Debates of June 3rd, 1999

Supply

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I take it as a great privilege to be able to bring this issue to the floor of the House of Commons as the Reform Party has.

This is an exceptionally important issue, I believe, to all Canadians, in particular people in the province of British Columbia. As this treaty ends up becoming a template over a period of time it is going to undoubtedly have a tremendous impact on future treaties and future negotiations and the future reopening of existing treaties which are currently in place in Canada.

I would like to take the House back to 1993 when I was elected for the first time. When my colleagues and I arrived in Ottawa we were all fired up, ready to take on the establishment and to discuss important issues on behalf of our constituents. We were in for something of a surprise. We were informed that there were certain issues that we could not discuss or question. We were told that it was politically incorrect.

The federal department that immediately raised questions for myself and I am sure many of my colleagues was the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We were aware of many of the serious problems that our aboriginal brothers and sisters were having both on and off reserve. Politically incorrect or not, we were determined to create positive change. We were determined to speak out on aboriginal issues and reserve issues, the major issue being that of accountability.

I will reflect for a moment on comments made by my colleague who preceded me. Unfortunately at that particular time there were some in the House who chose to take those comments and our direction of trying to make these changes in a positive way in a very adversarial way. They chose to impugn motive to myself and to my colleagues in the Reform Party. That was desperately unfortunate. There were many issues that required and continue to require open, honest and candid dialogue. It is that which hopefully we have engaged in today, with some minor variations that have occurred, and I should say on both sides of the issue.

We were asking when we came here, at the outset: Where are taxpayer dollars going? We recognized that we were funnelling some $9 billion every year into federal and provincial programs of all descriptions, supposedly to support our aboriginal and Metis people. Why then, we asked, do we still see such poverty right across Canada, such appalling living conditions and so many of our aboriginal people filling our prisons? As the solicitor general critic for the Reform Party I am familiar with the fact that 17% of all inmates in 1998 were aboriginal, up from 11% in 1991-92. Why do we see such despair, such substance abuse, along with high suicide rates on reserves? What is happening?

The more questions we asked on these issues, the more phone calls my office received from what I call grassroots aboriginals who raised more and more questions about issues on their reserves, issues in my former constituency of Kootenay East and now in my current constituency of Kootenay—Columbia.

Finally, I agreed to hold a town hall meeting last November. I invited the minister and others from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Of course I also invited the five band chiefs and their councils who are in my constituency of Kootenay—Columbia. None of them chose to attend. There were aboriginal residents from all five bands in the constituency who attended. They spoke with quiet dignity, asking for changes toward a system that was more democratic and more accountable to the membership.

As a politician, quite frankly, I feel I must apologize for all of the preceding governments of the past 130 years for their absolute failure to address outstanding aboriginal issues. The results of their failures are obvious to anyone looking at the state of affairs on the reserves anywhere in Canada today.

I will say, in all sincerity, that it is my commitment as a member of parliament and it is my commitment as a Canadian citizen to see the wrongs righted and things put on a proper path. Unfortunately, what we are looking at today is the Nisga'a agreement and that is not the way to do it. By any stretch, it is not the way to do it.

I am proud of the record of my office and of the Reform Party for being prepared to speak up for positive change for Canada's aboriginal people, so let us talk about the Nisga'a agreement.

Representatives from the federal and B.C. governments have negotiated a land claim treaty with the leaders of the Nisga'a people. The agreement was initialled on October 4, 1998 and ratified by the Nisga'a people early in November. It must now be ratified by the federal and B.C. legislatures.

The citizens of British Columbia were not invited to participate in the negotiation process and were not given an opportunity to influence the terms of the Nisga'a treaty at any point, with one small exception. The small exception was when resource based industries and recreational users were brought in near the end of the 20 year process. Tragically, even these non-aboriginal citizens were thrown out when Glen Clark insisted on rushing the conclusion.

When the terms were set, the B.C. government refused to allow a provincial referendum on the deal. It will not allow the voices of British Columbians to be heard. The Nisga'a had a referendum. Non-Nisga'a opinion apparently does not count, as we have heard in the House earlier.

According to a recent poll, 62% of British Columbians do not feel they have been properly informed on this most important issue to face B.C. since confederation. With more than 1,000 respondents, I can report that I did a poll in my own constituency where fully 76% are opposed to their member of parliament, myself, voting in favour of the Nisga'a agreement as it is presently written. Rather than promoting the straight facts about the Nisga'a treaty, the B.C. government initiated a $6 million advertising campaign aimed at selling the deal.

Unfortunately, many of the speeches made today by Liberal members and indeed by members of other parties, while very well intended, have been short on fact and very long on emotion. I say again, it is my objective and it is the objective of my party, which is again a reflection of the member for Kelowna and his comments, to see a full and just settlement of these issues.

The situation as it presently stands cannot go on, but the Nisga'a agreement is not the way to do it. Here are a few facts on what this treaty would give the Nisga'a people: over 2,000 square kilometres of land in northwestern British Columbia; the authority to make laws in a large number of areas, in many cases overriding provincial and federal laws; self-government provisions far exceeding the powers of regular municipal governments; rights to fisheries and other natural resources, including minerals and wildlife, on an exclusive basis; the right to manage wildlife over an area five times larger than the 2,000 square kilometre settlement, land almost double the size of the province of Prince Edward Island.

Let us take a look at some information that is of particular interest to people who are in municipal government. Are self-government provisions in the Nisga'a treaty comparable to municipal governments as claimed by treaty opponents?

First let me make a couple of points on the topic of self-government. I support the goal of aboriginal self-government as I previously stated. I believe aboriginal communities should have the ability to govern their own affairs just like any municipal government.

The Sechelt nation has shown the way by successfully tying together aboriginal interests in a municipal model. I parenthesize for a second and ask are there some difficulties, are there problems, are there some inconsistencies within the agreement in principle for the Sechelt? Yes, but they can be worked out. It is a totally different agreement to what we are talking about with the Nisga'a agreement.

Under the Canadian constitution only the federal or provincial governments have law making authority and this authority is not transferable to a third order of government. As my colleagues have pointed out, there are 14 areas in this agreement that give the Nisga'a a special ability to interact on areas that will give them a supremacy over federal and provincial law.

The parliamentary secretary says that is not true. This is precisely the reason we are calling for a reference to the supreme court in the same way that there was a reference on the question of Quebec and its right to secede.

We are asking the government to do the right thing. Prior to having this thing etched in stone and constitutionalized, refer it to the supreme court so that we can establish the difference of opinion, whether the parliamentary secretary is right or our party is right. It is the only reasonable and responsible thing to do.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, justice; the hon. member for Markham, government contracts.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debates of the two hon. members opposite very carefully and I think very judiciously. It is my opinion that we come from two very different pedagogies politically speaking. We are not from the same party. We obviously do not have the same broad principles and we do not obviously believe in the same things.

I believe the Nisga'a agreement is something Canada should embrace. These members should engender an attitude of generosity toward those people, the Nisga'a themselves, who asked for more than what they are getting. They are only getting 10% of the land they asked for. That is only 10% of their traditional territory. The Nisga'a have ceded much.

It has not just been an agreement that was struck overnight. For over 20 years people like Joe Gosnell and many leaders, elders and Nisga'a will not be here to celebrate the finalization of this claim. They will not be here because it is not complete. We have not reached that point because we have a parting of the ways when it comes to what we believe about self-government, what we believe about aboriginal rights in the constitution, the legal and unique status of aboriginal people, their relationship with the crown and the fiduciary aspect.

Obviously our view of democracy is very different from that of the members opposite. I ask the member opposite, is there just one kind of democracy? Is it a democracy that just comes from western based civilization? Is it a democracy that is just Eurocentric and ethnocentric? Is it all based on super secession by law because we believe our way is better than theirs, because we think we are the ones who are right, we have the supreme attitude, the answer of what is good for those people?

Maybe the traditional laws have something to say about that. I lived in a community where we had traditional government. I saw it in operation and I know it works.

Why are members afraid that the Nisga'a might succeed? They might prove members wrong because the Nisga'a have leadership that can do it. The Nisga'a can be fair, judicious, generous, sharing and giving like they have been. Many millionaires were created off their territory. Very few of them—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry but I have to interrupt.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the parliamentary secretary that we do come at things from a different perspective.

I recognize that democracy as I understand it is embraced in Hong Kong, England, Australia and Austria. Democracy is a set of values where individual rights have a special place by comparison to collective rights. The kind of thing the parliamentary secretary is talking about in terms of aboriginal issues has to do with collective rights. It is an interface of these two things.

I suggest that the Sechelt is not a perfect model by a long shot but at least it is something that we can look at as a model to have as a successful interface.

It is my objective to see that we end up with a permanent solution rather than one that is going to be a constant open wound.

I did a thorough survey in my constituency. I can tell the parliamentary secretary that 71% of the people do not want me to vote in favour of the agreement; 79% believe that they have not been properly informed about the agreement; and 92% do not believe it is fair to the rest of Canadians.

My real deep concern is that as the agreement was rammed through the legislature in Victoria, it will undoubtedly be rammed through this parliament. The agreement will be forced down the throats of people who do not want it, do not accept it and will not work with it. We do not have a solution.

This agreement is nothing more than something that the bureaucrats, the political elite of the Nisga'a as well as the political elite in this place have said is the way to solve it. There is no solution as long as there is no broad popular support. There is no broad popular support for this agreement in British Columbia.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, people have asked about financial accountability. I would like to draw all members' attention to the fact that the final agreement and the related fiscal financing agreement specifically contain provisions to ensure that the Nisga'a government is accountable. The Nisga'a constitution builds in specific obligations on Nisga'a governments in terms of accountability to the citizens for funds received and expenditures made.

Under the fiscal financing agreement, the Nisga'a nation is required to prepare and provide audited accounts and financial statements to Canada and/or British Columbia. The financial statements must meet generally accepted accounting standards. These financial statements may be reviewed by the auditor general. The parties will establish a tripartite financing committee which will review the implementation of the fiscal financing arrangements. The approach taken in this agreement ensures first nations accountability for the funds they expend to both their members and to the governments from whom some of their funding is derived. Those are the facts.

I am very pleased to talk about the motion put forward by the member for Skeena. I am not surprised by this motion. The hon. member is simply sharing once again his party's well known and oft-stated position with respect to aboriginal people in Canada. The motion he puts forward shows a complete lack of understanding of the Nisga'a treaty and the fundamental principles behind it. Let us set the record straight.

With the ratification of the Nisga'a treaty, Canada will chart a course for a stronger and a more just society; a Canada where the Nisga'a people finally feel at home in their native land; a Canada where aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians work together for a brighter future for our whole country. This is the Canadian way: working together to resolve our differences peacefully. There are many merits to this treaty.

I think perhaps all of us need to remember the very exceptional people whose sheer determination ensures that we are talking about these issues today. For some 10,000 years the Nisga'a have lived in the Nass Valley in northwestern British Columbia, a land of snow capped mountains, glacier fed lakes, ancient forests and volcanic rocks. The Nisga'a call the Nass Valley the common bowl from which their people draw life.

The timeless relationship between the Nisga'a and their land was interrupted with the arrival of Captain George Vancouver in 1793. At the time the Nisga'a numbered roughly 30,000, a population made up of traders and entrepreneurs. Theirs was a sophisticated society. These prosperous people lived in two storey homes in established orderly communities. They governed themselves according to a strict code of conduct passed down through centuries.

Through the millennia the arrival of the Europeans put and end to that lifestyle. What the early settlers left behind instead was a legacy of paternalism, perhaps the legacy we see in the members opposite. Over the past 200 years the Nisga'a have seen their lands, the lands they once freely used, taken over for purposes that were not theirs. They were prevented from publicly practising their religious beliefs. Their children were sent to distant residential schools. They lost their language and their culture.

Yet even though their political, economic and social systems were suppressed, deeply affecting their dignity, the Nisga'a people never gave up their struggle to reclaim their rights and their lands. Generation after generation, Nisga'a leader after leader has soldiered on assuring the Nisga'a people that one day justice would be served. Finally we have put that system in order. We have put things right for the Nisga'a first nation.

With the ratification of this treaty, finally the Nisga'a will have stewardship over their resources and their affairs. They will have a right to self-government and a land base on which to exercise it. All Canadians understand the necessity and value of including self-government arrangements as part of treaties not only with the Nisga'a but with the many other first nations waiting for their opportunity.

That understanding of course begins with the recognition that the term inherent right is accurate. The constitution is the highest law of this land. It sets out what makes all of us Canadians, what makes us different from citizens of other parts of the world. Our constitution recognizes the multicultural heritage of Canadians and protects the cultural rights of our citizens. In particular, the constitution recognizes and protects the rights of aboriginal people in Canada based on their prior occupation of this land.

Aboriginal peoples lived on this continent long before explorers from other continents first came to North America. For thousands of years before this country was founded they enjoyed their own form of government. Today we are learning from them. We are bringing into our own society, into our own way of doing things, things that the aboriginal peoples taught us, a better way of dealing with justice issues, of dealing with children, of dealing with the environment. We can learn from these people.

Their special role in Canada is that government believes that aboriginal people have a right to govern themselves in a modern context. Unequivocally this treaty is clearly about rights, not race as some critics have contended.

The supreme court said in the 1973 Calder decision that aboriginal title existed as a legal right in Canada. That landmark decision led to the affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights which are now enshrined under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Our constitution and our courts affirm that aboriginal and treaty rights exist. They have made it clear that these rights have real meaning and must be upheld.

The courts have made it equally clear that these rights should be negotiated, not litigated. In one of its most recent rulings the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that aboriginal title exists. It reinforced that we should negotiate settlements to achieve the purpose of section 35. As Chief Justice Lamer rightly noted “let us face it; we are all here to stay”.

Treaty making enables us to reconcile in the modern context the pre-existent rights of aboriginal people with the establishment of a crown sovereignty. It signals all our willingness as a society to resolve major historical and cultural differences through negotiation and compromise.

Treaty making is a process, as the hon. member for Western Arctic has said. It is a give and take process, the results of which are local solutions to local problems. It establishes a shared understanding of how aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can co-exist and realize our common goals.

It leads to a fair, affordable and honourable settlement that accommodates the interests of all parties, ensuring stability and promoting opportunity for all residents living on or near claimed lands. At the most fundamental level a treaty provides a bridge from which to build a new relationship between the first peoples and those of us who followed.

This has been a long time in coming. This relationship is built on trust, on recognition, on respect and on responsibility. It is a relationship that demonstrates the mutual benefits of sharing. The key components of the treaty demonstrate these clear benefits.

The Nisga'a treaty is the first of its kind in Canada. It covers a land claim and self-government in one single package. It establishes a full and final settlement of all outstanding Nisga'a claims. The treaty sets aside approximately 2,000 square kilometres of the Nass River Valley as Nisga'a land and establishes a Nisga'a central government with jurisdiction over matters that are internal and inherent to their culture. The Nisga'a will own the surface rights and the subsurface rights on Nisga'a land and have a share of the Nass River salmon stocks as well as Nass area wildlife harvests.

The treaty provides the Nisga'a with a financial transfer of $190 million payable over 15 years. These funds will stimulate the local economy and spur economic development. Jobs will be created. The Nisga'a will be able to strengthen their community infrastructure and services to the same standards as those enjoyed by the rest of Canadians. They will break the cycle of dependency created from 100 years of living under the Indian Act.

As the Nisga'a gain control over the management and development of their land's resources, they will develop self sustaining and self supporting communities. With a resource base on which to build their economy, these proud and remarkably resilient people will be able to break the cycle of dependency and escape from the trap of poverty that has so affected their dignity. The Nisga'a will once again know the satisfaction that comes with self-reliance, something all of us have had a chance to experience. They will once again be able to contribute fully to their communities and to our country.

Perhaps most profound, after decades of attempting to negotiate their way into Canada the Nisga'a will at last have the ability to participate equally in society, to speak their language, to teach their traditions, to govern themselves once again, and just like other Canadians to pursue their hopes and dreams.

Non-aboriginal British Columbians will also see meaningful benefits flow from this settlement. The negotiation of treaties will bring certainty to the Nass Valley. Treaties will clarify who can log, who can fish, who can mine and where. It certainly means business can invest in the region with confidence and unleash billions of dollars of untapped economic potential. It means both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can pursue business opportunities unimpeded by disputes about rights to land and resources.

Both the Nisga'a and their neighbours will be direct beneficiaries of treaty settlement moneys. This infusion of new funds will provide a badly needed boost to the economies of the communities within and surrounding the Nisga'a.

For the first time in the province an aboriginal group has agreed to forgo the existing tax exemptions. The treaty will gradually phase out exemptions from sales and income taxes. After the transition period Nisga'a citizens will pay all the same taxes other Canadians pay.

Over time the Nisga'a nation will contribute a portion of the revenues it raises to offset transfers from other governments for programs and services. It is expected that the combined impact of taxes paid by Nisga'a citizens and revenues raised by Nisga'a government will represent one-quarter of the annual budget requirements of the Nisga'a nation just 15 years from now.

Non-aboriginal people can also rest assured that their rights and freedoms will also be respected and upheld. The treaty stipulates that the Criminal Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as other federal and provincial laws of general application, will continue to apply safeguarding the constitutional rights of all Canadians.

The treaty specifies that Nisga'a governments will take into account the rights and needs of all residents including other Canadians who reside on Nisga'a lands. Non-aboriginal people living there will be able to stand for election and vote for Nisga'a public institutions like education and health boards.

The Nisga'a treaty's significance extends well beyond British Columbia. It represents a small but important step along the path to a better Canada, a better Canada for the Nisga'a, a better Canada for aboriginal peoples and a better Canada for me and for all my constituents.

The ratification of the Nisga'a treaty will serve as a marker in our passage to the next millennium. It will act as a nexus, a bridge connecting our past with our present and our collective future. It will take care of unfinished business, establish a new relationship and create a continuum of hope and possibility for generations to come.

For all the right reasons we will finally do the right thing. Members of the House should never let a motion like this get in the way of that noble pursuit.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's intervention. We certainly agree that there has been a real failure of aboriginal policy in Canada. That failure falls most heavily on the shoulders of the Liberal Party and the successive Liberal governments that have spent most of the time in government in this country since 1867. When we look at the failure, the people over there should accept their responsibility in being a big part of that failure.

The member talked about the cost of Nisga'a government and said after 15 years the Nisga'a, through internal revenue raising, would be able to pay for approximately 25% of the annual cost, which is about $32 million a year, to govern a population of approximately 2,000 people.

Does the hon. member have any idea what the cost per person for that government will be? Does she think it is in line with the rest of government in Canada?

What does the hon. member have to say to the 40% of the Nisga'a people who do not support this agreement? What does she have to say to the people who are watching from Skeena today, to the Gitanyow, the Gitksan and the Tahltan, who are really upset over the fact that the overlap situation was not addressed prior to the federal government signing this agreement and indicating its willingness to bring ratification legislation through in the fall? What would she say to these aboriginal people who are watching today from Skeena to whom the government also has a fiduciary obligation?

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if anyone has to answer to the people of Skeena it is the member. It is the member who has a constitutional challenge before the B.C. court. The member is using the floor of the House to pursue a court challenge. It is the member who has talked out of both sides of his mouth.

He asks what our policy is with regard to aboriginal people. I ask the member opposite what is his policy with regard to aboriginal people. Members of the Reform have never been clear. They have never articulated anything but paternalism and some might suggest some other isms that I will not be levelling at this point, but I think we all know what they are.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

And the hon. member will not be levelling them through the back door either.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make it abundantly clear that the hon. member in her intervention indicated to the House that I had a court challenge in British Columbia. I am not part of any court challenge in British Columbia to anything.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is not a point of order. That is a matter of debate.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for both the tone and the content of her speech. She has actually done something to elevate the whole standard of debate we have been hearing all day today. I thank her for pointing out some amazing facts that we should keep in mind.

These people have lived for 10,000 years in the Nass Valley with their own traditional ways of governance and their own traditional cultural values, et cetera. Those 10,000 years make 100 years of persecution and cultural genocide actually seem like a fairly short period of time. Maybe that is why we see such great stoicism and patience on their part.

I want to speak about the point the hon. member made, that it is classic white arrogance and Eurocentricism for us to think that the only way of governance is our own British parliamentary system. I would like to share one story with the House.

I took part in the Charlottetown aboriginal hearings. I was sitting with a group of aboriginal women, one of whom was saying that in her culture and community women were not allowed to run for chief. Everybody shook their heads and said that was terrible. Then she said that the men were not allowed to vote. Somehow these people over hundreds and thousands of years have found a pretty interesting way to make sure that the chief is accountable, et cetera. That is just one example.

As a point of clarification, I have a question for the hon. member. She pointed out a number of clarifications about taxation, et cetera, to try to put to bed some of the fear-mongering and the misinformation being spread around British Columbia and all of western Canada.

Is it true that in the case of income tax the Nisga'a government and its corporations will be treated the same as a municipality? Is it also true that the Nisga'a government will not be able to tax non-Nisga'a residents on Nisga'a land? Finally, is it true that the Nisga'a taxation power will not limit or displace federal or provincial taxation powers? Could the hon. member clarify some of those things for the House?

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all but a few of us are immigrants to this land. We are talking about a very fundamental issue of rights to the people.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has articulated very correct positions about his support and belief that there is a better way to do things than what has been done in the past. His respect for human rights comes through loud and clear.

We have to learn from the people who came before us in this land, the people who started this land on its way to being as great as it is and ensured that we took the best. We must respect them and ensure that they have the same rights as other Canadians to pursue their dreams, to govern themselves, to recognize their own religious experience and their own culture.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is absolutely correct on his taxation points as well.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke at some length about fiscal accountability. I can think of one example in my home province of Saskatchewan, the Saulteaux band, which last year spent more money on travel than the entire provincial cabinet.

I would ask the hon. member a very simple question. What guarantees are there in this deal that would make myself, my colleagues and the rest of Canadians feel comfortable that those same kinds of things will not happen in this deal?

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question was what will make the member opposite and his party comfortable with this deal. Perhaps a whole attitude adjustment would be appropriate. They come from a place of disrespect for the aboriginal peoples and it is very clear that they will never be comfortable with deals that ensure respect for culture, respect for people to pursue their dreams.

If the hon. member had listened to my opening comments, they were all about the systems that are in place on fiscal accountability.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, June 8, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as 5.30 and begin Private Members' Business.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has requested unanimous consent of the House to see the time as 5.30. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is not consent so the House will recess to the call of the Chair.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not aware that the House would adjourn for the next 15 minutes until 5.30. Is there something happening today that I am not aware of? I was of the understanding that I was to give a speech for the last 15 minutes of the regular time allotted.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided for debate expired at 5.15. By order made earlier today, debate was suspended at 5.15. That is why debate terminated and that is why the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food moved for unanimous consent to see the clock as 5.30 so that we could begin debate on Private Members' Business.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think you may now check again whether there is unanimous consent to proceed now to Private Members' Business.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That seems like a very good idea. We will start all over again.