Debates of Dec. 7th, 1995

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, December 4, 1995 the committee has considered Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments, and the committee has agreed to report it without amendment.

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 18th report of the standing committee on public accounts, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)( d ). The committee reviewed chapter VI of the May 1995 auditor general's report and is now reporting on this chapter, which concerns federal transportation subsidies, and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Program in particular.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 107th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to the operating budget and the vote structure in the estimates.

Treasury Board officials presented a document entitled "Operating Budget and the Vote Structure". This document explains the reasons for altering an aspect of the votes in the estimates and proposes that a new operating expenditures vote be introduced for the 1996-97 main estimates. The new vote would contain items of minor capital expenditure currently included in separate capital votes. Parliament would be presented with a more accurate view of the way departments and agencies expend the funds which are allocated to them. The proposed change is an interim measure that will be in place until the government adopts a new accounting system.

Officials of the office of the auditor general have advised the subcommittee of the procedure and House affairs committee that the change being proposed by the Treasury Board Secretariat is largely administrative in nature and that it is designed to make it easier to manage government departments and agencies. The subcommittee was assured that Parliament's ability to scrutinize and approve the expenditure plans of the government would not be diminished by a change of this kind.

I am pleased to present the report. There is no need for concurrence, Mr. Speaker, as it is simply for the information of members.

Petitions

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of people all over Canada, I would like to present a petition which calls on Parliament to enact legislation to prohibit Canadian involvement in the international proliferation of land mine production.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from constituents of my riding that I would like to present which calls for the establishment of

peace tax legislation by passing into law a private member's bill entitled the conscientious objection act.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a third petition which calls on Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

moved:

That the House urge the government to not enter into any binding trilateral aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C. in the last year of the current provincial government mandate in order to respect the views of British Columbians on this issue as expressed by both major provincial opposition parties.

Madam Speaker, the Reform Party had concerns about this matter before today. For example, on October 30 I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a question. On November 27 I asked a similar question of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I have also pursued this same subject in committee.

The question I put to the minister on October 30 concerned the polls in British Columbia which now rate aboriginal issues as the number one issue. Among the provincial political parties, there certainly is a growing divergence of views on aboriginal issues. We now have an NDP administration which is in the waning days of its mandate.

The question I put to the minister was whether he would assure the House that he will not entertain completion of any comprehensive agreement, such as the Nisga'a claim, until there is a new provincial administration with a fresh mandate. The response from the minister included the fact that the Reform member was asking not to do anything until the non-Nisga'a government changed in British Columbia and he certainly was not prepared to do that.

In addition, there is a major divergence of opinion on costs which was a supplementary to that question. The provincial government says that the cost of settling claims in British Columbia will be about $10 billion and the federal government says it will be about $5 billion. This divergence of views is something of which we should take note. We are talking billions not millions.

On November 27 my question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans dealt with the apparent intended agreement on the Nass. I say apparent intended because everything is based on leaks. We do not have open negotiations. We do not have transparency. The only things we know are based on leaks. However, there apparently is an agreement to include some of the Nass fishery in the Nisga'a agreement. I wanted the minister's assurance that the Nass River commercial fishery would not be entrenched in a treaty which would then get further entrenched constitutionally, and be unchangeable, socially divisive and the very opposite of free enterprise. Once again, I received no substantive response from the minister.

This is no longer an emerging issue in British Columbia. This is an established issue. The transformation happened over the last three years. It is considered to be an issue which has gone off the track. Public concerns are driving a re-examination of all of the basic assumptions underlying the treaty or land claims process in British Columbia.

I can give a thumbnail summary of some of these concerns. This issue has tremendous long term implications and ramifications; socially, financially and in other ways. The issue has parallels with B.C. concerns about what many call the disunity bill that the House has been debating very recently and where we have seen closure adopted. There are many parallels here. It invokes, for example, special status, whereas the public is demanding the principle of equality.

The whole question of public ratification of the government's aboriginal initiative has not been sought. This has all been done within a cloistered environment. Neither the provincial nor federal governments has involved the public in establishing the goals and objectives of the treaty process in British Columbia.

At this time I should give a background to the negotiations going on in B.C. We have the Nisga'a negotiations which have been going on for many years. There is a framework agreement which was signed in March 1991. There are many who say that the openness associated with this agreement was really closed off in 1991. That is a very self-serving analysis of the agreement by some of the bureaucracy and by some government parties.

Clause 7.1.1 of the agreement states:

The parties will, together, develop and implement a process of public information and consultation and will attend meetings with such selected individuals, organizations or groups as they may agree will assist in the process of public consensus building.

It is a real stretch to suggest that any of that in terms of the Nisga'a negotiations has occurred. The Nisga'a agreement is the closest to completion in the province and is a major focus of today's opposition motion.

There are some major concerns which are front and centre with the Nisga'a negotiations. One is the Nass River fishery which I have already mentioned. This is a public resource. Last week there were five British Columbia aboriginal fishery test cases argued in the Supreme Court.

There is an outstanding class action suit from commercial fishermen involving the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The outcome, if anything, would appear to rule against an aboriginal right to a commercial fishery.

This is not so much an issue of allocation of commercial licences. It is an issue of treaty entrenchment leading to constitutional entrenchment and protection of a commercial aboriginal fishery which would be in many people's minds and in my mind socially divisive and the antithesis of free enterprise.

Another major concern deals with costs. If we look at the costs involved in the Nisga'a agreement, once again we are dealing only with leaks. We never know where these leaks originate. They may be self-serving leaks, they may not be. This is one of the problems with the lack of transparency.

I put out a press release in November. I talked about some of the statements which have been made very recently on the Nisga'a offer and which were reported in the popular press. Back in March when I was doing a series of town hall meetings in British Columbia, I had taken the known offer of the day and extrapolated it to British Columbia using the Nisga'a example as a precedent. I said that the total compensation package would work out to $8.5 billion. At that time the Reform Party was accused of extrapolating figures from various sources in order to scare the British Columbia public.

In October the minister of aboriginal affairs within the province of B.C. said publicly that the cost of land claim settlements in British Columbia would be $10 billion. According to the leaks, the Nisga'a offer had grown between March and October. This is consistent with what I was saying back in March.

According to the latest leaks in the Nisga'a offer we are talking about a turnover of 2,200 square kilometres of land, a significant forest resource, $175 million cash and 30 per cent of the Nass River fishery. I might point out that other bands also have claims on part of the Nass River fishery.

When we talk about this total cost package of $10 billion as stated by the provincial minister, at the same time the director general from the federal ministry said that he was baffled by the number and said that the cost of the settlement was closer to $5 billion. Either he knows something we do not know or I know not what. Maybe he is only talking about the federal component. According to the way I calculate it, it is about a 50:50 split provincially and federally. That is a very significant difference and one that should concern the public and the government.

Against the backdrop of these Nisga'a precedent setting background negotiations, we also have the B.C. treaty process. We talked about that in the House not too long ago with Bill C-107 the enabling legislation from the federal end to set up the B.C. Treaty Commission.

The Nisga'a negotiations are not part of the B.C. treaty process in terms of the treaty commission. They predate it and are not subject to the same terms of reference. The B.C. Treaty Commission has only been in place since 1993.

An estimated 77 per cent of the British Columbia bands are currently involved in the process. There is a total of 196 bands in British Columbia. The other 23 per cent of British Columbia bands are not part of the B.C. treaty process and they have no other option. They either go with this process or they are left out. This is problematic for that other 23 per cent.

In July 1993 the federal and provincial governments announced the establishment of a treaty negotiation advisory committee. They have also set up regional advisory committees in each treaty negotiation area to represent public and local interests. There is much public and participant unhappiness about the consultation process and about the ratification process at this time.

If a band enters into the B.C. treaty process it receives 80 per cent funding repayable upon completion of negotiations. In effect this is a loan. The Nisga'a negotiations on the other hand are 100 per cent paid for by the federal government.

I have other concerns. The municipal level of government is not recognized in any of this. There is simply a sidebar arrangement through the provincial negotiators. Right now their intervenor funding or advisory funding or whatever we want to call it is capped at $250,000 a year. It comes from the province.

The municipalities have many concerns about this. Some of the municipalities are dealing with multiple claims. Their costs are far and away exceeding the compensation they are receiving. They are

caught up in this process, not through their own doing but they cannot afford not to be there. Their interests are certainly affected.

There are no readiness guidelines to the regional advisory committee boards. They are not in the terms of reference of the treaty commission. This has also proved to be very problematical.

Interim agreements have been negotiated at the provincial level. This has also compromised the B.C. Treaty Commission process. This was identified by the B.C. Treaty Commission in its 1993 annual report. That is as far as it can go. The commission can identify it but it cannot deal with it unless one or the other or both levels of government agree to do something about it.

Governments have lost their mandate in those parts of the province most familiar with and closest to the settlement process. There has been some movement toward openness and other things to which the federal Reform has contributed. We have done some things to open up the public process. In March we had an aboriginal town hall series in the province. We covered eight communities in 11 nights province wide. In a separate exercise we set out through a 10-month process new aboriginal policy initiatives. They were very well received in British Columbia and were considered to be very refreshing.

Much of what we were saying in March was common sense, bottom up thinking which had not been reflected before in B.C. political circles. Now much of what we have said is mainstream political dialogue in British Columbia. Issues being talked about are an end to the Indian taxation exemption and certainly a focus on not entrenching commercial activities in B.C. treaties.

We have done more as a federal opposition party to open up this process than the B.C. Treaty Commission and both levels of government combined. The treaty commission is hampered by its mandate and the governments are still locked into an agenda they foresaw three years ago.

The layers of bureaucracy surrounding this process are leading to inevitable massive gridlock. Unless the governments obtain a publicly ratified negotiating mandate, the public will never accept the terms and conditions which are being negotiated. This will foster further disharmony and misgivings.

We are not objecting to a fair, open and complete conclusion to the process, but we do have a problem with the status quo arrangement. People are begging for leadership to break the binds of the status quo and they are not seeing it forthcoming. We are trying to fill that void. The manner and the approach currently being pursued is intrinsically wrong. It is neither enlightened nor receptive. Therefore, people conclude they are being manipulated and that the process is entrenched and resistant to change, despite mounting opposition.

One might ask what the provincial opposition parties are saying. I can talk a little bit about a B.C. Liberal government. It is talking about instituting a series of public hearings and free votes in the legislature; initiating public consultation on a principal framework for treaty negotiations; and developing a set of guidelines that would have to be approved by the legislature with the approval of MLAs who would be free to vote without following party lines.

A second step would be to set up new negotiating teams that would include local non-Indian representation. The next stage would be to send any agreements to public hearings. The final stage would be to take this back to the legislature through another free vote of MLAs.

The B.C. Reform Party is saying many things about this whole process. It does say we must offer to negotiate treaties because it is the right thing to do. The goal of treaties should be to lift the yoke of the Indian Act off the backs of native people. Further, they must own their own reserve lands and govern their own affairs within the context of the Constitution and B.C. laws. Treaties negotiated should not aspire to the false promise of native sovereignty. The principle of equality is central to our support for treaty talks.

A Reform government would insist upon renegotiating the cost sharing agreement as a precondition for B.C.'s ongoing participation in land claims negotiations. It would reject constitutional entrenchment of the inherent right of self-government, would reject a third order of government enshrined under the Constitution, would reject formal recognition of aboriginal title, and would define the meaning and scope of aboriginal rights, title and self-government. That is what treaty negotiations are all about. It would seek a clear negotiating mandate from the people, not the politicians.

If treaties confer special rights, they must first pass muster with the majority. Any deal that purports to accord special status will not pass public scrutiny in their opinion. Treaties should be aimed at removing barriers based on race, not at entrenching new inequalities.

In conclusion, given the importance of the issue, the costs of the issue, the social implications and the permanence of this, there is absolutely no way an outgoing government should be binding the public. I urge in the strongest possible terms for government to respect this position.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Once the minister of Indian affairs has completed his remarks I would like to invoke Standing Order 43(2) so that subsequent Liberal speakers will be sharing their time.

I also wish to seek unanimous consent to revert to the tabling of reports by standing committees. I understand that a report was

unavailable earlier and that there is all-party consent to do that at the present time, which will only take a moment.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am anticipated to be at the aboriginal affairs standing committee to finalize a report on co-management. Am I subject to a 10-minute question and answer period? If so, could we do that first?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the chance to question the member on some of the things he has said. As a fellow MP from British Columbia, I share his concern that aboriginal issues are getting short shrift, especially here in Parliament by the government and the minister who seem to think, as with so many other issues, they have a made in Ottawa solution to what is really a problem affecting primarily B.C.

B.C. is the area that is not covered by treaties within the country. Depending on who we believe, it is a $5 billion to $10 billion question. It is a huge issue, which even touches on the Constitution, where rights are entrenched and different rights are given to different people. It is a big issue in British Columbia. The government should take heed that this issue is something that also could be very divisive in the country if it is not handled and settled properly.

Last week I was home on Friday and attended a public meeting where the chief federal negotiator for the southern half of the province gave a talk on the progress to date of the aboriginal land claim settlements. Afterwards we had a question and answer period. During that time I said there are three things I think people are saying they want to see happen in this federal negotiation for eventual settlement of the land claims. First, they want finality to any agreements. They do not want any leap-frogging ability and they do not want anybody to be able to reopen these cases in the future. When the deal is settled they want it settled for good. In other words, we do not want to do this again 10 years from now.

Second, they say they want any deal they make with aboriginal communities in order to settle outstanding land claims to reinforce the idea of equality rather than inequality, hyphenated Canadians. If it does not lead to that equality in taxation and before the law, I do not think British Columbians are going to support it.

Third, I asked the negotiator what his specific instructions are when it comes to the bottom line. In other words, how much money are we talking here? Are we talking $10 billion or are we talking $5 billion or $1 billion? The rumour mill is rampant. Mr. Cashore, the minister in British Columbia, has thrown out a $10 billion figure. His response was you hate it as a negotiator when somebody starts throwing out those figures because it makes it so difficult to have negotiations. He says that hidden away in his vault is an envelope with some kind of figure inside concerning how many dollars we are talking about. Because there is no openness in this process and we are dealing with rumours of rumours. I wonder if the hon. member could comment on those three things, about the finality or the extinguishment clause that should be in these agreements, on the principle of moving toward equality of all Canadians and because the minister will not give us anything, if he has any idea what kind of a bottom line we are looking at when it comes to settlement of British Columbia land claim issues.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about the finality of these agreements. In many cases there is a major disagreement in the aboriginal political leadership concerning this concept. One of the concerns that I have about the finality of these agreements is that there is a word that is no longer used within hearing of the minister of Indian affairs. That word is extinguishment.

One of the first agreements that came before the 35th Parliament, in terms of aboriginal agreements, was the Sahtu agreement in the western Arctic. There is certainly extinguishment within that agreement. When the major native spokesman for the Sahtu was at the committee hearings, he was asked about that clause. He said that was a natural quid pro quo or a trade-off for the other things that the Sahtu were receiving in exchange for an extinguishment of the aboriginal interest in lands outside of the settlement area.

That is fine and dandy but the expectation has now been delivered by the current government is that no, that is not the case any more and we are quite prepared to reopen all of these old negotiations. The government is raising expectations at a time when it has not even fulfilled bottom line expectations. It keeps raising the ceiling on something that does not have a foundation at this point.

This is most inappropriate and it is certainly not something on which the public has been well informed, nor is it something that I believe the public wants to accept. It is like a never-ending set of negotiations and everything once negotiated can be reopened at any time. That is not appropriate.

The second question dealt with equality. This is probably demonstrated most clearly in the fact that the taxation exemption is becoming more and more of a problem in more and more locations across Canada. I are not talking about just British Columbia in this case.

While other Canadians are taxed to the max there is a portion of the native population that is insulated from most forms of taxation. These are the people living on reserves. Perhaps this cannot be changed overnight but we have to move in that direction.

Another major concern is that the governments be democratic and accountable with checks and balances that go far beyond the checks and balances of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The lives of many people living on reserves are being regulated by one department. That becomes very problematic. If we had multiple jurisdictions that would be fine.

We are finding that what resonates with the public is a municipal style of self-government as being an appropriate model. We have an example in the Sechelt Band, in my riding.

The final question posed deals with the cost and the negotiating mandate. The negotiating mandate provincially and federally, the way it sits right now, is a cabinet secret known only to the federal and/or provincial negotiators. Public ratification of that negotiating mandate is a major shift in thinking that has gone on and something that is being asked for more and more and something we promote.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given that the 10 minutes has now expired, I wonder if we could now ask for unanimous consent to revert to the tabling of reports by standing committees.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is this agreeable to everyone?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Committees Of The House

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table today the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I thank members of the House for their unanimous consent.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois presented a minority report on the issue of immigration counsellors. This is a very serious issue. We agree with the diagnosis: we are indeed confronted with a serious problem. Some counsellors are good, but the ethics of others are questionable.

But we differ on the constitutional issue, since we maintain that it is up to the provinces, and not to the federal government, to regulate trades and professions. That is the reason behind our minority report.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise again in the House to address this resolution. However, the motion has no thought behind it and therefore gives no idea of its consequences. I do not even know why we are entertaining such a motion. I honestly feel that we are not doing our job here debating it.

This motion, as it is written, goes against the very democratic fabric of Canadian society. Basically it asks the federal government to stop doing business with a duly elected majority provincial government. If we were to stop conducting business with the current government in British Columbia we would be insulting the majority of British Columbians who voted for this government.

Perhaps this is not the intent of the motion. Perhaps the intent of the motion is even more appalling. Perhaps the opposition party does not want the government to continue doing business with the duly elected government in British Columbia and not do business with the aboriginal people in British Columbia.

What is it we are debating here? Are we debating whether the provincial government has a valid mandate or are we debating a motion based on race? If race is the issue, perhaps we can ask the hon. members of the opposition if they have any particular wishes regarding Sikhs in British Columbia, the Chinese people in B.C. or other minority groups, or are they just willing to continue this debate on aboriginal people in B.C.?

I might remind hon. members that the negotiations to create the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were conducted in 1904, four years into the mandate of the second Laurier government. Would the hon. member have wanted these talks to be put on hold because the federal government was facing an election the next year? The second world war began four years into the mandate of Mackenzie King in 1935. Did Parliament say that it could not get involved because the Prime Minister had to go to the polls? In 1956, the last year of the St. Laurent government, the UN emergency force was created, thanks to the work of Lester Pearson. He won the Nobel prize for his efforts.

If the hon. member for North Island-Powell River had been sitting in the House back then he would have said: "I object. Canada cannot enter into such an important international commitment, not with just one year left in the government's mandate".

Let us look at the history of treaty negotiations with the aboriginal peoples. Treaty 7 was signed in 1877. The Macdonald government had been in office since January 1874. It faced an election. It would come in the fall of 1878. Was there any question then that the government had no mandate to sign? Of course not.

Treaty No. 8 was signed in 1899 when the Laurier government had been in office for three years. It would go to the polls the following year.

In our time, the James Bay agreement was signed a year before the end of the Quebec Liberal government.

Would the hon. member for North Island-Powell River be prepared to defer his authority on votes on issues that come before the House because the other parties in his constituency have not nominated their candidates yet or have nominated them but there has not been an election yet? Of course he would not.

Let us not hear any more self-righteousness from the Reform Party with its claims that it speaks for the people. The people elected the hon. member for North Island-Powell River on October 25, 1993, just as the people of Sault Ste. Marie elected me to come here.

Why have a Parliament at all? Why not just have an office where public pollsters send their findings to the bureaucrats? If that is the argument of the hon. member for North Island-Powell River, I invite him to give up his seat, go back home, take up his old job and do something worth while.

The First Nations in British Columbia have waited 200 years to reach agreements. Most have never had an opportunity to sign an agreement outlining their rights. That is an historic anomaly in Canada which the Liberal government inherited from the leader of the Reform Party of B.C. He was a minister in the Social Credit government that signed an agreement with the Nisga'a. He was on the committee that pushed the B.C. treaty process.

What do Reform members have to say about that? What have they said to the leader of the Reform Party of B.C.? Is he not a little embarrassed by the Reform Party in Ottawa about all his work and efforts of the past? I commend him. He at least had the courage to do something for aboriginal people.

In 1990 Premier Vander Zalm reversed a longstanding position of the province of British Columbia which held that aboriginal rights had been extinguished prior to B.C.'s entry into Confederation, or if the rights did exist they were the exclusive responsibility of the federal government. That has changed the climate out there. Premier Vander Zalm said: "You have been sitting there with the Nisga'a for 15 years by yourself. We will do these things. We will get some certainty for B.C."

The current government came into office in October 1993. We opened the doors in December 1993. Since that time 70 per cent of the just under 200 First Nations in B.C. have been at the table. They are doing it our way. They are saying: "We will trust you white people once more. We will not build roadblocks. We will come to the negotiating table". And this is the way they are treated.

The Reform Party has not voted for one piece of aboriginal legislation in the House in two years, except in the one instance when it benefited an oil company. When an oil company could make a profit vis-à-vis aboriginal people, the Reform Party voted unanimously in favour of it. That party says it will speak for the people, that it will come here with an open mind and not vote like a bunch of sheep.

Last week 42 Reform members showed up in the House to vote against the B.C. treaty process, the enabling legislation which allows us to sit down with the First Nations. Yet Reformer members stand every day to denounce Adams Lake and the Penticton blockade. So do we, but the difference is that we are prepared to sit down with the First Nations people. What I hear today is that the Reform Party will not even sit down with the First Nations people to negotiate.

I once said that the House of Commons in many instances sounds like the ill informed conversing with the ill intentioned on any given day. For the first time today I heard the ill informed conversing with the ill intentioned of the same party when they questioned each other.

I will give the Reform Party some correct information. Reformers said vis-à-vis the Nisga'a that we gave them money for negotiations. That is incorrect. It is based on loans 100 per cent. The people who are supposed to know the issues out there said that in the House.

Let me go back and refer to some of the history. I am in cabinet representing the poorest of the poor people in the country. Most of the time I am on my knees and my colleagues know that.

Just before the election when we were hoping to be elected, we said that the Pearson airport deal was illegal and immoral and that if we were elected we would reverse it. Why? We alleged there were a lot of people making a lot of money. There was a lot of lobbying and a lot of money being made by lobbyists. A few weeks before the election we came into the House and who defended the lobbyists and voted against the legislation? It was the Reform Party.

Reformers should think about what they are doing today vis-à-vis aboriginal people and what the Reform Party did in the protection of lobbyists on the Pearson airport deal. Reformers are saying today that there may be an election a year from now because

the opposition parties are opposed to dealing with the poorest of the poor. However they will stand here righteously two weeks before an election and defend the right of lobbyists to make a bundle of money. It gives Canadians an idea of the priorities of that party.

They say: "Let us have a referendum". This is much the same. It is another way of saying we should have a referendum. I remember last year when this was placed before the Prime Minister as an important issue. They said: "Let us have a referendum". The Prime Minister said: "It is our job to make decisions and if we do them well we will be re-elected; if we do not we will be turfed". When will Reformers learn that, as we did in 1984? Reformers will learn that because the public is coming to understand the Reform Party.

Reformers thought they were the party that would talk about fiscal responsibility and bring a new spirit to the House. Instead they found a party that lusted badly for power. It had such an anti-francophone bias they were willing to destroy the country on a fraudulent question to which the answer was yes by 50 per cent plus one. It shows the public the bias of the Reform Party. It shows the public how badly the Reform Party leader wants to be Prime Minister of Canada, that he would do that, destroy the country on a 50 per cent plus one response to a fraudulent question.

I sat here and I listened. I have waited two years and listened to aboriginal bashing from the Reform Party. Some Reform members actually go out and talk to aboriginal people, an insignificant portion of that group that is deserving of respect. An insignificant number of Reformers know what the Reform Party is doing, and that it is wrong.

After two years the Reform Party has an interim policy on aboriginal issues, but it did not talk to the aboriginal people. The leader of the Reform Party says that they did not. I do not know if they could not find them; there are a million and a half aboriginal people out there. There are 608 reserves. There are 50 tribal councils. Where was the consultation? It did not exist.

A key member of the committee that devised this is the member for Athabasca who said, and it is there in two papers: "What is this treaty? The treaty process is a fraud". We negotiated in good faith and now they are saying it is a fraud. "We defeated these people". I notice an uneasiness on the face of Reformers because those with a conscience know that what that member said was wrong. He was a member of the committee that devised this. He said: "If we did not defeat them, why did they allow themselves to go to small, worthless reserves?"

There are only two ways of looking at it. We said the treaty was honourable. We made these agreements and told them in B.C. that some day we would get to them. We finished the numbered treaties at Edmonton, Alberta. We said we would with the honour of the crown and the honour of Canadians sit down with them. Or, we can take the attitude of the member for Athabasca, a member of the Reform Party. I refuse to use a name in the House again unless I put the party behind it. The member for Athabasca is a member of the Reform Party. He said: "We beat these people. We beat them into the ground. That is why they are on small reserves. This treaty process is a fraud. Rebut that".

Then I heard another member of the Reform Party say that he knows all about reserves, that those people live in a south seas environment-I was in the House that day-and the men go around burning women with cigarettes. That is the most atrocious, ill informed, ignorant comment I have ever heard about aboriginal people. That was from the Reform Party.

Now we have the B.C. treaty process and Reformers do not even want us to go to the table and after 200 years do the honourable thing. What they would rather do is stand here and have us sing O Canada. At the same time they will say: "Side with the separatists". I see no difference. I see different geography but I do not see any difference with the separatists facing me or the separatists from western Canada to my far right.

They would say to the Prime Minister that they we want the country dismantled on a 50 per cent plus one vote in Quebec on a fraudulent question. They say that day after day all week. Yet what did they waste the time of the House on last week? A crest. They would destroy the country but keep the crest. They can have their crest but I want my country. It will never be saved by the Reform Party.

This is the new insight. Let us process the situation. We have the Reformers' position on francophones. We can take them out of the equation of what is the Reform Party. We know their non-position on women. If I were a woman, I would be a little concerned. We know their position on immigration. They are for immigration but not to Canada. If I were an immigrant, I would be concerned. If I were a nationalist and wanted to keep the country together, I would be concerned. If I were a lobbyist, I would like that party. If I had big money invested in the Pearson airport, I would like that party.

What do we have left after we strip the philosophy of that party? Not much. That party stood here and told the Yukon Indians that the negotiations with them would never work. They came here. They stood in the House in their costumes. It was one of the proudest moments of our party. It is working. Yet the Reform Party said the Manitoba dismantling would not work.

I get a rough time in Manitoba from the media, and rightly so. Last week the Manitoba media reported:

In Manitoba, Grand Chief Phil Fontaine and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs are currently negotiating one of the most progressive, daring and risky self-government initiatives in Canadian history. For the first time since Confederation, the federal government says it's prepared to give back to First Nations what many say was never relinquished in the first place.

Harvard University called the Manitoba dismantling the most progressive move in self-government negotiations in the world. The same party denounced inherent right; the Reform Party denounced inherent right. There were over a hundred editorials in the country by people who are paid to be critical. That is their job in the democratic process. A hundred of them were favourable and one was not favourable. The criticism was that we should have waited until the royal commission report.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

The people voted on the Charlottetown accord-

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I am not talking about the Charlottetown accord.