Reed Elley

[Yukon Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill C-39, an act to replace the Yukon Act. I am pleased to state that, after careful consideration and listening to the debate and the principal stakeholders who would be affected by the bill, the Canadian Alliance will be supporting this piece of legislation.

I applaud my hon. colleague from Yukon who in his first term of office has done the work of an MP to help steer the bill through the House of Commons. He has been a strong advocate for his people. Regardless of party affiliation it is important that all of us as members of the House model what it means to be a good MP. It only increases the respect Canadians have for us as MPs.

If I might digress for a moment, for far too long in Canada we have been in confrontational situations in the House that have not always led to the betterment of Confederation. Some of us are now learning that we need to be far more consultative and listen far more to each other so we can do the work for Canadians that needs to be done. I applaud the member for Yukon for modelling that in this situation.

The principle of devolution of power to the Yukon territory is one the Canadian Alliance has long supported. Early in the debate I stated that we had questions and concerns which required answers from the minister, departmental officials and, most important, representatives from Yukon.

I am pleased the devolution transfer agreement has been agreed to by the Yukon government, the first nations of Yukon and the federal government. This is the key to a successful transfer of power from the federal government to a territorial government. The devolution agreement is consistent with the longstanding objective of past governments to transfer provincial types of programs and responsibilities to territorial governments.

I had another concern. I wanted to be assured that with the transfer of responsibilities to the Yukon government the appropriate authority and accountability would be transferred.

One of the problems we have had in Confederation, whether at the time of the formation of the country or later in our history, is that once authority has been passed on to provincial governments there is often a temptation for the federal government to keep meddling and keep its finger on things.

If our Confederation is to work we must have a clear definition of responsibilities between provincial and federal governments. We ought to allow each other to take responsibility to do the jobs we have been given under the constitution.

Upon listening to officials from both levels of government I am confident this has taken place in the Yukon agreement. It would not be in the best interests of the federal government to withhold authority from the Yukon government because it is the one that is closest to the people of Yukon.

After meeting with and listening to elected and departmental officials I am confident the tripartite agreement signed by the Yukon government, the Council of Yukon First Nations and the Canadian government would adhere to the principles of responsible government. I was pleased to hear Yukon Premier Pat Duncan refer specifically to this in our private meetings with her and at the standing committee hearings.

Simply put, responsible governments must first reflect the people to whom they are responsible. They are and must be responsible to those whom they govern. Under the bill these would be the citizens of Yukon, Yukon first nations and Canada respectively. The citizens of these three jurisdictions are the voters and taxpayers for each of these levels of government. Without the respect of citizens, governments have no jurisdiction or authority.

Accountability must be the primary issue for a responsible government. Accountability may be discerned in many ways, including financially and electorally. For a government to be accountable to the people it must be transparent. The decision making process must be clear for all to see and follow.

This does not mean everyone will like the final decisions. It means that the way we arrive at decisions will be clearly seen and the process clearly understood.

I believe that all hon. members in the House know that many of the decisions we face are difficult ones and not easily understood by the general population. Canadians need to know we have taken sufficient time to study the issues and allowed input so that the results of our deliberations may be lasting and have the desired good effect upon the population.

This is a large bill and I do not mean that in the physical sense. It is a long and complicated bill. I joked with the member for Yukon at the Vancouver airport yesterday that he loves the legislation and carries it under his arm wherever he goes. It is a large and important bill. It would have an effect on every person living in Yukon. It would affect the employees of the northern affairs program and the Yukon government.

I was pleased to hear of the discussions and negotiations between the respective governments and their employee union representatives. I hope the employee transition will be a smooth one.

There are many positive aspects to the bill. I am pleased the powers granted under the bill would resemble provincial powers as outlined in the Canadian constitution. I can think of nothing better than to work toward the independence of Yukon as a province in due time. It would be wonderful for us to gather again in the Chamber at some future date and pass legislation that would bring Yukon and other northern territories into this great Confederation as full partners, as provinces. That would be a great day.

I am pleased the devolution of power under the bill would cause the cessation of operations of the northern affairs program in Yukon. The Canadian Alliance believes that over time the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should take on a substantial reduction, perhaps even be phased out, as we move toward giving independence in many matters to our native peoples. This move in Yukon is a promising first step toward that.

Furthermore, the bill specifies that the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would consult with the executive council with respect to proposed amendments in the future. This is all good and well because it shows the depth of co-operation for which the levels of government are wishing.

I am particularly pleased to see that there is a goal to settle all Yukon land claims before the devolution of power to the Yukon government is implemented. There is a need to move these settlements and their negotiations along quickly as the current plan is to implement the new Yukon bill by April 1, 2003. There would be sufficient time to reach this goal but negotiations should not be delayed by any party.

I encourage all parties involved to actively pursue this goal while keeping in mind the need to reach a settlement that is affordable, achieves finality and meets the needs of all parties and their respective citizens.

I note that all members of the standing committee had correspondences from the Kaska first nation. We duly noted its concerns in committee. I feel certain that the current process, timeline and the bill itself would allow it sufficient opportunity to successfully negotiate its land claim and be heard when the bill is presented in the Senate.

In our meetings with Premier Duncan of Yukon we expressed our party's support for the bill. In turn I was pleased to hear that the Yukon government was also fully supportive. The concerns and questions the Canadian Alliance had with regard to the bill were addressed to our satisfaction. While there is always room for interpretation, my party will continue to watch over the implementation process.

The bill is a positive step forward. It gives me a great deal of pleasure on behalf of the official opposition to say that we will be supporting the bill. We look forward to Yukon, with the great hope it has for our northern areas, taking its place as a full and equal partner in the Confederation of this great country that we all love.

[Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to rise to debate Bill C-37, the Alberta and Saskatchewan claims act. The official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, recognizes the need for the legislation and therefore will be supporting the bill.

Let me take just a moment to discuss and summarize the intention and purpose of the bill. The bill's summary describes the act as a mechanism:

—to facilitate the implementation of those provisions of first nations' claim settlements in Alberta and Saskatchewan that relate to the creation of reserves or the addition of lands to existing reserves. The new Act empowers the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to set land apart as a reserve, and allows for the accommodation of third-party rights and interests in that land during the process of setting it apart as a reserve.

In short, the bill rightly addresses aspects of legitimate treaties that have not yet been fulfilled in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Where these errors and omissions have occurred over the years, for whatever reason, all the parties need to move quickly and efficiently in an effort to bring prompt resolution to them.

I want to categorically state that we in the Canadian Alliance believe that all treaty obligations should be met and that it is a moral imperative that we do so. Members in this party believe in honouring treaties.

I would like to note that during both the departmental briefings to the Canadian Alliance and the departmental presentations to the standing committee, the question as to why the bill was necessary was brought up. I found it interesting that the consistent answer to that question was that the current system was both cumbersome and unable to contend with the backlog of approvals.

Currently the governor in council must approve all reserve additions. The process is a cumbersome, four step process and at times it seems the approval process is longer even than the negotiation process itself, which boggles the mind. However, those of us who have been around the bureaucracy long enough know very well that these things can certainly take place.

We therefore know that the bill is intended to speed up the implementation process of additional reserve lands under the treaty land entitlement, or TLE, program in both Alberta and Saskatchewan.

I am pleased that Bill C-37 addresses the previous concerns that have been brought forward by third party interests. In the past, third party interests have been a major stumbling block to proceeding with the settlement of outstanding treaty land entitlements. Under the bill, third party interests may choose to opt into the regulations introduced through Bill C-37 or they may choose to continue with the old method. It is anticipated that the majority, if not all, will choose to opt in.

I would encourage the government to move quickly and decisively in the settlement of the remaining treaty land entitlement claims in Alberta and Saskatchewan. To procrastinate further serves no positive purpose for anyone. To continue the slow, grinding process is financially costly to all the parties and certainly provides no economic certainty to the aboriginal community or to the non-native population either.

We know that only too well in British Columbia and in the region which I serve as member of parliament where uncertainty in the treaty process has led to a great loss of investment in the province and is certainly one of the factors in our near recession like conditions in B.C. these days. These things must change and I believe Bill C-37 would bring us along the road to positive change in this regard.

One of the biggest questions I had going into the committee discussions surrounding the bill was the position that the respective provincial government had. I was pleased to hear that the provincial governments have been actively involved in the consultation and draft development of the bill and therefore feel that their previous concerns have been met.

The government official from the province of Alberta, for instance, mentioned that the bill was long overdue. It is something for which officials in the province of Alberta have been asking for a long time. Now that we have it I know they are very pleased.

They also made the observation that although negotiations are often long and drawn out, the waiting time for the governor in council to rubber stamp and finalize the agreement is often even longer. That has led to a detrimental situation in that province.

While I do not generally relish the thought of adding more powers to any of the ministers of the crown, I am supportive of any move that would reduce the waiting time due to an unacceptable bureaucracy. The Canadian Alliance endorses any move to minimize government interference in the daily lives of Canadians. Therefore, the bill is in keeping with our current policy.

The Canadian Alliance also recognizes the legitimacy of signed treaties as legally binding agreements and therefore we believe all obligations must be met under these treaties. In the cases where obligations have not been met, then our party will support the efforts to resolve them as quickly as possible.

The slow process of government bureaucracy should not stand in the way of settling these land claim submissions and therefore we support the bill.

Although it is not exclusively an economic bill, we again want to say that we believe the bill would assist some bands to realize economic opportunities in a more timely manner. The recognition of third party interests under the bill is key in order to achieve it.

I believe we must proceed quickly and ensure that bands are able to achieve those kinds of results within their own sphere of influence, not at a cost to others but in a fair and open market. Bands and band members must be given equal opportunity to achieve economic prosperity just like all other Canadians across this great land.

In conclusion, the Canadian Alliance will be supporting the bill. We are very glad it has been brought to the House.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Calgary Southeast. It is an honour to speak on behalf of the citizens of Nanaimo--Cowichan who are so deeply affected by the softwood lumber dispute. Unfortunately the very slow reaction of the government has caused and continues to cause many businesses and entire communities in my riding incredible harm.

It is another sad day in the country when we must describe in detail the glaring errors, the lack of intestinal fortitude, and the inability of the minister and the government to resolve the softwood lumber issue with the United States.

The government should not be surprised by the current softwood lumber debate. For over two years the official opposition has been telling it in very clear terms of the need to resolve this issue on a long term basis.

Since I was first elected in 1997 I have put out 11 press releases and asked many questions in the House regarding softwood lumber and the government's inaction on the file. I have heard from and spoken with countless employees in the timber industry, toured numerous logging sites, and met with union officials, mill management and owners and private landowners on numerous occasions.

This is certainly a diverse group of stakeholders by any definition. All the stakeholders would rarely agree on the issues and the potential solutions, but let me tell every member of the House that they all agreed the government had failed to resolve the issue surrounding softwood lumber. They agreed that solutions must be found and should have been found long ago.

The Minister for International Trade held meetings today with Marc Racicot from the United States. Yesterday he said that he would be giving Mr. Racicot an earful about how every decision made in Washington has been punitive and injurious to our industry. He said that would be loud and clear.

I am sure my colleagues would be very interested in knowing Mr. Racicot's reaction to this earful. Did he say that the minister was absolutely correct and that he would cease all these unfair trade practices immediately? Did he admit that the Americans lost all past attempts to show that Canada practises dumping with regard to softwood lumber? Did he qualify himself as acting largely on behalf of a powerful lumber industry from the American southeast?

Canadians and in particular British Columbians would be interested in hearing the minister's comments on the matter. If the minister followed through with his commitments of yesterday then I would be the first to applaud him. However it is unfortunate that to date he has not taken a strong stand in defending Canadian interests. He has known for many years that the softwood lumber agreement would be expiring.

If the minister wants to play in the big league with the Americans he had best be prepared to play hardball. Playing hardball means standing and putting the interests of Canadians first.

The Prime Minister mused recently about linking the energy sector to softwood lumber. The official opposition has been advocating this for a long time. I am pleased that the Prime Minister is finally following our lead on this matter.

Members will recall the shortage of electricity last summer in California and its rolling blackouts and the need for oil and gas to heat homes in Chicago last year. Now is the time to play hardball.

It is inconceivable that the government could leave so many Canadians unprotected, and yet here we are. The government is quick to offer support on many other issues but on this issue it has been slow, protracted and untenable. The lack of action is completely unacceptable, particularly for the people of British Columbia.

Many members of the House, and certainly the Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister, do not have any concept of the devastation that the lack of a softwood lumber agreement is having in British Columbia. Yesterday the IWA told my office that there are at least 16,000 forestry workers on temporary or long term layoff across British Columbia.

Today I spoke with the vice-president of Norske Skog, a pulp and paper mill which is an important employer in my riding employing about 1,200 people. He told me that it will be shutting down four pulp and paper mills temporarily on Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast, laying off approximately 5,000 employees.

There are four mills temporarily closed in my riding alone, one of them permanently. The remaining four lumber mills are down to one shift. Now we hear about this pulp and paper mill that will be laying off another 1,200 workers, bringing the total to around 4,000 people in my riding who are directly affected by layoff and the problems with the softwood lumber agreement.

This is absolutely devastating in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan, all across British Columbia and in many areas across Canada. The ramifications of the government's inaction on this file are immense. As a stone thrown into a pool of water sends ripples in all directions, the economic and social effects of the government's failures are far reaching.

The obvious first impact is on employees. According to current numbers approximately 20,000 British Columbians are at least temporarily unemployed. Many have no hope of returning to work unless significant strides are made to ensure free trade for softwood lumber. Some 20,000 men and women are not bringing home a paycheque. Some 20,000 families cannot meet their mortgage payments or put food on the table. I wonder if the minister would like to send a message to those people explaining his inaction on this file.

The mills and companies are obviously greatly affected by the closures. The companies involved range from single mill owners to large multinational corporations. Each has different resources to draw on, some small and some large. Either way they will have less profit and will be paying less in municipal, provincial and federal taxes. Norske Skog, for instance, supplies approximately 76% of the tax base to one municipality in my riding.

The next set of economic ripples extends to the communities. As the paycheques dry up so do the purchases. I have heard reports from my riding that there has been a major slowdown in everything from car sales to appliances and a general downturn in sales of virtually every other commodity.

The economic effects caused by the softwood lumber tariff are almost unimaginable. When a town is based singly or largely on one industry anything that upsets the industry has an immediate effect on the economic well-being of the town. One need only point to small towns such as Youbou or Gold River to see the repercussions. Both these towns are facing a rather grim future.

Perhaps the most deeply disturbing effect of these economic sanctions is their impact on families. As the financial strains literally hit home many families cannot endure the pressure. The inevitable end result is some form of breakdown within families. This simply is not acceptable.

There is an additional aspect to the issue that has not been spoken of in the House, at least not for a long time. American companies are buying our raw logs, shipping them south to their own mills and cutting the timber there. This amounts to nothing less than the export of jobs.

This has had a direct effect on my riding. I have spoken with forestry workers who have watched as truck after truck of raw logs has been driven past the mill they used to work at, a mill which is now closed, and has disappeared across the American border.

This is fundamentally wrong. To export raw logs at the expense of our timber industry is wrong. To export jobs to the United States is wrong.

On August 27 in the midst of this dispute with the United States I recommended we place a 19.3% tariff on the export of raw logs. If the Americans want to buy our timber let them pay a premium to do so. This is an issue we will have to deal with in the future but it is all part of the huge problem we are having now.

Yesterday during question period I invited the Minister for International Trade and his parliamentary secretary to join me in my riding to see firsthand the effect of the softwood lumber problem. I was and remain very serious about this. Yesterday afternoon I formally invited them to join me in Nanaimo--Cowichan. I trust I can look forward to a positive response from them and will be able to take them to see firsthand the devastating effects of the softwood lumber problem in my riding.

My time is drawing to a close, the hour is getting late and the Speaker wants to go home as much as I do. I will close quickly.

I strongly urge the government to make softwood lumber a high priority. The Prime Minister needs to be involved at the highest level, clearly and concisely expressing the will of the Canadian people to the president of the United States. This must be done quickly and with finality.

[Lumber Industry, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the parliamentary secretary and the minister to come to my riding and hear what the people of my riding want.

For over two years we warned the government about the need to resolve the softwood lumber issue. For two years the government has sung the same tune of “don't worry, be happy, we're in charge”.

Everything is not fine. Mills are closing and thousands of employees are out of work.

The minister is meeting with Mr. Racicot tomorrow. Will the minister now take a strong stand, call a national stakeholders meeting and make this issue a priority?

[Lumber Industry, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade called us in B.C. nervous nellies in regard to our reaction to the huge duty placed on us by the softwood lumber agreement.

I represent a riding that is heavily dependent upon forestry. His statement is an insult to the patience and hard work of thousands of forest workers who are now unemployed because of the government's inaction. These people who are now lining up at food banks cannot wait three years for the WTO to resolve this dispute.

When will the minister take a tough stand and bring this dispute to an end, sooner rather than later?

[Yukon Act, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-39, an act to replace the Yukon Act. Let me put on the record that the Canadian Alliance will be offering support for the bill. The underlying principle of the devolution of power to the territory of Yukon is certainly one that we can support, and it perhaps is long overdue.

While we offer our support, we also have questions and concerns that will need to be addressed by the minister, departmental officials and, most important, representatives from Yukon itself.

In reading the act, I see that there are three main features: first, to implement provisions under the devolution transfer agreement; second, to recognize the existence of responsible government in Yukon; and third, to make a number of consequential amendments to other federal acts.

I am not concerned at this point with the latter one, but as we debate both in the House of Commons and at committee, I am certain the details of the amendments to the other acts will naturally be determined and derived out of the clause by clause discussion at the standing committee.

As we look at the first two features, I believe that members of the House should be sure that as they go through the bill they understand it and that we do it well.

I am pleased that the devolution transfer agreement has been agreed to by the Yukon government, the first nations of Yukon and the federal government. I believe that this is an area of specific interest to all parties in the House and that we will therefore devote some of our time and energies to looking at this.

As I understand the context of the bill at this time, the devolution agreement is to be consistent with the long standing objective of successive governments to transfer provincial type programs and responsibilities to a territorial government.

One critical goal of this objective is that with the transfer of responsibilities to the Yukon government the authority and accountability must also be transferred. This can take place through a staged process, but the end objective of the devolution of powers must include both responsibility and authority. To offer the responsibility of power without the authority to back it up would prove to be fruitless and pointless to any future Yukon government.

For instance, I have questions about the Canada-Yukon formula financing agreement and how it will work. As I currently understand the legislation, Yukon would now collect all royalties, rentals, dues, fees or other charges previously collected by the northern affairs program for these programs. Yet the federal government would continue to pay approximately $34 million annually for the administration and control of land and resources in Yukon from funds previously allocated to the northern affairs program.

While I support the premise that Yukon should become more financially independent, I also want to ensure that all Canadian taxpayers benefit under the agreement. I will want to better understand from the minister and departmental officials how this portion of the agreement fits and compares with the current transfer agreement with the provinces. Of course, to do that we need much more information on this particular subject.

The area that I wish to explore at further length today, and which my colleagues and I will follow most closely is the second feature; the recognition of responsible government and all that the term entails.

The documents refer to the conventions of responsible government being similar in principle to those of Canada. While I understand that there are legal definitions attached to these phrases, let us remember that these words also have meaning to the citizens of both Yukon and indeed all Canadians.

As this is a tripartite agreement signed by the Yukon government, the Council of Yukon First Nations and the Canadian government, I believe that we should further explain and confirm what should be included under the term responsible government. Furthermore, these basics tenants should apply equally to all three parties of the agreement.

Responsible government must first reflect to whom it is responsible. From our point of view, it is and must be responsible to those it governs. Under the act, these would be the citizens of Yukon, Yukon first nations and then all Canadians.

The citizens of these three jurisdictions are the voters and taxpayers for each of these levels of government. Without the citizens and their respect, the government has no jurisdiction.

While many in the Chamber could add particulars to the much needed aspects of responsible government, accountability must be primary. Accountability may be discerned in many different ways, including governmental, financial and electoral.

For government to be accountable to the people it must be transparent. The decision making process must be clear for all to see and follow. This does not mean that everyone will like the final decisions, but it does mean that the rationale will be obvious for all to see.

Government decisions should not be based on special interest groups, favours or personal gain. Rather government decisions must be made that reflect the will and the needs of the people. Nor does it mean that some of these decisions will be easy. I am sure all my hon. colleagues in the Chamber know that many of the decisions we made may not always be popular, but they have to be made. They are often very difficult decisions made in the best interests of all Canadians.

I must say that one of the greatest concerns many of us in the opposition ranks have had is the transparency of the federal government in decision making processes. When members of the House are not able to follow the process, it is virtually impossible for members of the public to likewise see transparency in many government decisions. I sincerely trust this is not what the government is intending when it refers to the responsible governments similar in principle to that of Canada. Surely the Yukon government will start off in a better way than we often see displayed by the government in Ottawa where transparency is often not forthcoming.

There is also the aspect of financial accountability. There can be no greater control over the people than what a government does with the revenues derived from its citizens. Whether we like it or not, fiscal policy can be used to greatly assist citizens or seriously harm them. The best intentions of special interest groups, political alignments and even the government itself can have major impacts upon the decision making process.

I ask and even challenge the governments, which have signed the tripartite agreement, to analyze their roles and influences in light of financial decisions and fiscal accountability. Are they making decisions based on sound fiscal foundations both now and in the future? Will their decisions stand up to the test of time? In a free and democratic country such as Canada, no one government will be in power forever. Others will follow along and decisions will be reviewed and challenged. Ensure that decisions now will be viewed by the majority as being based on sound and transparent fiscal foundations.

Furthermore, the act specifies that the federal Minister of Indians Affairs and Northern Development will consult with the executive council in respect of proposed amendments in the future. Once again, we will hope that consultations will actually result in positive change and not just rhetoric. All too often in the past many Canadians in their own particular consultations with government have come to the conclusion that the consultations do not really change anything if the government has made up its mind.

For instance, during the Nisga'a debate over 1,200 submissions were made to the government, none of which changed the final agreement. Imagine what that does to the citizens of a country who try to make some kind of impact upon government only to find that in actuality the government did not listen to them. We hope that is the standard for future consultations and that there will be open and honest debate reflecting the needs and concerns of its citizens in the Yukon government.

One particular aspect of the act that I am pleased to see is the preference by Yukon first nations is to settle all land claims before the devolution of power to the Yukon government is implemented. With the current plan to implement the new Yukon act by April 1, 2003, there is a need to move these settlement negotiations along. I believe there is sufficient time to reach the goal, but certainly the negotiations should not be delayed at all. I encourage all parties involved to actively pursue this goal, keeping in mind the need to reach a settlement that is affordable, achieves finality and meets the needs of all parties and their respective citizens.

This is a large bill and will have an effect on every single person living in Yukon. It will affect the employees of the northern affairs program and the Yukon government as well. While I generally believe that this is a positive move, I believe that all members of the House need to proceed cautiously to ensure that all aspects and conditions under the act have been fully considered.

There are a number of positive aspects to the bill. For instance, I am pleased that the powers granted under the act resemble provincial powers as outlined in the Canadian constitution. I can think of nothing better than to work toward the independence of Yukon as a province in due time. We will be very pleased to see it take its place alongside the other 10 provinces of this great country in the years to come.

I am pleased that the devolution of power under this act will cause the cessation of operations of the northern affairs program in Yukon. It has been the belief of the Canadian Alliance and our predecessor, the Reform Party, that the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada should be phased out over a period of time. In our opinion, this move in Yukon is a very promising first step toward that goal.

Recently, the leader of the official opposition spoke with Premier Duncan of Yukon and expressed our party's position on this act. I am pleased to hear of the Yukon government's support for this act as well.

I also have a few concerns about the bill. I trust the government will be willing and open in its anticipated briefings, its appearances before the standing committee and during debate in the House to listen to and accept all appropriate amendments that are proposed by hon. members from all sides. It would be reassuring to see the government actually actively consulting and implementing changes that would improve this bill rather than just proceeding without due care and attention.

I would like to hear if the government has a plan regarding the application by Yukon to apply for and achieve full provincial status. Obviously, the territory is coming closer to achieving this. Will this legislation speed up or slow down the application process?

The background of the bill clearly states that Yukon will be deriving powers parallel to those outlined for provinces in the Canadian constitution. I will be very interested to hear comments from the minister and members of his department on this issue in particular when they appear before the standing committee.

I will ask the government to further clarify the financial arrangements, whereby Yukon will receive new taxation funds to a maximum of $3 million annually. My understanding is that these are funds that the federal government previously received. While these various taxes are applied to primarily natural resources belonging to Yukon, it is also my understanding that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada funds will also be redirected to Yukon.

While I support the move for Yukon to achieve financial independence, I believe that the governments involved must provide further clarity on this particular financial agreement. Yukon should retain the taxation revenues derived from its own resources and should not incur financial hardships due to this devolution of power. However, it appears that the federal government of course will be losing revenue and not decreasing its corresponding expenses. Somehow the minister should offer clarification in this matter as it goes before committee.

My last concern today regarding the bill specifically is whether or not the bill can actually be changed. All too often in the recent past legislation has come before the House for debate but the bottom line is that no changes can or will be made to the legislation especially if proposed by the opposition. The duly elected members of the House of Commons can debate this bill forever, but if no changes can be made to the agreement, our debate really amounts to nothing more than empty rhetoric.

I would like to take this opportunity to broaden the debate out generally to the minister and the Department of Indian affairs and Northern Development. I must give credit where credit is due. I am generally pleased with the more approachable aspect of the minister and his departmental staff in recent months.

However, as I am certain that my colleagues on this side of the House will attest, it is difficult to speak to such an important bill without sufficient time to study the bill itself. On Friday my office received a five inch binder. The departmental staff did a good job of compiling the information regarding the legislation and the related items in it. However to receive and speak indepth on a bill as important as this one without the opportunity to fully research the bill shows somehow a lack of trust on the part of the government.

The bill refers to changes for employees from federal to Yukon status and the procedure for this to occur.

There are all kinds of things in here for which we needed the time to sit down, read and digest before we came to the House with them. Might I suggest that it would be in everyone's best interest to introduce the bill into the House of Commons, set departmental briefings with all those who want them and therefore ensure that all interested members of the House, particularly the opposition, are able to speak knowledgeably. If the House truly wants open and full debate, then the government must do its part to ensure that all members are given the tools to perform their tasks adequately.

The legislation affords me the opportunity to talk on the issue of consultations. Full and complete consultations are needed with all parties affected by the agreement. The government indicates that it has had those discussions. I look forward to hearing from the other parties involved in this agreement in order to ascertain that all parties agree with the government's perspective on consultations.

As I close, I wish to confirm my party's position on the bill. We see several advantages and progressive moves forward under the legislation. We also have a number of questions that require answers, clarifications or perhaps amendments. We are willing to lend our conditional support to the bill at this time and look forward to discussing it more fully in committee.

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government has abandoned four major Canadian churches and left some of them facing bankruptcy as a result of the announcement of the Deputy Prime Minister that the federal government would pay 70% of the out of court settlements reached with former Indian residential school students.

Why has the government turned its back on the Anglican, United, Presbyterian and Catholic churches of Canada in this desperate attempt to settle these lawsuits? Why is the government extending the damage it caused to aboriginal children to Canadian churches that cannot afford to pay these bills?

The federal government forced aboriginal children to go to residential schools for over a century. It delayed the settlement of the Indian residential school claims for many years forcing these people to go to court. Then the government further delayed the court cases by dragging the churches into the lawsuits.

The government does not care about the damage it will cause Canadian churches. The government does not care about the aboriginal victims who will be unable to receive damages from these churches when they are forced into bankruptcy.

Why will it not do the right thing as Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come has suggested: assume 100% liability, pay the damages and leave the churches alone?

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the concerns of some Canadians about civil liberties, some groups have called for exemptions from Bill C-36.

Could either the minister of Indian affairs or the justice minister tell us whether native people across Canada will be exempted from the provisions of Bill C-36 as some of their leaders are calling for? A simple yes or no would suffice.

[Motions for Papers, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this Motion for the Production of Papers be transferred for debate.

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of esteem for my hon. colleague. I compare the substantive motion we in this party brought to the House a week after the events of September 11 which outlined point by point the things we felt the government needed to do.

We will support the motion because it is all good stuff. It has little substance and adds nothing more to the debate up to this time, but I believe my comments are accurate and valuable.