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.