Debates of June 21st, 1994

Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion 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 yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-33, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid land claims agreements entered into between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, the Government of the Yukon Territory and certain first nations in the Yukon Territory, to provide for approving, giving effect to and declaring valid other land claims agreements entered into after this act comes into force, and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would like to share with the House a ruling by the Speaker on Bill C-33.

There are three motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-33, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid land claims agreements entered into between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, the Government of the Yukon Territory and certain first nations in the Yukon Territory, to provide for approving, giving effect to and declaring valid other land claims agreements entered into after this act comes into force, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon separately. Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted upon separately. Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted upon separately.

I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, Motion No. 1 deals with the provision for future Yukon land claim agreements to be ratified by order in council and not by Parliament.

Of course it is common for legislation to delegate to the governor in council the responsibility to implement broad legislative principles to provide the details so to speak. We have no problem with that.

Parliament should be concerned with broad matters of social policy and not the minutiae of implementation. The normal rule relating to the promulgation of regulations and other forms of subordinate legislation are very telling. Subordinate legislation is invalid unless it is specifically authorized by the act. Regulations which go beyond the scope of a provision are invalid, what the legal system calls ultra vires.

The basic ideas is that Parliament, not government, makes law and policy. Subordinate bodies may be delegated the task of implementing this law and with it the underlying social policy objectives sought to be accomplished by Parliament.

Bills C-33 and C-34 through the clever expediency of providing for final and transboundary agreements skirt around the convention and good sense of the ordinary rules of delegation to subordinate bodies. These agreements, most of which have not been negotiated and therefore are unavailable for parliamentary scrutiny and which may be amended in any event, even if existing, prevail over the provisions of Bills C-33 and C-34.

Moreover, land claim agreements and most of these have not been negotiated, can go beyond the act and its provisions may be enacted as law by the governor in council.

The result is that without Parliament's involvement, laws of great import may be formulated. For example, an agreement could provide or be amended to provide a limitation of liability for a First Nation or one of its citizens for any misconduct, default of debt, even breach of fiduciary obligation or fraud.

If this type of provision is not presently permitted, this can be altered through the amendment of the relevant agreement. There is nothing in these bills that precludes this sort of amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have a chance to speak to this bill as well as the motion. I would like to start off by acknowledging the presence in the gallery of people from the Council for Yukon Indians who are eagerly awaiting the passage of these bills.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the presentation to the aboriginal affairs standing committee from Miss Judy Gingell, the chair of the Council for Yukon Indians, with regard to the agreements that we are debating here today: "These agreements manifest a vision of our elders. Our elders maintained that our homelands must be protected in a manner that allows the sharing and natural resources with other Canadians. Our elders have instilled in us a great respect for other cultures and other people. Their visions of justice and fairness form the basis of our agreements".

We are debating these couple of motions with regard to amendments to Bill C-33. This has to do with the land claims. When we were trying to deal with the issue of land claims, this has taken some 21 years to date to come to this state.

It started by being a vision, a dream. It started by being something that people wanted to talk about but did not really have any understanding of what it would all lead to. Twenty-one years later this is what it is coming to.

I am very honoured to have taken a part in helping that dream come true. As well, I am sure that thanks and appreciation go to all the negotiators over the years on the government side and on the CYI side, and of course all the Yukon Indian people as well as the non-Indians whose hopes and trust are placed in the success of these agreements.

As we have found out in the last few days, these two bills have the support of all the Yukoners. We had the Yukon territorial government, the Council for Yukon Indians, the member of Parliament for Yukon and others all supporting these two bills.

In supporting this bill, we are making the dreams of Yukoners come true. In light of the local support, the position of the Reform Party which has opposed these bills from the outset can only be characterized as decidedly undemocratic.

The Reform Party which professes to uphold and respect the wishes and the will of the people has shown profound disrespect and contempt for the people of Yukon. The Reform's effort to thwart this bill and the will of the people from the Yukon through this process has been appalling.

What is most disturbing about the position of the Reform Party in all this in my view is it does not really even care what happens in the Yukon. It is more concerned about the potential land claims agreements in British Columbia.

By imposing its fears and concerns about land claims in B.C. and Yukon, it forced Yukoners and especially Yukon Indian people to unnecessary stress and indignities.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It seemed to me that this was a treatise about the Yukon self-government bill not about how dreadful the Reform Party is. We were asked to keep these discussions specifically to the amendment. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that and address-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I believe that is not a point of order but a matter of debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, rather than lecturing Yukoners, members of the Reform Party should be humbly taking lessons from them. Through compromise and consensus Yukoners of all origins have built a foundation for their future together. This is not social and government engineering, as the member of the Reform Party has called it, it is nation building.

On February 14, 1973, Chief Elijah Smith and all Yukon First Nations chiefs presented a petition to Canada to negotiate a comprehensive claim settlement agreement. The petition was entitled: "Together Today For Our Children Tomorrow". On that same day Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau accepted the Yukon Indian request to commence negotiations.

Our present Prime Minister was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at that time. As the chair of the Council for Yukon Indians pointed out last week in a presentation to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, it is entirely appropriate that the Prime Minister conclude the circle of negotiations of our final self-government agreements. Tomorrow is here.

The Reform's amendment would delete clause 5 from Bill C-33. Subclause (1) of clause 5 allows final land claim agreements and transboundary agreements concluded in the future to be given effect by order in council. Subclause (2) of clause 5 requires that such an order in council be tabled in the House of Commons within 30 sitting days after the order is made. The Reform's amendment to delete clause 5 would mean that 10 remaining First Nations final agreements and future transboundary agreements would have to be brought into effect by other acts of Parliament.

Motion No. 1 is unacceptable because first, the four final agreements being given effect by this bill require this bill to provide that future agreements may be given effect by order in council. Deleting clause 5 would make the legislation inconsistent with the four agreements the bill is bringing into effect. Second, clause 5 does not prevent Parliament from reviewing any further agreements. Third, deleting clause 5 would require consequential amendments to other clauses of this bill, for example clauses 14 and 15.

For all of the above reasons, the government finds Motion No. 1 unacceptable.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I focus on the mechanics of the motion as such, I too would like to extend greetings, both personally and on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to the people in the gallery from the Yukon who, as we know, have waited 21 years to see their dream finally become a reality. Let me also say that they have persevered peacefully for 21 years. Even though the negotiation process can at times be rough, they never took up arms but focused on the task at hand. As a result, as I mentioned, their dream is about to become a reality in a few hours' time.

The 21-year-period is worthy of mention, as I pointed out in my speech on second reading. For Yukon natives, it is extremely important to consider the views of their elders.

During the course of the testimony by Yukon natives, we were told that previous generations of elders had expressed concern about whether these negotiations would ever come to fruition. I think that these elders would be very satisfied today, as will the children of those seated in the gallery who will finally be able to claim ownership once and for all to land that has been theirs forever.

As for the crux of the motion before us, obviously if we were to delete clause 5 of the bill, we would automatically be calling into question clause 4 which basically describes the four nations with whom land claim agreements have already been reached. Therefore, if we delete clause 5 and prohibit the Governor in Council from concluding a similar agreement with the ten other first nations, we would be left with a kind of parliamentary vacuum and there would be no known way of resolving the

claims pending with other first nations. On that subject, negotiations are progressing well. The feeling is that an agreement will be reached within a year or two with five nations. It would be encouraging for them to know that, as soon as their final agreement is reached, they come under the act that is before us and the Governor in Council simply brings them under the provisions of this act.

As for dispelling fears, I think it is something that must be demystified. The four land claim agreements before us which the act will give effect to today for the most part contain the same provisions. This was also the case with Bill C-34: you could open agreements with different nations to any particular page and find just about the same text. I asked the Indian affairs department officials who came to reassure us about the various clauses: can a first nation avoid the final umbrella agreement? And they said no. In other words, the ten nations still in the negotiating process will have to follow the exact same line already agreed to by the other four.

Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Motion No. 1. I am also concerned about the manner in which this entire debate has progressed. We have two bills before the House and we have been debating now for almost a week. A refusal to allow the Governor in Council the power to implement these agreements would implicitly mean that any such agreement would have to be brought before the House in the form of a bill, and at the speed we are going in passing these two bills, you can imagine what it would be like to have ten more before us over the next several years. I think it would take months to get these bills through the House, given the amount of time which the Reform Party has taken blocking the two bills now before us.

For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will reject Motion No. 1.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House concerning amendments to Bill C-33, but first I want to say one thing. The ghosts of the champions of democracy that have passed on from this House will be moving very slowly with their heads bowed tonight. Because of this government this respected House of democracy has become a House of shame. This government has prostituted the principles of democracy. It has prostituted the fundamental values of democracy and it has prostituted everything sacred about democracy.

Members of the party at this end have sold their souls for 30 pieces of silver and they will find their potter's field before their term is over. It is a shame what has happened in this Chamber tonight. Those who value the fundamental richness of democracy will indeed be hanging their heads in shame tonight.

In relation to Bill C-33, I would like to focus on one of the amendments put forward by my party. It deals with clause 5, the first amendment. The existence of clause 5 in this bill is a contradiction to the election promise of openness and transparency the government made. It takes away the democratic values and rights of this House to debate bills, to debate legislation which affects Canadians. This government has squashed that value.

We in the Reform Party have come to this House as the servants of the people of Canada. We have been entrusted to speak for the good of Canada, to question moves like this one tonight, to question the government's determination to ram through legislation that generations of Canadians will be paying for over and over again. The very thought that this government would ram through legislation that would take away the public debate-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I have followed the debate attentively. I have been known in another light to have somewhat of a peripheral vision, but I have never been able to master hearing two or more people speak at any one time. I would like to share in hearing interventions by members on both sides of the House. I would ask the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley to continue, please.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

As I was saying, this government has the audacity tonight to ram through a bill which will take away the debating privileges of this House on legislation that will be in the interests of all Canadians. It will not be debated in this House because this government has brought in closure on the further debate on Bill C-33.

I consider it only appropriate for the good of all Canadians, for the good of Canada, and for the good of the reputation of this House, that our amendment to clause 5 be adopted.

We are officials elected to represent the views of our constituents indeed, the views of all Canadians. This government would think otherwise. Government members would self-serve their private agendas, but this part of the House and this party speaks for the Canadian people, not for the special interest groups that supply support for the party.

The constituents, the taxpayers of this country, pay our salaries. They expect us to look after the best interests of Canada and Canadians, especially when it comes to the appropriation of land under public domain. They have paid for federal territorial and aboriginal negotiators who have drafted these land claim settlements. With clause 5 this government is telling the taxpayers that future settlements will not even come before this House

for scrutiny by their elected representatives. Shame on this government.

With clause 5 the negotiators are no longer accountable. They are no longer accountable to the taxpayers since their settlements will simply be rubber stamped in cabinet. No debate, just a rubber stamp. That is something government members are very familiar with as they sat on this side of the House and accused the previous government of rubber stamping legislation. They learned very well from the Tories as they were sitting over here. Their apprenticeship is now complete and they are doing exactly the same thing they railed upon in this House in the last Parliament.

[An hon. member]

The Tories never did it with no debate.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in not allowing their elected representatives to speak on their behalf, the taxpayer has no say in the distribution of lands to the remaining 10 bands in the Yukon. This is not acceptable to the people of Canada. This is not acceptable to the values of democracy that were present in this House until this government got on that side of the House.

I repeat again, our amendment to clause 5 will preserve the values of democracy. It will give security to the Canadian people, security to know that bills will not be rammed through Parliament in the back rooms of this place.

I say it again. Shame on this government, shame on the way it has desecrated the democratic principles of this House. I hope they all sleep well tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had not initially intended to speak on this bill tonight but after hearing some of what I heard moments ago, I now feel that I must.

[An hon. member]

You do not understand democracy.