I will just say that I recommend this bill to the members of the House of Commons. I hope that the Reform Party will support it because it is about Canada. It is about living together in this country and not trying to alienate each other. That is what we want.

I want to say that I have been honoured to speak on this bill and I hope the motion is carried unanimously.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I always thought Indian time was on the longer side rather than on the shorter side. I thank the hon. member for Churchill.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

NDP

Audrey McLaughlin NDP Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Bloc Quebecois for their kindness in letting me speak on a subject that is very important to the Yukon and to the member for the Yukon, as well as for their support on these bills. I think that their support is very important and so was their contribution to this debate. We in the Yukon appreciate their support for these bills.

It is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on these bills that are so important to the Yukon and to the future of the Yukon. There has been much said in the House on this debate about giving something to Indian people. In fact these bills give a great degree of autonomy to the Yukon people, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. Certainly the land was never conquered when Europeans first came to the Yukon and elsewhere in Canada. The land was taken and assumed. It was never ceded.

What we are doing this evening is an extremely important historical event in that we as democratic members of Parliament in a democratic country are recognizing the importance of redressing those historical wrongs.

This legislation has been a long time coming, more than 20 years of frustrating negotiations. We have seen a couple of generations grow up during these negotiations and tonight, we have the fruit of that dedication and spirit. We have a living document, a testament to the will and the commitment of the Yukon people. This legislation not only rights the bitter wrongs of the past but holds the key to the future, a future to which all Yukoners both aboriginal and non-aboriginal can look with pride and with hope. This legislation is a celebration of the Yukon spirit, that determination to meet all challenges, to carry on despite all obstacles and to work together to achieve a common goal even when the way is not easy.

The legislation is not the product of winners and losers. It is the product of many years of give and take and negotiation. It did not come easily. Each side had to cede on some of its objectives. Sometimes that was hard to explain both to aboriginal people and to non-aboriginal Yukoners.

As the previous speaker said the legislation represents a real definition, an attempt to work together in a co-operative way and to show that different cultures can live together in a harmonious and, even more important, respectful way, respectful of each other's languages and cultures.

While we say the legislation was 21 years in negotiation, it might be more accurate to say that it was 92 years to this day, June 22, 1994. It was in 1902 that Chief Jim Boss spoke simply to the government about the need to protect the land of his people. He said: "Tell the King we want something for our Indians because they take our land and our game". With those simple words began the stand which has led us to where we are today.

Chief Jim Boss' people were those who had for thousands of years hunted, fished and raised their families. They had a government system, a structural system, a cultural system, a justice system and an education system that they had devised as First Nations people in Yukon.

Anthropological evidence indicates that in fact there were aboriginal people in the Old Crow area of Yukon at least 20,000 years ago. With the coming of whalers to Herschel Island, the stampeders to the gold fields of the Klondike and thousands of American army engineers building the Alaska highway, cultures, languages, land and traditions were lost or eroded. Children were taken away from their families to residential schools. Communities were weakened by disease. Clans were scattered. Wildlife populations decimated. Critical habitat destroyed or altered and sacred places forgotten. One wonders how any vestige of pride and dignity or any shred of heritage could have survived, but it has survived in the wisdom of the elders and in the hope for the future.

It was a little over 20 years ago that Elijah Smith, a Yukon Indian who had served his country in the second world war, came back to Yukon to fight for the rights of his people from within. It was Elijah Smith who 20 years ago travelled to Ottawa bearing a document entitled Together Today For Our Children Tomorrow .

This evening is historic because this is the evening of tomorrow. I say that no one in Yukon expects this solves every problem that will ever arise in Yukon; but it is an attempt to build on that spirit of co-operativeness and of communalism that is part of the aboriginal tradition and part of Yukon history where people have learned that co-operation is necessary for survival.

There are many important details in the legislation, both the land claims legislation and the self-government legislation that I will not review. They have been very thoroughly reviewed in committee as well as in the House. However I will review some concerns that have been raised. One concern often raised

particularly by the Reform Party is that of equality, that these agreements, these pieces of legislation, represent an inequity as opposed to something more equal. I fundamentally and profoundly disagree with that view. These pieces of legislation and the negotiations which led to them are based on very fundamental equality, respect and dignity of all peoples for each other.

The agreements also recognize that all aboriginal communities are not the same. There are different cultures, different languages and different traditions even within Yukon. Therefore there must be a degree of flexibility to successfully implement and acknowledge those differences.

What is precedent setting? I have heard a great number of arguments about how dangerous these agreements are because they are precedent setting: we should all be very worried; we should be worried about apartheid; we should be worried about too many forms of government. It is quite the opposite. I think tonight is a night for rejoicing. The precedent set by these pieces of legislation is a very important one for the future of the country. The precedent is that different cultures or different linguistic groups can live together. They can do so successfully. They can negotiate to do so successfully and-this is the important precedent-they can do so within the context of Canada.

There was testimony given before the standing committee on aboriginal affairs by the governor of Yukon. It is important to note there was a strong consensus in Yukon to see the legislation go through. I have rarely in my years in the House of Commons, and indeed my years before I was in political life, seen a consensus of this nature. It was not arrived at 21 years ago. It took 21 years to arrive at this consensus, but we are at a point now in Yukon where we see the Yukon legislature passing unanimously, all parties including independent members, this companion legislation. We see as well the chamber of commerce, groups ranging from outfitters, mining associations to francoyukonnaise and other groups in Yukon unanimously supporting the passage of the legislation.

Questions have been raised about whether this was simply conducted behind closed doors. The previous government leader of Yukon in his testimony before the committee noted that during his government there were over 100 public consultations. The current government leader noted that they had many consultations with groups, with individuals and with communities and frequent discussions in every community of Yukon about the legislation as it proceeded.

The Council for Yukon Indians during this period also undertook extensive consultation. It had many general assemblies to discuss matters and to establish its negotiating position. It has been a long and arduous process. I believe it has been a fruitful process. In a sense two decades of Yukoners have learned that it will be necessary at times to compromise. In the end we will all gain from something of benefit to all of us.

The self-government legislation is extremely important as a companion piece to the land claims. Once and for all it throws off the cloak of colonialism and acknowledges that aboriginal people are competent to run their own affairs, can run their own affairs and will run their own affairs. In the past I have heard people say they really believe in it but that maybe people are not ready. The people of Yukon, the First Nations of Yukon, have been ready for a long time and now is the time.

I would say as well that as we look at the implementation of these agreements, recognizing that there will be another agreement, the surface rights act, to be dealt with later in the session in the fall by this House, it will take all three pieces of legislation before a proclamation of these two pieces of legislation and that third piece of legislation.

I do want to mention in fairness that there are people in the Yukon who have some concerns about their negotiations in land claims and their future. I am pleased that the standing committee on aboriginal affairs has recognized the concerns of the Kaska Dena Council which has transboundary claims and other concerns and has agreed to monitor the negotiations with the federal government that have been agreed to and will be undertaken and that its concerns were taken seriously. For this I certainly congratulate the chair of the standing committee and members that their concerns were taken seriously and will be dealt with.

I suppose the essence of what we are doing here tonight, better than any words I would give or indeed anyone in this House might give, were given in testimony by Elder Matthew Tom to the standing committee on aboriginal affairs when he began his presentation and his prayer by saying: "We are here to hold hands not be separate". That is really what this is all about.

Sometimes I believe that people feel that we do not have to deal with history and if we just move on it will be forgotten. I believe that we all know that in life you cannot just move on, that you must deal with some of the tragedies of history in order to move forward into the present.

The words of Matthew Tom will always remain with me because it is the reason why I stand here in this House of Commons and that many Yukoners before me in politics and in First Nations have dedicated their life to this moment tonight.

I understand that my time is nearly finished. I would conclude by saying that I would urge this House to unanimously support this legislation. It will show to Canadians that we understand that within Canada it is possible to recognize and respect our differences, our history and our traditions. I call on each member of this House to strike a voice tonight for that respect and for the future of our country.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:05 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that I will be sharing my time.

This is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak to this bill. When I first read the umbrella agreement on which this bill was based, I immediately had a number of concerns about the Yukon land claims agreements. I was concerned about the number, concerned about the fact that approximately 7,300 Yukon Indians out of a total Yukon population of 32,000 will receive collective ownership of 16,000 square miles which includes all the subsurface rights on 10,000 square miles and some subsurface rights on the other 6,000 square miles. I have to ask: What do the other residents of the Yukon think of these land claims agreements? What do they think?

In addition to a cash payment of almost $250 million the Yukon First Nations will also receive rental revenues from surface leases and royalties from the development of non-renewable resources. Additionally, the Yukon First Nations will receive a preferential share in wildlife harvesting. What impact will these agreements have on access to settlement lands by non-native people? We are asking these questions. We have heard a lot of rhetoric today but we have heard very little about the details of this agreement and how it is going to impact on the residents of the Yukon.

Will the Yukon First Nations allow hunters, trappers and fishermen on settlement lands and their much larger traditional territories? What is going to happen in that regard?

Another concern that I had was that there was no financial balance sheet accompanying these agreements, none at all. I was concerned that the federal government will still be obligated to make the same payments to the Indian people in the Yukon. My understanding of settling the land claims and entering into self-government agreements was that the financial obligations of Canadian taxpayers would be reduced as a result of these revenues that would be replaced by royalties and resource revenues.

What is the rationale for continuing to make increased annual payments to the Indian people under that kind of an arrangement? What control will the Parliament of Canada have over payment of taxpayers' dollars to the Yukon First Nations? Canadian taxpayers are asking Reformers these questions and I have yet to hear the answers.

I was concerned that if we passed Bill C-33 that future land claim agreements with the 10 remaining bands in the Yukon will not have to come before Parliament for debate. That is a concern. They can be approved by cabinet through orders in council. That is the process written into this whole agreement. I have to ask why the government is trying to avoid the democratic right of the Canadian people to examine all aspects of each and every land agreement in the Yukon. Why are they being denied that right?

Under clause 6 of Bill C-33 the rights contained in these land agreements are "recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982". Does this mean that the Yukon land claim agreements will now be entrenched in the Constitution? Are they now part of our Constitution? If they are entrenched how will they be able to be amended?

If we want to change those agreements at any time, how will that happen? Clause 13 of Bill C-33 makes the provisions of the Yukon land claims paramount over all federal and territorial laws. Is this really what the government has intended? Is this really what the citizens of Canada want or do the people want the laws of Canada to apply equally to all its citizens regardless of where they live? Why is the government trying to ram these bills through without being as up front with the Canadian people as they have been with the Yukon Indians?

Finally, I am very concerned about the precedent we might be setting by entering into these land claim agreements. Will the precedent set here apply to my province of Saskatchewan? Will it apply to Manitoba? Will we be asking these same questions a year or so from now relating to land claim agreements in all the other parts of Canada?

Will future land claim deals contain all the same provisions, transferring the same powers and law making ability, a proportional amount of land, the same control over resources, similar royalty provisions and so on? The list can continue. Will this set a precedent for all of those things? Will the arguments made in future court cases refer to the precedent set in the Yukon land claims agreement? Have we thought through all of this? I have heard a lot of rhetoric but I have not heard anyone address that. This is why the amendments that we tried to make are so important. We were shut down.

The amendments that the Reform Party had proposed would have gone a long way to removing many of my concerns. The amendments proposed by our party would have answered many of the questions being asked not only by Reformers but all Canadians.

I was talking to some people from Halifax the other day and we were discussing the Yukon land claims and self-government agreements. The gentleman said that he had not heard anything about these agreements. The people of Canada know precious

little of what is happening here. They do not understand the impact that these agreements will have on their home provinces.

The government has the attitude that the quicker it can push this through the less waves it will make. It would rather not have the people know what is happening here today. I came to Ottawa to represent my constituents, to be their voice in Ottawa. I would not be doing my job if I had not raised their concerns in the House. We have to speak up.

They have similar concerns to the ones I expressed here today. I even heard from an elder. I know many of these people in Saskatchewan. Some of them are my friends and they have raised similar concerns to the ones I have raised here today.

People would rather not listen. They would rather not know what some of the grassroots native people are saying. They would like to hush it up. They would like to keep it quiet.

This is a key element in the process we see here today. This elder from one of the reserves in my constituency complained of the Mafia tactics used by Indian leaders to suppress the will of the grassroots Indian people. We have received many similar complaints from Manitoba.

Were non-native Yukon citizens given the opportunity to review and vote? Were they given the opportunity to review and vote on these agreements? People who do not know are answering but I do not hear the people who know. We are asking these questions to ensure that Parliament is signing agreements that the majority of Indian people and the majority of Canadian taxpayers will support.

These land claim agreements may or may not be able to be changed in the future, so it is vital that all of these important questions be answered before this bill is passed by Parliament. When this bill is passed there will be 10 more land claim agreements that will be passed without any further scrutiny by Parliament.

It is for this reason that Reformers want to take all the time that is necessary to examine, discuss, debate and amend this bill until we can get it absolutely right. I ask members to consider the process that is taking place here today. We have heard a lot of rhetoric but I have not heard many answers to these questions.

Finally, the question of native self-government was put to the Canadian people during the Charlottetown accord referendum and we all know what the people said. They said no, and yet this government went ahead.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Order. I wonder if the hon. member might assist the Chair. The first 10 minutes has lapsed and I am not clear whether it is an equal 10-minute split or if in fact, it is 20-minutes and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni will get the remaining time from the member for Yorkton-Melville.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

In a total of 20 minutes, I have about a half-minute left.

The government has run roughshod over everyone. It is implementing a concept that was not debated and approved by Canadians.

It is obvious this government does not even want this nation to debate this agreement. The people of Canada should be made aware of the fine print because really they are the ones who are a party to this agreement. It is between the Indians and the people of Canada.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:20 p.m.

Reform

Bill Gilmour Reform Comox—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-33, especially given the limited amount of time this government has allowed for the debate.

This process that has taken place in the last 24 hours in this House has left me and many Canadians disappointed and disheartened. The same democratic principles that this House violated last night are ironically and also shamefully violated in this bill.

I view with suspicion and concern the intentions of this government when the members of this House are denied the opportunity to debate this bill fully and completely. It appears that this government is trying to restrict debate and rush this bill through to hide the controversial contents of this bill from the Canadian public.

This is the same strategy that the last government used a year ago in the Nunavut deal. Obviously this government has no intention to conduct business any differently than the last Conservative government. Indeed it has learned too well from its predecessors but seems to have forgotten the plunge to oblivion that closed door politics caused its predecessors.

Bill C-33 sets a dangerous precedent and as such the contents of this bill cannot be viewed too lightly. I suspect that many members on the opposite side have not even read the terms of this agreement let alone given it constructive review. If they had I question how they could remain silent for so long on this issue. How can the members in good conscience agree to railroading this legislation through the way they are doing?

There are many areas in this bill that need to be addressed and given careful consideration. Not only has this government moved closure on this bill but it also rammed the legislation through committee. This process increases the likelihood of any oversights. There has been little opportunity for honest discussion and debate on this bill as the government has made every effort to railroad it through the House at every stage of its passage.

There are many flaws in this bill that must be addressed before they become law. This bill contains a clause which allows future changes to this legislation to be made, guess what, behind

closed doors. As it stands, Bill C-33 allows for future negotiations and amendments to be decided by cabinet alone. This is another dangerous precedent, not only with these negotiations but with future government negotiations.

Is this how the government intends to conduct its business? Is this the new direction of the Liberal government? This makes a very sad joke of the red book commitments of more and open democratic government.

Let me remind the government once again of its red book commitments and ask it to consider very carefully in light of this legislation. The red book says open government will be the watch word of the Liberal program. It is a shame that in reality these words are nothing but false promises.

Why is this government in this bill planning to do business behind closed doors at the cabinet level? It clearly conflicts with the red book commitment of open government.

Legislation should not be amended by a cabinet order. Legislation should be brought forward to this House, openly debated by each member elected here today.

The laws of Canada must be created through democratic procedures to reflect the democratic system of every Parliamentarian in this House. The creation of new laws must be carried out in a fair and, I remind the House, open manner. Each elected parliamentarian represents his constituents in every vote to create or amend laws.

In all fairness to the people of Canada who put us here today, every parliamentarian must be allowed to participate in this democratic process. This government has often lauded the principle that members are elected to represent their constituents' wishes in this House. However, cabinet on its own is not a democratic representation of the people and should not make legislative commitments.

If we are to allow cabinet to change and revise law without the consent of Parliament then why have we elected 295 members of Parliament when we only need 15 cabinet members to run the country? Is this the kind of red book democracy that we have been hearing about? Canadians deserve fair representation and this means bringing legislation before this House for all members to consider and debate in this House before it is passed.

The scope of orders in council regarding future agreements is too large because this is little more than government by cabinet decree.

Additionally, there are several other areas of concern in this bill. For example, section 14 states that there shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund the sums that are required to meet the monetary obligations of Canada under chapter 19. This is in the bill.

According to the revision of this section more than $242 million will be allocated to the 14 native bands which have agreed to the umbrella settlement with the federal government. Yet this government has not yet determined what its financial obligations toward these bands are. This bill gives money to native government without any obligation, requirement or mechanism to ensure that the money is distributed fairly. Where is the financial responsibility?

When Canadians give their hard earned tax dollars to the government there is a measure of trust involved in the exchange. Canadians expect their government to be fiscally responsible and this section of the act clearly does not show that responsibility.

I am sure that the government is aware of the need for financial responsibility and financial accountability to the Canadian people. I believe that is another red book commitment. Yet in this agreement the government arbitrarily provides a settlement that will amount to some $242 million and does not expect any financial accountability in return.

Every individual is financially accountable to this government at the end of each year. Each of us here is expected to fill out our income tax forms and account for our earnings. Government departments, federally and provincially, are all accountable to the people. Why then are native groups exempt from this? There must be a system of financial accountability entrenched within this bill.

Another area of concern is the section that gives the provisions of land claims or transboundary agreements still to be negotiated paramountcy over all federal and territorial laws. This means that these agreements and amendments to these agreements can supersede all laws of Canada. Federal and territorial laws must be paramount over all agreements in Canada. This should not even have to be a question. It should not even have to be discussed at this point.

There can only be one set of laws to govern the people of Canada. We cannot have one set of laws to apply to one group and another set of laws to apply to another. This is clearly a dangerous precedent. It sets up two nations. It sets one group of Canadians apart from the laws that govern Canada and another group of Canadians.

In summary, Canada is one nation. We must treat all Canadians equally under one law, not two or three sets of laws.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

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

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote that we took on Bill C-34 to Bill C-33.

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement ActGovernment Orders

8:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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