Rob Oliphant's Speech to the House of Commons on M-298, Transportation and Public Infrastructure for the North

June 8, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member who spoke previously for her support of this private member's motion, and I too speak in favour of it.

I begin by talking about my experience in northern Canada, having lived in Yukon for six years, experiencing the challenges that one has while living in the north with respect to both public infrastructure and social infrastructure, and simply getting around and servicing smaller communities as well as the larger cities.

This private member's motion opens up that discussion and allows us to begin to have a comprehensive strategy that involves the stakeholders in it. This motion is about conversation. It is about dialogue. It is about inclusion and it is about including those people most strongly affected by the lack of infrastructure in the actual debate and discussion about their futures.

The hon. member for Edmonton East and I were recently travelling in the far north on a trip to Greenland. It was an exciting trip, to actually see the way a different country has developed some infrastructure and to take some time to compare the infrastructure in Greenland with the infrastructure that we have in our Canadian far north.

There is a marked difference between what Denmark has done in Greenland and what Canada has managed to accomplish in the far north. We are sadly lacking in public housing, in the various ways that people are housed and cared for, and the transportation links that keep Greenland together.

They are looking forward, on June 21, to additional self-rule, which will be essentially the autonomy of a province. It will be very similar to what we have in Canada, a little further than our territories have but probably not as far as our provinces have. This motion begins to look at the way we involve other jurisdictions in the discussion about providing for transportation, housing and medical needs, and the social infrastructure that complements that.

I would want to challenge my friends in the Bloc Québécois to open up their understanding of this bill, because I do not think that there is any challenge to provincial jurisdiction by allowing local economies, local communities and local governments to be involved in the discussion. This is exactly what they would be advocating for, to ensure that all participants have a fair voice in what is going on in the way public money is spent and what the aspirations are for individuals and communities.

I want to challenge them to actually support this bill, to actually engage in our conversations. This improves the jurisdiction of Quebec in its discussion around its north and brings us into a partnership discussion with the federal government to ensure that resource dollars are being spent adequately and fairly, so that Canadians all across this country are not discriminated against because of their geography.

I also think it is important to note that this motion does not define what we mean by north. I think that the previous speaker could also be challenged to say that this motion is actually inclusive and open. It understands the possibility that north is more about attitude than it is about latitude. It is the way that people live, and each of our provincial jurisdictions can define that in understanding their own provincial north, to understand that dispersed, rural and isolated communities that have a northern atmosphere, a northern understanding and a northern inclination are included in this discussion.

That may change in different parts. It is not simply north of 60. It is about involving people who share a common way of life. It brings our Aboriginal communities, our First Nation communities, our Inuit communities into this discussion in a fair and equal way, with eye to eye-level discussions to talk about what their needs are, what their aspirations are, what their hopes and their dreams are. This motion commends to the government a kind of open dialogue to say that all people in Canada are of equal importance.

What this motion also does is stretch our imagination a bit to what the far north is about. We need to begin in this discussion to understand that Canada's north is not about sovereignty alone. It is about people. It is not about infrastructure. It is about people who live there, who have a traditional way of life or a new way of life, and who are learning to cope together with the changes that are happening due to climate change.
We need to be ready and aware and understand what is going on with respect to the changing boundaries of our country because of climate change. Our people need to be ready. We need to have the kinds of things necessary to understand the economic opportunities as well as the cultural benefits of being in the north.

No gateways are working right now to help transportation and the flow of goods through Canada's north. European goods could actually be transferred to the Far East much faster if we developed trade routes across Canada's north.

If we had deep sea port facilities, and if we had the necessary infrastructure around those facilities, long-term jobs could be created, not simply seasonal jobs, which would complement the traditional way of life.

We can do this in an environmentally sensitive way so that we do not change the way people live unless they are part of that change, unless they choose to make that change, and unless that change is sensitive to the cultural importance and the cultural determinants that are going on in the discussion. This would lead to improved education, improved health, and to improved economic opportunities for the people of Canada's north.

If we can improve the life of the people of the north, then we can improve our sovereignty stake in the north. We are at risk of losing our sense of who we are in the north as other partners in the global community try to claim it.

It is not as though the north is full of penguins like the Antarctic. The north is filled with people who have made their destiny, who have created families, and who seek to live there because of economic opportunity and to improve their cultural situation. The government has failed so far to come up with a comprehensive strategy on an infrastructure program to facilitate that.

I am pleased to support today's private member's motion because it does not command any province to be involved but rather invites them to participate in the discussion. It invites local communities, First Nations governments, and Inuit governments to be involved in the discussion to further the good for all Canadians.

All of Canada will be better if our far north is better. All Canadians will be better if Inuit Canadians and First Nations Canadians are included in determining where they want money to be spent with respect to infrastructure.

Infrastructure is about improving the quality of life. Dollars spent on improving our environment will save dollars later on in health care. Dollars spent on infrastructure improvement for education will save lives, save jobs, and save money later on in lost employment and loss of understanding of human worth. Money spent on alcohol and drug treatment centres will help to improve the quality of life for people later on.

We must open up Canada's north, protect its culture, protect its people, and involve them in the discussion about the strategy and the way to do this.

I am pleased that the member has brought the motion forward. It will take some imagination on the part of the government to support it. I am looking forward to the government's support as well as the support of all opposition members.