Debates of Oct. 21st, 1994

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the 41st report of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs.

If so, I move that the 41st report of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present five petitions today on behalf of individuals all across Canada, including from my riding of Wild Rose and other areas of Alberta.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my next petition contains the same signatures from across Canada asking to prohibit assisted suicide.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition, is asking to extend the protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

I respectfully submit these petitions on behalf of these signatories.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of submitting a petition signed by 122 residents from the riding of Verchères and the surrounding area, particularly the municipalities of Saint-Amable and Saint-Antoine-sur-Richelieu.

The petitioners feel that, by abolishing the universality of the tax credit for seniors, the government unfairly targeted pensioners' income. They also feel that this measure is basically discriminatory from a tax point of view, since it affects people who have already made a significant contribution to the Canadian economy and will keep them from improving their standard of living over the next few years.

Consequently, the 122 petitioners urge Parliament to oppose any measure which would have the effect of reducing the income of retired people. Needless to say that I share the views of these petitioners and that I strongly support their representations.

[Elijah Harper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hudson Bay Route Association, I would like to present petitions containing 2,626 signatures.

The petitioners call on the minister responsible for the wheat board to maximize grain shipments through the port of Churchill and to ship at least 5 per cent of Canada's annual grain shipments through Churchill.

I agree with these petitioners. The port of Churchill is a valuable but underutilized resource. It is the most direct route from the prairies to salt water. We have to overcome the ignorance about this northern port so it can live up to its potential.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of my constituents asking Parliament to revise the Young Offenders Act.

Question On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 75 will be answered today.

Question No. 75-

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

To what do the $3.2 million in budget cuts at the Department of Veterans Affairs, announced in the 1994-95 Estimates, apply?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Secretary of State (Veterans]

This $3.2 million reduction was allocated to the operating budgets of all areas of Veterans Affairs except Ste-Anne's Hospital and Saskatoon Veterans Home.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question referred to by the hon. parliamentary secretary has been answered.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by seven minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2).

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, an act to establish a board having jurisdiction concerning disputes respecting surface rights in respect of land in the Yukon territory and to amend other acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Yukon Surface Rights Board Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for North Island-Powell River has 30 minutes left if he wishes to use them.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will resume from where I was interrupted.

In addition to the $8.3 billion that I was speaking about there are another 460 specific native claims and lawsuits that currently have no dollar figure and do not form part of the known liabilities. Frankly no one knows what the total amount may be. That is the frightening part.

If the Minister of Finance is that concerned with the fiscal situation he might want to start a review of the policy and settlement mandate the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development currently employs. It is an untenable situation warranting immediate action.

The Reform Party during debate of Bills C-33 and C-34 cautioned the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development about setting these kinds of precedents for claims from a land mass perspective as well as the compensatory side and in terms of ongoing commitments. Our concerns were dismissed and it has come home to roost.

We could sit here and argue about the settlement of outstanding land claims, but there is no argument. The Reform Party supports an early and mutually satisfactory conclusion of outstanding land claim negotiations. Our argument and our opposition is because of a lack of any recognition of the cost of concluding these deals. The federal negotiators are exhibiting a blank cheque mentality. This is not only wrong; it is irresponsible. Here we are being asked to endorse this mentality.

We have heard today how the minister does not think he can order the royal commission to table its report on aboriginal peoples. The government has written additional cheques to keep this royal commission alive. Surely those who write the cheques have as strong a mandate as those on the royal commission who want to keep it alive.

Bill C-55 gives impetus to Bills C-33 and C-34, including the area of financial compensation. As well, Bill C-55 will create a process to resolve disputes between parties guaranteeing rights of access to private lands. It will also create the Yukon surface rights board which will implement the process of dispute resolution and allow orders of the board to be enforceable in court. Bill C-55 will also confirm that the legal rights of minors are unchanged.

I recognize that the bill is the normal progression of what was introduced and debated last spring. While House procedure and standing orders preclude me from raising the contents of Bills C-33 and C-34, it does not disallow me from reinforcing Reform Party opposition and concern over the manner in which we conclude agreements of this magnitude. It is too bad the

government did not choose to consult as extensively on Bills C-33 and C-34 as it appears to have done in this enabling legislation contained in Bill C-55.

Business, particularly the very important mining sector in Yukon, was not given the same opportunity to participate in the deliberations leading up to the introduction of the Yukon final land claim. While drafts of Bill C-55 were circulated to the mining community and groups representing them, at no time was the same courtesy extended on Bills C-33 and C-34.

I have had individuals in Yukon tell me they were caught unaware of the previous provisions of the federal government Council of Yukon Indians agreement that they are paid to know about until it was signed.

In view of some of those preliminary comments it behoves me to turn to some concerns the Reform Party has with Bill C-55. Let me assure the House that my party's contribution to the debate will not be obstructionist. However I would be remiss if I did not offer some constructive criticism of some clauses of Bill C-55 and my colleagues will add other comments.

Part I of the bill establishes a process to resolve disputes between parties concerning surface rights and access to subsurface rights. More specifically clause 8 establishes a board to be called the Yukon surface rights board consisting of a chairperson and not less than two or more than ten other members to be appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Half the members other than the chairperson should be appointed on the nomination of the Council of Yukon Indians.

Part I is really the essence of the bill. Part I and the manner and type of appointments that are made will make or break the credibility of the board and hence the bill. The minister has enormous power in the appointment of members. While five members are to be nominated as potential candidates to the board by the Council of Yukon Indians the minister is omnipotent. With this power can come the tendency to politicize the board.

The greatest fear industry has in Yukon is that the minister will be tempted to place some good old Liberals on the board to ensure things go the right way or his way. I implore the minister to exercise a non-partisan approach in his decision making on board appointments.

I have some concerns that I expressed earlier in the House. I give the example of Michel Robert who was the Liberal appointed this spring with a non-tendered $249,000 contract to negotiate at Oka for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Mr. Robert is also the appointee to SIRC, the so-called watchdog for CSIS.

The board will decide which dispute can be brought before it only after the parties attempt to resolve the issues themselves. It is contingent on the success of this clause that board members exercise good judgment and possess a real sense of responsibility.

Otherwise we could have obvious favouritism on spurious or vexatious issues brought before the board that will consume not only valuable time but valuable resources in the form of per diems that will be paid board members, in the case of the chairperson $300 per day and $250 per day for members.

This could become costly if we have board members or a chair who is looking for something to do. In short, the board cannot become a hotbed for patronage appointments. Before we know it we could have Joe Clark appointed to another chairmanship.

At our departmental briefing, Reform Party MPs were told that no staff shall be appointed to the board. Clause 19 of Bill C-55 clearly allows the board to employ such officers and employees and engage the services of such agents, advisers, and consultants as are necessary for the proper conduct of its business and may fix the terms and conditions of their employment or engagement and pay their remuneration.

What we were told in our briefing runs contrary to not only clause 19 from which I just quoted but also clauses 20 and 21 which grab further latitude for the board to acquire personal property in the name of the board and enter into contracts in the name of the board. Just what is the budget allotted to the board beyond per diems for members and why were we given misinformation in our briefing?

The board will be empowered to set the amount of compensation for expropriation of settlement lands and the amount of compensation for pockets of government land retained within settlement lands.

The board's orders will be final and binding, enforceable through the Supreme Court of the Yukon territory. This is awesome power beyond reproach and I can only hope we know what we are doing and start right by appointing on merit not politics.

Part II of the bill deals with rights of access on settlement lands. The terms and conditions for the board's operation are clear in this area. The mining industry in Yukon appears confident that part II is drafted in such a way as to avoid interpretive problems. However, part III, mineral rights disputes on non-settlement lands, is ill-defined and therefore troublesome. The jurisdiction and powers are ambiguous in clauses 65 and 66 which constitute part III. What is of major concern with these clauses is that 50 per cent of the board be designated by the Council of Yukon Indians as specified in part I.

Therefore what we have is a 50 per cent aboriginally designated commission having jurisdiction in matters related to non-settlement lands. I can foresee the possibility of nothing but turf wars as a result and a counterproductive exercise based on race and cultural interpretation. Perhaps it is not wise to have the majority Yukon residency requirement on the board and the

50 per cent nominations list from the Council of Yukon Indians. Perhaps we are creating unnecessary racial strife.

At the outset of my remarks I said that Bill C-55 may confirm the principles contained in Bills C-33 and C-34 and put them into effect. However in no way does it end dispute or in itself resolve conflicts that may arise.

Bill C-55 may conclude the land claims process but it opens a new vista with many new problems requiring many new solutions. I realize the veil of uncertainty that has stifled investment in Yukon must be removed. Industry in Yukon has expressed a desire to put this issue and uncertainty behind it. The Reform Party appreciates this need for clarification and stability in land claims. Now at least industry in Yukon knows the rules but that does not say it or the Reform Party has to like those rules.

The Reform Party is on the record as supporting the early and mutually satisfactory conclusion of outstanding land claims. In the Reform Party's opposition to the process of establishing the land claim settlement as contained in Bills C-33 and C-34, we feel we articulated our vision and pointed out the deficiencies in the legislation.

In good conscience we cannot support holus-bolus all facets of Bill C-55, particularly the jurisdiction of the board on non-settlement lands. We will not impede economic development in Yukon and the enunciation of the rules that will dictate this development.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

I am happy to rise to address the issue of Bill C-55, the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act. I must say I was going to oblige the member for Capilano-Howe Sound by wearing my Bermuda shorts and dark glasses, however the dress code of this House does not permit me to do so in talking to the bill.

I do have a comment to make on the speech of the member for North Island-Powell River. He mentioned the participation of the Yukon Indians as being over 50 per cent on the board and talked about some racial problems that might arise. This seems like a judgment even before the board is off and running. There is no confidence in the Council for Yukon Indians being able to make up its mind and determine who is going to be on the board and what kind of board it is going to be. If we had a little more trust in our aboriginal organizations, this country would be a lot better off.

I want to join the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in urging support for this legislation. I believe the House has an obligation to move as quickly as possible on Bill C-55 so that residents of Yukon can begin to benefit from the certainty and the confidence that land claims settlement will bring to the territory.

After more than 21 years of negotiations, we finally reached a framework agreement to settle the land claims of the 14 Yukon First Nations. The establishment of a new surface rights regime which will be accomplished through Bill C-55 is the next critical step in implementing the agreement.

This is a pivotal day for Yukon. Yukon residents expect us to proceed responsibly and without further delay. They want us to address our moral and legal obligations to the First Nations people.

As the minister has stated we have already adopted legislation to put in place a territory wide framework for First Nations land claims settlement agreements and to implement self-government for the Yukon First Nations. We have before us today the final piece of legislation that will allow the finalization of these acts.

Bill C-55 is significantly different from the two acts we approved before the summer recess. The bill deals with very specific matters and is extremely technical. I can assure members that Bill C-55 has been drafted with the interests of all Yukoners in mind. It is fully in keeping with the Government of Canada's obligation under the umbrella final agreement negotiated by governments and Yukon First Nations.

Bill C-55 provides for the establishment of the Yukon surface rights board and a new surface rights regime that reflects the changing realities of land ownership in Yukon. I know some hon. members on the other side of the House have been expressing concern about the role and the powers of the board.

The role of the Yukon surface rights board is straight forward. It will deal with disputes relating to land access, use and compensation throughout the territory. However the board's services will be called upon only when direct negotiations between the affected parties have failed. There will be more certainty for everyone in Yukon when the bill is enacted and we begin to implement First Nations final agreements.

Bill C-55 will put in place a new regime for obtaining access to private and public lands that will put it on a level playing field with other Canadian jurisdictions. It provides for clear rules and regulations.

This is not a scheme that has been pulled out of a hat. This approach to dispute resolution has been applied elsewhere in Canada and is working well. In fact the Yukon surface rights board has been modelled on similar boards that are currently operating in Alberta, Saskatchewan, B.C. and Manitoba. The

provincial boards were established to address disputes between surface owners who were generally farmers and subsurface developers such as oil and mining firms.

In Yukon we anticipate that when disputes do arise they will primarily involve mining companies that hold mineral rights on non-settlement lands where others have surface rights or interest on land owned by First Nations, similar to the situations in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The same basic principles of reasonable access, responsible use and fair compensation can and will apply to resolving disputes in Yukon.

Once the Yukon surface rights board is formed the government intends to take its members to Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Manitoba where they will observe the provincial boards in action. The government may also invite a senior official from the provincial boards to Yukon to provide training or other assistance.

As the minister has noted this is a cost effective alternative to using the courts to resolve disputes. It will encourage mining and petroleum companies as well as governments to work in partnership with First Nations and other land users so that all parties can benefit.

The board will not even hear a dispute unless it is convinced that a serious effort has been made by the parties to come to an agreement. In addition to reducing costs for all parties, the provincial boards have enabled quicker resolution of disputes than would be possible through the courts. This in turn has helped prevent lengthy and costly delays in resource development.

I think the minister would agree that the Government of Canada, Yukon First Nations, the mining and petroleum industries and the territorial government would be happy if the surface rights board never met, in other words if there never were any disputes to resolve. However this is not a utopian world and we cannot sit back and hope that everything will work itself out. We cannot expect that there will never be a disagreement between two parties, both of whom may have reasonable and legitimate concerns.

In the interests of good public government we must be prepared to deal with issues as they arise. This is why it is important to proceed now to create a surface rights dispute resolution mechanism in the Yukon.

I am extremely confident the surface rights board that will be put into place by Bill C-55 will be an effective institution of public government. It will operate in a fair and responsible manner to ensure that economic development proceeds in Yukon in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the umbrella final agreement. It will also protect existing rights including mineral rights of third parties in the settlement area.

Let me remind hon. members that Yukon First Nations have never resisted development. Rather, they have said only that they want a voice in how resource development will proceed. As land owners they will have that voice. Guaranteeing 50 per cent of the board's members will be nominated by First Nations ensures that First Nations and other Yukoners will have input into the important decisions that need to be made.

In addition, third party rights or interests on non-settlement lands are recognized in the bill and the umbrella final agreement. The need for this board was clearly identified in the umbrella final agreement. It simply replaces the government officials or courts now identified in the mining legislation as the dispute resolution body.

Let me assure the House that the Yukon surface rights board will be created in a manner that is financially responsible as well as responsive to the needs of the people of Yukon and Canada. Obviously costs are involved in setting up new institutions of government, but through careful planning and management these costs can be controlled. The Yukon surface rights board will be kept as small as possible. Staffing will be kept to a minimum and proceedings will be expeditious.

Bill C-55 will achieve some very specific goals, but it is important for the House to consider the broader implications of this proposed legislation. Most fundamentally we must understand that without Bill C-55 the settlement of land claims in Yukon cannot be concluded.

Once again our efforts to address the rightful claims of Yukon First Nations will be stalled. Another generation of Yukon Indians will face the prospect of starting anew to negotiate an agreement that all parties have already accepted. Vital economic development opportunities will be lost. We cannot and must not allow that to happen. The Government of Canada made certain commitments in the umbrella final agreement in 1993, including the commitment to create a surface rights board and we must live up to those obligations.

I would like to remind my hon. colleagues of the debate that took place in the House some four months ago. That debate determined conclusively that the umbrella final agreement is a solid agreement that will benefit all residents of Yukon. By providing a secure land base, settlement agreements will empower Yukon First Nations to build a better future. The territorial government and all Yukoners will benefit from increased economic activity and from the strengthened political development of the territory.

In addition to confirming ownership of vast areas of land, Yukon First Nations will be entitled to significant financial compensation. This compensation package is essential to the future prosperity of Yukon First Nations. It will give them the financial resources to create jobs within their communities, to

deliver social services and to generally establish a better standard of living for Yukon Indians. These achievements will benefit all Yukoners and all Canadians.

All of us can appreciate that much more is at stake here than a new surface rights regime. At stake here is the economic growth of Yukon as well as its political and administrative development. Also at stake is the spirit of partnership, trust and mutual accomplishment that government is working hard to establish with First Nations in Yukon and elsewhere. The very future of Yukon First Nations is at stake. They have already waited far too long to have their voices heard and their concerns addressed.

With that in mind, I urge hon. members to look beyond the legal and technical complexities of the bill, as important as they are. I urge them to embrace a broader viewpoint to acknowledge that the Yukon surface rights board is vital to the land claims settlement process. I remind them that land claims settlements are something all Yukon residents and Canadians want and expect us to achieve.

This is the time to move forward to lay the foundation for a better future for all people in Yukon. Toward that end I urge my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-55 so that it can proceed as quickly as possible to the other place. This is the only responsible course of action to ensure that implementation of the Yukon First Nations final and self-government agreements can proceed without further delay.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the opening comments by the member who just spoke there were some statements regarding the Reform's concerns about the ability of the Council of Yukon Indians to designate its representatives to this board.

On the contrary, we have no concerns about its ability to designate representatives. Our concern, as expressed in my speech, related to and focused on the minister's ability to make this into a hot bed of patronage and to set up a divisiveness and other turf wars that are of major concern to us.

I wanted to set the record straight on that and ensure there was nothing on the record that would indicate we agreed in any way with those statements.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I heard quite clearly the hon. member saying that because of the 50 per cent participation of the Council for Yukon Indians on the surface rights bill there might be a place for some leaning in a racial way. That is why I made those comments. To me that was undermining the council's ability to look at problems it might encounter through the surface rights bill in looking after the interests of all Yukoners.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and the answer to my colleague's question.

We are after the 10 best people from Yukon to address these matters. It is in no way to be implied that it is a racial question that we are bringing up here. I would like the hon. member on the other side to understand that.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if we look at the blues there will be comments in there that clearly state the word racial. That is why I made the comment that this was uncalled for.

Yes, we are looking for the 10 best people or the best people the Council of Yukon Indians can offer to settle its disputes. I would be honoured if all members of the surface rights board were Indians from the Yukon area. They probably could do a better job than anybody else in the country in settling disputes that will arise.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise in the House today to oppose Bill C-55.

The bill is the handmaiden of Bills C-33 and C-34, two pieces of legislation debated before the summer recess and passed despite the serious objections of many well-informed Canadians, including the opposition of the Reform caucus.

I am told that Bills C-33 and C-34 cannot take effect until we pass Bill C-55. I would like to be able to support all three pieces of legislation because I support the progress of native Canadians toward taking full responsibility for themselves and for their future. Unfortunately a number of concerns with this bill prevent my supporting it.

However, I wish to mention some positive aspects. First, given transportation problems in the north for so much of the year, I applaud the bill's provision that board members can attend their meetings by telephone.

Second, I was also pleased to see that this board can only intervene on matters brought to it by others and cannot just insert itself willy-nilly into negotiations which the parties are settling on their own.

Third, because delay of rulings can cause real hardship, especially due to the very short work seasons for mineral exploration and development north of 60, I was especially pleased to read section 27 which states:

An application before the board shall be dealt with as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit.

Fourth, faced with the probable administration nightmare generated by Bills C-33 and C-34, at least the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development consulted widely and publicly among the many affected groups and general public of Yukon as to how the expected conflicts of interest ought best to be resolved through new legislation in Bill C-55.

It is my understanding that 16 months ago some 11 interest groups were sent draft copies of the proposed legislation including the Yukon Chamber of Mines, the Klondike Placer Miners Association, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and two groups representing Yukon trappers and outfitters. Coupled with advertising in area newspapers, the government apparently has made a sincere effort to bring all parties immediately concerned into the discussions, a praiseworthy method of proceeding.

However, I also believe it is my responsibility in opposition to point out the shortcomings of these pieces of legislation and my firm belief that no native group should be granted self-government rights greater than those of municipal type governments. The very amount of land to be covered by Bill C-55 together with certain riches of natural resources involved makes the subject far too large for municipal type administration

It is my hope that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will listen and improve the process of dealing with what will be among the most long lasting and consequential actions of Canadian federal government for all time. I say for all time because these land claim settlements and dispute settling mechanisms will no doubt set precedent for the entire process of settling native land claims still outstanding, especially in the province of British Columbia.

In addition, they obligate Canadian taxpayers far into the future. This latest piece of legislation, Bill C-55, if we include all the lists and guides needed to find particular topics, requires some 64 pages to sort out the mess created when the government decided to hand over jurisdiction for many thousands of square miles of Yukon territory to be administered by the so-called First Nations.

I have great admiration as well as sympathy for Canada's native peoples. Moreover, as our native people demonstrated the readiness to take over the running of their own affairs, I strongly support dismantling the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and handing those rights over to the natives themselves.

Because I believe in full equity among all Canadians with special status for none, I also believe we must take great care to ensure that Canada does not create by this kind of legislation the very sorts of racial homelands and racial biases for different treatment of our people, which the government and people of South Africa have been struggling for generations to root out of their country.

Therefore, I also believe that any further federal responsibility that in any way differs from the way the federal government deals with each and every other Canadian should also stop, cease and desist at that point, when by passing legislation like Bill C-55 we hand over the running of native affairs to natives themselves in a reasonable and efficient manner.

However, these three pieces of legislation go far beyond anything I can call reasonable and efficient. The legislation also maintains special federal responsibilities to Yukon First Nations, including large cash grants and creating separate living areas and entitlements based solely upon race.

At the same time, the legislation package gives virtually all the rights and responsibilities of a full fledged modern nation to these groups whose total population is approximately 7,300 divided into 14 bands and scattered across some of the least populated land remaining on our planet.

Even Canada's smallest cities have populations larger than the total population of these groups, which are now to be considered nations. Nor can it be any secret to any citizen concerned about public affairs in their own municipal governments that cities like Vernon and Salmon Arm in my own riding of Okanagan-Shuswap often are hard pressed to provide the personnel and pay for the services their residents require.

It is more than ridiculous; it borders on the tragic to heap so much responsibility upon so few. The only thing making it possible is the ongoing financial support of all Canadian taxpayers; support for an inefficient administrative rat's nest, here boxed and wrapped as Bill C-55.

Bill C-55 creates a group to resolve land use conflicts certain to arise because of this government's decision to transfer responsibility for all "use, management, administration, control and protection" of some 16,000 square miles of land equal to about 75 per cent of the province of Nova Scotia to those 7,300 Yukon natives.

Included are natural resources, businesses, professional and trade licensing, responsibility for all construction, zoning and land development, sanitation and planning, operation and use of vehicles, prevention of pollution and protection of the extremely sensitive Yukon environment.

We all know that the Liberal government likes to brag about the number of jobs that Canadian citizens and entrepreneurs have managed to create in the year since the 1993 election despite federal government overregulation, mismanagement and overtaxation.

There can be no doubt that some of those jobs have been directly created by government. It seems apparent that native land claim settlements will become a big player in the job creation scenario because there will be administrative jobs for anybody who is not busy testifying about the many disputes likely to arise from changing the status of this parcel of land equal as I mentioned above to about three-quarters the size of the province of Nova Scotia, land now being divided into category A settlement land, category B settlement land or fee simple settlement land.

The major purpose of Bill C-55 is to create some group that would have the authority and resources to settle the many disputes springing to life when miners, trappers, big game guides and many ordinary Canadians suddenly realize that areas where they may have thought themselves previously legally entitled to earn their living now have been handed over from either federal or territorial jurisdiction to control by the First Nations.

That dispute settling body is to be called the Yukon surface rights board consisting of a chairman and from two to ten other members, a majority resident in the Yukon Territory, with half the members appointed on the nomination by the Council of Yukon Indians.

I note that neither being a member of the Yukon First Nations or having an interest in their land shall be considered as grounds for disqualification. I have some concerns that this Yukon surface rights board may become a nesting site for that well known political species, the patronage appointed bird.

I believe it is important in all government groups to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest, and so I hope that all concerned will take special care on that point.

Beginning on page 33 of the legislation, this act deals with mineral rights disputes on non-settlement lands. I must question the logic of this legislation doing so many things on the basis of race only but then granting authority over non-native lands to a board half composed of natives.

Additionally, because there are so many different pieces of legislation involved, namely the Canadian Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Yukon Placer Mining Act and the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, it seems that the Yukon surface rights board will have to develop some fairly sophisticated methods of weighing the various claims because virtually nothing is spelled out in Bill C-55.

What principles should the board apply to settle disputes? Is time of filing important? How long must a person have filed a mineral claim for natives to recognize it? What amounts of royalties will bands be allowed to request from proposed developers of mining property? What environmental protection bonds will be required? What percentage of band funds can be devoted to develop a mine that may employ natives?

I am sure that all of us hope that the Yukon chiefs and band councils are going to be fully responsible to their local band members in a democratic fashion. Where is the board's responsibility to either native or non-native people spelled out? Bill C-55 does require the board to make an annual report but it does not state in cases of conflicts of the best interests of natives with the best interests of non-natives whose interests should prevail. Can we today not envision such disputes lasting for many years?

Finally, I was somewhat surprised to see that this board has been given discretion regarding awarding any and all costs of hearings they undertake. It is all well and good to direct that the hearings shall be conducted on the native lands wherever possible and also that the hearings should be dealt with as quickly and as informally as possible.

Nevertheless, I believe past experience should warn us that hearings involving serious conflicts of interest with native land claims have been known to drag on for many years to the delight of lawyers and other hangers on of the Indian establishment. The legislation proposes no limits, for example, on the number of legal advisers or other so-called experts which either side to a dispute might wish to summon. To that extent I am afraid that we are once again committing taxpayers to sign and pay for a blank cheque.

Some people are saying that the majority of disputes will arise and be settled shortly after Bills C-33 and C-34 come into effect. However, as population increases and resources become scarce during the next century on this planet, I believe that the people of Canada and the Yukon First Nations may well see themselves tied up in virtually endless administrative wrangling over surface rights in Canada's north.

I sincerely hope that Bill C-55 provides an adequate framework for the settlement of such disputes. However I see no clear evidence to make me reasonably certain that peace, order and good government for all people of Canada, including other provinces and future generations, will be well served by passing Bill C-55. Therefore, I ask the House to support me in opposing it.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the hon. member a question. The term native was mentioned in the debate a lot during the speech of the hon. member.

I wonder if the hon. member might elaborate a bit on how he feels about the way aboriginal people in Yukon have been treated over the last number of years and whether he agrees that the aboriginal people, the Council of Yukon Indians, and other aboriginal groups deserve some recognition because of the fact that they were here for quite some time before the arrival of the rest of the Yukon population.