Derrek Konrad

[Reform Party Of Canada, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend in the beautiful forest city of London, Ontario, the membership of the Reform Party of Canada constructed its bridge to the 21st century.

Based as always on the principles and policies which have taken us from protest movement to official opposition, resolutions to consolidate opposition to this weak and stalled Liberal government were passed resoundingly. More than 1,000 delegates from across Canada voted to forge a united alternative to form the next government and to begin nationwide discussions for a newly aligned federation in a new Canada act.

It is the innovation and the solid foundation laid by the early Reformers joined with the energy and enthusiasm of our youth that will provide a bright future not only for the Reform Party but for all Canada.

This weekend the leadership for a new generation was born in the actions taken by the Reform national assembly solidly based on the party's principles, its policies and its people.

[Nunavut Act, May 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today and address Bill C-39, the amendments to the Nunavut Act.

Prior to addressing the proposed legislation, I want to again extend my best wishes to the residents of Nunavut. I just returned from a trip to Iqaluit with other members of the standing committee for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I enjoyed the hospitality of the people and listened to their proposals for increasing their economic self-reliance. I saw their pride in their new creation, the territory of Nunavut. There was much talk about improving their government and the delivery of services. We certainly wish them well in their endeavours.

Turning to the legislation, before my speech is over I hope to show why the members opposite should have adopted a reasonable and democratic amendment to this bill which was proposed by the Reform Party, the purpose of which was to improve the Nunavut Act. Certainly the purpose of the act as proposed is to improve the previous legislation. By adopting the Reform Party's amendments that legislation could have been improved.

We feel that sending this legislation now to the non-elected, unaccountable and therefore ineffective Senate will simply add the meaningless seal of approval to a bill that will not aid in the cause of democracy. I will be proposing an amendment at the end of my speech which I do not like putting forward but it is necessary given the government's stand on the whole issue of democracy.

The original legislation creating Nunavut territory was introduced and rushed through parliament by the Progressive Conservative government with little time for comprehensive study by members of parliament at that time. It contained numerous flaws such as this act is proposing to amend.

There were errors in the description even of the boundaries. I was interested as a land surveyor to read the errors that the description of the boundaries contained. There were gores and overlaps all along the boundaries. There are unanswered questions with the James Bay Cree as to the status of the islands off the shore of James Bay.

The deficiencies and errors in the act are meant to be corrected by the legislation before the House. There is one glaring oversight which the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about. That is the matter of how the senator for the territory is to be selected.

We on this side of the House together with many Canadians realize that when the legislation was drafted for many years there had not been any innovative thinking in this House on how government should be constructed or how it should be delivered. It was only after the Reform Party came to parliament that anyone even spoke about how democracy in this country might be enhanced by having the taxpaying public have a say in the selection of their senators.

The election of Senator Stan Waters, a Reformer, was the people's choice in the only Senate election ever held in the history this nation. Depriving the Liberal Prime Minister of his number one patronage plum signals the end of civilization in the eyes of this government, but the election of Senator Stan Waters by ordinary Canadians did not bring about the apocalypse predicted by the government. Instead, Canadians for once had the person they chose for the Senate. This one senator, and only this one, was accountable only to the people who put him there rather than to the Prime Minister of the day and his political machine. His independence meant that he was free to promote and protect the interests of the people who put him there. Is that not the way it should be?

There are members of the Senate who have been there through seven or eight governments and five prime ministers. We realize we need a sense of history in this House but we do not need to bring the artefacts right into government at the Prime Minister's wish and then leave them there until they have long forgotten the current issues of this country.

The creation of a new territory was a perfect opportunity for this government to give the gift of fuller democracy both to the territory itself and to the rest of this country. An elected senator would have been a generous gesture to the people of Nunavut that would signal the government's commitment to reducing the member's list for club Chrétien. Failure to adopt that measure means a continuation of stale and outdated policies regarding the Senate and appointments to it and its increasingly ineffective role in defending regional interests.

The Senate as currently constituted is anathema to many Canadians, and calls for its democratization or outright abolition will only grow more strident as time goes on. Is it not about time the government listened to the voices of those who are calling for democratic reform? It is not as if there were no interest in the matter, as the Liberals would have us believe. Alberta is planning to push ahead with elections for the people's choice for candidates to be appointed to the Senate. This type of thing will only increase in frequency and will spread to other provinces.

I believe the Prime Minister and the government really have only two options. The first is really twofold. They could have been at the front of the parade and shown some real leadership on this issue by first allowing the people of Nunavut to democratically elect their first senator and they could have made a commitment to the rest of Canada that the Prime Minister is willing to appoint the provincially elected candidates for senators in accordance with voter wishes. By rejecting this reasonable option, the Liberals risk being in the history books as the party that denied Canadians a democratic voice in the selection of those they desire to govern them.

Hope springs eternal in the human heart. It is spring now and as life and colour return to the earth there is the promise of a new crop as seeds are planted. The seeds of some new and democratic ideas have been planted here today, seeds of hope for Canadians weary of paying taxes to support an outmoded and deficient arm of government. It has long fallen behind the needs and expectations of the people of Canada and the purposes for which it was created. In its present form it is an anachronism, a fossil remnant of the important institution it was meant to be.

We had hoped the government of the day would act on the amendment which was previously proposed. However, I now propose on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and other Reform members the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“this House declines to give third reading to Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, since the principle of the bill does not guarantee that the government will select senators who have been lawfully elected in a territorial Senate election”.

[Canada Labour Code, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the undemocratic Bill C-19, an act to amend the labour code.

Much has been said about this controversial bill and I would like to begin with the fact that it is undemocratic in that the board does not necessarily have to consult employees on union matters.

This is absolutely unbelievable. In this country, as we are approaching a new millennium, that a board could force a union on employees without consulting them is simply unacceptable.

I am also shocked and disappointed by the way the Liberals have shut down debate on this bill. Their undemocratic action in imposing time allocation on such sweeping legislation reflects a complete abuse of their power and a contempt for the House.

Today, however, I would like to concentrate on something else. I would like to emphasize that the bill guarantees only protection for the movement of grain products in the case of a strike or a lockout. This is such an important issue in my riding. This is provided for in subsection 87.7 of the bill which ensures that grain, once it reaches port, will be shipped out to its final destination.

Although I am delighted to see that grain product movements are protected in these events, I have news for this government. Grain products are not the only agricultural products nor are they the only products subject to transportation and shipping which could be paralyzed in the event of a strike or a lockout. The transportation of such important commodities as pulp and paper, lumber and dairy products could also be paralyzed.

I find it ironic that the government has declared grain transportation essential in this case so long as it is ready to leave the country, while the government does not see fit to declare the movement of grain from the farmer to the port as an essential service, as we have all seen with the problems that have come out of rail line abandonment. This double standard is really puzzling.

In my home province of Saskatchewan the mining association is also concerned that only grain products will be guaranteed movement during a strike or a lockout. What about its products? What will happen to mining products in the event of a strike or a lockout? Has that question been addressed? No. This has been completely ignored. The question that needs to be asked is why one and not the other.

Such action is typical of this government. We have seen it time and again, people divided for the sake of being divided. We have seen this with the hepatitis C file dividing victims into before and after a certain date. We have seen this with Bill C-68, the gun control bill, which divides rural and urban Canadians on a line that did not need to be drawn.

By allowing only grain to be shipped out in such events could cause serious damage to the economy and to the country in terms of people getting along with one another.

I illustrate this by pointing out that in 1996 the total value of cargo that went through the port of Vancouver was $30 billion and grain accounted for $4 billion of that total. What does that amount to? It amounts to 15% grain and 85% for all other products. What about the other $26 billion? Do we just ignore it if we are faced with a strike? It sounds like economic suicide for Canada or economic murder of unprotected sectors or individual businesses and their employees and shareholders.

Another important industry in my riding is the alfalfa dehydrating industry. I would like to thank the people from the industry who came here from my riding of Prince Albert for being effective in communicating their concerns about this bill to the official opposition. Obviously the government did not listen.

The alfalfa dehydration industry represents about $100 million in exports. In my riding this industry accounts for approximately two-thirds of Saskatchewan's output. What about it? Shall we just ignore a $100 million industry that forms an integral part of total farming? I would think not. All products and commodities should be offered protection from arbitrary shipping disruption.

It is time we start protecting the economy of this country. For this reason we proposed to extend this provision of protection. This government, in its lack of wisdom, refuses such action. In fact, the miserable level of protection afforded Canada's agricultural sector in this legislation is comparable to allowing Canadian Tire to continue selling barbeques in the face of a company-wide strike. How much help would that be?

Section 87.4 of this bill allows for the continuation of service in a strike or lockout if there is a danger of public health or safety, which is a good thing, but there is no provision to protect the national economy which affects the livelihood of all Canadians. We feel this is necessary since the national economy is the key factor in providing Canadians with a good standard of living essential to the nation's health and well-being. Therefore it is not asking too much to want to see the national economy protected in a bill along with innocent third parties that could be affected by a strike or lockout.

We know labour strikes rarely affect only the company that suffers the strike. Some strikes cripple entire sectors of the economy. For example, we can look at the 1994 west coast port strike in which the direct costs of the strike were estimated to be more than $125 million. The indirect costs suffered by third parties is twice that. It is estimated to be over $250 million. This is a significantly higher number and it is important that third parties and the national economy be protected. Unfortunately our government did not see things in that light.

In the case of communication and transportation infrastructures any disruption to these sectors would have devastating consequences for the Canadian economy. A strike would not affect only our exports, it would have a dire impact on Canada's reputation throughout the world, possibly affecting future investors and clients interested in Canadian made products.

In light of this it will come as no surprise that the Reform Party is of the firm belief that the economy needs to be protected and that companies must always maintain the right to operate. Furthermore, unionized employees need timely resolution of their concerns which is not ensured under the present legislation. The right to operate means that a company faced with a strike has a right to hire replacement workers if they are available and willing to work, which is not always guaranteed. That is their right as well.

I was disappointed in the government when I found that section 94(2)2.1 of this bill prohibits the use of replacement workers if the Canadian Industrial Relations Board determines that their presence undermines the union. It is our opinion that this puts too much power in the hands of the industrial relations board and undermines the rights of the employer since it is unfairly biased in favour of the union. We find that unacceptable as well.

We would have liked to see this bill amended so that in the event of another Canada Post strike such as the one we saw last year an arbitrator could be chosen by both the union and the employer to resolve the outstanding differences between the two parties. The arbitrator's final decision would be binding on both parties. That only makes good sense to the official opposition and to most right thinking Canadians.

For the reasons I have mentioned we oppose Bill C-19 and we call on all hon. members prior to voting on the bill to seriously consider the consequences of Bill C-19 if it becomes law. I am sure that if they do they will join with the official opposition in opposing this flawed and undemocratic legislation.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Tories for their motion today.

It is entirely right to condemn the government for what it is not doing with the military. It is condemned for its failure to provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian forces. Political leadership. Nobody is asking the government to provide leadership in the field. We expect from this House that it will provide strong leadership to the military, to the forces in total.

What do the military do for us and what have they been doing in the past? They fought alongside the armed forces of a lot of other countries in many wars over the years.

In World War I they fought in the trenches. They fought heroically. They fought with self sacrifice. They were completely selfless. Some of the worst things that could happen to a soldier happened to soldiers in World War I. They did everything that could be done to help win that war. They fought in trenches. They had a fledgling air force. They fought at Vimy Ridge. They fought at Maple Copse, the Battle of the Somme. Those are the words that define the heroic history of Canada in World War I.

In World War II there was Dieppe, the Normandy landings on D-Day. I am proud that my wife's father was at Normandy on D-Day. My mother-in-law, a war bride, did everything she could to help in the defence of Britain during the war that encompassed that land.

There were the London air raids, the battle of Britain and the battle of the Atlantic. That was only the European theatre. Our people fought everywhere on this globe in the second world war. There is probably not a member in this House whose family was not affected by the wars.

We had the Korean war. I have known and employed veterans of the Korean war. They suffered. They suffered not without meaning. They suffered because they believed in what Canada stands for, democracy.

These people should be looked after in the way we would expect someone who has sacrificed for us would be looked after. They should not be left lying on the sidelines somewhere. We have picked them up off the battlefields but have we looked after them once they have returned home? They have trouble getting pensions and any number of things.

It is not only in declared wars that our people have fought. They have been there for peacekeeping missions around the world. They work in disaster relief in Canada, just recently during the Winnipeg flood and the Quebec ice storm. Our soldiers were there as volunteers, not because somebody picked them up. They went of their own accord.

In the past our military have been shot at, gassed, bombed, shelled, sunk in ships and crashed in planes. They have been made prisoners of war, taken hostage and more. They have served in temperature extremes. They have practised in the Arctic and have served in the deserts. One would think with all of that it would be enough suffering. Is it? Not according to the Liberal majority government.

The pay is ridiculously low for what I just listed as the things they do. We have seen on television and committee members have heard the military give testimony on the dismal housing conditions. And the equipment. I know a man in the navy who served on a wooden ship. It is almost the year 2000. What kind of things are we handing these guys to defend our country?

These people are responsible for our national defence. They help out in times of national disaster. They keep peace around the world. We would think that they would be accountable to parliament and the Minister of National Defence. But we also think that the Minister of National Defence, this parliament and this country is responsible for their well-being. The way they have been treated is unacceptable.

In reading “Dishonoured Legacy: The Lessons of the Somalia Affair” we find that with respect to peacekeeping they have been at it for 40 years. In 1992 what did they find? There was no comprehensive training policy based on changing requirements. There was an absence of doctrines, standards and performance evaluation mechanisms. That does not speak to a government that is responsible for looking after the military.

The Department of National Defence military activities are ineffective in respect of parliamentary oversight. I am just reading a little bit again from “Dishonoured Legacy: The Lessons of the Somalia Affair”. A 1994 examination by a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons was unanimously in support of the view that there is a need to strengthen the role of parliament in defence matters. That would increase the morale of our people. They obviously do not envision parliament having a day to day role in things but they say it needs to be effective in promoting accountability when it receives, examines and publicizes reports. That is when parliament is most effective.

Leadership in matters of accountability and an accountability ethic have been found seriously wanting in three areas, the upper military, bureaucratic, and what we are discussing today, political echelons.

There was material tabled by the Minister of National Defence in 1997 which has only been some meagre talk about changes on accountability and the desirability of it.

In 1994 the Liberals had a white paper calling for a combat capable defence force, multipurpose. What do we have? We have had years to get helicopters which were cancelled as a political ploy. What have we got now? The same helicopters.

Does that make sense? It does not make sense to me, not to Canadians, not to other members of the House. What are they spending nowadays? It is $9 billion. What was it in 1993 when the Liberals took over? It was $12 billion. Let us not discount the effect of inflation on those types of things.

Our military has not been looked after. We have used submarines, but it only took forever to get them. West Edmonton Mall had more submarines than the Canadian navy for goodness' sake and probably better ones than the navy has had up to date. It just is not right.

We do not think that is what the government should be about. It needs to have a purpose. We need to decide what it is to do. We expect the armed forces to support our political, economic and environmental sovereignty. We think that should be happening over Canada's territory.

We want to continue to participate in NATO, NORAD and any other defence organization that may be developed in the future. It is still an issue as recent events show worldwide that things can quickly fall apart which we thought were together.

We need fast response. We do not need to send our people overseas and expect them to wait around in the mid-Atlantic while we decide whether or not they are suitably outfitted to go into a war theatre or a peacekeeping operation. That is outrageous. We need to provide these things now. We definitely need to have our military prepared for any event. We need them to be prepared on a variety of facets.

I am in complete agreement with the motion to condemn the government for the way it treats our military personnel. I trust that as a result of the motion before the House it will review what it is doing and will make the decision to do the right thing.

[Canada Lands Surveyors Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I was talking about the possibility for patronage in this bill and I will continue in that line.

While we recognize that it would be impossible to legislate it, what a great day it would be if the Liberal government did not abuse the appointment process to reward loyal Liberal Party members, fundraisers, defeated candidates, friends of friends and that sort of thing. However, based on their recent record of patronage appointments we are not confident that this will not happen.

The legislation is important and timely so, despite the reservations expressed, the Reform Party will support it and seek amendments.

I also do not want to be uncharitable to the Minister of Natural Resources and the government but they really do not deserve credit for this legislation.

As a land surveyor, I am aware of the years of effort by the associations to have this legislation drafted and introduced in the House of Commons.

Most Canada lands surveyors also hold provincial commissions so they know the benefits of a self-governing professional society. Without their invaluable input this legislation would not have got off the ground.

This legislation is not ground breaking. It simply raises the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors to the same status as a provincial association. It has taken the government years to get from incorporation to legislation. Congratulations are due to the surveyors for their commitment to the creation of this new professional association.

[Canada Lands Surveyors Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte for his kind comments about lands surveyors because I am a lands surveyor myself and I agree with his comments.

As a member of a provincial lands surveyors association it gives me great pleasure to speak today to Bill C-31, the Canada Lands Surveyors Act.

Historically dominion lands surveyors, the predecessors of the Canada lands surveyors, had a special role to play in the development of this country. They were issued commissions for the purpose of undertaking surveys of dominion lands. The most obvious and enduring aspect of the work is the dominion lands survey system in western Canada which had its origin at the first principal meridian just west of Winnipeg and its first base line at the Canadian-American border.

The majority of the occupied land in the west is subdivided into one-mile squares which is the most noticeable feature from the air. When flying in to any of the western airports we see that the land is laid out in a rectangular fashion. It is very orderly. Even satellite photos of the prairies show the DLS system of subdivision.

The importance of surveys in the historic and future development of Canada is indisputable.

Surveyors were and remain Canada's explorers. It was surveyors who not only subdivided but mapped this country's frontiers. They also established the borders of this country on the ground after the political decision was made to accept the international boundary as the 49th parallel.

An interesting aside is that American surveyors usually ended up north of the British surveyors, or the other way around, when they made their astronomy shots to determine the exact parallel. Usually the decision was made to split the difference.

Furthermore, surveyors are called on daily to resolve boundary disputes, leading to peaceful relations among members of the public.

The prairies were surveyed during a few decades of intense work as the west was opened up for development and settlers poured in. Legislators of the time recognized the need for an orderly method of subdividing and conveying land to the settlers and also for setting aside the tracts of land reserved for Indians.

The system was developed by Colonel J. S. Dennis and the bulk of the work was carried out for many years under the direction of Dr. Edouard Deville, Surveyor General.

As the western territory was divided into provinces the new provinces assumed control of their lands and the survey of them. The task was undertaken by provincial survey associations which operated under provincial legislation. The legislation provided the means by which the associations governed themselves. They had the authority to elect their own councils, appoint educational and disciplinary committees and pass bylaws to ensure that a high level of competence and professionalism was maintained.

In the provinces land surveys are the responsibility of provincially legislated land survey associations. All provincial land surveyors' associations are self-governing and accountable to the public.

Through the years since provincial associations have been responsible for the maintenance and extension of the survey fabric within the provinces the only change the Dominion Lands Surveyors have had was incorporation in 1985 and a name change. Dominion Lands Surveyors are now officially known as Canada Lands Surveyors. They remain without an elected national executive. They do not have an association directed professional examination committee. They have no registrar nor do they have a discipline committee to investigate complaints and take action against a member found to be in violation of standards of professional conduct.

The legislation before the House today establishes the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors as a self-governing association with all of the powers and responsibilities that entails. For instance, the association will now be able to establish and enforce the standards to qualify for the granting of commissions. This means they will determine appropriate educational levels and standards of professional conduct and skill required both to obtain and maintain a CLS commission. Bill C-31 will enable the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors to create the necessary committees to investigate malpractice complaints and to establish discipline committees which will be empowered to conduct hearings and determine what disciplinary measures are appropriate in individual cases. This will advance the public interest.

Under the new legislation the association will be able to create a practice review committee charged with the responsibility for ensuring that those who are commissioned for the survey of federal lands maintain a high standard of professionalism.

In the same vein the new act will make it possible for the association to maintain a continuing education program for its members so that the public can have confidence that the surveyors engaged are well prepared for the task.

In line with other jurisdictions, the surveyor general has retained the powers necessary to ensure the ongoing integrity of the survey system. He will continue to retain control of the technical standards for surveys. These include ensuring that surveys comply in all respects with the Canada Lands Surveys Act and regulations, that the surveys meet standards for accuracy of the field work, proper documentation of surveys, including preparation of plans, and monumentation of the survey on the ground.

Despite the many positive features of this legislation there remains one concern. We note that there is a provision for the minister to appoint two members to the governing council. While we in the Reform Party endorse input from the public to ensure professional organizations act in the public interest, we have two concerns with this clause. First, it does not specifically state that the members are to be lay persons and not professional surveyors who may also be members of the civil service. This would defeat the purpose of this requirement.

[Canada Lands Surveyors Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the member called this a housekeeping matter. I would say that it is more in the nature of a motherhood issue that everyone could agree with. Housekeeping, to me, says that we are cleaning up something that previously existed, whereas in this case we are building something. We are establishing for the first time legislation to give the Canada lands surveyors self-governing authority. I would like a response to that comment.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C-30, the Mi'kmaq education act. I want to take a few moments to acknowledge my appreciation of those leaders of the Mi'kmaq communities who came to my office to discuss Bill C-30 with my staff and me. They came with the purpose of promoting the bill.

However, during the course of our discussions we also delved into the more substantial issues of how aboriginal people relate to society at large. While we did not agree on many things regarding technical arrangements by which we co-exist, I am encouraged by the good will expressed and the willingness to build and maintain friendships in the future. I look forward to the day when I will be able to travel to the Chapel Island Reserve and enjoy their promised hospitality.

With regard to Bill C-30 I considered many factors in deciding whether to support it. I concluded that I cannot support it in its present form. Most of the reasons for withholding support at this time I also discussed with the members of the Chapel Island Reserve who came to my office.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to implement an agreement signed by the government and nine of the 13 Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia. The communities will, under the terms of the bill, exercise control over both primary and secondary education. It sets up a corporation to be known as Mi'kmawkina'matnewey which will have no share capital. Twenty four million dollars of capital will be injected into the corporation for existing department of Indian affairs funding, with an additional unspecified amount for start-up costs.

The stated purpose of the corporation is to support delivery of educational programs and services under the proposed act. Its members will be the chiefs of the participating communities and they together will constitute its board of directors and will be responsible for management and conduct of the corporation.

As laudable as the stated aims of the bill are, the Reform Party cannot support the legislation at this time and I will explain the reasons for withholding support.

The main objection to the bill is the provision which makes the chiefs ex-officio members of the Mi'kmawkina'matnewey, the governing body. This key portion of the bill concentrates too much power in the hands of one group. When this point was raised during discussions the comment was made that to have an elected board is to create one more level of bureaucracy.

When we are talking about the provision of education anywhere in Canada we always assume the existence of a board of education charged with the sole responsibility for both management and delivery of educational services. There are times when an elected board dedicated to one purpose is in the best interests of the people. Furthermore, it also makes sense for the electorate to hold an education board accountable for education and to deal with it at the polls on that one issue.

Political leaders by necessity have a broader outlook and responsibility for the overall leadership and management of the community as a whole. The objection was raised, probably correctly, that neither governments nor other educational authorities would give credence to an elected board. I would submit that after an initial period of adjustment a board of education would achieve credibility in its own right, particularly if it had the full support of the bands from which its membership was drawn.

If the bill is amended as I am suggesting then support for the bill could be extended. There are, however, other concerns with the proposed legislation and consequences flowing from it that I would like to draw to the attention of the House.

As members are no doubt aware the Reform Party has a longstanding position on equality of all citizens and will find it extremely difficult to support legislation which furthers the separation of Canadians from one another. Full participation in society by all people including aboriginals is the goal of our party. It is our belief that the best interests of Canada's aboriginal people can best be addressed through equality and full participation in all matters pertaining to education.

On another matter, while I realize the chiefs have been elected to represent their people it does not appear the bill is before the House today has the full backing of all members of all the communities. As I previously noted, 4 of the 13 bands in the area are not participating in the planned education system. From what I have seen in aboriginal communities so far there is no consensus on much of the process of devolving responsibility for program management to local communities. On the point previously mentioned, the fact that there is wide disagreement about devolution of powers to local band councils and chiefs is also important to the debate over the bill.

The press kit which accompanied the bill to my office mentioned that the legislation is historic in that it establishes a new relationship between aboriginal people and the federal government in the area of education. Undoubtedly the bill, if enacted, will be used as a model for other agreements of a similar nature. When developing legislation of a historic nature there must be widespread discussions by all groups, both those immediately affected and those potentially affected.

In the area of education, as in so many others which affect people's relationship with governments and with one another, a broad consensus must be obtained. The general public must be involved in the process as well as any group attempting to establish a special education system, and this does not appear to be the case here.

There appears to be a fair amount of uncertainty about the effects of the bill on smaller communities in terms of how they would benefit economically from arrangements like those envisioned in the proposed legislation. Concerns such as theirs have not yet been heard.

While withdrawing from society, which is the point of this bill, appears to be attractive in some measure, I do not believe its long term effects will prove beneficial. The world is changing, and the conditions that led to the reserve system and to the separation of native and non-native cultures are long past. I believe both the Mi'kmaq and society at large will be better served by refusing to be separated and consequently misunderstood. Aboriginal people can and should be full and equal participants in Canadian society with all its benefits and privileges.

We are calling for amendments to Bill C-30 that would make the governing body, responsible for administering education on reserve, more responsive to the band members' direction. Acceptance of this key amendment will improve this legislation immensely and I request serious consideration of it by all members of this House.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request the unanimous consent of the House to divide my time with the hon. member for Calgary East.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, something really struck me when the hon. Deputy Prime Minister began speaking.

He said he urged the members of this House to vote against the motion. I wonder if I can take that to mean that is all it is, urging his own members, or is he simply urging the opposition or are they applying caucus solidarity on this thing? It is an interesting word he used. Have they withdrawn from their position that this is a vote of confidence and they are enforcing party discipline?