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.