Madam Speaker, is not a Reform member the next speaker?
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 28% of the vote.
Supply September 29th, 1994
Madam Speaker, is not a Reform member the next speaker?
Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act June 21st, 1994
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, Motion No. 1 deals with the provision for future Yukon land claim agreements to be ratified by order in council and not by Parliament.
Of course it is common for legislation to delegate to the governor in council the responsibility to implement broad legislative principles to provide the details so to speak. We have no problem with that.
Parliament should be concerned with broad matters of social policy and not the minutiae of implementation. The normal rule relating to the promulgation of regulations and other forms of subordinate legislation are very telling. Subordinate legislation is invalid unless it is specifically authorized by the act. Regulations which go beyond the scope of a provision are invalid, what the legal system calls ultra vires.
The basic ideas is that Parliament, not government, makes law and policy. Subordinate bodies may be delegated the task of implementing this law and with it the underlying social policy objectives sought to be accomplished by Parliament.
Bills C-33 and C-34 through the clever expediency of providing for final and transboundary agreements skirt around the convention and good sense of the ordinary rules of delegation to subordinate bodies. These agreements, most of which have not been negotiated and therefore are unavailable for parliamentary scrutiny and which may be amended in any event, even if existing, prevail over the provisions of Bills C-33 and C-34.
Moreover, land claim agreements and most of these have not been negotiated, can go beyond the act and its provisions may be enacted as law by the governor in council.
The result is that without Parliament's involvement, laws of great import may be formulated. For example, an agreement could provide or be amended to provide a limitation of liability for a First Nation or one of its citizens for any misconduct, default of debt, even breach of fiduciary obligation or fraud.
If this type of provision is not presently permitted, this can be altered through the amendment of the relevant agreement. There is nothing in these bills that precludes this sort of amendment.
Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act June 21st, 1994
These agreements, most of which have not been negotiated and therefore are unavailable for Parliament's scrutiny and which may be amended in any event even if existing prevail over the provisions of Bill C-34, have not been negotiated, go beyond the act and its provisions may be enacted by
law by the governor in council. There is nothing in Bill C-34 which precludes this sort of amendment.
In our view the combined effects of all this is that the legislation has invested parliamentary powers in the First Nations, bureaucrats and the executive branch of government. Surely this is an improper delegation of legislative powers, what the Supreme Court in re Grey, 1918, 57SCR. 157, 165, 171 and 176 referred to as an unlawful and therefore invalid abdication, abandonment or surrender of Parliament's power.
The Constitution of Canada contemplates that legislation be enacted by representative houses of assembly, not by bureaucrats negotiating with First Nations and not even elected members of government executing their executive and administrative functions.
Accordingly, I am concerned that what Parliament is engaged in here is an abuse of power which undermines the integrity of the parliamentary process. Minimally we collectively need more time to think through the consequences of what we are doing. After all we are not faced with a national emergency that requires the best possible but nevertheless instant response of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act June 21st, 1994
Just for clarification, am I not restricted to 10 minutes on Motion No. 1?
Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act June 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, assuming I have more time on Motion No. 1, I will carry on.
Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act June 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1 talks about deleting clause 5 of Bill C-34. This provision in the bill speaks volumes about the Liberal government commitment to governing with integrity. We have seen that again in spades tonight.
I quote from its famous red ink book: "People are irritated with governments that do not consult them or disregard their views or that try to conduct key parts of the public business behind closed doors. Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program".
This is not my main beef. My main beef is that this bill displays a serious lack of parliamentary accountability and scrutiny. It is a blank cheque for the government through order in council to make or ratify all future agreements in Yukon.
In our view, Parliament has a responsibility to the people of Canada to carefully consider and pass judgment on any initiative within its legislative agenda, but particularly in matters as important as aboriginal self-government. Self-government is a critical policy initiative which deserves the highest level of care that Parliament can muster. As I noted earlier, this would be evident to any impartial observer.
The legislative journey of Bill C-34 appears to involve undue haste for even a conventional piece of legislation. However, this bill is anything but conventional. It is extraordinary because in it Parliament delegates its fundamental responsibilities to the executive and bureaucratic branches of government. This delegation takes place in the context of critically important questions of what place will our aboriginal nations take within our federal state.
Parliament is being asked to breach its constitutional role in and responsibility to enact legislation in the public forum of Parliament. What is being sought is approval for a process legislatively to which the Government of Canada and its bureaucrats in negotiation with First Nations developed fundamental legislation in private. Thus, what Parliament is being asked to do and do extraordinarily quickly is engage in radical constitutional irresponsibility.
With respect to the 10 bands which have not yet entered into self-government and have not negotiated final agreements and transboundary agreements, let us remember that these agreements are integral parts of this legislative package. Parliament is being asked to approve legislation it has not seen and will never see. Not only do these agreements I just mentioned have the status of legislation, but according to the act they enjoy paramountcy over the self-government act. Even the existing agreements which are part of this package can in the future be amended in very fundamental ways.
Truly astonishing, anti-democratic and totally unconventional, the legislation provides that the self-government agreement and amendments thereto may go beyond the subject areas dealt with by the act. These agreements can be brought into effect upon the coming into force of the act. This gives the self-government agreement some legislative status. As long as there is no conflict between Bill C-34 and the provisions in the self-government agreement, these provisions are valid.
Moreover, they can be brought into force without the scrutiny and indeed even the knowledge of Parliament as law by the governor in council making orders and regulations to implement self-government.
This time allocation has placed me in a situation where I have a lot of information I cannot get.
I want to speak to Motion No. 2.
Existing clause 9, the delegation provision is such that a First Nation can delegate its law-making power-
Excise Tax Act June 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, once again speaking as someone who might be a proponent of the bill, my hon. colleague who has been a smoker for 25 years, does he believe that Canadian smokers will only smoke Canadian cigarettes if there is a large price differential? Does my colleague not have concerns about other damage to society which might occur if the ill-gotten gains of cigarette smuggling were to find their natural investment path in other criminal activity?
Excise Tax Act June 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment. I could speak to illicit some comment here as a proponent of the bill. Does my hon. colleague here really believe that our borders are such that we can keep a profitable small package such as cigarettes out of circulation?
Further to that, without dropping taxes, would we not be using our policing resources to maintain an artificially high price in order to sustain smuggler profits?
Petitions June 20th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 50 constituents who humbly submit that section 24 of the Criminal Code of Canada not be repealed or amended in any way and that the section disallowing assisted suicide be upheld as it recently was in the Rodriguez Supreme Court decision.
Petitions June 20th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.
The first is from 154 constituents in my riding who humbly submit that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the human rights act, or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.