Debates of June 22nd, 1994

Excise Tax Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

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

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think you might find unanimous consent in the House for a couple of motions.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I move:

That until September 19, 1994, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, all committees shall be authorized to deposit their reports with the Clerk of the House on days when the House stands adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 28(2), whereupon those reports shall be deemed to have been presented to the House.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think you might find consent for the following motion. I move that the 28th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House on Friday, June 10, 1994 be concurred in.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a further suggestion, that we continue with the suspension of private members' hour and that we proceed with Bill C-34.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act

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

moved that Bill C-34, an act respecting self-government for first nations in the Yukon Territory, be read the third time and passed.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-34 which implements self-government for First Nations in Yukon, an extremely historic agreement.

It is a particular pleasure for me to do this because as Minister of Indian Affairs in 1976-77 I was involved in the original negotiations with respect to these matters. At that time the claim made by the Council of Yukon Indians was entitled "Together Today for our Children Tomorrow" and was presented by Elijah Smith, an outstanding leader with the Yukon Indians. Soon afterwards I dealt with the new president of the Yukon Indians who was known as Daniel Johnson.

I supported this claim at that time which is a long time ago and I am pleased today after many ups and downs that it is finally settled and being ratified at this time by the House of Commons. I should point out that part of the delay over these many years has been due to the fact that the Yukon Indians to their credit not only put forward land claims in the traditional way but also wished to have aboriginal self-government as part of their claim and that held up the negotiations for many years.

It is also interesting to note that some of the people who were active with the Council of Yukon Indians back in 1976-77 when I was negotiating with it are still active today. I saw in the balcony last night people such as David Joe, Harry Allen and Vic Mitander. I must congratulate them all, along with Judy Gingell, the new chairperson of the Council for Yukon Indians, for their tenacity and their commitment to their claim and for having stuck with it over the years despite some very tough negotiating situations.

It is interesting to note that when we started the process back in the seventies very few Canadians understood and supported what we are doing here today. There was very little understanding and support for aboriginal land claims and especially for aboriginal self-government. However over the years there has been great progress and great advance in public education to the extent where today there is overwhelming support for these claims.

A certain amount of the success in advancing this public education was due to the aboriginal nations and to the work of the special committee on Indian self-government in the 1980s under Keith Penner, a former member from northern Ontario. I was also a member of that committee. The process that led up to the Charlottetown accord included provisions for aboriginal self-government which by that time had achieved a great deal of support among Canadians. Despite the fact that the Charlottetown accord was rejected by Canadians, the clauses with respect to aboriginal self-government had a lot of support.

As Canadians we have come a long way in understanding and supporting aboriginal self-government. Unfortunately that support is not yet unanimous. I am sad to say that we still have in the House a number of members, those in the Reform Party, and others in the country who still do not seem to understand this important concept and who still bring up the old myths and stereotypes with respect to aboriginal people. I ask these members with great sincerity to take a new look at it. There is still time for them to vote in support of this very important measure.

We must remember that the aboriginal nations in Canada and in North America generally were here for thousands of years before the Europeans came. In that time they had their own lands, their own governments, their own languages, their own cultures, their own laws and their own economies. They were nations and they lived on the lands we now occupy.

When most of us as Europeans-and some of us came from other lands-first came here the aboriginal people thought they were sharing the land with us. They certainly were not transferring it to us. They never agreed to give up their rights and their sovereignty with respect to these lands, their cultures, traditions, governments and so on. Regretfully our people, the descendants of the Europeans, gradually took it away from them.

It is only justice that today and in other land claim settlements and through the treaties these demands have finally been recognized, that these rights are finally recognized, and that we have agreed to settle with these nations as we are doing today with the Yukon First Nations.

We are now on the third and final reading of Bill C-34 which is the Yukon First Nations self-government act. The self-government agreements to which this legislation pertains are in many respects the most complex self-government arrangements we have ever attempted in the country. For one thing they are unique in that they are the first such agreements tied in directly with a comprehensive land claim agreement that is ratified at the same time.

This legislation will be passed together with the Yukon land claims settlements act, Bill C-33. That means the administration of both the claims and self-government aspects will begin simultaneously in these First Nations that have signed self-government agreements.

It is also the first self-government legislation to cover all the First Nations within a single province or territory. Previous self-government arrangements have been made with a single band such as with the Sechelt band of British Columbia, or with a regional group such as was the case with the Cree and Naskapi in northern Quebec.

The Yukon settlement, which was initiated by the Council of Yukon Indians, covers the vast majority of aboriginal people in the territory. It includes almost a quarter of Yukon's total population.

The legislation is also the first self-government legislation to include several different aboriginal cultures and communities under a single piece of legislation. Yukon has some seven distinct native language groups. There are 16 communities in

Yukon, virtually all of which have a significant aboriginal population.

Finally the Yukon self-government legislation is the first under which the First Nations will be empowered to provide certain programs and services not only to residents living on settlement land but also to First Nation citizens living off settlement land. This is another first.

Given these unique features, it is not surprising there were fairly protracted negotiations before the final agreements were reached. Because of the complexity and diversity of Yukon's aboriginal communities, the government agreed to negotiate and sign individual self-government agreements with each of 14 separate First Nations. Four such agreements have now been finalized. Active negotiations are currently being pursued with five others.

The government is confident this process will be completed satisfactorily over the next few years. While each agreement will have certain unique provisions reflecting the particular characteristics and needs of individual First Nations, there are certain common areas covered in all the agreements negotiated to date.

These include first, the recognition of First Nation governing structures. Unlike the previous band structure under the Indian Act that they will replace, First Nations will have broad powers similar to those of other governments to enter into contracts, acquire and hold property, and form corporations. These powers are vitally important if the First Nation is to effectively administer self-government and develop initiatives to improve the economic and social conditions in its communities.

Second, these agreements will replace the Indian Act. Under the agreement the Indian Act will no longer apply to a Yukon First Nation, its citizens or its land, except for some minor provisions which deal with for example the question of which citizens are Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act, how reserve lands are to be treated under a self-government regime, and provisions respecting the treatment of trust moneys for minors.

Third, the agreements provide for an ongoing process for transferring programs to the First Nations, that is transferring programs from the department of Indian affairs to First Nations. It is inherent in these agreements that First Nation governments will assume responsibility for administering a number of programs and services now provided by either the federal or territorial governments. These will include social services, health services, and educational responsibilities.

This will be done on a transitional basis in which the First Nation will take the initiative in determining which programs it is prepared to take on and in what order. Annual meetings will be held between government and First Nations to review priorities and agree on the timing and financing of these transfers.

Although this process will take time, the government is confident that over the next several years the minister will be able to downsize the department of Indian and Inuit affairs operations in Yukon by some 75 per cent from present levels. Only a small staff will remain to handle responsibilities and obligations directly related to the implementation of federal responsibilities emerging from self-government. I want to congratulate the minister on the actions he has taken in that respect.

Fourth, the legislation provides for the establishment of law-making authority of First Nations over their citizens and settlement land. Although federal laws of general application will remain paramount, First Nations will have authority to pass legislation dealing with internal management, the provision of services, taxation on settlement land and similar matters.

Fifth, with respect to the funding of Yukon First Nations, self-government will be by means of new five-year comprehensive financial transfer agreements which will replace current funding agreements. These will give First Nations much more scope and flexibility within which to set priorities and plan for the orderly development of their communities.

These are the key general provisions in the legislation that will be common to all the self-government agreements in Yukon. However, some differences will exist from one First Nation to another in Yukon, for example, in procedures established for ratification of the agreement and in the specific provisions dealing with the application of self-government powers within community boundaries.

The most compelling aspect of self-government is the opportunity it provides for economic development within aboriginal communities. Both aboriginal leaders and the government are seriously concerned about the continuing high rates of unemployment among aboriginal Canadians. This is clearly one of the major stumbling blocks to improving the economic and social conditions among Canada's aboriginal population. As the government has stated, this is a matter of national concern. The untapped potential of aboriginal people is untapped potential for all of Canada.

Yukon's aboriginal population is young with more than half of that population under 24 years of age. Like the aboriginal population as a whole, it is growing at a faster rate than the national average. Compounding this situation is the fact that young aboriginal people in all parts of Canada, including Yukon, are seeking greater educational opportunities in recent years. Across Canada, the number of young aboriginal people staying in school until grade 12 has doubled in the past decade. The

number going on to post-secondary institutions, universities and colleges has almost doubled in the past five years.

This is an extremely positive development and one that reflects well on the leadership of aboriginal communities and the governments that have supported their efforts. It also means there is a growing generation of job-ready young people coming to the employment market with higher hopes, higher aspirations and higher expectations than ever before. Unless these hopes and expectations are reasonably met, they will quickly be replaced by despair and disillusionment.

The very fact that these land claims and self-government agreements will come into effect will create an environment of greater certainty and stability in Yukon. This in turn will have a positive effect on investment, particularly in the important resource sectors of mining and mineral development. An upsurge in activity in these key areas will certainly have a ripple effect throughout Yukon's economy and will create improved job opportunities for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

Our government, the Liberal government, is convinced that aboriginal economic development must be largely a bottom-up exercise. Aboriginal controlled community enterprises and effective community development institutions will be the main engines of economic growth for them and for the entire communities. We are further convinced that the combination of the powers inherent in self-government taken in tandem with the funding provided in the land claims agreement will create a climate in which such development and institutions will have a much better chance of succeeding.

Self-government can work to provide wealth and jobs, provided the arrangements have been carefully worked out and provided the First Nations concerned are willing and able to take maximum advantage of the opportunities presented to them. This is certainly the case with regard to Yukon's First Nations. The self-government agreements have been painstakingly worked through negotiations spanning many years.

The leadership of Yukon's First Nations are ready and willing to take on the job of governing and rebuilding their communities. There is no reason to delay. There is every reason for us to give speedy consideration and passage of this self-government legislation so that the work can begin. I think the government did the right thing in putting forward the motions last night to ensure this legislation would pass before we adjourn this House for the summer recess.

I must say as well that self-government is not the be all and end all. As several aboriginal leaders have pointed out recently, simply signing a document cannot make the problems of their people disappear overnight. On the other hand, this government is convinced that all these problems of housing, social services, education and economic progress can be more effectively advanced and dealt with within the environment of greater local autonomy, a sound financial framework and equally and mutually respectful relations among governments at all levels. That is what self-government is essentially about. It is why this government has brought this legislation before the House.

I conclude by urging all members of this House, including my friends in the Reform Party, to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are now only a few minutes away from adopting a bill on which my party the government and our Reform Party colleagues have worked for many hours.

Before getting into the nuts and bolts of the bill before the House today, I would like to talk about how my perspective on the work of a parliamentarian has changed. It is light years away from what I expected my work as a parliamentarian to be, especially as a critic for a sector as difficult and complex as Indian Affairs. We sometimes think that the life of a parliamentarian, before we actually experience it ourselves, is very easy and that it is cocktail parties every evening.

Since coming to Ottawa, and especially these last two weeks, I have not had time to go to cocktail parties; I have only had time to read through agreements one-foot thick in order to analyse them very quickly.

I think I can say that I have learned to appreciate the complexity of the issues. For instance, since aboriginal issues are a federal matter, and being a member of a sovereigntist party, I have always adhered to the principle that we have two nations in Canada, Quebec and the rest of Canada. My point is that Quebec and Canada sometimes have different ways of approaching the issues.

As a critic for the Official Opposition in a federal Parliament and as a member of the sovereigntist party, one has to be very diligent to ensure that one's positions are implemented. I am delighted to see that Quebec has led the way in this respect. The hon. member made this point earlier with respect to James Bay and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement-the Cree and the Naskapis-and I think this is a first in Canada. We led the way, and this fact has given me some very important tools. The issues are also complex because within the territory occupied by these two nations, there are about 600 native bands, each with its own identity.

The word complex applies not only to the relations between two nations and the 600 native bands in Canada. Especially in Quebec, the situation is extremely difficult with regard to the aboriginal question. Extremely difficult, because unfortunately, we have tremendous problems with some of the reserves. I think the federal government is not doing everything it should to resolve these problems. My point is that the situation is not an

easy one for a parliamentarian, especially an Indian affairs critic.

There are other aspects which make being an Indian affairs critic a thankless job. The minister tables a bill for first reading, the same afternoon we receive a stack of documents a foot thick, and the next day I have to rise in the House to make two speeches. Imagine the amount of work, even if we are told subsequently that these documents were in public domain, we have other things to do as well. So not only do we have a difficult job but there is also a tremendous amount of work involved. We are now on our fifth bill on aboriginal affairs in two weeks, C-16, C-25, C-33, C-34, and C-36, and I personally introduced a motion on the north.

Imagine the work we have to do! And that does not include our work on the standing committee. The committee has to go on with its study of the bill. Once again, I thought I would stay up all night only once during this session, but I did so twice, thanks to my friends in the Reform Party, because we discussed the issue all night. Fortunately, the hon. member for Jonquière relieved me at 2 a.m., because the sitting was starting to seem very long indeed, but I tell you that the job of Indian affairs critic is not an easy one.

It is also vital for a critic to explain to his party how important it is to respect and understand the First Nations. And that is not always easy, considering the difficult and volatile context I just mentioned. It is also necessary to show that one has the political will, and I think the Bloc Quebecois, by supporting land claims in the Yukon and self-government for aboriginal peoples, has shown that it is prepared to understand these people.

It may be scant consolation but I did find it satisfying to see that, despite all this hard work, I was able to sense the frustration of these people in the Yukon who had to wait 21 years for these negotiations to be concluded. All of the work that we have had to do to reach this third reading stage is nothing compared to the frustrations these people must have felt over the years.

Understanding and respect are important considerations. I have in my office the Indian and Northern Affairs map showing the 600 bands scattered across Canada. Approximately one hundred different languages and dialects are spoken by these bands and first nations. Imagine the wealth of native culture, particularly with respect to language.

As for the environment, in our economic analyses, our environmental concerns have always taken a back seat to other priorities. The opposite is often true for native peoples. We have to understand that the environment often tops their list of priorities. These are important considerations when it comes to adopting a bill such as the one now before us because, as we will see, the bill's provisions focus at considerable length on the environment.

We also have to understand that in our view of modern economy, the main thing is for shareholders to earn as many dividends as possible on their shares. However, their primary concern is the environment. They are not interested in measures that will enhance or stimulate their economy, because these could harm or endanger the environment. We must also understand this extremely important aspect of native culture.

Last but not least, I want to touch on the question of power or authority. Later on, I would enjoy talking with the people of the Yukon to hear their views on power and democracy, and specifically on parliamentary democracy. We are accustomed to seeing people yell "yea" and "nay" and rise one by one for hours on end. In our system of parliamentary democracy, this is quite acceptable. However, for some this process is hard to understand because their concept of power is quite different.

I can give you some typical examples of what happens on some reserves when negotiations take place. Because we are used to delegating authority, our first instinct is to say: Let us go meet with the appropriate authorities. We come before the band council and to our great surprise, after several negotiation sessions, we realize that the band council is not the only authority on the reserve. First nations have a very different view of authority than we do.

I realized that sometimes the band council says yes one day, and no the next. Why? Because there are other authorities on the reserves with whom we are not in the habit of dealing. Among others, the elders have some authority. We view the elders as important, wise people, but for the natives, it goes much further than that. The elders are responsible for the presence of the others on the reserve and are seen as very wise. Others look to them constantly for advice and counsel.

This view of authority is very important because when a band council has made a decision, the elders may that same day or in the days that follow give their view of the decision made. There are also the clan mothers, a totally different phenomenon than what we have in our society. Native societies are often matriarchal societies, whereas ours is a patriarchal society. We are accustomed to seeing the father as an authority figure, as the one who gets angry and who metes out punishment. The opposite is often true in native communities. Mothers have a great deal of influence, considerably more than they do in our society. Therefore, it is important to design new systems and new centres of authority within each reserve.

We are used to the way things are done here in the House and often in the agencies we deal with. Decisions are made by simple majority. Fifty per cent plus one vote is all that is required to

make a decision, and the minority is then asked to come on side. They, on the other hand, will often debate an issue far longer until a consensus is reached. I think these things are important, because I want my colleagues to be aware of what it means to negotiate and hold talks with aboriginal nations. It is also very important to go there first-hand, as I did on several occasions, to try to establish such relations and see how they work. This may be a thankless assignment, but it is also extremely rewarding and, from a cultural standpoint, I must say that rubbing shoulders with them has been an ongoing source of personal enrichment for me.

Now, concerning the bill-I hope you will forgive this aside, but I felt it was important to get it out before launching into the mechanics. What is self-government? A quick definition would relate the "self" to independence, the ability to make decisions in relation to a central authority. This is what will be before us today with the bill. And "government" means the act of governing and providing political direction. So these people will effectively be able to make decisions on very specific points of jurisdiction, which are in the agreement that I will explain later. This is what self-government means to some extent, and I thought it was important to start with a brief definition.

In keeping with the argument I developed previously, no two self-government agreements can be exactly alike. Some people associate self-government with a territorial base, and this is so in the case before us today. Others already have a territorial base and are not necessarily seeking to expand that territory, but rather want to be given specific points of jurisdiction.

Again, depending on their culture, they will ask the government during negotiations to give them back such and such area of jurisdiction-be it education, health care, social services, police or language. These areas may vary from one nation or reserve to the next.

We must understand that there is no general model. It cannot be said that self-government will be handled the same way for all 600 bands in Canada. That is impossible.

I pointed out earlier the importance of knowing their culture, their language and their respect for the environment, that is, their great customs and traditions firmly rooted in their genes, I would say. Some preconditions must be met before this type of negotiations can be entered into. I think the first nations must be willing to take control of their own destiny. The Yukon people that I have met seem to have this will. They showed us time and again that they wanted to plan their own future and get rid of the famous Indian Act guardianship. If the minister and the Liberal government are to be believed, they want to dismantle the Department of Indian Affairs and revoke the Indian Act.

I think this agreement fits in with the idea of taking control of their own destiny and getting rid once and for all of the Indian Act and the guardianship of Indian Affairs.

There is also a will to respect other people's cultures. I think the Bloc Quebecois has also shown that we were able to understand these people and that they understood us as well. I noticed a little sadness when debate dragged on, but they must understand that we are living in a democracy under a system different from theirs and that, unfortunately, they had to go through the process that took place here in recent days. So I think they are in a position to understand that this is the way the Canadian government operates.

I now want to make a short statement on what I said at the beginning of my speech about the importance of the James Bay Agreement affecting the Cree, as you know, and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement affecting the Naskapi. That is something the Bloc Quebecois must rely on because it was a first, an agreement that was hard to reach, I admit, but so rewarding and important in paving the way for other aboriginal nations.

I want to congratulate Quebec on how it approached these very complex negotiations with aboriginal nations. Not only was Quebec willing to negotiate but it made an effort to understand, as the money it spent on this demonstrates.

We see again that Quebec, to its credit, has a strong value system and that its respect for other peoples is reflected in these agreements. For instance, if we consider the financial impact and what the Government of Quebec contributed through Hydro-Quebec, most of the money in these agreements came from Hydro-Quebec and the Government of Quebec, while the agreements that have been before the House lately include very little in the way of financial input from the provinces involved.

It is clear that the federal government is very generous to aboriginal people outside Quebec, but the situation is different in Quebec, although, we decided to try to reach an agreement with these people in an atmosphere of mutual respect. It took time, and of course there are still the occasional clashes today. There are still some irritants, but I can assure you that on the Quebec side we are trying to smooth out the rough spots.

I think it is important to point out that the James Bay Agreement was a first, an example that was followed by many other aboriginal nations.

In fact, the list of jurisdictional items that are included in the agreement before the House today was already to a considerable extent included in this agreement, and that is why I say that the James Bay Agreement was a pioneer in this respect.

As far as administration is concerned, and I will now get back to the bill before us today, these people will no longer be dependent on programs administered directly by the Department of Indian Affairs. They will finally be able to say: We have values, we have a different culture and we intend to run our affairs in our own way in accordance with our own culture and traditions and with a greater say over our own economy, which is as it should be in a modern economy.

I wish them good luck with the language aspect, those who are in the visitors' gallery today. Since there are six or seven languages and the common denominator there is English, I hope that aboriginal languages will command a greater appreciation and that aboriginal people will be able to exercise much tighter control over aboriginal languages. I also hope they will not experience what happened in Quebec to the French language.

You know about Bill 101 and Bill 178, and we in Quebec are constantly under attack from Supreme Court judgments. I also know that Quebecers are prepared to respect the terms of agreements with aboriginal peoples. I hope that as far as aboriginal languages are concerned, the Supreme Court will stay put and not do anything that would destroy aboriginal languages in the Yukon as was done in Quebec.

As far as health care is concerned, people will have greater control over health care, which is quite an achievement. I say this because once again, their culture has shown us that they take a very unique approach to medicine and health care. It is a holistic approach which focuses more on prevention than on cures. We see a lot of healing circles, which are an important resource. Kateri hospital in Kanawake, for instance, takes a very different approach. The physicians who work at the hospital went to a traditional white school, but with their culture they also have an approach that is far more holistic, as I just said.

There is a series of other programs, and I do not intend to repeat the speech I made in second reading, but perhaps I could expand somewhat on the roles of the traditional economy and a modern economy. This is something of a challenge for them, and I think they will be able to meet that challenge. The traditional aboriginal economy, particularly in the Yukon, is based on trapping, fishing, fruit gathering, and so on, in the ancestral way. It is an economy which has always existed and I think it should be preserved.

Now we must also ensure that integration into the modern economy does not simply sap and devastate this traditional economy. Knowing the aboriginal nations and the importance they place on the various facets of their traditional economy, such as gathering, hunting and fishing-because this has gone beyond mere subsistence and can also involve marketing activities-I think they will go out of their way to ensure its smooth integration with the modern economy.

I also think it is important to talk about law enforcement. I did not get a chance to speak on the young offenders bill, but I must point out that there are enormous justice problems on aboriginal reserves. It is increasingly obvious that our justice system cannot apply, or is extremely difficult to apply to aboriginal nations. Delinquency rates are high, incarceration rates are also high. This may be-and in fact is-attributable to appalling social conditions. Economic and social conditions are extremely bad, so that people tend to turn to drugs and drink-with all of the resulting ills in terms of delinquency and incarceration rates. So, given the opportunity to administer the justice system a little more, their justice system being slightly different from ours, law enforcement will be more tailored to their standards.

A person who commits a crime may not necessarily have to go before a judge or go to jail. They have a sort of discussion circle, and often the entire community will discuss an adolescent's particular problem and try to develop an action plan to rehabilitate the individual without necessarily imposing incarceration. These are important considerations that must be raised to explain that their culture is different.

The bill contains all of these concepts, and it is safe to say that the people of the Yukon will be taking far greater control over their future. I will conclude to leave a little time for my friends in the Reform Party. The Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-34, as we stated in committee and at second reading.

I would like to review some of the points raised by the hon. member who preceded me. I think the Reform Party left aboriginal people and, I think, other Canadians with a bad impression; people think they may be going too far. I think people in the Reform Party might take advantage of the next few minutes to try to erase the picture which Canadians and aboriginal people now have of them. Naturally, I would ask them to vote in favour of Bill C-34.

Finally, the elders who were there will be pleased to note that the present generation has concluded an agreement which will benefit their children's children. This agreement was entered into peacefully, without the use of weapons, solely through perseverance. I ask all of my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-34.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to divide my time, if that is possible, with the member for Calgary Southeast.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to debate Bill C-34. Before I get into the specific clauses of this bill that will allow self-government for 14 Yukon Indian bands, I wish to

again express my objections to the strategy the government chose in introducing this bill into the parliamentary process.

I use the precise words of the minister of Indian affairs: "The scope and complexity of these agreements is unprecedented. This government has used all means at its disposal to stifle public exposure of this legislation". That begs the question: Why?

This party had no desire to block this legislation and could not even if we chose to. We simply wanted time for adequate public scrutiny, examination and meaningful debate. Was this unrelenting bullying simply to satisfy someone's ego or is it, as some aboriginal people suggested to me, to prevent proper examination and exposure of the fact that this is a move to exploit the desire for dollars of current band leadership to extinguish aboriginal rights now provided through the treaties and the Indian Act? Time will tell.

While this was procedurally allowable, I would remind those members who were in opposition in the last Parliament to remember their own cries of objection when the Conservative government imposed those conditions on themselves and the Liberals' promise in the red book to do things differently.

To those who would dismiss our demands for fairness I would like to quote from this very self-government agreement in the preamble where there is a definition of consultation, which I presume was what was supposed to be taking place here. That definition says:

Consultation means to provide to the party to be consulted notice of a manner to be decided in sufficient form and detail as to allow that party to prepare its views on the matter, and a reasonable period of time in which the party to be consulted may prepare its views on the matter and an opportunity to present such views to the party obliged to consult.

Surely this House deserves at least the same consideration as that provided in the agreement.

Since these bills cannot come into force until pending surface and subsurface legislation is introduced in the fall, it seems reasonable that these bills could have stayed in committee for the summer and had proper analysis without in any way delaying their implementation.

However having gained some time, I am more and more coming to the realization of my question of the minister in committee before his unprovoked attack upon me. My question was of his vision of self-government. We are now beginning to see his vision. It seems to be that of sovereign nation states within Canada with powers in some cases parallel to the federal government fully funded by the Canadian taxpayer.

The member from Churchill during the committee process continually demanded an answer as to who in fact holds title to the lands in Canada. It is becoming clearer and clearer that this government's idea is that the aboriginal peoples of Canada still retain title to the lands in Canada and we as non-aboriginal people are simply leasing or renting the land that we are using and occupying. I might notify all Canadians that as of today the rent is going up on the land that we occupy.

I must now voice our concerns on behalf of all Canadians with this legislation. First, I must question why we are now being asked to pass this self-government legislation when only four out of 14 bands being given self-government have agreed to sign this agreement.

I am aware that all 14 bands have agreed to the umbrella agreement but the 10 non-signatories must be trying to negotiate substantially different agreements or there would have been 14 agreements before us today instead of 10. I suspect very much that the hesitation of the other 10 has much to do with the extinguishment of some very fundamental aboriginal rights.

Should the governor in council have the authority to approve the remaining 10 agreements without the examination of Parliament? I question this. It goes right to the question of what in fact are we here for? In addition to the aforementioned concerns, I have concerns about the minister's remarks when leading off the discussion when he said that these self-government agreements do not have constitutional protection. They may, however, be revisited to apply this protection when his government is able to define the inherent right to self-government. I submit this statement has a serious impact on the goals of clarity and certainty which were to be achieved.

There are a number of very subtle references in this agreement that I believe and our legal counsel agrees have very important implications for this country. These references will no doubt be discounted by others as simply wording but I am sure most people here know full well the difference wording can make in the interpretation of legal documents.

This is the first time I am aware of any piece of legislation dealing with Canada's aboriginal people referring to these people as First Nations and to the people involved as citizens instead of participants. This subtle wording could have implications not only in the international community but also in the self-determination of other cultural groups likely to be dealt with in this country soon.

We are giving legitimacy to nations within nations and beginning the dismantling of Canadian confederation. I question if we as Canadians should be setting up ethnically or racially based homelands when South Africa is just celebrating an end to the same system because it found it to be discriminatory, divisive and most undesirable. It might even be open to challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the ground that it discriminates on the basis of race.

I find it surprising that the Liberals and NDP so quickly support this concept. In a biography of T.C. Douglas, the much respected first leader of the NDP by Doris F. Shackleton, she states: "The practical obvious solution is to do away with the

reserves and the degradation that goes with stewardship and integrate the Indians with all speed into Canadian society".

Is this ambition now too obvious and too practical for today's NDP? When the leader of the Liberal Party was the minister of Indian affairs his department published a white paper on the status of Indians. The proposal of that document formulated by the now Prime Minister was that Indian citizens should become equal citizens of the provinces and of the country.

In recent weeks there has been much discussion whether the charter would apply to aboriginal self-government. On two occasions the minister of aboriginal affairs said the charter would apply to this legislation. This certainly has not turned out to be the case.

In spite of the fact that this party introduced an amendment that would allow the Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly to apply, the government and the House refused the amendment. That begs the question, was it refused because the Indian leadership did not want it or was it refused because the government did not want it. Either way there are serious questions that need to be answered.

Clause 8 of the bill which refers to an as yet unadopted constitution by an as yet undefined government structure calls for the recognition and protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens. There is now expert legal opinion that the charter probably does not apply to aboriginal self-governments unless special provisions are made.

We believe the protection of the charter must apply for the same reasons the aboriginal women of Canada voted against Charlottetown. It is not some idle thought or idle dream of the Reform Party to be obstructionist. I would like to quote from an article in the Free Press recently by an aboriginal person. Make note that these are not my words. They are the words of an aboriginal woman and an elder of an aboriginal band.

"One thing for sure, I am not for this self-government. All it is going to do is make a lot of men think they are high politicians. I know native men. They are still trying to be dominant. All this power will go to them. According to the native men, women are just supposed to follow them around like little puppies".

The native elder goes on to say: "Aboriginal leaders have failed in their efforts to improve conditions and now expect to be trusted with more power. Everything they," that is the aboriginal leaders, "have done backfires. We are supposed to be running our reserves and we are $1.4 million in debt. We have no control now. There are drunks everywhere, bootleggers in every corner of the reserve. The law was strict before. Now there is no law. How can we say yes when there is no control. This may be good for Ovide Mercredi and the chiefs. They can fly all over Canada. Winnipeg has become a paradise for our chiefs. Now they want to put in self-government".

Those are the words of aboriginal people so when it is said that all aboriginals, all people, support the agreement there are other opinions.

Clauses 11, 13, and 20 refer to the law-making powers of these self-governments and schedule III, parts I, II, III and IV spell out in detail the areas of jurisdiction.

In most of these 44-plus areas one would naturally assume that self-governments would have jurisdiction but there are notable exceptions where power formerly granted only to provinces is given to these governments.

Schedule III, part III, No. 7 appears to give authority over gaming and lotteries.

Number 13 provides control over operation and licensing of motor vehicles.

Number 14 provides control over the manufacture, supply, sale, exchange, transportation, possession and consumption of intoxicants, i.e. alcohol or drugs.

Number 17 provides control over the administration of justice.

This unprecedented power and control raises questions of the approach aboriginal governments will take to access these lands in question. I believe there are ominous signs also and I would like to demonstrate with a couple of these examples as well.

In the Slave River Journal of Fort Smith on June 8, 1994, there was an article telling of a Mr. Ray Decorby who was shot in the leg for trespassing on Indian lands while he was trying to photograph birds.

Another example that might apply is a subdivision in the township of Archipelago where the Indian band involved erected a steel gate across the road denying access to non-aboriginal homes and cabins on the lake and demanded $5 million for passage through the gate.

Everybody in the House heard what happened at the Mohawk reserves in Quebec and southern Ontario when the Canadian military dared to trespass on Indian lands.

The provision of these powers goes well beyond powers granted to any government subordinate to provincial governments in Canada.

In the briefings the minister told us the agreement would provide clarity and certainty and would be much less expensive than the current situation for Canadian governments and people wishing to do business in Yukon. We have to question how this will be possible when now instead of three levels of government to deal with in Yukon, anyone wishing to do business in that part of Canada will have to deal with 17 different governments. Each government will have its own bureaucracy, taxes, laws and

regulations. It sounds like an expensive bureaucratic nightmare of gigantic proportions.

I have consistently expressed support for the concept of aboriginal self-government and self-determination. I will support every measure designed to provide the Indian citizen with the same opportunity as I want for my children and grandchildren. I will resist every attempt that is made to relegate Indian citizens to a separate status of citizenship based on ethnic origin.

The implications of this legislation are far reaching. These agreements, whether or not the aboriginal people of Yukon wish-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. Pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 21, 1994, in accordance with Standing Order 78(2) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

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

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act

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

moved that 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, be read the third time and passed.