Debates of June 9th, 1994

Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to suggest that the native people are in any way inferior to us or any other people in the world. It is my considered judgment from reading history and evidence on the sociology and the problems of these communities that the state and well meaning people like the minister who just spoke have created conditions and institutions with the best intentions, filling the short run demands of the individual just like we were likely to do when we were teenagers or in our twenties.

I am suggesting the evidence I have seen is that these institutions have produced not what the teenager wanted, not what the natives wanted but something that is now creating the difficulties all of us feel so terrible about. From what I hear life is awful on these reservations.

We all want to help. I am not here to denigrate or in any way insinuate that the aboriginal peoples of this country are in any way inferior. They need our help. The question is, are we giving them the right help?

I believe we must look at how we got where we are. How did we get there? How does the proposal to give even more resources to these people differ from what our predecessors in the last 100 years said: "Here is a problem. Let us throw more money at it". Let us make sure that this is a cure, that the responsibility we have for them is even more permanent and fixed.

I did not invent the words lazy house. It was discovered by the natives themselves. When they get the things they have they do not quite turn out the way they expected.

You remember when you had your first bicycle, your first motorcycle, your first car. As you were fighting for it, you thought: "If only I could have that, I would be happy forever and ever". We now remember. Sometimes the things we want, when we have them, are not really good for us.

Let me sum up. I am not in any way insinuating that the people themselves are lazy, that they are in any way inferior. Any problems that society has I believe should be looked at realistically by asking: "How did we get there?" If we decide that all we need are more resources, I urge members to go back and see why proposing all those resources in the past, increasing all those resources available to them, has not solved the problem. From what I hear and read, it has made it worse.

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say as a member of this House that I am appalled at the message we are receiving from the hon. member across the way. I say that because the hon. member is constantly asking how we got there.

This government is taking an initiative of listening to the native community. Our Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been into communities across this country listening to the people. The people want a vision for themselves and part of that vision is what we are talking about today.

It is about economic growth and jobs within the First Nations community. The member opposite is criticizing and opposing what we are doing on this side of the House. What is his agenda for the First Nations of this country?

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, could you indicate to me how much time I have.

[The Deputy Speaker]

About two to three minutes.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear we are facing a very complex problem.

I do not pretend to have the answer but I can tell the member that I have read studies. One of them had a wonderful title. In fact the author and I were colleagues at the Australian National University for a long time. It was called The Affluent Subsistence Economy .

The south sea islands are so far away from all markets that the south sea islands will never be able to be industrialized and have the kind of living standards we have in our industrial country. It is simply a physical impossibility. I wish it were different. I wish we could fly. It is not in the cards.

Why am I using this example of the south sea islands? It is because that is something we can relate to. I certainly come from a temperate climate. This has always been my dream.

The areas in the north are very much like the south sea islands that have been studied. There was no great interference in many of them from the outside. They all have a reasonably good living. They are healthy. They have their traditions. They are from all descriptions of sociologists a happy, well-balanced society.

However they now all want radios, televisions and other things. One of the tragedies of our lives, of the reality of this world is that there is no way that by staying on these islands they can have these things. I did not invent it. The analysts did not invent it. It is simply a fact of life. There are distances and they cannot have this.

They have a choice. Either they continue to have their affluent subsistence with all the satisfaction, all the dreams and romantic attributes that are associated with that kind of a life or, dare I say it, they leave. They go to the big island and they join the big cities with all the problems that go along with it.

Time is too limited to draw the parallel of what that analysis implies for the native people of our country. I can tell you there will never be in the centre of Yukon an industry sufficient to maintain the people there by their own work at a living standard corresponding to that which we have in Toronto or in Vancouver. I believe that it is a contradiction, that we are not serving them by giving in to their demands. I do not deny that the hon. minister has been listening to them.

They say they want enough resources in the centre of Yukon so that they can live as well as the people in Vancouver. It is not possible. I believe the sooner we come to that realization and tell them they have a choice but they cannot have it both ways, the better off they will be and we will be.

That is an outline of the solution I have. I know it is not popular, but I have not been elected to keep on talking about what is popular. I was elected to speak out and to say things the way I see them after 30 years of spending my life reading, writing and thinking about these matters.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-34 which is before the House today. The legislation allows for implementation of the land claims agreement entered into by the Government of Canada, the government of Yukon territory and a number of

First Nations residing within Yukon territory. I am pleased because this is very important legislation that was a long time in coming and that deserves the full support of every member of this House including, I would hope, the member from Capilano-Howe Sound who just spoke.

I am disturbed by some of the remarks that I have just heard. I would simply say in prefacing my remarks today that I think it is time all members of this House stopped thinking in terms of something as ours to give someone else. We must understand that we as people in this nation share a tremendous resource and that in sharing that resource we recognize that some people have as much right to that resource as others. Members of this Parliament do not have the right to give something to somebody that in fact they possessed long before it was removed from them.

The aboriginal people of this country have a claim not only on our resources but our economy that has long been denied them. It has created a great deal of the problems that have been identified by the member for Capilano-Howe Sound. It is only in that recognition that we will in fact achieve the ability to deal with the crisis that occurs within the aboriginal communities. That is one of the points that this legislation addresses. I would hope that the member for Capilano-Howe Sound in recognizing that would in turn support the legislation.

I want to thank the House for allowing me a few minutes to speak today. I will not take up much time. This space was originally allocated to my leader, the member for Yukon, who was called away today on other parliamentary business. She asked me to say a few words on her behalf. I appreciate the indulgence of the House, the member for Vancouver Quadra and yourself, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this time.

I wish to say a couple of words about the member for Yukon today. She has worked closely with the Government of Yukon and the Yukon First Nations during the negotiations which led to the signing of the claims agreement. She is certainly very well informed about the nature of the agreement. She is firmly committed to assisting the House in approving the legislation which will allow that agreement to be implemented.

On her behalf, on behalf of myself and on behalf of our entire caucus in the House of Commons, I ask the government to proceed as quickly as possible through all stages of the legislation. It has been thoroughly discussed, carefully thought out and properly negotiated. Agreements have been reached. It would be a real shame if all levels of government that have worked so hard to get to this point were to see things stalled simply because the government and Parliament could not conclude matters before heading off for a summer recess.

I said before and I simply repeat for the benefit of the House that the legislation has been a long time in coming. It is the result of more than 20 years of very frustrating negotiations at times. There have been delays as governments changed and priorities shifted, but it is a piece of legislation that not only rights the bitter wrongs of the past but holds out the key to the future, a future which I think all members of the House would understand, a future which all Yukoners, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, could look forward to with pride and with hope.

It is a historic agreement. When we look at the umbrella agreement we see that it directly affects about 8,000 Yukon Indians and involves a total of about 16,000 square miles of land, some of which comes with surface and subsurface rights and some with surface rights only but including the rights to material such as sand and gravel, economic opportunities in Yukon.

There is a little more than $242 million in compensation available to the 14 First Nations affected, to be paid out during a 15-year period. There are provisions ensuring that the Yukon First Nations receive full rental revenues from surface leases and royalties from the development of non-renewable resources. These are very important provisions for the future of the people of the Yukon First Nations.

I recommend all members of the House review the umbrella agreement. It has sections that deal with wildlife harvesting, wildlife conservation and land use management proposals, as well as provisions dealing with the preservation and promotion of the culture and heritage of the people of Yukon.

The agreement is a tremendous example of what can be achieved when governments sit down to discuss these matters, when they have respect for each other's history and tradition and for each other's needs.

The final umbrella agreement was signed on May 29, 1993. Today is a little more than one year later and I believe this is the time to get the legislation out of the House and put it to work in Yukon where it will do the most good.

I certainly look forward to having some time during the brief committee stage discussions to have a further look at some of the more specific clauses for the benefit of some members of the House. However I will conclude immediately by urging the government and all members of the House to get the legislation through this stage and completed as quickly as possible.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disturbed by some of the comments of the hon. member, his overwhelming enthusiasm for the bill. Companion Bills C-33 and C-34 in my view legislatively and constitutionally entrench a form of apartheid in the country. The fact that the people who are being segregated will perhaps have greater rights than the segregators is a bit unique. They are ensuring perpetual divisions within the country, as well as, as my hon. colleague has stated, ensuring that for the future and perhaps for all time the people who will be segregated from us will be condemned to a life that has no real meaning.

Let me explain what I am getting at. In the 1950s and early 1960s I spent most of my time working in the bush with native people. They were very self-reliant, hard working and proud. They did what they could to support their families. They did not ask the government for anything. By and large they were happy and successful people. They built their own cabins; they hunted their own food. They did not ask us to send them more money, give them control over more resources and they would be happy. They never thought of themselves as being unequal because they were our equals. Now we are going to make them something different.

Does the hon. member believe or does he not in the equality of all Canadians?

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I cannot agree with many of the comments my friend and colleague from the southern part of Saskatchewan has put on the table today. I do not believe that anything could be further from the truth than segregating people by this legislation.

If the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia would look carefully at the agreements that have been signed, he would realize this is an integration of aboriginal people into full participation in the economy of Yukon. We are not just talking about the equalities of people. We are also talking about equality of opportunity for all people.

We have to find a way in which the aboriginal people, not only of Yukon but all across Canada who in his words want to be self-reliant, hard working and proud, can participate in an economy that has been denied them for many years because of policies of previous federal governments. The treaties signed in other parts of the country have actually reduced the ability of our aboriginal people to participate in the economy as equal partners in the way in which they deserve to be treated.

We have to find ways, as this agreement has done, to bring together equality of opportunity. That is a more important question than the one the member asked.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious and rather amazed at the comments of my hon. friend. Anyone who has looked at the Indian Act will realize that for years and years it has denied the treaty Indian people of the country their equality with other Canadians.

As we look at this document we must ask ourselves whether or not we are simply eliminating one piece of legislation that has created inequality on behalf of Indian people and replacing it with another, except the rules have changed. The rights and privileges granted Indian people are going to supersede those which other Canadians enjoy.

I ask the member to consider these points. At the time the treaties were signed, it was not so much the treaties but the application or the administration of the treaties that caused inequality in the country for so long for treaty Indian people.

Would the hon. member focus his attention on this question: Are we or are we not at risk in that we are creating laws that will grant special rights and privileges to Canadian people based upon their race and ethnic background?

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, again I think the member has things a bit backwards here. I recommend that he have a look at the agreements reached in Yukon with regard to the legislation we are trying to implement today.

First, we are not talking about treaties in the case of this agreement. Second, one part of the agreement does away with the provisions of the Indian Act which have caused many of the problems in the past.

We recognize that over the years federal government policy and other policies developed by provincial and territorial governments have actually removed the aboriginal rights to the land and the benefits the land provides. Those rights have been encroached upon by others who had no claim on them. The agreement recognizes those rights were encroached upon to begin with and returns them to where they rightfully belonged in the first place.

I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question at all. I certainly wish he would study the issue a lot more closely.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should return the debate to Bill C-34. We have been all over the world. We have been to the south seas in search of some mystical blue lagoon. We have been to pre-democratic South Africa in search of a regime I would have thought was totally foreign to anything we have seen in the application of the law currently before the House.

As real Canadians, not inhabitants of some mythical isle but as native Indians, founding nations or whatever, we are dealing with Canadians getting together in a new act of law making. I thought it delightful when I read it-and I asked whether I could meet with the public servants who actively engaged in the work on the bill-that it was not an exercise in abstract law making.

To use another metaphor, one was not building castles in Spain or seeking to do so. One was not seeking the sermon on the mount which is so rarely realizable in concrete life. One was venturing on a concrete act of problem solving. One was trying to solve problems for particular people. I would have thought there was the difference. May I say it is the theatre of the absurd to compare it to apartheid, a regime of state imposed draconian police measures and enforced segregation.

Here we are dealing with a free act of consensus. The players are all coming together, not simply the government and not simply native peoples. If we look at the files we see local communities, chambers of commerce and an amazingly wide degree of consultation in the process. We see peoples coming together and freely deciding on a new system of government.

The search for constitutional absolutes, abstract principles which read very nicely in platforms but do not often correspond to reality if we examine constitutions around the world, has been avoided. One could have spent hours, days and months discussing the concept of the inherent right to self-government which so baffled the former Minister of Justice and the late Prime Minister. She never could understand it.

When it was first launched in 1980 in the Trudeau patriation round, it was a simple statement of the obvious: people have rights not because some government gives them but because of their nature and their capacity as human beings. It is what Locke said. It is what Rousseau said. It is the basis of our constitution making and our constitutional system.

What you have is a constructive involvement of native peoples by their own free consent negotiating with the federal government and reaching an agreement which might serve as a model for future agreements but which does not have to be applied rigidly, inscrutably to other problem areas in the future.

The charming thing, the wonderful thing here, is law in the making, a sense of a dynamic creation of new norms of law. The way it is done is to limit oneself to the particular problem, not to attempt to solve the problems of the day after tomorrow but to set in place a structure and process of self-government.

Self-government is not an abstract norm, it is something that happens to people as Dewey recognized in his theory of truth. You make the events happen. You work together. I look at this and I see pragmatism, I see empiricism, I see problem solving. I congratulate the players and it is not simply the federal government, it is the Yukon territorial government, it is the native Indian leaders, the people, it is the local community people. I look at the steps that are taken, the recognition that self-government without an economic base is no more than tinkling cymbals.

This is why Bills C-33 and C-34 go together. You need an economic base or self-government is meaningless.

Then you go on to the issue of self-government and what form. You can begin as so many people did between the two world wars by creating a beautiful constitution. The history books are littered with these beautiful constitutions that were enacted and were never seriously intended, or sometimes were seriously intended but the people did not bother to follow them up with the machinery necessary to implement them.

When I look here, there is the concept of incorporation of native Indian peoples to create their own companies, to create their own commercial organizations, to develop resources, to develop wealth, to share it among the population. That is something the European constitution makers between the two world wars forgot. It is present in this bill. It is a key part of it.

The Indian act will continue to apply outside Yukon. This is a special experiment. If it succeeds others will copy it. If it does not fully succeed it can be modified. The power to tax is a necessary element of self-government. You do not rush into it in the sense that we will enact an abstract law tonight and it will be in force tomorrow. It is not to apply for three years. What that envisages is a continuing process of consultation and discussions with experts and government officials, finding the correct formula for taxation before it is concretely implemented.

I was particularly impressed by the provisions on the administration of justice. I have seen in too many newly independent countries or too many countries newly freed from subjection to some form of government, communist or otherwise, not particularly constitutional, the attempt to create the blueprints before one has examined how to make them operational.

The thing that is impressive here is that the staggered stage by stage, step by step approach that the full administration of justice will occur by the year 2000. One has avoided the temptation to rush into a law that will be in force tomorrow but that does not have the concrete underpinning to sustain it operationally.

There is something very impressive in this, the recognition that there are many roads to Rome in terms of self-government. Here is a model that the native Indian leaders have worked out with federal officials and local community groups and they are going to try it out. That is very important.

The temptation, as they say, was there to go for the abstract blueprints. It has been avoided in a mature exercise in constitution making in favour of this pragmatic, empirical, problem oriented, step by step approach here, resting all the time on continuing negotiations between the parties.

There is an act of faith here, a sense of faith and trust not between parents and children, as somebody suggested in a metaphor that was ill placed, but between free citizens. The trust is very important to the further progressive development of the self-government concept.

When I look at this bill I do not see anything that changes the structure and system of government in Canada as a whole. The impressive thing is that this is achieved within the Canadian Constitution. It is within the parameters of the Canadian Constitution. It is subject to the Canadian Constitution. It is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Do not create imaginary scenarios, worst case scenarios that would in effect take us out of the Canadian constitutional system when neither the parties wanted it nor is it present in the act. These two acts are very well drafted. I say this without being presumptuous. I say this from an earlier free, prepolitical role. They are carefully drafted, problem oriented and there are no hidden traps here.

There is no reason for worrying about hypothetical situations that do not exist; a decision made within the Constitution, within Canadian federalism, a special approach to federalism, the concept of pluralistic federalism. We have always recognized within Canadian federalism that equality does not require a rigid, abstract application of laws identically in all situations.

It is the large concept of equality that the United States Supreme Court recognized. It has spread throughout the world. It is building people up to a level where concretely, in terms of their rights and obligation and duties, they are as one.

I commend this law. I would say to those who feel that they must search for the blue lagoon somewhere, let us come back to Canada. Let us herald this as a first step, so generous in many respects because it breaks new ground within the Constitution and subject to the Constitution. The nice thing in it is that it has its own dialectical process, the capacity for further growth. The capacity for change, for amendment is there if the parties agree to it.

That is something transcending the issues of party politics. We can say congratulations are in order to the minister, to the civil servants, to the native Indian leaders. This is good. In a certain sense when federalism is under attack for other reasons in Canada today it makes one feel very confident in the future of our federal system and its capacity, the continuing dynamic growth in relation to new problems.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member opposite.

It is important to point out that no one in this House surely is going to say that the native peoples of Canada should be denied any type of rights, certainly not, and no one has said that today.

What we have commented on is the extension of rights exclusive to the native peoples under Bill C-34, exclusivity of rights not applicable to other citizens of Canada, rights that would be available to them under their own Constitution and in fact outside the Constitution Act of Canada.

Nowhere in this bill is there a reference that the Constitution Act of Canada would be supreme over any provisions of this bill. To suggest that there are people in this House who would want to deny rights to native peoples is a misstatement for certain.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to put any fears of the hon. member opposite to rest on this. It is not necessary in a law of Canada to recite, to repeat, the self-evident that the Constitution and the laws of Canada are supreme. The Constitution of Canada applies to all laws enacted by the Parliament of Canada. The source, the grundnorm in legal terms, if I can use the technical term, of this new self-government is an act of Parliament of Canada. It is subject to the Canadian Constitution. It is subject to the Canadian charter of rights. There is no room for doubt on that. I hope I can put any fears the member may have to rest on that.

I do not see here any notion of exclusiveness of rights or particularization of rights, priorization of rights in relation to other citizens. I would have thought this is an attempt to put all Canadian citizens on the same level but if there is doubt as I say this is part, this is a law enacted within the Canadian constitutional system and it is therefore subject to the Canadian Constitution and all its parts.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member who has just spoken would accept an amendment that would remove all doubt with regard to the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to this agreement.

I think that as members of Parliament and those involved in law making we must flush out every corner to ensure that no mistakes are made and that nothing is overlooked so that the document when it finally receives the great seal of Canada does the job it is meant to do.

I am wondering if the hon. member would support an amendment where it clearly states that within the document the charter of rights of Canada does apply and will continue to apply.

Would the hon. member care to comment on such an amendment and whether he would be prepared to support such an amendment?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not the author of this bill and so I am not authorized to make any arrangements on behalf of the government.

I would, however, caution against the pursuit of perfectionism in its extreme and pathological form. I recollect the legislature of a province which I will not name enacting within the preamble to every law at a certain point "this statute is not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

I do not think this is a good way to make law remembering that law is designed to be educational too. The statute states very clearly in its preamble that it is subject to the Constitution of Canada. It is quite clear. It is quite explicit and it is true in any case as a matter of general law.

To be very frank, if the member has any concrete problems they will very quickly be tested before the courts I am sure and the self-evident clearly expressed. It is not simply self-evident. It is evidenced in writing and will apply.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to address Bill C-34, a bill which deals with the self-government provisions of the aboriginal peoples of Yukon.

Clearly there has been a great deal of confusion over the term self-government in this House.

On February 7, I questioned the Prime Minister on this topic and specifically whether aboriginal self-government in his mind, in his government's mind, in its definition, would exist within federal or provincial jurisdictions, jurisdictions which apply to all Canadians.

He chose not to answer the question directly. Further, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Justice have made conflicting statements with respect to the application of the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it would pertain to aboriginal self-governments.

Clearly the federal government has absolutely no idea of the definition of self-government, nor does it have any idea where these self-government agreements will lead. However, this has not deterred them from putting forward Bill C-34, a bill which is unprecedented in relation to the scope of powers and privileges it delivers to self-governing institutions, a bill which for all intents and purposes confers a type of nationhood on the affected bands.

If we look at the specifics of Bill C-34 I believe that we can easily envisage the creation of four new nations in the Yukon, with a further ten yet to be established. These nations, within the nation of Canada, according to the bill, will convey the same powers that federal and provincial governments exercise upon four new nations with a combined population of only 2,600 people. These new nations may, in fact, exist outside the authority of federal and provincial jurisdictions.

I believe there is ample evidence to establish that the government is stumbling blindly into agreements which will create a patchwork of sovereign aboriginal nations across Canada.

For the pleasure of the members of the House, I will now begin to present the reasons for supporting this belief.

The government on a number of occasions has committed itself to the belief that aboriginals have an inherent right to self-government. With agreements such as this bill, the government obviously believes that amendments to the Constitution are unnecessary as aboriginal inherent rights could be interpreted as being included under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act.

But what exactly does this constitutionally protected term inherent mean? An inherent right is something beyond a legal right, since the latter is dependent on the existence of some other government. Therefore, an inherent right to self-government puts aboriginal governments beyond the reach of federal and provincial governing bodies.

If we go a step further, we can see an inherent right leading to claims of international sovereignty, or more likely, the possibility of the aboriginal peoples under this bill choosing to opt out of federal laws. It is the term inherent that is the rationale for the government producing Bill C-34 and it is the term inherent that will allow aboriginal governments to challenge the authority of federal and provincial Parliaments.

The federal government saw fit to insert section 15(2) in Bill C-34 to ensure that the Federal Court of Canada remains supreme over future aboriginal justice systems. This is good. Why not a similar section to allow for the supremacy of the Canadian Parliament over future aboriginal self-government institutions? What does the government gain by permitting the term inherent to go unchecked in this legislation?

Nevertheless, this huge omission is only the beginning. The powers awarded to aboriginal governments, coupled with their inherent rights, can only further my claim that these new governments could actually be new nations existing outside provincial and federal jurisdictions. According to section 8(1) of Bill C-34 these aboriginal governments are to have their own constitutions which will set out the structure of their legislature and their democratic processes. It will establish a citizenship code and determine the rights and freedoms of those citizens.

Does this sound familiar, Mr. Speaker? Well, it should. These are the same powers exercised by the federal government operating as the nation of Canada, the very same powers. The powers delivered to aboriginal governments are a mixture of federal and provincial powers as defined by sections 91, 92 and 93 of the Constitution Act of Canada.

Arguably these small numbers of aboriginals have been awarded the combined powers of our present federal and provincial governments under this bill.

Bill C-34 allows aboriginal control over everything from marriage to education to justice to peace, order and good government. Does that phrase sound familiar? In short, this bill represents the possibility of another order of government in Canada, something that we questioned the Prime Minister on early this year. Not only have they achieved legislative powers that represent the best of provincial jurisdictions, but they have also achieved the right to draft their own constitution and establish their own citizenry.

If this does not represent the distinguishing features of a nation within a nation then I do not know what does.

The scope of Bill C-34, coupled with the government's interpretation of section 35(1) as including and protecting the notion of inherent right will surely supersede section 91(24) of the Constitution which conveys power to Parliament over Indians and the land reserved for Indians. This is a giant step for band councils which to this date have simply exercised municipal-like powers.

After the implementation of Bill C-34 these councils must create a constitution which, among other things, will include the creation of a legislature. According to section 8(1)(b) of Bill C-34, the aboriginal constitution will determine the composition, the membership, the powers, duties and procedures of any governing bodies. This appears to be very dangerous considering the broad spectrum of powers awarded to these new possible governments.

I have some questions. Will this new government be democratically elected? Will it hold regular elections? Will all citizens be permitted to vote and run for office? Surely questions like this must be answered before this legislation is passed. All of these questions are left unanswered and are to be determined by their own constitution.

Section 9(2) is particularly disturbing since it allows the delegation of law-making authority to one person if it be consistent with their constitution. Everything from democracy to oligarchy to dictatorship to nepotism could be completely acceptable if it is consistent with their constitution.

Perhaps this is why the government did not include any provision for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Bill C-34. Could this be the reason?

Any deviation from democratic principles would be disallowed under sections 3 and 4 of the charter. These sections deal with democratic rights and ensure that, first, every citizen in Canada can vote and qualify for membership in a legislative assembly; and, two, that no legislative assembly shall continue for a period of more than five years. The government has given absolute leeway to the wishes of these new nations.

Undoubtedly aboriginals do not want Canadian citizens involved in their government. Perhaps they do not want elections, at least every five years either. Indeed, they have absolute control to the point where the Canadian charter has been excluded and the aboriginals can draft their own charter of rights and freedoms.

We are creating two nations here. Entrenching the principles mentioned could perhaps infringe on the form of government envisaged by aboriginals and their respective nations.

I would hope that the federal government has not compromised the existence of democracy and basic human freedoms in these new nations by excluding aboriginal adherence to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Another factor which leads me to the conclusion that a number of new nations will be created in the Yukon is the fact that Bill C-34 refers to aboriginal citizens. Section 8(1)(a) of the bill states that a citizenship probe will be developed by the yet to be drafted aboriginal constitution. The only level of government at present that controls citizenship is of course the federal government of Canada. It is the only authority that has the right to control citizenship.

[An hon. member]

That is the way it should be.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With the implementation of this bill aboriginal governments will have the power over the national concept of citizenry. As a matter of fact they will have the absolute power over the definition of who qualifies for citizenship.

What is the basis for creating a new brand of citizenship within Canada if it is not for the purpose of specifically defining new nations in Canada? For it is clearly within the purview of nations to have their own citizenry and the definition thereof. That is what nations are all about.

The exemption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from this agreement can also be understood in light of this new power over citizenry. Equality rights are defined in the charter under section 15(1) whereby all citizens of Canada have equal protection and benefit of the law without racial consideration. That is in our charter.

Any future aboriginal justice system as provided in section 14 of Bill C-34 would be in violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms since it would provide a judicial system for particular citizens based on racial considerations. It is in violation of our Constitution.

Is the federal government looking forward to legislatures and court houses which are reserved for those of a particular race? This is clearly where Bill C-34 is leading and therefore it must be the desire of the government.

Even the much hated Charlottetown accord included a provision whereby the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would apply immediately to the governments of aboriginal people-even the dastardly Charlottetown accord.

As demonstrated, this bill goes out of its way to avoid the charter. Otherwise the government would have to include a provision like the one that existed in the Charlottetown accord or conversely it would not have included section 8(1)(d) allowing aboriginals to draft their own charter.

This governing party, a party that drafted the charter and placed so much faith in its existence, is now willing to cast it aside in order to establish new nations, new governments, new homelands based on race. I must question the wisdom of this, considering third world nations that have been struggling with apartheid, with separation.

The power of taxation goes along with these expansive legislative and judicial powers. These new nations will have the ability to raise revenues through property and personal taxation. However, that ability is not limited to what is in this agreement. Further tax powers or exemptions may be negotiated with native governments at a later date. The power of taxation exists despite the presence of a financial transfer agreement. This represents a transfer of funds from the federal government that will maintain the present level of band funding, provide for incremental funding of self-government operations and will provide for land claim implementation funding.

Moreover, section 24 of the bill guarantees a blank cheque for the funding of any self-government operations. All of this funding plus $242.6 million is to be awarded over 15 years in general compensation. The tax base is very small. These new governments would be dependent on continuing financing from Parliament.

Perhaps it is through this measure that this government believes it may in fact exercise control over these new nations. However, I doubt Parliament could or would ever threaten to withhold funding since it has been perpetual through DIAND. Of course to withhold funding would be viewed as cruel and unusual punishment.

While they have been awarded vast legislative powers, control over resources and powers of taxation, these new nations will remain dependent upon the federal treasury. This agreement does little to break the cycle of financial dependency in which aboriginals have become entrapped.

Continued funding from the government will in no way put aboriginals on the same economic level as all other Canadians. This agreement represents profound political emancipation but fails to address the issue of aboriginal economic disparity.

Finally, another issue of importance in this process is the interest of third parties. Who speaks for the non-natives in this agreement? Those who may be affected by settlement claims or self-governing powers have not been included in the negotiations. Neither non-natives, members of the public, MPs nor MLAs have any say in the proceedings which have led to the existence of this unprecedented document.

Moreover, the government has ensured that in the future bills such as the one before us today will not even come to this House for consideration or debate. They will not even get to this House.

Clause 5(2) of the bill states that any self-government agreement reached between the federal government and the remaining 10 Yukon bands shall come into effect only by means of an order in council. A government that promises openness and transparency is now committed to establishing new nations in the Yukon by way of the secret workings of cabinet. Does this sound familiar?

If these agreements are in the best interests of Canadians, why then does the government include clause 5(2)? What is the government afraid of in not allowing an informed debate to occur in this House on future settlements? I believe that as demonstrated in the past, this government is afraid of the question: How? How is self-government going to work? How will the government protect democratic freedoms enjoyed by the native people to date? How will the government ensure that the rights and freedoms of these new aboriginal citizens will not be extinguished?

The government cannot and will not answer these questions. It blindly allows for the creation of new constitutions which create new legislatures, new judicial systems, new rights and freedoms and new citizens. Ultimately, this leads to the formation of 14 new nations within the Yukon alone, 14 nations within our nation of Canada.

The precedent Bill C-34 sets for future self-government is astounding. With the implementation of Bill C-34 and the incredible amount of power vested in these new aboriginal governments, what other aboriginal band would settle for less than Bill C-34? With some 600 aboriginal bands across Canada, each demanding self-government, the potential for a patchwork of 600 new nations in this country is very real under the terms of this agreement.

Again I must question the government on its rationale for allowing new constitutions, new legislatures and new citizens to be created within this one nation, this great nation of Canada. Is this nation, this Constitution, this Parliament, this Canadian citizenry so inconsequential that it may be tossed aside in

favour of new legislation, new legislatures, a new Constitution and new citizenship?

Is our existing law so inconsequential? Is this the message the federal government is trying to deliver to the Canadian people, considering that a separatist party sits in official opposition? Is this the message?

William Lyon Mackenzie King said this in this very House. He reminded us that a divided Canada can be of little help to any country and least of all to itself. We should ponder those words very carefully.

Opposing Bill C-34 may not be politically correct in the eyes of those who support this bill. As a servant of the Canadian people, I am duty bound to question the necessity of this bill and the possibility for founding new nations within this one nation of Canada.

Therefore I and the Reform Party must oppose Bill C-34.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I heard the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, he asked who speaks for the non-natives. As I understand the policy of the Reform Party it is to heed the people's will. If it conflicts with the Reform agenda, then the people's will is paramount.

This particular legislation has involved 21 years of negotiations. It is supported by the Government of the Yukon. The leader, Mr. Ostashek, is a non-aboriginal. It is supported by the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, by the mayors that I talked to, and by the mining association. As a matter of fact the Yukon has already passed mirror legislation. It is supported by all of the Liberals in this House, by the Bloc, by the Conservative Party and by the NDP.

When I stack that up against the 50 Reform members sitting over there in the corner who are asking who speaks for non-aboriginal people, my question for the hon. member is: Do you not think there has been sufficient non-aboriginal contribution to all these negotiations which have been open and transparent and going on for 21 years?

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I live in the north central part of British Columbia where we are surrounded with pending land claims and with negotiations for self-government.

As I travel throughout my riding and talk to people, the number one question I get from the non-native people in my riding is: "Who is asking us about how to settle these land claims, about how to negotiate aboriginal self-governments? Who is asking us?" The fact is no one is asking them.

This legislation came to our party the morning it was introduced in this Parliament, nine inches of documentation, and was expected to be debated that day. We are pretty good over on this side of the House but the hon. minister and this government expected us to come up with informed debate as a result of reading the documentation of this bill in a matter of hours. Something is amiss in the thinking there.

We intend to speak for the rest of Canada, the non-natives in this country. We intend to speak for the taxpayers in this country and we intend to speak for the native people in this country.

There will be nothing more damning to this country than if Bill C-34 is passed and the creation of new nations operating outside federal-provincial jurisdictions is allowed to take place. There will be nothing more damning to the unity of this country.

If you think we have a problem, Mr. Speaker, having a separatist party sitting in the House as the Official Opposition, that is nothing compared to what this will do to our country.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I have three brief questions that I will put to the member.

He talked about speaking to the non-aboriginal people in his constituency. I wonder if he has spoken to aboriginal people in his constituency and can he tell the House what the aboriginal people in his constituency are saying.

Second, in his remarks he addressed the question of not liking the inherent right to self-government included in the legislation. Does this mean that he does not believe at all in the inherent right to self-government in this legislation?

Third, he uses the Constitution of Canada as a basis for most of his arguments in his speech today. I am wondering in terms of the consultative process that occurred in this country if he would recognize that when the constitution was written prior to 1867 and agreed to by the parties that there were no aboriginal people at the table.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I have spoken to aboriginal people in my riding. Certainly they did tell me that they want the opportunity to become self-sufficient.

This is not the way to convey self-sufficiency upon them. Self-sufficiency has to come from within a people. We have to extend to them every right and freedom that exists for every other Canadian, rights to education, rights to justice, rights to equality, the very things that are contained within our Canadian constitution now.

We do not want to separate the aboriginal people with a series of patchwork provisions for them to establish their own nations. We want them to be involved in the country of Canada with every right and every freedom that Canadians currently enjoy.

In answer to the member's second question regarding the term inherent right to self-government, a close examination of the term inherent right to self-government could fundamentally mean answerable to no other authority as inherent right to self-government has always existed.

If we are to pass legislation in this House that would be not answerable to the supreme authority of the Government of Canada, the Constitution of Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, where are we going as a nation?

The third question, the constitution act, of course the aboriginal people were not at the table. The constitution act of Canada was to create a nation of Canada, a nation where people of all races, all cultural backgrounds, all heritages can live with equality, opportunity and freedom. That is our constitutional act. People who came to this country after the constitutional act was created were not at the table either but those people from other countries who are now citizens of Canada and even non-citizens enjoy the fruits of that constitution act as it applies to aboriginal people.

The Constitution of Canada is probably the most sacred document that exists in this country because it provides for equality and freedom to all citizens of this country.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the floor.

I would like to start by telling my colleague from the Reform Party that, if he is going to attack the separatists, as he calls us in his speeches, he could at least make sure to give us a little time to reply.

I have two comments. First, the term "separatist" does not exist in international law. That is why we use the word "sovereignty" and its derivatives all the time. We make no secret of the fact that we want to become a "sovereign" nation. That is the first point I wanted to make.

Second, the question before us-and the minister can confirm it because he said so himself earlier-has been under review for 21 years, I think.

So, Bloc members who want Quebec to become sovereign as well as Liberals-while holding opposite views-are capable of looking at this and saying: "What the natives are requesting in here makes a lot of sense and after 21 years, it is about time that we delivered". Let us not get sidetracked by lip service. That is what I wanted to get across to my colleague.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I used the term separatist very clearly. It is my opinion that any person or group of people wanting to destroy the Confederation of this country, wanting to secede from this nation are indeed separatists. I will never retract that statement.

The hon. member talked about 21 years of study and so it has to be a good document. I would like to remind this House and the hon. member that we studied the creation of a nuclear bomb for longer than 21 years. Did that make it a good result?

Length of time in study does not necessarily yield a fruitful result. I have pointed out the disparities in this bill. If the hon. member will take the time to go through this bill clause by clause, I am sure he will be inclined to agree with me.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Pardon me for interrupting the debate, but I call upon your wisdom with regard to the use of the word "separatist".

I know that we are allowed in this House to use terminology which may not be recognized in international law. However, I would like to know whether the term "separatist" should be allowed to be used to excess? More specifically, for your guidance in considering this point, Mr. Speaker, how can we be referred to as separatists when we were involved in building this country? Why is it that our right to consider getting out of it is not recognized? That is the point of order I wanted to make.