Debates of Nov. 3rd, 1994

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am both proud and sad to address this bill at this time. What has happened within the last 10 days or so has given me concern about what is happening to the heritage of Canadians.

I am a proud Canadian. My parents are proud Canadians. My parents came to this country as children. My father met my mother when they were teenagers in southern Alberta. They were married and raised a family during the depression. They have told me many, many stories about what happened in this country. My grandparents told me of some things that happened in other countries. They talked about heritage and culture. They told us about our culture, about our parents and our background. I am proud of both of those heritages, but the one I really understand and the one I am a part of is the Canadian heritage.

One thing I want Canadians to be known for is their integrity, their honesty and their fairness and treatment of each other with justice. I am not that young any more, but my children are young. It seems to me that we as seniors in this country of ours need to present an example to the upcoming generation.

The real heritage we have as Canadians is our children for whom we are building this country. I ask myself and I ask this House, what kind of legacy are we leaving to our children when they see the kinds of things that have happened in this House over the last 10 days?

There have been allegations and almost accusations and statements made against and about the leader of our country and one of his key ministers. We have to ask ourselves: Is this the kind of thing we want our children to emulate? Do we want our children to think that the Prime Minister would defend a minister of the crown who would intercede or take action that could be interpreted as interceding on behalf of someone so that unfair or special advantage is given to one person over another? We do not want that.

The Prime Minister has said: "The buck stops here". I admire him for saying that. It is responsible of him to say: "I am accountable. I am responsible for the things that happen in my government", which includes every minister on the front bench and all the parliamentarians he leads.

But he is a leader beyond that. He is our Prime Minister. He is my Prime Minister. Even though I am not a member of his party he is still my Prime Minister. I want to be able to respect him. I want to look to him for leadership, as an example of the kinds of things that ought to be happening not only in this House but in this whole country. That is what we are looking for.

Generally the position has been clear. The Prime Minister has indicated that he is a man of the people. He listens and he tries to do what is best. But there is now a question. Did he do what was best in this particular instance? The record is clear. I am not going to review the record now. But I ask the Prime Minister, the minister and every parliamentarian here, including myself: Is this the kind of behaviour we want our children to emulate when they become this country's parliamentarians?

I am not proud. I do not think I could say yes to that question. I think I would have to answer no. I want my children and those who will follow us to have another example, a standard which says we will not interfere in the administration of justice. We will not interfere in a quasi-judicial body to get it to make a decision that is different from the one that is apparently independent and considers all the facts before a decision is made. That is what I want.

I think there is a position here that can be salvaged but let us make clear that what ought to be said is said and that where a mistake has been made let the appropriate action be taken.

At this time the Prime Minister must take action. He has decided not to. That is a decision. It is his opportunity to do that but I would encourage him to take at least some action. We are in a crisis situation and if we ever needed integrity in leadership it is today.

Next year in 1995 this country will be faced with a major refinancing. A major amount of money is going to have to be borrowed in the world market. The question I want to ask is this: Will the lenders that loaned us money before continue to lend us money if they have any question as to whether we will do what we said we would do? We need confidence in the financial management of this country. We need to know that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are serious about getting this budget under control and balancing the budget.

Beyond that, we need something else and that is justice. This morning, in fact I am wearing the button which says "Justice for Joshua", right beside me was a group of high school students that said "No, not just for Joshua, for all of us". That is exactly what we want. We want justice for every person, young persons, middle aged persons, seniors, every person in Canada. We want justice for them, we want fairness for them and we want them to live in a way that they are treated equally as individuals and as provinces.

That is the heritage we want. That is the heritage we can have. It is we together as a group, and as individuals, as the opposition, who will fight for that. We will build a country that we can be indeed proud of and we can then say to our children: "Follow our example. It is a good one".

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this opportunity that I have to address the House today is particularly important for me because of the nature of the debate. When we talk about culture, we are really talking about the very heart and soul of a nation. Therefore, allow me to speak with strong emotion.

The purpose of Bill C-53 is to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to unite under one authority all the policy instruments Ottawa has in the cultural area: the Canada Council, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, museums and national parks and the National Archives of Canada.

The annual budget of this department would be approximately $2.8 billion.

The main objective of this new super-department is to support and promote the canadian cultural policy. This is enough to get all the citizens of Quebec and the one million francophones outside Quebec seriously worried.

Even if in the past the cultural development policy was not so well orchestrated, we could yet see clearly that it was in Ottawa's interest rather than that of the francophones all over the country.

On the strength of the British North America Act and, hence, of the residual powers entrusted to him, and encroaching upon some provincial jurisdictions, education for example, the federal government is about to control more closely than ever what we call Canadian culture.

The desire to take over one of the more essential aspects of our lives is not new. This is nothing but the logical and perfect continuation of actions taken since the first Communications Act of 1932 by which the federal government gave itself exclusive jurisdiction in the area of communications. The events that followed confirmed its exclusive jurisdiction in other areas. This is why the CRTC can declare unilaterally what is good for the provinces, including the only francophone province in this country.

Using its powers to expand its responsibilities and possibly create a new area of activity, Ottawa developed over the years a policy, the bilingualism and multiculturalism policy, based on a central theme.

We can understand that some of our English-speaking fellow citizens had a hard time finding their own identity, but common sense should never have allowed the creation of such a two-headed monster. For humane considerations, my grandfather used to kill two-headed calves at birth. In Ottawa, they are considered as precious as the Golden calf.

Between you and me, Mr. Speaker, where is the cultural difference between Canada and the United States, except for Quebec, of course? Compared to our southern neighbour, Canada is nothing more than a society without any significant distinctive traits. Is there really a Canadian culture or is it merely the creation of a political administration with an over-productive mind? Have we been the victims of too wide or too narrow designs? The future will soon tell us, since Quebec will shortly be an external observer.

However, for the time being, six million francophones have to adapt to this federal creature that many find disturbing. Beyond worn-out official statements and pious wishes, what did Canada's cultural policy give the French-speaking minority of this country?

Our culture distinguishes us from other Canadians; how has this policy contributed to reinforce our own identity? The question begs the answer. This policy did not contribute a thing to our cultural development. What is worse, it actually had a destabilizing effect, limiting the growth and creative potential of its most distinctive and dynamic aspect. Even then it would have to be recognized as such-this is what happens when you have a policy the rationale of which has no bearing on Canadian reality.

Praise it as you may, claim all you want that it is likely to meet the legitimate aspirations of Quebecers and other francophones coast to coast, it does not even manage to impose respect for the most basic element of our identity: the French language. Reports unanimously show hatred for the use of French, coast to coast. Is it two languages on equal footing or one language stomped on with both feet? In what way did passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms benefit francophone communities?

One of its main achievements is the following: Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, NewFoundland and Prince Edward Island have yet to approve a single bill to give effect to plans for French language school management. They examine, they ponder, they hem and haw, as we would say. But so far, no concrete steps have been taken to support these communities who wish to manage their own schools.

Does it come as a surprise that 127 years after the birth of Confederation and 25 years after the passage of the Official Languages Act, the commissioner responsible for ensuring that the linguistic rights of minorities are respected, Mr. Victor Goldbloom, cannot get over the ignorance of the anglophone majority, that goes about completely oblivious of the existence of the francophone minority?

Mr. Goldbloom talks about ignorance when he should be talking about hostility in the case of the 65 Ontario municipalities which declared themselves officially unilingual English, although no law forces them to provide services in French. The Prime Minister of Canada said that his Canada included the 1 million francophones living outside Quebec. He must live in a great country full of respect and dignity. He should try living like little Jean Bilodeau or Jean Leblanc.

In your opinion, Mr. Speaker, should we trust these people who are unable to face up to reality? Do you think that our culture is safe in their hands? Who are these people who, through the Department of Canadian Heritage, want to define our culture and therefore a large part of our lives? Who would benefit from having a say on the way we live, think and entertain ourselves? What would they like to see in our culture?

What about those who recently refused to recognize us as a distinct society? Those who, under the pretext of efficient budget management, merrily slash the amounts allocated to Radio-Canada, which is already unfairly treated compared with the CBC.

There are also those who make it a point of honour, if not a duty, to duplicate the cultural institutions of the Quebec government. We will face those who are against any dialogue, any sharing of responsibilities, any co-operation despite Quebec's repeated calls for joint action.

We should blindly leave essential elements of our collective future in the hands of these people, when all their actions seem designed to neutralize the efforts of another level of government.

Thanks, but no thanks. I, for one, do not trust the supporters of this power, who are now striving to formalize a policy that never was and never will be consistent with our interests and aspirations.

Even Liza Frulla, the former Quebec Liberal minister-who is not a sovereignist-admitted that Ottawa is creating overlap and duplication by interfering in Quebec's cultural affairs.

This government, with its centralizing federalism, knows full well that whoever controls the means of expression of a culture also controls its vitality, energy and creative power. Let us not give Ottawa the privilege of imposing its ideal cultural order.

It has long been proven that no one is in a better position than the Government of Quebec to develop a cultural policy based on the real needs of its people.

Until Quebec has acquired its full political sovereignty, others will decide what should go into our creative endeavours. The Bloc Quebecois, which is waging a continual struggle for the integrity of Quebec culture, cannot support Bill C-53, which is contrary to the legitimate intentions of the Quebec government in this field.

By creating this Department of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa is proving that it clearly intends to keep and even increase its ability to act in this sector which is crucial for the development of Quebec's cultural identity.

In this country, where francophones start to be assimilated from infancy, I feel nothing positive about creating a Department of Canadian Heritage. It is simply an expression of the federal government's harmful centralizing designs on Quebec.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have just a couple of minutes this afternoon to discuss the bill in front of us dealing with the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I am the critic for aboriginal affairs for the New Democratic Party. In that capacity I have had a number of dealings with the Department of Canadian Heritage. The department inherited a number of the programs from the former secretary of state which dealt with aboriginal people, their programs and activities.

One of the programs that the department has inherited that has bothered me in its response for some time has been a program dealing with aboriginal education. I wanted to take the opportunity here, with the minister in the Chamber and the debate on this bill, to bring to members of this House and to the minister's attention some correspondence which I received in recent months concerning the treatment of aboriginal people by the department. When government asks members of Parliament for approval to do anything with relation to the department I think it is important that we understand some of the ways in which the department has responded to us in the past.

I have in front of me a two paragraph letter, in fact the paragraphs are reasonably lengthy, addressed to me from the president of the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural College.

I would like to read the two paragraphs. The president of the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre is Linda Pelly-Landrie. She writes:

The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and its affiliate institutions, Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre, Saskatchewan Indian Federated College and Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technology have been actively seeking the financial resources required to develop curriculum for our First Nations. While various government departments have acknowledged that First Nations instructional and resource materials are essential to the retention and achievement of First Nations students, all contend that they are not adequately resourced and cannot finance our projects. Yet, the Department of Canadian Heritage has offered $500,000 to Mondia Editeurs and an affiliate, Micro Intel, two non-aboriginal firms out of Montreal, a contract to develop CD-ROM curriculum materials pertaining to the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Enclosed please find correspondence relating to the project proposed by the Department of Canadian Heritage. We ask that you review this material carefully and intervene on our behalf. Not only is offering a contract of this nature to non-aboriginal firms contrary to the government's commitment to the First Nation's inherent right to self-government, it is an insult. Adding to the insult is the demeaning and paternalistic manner in which the Department of Canadian Heritage has dealt with First Nations representatives on the project. We are the experts in determining First Nations curriculum content and the most capable of managing and controlling a project of this nature. Furthermore, we have demonstrated expertise in developing and producing quality instructional materials. Therefore, it is our contention that this project should be contracted and controlled by a First Nations institution organization.

I want to quote from a couple of paragraphs of a letter that Ms. Pelly-Landrie wrote to the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage earlier this year on the same project. In the letter she indicates that the cultural centre had met earlier in the year with the minister of Indian affairs with a proposal for resources to develop curriculum programs for First Nations people. They were informed that the financial resources were extremely limited and that their project request could not be met.

She goes on in her letter to the minister to indicate that the awarding of the contract for half a million dollars to the non-aboriginal group in Montreal is most objectionable:

Projects of this nature should be awarded to aboriginal people to promote the principles of Indian self-government and to encourage true partnerships between the federal government and First Nations governments.

We believe that First Nations have contributed significant changes to education. Indian control of Indian education is a principle to which all First Nations continue to strive for, as the ultimate goal to educational change, and improvement. The federal government must also be respectful of our commitment to develop and implement education for our people.

I trust that you will take immediate action to review this proposed project, and that measures will be taken in the future for the full involvement of aboriginal people to determine the development and implementation of such projects.

These letters seem to have been ignored by the minister and the department. The project was awarded to the non-aboriginal firms.

At the same time as Ms. Pelly-Landrie's letters were being circulated, another letter in support of the Saskatchewan centre has been drafted and sent to the minister from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, the Indian governments of Saskatchewan, signed by vice chief E. Dutch Lerat of Saskatchewan.

The letter deals with this particular CD-ROM project and the treatment received by the aboriginal community on its request:

The First Nations of Canada have political and institutional structures which represent them on all matters of intergovernmental nature.

The First Nations are nationally represented in all such matters as languages, curriculum and cultural heritage by the First Nations Cultural Centres Executive Council (FNCCEC) of the Assembly of First Nations.

Your Department, over the strenuous objections of the First Nations of Canada, has recently awarded a contract for Aboriginal Curriculum Development to a non-Indian Business-Mondia Editeurs of Montreal.

The project involves a computerized Aboriginal Curriculum Project referred to as CD-ROM.

The First Nations have been invited to participate on a sub-contractual basis for a minuscule portion of the contract, although this is not the real issue I wish to raise.

In the pre-election Liberal Party Aboriginal Platform announced by the Prime Minister on October 8, 1993, your Government made a number of important commitments.

Two of those commitments are directly applicable to this issue:

"A Liberal Government, with the participation of Aboriginal Peoples, will establish an Aboriginal Educational Institute and networking facility that will co-ordinate and build upon initiatives in Aboriginal Curriculum Development for Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Schools, Standards, Development, Distance Education, Aboriginal Languages, Teacher Orientation and the Special Needs of Many Communities such as Literacy, Adult Basic Education and Special Education".

"The Liberal Platform on Aboriginal Economic Development includes measures such as procurement policies that stimulate the growth of Aboriginal Businesses".

An example given with respect to this policy goes on to state:

"A fixed percentage of Federal contracts be allocated to competent Aboriginal Government and Businesses".

I must seriously challenge your commitment to the Red Book Policies in light of the way in which your Department has handled this matter. The entire integrity of your Aboriginal platform is seriously called into question.

A key point of contention surrounding this contract is that your officials have ignored the competency of existing First Nations Institutions and Businesses-for example, the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre, an accredited member of the Saskatchewan Book Publishing Association and, in fact, the current Chairman of the Association is a staff member from our Cultural Centre.

First Nations must be given first consideration in all matters related to Aboriginal Curriculum and Cultural Projects including the application of Technology such as that represented by the CD-ROM project.

In conclusion, I read from the the concluding paragraphs of the letter sent to the minister earlier this year:

The question now that arises, then is, how can there be money for a non-First Nations organization to develop First Nation's curriculum when there is none for our First Nations?

I think it is very important in our consideration of the Department of Canadian Heritage that we examine carefully the ways in which the department and the ministry are treating the people of aboriginal descent in our country and respect the wishes of the aboriginal community in developing a strong aboriginal curriculum that meets its needs as brought to the minister by the community.

I believe this is an important matter that requires the attention of all members and I thank the House for its time this afternoon.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ), the chief government whip has asked me to defer the division until later.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division on the question now before the House is deferred until Monday, November 14 at 6.30 p.m., when the division bells will be rung for not more than 15 minutes.

The hon. chief government whip has the floor on a point of order.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that you would obtain unanimous consent from the House to defer the vote that was to take place at 6.30 p.m. Monday until Tuesday, November 15 at 5.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent for the chief government whip's proposal to defer the vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The vote will be deferred until Tuesday, November 15 at 5.30 p.m. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 1 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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-55, the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act. This bill is essentially a matter of legislative housekeeping and as such contains little of substance to either support or oppose.

However, I would like to take some time to address some of the bill's shortcomings and even its positive attributes.

As everyone in the House well knows, this bill is the companion legislation to Bills C-33 and C-34, two bills which the Reform Party strongly opposed. Our detailed reasons for the opposition to those bills are well documented from debates at the committee level and in the House so I will not revisit those arguments.

However I would like to renew our opposition to the way the government first conceived and then rammed those bills through the House. In case anyone has forgotten, Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 were negotiated over a period of some 20 years, a period of closed door meetings and backroom deals typical of our old governments and old political parties.

To make matters worse, the government then stifled debate in the month of June in the House by evoking time allocation. This entire process was wrong, indeed shameful. It was wrong for the government not to include Canadians and interested third parties in the negotiations. It was wrong for the government to proceed with debate just 24 hours after the voluminous bills were first tabled in the House. It was shameful for the government to limit debate on such crucial pieces of legislation.

Unfortunately this type of action appears to be the rule rather than the exception when it comes to legislation affecting native or aboriginal land claims settlements.

Just over a year ago, in June 1993, another shameful government with the concurrence of the Liberals and the NDP in opposition took the very same tack with Bill C-133. They passed that bill in one day in the House. There was only one member of the House who stood to speak against it. That bill resulted in the creation of Nunavut, a new territory encompassing one-fifth of the Canadian land mass. With one-fifth of Canada at stake because of Bill C-133 the House, with the concurrence of all political parties, took one day to pass it. There was no debate and no public input. That is a shame.

The Reform Party agrees with the need to correct past injustices and to treat aboriginals with the same respect and dignity afforded to all other Canadians, but we do not agree with the means chosen to accomplish this end.

I said at the start of my address that I would also touch on some of the positive aspects of the bill. They are few and far between, but I have found at least one such example. To its credit the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has in fact consulted with the mining industry on Bill C-55. I know this because our critic in this area has also consulted with many interests with regard to the legislation.

Through our discussions it was learned that changes to the bill were made at several stages based on input from the mining industry. That is good news. It is indeed encouraging, especially given the rough ride the mining industry has received in recent times from all levels of government.

I might also add that I hope this spirit of co-operation will continue into the future and expand beyond the borders of Yukon to my own province of British Columbia where the interests of the mining industry have been forced to take a back seat to every lobby group with an axe to grind.

At any rate I commend the government for its consultative approach. However I also know that the mining industry is not entirely happy with the legislation in Bill C-55 or with its companion Bills C-33 and C-34.

While all these pieces of legislation are far from perfect, the uncertainty is over, an uncertainty which has stifled investment in Yukon for more than 20 years. At least the legislation defines the playing field and although that field is still uneven it is a field that can now be played upon.

Another area of concern with the legislation on the creation of Yukon surface rights board is the question of appointments. The board will be appointed by the minister and therefore of course has the potential to become a patronage hotbed.

Appointments to the board must be made according to merit. Individuals with the qualifications and the expertise to make sound, logical decisions must be the ones appointed to the board; not simply those individuals with the oldest Liberal membership card or with the largest campaign contribution, appointments that would compromise the entire process and throw the rulings of the board into disrepute. We cannot emphasize too often that patronage appointments must go. We must cease and desist on all of them, whether it is the immigration board or this particular one on Yukon surface rights.

The board will also have the power to decide which cases it will hear. Its rulings will be final, binding and enforceable through the Supreme Court of the Yukon territory. This is a great deal of power which must not be placed in the hands of a few political friends and insiders. The Reform Party will be watching appointments to the board with a keen interest to ensure that such abuses do not occur.

I have already outlined the callous way in which the democratic process was subverted during the conception and births of Bill C-33, Bill C-34 and Bill C-133 a year ago. This bill is an extension of the process and therefore must be viewed with a healthy degree of scepticism. However we can take some solace in the hope that the government has learned and is learning from its past mistakes.

I would also like to urge the government to follow in the footsteps of my own province, British Columbia. I speak of Premier Harcourt's public pronouncement of September 20 when he stated several principles for openness in land claim negotiations. The principles enunciated include that open negotiations must be the starting point and closed negotiations the exception. The next point made was that all British Columbians must have the opportunity to provide meaningful input into the negotiating process.

His next point is that the negotiators' bottom lines would be made public and that the provinces would pursue the most effective means of opening up and sharing information about negotiating sessions as widely as possible. Finally the mandatory sign off of all treaty settlements would be made by the B.C. legislature.

In this regard I have to say on a parallel track that I had the occasion to meet with the federal negotiator for Vancouver Island on native land claims and with the British Columbia negotiator. The two gentlemen met in my constituency office a month or two ago. If I can take them at face value, we are going to have open negotiations with native land claims and they are actively soliciting input from the general public. I truly hope this is so. If I take them at face value it is so. I hope that is the way we are going. If we are, the future looks much better than it has for some time.

The people of Canada deserve no less from their federal government on these important issues. The old closed door negotiations, complete with mandatory confidentiality clauses and no public input, only breed hostility and undermine public confidence in the process. The public too wants native land claims to be settled justly for all parties.

Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 are classic examples of old style politics. Admittedly Bill C-55 was conceived under less dubious circumstances, but it is still somewhat tainted by the earlier process.

In finishing I urge the government to carefully consider the comments made here today and the comments my colleagues will make. I hope the government will heed this advice as we head down the road of aboriginal self-government.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-55, an act to establish the Yukon Surface Rights Board.

I do not speak often on aboriginal matters but I thought this bill merited comment. In fact the last time I spoke on aboriginal matters in the House was to argue for an amendment to the private member's bill which declared ice hockey as Canada's national sport. The amendment which was accepted declared the great aboriginal sport of lacrosse to be Canada's summer national sport.

Aboriginal issues are important to me in particular and should be important to every member from British Columbia. As we know, most of the territory of the province of British Columbia is the subject of some form of land claim by our aboriginal peoples. It is my belief that the precedent set in Yukon may become the precedent for settling claims in British Columbia. Therefore it is important for me to address these issues.

I have a few preliminary comments to make before I get into a detailed discussion of the clauses of the bill. The bill is the third in a trilogy of bills dealing with the settlement of land claims in Yukon. The Reform Party opposed the first two bills which established the settlement of the land claims. Logically, therefore, we oppose Bill C-55 which establishes the mechanism to implement these settlements, or alternatively to settle disputes relating to the claim.

I understand the feeling that a mechanism should be found to resolve disputes without the necessity of going to court. Courts are expensive. Justice usually is not swift. However this leads me to make two comments.

First, perhaps the inefficient slow moving courts would be useful in these circumstances because the possibility of going to court would be seen as such a detriment that settlements may be more easily achieved by the parties involved. I think that is what we would want. Perhaps in this instance the threat of going to court is one to be preserved, not put aside.

My second point deals with the courts themselves. If the courts are in such a state that even the government does not want them involved in settling disputes of the kind presented by the Yukon land claims, maybe we should take a hard look at reforming the courts of the country.

Courts were established to settle disputes between parties. They exist. The infrastructure is there. The salaries of those involved are already paid. Why should we not then use them to settle disputes such as the ones presented here? If the courts because of inefficiencies are not seen to be the appropriate vehicle then maybe we should streamline our judicial system

instead of establishing a new board. We should address reform of our civil law courts.

However I realize that judicial and court reform will not happen before the bill is passed. The government has a majority in the House. We will soon be stuck with the Yukon Surface Rights Board. For this reason I wish to make the following general comment.

I particularly wish to address the fact that this board will only deal with disputes after the parties themselves, the people involved in the dispute, have failed to reach an amicable solution. How will the board know the parties have failed to reach such a solution? Would it not be better if representatives of the board met with the parties prior to the parties going to the board? Such representatives could work with the parties in order to achieve an amicable settlement.

I am suggesting a two step process. In this two step process the first step would be the disputants contacting the board requesting mediation or help from a representative of the board. A representative or a staff person, not a board member obviously, would be dispatched to meet with the parties. If this person was not effective in helping the parties resolve the dispute then the matter could go to the board for a hearing.

Such a two step process, first by mediation with the help of the board representatives and second by a a board hearing if mediation failed, might tend to speed up the process. Let's face it, a board such as this will build its own bureaucracy. Let us give these people something to do beyond shuffling paper. They could engage in mediation.

I wish to comment on some of the provisions of this bill which are especially disturbing to me. My first point, perhaps not surprisingly, is on the subject of clauses 8 to 15 which deal with the establishment and organization of the board. Some of my colleagues have commented on these clauses so I will keep my comments brief.

The composition suggested in the statute seems to be a recipe for divisiveness and eventual disaster. Half of the members other than the chairperson are to be appointed by the Council for Yukon Indians, the others by order in council on recommendation by the minister.

I hope it works and I wish those who designed this all the luck in the world. It seems to me that we are putting forward the possibility that the Council of Yukon Indians is simply going to become the judge of its own causes, conflict of interest or, if not the judge, then certainly an interested party at all hearings.

Virtually all disputes will involve one or more bands of Yukon Indians. Yukon Indians will be in a position of strength on the board and there is the possibility of block voting. As well we are establishing another organization to which Liberals can appoint Liberals. Surely we have enough of those already.

It might be more appropriate to mention here that the Government of the Yukon Territory should have input into the selection of the board members. Perhaps even the chairperson and some of the board members should be appointed through a nomination of the Government of the Yukon Territory. The rationale would be similar to the territorial government being more likely to appoint people who represent the interests of the public at large than is the minister who might appoint Liberals. They could be Liberal loyalists and probably will be who might stack the board full of members of one politically correct interest group. The Yukon government is considerably closer to the people of the Yukon than is the minister. Hence it is far less likely to make poor choices.

Barring the selection of board members through that process I offer an idea for a second selection process. The membership of this board could be appointed by the minister but on the approval of all three parties in the House of Commons. If the minister does not agree to appoint the whole board in this fashion at least the chair of the board should be approved by the two opposition parties in this House.

I also do not like the fact that we are setting up another body to be paid out of the public purse. Surely if the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had been listening recently to the Minister of Finance he would know how badly in debt the country is and how we cannot afford any more expenditures.

Clause 19 gives the board the power to hire staff and consultants. Here we go again. We just cannot afford to give this kind of blanket authority without limiting the numbers to be hired. As well under clause 21 the board can acquire personal property in its name and dispose of it. This may be all right if we are talking about furnishing an office, but it might not take too long for this to be stretched into a major acquisition program. There should be some stipulation as to what the personal property is to be used for.

Clause 23 deals with the financing of the board. We on this side of the House would feel more comfortable if the matter of annual financing was referred directly to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I know it will be contained in the estimates, but we want to know specifically the moneys allocated to the board and how they are spent.

Clause 24 of the bill requires that the board report to the minister upon his request. I would suggest that this clause be

changed so that the board reports to the minister on an annual basis and that these reports be tabled in the House of Commons and referred to committee.

Clause 26 on the subject of jurisdiction does not refer to the fact that the board should exercise its authority observing the rules of natural justice. Interestingly, this is one of the grounds for the appeal of ruling by the board, but it is not specifically listed as a requirement for its hearings. For greater certainty this requirement should be spelled out.

Clause 40 gives the board the right to set fees. I am torn between suggesting that the fees be low enough so as not to prohibit anyone from taking advantage of the jurisdiction of this board or suggesting the fees be high enough to ensure the board pays for itself. I find my last suggestion to be quite interesting even though it comes from me, and in keeping with my remarks on the affordability of this board, perhaps we should pursue it.

Clause 41 requires the rules made by the board to govern its operation to be published. I think this is a good requirement. However I am concerned that there may be significant disagreement among the stakeholders regarding particular rules.

I believe a method should be found by which these rules could be objected to by major groups and a hearing held on the fairness of the rules. Perhaps the board itself could hear these complaints.

Clauses 42 through 64 contain many areas which would better be the subject of discussion in committee. These clauses describe the main tasks which will be undertaken by the board. I am sure representatives of my party will have comments to make on them as the committee proceeds to clause by clause analysis.

Clauses 74 and 75 give the board the final authority in relation to findings of fact and establishing an appeal procedure to the Yukon Supreme Court. I hope this right of appeal is not abused. We are looking here for quick settlements and the board is established to effect such settlements.

It would be counterproductive to allow too many appeals to the courts. Also in relation to the issue on some judgments, perhaps the minister could consider placing a limit on the time the board has to make a decision, perhaps 30 days from the time the case is concluded.

Clause 79 gives the governor in council authority to make regulations dealing with the board. Again, as with the rules of the board, a procedure should be suggested whereby these regulations could be the subject of objection by the major stakeholders and the objections heard and subsequently dealt with.

Finally, I would suggest that this bill contain an automatic review clause so that we can be assured that it will come back before us so we can assess how effective it has been; perhaps a review in three years.

We are opposed to this bill. It has many deficiencies, but most of all the content is wrong. There should be no need to spend taxpayers' money to set up a body which is designed to do what courts are in existence to do, resolve disputes.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to reiterate some of the comments my colleagues have made and possibly some new ones on Bill C-55.

As we are aware this is the third component of the package in relation to the Yukon First Nations Land Act claims settlement and the Yukon First Nations self-government. This particular bill is essential for the effective implementation of the other two acts. It mainly addresses the federal government's legal requirements to facilitate these other two acts coming into force.

This bill is to establish a board of directors that will handle disputes that occur. These disputes could involve three different components. They could involve owners of settlement lands or owners of non-settlement lands and of course businesses that would be involved. There are three components the board will be facing in relation to disputes. The other main aspect of this board is the determination of compensation in relation to the expropriation of settlement lands.

The orders of course from this board are binding. The board is not going to address disputes unless the two parties or three parties involved have tried to come to some sort of a mutual agreement before this. Should that not occur it will come to the board. Therefore, the board is actually in an arbitration kind of situation and its decision will be binding. Except for limited reasons, it can go to the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory.

This brings us to the structure of the actual board which I have some concerns about. I realize that my colleagues have touched on some of this, but I think they are important enough to reiterate to some degree. Clause 8(1) of the bill gives us an overview of what the board will consist of: a chairman and not less than two members and not more than ten other members. That would make a possible total of 11 members including the chairman. All these members would be appointed by the minister.

There are some conditions that apply on these appointments. Clause 8(2) indicates that the minister must establish a board of an odd number. That I would assume includes the chairman so that the board would also consist of an odd number of members.

Clause 9(1) indicates that the chairperson is appointed by the minister but on the recommendation of the board. Clause 9(2) addresses the other members. It could be up to 10 members. It indicates that half of those members would be appointed by the minister based on nominations from the Council of Yukon Indians and the other half would be appointed by the minister. It does not indicate where the nominations or the suggestions for those appointments would come from.

To round this up, clause 10(1) indicates that a majority in both of these components, those nominated by the council and those appointed by the minister, must consist of members who reside in the Yukon Territory.

What this to my mind does is put the board in a position of being two components, one being suggested from the Council of Yukon Indians and the other from the minister, wherever those suggestions may come from. This in itself may divide the board. Also, the chairman of the board who is appointed based on recommendations from the board could put the balance of power on the board in either component. For example, if the chair was someone who was appointed by the minister then the bulk of the members on the board would be members appointed by the minister. If the chair happened to be someone who was a nominee from the Council of Yukon Indians then the balance of power would be on that side.

I question why the chairman has to be appointed by the minister based on the recommendation of the board. To my mind that suggests a veto power by the minister. It would seem that the board could elect its chairman instead of making recommendations to the minister to appoint it.

The other concern that comes out of that composition would be the right or opportunity for patronage appointments. Another concern would be that somewhere in the bill I believe it says that disputes do not have to be handled by the full board. We can subgroup the board into panels of three or more and handle the disputes based on that. Again we will look at the composition of the panel. Having these two components on the board, what is the composition of this panel and how they are selected is a very grey area.

Another way of looking at the composition of this panel could be from a representation of the players involved, i.e. the three components: the businesspersons, the owners of non-settlement land or the owners of settlement land. One could possibly pursue having representation of these three components. Another way of looking at it would be representation from the two components, the membership from the Yukon council, or those appointed by the minister. That is a very grey area.

The fact it does not indicate how these panels are composed or selected is also something that should be addressed possibly at committee. It could be based on members available at the time. It could be members in town at the time or whatever. Again it could become a lopsided membership based on these two components.

Another point that comes up would be term of office of the membership. Either clause 12 or 13 indicates that a member can stand for any number of terms. The appointment is for a three year period and then you can run again. There is no limitation. You can run for this as long as you are appointed and it can be any number of years. That in itself may not be a problem but it should be looked at to see if there are any parameters or situations that may pose a problem.

I would like to offer some suggestions on board membership. Again one of my colleagues mentioned that appointments, if that is the route we choose to go, should be made on merit or some criteria other than just being appointed by the minister. There should be some criteria in there. If that becomes the case we would definitely like to see merit included.

Another way of looking at it would be to possibly elect this board as we do school boards or something along those lines. That brings up of course that we may have to have candidate qualifications so that all sides have representation depending on how you wish to look at it.

It does not necessarily indicate that the panel composition would indeed be three members. It could possibly be any number of members, but of course it cannot exceed 11 which would be a full committee. It also does not seem to indicate that the panel would be an odd number. That should be looked at as well.

Another thing to look at is the concept that this board will be independent from government. The way it is structured it certainly does not imply that is going to occur. Two main things come out that are very suggestive it will not be independent from government. Unless you get into the fine print of it or whatever and really search for a method as to how it is independent these two things come front and centre.

One is that if it is funded by the government and if all the members on the board are appointed by the minister, i.e. government, that certainly does not suggest the board is independent of government. That in itself also brings up a number of possible concerns in relation to one's membership on the board. If the minister has this kind of power to appoint or not appoint then one really does not want to be in the position of opposing the majority opinion. I think one would rather tread lightly if they wanted to continue to participate on the board.

Therefore we may in a way be inhibiting some members in participating in full debate in relation to disputes or compensation or whatever they are addressing. I see that as a potential problem. There may be some inhibition on membership participation. I would take that a step further in relation to membership and possibly clarification in these areas might help.

Clause 11(3) indicates the minister can remove for cause. It starts out that one can hold their membership on the board for good behaviour. There is really no qualification as to what good behaviour is. The minister can remove that member for cause or-not and, but or-on grounds set out in the bylaws of the board.

What is happening is the board can be controlled from ministerial appointment, depending as I say on what background the chairman has and can set up what is grounds for membership. It appears that the minister for cause-and I do not know where this cause is coming from, if it is going to be a set of rules and regulations, but I think clause 18 makes reference to that and that implies to me that the board may be setting up what constitutes cause. It is very, very vague. I was first and still am of the opinion that cause is for the interpretation of the minister. That area is rather loose as far as membership is concerned.

The other thing that is missing which should be included would be some sort of recourse if one is found to be in that position where membership is going to be or has been revoked. There should be some sort of recourse for an unbiased hearing into the circumstances of it.

Some tightening up is needed in those areas. Many of the clauses seem to be all-encompassing and a lot is left to assumption.

In the part that deals with meetings, one clause caught my attention immediately. That was the one that said participation in these meetings could be by telephone or some other communication device. I strongly advise when this bill goes to committee that we address the issue of having people attend the meetings in person versus a telephone conference in which there is perhaps one member sitting in the room and everybody else is on the telephone somewhere in the Yukon territory. There should be some indication as to what a quorum is for attendance in person at a meeting.

A second very restrictive clause is where the meetings can be held. I believe it states they can be held in Whitehorse and/or other areas of the Yukon. I agree that is the most sensible area in which to hold meetings as that is the area it is related to but there may be cause to hold meetings elsewhere. If we are going to look at the letter of the law, which seems to be how our justice system is looking at things these days versus the spirit of it, I suggest that we open that one up a little bit so that meetings are not only held right in that area. That is what that clause suggests.

Much of what I am saying today is clause by clause analysis of the bill which will come up in committee, but those are some of the points I wish to highlight. A number of my colleagues have come up with the same types of points and I think that speaks for itself that there is some concern in those areas.

The last item would be the statement of accounts. I did not get the impression there would be open access to these accounts by the public. I got the impression they would be well documented, that there would be a very good system of accounts, that the appropriate people would do them, that they would be reviewed by the Auditor General, and so on, and submitted to government. However there is no reference anywhere for access to these accounts on request.

With that I will close my remarks. Under the circumstances we realize this bill is the third part of the other two and it is necessary for this one to pass. However, in the composition of the bill there are a number of things that we should tidy it up before we actually put it out as the third part.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Chemical weapons; the hon. member for Oakville-Milton, Tourism; the hon. member for Lévis, Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi; and the hon. member for Chicoutimi, National Defence.