Mr. Speaker, I wish to divide my time, if that is possible, with the member for Calgary Southeast.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to debate Bill C-34. Before I get into the specific clauses of this bill that will allow self-government for 14 Yukon Indian bands, I wish to
again express my objections to the strategy the government chose in introducing this bill into the parliamentary process.
I use the precise words of the minister of Indian affairs: "The scope and complexity of these agreements is unprecedented. This government has used all means at its disposal to stifle public exposure of this legislation". That begs the question: Why?
This party had no desire to block this legislation and could not even if we chose to. We simply wanted time for adequate public scrutiny, examination and meaningful debate. Was this unrelenting bullying simply to satisfy someone's ego or is it, as some aboriginal people suggested to me, to prevent proper examination and exposure of the fact that this is a move to exploit the desire for dollars of current band leadership to extinguish aboriginal rights now provided through the treaties and the Indian Act? Time will tell.
While this was procedurally allowable, I would remind those members who were in opposition in the last Parliament to remember their own cries of objection when the Conservative government imposed those conditions on themselves and the Liberals' promise in the red book to do things differently.
To those who would dismiss our demands for fairness I would like to quote from this very self-government agreement in the preamble where there is a definition of consultation, which I presume was what was supposed to be taking place here. That definition says:
Consultation means to provide to the party to be consulted notice of a manner to be decided in sufficient form and detail as to allow that party to prepare its views on the matter, and a reasonable period of time in which the party to be consulted may prepare its views on the matter and an opportunity to present such views to the party obliged to consult.
Surely this House deserves at least the same consideration as that provided in the agreement.
Since these bills cannot come into force until pending surface and subsurface legislation is introduced in the fall, it seems reasonable that these bills could have stayed in committee for the summer and had proper analysis without in any way delaying their implementation.
However having gained some time, I am more and more coming to the realization of my question of the minister in committee before his unprovoked attack upon me. My question was of his vision of self-government. We are now beginning to see his vision. It seems to be that of sovereign nation states within Canada with powers in some cases parallel to the federal government fully funded by the Canadian taxpayer.
The member from Churchill during the committee process continually demanded an answer as to who in fact holds title to the lands in Canada. It is becoming clearer and clearer that this government's idea is that the aboriginal peoples of Canada still retain title to the lands in Canada and we as non-aboriginal people are simply leasing or renting the land that we are using and occupying. I might notify all Canadians that as of today the rent is going up on the land that we occupy.
I must now voice our concerns on behalf of all Canadians with this legislation. First, I must question why we are now being asked to pass this self-government legislation when only four out of 14 bands being given self-government have agreed to sign this agreement.
I am aware that all 14 bands have agreed to the umbrella agreement but the 10 non-signatories must be trying to negotiate substantially different agreements or there would have been 14 agreements before us today instead of 10. I suspect very much that the hesitation of the other 10 has much to do with the extinguishment of some very fundamental aboriginal rights.
Should the governor in council have the authority to approve the remaining 10 agreements without the examination of Parliament? I question this. It goes right to the question of what in fact are we here for? In addition to the aforementioned concerns, I have concerns about the minister's remarks when leading off the discussion when he said that these self-government agreements do not have constitutional protection. They may, however, be revisited to apply this protection when his government is able to define the inherent right to self-government. I submit this statement has a serious impact on the goals of clarity and certainty which were to be achieved.
There are a number of very subtle references in this agreement that I believe and our legal counsel agrees have very important implications for this country. These references will no doubt be discounted by others as simply wording but I am sure most people here know full well the difference wording can make in the interpretation of legal documents.
This is the first time I am aware of any piece of legislation dealing with Canada's aboriginal people referring to these people as First Nations and to the people involved as citizens instead of participants. This subtle wording could have implications not only in the international community but also in the self-determination of other cultural groups likely to be dealt with in this country soon.
We are giving legitimacy to nations within nations and beginning the dismantling of Canadian confederation. I question if we as Canadians should be setting up ethnically or racially based homelands when South Africa is just celebrating an end to the same system because it found it to be discriminatory, divisive and most undesirable. It might even be open to challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the ground that it discriminates on the basis of race.
I find it surprising that the Liberals and NDP so quickly support this concept. In a biography of T.C. Douglas, the much respected first leader of the NDP by Doris F. Shackleton, she states: "The practical obvious solution is to do away with the
reserves and the degradation that goes with stewardship and integrate the Indians with all speed into Canadian society".
Is this ambition now too obvious and too practical for today's NDP? When the leader of the Liberal Party was the minister of Indian affairs his department published a white paper on the status of Indians. The proposal of that document formulated by the now Prime Minister was that Indian citizens should become equal citizens of the provinces and of the country.
In recent weeks there has been much discussion whether the charter would apply to aboriginal self-government. On two occasions the minister of aboriginal affairs said the charter would apply to this legislation. This certainly has not turned out to be the case.
In spite of the fact that this party introduced an amendment that would allow the Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly to apply, the government and the House refused the amendment. That begs the question, was it refused because the Indian leadership did not want it or was it refused because the government did not want it. Either way there are serious questions that need to be answered.
Clause 8 of the bill which refers to an as yet unadopted constitution by an as yet undefined government structure calls for the recognition and protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens. There is now expert legal opinion that the charter probably does not apply to aboriginal self-governments unless special provisions are made.
We believe the protection of the charter must apply for the same reasons the aboriginal women of Canada voted against Charlottetown. It is not some idle thought or idle dream of the Reform Party to be obstructionist. I would like to quote from an article in the Free Press recently by an aboriginal person. Make note that these are not my words. They are the words of an aboriginal woman and an elder of an aboriginal band.
"One thing for sure, I am not for this self-government. All it is going to do is make a lot of men think they are high politicians. I know native men. They are still trying to be dominant. All this power will go to them. According to the native men, women are just supposed to follow them around like little puppies".
The native elder goes on to say: "Aboriginal leaders have failed in their efforts to improve conditions and now expect to be trusted with more power. Everything they," that is the aboriginal leaders, "have done backfires. We are supposed to be running our reserves and we are $1.4 million in debt. We have no control now. There are drunks everywhere, bootleggers in every corner of the reserve. The law was strict before. Now there is no law. How can we say yes when there is no control. This may be good for Ovide Mercredi and the chiefs. They can fly all over Canada. Winnipeg has become a paradise for our chiefs. Now they want to put in self-government".
Those are the words of aboriginal people so when it is said that all aboriginals, all people, support the agreement there are other opinions.
Clauses 11, 13, and 20 refer to the law-making powers of these self-governments and schedule III, parts I, II, III and IV spell out in detail the areas of jurisdiction.
In most of these 44-plus areas one would naturally assume that self-governments would have jurisdiction but there are notable exceptions where power formerly granted only to provinces is given to these governments.
Schedule III, part III, No. 7 appears to give authority over gaming and lotteries.
Number 13 provides control over operation and licensing of motor vehicles.
Number 14 provides control over the manufacture, supply, sale, exchange, transportation, possession and consumption of intoxicants, i.e. alcohol or drugs.
Number 17 provides control over the administration of justice.
This unprecedented power and control raises questions of the approach aboriginal governments will take to access these lands in question. I believe there are ominous signs also and I would like to demonstrate with a couple of these examples as well.
In the Slave River Journal of Fort Smith on June 8, 1994, there was an article telling of a Mr. Ray Decorby who was shot in the leg for trespassing on Indian lands while he was trying to photograph birds.
Another example that might apply is a subdivision in the township of Archipelago where the Indian band involved erected a steel gate across the road denying access to non-aboriginal homes and cabins on the lake and demanded $5 million for passage through the gate.
Everybody in the House heard what happened at the Mohawk reserves in Quebec and southern Ontario when the Canadian military dared to trespass on Indian lands.
The provision of these powers goes well beyond powers granted to any government subordinate to provincial governments in Canada.
In the briefings the minister told us the agreement would provide clarity and certainty and would be much less expensive than the current situation for Canadian governments and people wishing to do business in Yukon. We have to question how this will be possible when now instead of three levels of government to deal with in Yukon, anyone wishing to do business in that part of Canada will have to deal with 17 different governments. Each government will have its own bureaucracy, taxes, laws and
regulations. It sounds like an expensive bureaucratic nightmare of gigantic proportions.
I have consistently expressed support for the concept of aboriginal self-government and self-determination. I will support every measure designed to provide the Indian citizen with the same opportunity as I want for my children and grandchildren. I will resist every attempt that is made to relegate Indian citizens to a separate status of citizenship based on ethnic origin.
The implications of this legislation are far reaching. These agreements, whether or not the aboriginal people of Yukon wish-