Mr. Speaker, I am only going to speak briefly with respect to Bill C-55 because like much of this government's legislation it resembles the Bishop's egg. It is excellent in parts, but it contains a lot of tainted material.
The administrative clauses of the bill are well drafted. They are quite similar to legislation in some provincial jurisdictions. The rules are comprehensible. I am perfectly aware that many mining industry executives regard acceptance of C-55 as preferable to continued regulatory uncertainty.
Having worked in that industry for many years, I think I understand the corporate mind. If a company is effectively blocked by bureaucratic stalemate, it will accept almost any compromise in order to survive. As the crofter said: "It is better to sleep with the devil than to lie a'cold".
My objections to the bill are based on the proposed composition and terms of the reference of the Yukon surface rights board. Like its evil older sisters, Bills C-33 and C-34, this bill is tainted by racial bias. The board will consist of a chairperson and from two to ten other members. Since these will be prize patronage appointments you can be sure that the higher number will prevail. At least half of the members shall be appointed, and I quote: "on the nomination of the Yukon Council of Indians" or to express it more crudely and directly: "They shall be Indians". As my hon. colleague has just said, this is a double-edged sword. Not only is it expressly directed that five members of a ten member group shall be Indians but it is also expressly directed that five of them shall not be Indians.
I thought I lived in Canada. Can anybody imagine the uproar that would ensue if the articles of a quasi-judicial provincial board, let us say in Ontario, required that a certain percentage of its members be Caucasian?
Just in case the board is not sufficiently biased, there is provision in clause 23 of the bill to budget funds for and again I quote: "cross-cultural orientation, education and other training". That is to say for social brainwashing.
Perhaps in so far as the board's duties will deal partly with disputes involving native settlement lands, a little well-intentioned genetic bias can be justified, but why in the name of common sense should the colour of a person's skin determine eligibility to rule on disputes concerning non-settlement lands, that is to say on public lands?
Even if the biases were applied only to settlement lands, it should be remembered that the board will arbitrate compensation for expropriation of these lands. Yet half of its members are required by law to be beneficiaries of such compensation. Does that make sense?
Remember, this unaccountable board will have wide ranging powers and its decisions will have the force of law. Should not its independence be protected?