely well why this motion should be supported by Members of this House, and I would ask all Members to rise and support this motion.

To the motion. Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had a brief discussion on this motion with my officials two days ago. My department and I support the harvesting of whales as long as the population can be sustained. Secondly, we wish to see Inuit and Inuvialuit, especially, maintain their link with the land. We also support the management of whales by those who use the resources. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the motion, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Question.

Question is being called. Would the mover like to conclude debate?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments of other Members, and I hope they will support this motion. I want to close this debate by saying again that Canada should not be a member of the International Whaling Commission. There are activities that we can undertake instead. I am aware, for instance, that the Inuvialuit have already jointly developed a beluga management plan for the Mackenzie Delta. They are now actively working toward an international management plan for this stock shared with Alaska.

There is considerable support for the development of a circumpolar whaling commission under the control of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. I believe that this is one subject that will be discussed further at the forthcoming ICC conference in Inuvik in July.

I am sure the honourable Members will be aware that progress is being made, as well, in the establishment of an international arctic council. The dialogue that will take place in this council will likely facilitate international resource management and aboriginal rights-issues as well. I believe that management and conservation issues can be addressed through these initiatives. Canada does not need to become a member of the International Whaling Commission. It should not renew Its membership. I would urge all honourable Members to vote in support of this motion.

Motion 10-12(2), Carried

That concludes debate. All those in favour? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried unanimously.

--- Carried

Item 16, first reading of bills.

Item 17, second reading of bills. Ms. Mike.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent to return to tabling of documents.

The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent to return to Item 12, tabling of documents. Are there any nays? There are no nays, proceed, Ms. Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table Tabled Document 38-12(2), an article entitled "Isabella Bay, Baffin Island: An Important Historical and Present-Day Concentration Area for the Endangered Bowhead Whale of the Eastern Canadian Arctic," authored by K.J. Finley and published in 1990 in the Journal of he Arctic Institute of Canada; and Tabled Document 39-12(2), an article entitled "Estimates of Bowhead Whale Numbers in the Beaufort Sea during Late Summer," authored by Sue Moore and Janet Clarke and published in 1991 in the same periodical. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Tabling of documents. Item 18, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters: Tabled Document 9-12(2), Strength at Two Levels; Tabled Document 10-12(2), Reshaping Northern Government; Tabled Document 12-12(2), Plebiscite Direction; Bill 14, Appropriation Act, No. 1, 1992-93; Motion 6-12(2), Discussion on Sobriety Clause and Contribution Agreements; Bill 5, An Act to Repeal the Neptune Resources Corporation Loan Guarantee Act; Committee Report 3-12(2), SCOF Review of the 1992-93 Capital Estimates; Bill 12, Tobacco Tax Act; Bill 22, Write-off of Assets and Debts Act, 1992; Bill 23, Loan Authorization Act, 1992-93; Bill 7, Interim Appropriations for the GNWT for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1993, with Mr. Nerysoo in the chair.

The committee will come to order. What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Chairman, if we could handle Bills 7, 14, 23, 22, 12 and 5, in that order, it would suit us just fine.

Is that agreed?

Agreed.

--- Agreed

We will now deal with the matter of Bill 7, An Act Respecting Interim Appropriations for the GNWT for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1993. Mr. Pollard, do you have introductory remarks with regard to Bill 7?

Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that I be joined by Mr. Voytilla, the secretary of the Financial Management Board, and that I be able to appear at the witness table.

Is it the wish of the committee that we invite witnesses in?

Agreed.

--- Agreed

Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms, could you escort the witness into the committee, please? Mr. Pollard, do you have introductory remarks with regard to Bill 7?

Minister's Opening Remarks

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Interim Appropriation Act, 1992-93 provides the authority for the government to continue operations until the main appropriation act for operations and maintenance expenditures is presented and approved by the Legislative Assembly. Once the main appropriation act for 1992-93 operations is approved, the interim authority ceases to have effect.

The Interim Appropriation Act is intended to provide the minimum appropriation authority required to maintain operations until the end of July, 1992. The interim appropriation calculations are based on the revised 1991-92 budget. These calculations include no allowance for inflationary or volume growth beyond what was experienced in the 1991-92 fiscal year. As a result, departments will have to carefully manage expenditures during the period covered by the Interim Appropriation Act.

Mr. Chairman, the Interim Appropriation Act includes no amounts for program or services enhancements, nor does it reflect any significant program or services reduction provisions. Major changes to current operations should not be made before a full budget is developed and debated in the Legislative Assembly. I have previously advised Members that it is the government's intention to present the full O and M budget to the standing committee on finance in June of 1992.

Mr. Chairman, concern has been expressed that the Interim Appropriation Act is based on appropriation levels that are forecasted to generate a significant deficit in the 1991-92 fiscal year. However, until the government has had adequate time to develop well-thought-out plans, consult with affected parties and debate proposals in the Legislative Assembly, it would be premature to attempt to make the significant adjustments that are necessary to deal with the deficit. As a result, the government has asked for this interim time to properly plan and consult. We thank Members for agreeing to this approach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Chairman of the standing committee on finance, do you have opening remarks?

Comments From The Standing Committee On Finance