House of Commons Hansard #131 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.
The House resumed from November 24 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 Yukon territory and to amend other acts in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-55. The function of the board will be to resolve disputes between parties concerning surface rights and access to subsurface rights.
As the House knows, this bill is linked to two previous bills passed-let me rephrase that, rammed through this Chamber-that dealt with land claims and self-government agreements in Yukon.
Unfortunately, the passage of Bill C-55 will allow these previous bills to come into force. One of our reasons for opposing this bill is because of its close association with the other two bills. Further reasons to oppose Bill C-55 are derived from its potential to increase bureaucracy, increase government expenditures and create conflict of interest situations.
The umbrella final agreement between the Government of Canada, the Council of Yukon Indians and the Government of Yukon was signed on May 29, 1993.
Chapter 8 of that agreement sets out the requirement for establishing the surface rights board and outlines some of its duties and powers.
Bill C-55 is the enabling legislation to create such a board. I am pleased to see within schedule II, clause 2(1), the use of waterfront right of way on settlement land for recreational purposes is guaranteed and cannot be limited by the powers of the board.
Further, the board cannot deny a person the right to cross and make stops on undeveloped settlement lands in order to reach adjacent lands for commercial or non-commercial purposes. As well, people will have the right to enter, cross and stay on undeveloped settlement land for recreational purposes.
In all, I am pleased that an individual's right to travel across lands in Yukon for recreational or non-recreational purposes will not be subject to stringent entry and exit parameters as established by the board.
As well, another important aspect of the bill is that it does not change the legal rights of miners. I would like to turn to some of the problems that I see contained within Bill C-55. Let us first look at the bureaucracy.
At a time when the government is drowning in deficits and debt, we have to be extremely cautious as to any possible increase in government expenditures. What we see issuing forth from DIAND in the form of land claim and self-government agreements are increased expenditures through increased bureaucracy.
This is demonstrated in the umbrella final agreement and Bill C-55 is simply one piece of a larger, bureaucratic maze yet to be constructed in Yukon. The Yukon surface board is one of five boards, panels, councils and subcommittees yet to be established in Yukon pursuant to the umbrella agreement and previous Yukon legislation.
Yet to be created are the following: Yukon land use council; Yukon heritage resource board; Yukon geographical place names board; fish and wildlife management board and its salmon subcommittees, all to be funded by the federal government. Let me rephrase that as well, all to be funded by the taxpayers of Canada.
In all, when we speak of expenditures and when we consider that Bill C-55 is an agreement dealing with matters within Yukon territory and specifically dealing with matters relating to Yukon Indians, I believe it is only fair to ask these two parties to pay for the operation of the board.
Yukon Indians have been awarded power over resources, power in taxation and they have been given financial compensation for a 15-year period. Given these abilities and given the fact that 50 per cent of the membership of the board are Yukon Indian
nominees, it is only reasonable to ask them to pay their fair share of the costs of the operation of the board.
Our amendment at committee stage would have achieved this cost sharing agreement between Yukon Indians and the territorial government but it was soundly defeated by the Liberal majority. Therefore Bill C-55 will pull more money out of the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer everywhere in Canada since the federal government has so generously agreed to fund the entire cost of the new board.
Let us look at finance. I am pleased to see that clause 23(5) allows the Auditor General to review the financial statements and financial transactions of the board annually. Unfortunately past experience has demonstrated that while the Auditor General has raised concerns over the lack of accountability and expenditures of moneys at DIAND, the department has displayed complete disregard for the Auditor General's recommendations.
However, it is curious that while Reformers proposed amendments to Bill C-34 that would have allowed the Auditor General the ability to review the financial transactions of self-governing institutions making use of federal moneys, these amendments were defeated by the Liberals at committee and in this House.
As well, with respect to the expenditures of the board, I am concerned with clause 23(2) and the notion that the board's budget will include moneys for cross-cultural orientation and education. This seems to be wide open for abuse. I am looking forward to seeing the guidelines for cross-cultural orientation and the expenditures that such an orientation will incur.
Let us now turn to patronage. Other portions of this bill which concern me are clauses 8 and 19. Clause 8 stipulates that members of the board are to be appointed by the minister of Indian affairs. This is a board that is ready for a whole multitude of Liberal patronage appointments. The Liberals have shown no fear in their first year in office in appointing their own cronies to various positions within government or awarding government contracts to the party faithful.
Then again maybe we are being too critical. After all, perhaps it is all a coincidence and like the Prime Minister said they are qualified individuals, they just happen to be Liberals.
Old line parties like the Liberals are incapable of raising their political morality above this age old tradition of appointing old friends and confidants. Accordingly we have proposed an amendment which would allow half of the members of the board to be appointed on the nomination of Yukon territorial government. This would be similar to clause 9, section 2, which permits Yukon Indians to put forward nominees to be appointed. Again our amendment was voted down, thereby ensuring that 50 per cent of the board will be ripe for patronage appointments from Ottawa.
The possibility of patronage does not end with appointments from the federal government. Clause 19 of the bill allows the board to hire consultants and advisers and fix the terms of their employment as well as their remunerations. Again the possibility exists whereby members of the board may seek to employ their closest associates as consultants or advisers.
When and if these people are hired board members can use the Prime Minister's excuse; yes, he is a consultant hired by the board, yes he is very qualified and yes he just happens to be a friend and, best of all, he happens to be a Liberal.
Let us now look at conflict of interest. Following closely on the heels of this possible problem with patronage is the bill's wilful disregard of problems surrounding conflict of interest situations. Subclause 10(3) is very specific in assuring that neither appointments nor an individual's membership on the board shall be affected by the fact that they have an interest in land in Yukon territory.
Therefore it is possible that a conflict of interest may arise since a member of a panel of the board may have a direct interest in the outcome of a case brought before him or her. Again we put forward what seems to be a reasonable amendment to ensure that board members may not sit on panels that are considering matters which may have a direct impact on the interest of that particular member. Again this was voted down by the Liberal majority.
However there may still be hope since clauses 18(a) and 18(b) allow the board to enact bylaws relating to the grounds for removal of members and the assignment of members to panels, respectively.
I would hope that the board in its wisdom and in drafting these bylaws would ensure that a member can be removed for blatant conflict of interest activities and that panels of the board will not consist of individuals who have a direct interest in the outcome of the cases before them.
We in the Reform Party have continually argued for public involvement in these agreements between Indians and government. The government of B.C. appears to have recognized the discontent the populace is feeling with respect to the secrecy of land claim negotiations and has taken some small steps to open up the process.
The public wants to be consulted on these matters and it wants to know how these agreements affect it. As residents of B.C., as residents of Yukon and as citizens of Canada they have a right to know, a right to participate. It is the crown's land that is being dealt away and it is their money that is being scattered about.
While the province of B.C. may be waking up to this reality this government has made no meaningful attempt to include the public in negotiation of these agreements.
DIAND briefing material with respect to Bill C-55 states that the public was consulted by sending the guidelines to major interest groups in Yukon. Not enough consultation? Then how about this: An advertisement was placed in Yukon newspaper announcing the availability of the guidelines for review by the public.
The bottom line is that there was virtually no public involvement and no information relating to the board, its operations, its duties, its powers and how it affects the residents of Yukon. We hear similar complaints over Yukon land claims and self-government agreements.
There were only a chosen few who were aware that such legislation was ready to be tabled. Indeed even as parliamentarians we were not alerted until 48 hours before the legislation was to be tabled in this House.
This government promised consultation. This government promised public input. This government promised to listen. These were hollow promises. Obviously this government is not concerned about the public input. This government is not worried about the public's concerns.
This government is simply worried about expediency in passing legislation that creates more bureaucracy, more patronage, more conflict of interest and costs the Canadian taxpayers a ton of money. With these goals and with the present financial health of the federal treasury it is apparent as to why this government attempts to keep the public in the dark.
While I recognize that industry supposedly favours this bill simply to settle native land claims in Yukon and therefore remove blockades to investment, I cannot support this bill for the reasons cited and its link to Bills C-33 and C-34.
Jack Iyerak Anawak LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak today on the third reading of Bill C-55, Yukon surface rights board act.
I am honoured to participate in this debate because I know how much this bill means to the people of Yukon. When we pass this bill and it is proclaimed along with Bills C-33 and C-34 which were passed by this House last June Yukon land claims settlement will come into force. The years of waiting will be over. The people of Yukon will be able to get on with their lives in new partnerships and new relationships with each other and with other Canadians.
Hon. members will recall that Bill C-33, Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act approves and gives effect to the land claim agreements of four Yukon First Nations: the Vuntut Gwichin First Nation, the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun, the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, and the Teslin Tlingit Council. Bill C-34, Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act gives effect to the self-government agreements of the same four Yukon First Nations.
Bills C-33 and C-34 also authorize the governor in council to approve and declare valid future land claims and self-government agreements negotiated with the remaining 10 Yukon First Nations.
All these bills flow directly from the umbrella final agreement signed by Canada, Yukon Territorial Government and the Council for Yukon Indians on May 29, 1993.
Bill C-55 is the third and final piece of legislation required to bring Yukon land claims settlement into effect. Through Bill C-55 a new surface rights regime and dispute resolution mechanism will be established in Yukon to accommodate the new land regime set out in the claim agreement.
As a result of Bill C-55 industry and individuals in Yukon will have a known regime for obtaining access to both private and public lands. This regime will provide clear rules and regulations. Once this bill is enacted and we begin to implement First Nations final agreements there will be more certainty for everyone in Yukon. That certainty will translate into economic development opportunities. This will contribute to the government's objectives of putting Canadians back to work. The importance of providing this solid basis for economic growth and diversification in Yukon cannot be overstated.
Passage of this bill which will bring Yukon Indian land claim into effect signals to all Canadians and to international investors that Yukon is open for business. As well, the surface rights board and the other institutions of public government that result from Yukon land claim agreement will contribute to the political and administrative development of the territory. Important decisions will be made in Yukon, not in Ottawa. This is an objective supported by all Yukoners, the territorial government and the Government of Canada.
Clearly Bill C-55 does more than just create a new institution of government. It is critical to the social, political and economic evolution of Yukon.
I reviewed very carefully the speeches given by members of the opposition during second reading debate of this bill. While most were critical, as is to be expected in opposition speeches,
some contributions were thoughtful and constructive. Others were plain meanspirited and some contained errors of fact.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Bloc Quebecois for their support in this House and in committee of this bill and of the settlement of Yukon land claim.
The hon. member for Saint-Jean took the time this summer to visit Yukon. He met with representatives of Yukon Indian people when he was there. His effort to get to know this most beautiful region of Canada and the wonderful people who live there is appreciated. While I do not agree with his entire philosophy, his effort to gain a better understanding of aboriginal issues by going to Yukon was certainly a step in the right direction.
I trust the hon. member and his party will be as open-minded, supportive and generous in dealing with the aboriginal claims of the aboriginal peoples in his own province.
As an aside, I do have to correct the member on an incorrect statement in his second reading speech on Bill C-55. He stated that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was entirely financed by the Quebec government and that the Government of Canada did not invest any money in it. That is false. The Government of Canada is a signatory to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and has ongoing implementation responsibilities and obligations. The Government of Canada has provided substantial funding in support of this agreement. I want to correct any misunderstanding there.
Getting back to Bill C-55, during second reading most members of the third party contributed a lot of misinformation. I am being extremely charitable in this characterization of their comments. This bill was called a recipe for disaster, among other things on more than one occasion.
I want to assure members of the third party that Yukon land claim settlement, which this bill will help bring into force, is not a divisive thing. It is an achievement of which all Yukoners and indeed all Canadians can be proud. It represents a bonding of the peoples, a coming together of different interests and perspectives for the common good.
I remind hon. members that the bill before us today cements an agreement which took over 20 years to negotiate. The parties to this agreement, Yukon territorial government, the federal government and the Council for Yukon Indians, all brought different positions and views to the negotiating table.
Over the years negotiations floundered many times. Leaders and governments changed. Negotiators changed. Negotiating parameters changed. This process was fitful and frustrating, but the parties stuck to it. They did not give up hope. They argued, compromised and they emerged finally with an agreement. This is therefore a proud day for Yukoners and they deserve our congratulations.
What has been accomplished in Yukon is no small achievement. The agreements and the bills effecting the agreements may not be perfect, but they are the products of many people working together for common objectives: mutual respect and recognition, clarity of rules, certainty of rights, and a better future for future generations. This is a made in Yukon deal, made by Yukoners for Yukoners and it is unique to Yukon. It reflects Yukon needs and aspirations.
Thus far I have restrained myself in this speech from rebutting some of the more provocative and outrageous comments made by members of the third party, but there is one I just cannot let go by. The comment I am referring to was made by a member of the third party, who will remain nameless, during second reading debate. The comment is in reference to Bill C-55. He stated: "It borders on the tragic to heap so much responsibility on so few".
Let me assure the member and all members of that party that Yukon is more than ready for this responsibility. Yukoners will handle this responsibility much better than anyone else. Size is not a determinant of value or worth. So what if the population of Yukon is less than most cities in Canada, as some members of the third party pointed out. The Yukon and its people deserve the same respect, consideration and recognition of their rights and abilities to make their own decisions as anyone else in this country. They have agreed through their elected leaders to forge a new direction and build a better future together. Their decision must be respected and supported.
I would like to conclude my remarks today by quoting from the presentation made by the Council for Yukon Indians to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs during its review of Bill C-55: "The enactment of Yukon surface rights board act will pave the way for the proclamation of Yukon Land Claims and Self-Government Acts. The Council for Yukon Indians and Yukon First Nations have worked extremely hard in the past 21 years to see the manifestation of the vision of Yukon First Nation elders. Yukon First Nations look forward to participating in these constitutional innovative regimes that have been advanced and negotiated in the interests of all parties concerned".
So do we. On behalf of the minister and the government, I extend warm congratulations and best wishes for success to all the people of Yukon.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite for his speech.
I probably should begin by saying that I restrained myself from rising on a point of order when he used terminology which just yesterday was ruled unparliamentary by the Speaker in referring to us.
I would like to tell hon. members and this member in particular, as emphatically as I can, that we bear absolutely nothing but the very, very best wishes for the people he is representing. It is very unfair, I think, when we begin to debate the issues to degenerate into name calling. I resent that because I do not think it adds to the debate at all.
I would like to ask some very serious questions. First of all, in the government ramming through Bills C-33 and C-34 last June, did it really add to the understanding and the conviviality among different parts of our society? One of the problems is that many people feel that things are being rammed down their throats and they have no real input. We do not have an opportunity as members of Parliament to represent the wishes of all our constituents.
It seems to me that it would have been much better had we taken the time to debate, to allow the Canadian people to have some real input into this and to build a level of understanding and acceptance of the deal that was made. If it really is that good it should be saleable. If it is not saleable then let us fix up the things that are not so that we can understand and accept, and I will even go so far as to say love each other that much more.
With respect to the bill before us today and the building of this board, once again everybody else is disenfranchised. Everybody else has no input. It is just being rammed through. There will be a board but it does not represent the rest of Canadians who are also contributing to the financial bill and who have an interest in that regard and in everything that happens there.
I would like the hon. member to comment on the process in which this is all being done. Could we not do better? I understand and accept that there is some impatience here after 20 years of process and we have to move on. But we need to ask the questions very seriously. What is best in order to build a relationship among all Canadians and how does this process help it when we ram it through like this?
Yukon Surface Rights Board ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Before recognizing the hon. parliamentary secretary, this Chair was not in the chair when the Speaker ruled on the word mean spirited. If the hon. parliamentary secretary was in the House, it is my impression that was a ruling two days ago or perhaps three. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would be kind enough to withdraw that word before he deals with the questions that have been put.
Jack Iyerak Anawak Liberal Nunatsiaq, NT
Mr. Speaker, if indeed that word was ruled out of order, I withdraw the word.
I want to comment on the member's remarks of the last few minutes. It is surprising to hear him talk, without reflecting on the past, of the need for consulting with the people of Canada which we as a government are doing on a lot of issues.
I might remind the hon. member that there was not much consultation when the land of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Canada was sort of taken over by a group of people without asking the people who lived in that region. I think the aboriginal people of Yukon are well justified in getting this agreement through. The Government of Canada, the Government of Yukon and the aboriginal people of Yukon should be congratulated for putting together such an agreement.
I made the remark earlier because of some comments of the past. I say this because of some deep concern that there is room for intolerance as a result of some comments made by some members of the third party. I quote directly from second reading of the bill a member of the third party. It says: "I urge members who believe in fairness, honesty and accountability to oppose this bill as it portrays the epitome of patronage and racial bias for which Canadians should never be known".
That was an unacceptable comment by a member of the third party. Part of the same comment states: "Such land claims, self government and racially segregated mediation boards will set a precedent for future negotiations with aboriginals which Canadian taxpayers will be hard pressed to pay for".
The government of Yukon and the people and the Council for Yukon Indians are all in support. They have adopted this bill. Therefore, I do not think there is any room for the kind of remarks that have been made in the past. I say this as a response to comments made during second reading of this bill, not as comments that I am putting forward on my own. If members want, I can carry on for another 10 minutes quoting comments during second reading to make sure that the people of Canada know what has been said by the third party.
Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest, especially to the commentary at the end. For years we have heard nothing but the abuse that native Indians suffered through the administration of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This is part of the same government that helped set those laws in process.
Here it is telling us to trust it once again, to further a problem that is liable to occur and keep on occurring. This is beyond belief. It put a restriction in front of the natives in Yukon of only 50 per cent of the members on the board. Why can it not be 100 per cent? Why does this government automatically assume that only 50 per cent of the natives there are capable of making this decision and not 100 per cent of the natives?
This is put on by that side of the House. I could go on and say that to me this seems like a very racial hindrance.
Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Why do you put a qualification on any people in this country? Why put that roadblock in front of them?
Yukon Surface Rights Board ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Order, please. Again, I appreciate the hon. parliamentary secretary's courtesy. In Hansard on Wednesday, page 8173, a minister in fact used the word that came up earlier. The minister said, and I quote: ``With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Speaker, of course I withdraw''. My colleague said if the ruling was made. He now knows that the ruling was made.
Jack Iyerak Anawak Liberal Nunatsiaq, NT
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word. However, I want to advise the hon. member that he does not seem to have much confidence in the people of Yukon or the Government of Canada-
Jack Iyerak Anawak Liberal Nunatsiaq, NT
-in appointing aboriginal people as part of their 50 per cent. Hopefully the Council for Yukon Indians will appoint its 50 per cent as aboriginal people. If it chooses, it does not necessarily have to be aboriginal people. I have great confidence that the Government of Yukon and the Government of Canada, if they choose to, will appoint aboriginal people to the panels.
Jack Iyerak Anawak Liberal Nunatsiaq, NT
If they do not, it is their prerogative. I have more confidence than the hon. member in the Government of Canada and the Government of Yukon in having confidence in the aboriginal leaders.
I just say these things. I mention the mediation boards.
Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
You are saying they should be restricted to 50 per cent and no more.
Jack Iyerak Anawak Liberal Nunatsiaq, NT
I quote at second reading from another speech made by a member of the third party: "The potential for conflict of interest is also there because claims are not assumed to be reviewed by the entire board but by a panel of three. At least one must be a member appointed to the board from the Council for Yukon Indians and two others are to be chosen by the chairperson. Could this not end with a blatant bias or conflict if all were from the Council for Yukon Indians? There are no rules to the contrary".
I rest my case.
André Caron Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-55, the last in a series of three bills aimed at implementing the provisions of agreements in respect of certain lands in Yukon, negotiated by Yukon, Canada and Yukon first nations.
To give an indication of the importance of adopting this kind of bill, I would like to start by putting it into the context of the broader issue of aboriginal land claims, not only in Quebec and Canada but throughout the world. We all know that the rights of aboriginal peoples have become an issue in many countries: in North America, South America and Asia, where since the 15th or the 16th century, Europeans came to settle lands that were occupied by aboriginal peoples.
The Europeans became established either through conquest, colonization or various other ways, and as their numbers increased over the centuries, aboriginal populations were pushed into a minority position. In the past 20, 25 or 30 years, aboriginal peoples have become aware of the importance of surviving as a people and maintaining their identity. They drew up land claims so that, in certain regions, areas or countries, they could continue, as much as possible, to live according to the traditional ways of their ancestors, or otherwise obtain the requisite political and economical leverage to be able to perpetuate their identity as a people on a viable basis.
The bill before the House this morning is part of this vast endeavour to satisfy the land claims of the aboriginal peoples, while bearing in mind the hard cold fact that other people now live in these territories as well, and in some cases, have done so for many centuries, and also have the right to live there.
Canada and Quebec have initiated negotiations with various first nations on their territorial claims. In Canada, a number of agreements have already been concluded, such as James Bay in 1975, the agreement on Nunavut in the MacKenzie River Delta, and now Yukon.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I have, of course, been involved in the proceedings of this committee, and since I also have a personal interest, I read up on the situation in Yukon and what had happened so far, and I realized that it was imperative and absolutely essential to ratify these agreements as soon as possible.
As you know Yukon is in Canada's north. It was originally part of the territory that was given to the Hudson's Bay Company by the Crown and that included all of northern Canada and northern Quebec. This immense tract of land became the property of a private company. The Hudson's Bay Company took
advantage of the territory's resources, especially through its involvement in the fur trade.
Aboriginal people in Yukon came into contact with the white man in the person of the employees of the Hudson's Bay Company. They were also exposed to influences from the south, in a perhaps more brutal manner, during the famous gold rush in the Klondike at the end of the 19th century. At the time, many people came from the south to look for gold in Yukon, disrupting the traditional ways of the aboriginal peoples in this region. There was also the construction of the Alaska Highway in the 1940s by the United States, to connect the U.S. territory with the territory of Alaska.
The result was that Yukon was brutally invaded by people from the south. We are not here to pass judgment. It happened long ago, people behaved the way they were used to, and I do not think it would serve any purpose to dwell on the past. However, we have to realize that injustices were created and that new arrangements must be put in place if the people who live there are to develop in harmony, and if their economic, social and political needs are to be fulfilled.
I think that we have to watch our language carefully. When we look at what happened in Quebec over the last 20 years and what is happening now, we realize that governments and people are demanding that we settle the outstanding issues. Except it is extremely fragile. Negotiations are often difficult because the issues are complex. There are important constitutional and economic questions involved. There is also a basic political dimension.
When we talk about self-determination, self-government or sovereignty, we deal with emotionally-packed concepts and all sorts of reactions from the people. We just have to recall the reactions to the recent declarations of a Quebec native leader in New York, where the word "racist" was bandied about. I think that it is rather inappropriate to use such a word in that particular context. We are in a negotiating context, where you must keep your cool to be able to come up with something which will be fair to all involved.
When issues like racism are raised, a notion so emotionally charged because of the long racist history of mankind-just think of what happened to the Jews and the Gypsies during the Second World War-we are often taken aback, stunned and disappointed to see it surface in the papers, in the minds and in conversations, and being applied to situations occurring in Canada.
We cannot say that the situation in Canada is one of racism. I believe that no one among native people and non-natives is going to form a particular opinion about a specific group because one member of this group is of a different ethnic origin or race.
One must be very careful in Canada when using the word racism. One may talk about ethnocentricity, prejudices or many other similar things-there is no shortage of terms-but I believe that accusations of racism must be avoided because it could trigger a chain reaction with far-reaching consequences, especially with respect to negotiations which have been going on for years and could fail because the negotiating parties might see in each other all kind of sinister intentions.
I wanted to get this off my chest before dealing more specifically with Bill C-55.
This piece of legislation seeks to set up a board to settle disputes that might arise between parties to the agreements reached in Yukon. As we know, last June this House passed Bill C-33 and Bill C-34, which were enacted in July. These acts give effect to land claim agreements concerning Yukon and deal with certain matters relating to self-government for native people in Yukon Territory.
Negotiations prior to these agreements had been going on for over twenty years. There were many difficulties. The negotiation framework was hard to develop. People took a very strong stand at first, one party wanting everything while the other was reluctant to yield anything, vetoing the claims, so to speak.
Little by little, over the years, people learned to know one another, setting up the framework for the negotiations. These negotiations finally ended in the early 1990s. The agreement before us this morning is simply to ensure that there are arbitrators are appointed when disputes arise between the parties to the agreement in the Yukon.
Before getting further into the consideration of Bill C-55, I would like to take a second to remind the hon. members that both bills we have passed recognized that Yukon aboriginal peoples did have rights over certain lands, that is to say surface and subsurface rights over some lands and surface rights on others, lands that can form the basis for a certain economic life so that these peoples will no longer be dependent upon federal government subsidies.
Like me, Mr. Speaker, you have no doubt read the Auditor General's report and noted the rather explicit criticism of the social assistance provided to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. It is reported that approximately 40 to 45 per cent of natives in Canada depend on social assistance. On certain reserves, it is up to 80 or 85 per cent of the population. That is a huge percentage! There is an enormous problem there. The Auditor General tells us that it costs $1 billion, because that is how much is paid out to the people, the people who are running the reserves, and that insufficient control is exercised over the use made of these funds.
I agree with the Auditor General that tighter control is required. But what the Auditor General is telling us in his report is that control over this $1 billion may not be perfect. At the same time, he says that $1 billion is paid out to aboriginal peoples because they are really having a rough time on the social, economic, health and education front.
In such circumstances, I do not think that the thing to do would be to say: "We need a billion dollars. We will take this billion and use it for something else in the budget and let these people manage on their own". We must think instead in terms of creating conditions where they will no longer need social assistance.
I think that the kind of agreement we have reached respecting the Yukon, and those respecting other parts of Canada such as the Mackenzie Delta, the Nunavut, the James Bay area in Quebec-and there are more coming-all these agreements will enable the aboriginal peoples concerned to lay the economic foundations required to no longer depend on government assistance for their social and economic development.
I think that this is essential and that is why agreements such as this one must be encouraged and legislation to implement such agreements be passed as quickly as possible.
As my colleague from the Reform Party said earlier, certainly it is quick. At the Indian affairs committee, we considered both Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 in June. These were complex bills. There are often concepts involved that are very difficult to grasp. While the committee may not have been pressured, it certainly had to make haste.
This committee even sat all night on one occasion. This unusual experience shows that important decisions were made. I think that sitting all night on this committee will be a highlight of my life as a parliamentarian. Representatives of Yukon first nations came and spent the night with the committee to show us how crucial this bill is to them.
It is sometimes ill-advised to move too fast; however, when dealing with important issues, it is often pointless and even harmful to drag things out. That is why we must act now so that the representatives who negotiated in good faith in the hope of improving the lives of their people will not be disappointed. In such cases, when an agreement is reached after 20 years, we cannot afford to disappoint people by unduly delaying its adoption. Especially when we know how hard it is for a standing committee and even for the House of Commons to challenge agreements negotiated with the help of many experts and lawyers over a number of years.
I think that we must put some trust in those who negotiated the agreements and those who reviewed them, like the Bloc members on the standing committee who, after examining the entire bill, did not find anything that would justify unduly delaying its passage.
Of course, we can improve any bill by proposing amendments to it. With respect to Bill C-55, I might have had some concerns, like my colleague from the Reform Party, about how committee members are chosen. It might have been better to ensure as much as possible that committee members are not appointed because of partisan considerations-if that can be done within the party system prevailing in Canada.
Canadians increasingly feel that the people appointed to government positions should be chosen for their personal ability and not because they belong to a party. I think that people in Yukon will be especially sensitive to the quality of those appointed to this board.
I am pleased to support this bill. I hope that the people of the Yukon will implement it as soon as possible so that they can ensure their own development and that we as Quebecers and Canadians can establish the best possible relationship with them in the future.
Yukon Surface Rights Board ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member will have three minutes left to conclude after question period.
It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
John Murphy Liberal Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, in recent days we have heard a great deal from certain Reform members of Parliament about ACOA's funding practices.
A recent contribution to Canadian Hybrid Farms in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants was singled out as an example of alleged wasteful government spending.
The decision to make a contribution to this firm demonstrates ACOA's commitment to assisting leading edge companies set up shop and succeed in Atlantic Canada. This company has focused its efforts in developing a new strain of genetically altered hamsters for use by the scientific community in researching heart disease in humans. Medical researchers from around the world rely on these hamsters in order to test the efficiency of cardiovascular drugs.
Through its diversity of programming ACOA has consistently shown itself to be a leader in promoting economic development in Atlantic Canada. Its contribution to this important project is one more example of its commitment.
Andy Mitchell Liberal Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out that the provision of telephone service in rural Ontario is not adequate and when compared to urban areas can only be described as second class.
There is no requirement that telephone service be provided beyond 62 meters of the existing system. Although quite adequate to ensure subscribers in cities receive new services at reasonable costs, in rural areas it means many individuals must pay thousands of dollars for a phone hookup.
The reality for many of my constituents is that the security and convenience of phone service most of us take for granted are not available to them. In addition, large portions of my riding have been embargoed, meaning private lines are not available. This policy discriminates against rural Canadians wishing to establish businesses depending on such simple tools as faxes and computer modems, let alone access to the information highway. In areas where economic development is most needed the required communication infrastructure is being denied.
I urge the Minister of Communications to amend the Bell Canada Act of 1902 and to end this discrimination against rural Canadians.
Gar Knutson Liberal Elgin—Norfolk, ON
Mr. Speaker, lately when discussing the country's financial situation with groups in my riding it became clear to me that the message of fiscal restraint has been heard by Canadians. People in my riding are ready for the government to make the tough choices that are needed to get our financial house in order.
I have also been disturbed by how some people, especially from the far right of the political spectrum, are using the present financial difficulties as an excuse to advocate brutal measures against the poor.
The debt and deficit remain real problems. The medicine will be no doubt bitter but I have every reason to believe that the government will be looking for ways to make our social security system more fair and equitable without hurting those most in need.
I condemn those who use our present financial difficulty as an excuse to impose their right wing agenda on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at their annual meeting, held in Jonquière, the 300 delegates from the Quebec steelworkers union decided to support sovereignty during the next referendum on Quebec's future. This central labour body feels that sovereignty is the only way to ensure that Quebec has the necessary tools to look after its economic, political and sociocultural development.
Occupational training will be the top priority for steelworkers in the years to come. They believe that this whole sector should fall under Quebec's jurisdiction. In fact, Quebecers have been requesting this for years, but Ottawa has always categorically refused to consider that option.
The decision made by the steelworkers illustrates once again the importance and the diversity of the various groups supporting sovereignty in Quebec, and we are very pleased to see that.
André Caron Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is telling federal civil servants that they should fear sovereignty for Quebec, his government is about to make cuts in its public service.
According to persisting rumours among civil servants, which were even repeated by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, 30,000 positions will be eliminated in February, when the next federal budget is tabled. It appears that these cuts would primarily affect civil servants working in the national capital, since regional staff has already been reduced significantly.
Consequently, this massive reduction in the public service population of the Ottawa region has nothing to do with the threat of separation, the election of a PQ government, or the role of Bloc Quebecois MPs in this House. This government will be the only one to blame if such despicable cuts are made in the public service.
Philippe Paré Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance accused the Government of Quebec of not being concerned about job creation. He seems to forget that in an impressive number of areas, it is the federal government which is preventing job creation in Quebec.
The federal government refuses to transfer all powers for labour training to Quebec and is thus preventing the implementation of a comprehensive and coherent job creation strategy in Quebec.
The federal government is refusing to reduce unemployment insurance premiums even though it said that lowering them would create jobs. The federal government is also refusing to implement a real defence conversion policy. And what about MIL Davie?
The Minister of Finance should look in his own back yard and get down to work.
[English]
