Debates of June 21st, 1994

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act

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

The member across says I do not understand democracy. Maybe that is so. Maybe he is much more knowledgeable in such things than I. For 18 years I have had the opportunity of serving those who have elected me at the municipal, provincial and federal levels of government. But perhaps the member across has learned a lot more in the time he has been here. Perhaps that is so. I will defer of course to that wisdom, the kind of wisdom we have just heard in the speech he delivered to this House. I will let my colleagues decide on just how much wisdom was heard in the previous 10 minutes.

The member across has just said with this Bill C-33 that democracy is stifled by the government, or something to that effect. I am not going to refer to people who are presently here in Ottawa because I cannot refer to anyone who would be in the gallery. That would be improper. I want the people who are here in Ottawa to know that I feel that the 21 years they have waited is more than long enough.

For members who say this bill was not debated sufficiently, last week we had an all night debate in committee, 16 hours straight of debating this bill in committee. Prior to that we had a second reading debate on this bill. Then we had an additional four hours of debate by the committee dealing with it and now another hour at report stage to be followed tomorrow by another hour at third reading.

Perhaps members think that individual bills should all be dealt with with more than 22 hours of debating time each. That is their privilege. That is more than an hour for every year that the people who are here in Ottawa have waited for this bill, not those in the gallery because I cannot refer to the gallery, but if I could I would.

I was at the committee last week for a good part of the time. I took three or four hours off and then came back. I saw people like the hon. member for Yukon who stayed there all night. The hon. member who is the chairman of the committee stayed their all night to defend the interests of constituents.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

I tip my hat to both of them and to the others who were there to stand by their constituents in obviously very difficult times. I make no apology tonight for people who have waited 21 years. I do not believe they should have waited another three months beyond the parliamentary recess and into the fall because that was the position the Reform Party was taking.

Reform Party members thought the bill should be dragged into the fall before being debated at third reading. They have every right to want to delay whatever they want to delay, but I also have every right to disagree with them, particularly after a bill has been debated in the House at second reading, for 20 hours in committee, for 2 hours at report stage, and then at third reading. That is more than long enough for the people in question to endure.

Finally, members across the way have said that they are the true defenders of democracy or some such nonsense. I wonder under whose definition that is. Is it under the definition of the people who have waited for 21 years, who are in Ottawa but not in the gallery, whom I cannot refer to but I would if I could? No, not according to them.

Let us apply another test. Three parties in the House tonight, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party, voted to end this debate. They as one party representing approximately one-quarter of the membership of the House say their view of democracy as explained by their number supersedes the wish of every one of us including people who have waited for 21 years.

That is a test of democracy. Could it be that democracy if one is a Reformer means that which one can agree with as opposed to that which is good or that which is approved by the majority of the people? Could it be that is their definition of democracy? Perhaps it is.

I am proud we have taken plenty of time to debate the bill at all stages. All members were given an opportunity to debate the bill, including an opportunity to sit all night on a parliamentary committee. Some members did it. They put forward the propositions they felt were important.

I was at the committee for part of the time and I saw motions for adjournment. Does that sound familiar? We heard one of those tonight, except it cut into the time of the people proposing it. We shant mention that. That happened at the parliamentary committee. We had a dilatory motion. The last vote of the committee was if shall the bill be reported to the House. It carried unanimously at committee. I challenge anyone to read the proceedings of the committee.

When the chair asked "shall I report the bill to the House" the vote was yes. Let us hold that thought for a minute. When the bill returned to the House a few hours later who said the bill was not receivable by the House? It was the same people who gave unanimous consent to table it three hours before.

I am no expert in parliamentary procedure but surely there is something wrong with people who give unanimous consent to report a bill to the House and then say three hours later that the bill should not have been reported. That effort in itself proved to me that it was not the intention of the party to debate the bill further. They did not want the House to receive the report. How could those members say they want to debate it some more? Tonight, when we tried to debate these bills in addition to what we had debated them previously, what did they propose? They proposed adjournment to subtract time from the debating time they already had. This is sheer and utter nonsense on the part of the Reform Party. All members of Parliament know it, all Canadians know it, the people of the Yukon and the people who have waited 21 years know it especially.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the just made speech across the way is very typical of Liberal damage control. If you have a problem point your finger, accuse someone else and say it is all their fault. Are the people of Canada fooled by this? No, sir.

I would like to address the people of Canada on this motion. I take the word of my colleague a while ago. The word is shame. It is a terrible shame. The people are not going to be fooled by this. Closure is a shame. It is a travesty of democracy. You know it and you are going to pay for it.

The biggest shame however is figuring out what the motivation is. What has been the motivation across the way to dampen debate, to cut out debate, to stifle it? Could it possibly be that we do not want to hear any countervailing arguments? Could it be even that you want you want to catch your plane? Could it be that the Bloc Quebecois joined in because they want to catch their plane home? Or could it be that there was a little deal struck here? If so, more shame.

This is the first time that I have personally had to undergo this sort of a travesty. I will not forget it ever and I assure you that the voters of Canada will not forget it either.

I say to the hon. member for Nunatsiaq who mentioned his dream that I sincerely hope, sir, that this will culminate in a dream for your people and a dream come true for the people of the Yukon. I hope, because of the ill-consideration of all of the facets of this, that it will not turn a dream into a nightmare.

I would like to underline a few principles that the Reform Party applies to native issues. The first is equality not among just natives but equality among all Canadians. The second is self-reliance. In this we mean elimination of the department of Indian affairs. The third would be the right to self-determination, the freedom to choose not to have the federal government or band councils impose lifestyle.

The fourth would be self-sufficiency, native self-government fashioned after municipal government models with input from all other Canadians. The fifth would be treaty negotiations, fair resolution of all past, present and future native and non-native obligations involving input from all Canadians. Finally, we believe in settling land claims through a fair negotiation involving all Canadians and not just orders in council.

This bill addresses some basic problems concerning the role of the House of Commons. It has always been my belief as a non-politician, perhaps as a naive Canadian, that this House is here to represent the interests of all Canadians. Obviously that means all Canadians without regard to race, religion or ethnic background. I sometimes believe this to be true particularly if I talk person to person with members of this House, even across the way. There are other times however when party machinery gets into gear and I doubt very much at that time that the common wheel of all of Canada is the objective. The handling of Bills C-33 and C-34 certainly raises such doubts. If there was any doubt before tonight that doubt is out the window now.

The original purpose is no doubt well-intentioned but its execution here in Parliament raises very fundamental questions about the operation of the House. What is the hurry? We have to ask that in the case of these two bills. What is the hurry?

We have legislation here of the greatest importance that, as we have heard, has been worked on for over 20 years, legislation that will have a profound influence on the future of Canada, legislation so voluminous that it has to be measured in inches and weighed in pounds and the government says: "Okay, look at it quickly, now get on with it".

The situation was well described when we heard about this for the first time by my colleague from North Island-Powell River when he said:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had the introduction of Bills C-33 and C-34 which would ratify land claims and self-government agreements in the Yukon. Last week we were told the government wished to have these bills introduced later in June with the understanding that MPs would have time to prepare properly.

These bills represent the culmination of 21 years of mostly behind closed doors work without the involvement of federal parliamentarians. Today, 24 hours after tabling, Parliament is being asked to debate these bills at second reading.

This is an obvious abuse of power. The Liberal red ink book speaks of the integrity of Parliament. Surely assimilating over nine inches of text overnight with a rushed departmental briefing the next morning does not speak well of the integrity of Parliament or the interest of all Canadians. This action is a travesty of Parliament.

Since then, because of the limited time for debate and in reaction to the government's desire to get the bills passed, the Reform Party has had to drag out discussions of the bill in committee. Here we are back in the House. We were hoping to forestall any precipitate decision on the bills but obviously that is out the window as well.

We have an obligation to the Canadian public, not just us but all Canadians, to let the public know what is going on.

Remarkably, the same hasty panic occurred in the House a year ago when a similar bill zipped through the House in a single day. That was Bill C-133 which created Nunavut. Bill C-133 dealt with one-fifth of the Canadian land mass. In effect it created a new province, therefore affecting the Constitution of the country. It allocated $580 million to 17,000 Inuit. Bill C-133 was rushed through the House in one single day on June 4, 1993.

The opposition agreed with the bill. What deal was made? In spite of the enormous implications of that bill the Canadian public did not react. Why did it not react? Timing and orchestration. Rush a bill through. Restrict debate and nobody is the wiser. What was going on there and what is going on here? What on earth is the hurry?

I can only identify two people who spoke out against Bill C-133. One was the Reform member for Beaver River; the other was Pat Nowlan, the then member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. I would like to quote from of Mr. Nowlan's remarks, he being an independent Conservative. After he gave a little plaudit, Mr. Nowlan went on to say:

I speak almost with a forked tongue. That gets into the substance of the agreement I am glad to say is here today. It has to be put on the record that I am totally against the process. To have had the minister of Indian affairs speak for 18 minutes as he did in introducing this bill at second reading does not even begin to equal the 15 or 16 years it took to get the agreement. The member for Comox-Alberni said 20 or 25 years-If there was ever an example of a dead Parliament doing dangerous things, this bill sadly is it. This bill should not have been brought in in the closing days of Parliament, the last weekend before we rise. Whether we come back, we do not know.

He was prescient, was he not? Look at the similarity of that situation one year ago today to what we have here in this House tonight. I go on to quote, time coming up.

With all the good things the minister of Indian affairs and other speakers have said about it, this bill has the potential of nation building, of bringing the Inuit into the federation on some of the major points of the agreement.

That was his cry of shame, that the thing was not properly debated and considered.

In summary, we have had a shame before this House this evening. I hope the people of Canada will lock it away and remember it.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a certain amount of sadness. I thought I would hear something more profound, more healing tonight.

Nine months ago when we arrived I was given the red book. I come from a steel town with not a lot of aboriginal people. Within the red book there was a map, a direction. Part of that map involved exactly what we are doing tonight.

I went to the Yukon. I went north three times. I met with the Yukon people. I met women who talked about Bill C-31 status with tears in their eyes. I met elders who thought that they would never have any honour given back to them. Poverty, you have no idea of the poverty or the housing.

When the white man came to Canada-and the aboriginal people use that term not in a derogatory way; they mean non-aboriginal people-we came with a certain amount of avarice. We came here for our property which they were holding temporarily for us for 10,000 years.

We went there and we said we would do the honourable thing. We hired the best negotiators. I wish I had them today. If you look at the 11 treaties, what do they have? A suit of clothes for the head man, a suit of clothes for the chief, a medal which tarnishes, a few acres for each family of five, $8, $9 or $10 a year. We would take the equivalent of half of provinces. There was one thing honoured in those treaties-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I believe there is a well established practice in this House that we refer to one another by ridings or portfolios, as the case may be. Obviously, it is no great news when I tell you that this debate is one of great importance and which brings great conviction from both sides of the House, from both sides of the debate. I would hope that we could be able to follow that debate and be able to all share and hear whatever interventions might be made by whatever members from whichever side of the House.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after that meeting with the aboriginal people I took the time to meet with the mayors. They said they want this legislation. I met with their legislative people, all of them. They not only want it, they have passed the mirror legislation already. I met with the mining association. They want it. I did not meet anybody up there who really did not want it. I said: "This should be easy legislation. When I get back to Ottawa I am going to have difficulty on other legislation. Reform Party members say they will listen to the people. This is in their platform. I heard it for eight months during the campaign. This should be easy to get through the House of Commons".

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Boy, were you shocked.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I was shocked. I was surprised. I am facing an agenda of the Reform Party.

[An hon. member]

Put it to a referendum.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Stay quiet and you will learn something. Somewhere in this city is a lady called Judy Gingell. Somewhere in this city she is sitting close to tears because she has been working on this matter for 21 years. She did not come on the scene eight months ago with this agenda.

Then we started hearing the agenda of the Reform Party. I must apologize to the Reform Party because last week I said on the first sentence of any substance I heard that it was 56 words and there were 8 derogatory words about aboriginal people. I apologize. It was 56 words and there were 9 derogatory statements. This is the sentence and these are the words talking about aboriginal people: misappropriation, fraudulent, mismanagement, authorized purposes, interference, fear, intimidation, assault and forcibly. They were in one sentence. That is the agenda.

I have a direct quote on April 25 from a member of the Reform Party: "I will not accept the popular myth"-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Listen to your own words. No wonder members of the Reform Party are groaning. They cannot stand to listen to their own words: "I will not accept the popular myth spread by certain self-serving interests that the encroachment of European settlers constituted an injustice against aboriginal people here or anywhere else in Canada". That was said by the member for Athabasca on April 25 in the House.

I wish the Reform Party would read the recent report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in which it says that the plight of native Canadians is by far the most serious human rights problem in Canada. It continues that the failure-and I see it here tonight with the Reform Party-to achieve a more global solution can only continue to tarnish Canada's reputation and accomplishments.

Last week I was sitting here with some Liberals and I heard a Reform member say: "Indians are lazy. They live in south sea islands and periodically"-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

The husbands sat around and burned their wives on their arms. That is not acceptable in this country.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The words that were attributed to an hon. member were not accurate and I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw them immediately.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I regret that is not a point of order, although I know an issue of great sensitivity has been dealt with at another time in the House, something that all members may want to keep in mind through these deliberations.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not only what they said after being admonished in every newspaper I saw on my way to B.C., from here to Victoria. Yesterday or the day before that hon. member said he was quite proud of those words, even after that.

If I never stand another night in the House, tonight is a proud night for me, to be among Liberals and Canadians from across Canada in all parties who want to do the right and honourable thing for some people in Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

If you do not want to listen, you do not want to listen. Leave or stop shouting. We want to do the honourable thing along with the member for Yukon, a member I am very proud to sit in the House with, notwithstanding that she is sitting in that section.

She is a woman of passion, of caring, of knowledge and it is too bad the Reform does not periodically stop staring at us and turn around. It might learn something.

These people in Yukon have been living there for 10,000 years and negotiating for 21 years with various governments. Tonight they are going to get justice and I am going to be proud to stand for that justice.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise tonight to speak to bills C-33 and C-34. I would like to thank the Bloc Quebecois for allowing me this opportunity to express my support for the first nations of the Yukon and for justice for Canada's aboriginal peoples.

In the short time I have there were several things said tonight that I would like to take this opportunity to correct. One was from my good friend across the way who spoke about the negotiations being 21 years which indeed they were.

I would say that the people of Yukon and the Yukon Indian people have been waiting 92 years because it was in 1902 that Chief Jim Boss first raised the issue of land claims in Yukon. I say if not after 92 years, then when? Now is the time for the justice that the minister spoke of earlier.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

The member for the Reform Party said this was done behind closed doors. I say to this House that these were the most open closed doors I have ever seen in the 15 years I have been in the Yukon.

There have been many consultations throughout Yukon. The previous government leader of Yukon in giving evidence before the committee mentioned that in the previous government they had done 100 public consultations. The current government leader of Yukon and his government have also done numerous consultations around Yukon in the communities and with various organizations including the Chamber of Commerce and the outfitters and so on.

The Council for Yukon Indians has done extensive consultations with aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in Yukon.

For many of us in Yukon, and for myself not originally coming from Yukon, it has been a very educative process over the last 15 years to watch the development of this issue. What we see tonight with the co-operation of at least three political parties in this House is expressing real democracy for justice, for a historical obligation, long overdue.

I congratulate the minister on his remarks and on his perseverance on this issue. We are showing through these two pieces of legislation an opportunity for Canadians to come together to resolve historical obligations, to fight for real equality of every citizen.

As a Yukoner, not as a member of Parliament, I say that these pieces of legislation bring real equality to every person living in the Yukon and serves as a model for the rest of Canada.

In conclusion, I would like to say there has been much discussion about what we are giving to aboriginal people. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what this legislation is about and the history of Canada.

As a European politician some time ago said, the land was stolen fair and square.

This is an attempt to redress a wrong to a people. I would also like to correct one other statement that was made. It was that Yukon First Nations peoples have been in that region for 10,000 years. Anthropological evidence will indicate it has been at least 20,000 years.

Surely it is time the people of Canada and this Parliament say it is time for Yukoners, it is time for Yukon First Nations to have what is their right, to have what is their responsibility and for us to stand proudly tonight to support that justice and to see that justice is done.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.