House of Commons Hansard #132 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Glen McKinnon Liberal Brandon—Souris, MB

Get the blues out.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

Again, with respect to you, my colleague, I suggest that we just let the matter drop for now.

I am going to go to another point of order, the hon. member for Revelstoke-West Kootenay.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC

Mr. Speaker, the point of order that I rise on is with regard to procedure.

When the Chair examines the blues for a possible breach of conduct or unparliamentary language, the normal procedure, should the Chair find that something did in fact occur, is to ask the member to withdraw that particular statement.

Given that the statement in question that we allege took place regarding the hon. member for Beaver River was on an open microphone and given that the person who we believe made that statement-

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleague, I have already undertaken in the House to review the blues and to review the tapes. I will do that. I will come back to the House if it is necessary. I have said that.

Do you have a point of order other than that which I have just described?

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to bring that particular point up again. The only thing I ask, on a point of procedure, is that if a member, whether it be this incident or a different one, speaks on an open microphone, and if it is viciously directed at another member, no matter on which side of the House, I contend that it is not sufficient for the hon. member to withdraw that remark. When it is made openly against another member it should be in the form of an apology.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

There again, my colleague, a withdrawal in this House embodies an admission that what was said was unparliamentary. In my view that would constitute perhaps the apology for which the member is looking.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

February 18th, 1997 / 3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-79, which seeks to amend to the Indian Act. As you know, the Indian Act is over one hundred years old and has often been referred to as a measure which is obsolete, does not reflect the reality and, more importantly, does not meet the needs of aboriginal people themselves.

This act is so flawed that it should be changed, not merely amended, as the Minister of Indian Affairs wants to do. The minister is doing the opposite of what was recently recommended by the Erasmus-Dussault commission, which is to recognize that there is currently an injustice done to aboriginal people.

I sat on two committees of the House. First, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, and I now sit on the Standing Committee on Health. When I was with the human resources committee, we toured all across Canada and visited a number of aboriginal communities.

Following the testimony heard not only from aboriginal people themselves but also from people working with them, it is obvious to me that aboriginal people have much greater health problems than the rest of Canadians.

Unfortunately, aboriginal people are still the victims of a great deal of prejudice. As the hon. member for Drummond knows, the Standing Committee on Health conducted many studies on the health of aboriginal people. It is rather sad and even disappointing to see that, in spite of these studies, and in spite of the fact that a commission of inquiry released a five-volume report on the condition of aboriginal people, we end up with a bill that only seeks to amend the Indian Act, this in a rather dreadful, embarrassing and nonsensical way.

This bill runs counter to a lot of other legislation. Legislation must apply to everyone. This bill, however, will create two classes of natives: those to whom the old act applies and those to whom the new one applies. It is optional. It will concern only those bands of Indians or aboriginal groups that wish to submit to it, to take the goodies being held out as an enticement to them to give up their ancestral rights. This is something many Indians cannot and will not do.

Despite the opposition of the very great majority of native people in Canada, the minister is deciding to go ahead with this bill. For what purpose? Obviously, to give Canadians the impression, before the election, that he has done something. He dared to

change a statute that has existed for 100 years. What an extraordinary feat. But it is a bill that would not affect everyone, only those who wanted it to.

Has anyone ever seen legislation that is optional like this? It is as though you were told you could not drive faster than 120 kilometres an hour in Quebec; only those who drove under this limit would be affected by this legislation and the rest could decide to have other legislation apply to them.

It is not an acceptable way of doing things. Some people might say that it is interesting, that all legislation should be like that, that people could then take advantage of their freedom of expression, their speed of adaptation we could call it. The law does not work like this. It is not my understanding that the law works like this.

A piece of legislation must apply to everyone. What the minister wants to do is to blind Indians to the facts. He wants to show other Canadians that he has just done something important, when in reality, the proposed legislation, in most cases, would not be applied. It will change nothing. It will only give the impression that he has done something, a bit like the health minister, who boasted about his bill C-71. In the end, he has left himself so many options with this bill that it is not certain if it will be enforceable.

I do not know whether or not it is parliamentary to say so, but I will take the chance. I call this hypocrisy. It is deceptive at the very least, it is misleading. Pretending to do something, when you know in advance that you will do nothing. This is not good government.

It is time the Liberal government held an election, because it seems to be catching. All of the ministers want to do a little something to show that they can get something done before the election, before they change portfolios. If the Liberals do get back in, we know there is a risk of their changing portfolios. They can boast in their c.v. that they have changed a hundred year-old law. But history will say: this law did not change much, because it was obeyed only by those who wanted to. That is extraordinary.

I have made light enough of this serious subject. It is serious: 438,000 status Indians in Canada, and the minister wants to divide them into two categories: those who follow the new act and those who follow the old. There are already two types of Indians: there are the non-status Indians, 112,600 in 1991, and then there are the Metis, 139,491. There are 37,800 Inuit. That makes a total of 720,000 individuals.

In Quebec, the total is 69,300. Now, that represents 1 per cent of the total population of Quebec. A group must not be ignored just because it accounts for only 1 per cent of the total population. At the present time, the Department of Indian Affairs is maintaining a paternalistic system, one which keeps the Indians, the aboriginals of Canada, in a system of dependency. What the aboriginal nations are calling for is the opposite: more autonomy.

You may perhaps reply that they want a bit too much, that this is a negotiation. We in the Bloc Quebecois have always said that they had to be given more.

The day after the commission of inquiry's report was tabled, the Bloc Quebecois even tabled a motion in the House urging the Liberal government to join it in saying that the First Nations are distinct nations. In other words, they should be given the means to promote their distinctiveness, to preserve their culture and especially to obtain the financial resources that will liberate them from this dependency so that at last they will become more autonomous and be able to manage their own health services.

The suicide rate figures, which I will not mention here, are incredible. Which group in Canada has the highest suicide rate? Amerindians. Which group in Canada has the highest rate of alcoholism? Amerindians. Drug addiction? Amerindians. This is also the group that has the lowest life expectancy. Which group has the highest death rate? Amerindians again.

The situation is so bad that Lise Bissonnette wrote the following in the newspaper Le Devoir :

The story we read in the five volumes of this report-and I am referring to the commission of inquiry-is on the whole a story of domestic colonialism that was unique in its brutality and still is, at a time when racism and exploitation should be a thing of the past. The United Nations may have given Canada first prize for being the best place in the world to live, but the fact remains that all social indicators, when applied to the First Nations in this country, are in free fall, indicating a third world in the midst of abundance. From education to health care and employment, the rule is under-development, from coast to coast. According to the commissioners "aboriginal people are 90 times as likely as other Canadians to be without running water. On the reserves, more than 10,000 homes have no inside plumbing". How can we read this and hundreds of other horror stories, in one of the most comfortable places on the planet, and keep on accepting awards?

Or doing what the minister of Indian affairs and the ministers opposite are doing when they tell us that we live in the best country in the world.

It goes on to say that today, one child out of five in Canada lives below the poverty line. We treat aboriginal people this way and would have them believe we are living in the best country in the world, as the situation deteriorates.

This afternoon, the Minister of Finance will tell us how he managed to speed up deficit reduction, either by cutting assistance to the needy, by cutting spending on health care and transfer payments to the provinces and by cutting health care to aboriginal people. Are we supposed to believe that everything is okay, that we

are in good shape? No, Mr. Speaker. The aboriginal people, like the poor in Quebec and Canada, deserve a better deal.

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will speak on Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them.

This bill is a superficial reform of the Indian Act, which is more than a century old. The amendments affect 45 of the 120 sections of the Indian Act, the following areas in particular: inheritance mechanisms, new band council powers, election procedures, offences, and criminal law on the reserve.

In order to get around the First Nations' general opposition to any changes to the Indian Act, the Department of Indian Affairs has decided to make the act optional, and has made far fewer changes to the act than it had initially planned when it undertook the reform.

Its optional nature means that only those aboriginal nations so requesting will be governed by this new act; the others will remain under the unmodified act.

Let me tell you, we are opposed to this, for Canada is going back to its colonial past with Bill C-49. The Indian Act was intended to assimilate the Indians. In attempting to modify this legislation from another century, instead of adopting a new approach, the government is not making a clean break with the paternalistic policy that prevailed when the Indian Act was passed.

A new constructive approach to the First Nations is described in the report of the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission on aboriginal peoples, which stresses the outmoded and backward nature of the Indian Act. In their report, the commissioners ruled out any amendment to the Indian Act as a way to establish a new relationship between natives and non-natives.

In short, in changing the Indian Act, the minister is going the wrong way. He is merely proposing cosmetic changes to this outdated and paternalistic bill, which native peoples reject.

In December 1993, just before Bill C-79 was tabled in the House, the Bloc Quebecois received letters from 542 native communities out of some 610 opposed to Bill C-79. In other words, some 85 per cent of the First Nations categorically reject the procedure followed by the minister in drafting this bill.

It affects the interests and the rights of the First Nations in Quebec and Canada. In fact, these are the only communities affected. How can the government proceed when its bill is being opposed by the vast majority of those affected? In this time of budget cutbacks, should the government not put its limited resources into projects supported by the communities concerned? Who is the minister working for?

The minister of Indian affairs claims to have the support of the First Nations. Who does he mean? The minister has not revealed the results of his so-called consultations. He did not show clearly who supported his initiative. When we ask the minister who is involved, which communities support his bill, he says it is none of our business. If the minister is working on behalf of particular groups, he should be honest enough to tell the public who is involved.

The communities rejecting Bill C-79 did so publicly. We have in our offices letters signed by each of the organizations that object to the bill and the consultation process it stems from. This strong opposition, from more than 85 per cent of aboriginal communities in Quebec and Canada, shows that the minister's so-called support can only be marginal. This kind of behaviour makes no sense.

Very few of the promises made to the aboriginal peoples by the Liberal Party of Canada were kept once the election was won. In fact, even the aboriginal people involved in developing the election platform outlined in the red book felt the need to publicly dissociate themselves from the Liberal Party of Canada after witnessing this government's attitude and behaviour toward the First Nations once in office.

In connection with Bill C-79, there is no mention anywhere in the seven pages of promises relating to the aboriginal peoples in the red book of any amendment to the Indian Act. Where does this initiative come from? While there is no mention of it, the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Prime Minister managed to break red book promises by preparing, without any real consultation, a bill dealing specifically with aboriginal peoples.

Let me quote the Liberal Party of Canada's red book, which states at page 98: "A Liberal government will develop a more comprehensive process for consultation between federal ministers and aboriginal representatives with respect to decision making that directly affect First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples".

Is sending four letters to the Assembly of First Nations over a two-year period the Liberal Party of Canada's idea of a wider consultation? If this is the case, interest groups in Quebec and in Canada should be wary if a Liberal government talks about consulting them. There is no doubt in the Bloc Quebecois' mind that the Liberal government is acting in an absurd manner with Bill C-79.

This government unilaterally developed, without any serious consultations, a bill which directly concerns aboriginal people. Here is another quote found on page 98 of the Liberal Party of Canada's red book: "It does not make sense for the federal government to be unilaterally making policy or budgetary deci-

sions that affect the lives of aboriginal people, without their involvement".

The fact is that this government ignored the very basis of its commitments to aboriginal people. On page 98, the Liberals speak of a "new partnership" and of "mutual respect"; on that same page 98, they say: "A Liberal government will-a new partnership with aboriginal people that is based on-participation in the decision-making process". All these illusions in the red book left a bad taste in the mouths of aboriginal people. The few letters received by the First Nations by way of consultation were simply meant to associate them with a bill whose basic thrust they could not influence.

We have no choice but to say that the term "consultation" does not mean the same thing to the Bloc Quebecois that it does to the government. The Bloc Quebecois considers consultation to be more than just four letters to native communities and their representatives, the results of which the minister of Indian affairs refuses to divulge. Consultation involves two parties getting together to discuss and consider the consequences of a new law. No formal meeting of the government and the Assembly of First Nations was ever held on the changes to the Indian Act.

It would be more complex than simply drafting the legislation in camera, but the solutions that would have come from such a process would last longer.

Is this government going against the conclusions of the Penner parliamentary committee? I regret I have only one minute left, because I still have some things to say.

In conclusion, by refusing to consult properly, the government has come up with a superficial bill that will resolve no basic problems and that will therefore fail to satisfy the vast majority of the First Nations involved.

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate today in this debate on Bill C-79, an act to amend the Indian Act. I cannot say, however, that I am too proud of what this government has accomplished on the Indian issue since taking office three and a half years ago.

Perhaps three and a half years is nothing in the history of Indians in Canada, but it shows this Liberal government's blatant lack of vision. A bill is introduced, which purports to deal with rather important issues: distribution of estates, new powers for band councils, election procedures, contraventions and criminal law on reserves.

Unfortunately, in view of what I would call generalized opposition-more than 500 aboriginal communities told the government, and sent us copies of their letters, that they did not want this bill-I think we must realize one thing, which is true in Quebec as well as in Canada.

In the past, we have not always treated aboriginal people, the natives, like adults, as equals. And instead of changing this attitude, the minister is perpetuating it. Imagine what impact making this act optional will have, with some communities coming under the it, and others not.

We can easily imagine that it will be a carrot and stick situation, where special advantages will be used as incentives to get some communities to agree with the optional modification of the act. This will result in a proliferation of unacceptable situations condemned previously, by the Auditor General of Canada among others, concerning allocation of funds, that is to say how federal government funds are allocated to and used by aboriginal people.

One really has to wonder what prompted the minister to make such a decision. Why not have gone to the bottom of the issue like the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission did in a thorough analysis? One may not agree with all the recommendations in this report, but the commission conducted a major exercise and took a look at the overall situation. Why does the minister come up with a bill which, to me, is a cosmetic, pre-election measure?

The government wants to be able to campaign and say: "We passed an act amending the Indian Act. We had said we would do it and we did it". All these cosmetic changes before an election are nice, but we are not elected for that purpose.

We are elected, ultimately, to truly fulfil the commitments made during the election campaign, so as to be credible as a government. In this case as in many others, the current Liberal government is launching into what could be called a coverup operation. It is like putting a bit of paint on an old car to hide the rust for a while, for the duration of the election campaign, before it will resurface again.

The plight of Canada's Indians is much more serious. Let me read the Liberal Party's position, as stated in the red book. It says: "A Liberal government will develop a more comprehensive process for consultation between federal ministers and aboriginal representatives with respect to decision-making that directly affects First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples". There are 542 communities opposed to Bill C-79, that is 85 per cent of the total number. Something is wrong somewhere. It does not make sense. The federal government's decision is even insulting for aboriginal communities.

There is another line in the red book which is even smoother when we read it today. It says: "It does not make sense for the federal government to be unilaterally making policy or budgetary decisions that affect the lives of aboriginal people, without their involvement". Yet, the government introduced a bill which will

have major policy and budgetary consequences, partly because of its optional nature, without the support of aboriginal communities.

If I were a member of an aboriginal community, I would be even more stunned by the way the Government of Canada is treating them. Let us not forget that the Indian Act was based on the same principle, the same structure as the apartheid legislation, in South Africa. It stems from the great wisdom of the British Empire, many years ago. Since then, we never went to the bottom of the issue to really find out how to solve the problems relating to aboriginal communities and their rights, and to also find out how to deal with them.

Today, the Liberal government has placed us in a sad situation. If this bill is passed by Parliament, native peoples will be able to say once again that the government has decided to offload the problem, as the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead would say, to ignore the facts.

If I were a native person, I would be rather puzzled. First of all, I would wonder why the Government of Canada, which is supposed to be my defender, which is so described in the bill, is passing such bills, when the only people to truly come to our defence are Quebec's sovereignists. What is going on in this Parliament that things have come to this?

One answer is that, in the past few years, Quebec has begun treating native communities with the respect they deserve. We began by recognizing their status as a nation, and then went on to other areas that have not always been easy, but we are still trying to establish a relationship that is evolving slowly through negotiations.

It is not just a matter of keeping an election promise by passing a bill, so that during the election campaign they can say: "You see, we kept this promise, the eighty-second or eighty-third, increasing our score to 82 or 83 per cent".

Quantitative results like these are not what the people of Quebec and of Canada, what native peoples expect from their government. What they want is to get to the bottom of things, because there are social problems, important economic problems resulting from the failure of the Canadian government to take action on this issue for several decades. This government, which announced interesting things in its red book, has been completely unable to deliver the goods.

Today, on the eve of an election campaign, it confronts us with a completely unacceptable bill. I urge the members of the majority to go back and consult the 542 communities who wrote to tell us that they did not want to see the bill passed, that they wanted it thrown out. They gave us the reasons they did not want to see it passed.

Each of you in the Liberal majority, in your respective ridings, before the election campaign begins, during the period when the bill is being studied in committee, should go to see your communities and ask them the reasons they find the bill unacceptable.

I am certain that, when you come back from this consultation, you will make sure that your government at least kills this bill, or has the courage to propose a bill that completely transforms the relationship with natives within Canada, so that this major problem can be eliminated. A solution must be found to this problem, which is a stain on the quality of democratic life in this country, because Bill C-79 is no solution.

I will close by saying that it is essential that any bill that speaks about relations with native peoples must include as a basic principle that they be treated like adults and that their rights be respected. It is for this reason that the Bloc Quebecois is coming to their defence against this bill, which is unfair.

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

I now recognize the hon. member for Compton-Stanstead-

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Maurice Bernier Bloc Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, Mr. Speaker.

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

I always forget the first part of the riding's name.

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Maurice Bernier Bloc Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, you are perhaps assuming the outcome of the next election, which is why you designate me with the name Compton-Stanstead. In fact, after the next campaign, my riding, which has been altered considerably and separated from Mégantic, will be called Compton-Stanstead.

I see you therefore as a visionary, who already acknowledges not only that I will be re-elected in the riding of Compton-Stanstead, but that the Bloc Quebecois will be here in full force after the next election for its well known purpose of defending the interests of Quebecers.

My colleague, who wants to hear nothing but the truth, is perfectly right, and that is what I am going to try to do in the next few minutes. I am going to try to explain what the truth is in connection with Bill C-79.

First of all, if I may, I will take a few moments of my time to congratulate my colleague, whose performance as Indian affairs critic is recognized by all those involved in this question, which is such a touchy one and so important, not only for the future of the aboriginal communities, but for the future of our respective communities, I would say, that is the people of Quebec and the people of Canada.

We cannot treat this question lightly, as the Liberal government has already done for decades, ever since Canada began, I would

say, by denying reality. In recent years, we have witnessed a study without precedent in this area, and I would say without precedent anywhere in government activity.

I am of course referring to the Erasmus-Dussault report which was tabled only a few months ago. This study took years to complete. It thoroughly examined aboriginal issues and proposed a comprehensive plan in its recommendations. That was and still is what made the Erasmus-Dussault report unique, that it proposed a comprehensive plan to deal with aboriginal issues.

I would also like to say that in addition to the hon. member for Saint-Jean who has done and still does an excellent job in this respect, the Government of Quebec has also made an effort in the past to understand the expectations and demands of the First Nations in Quebec. I am referring to the government of former Premier René Lévesque.

This was the first government in North America to recognize the First Nations for what they were, peoples who had and have a different culture, who want to develop this culture as part of their lives, not only for the benefit of their own communities but also for the benefit of the other communities around them. In Quebec we were the first, as a people and as a government, to recognize that fact. I think that is an important point.

We should also remember, setting all political considerations aside, that the Quebec government, the Liberal government under Robert Bourassa in the 1970s, was also the first government to negotiate an agreement with a First Nation, with the Inuit in Northern Quebec on the development of James Bay, an agreement which although not perfect, set a historical precedent. As a result, a First Nation was considered a legitimate party, with the authority to decide on behalf of its people, which led to the James Bay agreement, an agreement which has been quoted as an example on many occasions in the past and still is today.

I mentioned these two positions to point out that as a people, we may wish to consolidate our future. As a people, we may wish to develop our potential while respecting those who live around us. This is the example that should be taken from the earlier positions of the Government of Quebec in the case of native communities.

What we have before us looks more like a botch. In other words, following the conclusion of the Erasmus-Dussault commission, which cost over $50 million in tax money and produced a report of thousands of pages including hundreds of recommendations proposing a comprehensive plan, the Liberal government arrives with a bungled proposal on the eve of an election. This government does not want to go into another election without being able to say it has done something for the native population. Thus we have Bill C-79, which uses a piecemeal approach to try to resolve a number of problems.

This is not the way to go about it, and I consider it almost an insult to the native peoples. This is not the way to resolve the government's problems with the native peoples. It must first recognize their existence and the importance of the Erasmus-Dussault report and the riches it has to offer and then sit down with these communities to define their future.

This is the only logical and intelligent way to proceed in this matter as in all matters. This is what my colleague from Saint-Jean is proposing on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois.

We will not agree to support a bill that does not even start to honourably address the claims of the aboriginal nations. The government and its minister must get into the habit of sitting down and talking to people. They must sit down with the native groups, see what they and their representatives want, and how they would like the necessary changes in the relations between the federal government and the communities to be planned.

Is the hon. member of Saint-Jean, who has convinced his colleagues, including myself, of the validity of this proposal, now alone? Are we the only ones to take this view of resolving the problems of aboriginal communities? No.

I need not repeat what my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup mentioned earlier. We all know that the Liberal members of this House can be hard of hearing, to say the least, and have a hard time understanding sometimes, which means that we have to repeat the same things over and over if we want to at least be heard by this government and try to get our point across.

On this issue, it is important to remind the House that 542 of the 610 aboriginal communities, not only in Quebec but across Canada, oppose this bill; 85 per cent of the First Nations categorically reject the proposal put forward by the minister in terms of process.

I will close on this last remark I just made: 85 per cent of aboriginal communities, of the First Nations have rejected the process put forward by the minister. Be that as it may, the minister, and his government, stubbornly want to press on. The minister and his government are going to botch this bill purely for electoral reasons, in order to be able to claim during the campaign that they have started working on the aboriginal issue. We condemn this today and will continue to condemn it during the next election campaign.

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

Is the House ready for the question?

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

All those in favour will please say yea.

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Indian Act Optional Modification ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung: