Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House that Question No. 47 on the Order Paper has been there now for some 200 days. I would like to ask the government when we might expect an answer to that question.
Lost his last election, in 2006, with 33% of the vote.
Questions On The Order Paper November 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House that Question No. 47 on the Order Paper has been there now for some 200 days. I would like to ask the government when we might expect an answer to that question.
Yukon Surface Rights Board Act November 1st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments and then I ask a question of the hon. member for Yukon.
I would like to say that because the Reform Party and I in particular was against the legislation that was in front of the House, it does not mean that we are against resolving land claims. We are against the kind of land claims that have been brought in front of this House today for the reasons that I outlined: the generosity of the agreements, the fact that it created more bureaucracy and the fact that entitlement to existing programs was guaranteed in perpetuity under those agreements.
If the hon. member is as concerned as she appears to be for the welfare of native people, maybe she will join with me and go and talk to her friends in Victoria who have designated the Tatshenshini-Alsek area a world class park, a class A provincial park. Then maybe she will join with me in trying to convince our friends across the way that we will withdraw the nomination to declare that area a world class heritage site.
I ask the hon. member will she join with me in those efforts?
Yukon Surface Rights Board Act November 1st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-55 today. Before I start my remarks I must address a couple of points made by the hon. member from across the way.
The business community in the Yukon and northern British Columbia of course is supportive of this bill, but it really has no choice. What this bill is doing is mitigating some very bad legislation that was passed through the House in the spring of this year. The mining industry felt this would be the only way it would have an opportunity to stay in the mining business in the Yukon after that legislation was passed. I had to bring that up right off the top and say that is the reason there is some support for this bill. It is not because the business community loves it, it just feels it has no choice.
What is this bill? It is an act to establish a board having jurisdiction concerning disputes respecting surface rights in respect of land in the Yukon territory and to amend other acts in relation thereto. It sounds like something out of the Income Tax Act.
What it really means is that there will be a board made up of a chairperson and not less than two or more than ten other members to be appointed by the minister of Indian affairs. Half of the members other than the chairperson will be selected from nominations by the Council of Yukon Indians and the other half and the chairperson will be appointed by the minister. The only qualification is that every member must be a resident of the Yukon.
This bill relates to Bills C-33 and C-34. The passage of this legislation is needed as a last step to fully enact the Yukon self-government and land claims umbrella final agreements which were rammed through Parliament in June and given royal assent on July 7 of this year. Bill C-55 will establish a Yukon surface rights board which is deemed to be needed for the implementation of Bills C-33 and C-34 as an arbitration panel.
I would like to talk for a minute about Bills C-33 and C-34 and the land claim agreements that have been reached up in the north in general in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon. In the last three or four years we have had four agreements: the Gwich'in; the Sahtu, Dene and Metis agreement which was passed this spring; Nunavut; and the latest is the Yukon land claim agreement.
Those land claim agreements encompass 560,000 square kilometres of land in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon. The four land claims will cost the taxpayers of Canada $1.5 billion. The existing aboriginal programs that are in force today in Canada are guaranteed in perpetuity under the agreements that have been reached. There are 46,932 natives affected by these four agreements for a land mass of 560,000 square kilometres, a land mass roughly equivalent to the size of France, and a cost of $1.5 billion.
Of course the Reform Party took exception and takes exception to these land claim settlements because we feel they are too generous. Also the ongoing obligations of the federal government with respect to aboriginal programs is in no way affected by these agreements. They go on in perpetuity. Further, new bureaucracies are created as a result of these agreements. This is what we were saying in June and now we are seeing the realization of that in this Yukon surface rights board.
We recognize that land claim settlements have to be dealt with and we recognize there will be a land component as well as a cash component. I do not think any thinking Canadian doubts that. However, we do have a problem with the size of the land transfers and the amount of money involved. We think that for the population involved it is extraordinarily high and will affect Canadians in the future. Right now there is not a hue and cry because there are not very many non-aboriginals living the area. However, it is the future we are thinking of. It is the future opportunities in mining, forestry and other resource uses that we have concerns about when we are in opposition to these bills.
Going on to the bill itself because half of the members other than the chairperson will be appointed from nominations by the Council of Yukon Indians and the other half will be appointed directly by the minister of Indian affairs, patronage appointments will be rampant.
We all know what happens historically after every election when we get a change in government from the Liberals to the Conservatives. It will be the Reform the next time around. When we get a change in government, we see harbour boards and transportation boards, all kinds of boards that are stacked with political appointments automatically, mysteriously overnight all the faces change. We saw it after the last election in October of last year.
A great deal of partisan political manoeuvring goes on with these appointments. As much as our friends on the other side of the House will hasten to say there will be no partisanship here, of course there will be. That is the way it works.
We would like to see local business people submit a list of names to the minister. From that list of names the minister could make his appointments. At least that would remove some of the partisan opportunities or the partisan influence that this board might have in the future. It is very important for the mining industry and it is very important for people to believe that this board is going to be impartial.
It is a requirement that three people sit in judgment of each individual case that is arbitrated by the board. One of these people must be from the Council of Yukon Indians. However it is not a requirement that one individual be from the business industry or from the mining industry.
This board has the potential to be skewed and could give decisions that are not based on the proper representation that we think should be required.
The board will mediate disputes as to who may cross land. What will happen on undeveloped settlement land is something that is also a concern of ours. What will happen to non-settlement lands? The board has a fair bit of influence over lands which are not directly included in the land claims agreement. This is something that we are concerned about and I am sure the mining industry is as well.
This board parallels the work of other boards that are already in place. We say therefore that it is duplication. Each board member is allowed to use contract workers such as advisers who are also paid on a per diem basis. Board members are paid on a per diem basis. A multiple array of experts at DIAND are sitting around fully capable of acting as contract workers, already being paid by the taxpayers.
Why not select from these people who are already employed rather than hiring contract workers at an additional expense to the taxpayers?
Furthermore, because the work of the board is going to be on a per diem basis, there is a possibility that the board's deliberations will drag out far longer than they need to, especially when the board members are being paid between $200 and $300 a day.
We would like to see some kind of a mechanism to make the board accountable for the length of time that it engages in deliberations and to make sure that its actions are kept at an absolute minimum.
The potential for conflict of interest is also there because claims are not assumed to be reviewed by the entire board but by a panel of three. At least one must be a member appointed to the board from the Council of Yukon Indians and two others are to be chosen by the chairperson. Could this not end with a blatant bias or conflict if all were from the Council of Yukon Indians? There are no rules to the contrary.
If the government is so concerned about allowing aboriginal peoples to have a say in surface and subsurface rights or subsurface uses of the land-I believe there is room for that-I have to question the government's concern over the ability of aboriginals in the Yukon to have a say in land use decisions. This concern apparently does not apply to the Champagne and Aishihik peoples whose traditional territories include the Tatshenshini-Alsek area of northwest British Columbia.
The Champagne-Aishihik people live primarily in the Yukon, but their traditional territories are the Tatshenshini-Alsek area and what is now the Kluane park. Economic opportunities were lost to these peoples when the Kluane national park, also a part of their traditional territories, was created in 1943.
They are now facing the prospect of seeing the Tatshenshini-Alsek designated a world heritage site by the United Nations. This proposal has been submitted to the United Nations, and is supported by the B.C. and federal governments. Our information is that the vote will be on December 14 of this year. If it is adopted by the United Nations it is going to take away Canada's sovereignty and ability to make decisions or reverse decisions on this land for all time.
I recently came into the possession of a letter written by Chief Paul Birckel who represents the Champagne-Aishihik First Nations. He writes to the premier of British Columbia expressing his concern, disappointment and frustration over the fact that the province of British Columbia has designated this area as a class A provincial park, without any consultation whatsoever with the Champagne-Aishihik people.
Now the federal government has come on board by agreeing to support the province of British Columbia having the area designated as a world heritage site. I would like to read a small bit from the letter that Chief Birckel has written to Premier Harcourt:
Therefore, I am requesting that you withdraw the support of your government to the establishment of a world heritage site nomination for the Tatshenshini-Alsek wilderness park area in British Columbia. Until some mutually satisfactory resolution of Champagne and Aishihik First Nations aboriginal rights, titles and interests in the area are dealt with. This area was initially established as a class A provincial park in June 1993. This was done without any consultation with our First Nations. This is a breach of the fiduciary responsibility that is owed by your government and by Canada to our First Nations. Therefore I am appealing to you to withdraw your support for the world heritage site nomination in our traditional area in northern British Columbia.
I believe these people should have as much opportunity to be involved in land use decisions in northern British Columbia as the Council of Yukon Indians is in the Yukon territory. This does not seem to be the case. I urge members on the other side of the House to talk to their heritage minister and the Prime Minister, and get them to agree to withdraw the nomination for the Tatshenshini as a world heritage site at this time. There is no support for it.
In conclusion, this bill is vague in its rules and regulations concerning its principal responsibilities. It mentions minimum requirements for Council for Yukon Indians involvement, but none regarding its maximum. The notion of sufficient negotiation as a pre-requisite for mediation is misleading and has a great potential for favouritism and unfair treatment of some cases and not for others.
The idea of a per diem rate of pay for board members and their contracted staff, while mediating a case, may mask the reality of the formation of another level of bureaucracy for some, but it is the same old game from where I stand.
Nothing is stopping members from dragging out mediations for the benefit of more pay. As well, I am appalled that the government, which preaches democracy, is willing to let the minister of Indian affairs appoint half of the board members from a list of nominees submitted by the Council of Yukon Indians, but not let a similar list of nominees be submitted by the business industry. After all, is this board not meant to fairly mediate the claims of both aboriginals and non-aboriginals? Why then should the business community not be included on the same basis? Why was the business community not consulted on this bill and allowed to state their feelings on it before it is implemented? As I said earlier, they are forced to agree. They have no choice.
The government seems to be finally waking up to the reality that the national debt must be dealt with. We hear more and more talk about it all the time, particularly from the finance minister, but not from everybody else I might add. Since the board adds another level of bureaucracy to the already top heavy government, why then should not the now duplicated positions be abolished?
This is what the Reform Party has been asking of the government since day one, since we first came here last October. Stop duplication. We cannot afford it. Be responsible with the taxpayers' money.
Since the Yukon aboriginals want-and with closure invoked on Bills C-33 and C-34-and have now attained a certain level of self-government, why then do they not assist with the payment for this board which will be mostly made up of and hence representative of their interests? This would be too logical for the government to understand.
I would like to end by urging members who believe in fairness, honesty and accountability to oppose this bill as it portrays the epitome of patronage and racial bias for which Canadians should never be known.
I would like to remind the House that such land claims, self-government and racially segregated mediation boards will set a precedent for future negotiations with aboriginals which Canadian taxpayers will be hard pressed to pay for.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act October 27th, 1994
Three minutes with a spray gun. Yet the government has been spending millions and millions of dollars to acquire these goods and put them in our National Art Gallery. We have at times hung paintings and writings on the walls of that gallery that some Canadians would indeed believe to be bordering on pornographic. They would not let their children have these at home, yet they are confronted with them when they visit our National Art Gallery.
Why? Because the elite have determined that this is good for us without our consent. They take our tax dollars to support these artists when clearly Canadians never would.
The Reform Party and I say it is time to get the government out of the business of heritage, out of the business of culture and let the marketplace establish what people want and what they do not want.
It is very simple. If somebody produces something that has value and is desirable, Canadians will buy it. But when we have people who can go to the government, get grants and be funded through a coercive taxation system with no regard for whether Canadians actually want this paraphernalia, we are going to have what we have right now, a tremendous waste of Canadian taxpayers' money and a collection of what I consider to be, and I think many people consider to be, nonsense in our National Gallery.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act October 27th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to what some of my colleagues have had to say here today on culture and heritage.
I have a deep appreciation for Canada's culture and our heritage. I have many generations of ancestors in Canada. They started out in the maritimes and came to British Columbia over a period of 150 years. Contrary to what some might say or think, I believe that Reformers and Canadians in general have a deep
appreciation of our heritage. I believe that Canadians for the most part like art, films, and books. They like many of the things our minister of cultural heritage is promoting.
Most of us express our desire and enjoyment of our culture and art through our personal decisions. We make decisions as to what we are going to buy, which art for our homes and which books to read. We visit art galleries when we choose. In general through the marketplace we express our appreciation with our money in the forums where we feel that it is appropriate to do so.
The operative word here is marketplace. The marketplace is the proper place to determine whether art is saleable, whether it is desirable and whether the people who are creating it should be supported.
What we have in Canada is government directed heritage and cultural policy that ignores the market altogether. The government funded cultural community needs taxpayers' money to survive because it cannot convince people to buy its products on their own. It is not successful in the marketplace.
If writers want my money and the Canadian taxpayers' money they can write books that Canadian taxpayers will buy. If artists want my money they can create art that I and Canadian taxpayers will buy. If film makers want my money they can create films that I will pay money to see and they will therefore be successful.
These people do not need to convince me to buy their art or their books or pay to see their films. They can go to Ottawa and convince the government to fund their projects and their initiatives and I as a taxpayer along with millions of others from coast to coast who do not agree with the kind of products these people are producing are forced through a coercive taxation system to support it in any event.
This is why we have a National Art Gallery that is full of goofy paraphernalia that common sense Canadians would never ever buy. We have so-called treasures in our National Art Gallery. I come from the construction industry. People in the construction industry tell me that the notorious painting "Voice of Fire" could be created in about one-half day by a couple of good painters.
Questions On The Order Paper June 20th, 1994
I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could ask a question of the parliamentary secretary. When might we expect an answer from the government to Question No. 47 which I have had on the Order Paper for 47 days now?
Government Spending May 4th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I recently received a copy of a letter sent to Revenue Canada by Mr. Barrie Carter, a constituent of mine from Smithers, British Columbia. It reads:
Please find enclosed two post-dated cheques to cover taxes owing. However, I think it only reasonable that the minister of revenue assure me that my money will not be spent on golfing trips by government officials on government jets.
Like all Canadians, I do not object to paying my share of taxes providing the money is spent in a reasonable manner. Therefore the minister should have no trouble making that assurance to me before the cheque dates become due.
This letter underlines the hostility that is generated when Canadians see their hard earned tax dollars spent in a frivolous or cavalier manner.
Supply May 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the observation that while I chose to quote Paine and Locke, the hon. member chose to quote Chairman Mao. Chairman Mao, aside from having a very small mind, was responsible for one of the most atrocious, unspeakable genocides committed under his leadership in China. If she chooses to hold him up as a model, I guess that is for Canadians to see.
The hon. member imputed that my party was against supporting people in Canada who genuinely require support. That is totally false. I made that very clear in my points. I do not know how the hon. member can equate the National Action Committee on the Status of Women to people out on the streets or in Canada who really need assistance from the government.
Third, she is quite right. They are driving the policy bus. I am glad I am not on it because that policy bus is careening down the street right now at the rate of $100 million a day. There is a dead end coming up pretty shortly. They are the ones who will be responsible because they are in the driver's seat.
Supply May 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the spending of government over the last couple of decades and we look at the billions of dollars that have been shovelled out to grants and subsidies to Canadian business and industry, when we look at the billions of dollars that have been shovelled out to foreign aid through CIDA to countries that do not need it and where the rank and file people of those countries do not benefit but the governments do, when we look at the Auditor General's report when he talks about the massive amounts of government waste, those are the things that Canadians are keying in on.
If the hon. member on the other side thinks that Canadians are in the same mode as he is, that they support the massive government spending that is going on right now, he is in for a very rude awakening down the road.
Supply May 3rd, 1994
Furthermore when we look at the spending program-