Dick Harris

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member opposite.

There is no doubt in the minds of members of the Reform Party that the government did the right thing by cancelling the Pearson airport deal. I am sure all members would agree with that.

I think it is important to carry this one step further by way of this amendment. The minister has promised openness and transparency in finalizing the examination of any claims. We are simply asking that the government extend this transparency just one step further.

There is no doubt in anybody's mind in this House I am sure that this was a deal that maybe contained the dirtiest part of politics in this country. It was a deal made between political friends of the past government. It was a deal made that probably epitomized the way that the Canadian public mistrusts the way business with government has been done in this country.

[Excise Act, Customs Act, Tobacco Sales To Young Persons Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has apparently forgotten that this country has a well equipped armed forces that could have been used in that situation.

This government is trying to define a role for the armed forces. Here was an excellent example of a role that the militia of this country could have played. The army could have been sent in to control this situation. Yet, it refused to do that. Why?

I am inclined to think it is because of where the problem was happening. There were other issues involved here and this was an area that this government did not want to touch.

[Excise Act, Customs Act, Tobacco Sales To Young Persons Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as I sit here and listen to the hon. member's rationalization of this government's soft position on criminal justice and a stricter law enforcement, I have some serious questions.

The hon. member said that the party opposite, meaning us, talks about deficit reduction and yet is willing to spend more money on law enforcement issues and the hiring of more staff. This party campaigned on increased spending and criminal justice.

The member opposite has taken what was essentially a criminal problem, a problem of breaking the law. Smuggling is not a taxation problem. It is a problem where people were breaking the law. This government refused to send in the necessary police forces to control it.

This member just told us that a million dollars a day in tobacco products was coming across the border. That is a huge amount. I would suggest to this member that if they had been willing to go to the source, to the territory where that smuggling was taking place, which they were not, with the appropriate law enforcement people that that could have been curtailed.

There is no way that one can rationalize that a million dollars a day worth of tobacco products is just simply too hard to find for the police and the cost would be too great. What about the cost that is going to be incurred by the health of this country with the increase in smoking? It will increase because now the price of cigarettes is affordable.

This government has refused to take a hard stand on criminal justice and has refused to enforce the laws to take necessary action to control crime in this country. It is typical of the Liberal philosophy that no individual is responsible for crimes they commit. It is society to blame.

[Excise Act, Customs Act, Tobacco Sales To Young Persons Act, June 14th, 1994]

Hire as many as you need.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claimssettlement Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my deepest appreciation to my colleagues from the Bloc. I really appreciate that.

We are debating Bill C-33 today. It is probably appropriate, and it would be the best possible direction to take on the bill, to draw some comparisons between Bill C-33 and Bill C-16.

I know the Yukon natives involved in the negotiation of Bill C-33 overwhelmingly support the bill. There is no doubt about that. It appears that they would be more than satisfied with this settlement. However I believe that we as parliamentarians, as duty bound by the people of the country, would be more than negligent, as have past parties in the House, if we did not address some of the problems contained within Bill C-33.

Certainly my colleagues and I in the Reform Party are most willing to entertain the concepts of aboriginal self-sufficiency and aboriginal self-determination, but only in situations and only under the clear focus that aboriginal people or the Yukon natives will come to a position of self-sufficiency within Canadian society.

Most unfortunately Bill C-33 does not address that focus. Bill C-33 like Bill C-16 calls for more bureaucracy, large settlement moneys, continued DIAND participation in programs, financial assistance and future negotiation for self-government. The bureaucracy possible within the agreement is very extensive.

We in the Reform Party greatly fear that as we proceed along the path to establishing land claims and aboriginal self-government the bureaucracy will create such an expensive and complex deterrent to the goal of self-sufficiency. It is necessary to address that.

I want to look at Bill C-33 for a moment and talk about the package itself. There are some 8,000 Yukon Indians in Yukon out of a total population of 32,000 people. They will be conveyed collectively ownership of some 16,000 square miles or 41,400 square kilometres of land, 10,000 square miles of which include all subsurface rights and the remaining 6,000 square miles of which include some subsurface rights.

In addition, the federal government will pay some $242.6 million in cash and the Yukon First Nations will receive rental revenues from surface leases, royalties and development of non-renewable resources. Yukon First Nations will also receive a preferential share in wildlife harvesting, exclusive harvesting over most of their settlement lands, and 70 per cent of their trap lines will be located in the larger traditional territories.

On top of all this, under the bill all existing government programs for natives and non-natives will continue to apply. How could we have a focus on arriving at a settlement for land

claims if coupled with that settlement are promises for continued future federal funding?

The object of settling land claims is to break the dependency of the native people upon the federal government. We want to give them the opportunity to become self-sufficient. As my hon. colleague talked about this morning, we cannot break that dependency cycle if we continue to give money and funding to a person or a group such as the Yukon natives. That dependency cycle has to be broken. The goal has to be self-sufficiency. To include in the agreement the same federal funding that exists now is no incentive to create self-sufficiency.

Another area of concern is that although Bill C-33 has come to the House for debate, and certainly we in the Reform Party welcome the debate, the other 10 land claim agreements spoken about in the bill and yet to be negotiated need only be approved by order in council. In other words, we will not be given the opportunity in the House to debate those land claim settlements. We are talking about thousands of square miles of land and hundreds of millions of dollars in funding. Surely the people paying the bill, the taxpayers of the country, have a right to be represented in the House by members who debate the good points and the bad points of the bill.

The bill guarantees that future land claims under Bill C-33 would be negotiated in the offices that we cannot get to. I believe Canadian taxpayers deserve more than that. We are trusted by them. We were elected and sent here by them to look after their affairs. This is certainly something of major concern to Canadians.

I want to talk about the constitutional entrenchment. By virtue of clause 6 of the bill the rights contained in the land claim agreements are recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. We are very uncertain as to what this means and we are relatively certain that the government is uncertain as to what this means. It may mean these rights are not amendable except by constitutional amendment or, at the very least, without the concurrence of the first nation involved.

This would mean that these rights are beyond the reach of ordinary future parliamentary amendment. This adds the element of finality to them that does not sit well for changing future circumstances. The circumstances are changing all the time. In our Constitution we have the mechanism to make amendments, to be able to change our Constitution with the times. Bill C-33 in our opinion does not provide for changes to meet future circumstances which may appear. Quite frankly we think the government displays a tremendous amount of arrogance to lock in forever today's government policy. The constitutional entrenchment causes a lot of concern.

I spoke about the comparison between Bill C-33 and Bill C-16. I talked about the boards, the commissions and the councils. Bill C-33 would formally constitute five more government boards and two government councils referred to in the various land claim agreements. Presumably most, if not all, of the functions of these new bodies are presently performed by the facilities of the Yukon and federal governments. Is there a need for more regulatory bodies, support staff and bureaucracy on top of what is already in place?

Clause 9(4) constitutes still more boards, commissions and councils that may be referred in future land claim agreements. As I stated, the bureaucracy concerned in Bill C-16 is predominantly present in Bill C-33. This is not the way to get best value for our dollars.

The government has talked about downsizing government, downsizing departments and downsizing the way government runs so that it can be more cost effective. The government, the Reform Party and the Official Opposition have been talking about downsizing, becoming more efficient and more cost effective.

Bill C-33 goes exactly in the opposite direction. It calls for a larger bureaucracy, a larger government, more costs and less cost effectiveness. This is an area in which the government has done a flip-flop if it believes in downsizing. It has done a complete about turn.

I want to talk for a moment about the transfer of full ownership. The implementation of full ownership of the property has gone far beyond what any court in Canada has found to constitute aboriginal title. No court in Canada of which I am aware has decided that an aboriginal interest in land goes so far as to entitle aboriginal people to fee simple or full ownership. At best our courts have found the meaning of aboriginal rights and title to include those traditional activities carried on by native communities prior to colonial contact. These include hunting, fishing, et cetera.

These rights have been characterized by the courts as not, strictly speaking, being interest in land but all special rights unique to the native people. This represents a cloud on the crown's title. The courts have gone on to say that the cloud can be removed by the exercise of crown sovereignty through legislation that has a clear intention to remove the aboriginal interest.

There is a challenge to the aboriginal land claims presently in the court of B.C. It is a challenge to a ruling by Chief Justice McEachern in which his decision was that there was no valid legal basis for the land claim in question. The fact the government now proposes to bypass an undecided court ruling by means of Bill C-33, a ruling that is still under appeal, causes a lot of concern for us.

I said that the focus of land claims should be on the eventuality of self-sufficiency for the aboriginal people. No one can deny that every Canadian wants to see that come about. It will

not come about until the aboriginal peoples of the country are given an opportunity and the dependency cycle would be broken.

In other words, we have no problem with settling land claims with aboriginal people whatsoever. We have a problem with the inclusion in land claim settlements that government funding would continue exactly as always. This is an area of concern. I urge the government to do the right thing: to help aboriginal people become self-sufficient.

The government has the power to break the dependency cycle. That is what it should be doing. It is like when I was trying to teach my children the value of becoming independent and responsible for their own lives. What if I had continued giving them everything they wanted without asking them to take responsibility and to begin to understand what it means to strive and to work and the value of education to make themselves more independent? If I had not done that they would be still dependent on me and, quite frankly, at the age my sons are I am looking forward to the time when they will be independent of me. That is what I have been striving for. That is what the government has to do in connection with these land claims. They have to break the dependency cycle.

I strongly want to urge members of the House to focus on that. Let us not be swayed by the emotional part of this whole native issue. Let us focus on what should result out of this process. The aboriginal people should have the opportunity to become self-sufficient. Let us break the dependency cycle. Let us not make agreements or contracts that will drive a wedge further between Canadian society and the aboriginal people. Let us seek to tear down the barriers that exist and that does not mean continuing to fund native programs forever and ever.

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

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

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

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

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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