Darrel Stinson

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, at least three new boards will be created. There is absolutely no way that will speed anything up. We all know what happens when we get tied down in bureaucratic red tape.

I sat on the natural resources committee. We looked for a one window shop. Now we have created more than that. We have created more legislation, more red tape, and more headaches for exploration and development in that area in particular and in land management. More bureaucracy is exactly what we are creating. Instead of trying to make something smaller and more simple we are now expanding to make it more complex and more frustrating for everybody trying to do business.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it does have an obligation. It also has an obligation to everybody and to listen to everybody. That is what the House is supposed to be for.

If the member reads through his notes he will quickly realize that the DIAND information session in September 1997 raised many questions that were left unanswered. The ones that were answered were answered with uncertainty, often with the wording that such matters would be settled in court. If legal recourse is the only way to settle matters, it is time to amend the legislation. The hon. member should be aware of that.

We have to look at all of it before we go ahead and just pass legislation. Just because part of it is right does not make the whole right. Why would we pass something that is 50% good and 50% bad? Why would we pass anything that has anything bad in it? It should be 100% good if at all possible. That is good legislation.

Good legislation is not having to go back 10 years from now and having to amend something that we put into place in the House.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I sat here too and listened to the member opposite speak with regard to this bill. Bill C-6 was originally introduced in this House on December 12 as Bill C-80.

I would like to get back to the speech of the member opposite if I may for a moment. She mentioned quite proudly the diamond mines in the north, and justifiably so.

I remember not that long ago standing in this House raising some concerns about the length of time it was taking to come on stream through the red tape and bureaucracy that we tend to create in this country.

It has taken years of frustration for the owners and the participants in the BHP diamond mine to get up and on stream while the competition in other countries went ahead.

I want this House to be well aware of the legislation that we create in this House, how it can hamper the development and the process in these areas.

Make no mistake about it, the legislation that we developed here hampered the diamond fields of the north. It never helped them, not one bit. I want to make sure this House is fully aware of that. I want to make sure the member opposite is also aware of that and takes that into consideration as we debate this bill.

There are many concerns with regard to this bill in the north. Some I have heard from the opposite side, and some from this side too have tried to address this. The main concern here is that when we pass legislation, it is far easier to pass it than to repeal it.

As we go through Bill C-6 and talk to all the players involved, not just one or two, we find there is an abundance of concern with regard to where this bill is going and what we are attempting to create here.

We have no problem with setting up some of these boards to help the people in the different areas but we do have concerns when we hear from people in these outlying areas saying about the lack of consultation with regard to this, the complexity of the laws, the complexity of the language used in order to create these laws not fully understood by the participants involved.

That has to become a concern of every politician in this House when we allow this to take place. We all know legal language is probably the hardest language to understand next to a politician.

We have to be very aware of what we are doing when we create laws formed basically by lawyers here in the House so that when we go out to the people to try to put through legislation they fully understand the legislation being put in place.

From some of the letters we have we know this is not what happened here. We know that the concern is there due to this legal language. We also know there is concern. I heard today that there was concern that this was legislation by exhaustion.

We are talking about over 30 drafts of this legislation going forward to these people and basically being online until this got through some of these areas. I have concern about that.

I also have concern when we talk about areas such as this regarding cost. We know these people cannot afford to come to Ottawa to address these concerns. We also know there are some areas they cannot get to, say Yellowknife.

What is wrong with our sending people out there to talk to them? I have done it. I am sure other members of the House have done it too.

These people deserve to be heard. We are enacting legislation in the House pertaining to the way they live, make their living and in many cases raise their families. We in the House have to be very aware of that. We have to make sure there is absolute clarity when we make such legislation.

The Sahtu and Dene Band information session in September raised many question. Far too many of them were answered with uncertainty. It scares me when I hear that their questions were answered with uncertainty. Why? Often the response to such matters was that it would have to be settled in court.

I am just an ordinary person from a place called Vernon, British Columbia, just outside Armstrong. When I read people are afraid we are creating policy that will wind up in court, I have grave concerns about where we are going.

Are we sitting here as a government, as opposition members and as other members of the House to create legislation to further lawyers? Or, are we supposed to be here to further the benefit of the people so they do not have to worry about legislation that introduces the idea it may have to be settled in court. I question that and I worry about that.

There is also question of the extra time limits that will be imposed and the extra level of bureaucracy and the red tape that will be created, especially in the further exploration and development in mining.

We all know what happens in the mining industry. We all have grave concerns about what will happen if the industry ever decided one day that perhaps Canada was not the place to do business in. We have to address some of these concerns. We hear from exploration companies that unnecessary red tape is already creating this distinct possibility.

I sat and still sit on the natural resources committee. I can remember agreeing with all parties in the House in the last session to preparing a draft policy entitled “Keep Mining off the Rocks in Canada”. We worked very hard on it. Yet not one decision of that committee has come to the floor of the House. It sits on some shelf gathering dust. Maybe that is a make work project for government, keeping people busy dusting off policies that would benefit the Canadian populace as a whole. We supply people to dust them off every now and then so that maybe they can refer to them but never in the House.

It makes me wonder about the legitimacy of much of the committee work, as I am sure many members of the House wonder. We put in many hours trying to clarify legislation, only for it to be taken from our hands and drafted into language that very few of us really understand. The lack of clarity has to be the first concern.

We also have to be concerned about what we are creating in the process with regard to the legality problems that could be created and fostered. We have to consider seriously a system that could be under-resourced. I have not heard much about this concern, but we have to consider it, especially its technical capacity. We have to be aware that it might put us at a disadvantage in dealing with the large workload the bill will create by agreements and changes in leasing permits. We have to be concerned about many of these areas.

When the legislation goes to committee I would like to see the amendments seriously debated and considered instead of just washed over. If we were to address some of the amendments that come forward with regard to the bill it would take away a lot of the worry for the people living up there, both native and non-native. It would definitely take away some of the worry for mining exploration companies, the biggest employer in the area.

This has to happen in legislation if we are to go forward with good pieces of legislation that benefit everybody. These are legitimate concerns. I hope members of the House understand them, look at them and are willing to address them through committee work.

[Canada-Yukon Oil And Gas Accord Implementation Act, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of a rush, catch-up type of day. I am sure the Speaker knows all about that.

It is a pleasure to be here this morning to speak to Bill C-8. Bill C-8 has been kicking around basically off and on for quite a while. It is an act respecting the Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas Accord Implementation Act. The bill reflects the government's recognition of the important role of oil and gas exploration in the northern territories.

The territories are the site of approximately a quarter of Canada's remaining discovered petroleum and approximately a half of Canada's estimated potential.

Oil and gas exploration and development is an important key to the future economic well-being of the territories. We are already seeing a wide range of possible benefits from such mineral discoveries as the BHP Diamond Mines. I have no doubt that as settlement in the north increases and infrastructure expands we will see an ever increasing benefit to the north from natural resource developments of all sorts.

While the legislation before us today is important to the economic future of Yukon, it is also in accordance with the Reform Party position on two very important issues. First, the Reform Party of Canada strongly supports transferring control of natural resources to the provinces. The legislation calls for the devolution of provincial-like powers to the Yukon territory by transferring the administrative and legislative control over oil and gas to the Yukon government.

The federal government is demonstrating its commitment to political devolution to the Yukon territory. Reform supports increased provincial or territorial control of natural resources and decreased federal control over natural resources including control over the oil and gas industry.

Second, the bill concurs with Reform's belief in the equality of all provinces. While Reform supports decreased powers on the federal level it also supports increased powers for the Yukon government. The powers held by the territory should not exceed those held by any of the provinces. The bill does not transfer greater powers than those held by the provinces under section 92, 92(a) and 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867. As was stated in the unity debate, equality between provinces is absolutely essential to the equal treatment of all Canadians.

While Reformers support the legislation we also have some concerns. In recognition of the unique situation in the north the legislation respects aboriginal land claims and settlement rights. The legislation does not diminish aboriginal treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It is consistent with the legislation concerning wildlife, the environment and land management regimes under this section.

The legislation also states that any inconsistencies will be resolved in favour of legislation implementing the treaties. All these provisions are important to the acceptability of the legislation to aboriginals in the Yukon territory.

The concerns I speak of are with regard to the federal government's retention of the right to reclaim control of land to settle aboriginal land claims. This provision is intended to protect the rights of first nations still in negotiations with the government. However investors may be slow to undertake exploration development projects until land claims are resolved.

This is not to suggest that the provision should be removed, but the government must develop and adhere to a time line for negotiations so that exploration and development are not continually delayed.

It was previously anticipated that negotiations with all Yukon first nations would have concluded by February 1997. The anticipated date was then extended to July 1997. However, as of September 19, 1997 only half of the Yukon first nations had reached agreements while the remaining seven were still in negotiations.

Therefore I urge the government to resolve land claims as quickly as possible so that potential investors can confidently proceed with oil and gas development in the Yukon territory with all the benefits for those who live nearby.

There are also concerns regarding the government's retention of the right to reclaim lands and to take certain actions in the event of a sudden oil supply shortfall. This provision complies with Canada's international obligations as outlined in the International Energy Agency oil sharing agreement. The same international obligations were responsible for the introduction and implementation of the national energy program.

Westerners need not be reminded of the disastrous impact the national energy program had on Alberta's economy during the so-called energy crisis. Because of the very nature of the north with its relatively limited opportunities to obtain income from manufacturing, for example, especially due to difficulties in transportation and lack of infrastructure to support the kinds of development taken for granted in the southern part of Canada, Yukon is extremely dependent on natural resource jobs and revenues. It will therefore suffer even greater hardship than Alberta did should the federal government deem it necessary to implement controls like those used during the last energy crisis.

There must be some commitment by the government to give much more serious consideration to the impact of its actions on the Yukon territory, on the Yukon economy and on the social and economic well-being of the Yukon people should there be an oil supply shortfall or energy crisis.

In short, Ottawa must learn by its errors with Alberta and not treat any part of Canada ever again with such cruel indifference.

The legislation affecting Yukon in this respect should set the precedent for other provinces resulting in amendments to existing legislation that will protect all provinces from economic disasters like that brought upon Alberta under the national energy program.

The power gained by Yukon through the legislation is economic. Not only will the Yukon government have jurisdiction over exploration, development, conservation and management of oil and gas but also over resource revenues. The legislation allows the territory to raise revenues by any mode or system of taxation in respect of oil and gas in the territory. It also gives the territorial government control over the export of gas and oil from the territory.

The bill will reduce the economic dependence of the Yukon territory on the federal government and allow it to develop its own economy as the more successful provinces have already done. Others such as Newfoundland and Labrador are still struggling to get out from under Ottawa's thumb and profit from their own natural resources.

However the legislation keeps the federal government too involved. The federal government will continue to collect resource royalties on annual resource revenues exceeding the first $3 million.

Reform opposes federal collection of resource royalties from resource industries in any province but especially those in the provinces and territories where resource revenues are the foundation of the economy.

Despite those concerns, however, all interested parties have expressed support for the legislation. During the summer of 1996 I had the great opportunity to travel extensively in Yukon with my wife. While I was there I spoke with a broad section of Yukon residents. There were some real concerns over the legislation basically based on being underneath the federal wing for so long and on what would happen when some of the powers were transferred to the people of the Yukon territory.

While these concerns were there and expressed in great detail, there was also great anticipation by people looking for the new opportunities that were to be gained from this piece of legislation, basically for their freedom from the red tape from Ottawa which they have been wrapped up in for so long. I appreciated that and I know where they are coming from. I can see where the opportunity now arises for these people to go further with their endeavours on their own.

The Canadian and Yukon governments have committed also to consult with aboriginal peoples on significant oil and gas decisions affecting traditional lands prior to the completion of land claims negotiations. Otherwise we might have in the Yukon a repeat of the situation at Voisey's Bay in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There a mining company invested billions of dollars to acquire a site but every imaginable hurdle has been thrown in the path of that development. Hurdles are being thrown by the federal government, especially agreeing to delay development at Voisey's Bay while the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development spends a few more years, nobody knows how many more years, supposedly working to settle land claims which have been under negotiation for a generation.

I have to wonder when I see how the federal government gets itself involved in something like the Voisey's Bay situation. We have the potential of between 3,000 and 5,000 jobs in a section of Canada that desperately needs those jobs. We all know that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador desperately want to go to work, yet the federal government is basically stopping them from doing so. I have to wonder at the power we allow our governments to hold in certain areas such as this one.

We know that Newfoundland and Labrador is supposedly one of the poorer provinces in Canada. Yet it has the chance right now of probably becoming the Alberta of the east with the Voisey's Bay project. And here we sit holding up maybe one of the greatest developments in the world at this point in time. I have to question the wisdom of this government on that issue.

Sometimes it seems there are departments opposing northern development rather than working to assist northern development. In that case I am particularly pleased to see the federal government stepping back and turning oil and gas exploration and development over to the local level of government closest to the situation and best able to deal with it, namely the territorial government.

We all know beyond a shadow of a doubt when we give people sitting 1,600 or 2,000 miles away from any given situation the power to make decisions on things that should be left to the provinces, the territories or the local governments, we seriously jeopardize Canadians' ability to further their lifestyles in this country.

This legislation respects the unique situation north of 60 without compromising the principle of equality. Most important, this act incorporates grassroots concerns and amendments. This legislation is part of a greater process that involves the devolution of control not only over oil and gas but over education, health care and economic development in general.

This transfer of power will give the Yukon people their proper voice in the way their lives are to be governed and greater power over the quality of their lives. Therefore Reform generally supports this legislation and recognizes it for what it is, a most important step in the political evolution of the Yukon territory.

I would like this House to study the concerns that we have in regard to this piece of legislation and to fully understand maybe finally that more power is not necessarily more beneficial when it is controlled in Ottawa as we are doing today in this House.

[The Environment, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today the joint environmental review panel released its decision on the routes of the Sable Island gas pipeline: through New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and not Quebec.

Will the government commit today to letting this impartial decision stand and promise not to let Liberal politics weigh in any decision?

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a couple of questions.

I had the opportunity of travelling in Newfoundland and I spent some time in the schools there talking to the students as well as teachers. This is a great concern in Newfoundland, as the hon. member has said. It is so much a concern that I am troubled about the committee having a time limit of December 5. That really scares me when we are going to make a decision pertaining to a province which was guaranteed a lot of things when it joined Confederation, yet none of it has taken place.

I will say in all sincerity, that if there is one province in the country that has really been taken advantage of since Confederation it is the province of Newfoundland. When I see a time limit of December 5 being put on a committee that is going to study how education be furthered in one of our provinces, it causes me great concern. I wonder if the hon. member would address that for me.

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

For three years you can let them dry back there.

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, October 20th, 1997]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw it. You are quite correct. They could not have learned anything from this government.

Does the hon. member see this as a tax grab or as a benefit to society?

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I was in here a little earlier and I heard a government member say that the government has never raised personal taxes. I know the government has raised taxes 38 times, including this time.

When I go to a gas station and I pay extra tax on gas, I find it very personal. I do not know about government members. I guess they do not. Government members, and we can all read it in Hansard , have stood in the House and said that the government has never increased personal taxes.

The hon. member mentioned taking away the $100,000 capital gains tax exemption. I think that $100,000 capital gains tax exemption was put in place for average workers. It gives them the hope of saving something. The government said no, it is for the rich. I guess maybe Liberals do not understand that the rich with $100,000 buy cars for their sons and daughters. The incentive for the average worker to hope to save $100,000 so the government cannot get its claws on it was taken away.

I look at all tax as legalized theft. If the mafia had this government as an example—

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member on his maiden speech. It was very well done.

He mentioned during his speech that this is a democratic Chamber. I have a couple of questions I would like to ask the member.

He was duly elected in his constituency by the taxpayers of Surrey Central. They sent him here to have his say. The member came down here fully anticipating that this would be a Chamber for debate where he would be allowed to talk on any subject but more important, talk about subjects his constituents deemed important for him to speak upon.

The hon. member mentioned in his speech that Bill C-2 was a pension grab, a rip-off or whatever the member would like to address it as. Personally I think it is a rip-off, legalized theft hidden in government forms. I would like the hon. member to stand up in this House and say to me that underneath the democratic process we have with this so-called Liberal government you were given your chance to stand up here in this House, the greatest house in Canada, to say your speech on behalf of your constituents, that you were allowed that with Bill C-2.