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.