Debates of Dec. 7th, 1995

Supply

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to members opposite. They are absolutely right and I apologize for mentioning the Reform member by name.

"The Reform Party's campaign to kill comprehensive land claims settlements is characterized by its sheer misinformation, its deliberate confusion of separate processes and its shameless manipulation of media that seem ignorant of history".

That quote is not from someone outside the province of British Columbia. It was written by Stephen Hume of the Vancouver Sun on April 10, 1995.

[The Speaker]

On debate, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been looking at my watch and I thought we had at least three minutes left in the 10-minute question and comment period for the hon. member for Peterborough.

[The Speaker]

I should tell the hon. member it was ten minutes and five minutes. The other ten minutes are going to go to the hon. member whom I have just recognized.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this undemocratic motion moved by the hon. member for the Reform Party.

It would seem that the hon. member does not support economic prosperity for British Columbians, as he is suggesting that we delay creating treaties that would remove an obstacle which has hampered economic growth in B.C. for far too long: the uncertainty over ownership of land and resources. That uncertainty has carried a very high price.

In 1990 a Price Waterhouse study asked forestry and mining interests in B.C. about the effects of the uncertainty created by unresolved land claims.

The study's findings are eloquent. In these two sectors alone, the study notes a loss of one billion dollars worth of investments: 300 new jobs in jeopardy, 1,500 permanent jobs on hold, and capital losses totalling $125 million due to uncertainty about the legal status of land and resources.

Since then we continue to pay the price of uncertainty, year after year. It is the price we pay for letting the situation deteriorate and for refusing to sit down with our aboriginal partners and discuss rational solutions to the real problems. That is the price the Reform Party would like us to keep paying.

We now have a chance to do something, to create jobs and to stimulate our economic growth. In September, Marlie Beets of the B.C. Council of Forest Industries had this to say: "Our members know that we cannot afford to ignore the issue of treaties. The forestry industry fully supports the efforts being made to resolve these problems, even if it is concerned about what these treaties may contain".

The forestry industry of B.C. understands what is involved. It knows that it cannot function efficiently without clear policies. It knows aboriginal rights must be defined clearly so that everyone

knows the rules of the game. It knows that the time has come to realize the potential of the province and to extend the opportunity for its people. It wants to get on with it.

The proposition is simple. Treaties will provide certainty and create a better climate for investment and economic growth. This is a reality which cannot be denied. A clear signal will be sent: B. C. is open for business.

Treaties will also provide a land base for aboriginal people and with it a foundation on which to build self-sufficient communities. It will allow aboriginal people to become involved in a range of economic activities which in the absence of a land base have been foreclosed to them.

Commercial activities like mining, forestry and tourism become far more possible to be pursued by First Nations. The growth of strong, self-reliant, economically vibrant aboriginal communities strengthen us all because it will bring positive economic spinovers into non-aboriginal communities.

For too long the aboriginal people of B.C. have been denied both their legal rights from the past and their hopes for the future.

For too long they have suffered as a result of high rates of unemployment, illiteracy, infant mortality and suicide. For too long we have refused to acknowledge their potential contribution to Canadian society. This is an attitude that cannot be justified, and it must stop.

Once rights and obligations have been clearly defined in treaties, all residents of British Columbia, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, will be able to develop the potential of their province and improve their own circumstances. That is good news for forestry workers and miners.

It means a broader tax base, since injecting settlement funds will stimulate the economy and job creation. It also means a reduction in the social cost of poverty and unemployment in aboriginal communities. It means an end to litigation and costly court proceedings and the beginning of co-operation and negotiation.

These historic problems will not disappear at the wave of a magic wand. As long as they remain unresolved, there will be no investment, and the jobs that could and should be created will remain in limbo.

The vicious circle will continue: uncertainty will lead to a reduction in the number of jobs which in turn will increase social problems.

The cycle of poverty and dependency will continue. These issues simply must be dealt with. We have a choice of how we are going to do it. We can litigate at great expense to the Canadian taxpayer knowing that at the end of this long, drawn out and often bitter process a court is likely to tell us to work out the details ourselves, something very similar to the negotiation process we have now.

Or we could negotiate directly from the outset. Surely it makes good economic sense to avoid costly court battles, which cast each party in the role of antagonist, and approach the issues as partners prepared to give and take in a spirit of trust and mutual respect.

There are real economic benefits in proceeding with treaties in B.C. but at the end of the day the most important benefit will not be felt in terms of dollars and cents. It will be felt in the lives of individuals as they are given the opportunity to contribute further to the greatness of Canada.

The benefits of holding a job cannot always be measured by a point on a graph. Having a job is really about hope. It means having the ability to plan for the future and to realize one's potential as well as to advance one's family. It means having the pride of contributing to the overall health of one's community. Is it better to leave things in a state of confusion or to sit down with our aboriginal colleagues and establish certainty?

Perhaps it is expecting too much to hope the Reform Party's vision of Canada is broad enough to include the first peoples or generous enough to expand the circle of opportunity or far sighted enough to see the wisdom in finally completing this great unfinished business of our history. Surely it is not expecting too much to ask the Reform Party to take a hard headed look at the economics of treaty negotiations and admit that it makes real sense.

Surely even Reformers can see the awful price we are paying for uncertainty. Surely even they can see the benefits of negotiation over litigation. I hope they do see these benefits when it comes time to vote on this motion and that they join us in denouncing this short sighted and meanspirited motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, other than the partisan ending to the member's speech virtually everything said is something we subscribe to. As long as the treaties are done right in terms of content, what the member is saying is absolutely correct. We do need to define aboriginal rights and we do need to solve the problems of uncertainty.

There was an earlier reference to the Charlottetown accord. Of any identifiable ethnic or racial group in Canada, once the voting was over on the Charlottetown referendum the natives on reserves more than any other group resoundingly defeated the Charlottetown accord in the referendum. We need to remember that because I do not believe that is in the public consciousness. There are some important reasons why that happened which I am certainly sensitive to. I am not sure everyone in the House is sensitive to those reasons.

There is a 31-member treaty negotiation advisory committee. One of its members was referred to in the previous member's speech, the member from the council of forest industries. Many of the members of that treaty negotiation advisory committee and also some of the members of the regional advisory committees who were referred to by several speakers are the biggest critics of the status quo process. It is important to recognize those items.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question per se. I think researchers from the hon. member's office are providing some of the things he wants to put on the record.

With regard to the Charlottetown accord, the population of British Columbia also rejected the Charlottetown accord. The hon. member should keep his records straight. I want to make sure there is no bias in what is put into the record.

I find this motion somewhat petty. I cannot believe that everywhere we go, in every committee of the House, Reform Party members always take on democracy, democratic rights. Yet they are actually saying in this motion that democracy in B.C. is not alive and well because there is a government that should be calling an election in one year which was not elected in a democratic process and cannot assure and assume responsibility for all its citizens. That is what the motion is implying, that it does not have the mandate and the responsibility and that it was not elected in a democracy.

I do not know if they read what they wrote in this motion. It is an absolute bias. As far as I am concerned it destroys their entire argument and excuse which they advocate in the House and in every committee to put forward their petty politics.

The hon. member who put forth this motion states: "The aim of these changes would be to give aboriginals more responsibility for their well-being, the tools to discharge that responsibility and more accountability for their result". That is from a press release on Reform policy for aboriginal equality and accountability.

I am sorry, but we are dealing here with a motion coming from a member who says one thing one day and another thing another day, just like his leader.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last night was an infamous time in Canadian history. The opposition parties in the Ontario legislature conducted an illegal occupation and sit-in of the Ontario chamber. This was unconscionable and I plead with them to consider the example they have set.

I can understand their frustration because being an opposition member facing a juggernaut of a majority government can be disappointing, frustrating and disillusioning.

The Reform Party faced that shortsighted stupidity and abuse of power exercised by the federal Liberal government when it used a pile-driver to ram through the Yukon Indian land claims and self-government in June 1994.

Believe it or not, we now have government in Canada based on race. The federal government has turned over massive sections of law making in Yukon to aboriginal people. Let me put this in the most transparent terms. Aboriginal persons can make certain laws that directly impact non-aboriginal persons, and non-aboriginal persons have no democratic recourse.

In South Africa this was called apartheid when the majority of blacks were dictated to by the minority of whites. What do we call it in Canada when the majority of non-aboriginals are dictated to by the aboriginals?

This is going on in Yukon. The stupidity of the government's ham fisted legislation is that it has constitutionally removed freedoms from aboriginal people in Yukon as well. In part of Canada's Constitution the federal government has delegated law making to certain Indian nations but in turn those nations do not have to construct those laws through a democratic process. Those nations may delegate law making to an individual in the Indian nation.

Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents in Yukon can now become subject to certain laws with absolutely no recourse, no democracy. Dictatorship for Canadians enshrined in the Canadian Constitution by the government? It is unbelievable.

This is why the Reform Party has raised the issue of the B.C. treaty negotiations today. B.C. residents, indeed all Canadian citizens, are about to have an agreement in principle that has been negotiated behind closed doors which will be rammed down their throats. It will be an agreement in principle that will be the starting point for a constitutionalized treaty. If there was ever a time to protest, to obstruct, to go to the extreme, this is it.

Unlike the financially driven issues in Ontario that are very serious, the issue of the B.C. treaty process is that the B.C. treaty and the Nisga'a agreement in principle will explicitly impact Canadians' democratic freedoms. The process and treaty will permanently, constitutionally, enshrine some personal rights based on race.

If we do not respect democratic process and combine our protests within the democratic process, we have destroyed democracy. I have asked the MPPs who occupied the Ontario legislature, what is the difference between the 19 aboriginal protesters who occupied a Toronto Revenue Canada office last year or the occupiers at Ipperwash? What is the difference between them and the occupiers of the Ontario legislature? A lot. If the members of the provincial parliament, the law makers, will not respect the law how

can they expect ordinary citizens to respect the law? Without respect we have anarchy.

However, this is not a one-sided issue. If the government at Queen's Park or here in Ottawa is bull headed, provocative, uncaring and insensitive to concerns of citizens, as expressed by members of the opposition, it shares an important part of the responsibility for lawless actions.

The Liberals here have such a responsibility. They have a responsibility to really listen and respond. How can I describe my rage that they used a pile-driver to smash personal rights and freedoms of Canadians in Yukon? The Liberals would not entertain a Reform Party motion that would have subjected the attack on personal rights and freedoms of Yukon residents to the Canadian charter of rights.

Reform Party members used every parliamentary tactic in June 1994 available to them to slow the race based, democracy bashing Yukon acts. It became a choice: break the law ourselves to stop the Liberals' stupidity or work within the system and respect this institution in spite of the Liberals' bullheaded stupidity.

For Yukon it is too late but for B.C. it is not. I plead with the Liberals. Listen, learn and recognize that the Liberal process is not only out of touch with reality but, most important, will lead to permanent civil disobedience and racial gridlock.

In my office in Cranbrook I have been approached by aboriginal people. Members of the Ktunaxa nation tell me their negotiators are out of touch with them. These Indian people resent and reject being left on the outside of the negotiating process.

At least these constituents who represent about 3 per cent of the population in Kootenay East will have a chance to ratify a negotiated agreement. They will get one person, one vote, but what about the other 97 per cent? Approximately 70,000 people who will have to live with the treaty will get two persons, their MP and MLA, with two votes. Their MP with one vote in the House will be pitted against members like the member for Peterborough and members from Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Ontario: one of 295 votes to represent the interests of my 70,000 people.

Do we have democracy when an aboriginal gets a vote but a non-aboriginal does not? I think not.

I suggest the aboriginal negotiators who may presently be considered to be out of touch by their aboriginal constituents are negotiating the aboriginal position with popular ratification of the final agreement in mind. They clearly understand their negotiations will be rejected if they do not reflect the wishes of their constituents.

It is not just an issue of fairness. It is more than enforcing the principle of equality of all Canadians. It is about a workable process that will lead to a real solution to a real problem. If we do not get it right, we will end up with civil disobedience, unrest, racial friction and a giant, tangled, constitutionalized mess.

I am asked constantly as to who is negotiating for the non-aboriginal citizen. People come in to my office and want to know literally who is negotiating for them. They want to know who the negotiators are, how they are selected, where they meet, when do they meet and more important, what their mandate is and who gave it to them. A constituent asked me: "How will they know what I will accept? Why do I not have the same rights as the aboriginal with the ratification vote?" People tell me: "If I have not been part of the process, if my interests have not been explicitly taken into account, I have no interest in the agreement".

Let me clearly explain what this means to the Indian affairs minister and the Liberal backbenchers who are forced to support him. Let me also explain this to the provincial negotiators. If the negotiators knew during the treaty negotiations that their process was going to be subject to popular ratification, they would negotiate in a substantially different way. They would know that their bottom line, that the results of the treaty process negotiations would have to be accepted, in my case by 97 per cent of Kootenay East residents.

Impossible, the Liberals say: "We would never get an agreement". Well that is precisely the problem. Contrary to the Liberals' old party assumptions, Canadians will not have government imposed top down solutions. Let me repeat that Canadians clearly have shown in everything from the Charlottetown accord to the cablevision fee increase kerfuffle last year, that they would not accept those increases and they would not accept the Charlottetown accord. They will not have their future dictated by Ottawa politicians. There we have it.

When talking about the B.C. treaty process of the Nisga'a agreement the facts are the same. If Canadians are not part of the solution, they will be part of the problem and with a vengeance.

The difference between the problems today and tomorrow are two. First, non-aboriginal residents of B.C. are scared, anxious and concerned. They are delaying investment decisions by the truckload. Their apprehension is magnified by the unknown. Tomorrow they will be resentful, surly and unco-operative, with their apprehension replaced by lack of co-operation with the government and a bad attitude toward the people who have special position and privilege based on their race. Second, today we have some flexibility. Tomorrow the decisions will be etched in granite because they will be constitutionalized for all time.

Do we get the picture? We permanently remove one serious problem and immediately replace it with a problem 20 times worse.

We will use the finance minister's comment from question period today. We will use his example of an incapacitated driver racing down a hill. The Reform motion we have put forward would slow down the driver, bring him to a stop and hopefully sober him up. The Liberals will leave the driver racing down the hill until he crashes.

Will the Liberals listen? Will the B.C. NDP government which is on its way out take heed? I doubt it. And more the shame because they are putting the same unconscionable pressure on the Reform Party that the Ontario government put on its opposition. The federal Liberals have a responsibility to be reasonable and they are blowing it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest and I am sorry that the member did not have an opportunity to speak very much with regard to the motion. He may have spent a little more time on the partisan aspects of political life.

The member started off in his debate referring to the situation in the Ontario provincial legislature. He chastises the opposition members for taking charge of a situation and in fact exercising their right to let their views be known in that elected body.

The member then went on to describe a situation which occurred last June in the aboriginal affairs committee. He said that a piece of legislation had been rammed through the committee. The hon. member will well know that the meeting continued all through the night until six o'clock the next morning. I was at the meeting from about midnight until 6.00 a.m. filling in for some of my colleagues.

Members of the Reform Party were conducting a filibuster. The filibuster was basically to ask nuisance and nonsense questions on virtually every word in the bill. They kept the entire staff associated with that committee and members of Parliament, about 40 people, tied up in a stuffy room while they asked nuisance questions. It is precisely the same situation. The Reform Party was exercising its democratic right. I do not for one moment believe there was anything wrong with what the Reform members did. They were doing it because it is part of the democratic process.

The hon. member also referred to his frustration. I am sorry the member is frustrated with life in a House which has a majority government. However, we must respect the democratic process. The fact that the government has a majority is a reflection of the operation of the democratic process.

The hon. member well knows that when a government is elected it has a platform which reflects the commitments the party has made to the people of Canada. "If you elect us, these are the things we will do". When the party platform is put into legislation, it is incumbent on the members elected to the governing party to follow the promises they have made.

Does the hon. member not believe that supporting legislation which reflects the platform of a party during an election is respecting the democratic process?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. It is only logical and rational that a party when it forms a majority government would be committed to following through on its election platform. We have no disagreement with that.

However, we have a very fundamental difference of opinion with respect to the fact that the Liberal government has used closure more times than the Brian Mulroney government even thought about. It is ramming through distinct society. It is ramming through veto. It rammed through the Indian land claims. I suggest that a majority government not only has a right to do what it wants to do, but it has a responsibility to opposition members who are expressing the deep, heartfelt concerns of their constituents. Those concerns are falling on deaf ears because of the unslakeable thirst for power of the government.

There is a tremendous amount of fear, anxiety and concern in British Columbia that the cabinet has such a weak representation in British Columbia. There is a tremendous amount of silence on the part of federal Liberals elected in British Columbia. The government is running roughshod with its legislation.

The hon. member referred to the filibuster in committee. He is right; it is legal. I submit to him that the process which the MPPs undertook in the Ontario legislature because they were so desperate goes far beyond the whole process of a filibuster.

What I am saying is that we have reached a point of very acute concern about the heavy handedness of the Liberal Party and in particular, the NDP government in B.C. which is currently on its way out. We are concerned that we are going to have something imposed on the people of British Columbia by people who are fundamentally out of touch with reality.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep an eye on the clock and I hope you will help me out because I am not sure how this will go.

I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-107, an act to establish the British Columbia Treaty Commission and to speak in favour of our motion to urge the government to not enter into any binding trilateral aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C. in the last years of the current provincial government's mandate.

In fact, this bill does not establish the treaty commission, it continues it and legalizes it. It is just what we need, another legally entrenched layer of bureaucracy. It is another group of appointees with their own staff to be paid for by the people of Canada. I

oppose the establishment of this treaty commission in British Columbia because it is simply not necessary.

In British Columbia we have no treaties. We have a reserve system. The legal entrenchment of this commission prejudges the outcome of the land claims negotiations which are presently taking place in British Columbia.

I can tell you that the people of British Columbia are very concerned about this treaty negotiation process. Just a few days ago I hosted in my riding of Mission-Coquitlam an information evening on aboriginal issues which was attended by over 200 people. They are very concerned that fishing rights and lumbering rights will be bargained away as part of the settlement process. They also believe they should be a part of any settlement process.

Mel Smith, the well known, well respected author of Our Home or Native Land? attended the meeting. He stated that British Columbia has already done its duty to its native people by setting up more than 1,600 reserves. He argues that by doing this British Columbia has discharged any duty it owed to the aboriginal people. As well, the government could compensate the native people with a one time cash payment for loss of hunting, trapping and gathering rights over the lands.

It is our intention to ensure that Canada's native people become completely self-reliant. We would like to preside over the dismantling of the department of Indian affairs, thus allowing aboriginal people to become self-sufficient. This should be the goal for all of us in this House. Yet what do we hear? A lot of name calling from the other side. To become self-sufficient, the aboriginal people do not need a treaty commission.

It is our belief that we should get rid of the Indian Act, giving aboriginals the same right to property ownership as other citizens. Aboriginals should be subject to the same constitutional, federal and provincial laws as the rest of Canadians. They should be allowed to establish municipal style governments and benefit from the same programs as the rest of Canadians.

There is no need for this bill, but there is a need to address aboriginal issues in a timely fashion. I would like to remind members that we are not suggesting we do away with any type of negotiation. Having said this, I wish to draw the attention of the House to certain shortcomings in the bill.

The interpretation section contains a definition of First Nations. They are described as aboriginal people within their traditional territory in British Columbia. The definition begs the question of entitlement to a land base. It can be argued that by the use of the definition the aboriginal people are shown to have a prima facie case of a land claims settlement.

Again, clause 5 does the same thing. It states that the purpose of the commission is to facilitate in British Columbia the negotiation of treaties. In other words, establish this commission and we are bound to have the traditions negotiated, whether there is an entitlement or not. The process has been established.

Clause 5 obligates the commission to allocate funds to allow First Nations to participate in the process. This will be expensive. But in addition to it being expensive, it is also exclusionary.

Funding is not provided for third parties, only the aboriginal people. What about those who oppose the giveaway of British Columbia lands? I guess they will have to finance these interventions themselves. I hope they are able to. It is my understanding that in the borrowing of funds to negotiate there will be an 80:20 split. In that case, 80 per cent will be repayable; 20 per cent will be contributed by whom, the federal government, the provincial government, what part for each one?

Clause 7 of the bill establishes how the commission is to be appointed. The federal government and the B.C. government each get to appoint commissions. I do not see anyone who will simply represent the people of Canada. Are they not important? Are the members opposite saying they do not count? These appointments, all appointments to the Commission, should be subject to the approval of this House.

Clause 18 allows the commission to make necessary bylaws. We are giving the commission power to establish its own rules of procedure. At the very least, these bylaws should be tabled in this House.

Clause 22, the clause which perhaps bothers me more than any other, states that the parties can amend the agreement at any time. This is the British Columbia Treaty Commission agreement which underlies this act. It is beyond me how the bill can allow amendments to the agreement without references to Parliament.

In my last householder I asked the following question: "Do you believe that all Canadians should have equal rights and responsibilities with no special status based on racial or ethnic origin?" Ninety-one per cent answered yes. However, in addition to answering many wrote comments, some of which I should like to share. I have so many comments that I cannot share them all, but I will share some of them.

I have not done anything to the comments. I have not changed their wording. I have not corrected grammar. I have not done anything to them. These are some of the things the residents of my riding in British Columbia are saying: "Anyone born in Canada should have the same rights and be governed by the same laws. This is not true now".

"We all have our own ethnic upbringings but we do not expect to be treated differently from others. I believe that everyone regardless of race should work and pay for their property".

"Governments should put a stop to all the Indian roadblocks. I do not feel the Indian population should have special rights, especially Indians who are abusing their position and rights". There might be something there with regard to fishing rights. There has been tremendous abuse of fishing rights in British Columbia.

"We are all Canadians. We should have the same rights and laws. Practices such as giving natives the right to fish any time for their food as well as to sell those fish is making racial problems". They are. That is a truth. I do not want to sit in the House and be condemned and called names by members opposite for saying the truth. I am getting very tired of it.

"Natives should not get tax free anything. They should work like everyone else. We are suggesting that native people be given a fair chance to stand on their own two feet. Wouldn't you suggest that is the right thing to do?"

Regarding self-government, the Indian Act discriminates against aboriginal people by setting them apart from other Canadians. That is what Reform believes. I do not see how any member in the House could disagree with that. Most native people want the same rights, freedoms, responsibilities and protections of other Canadians. The Indian Act stifles its subjects from having a democratic voice in their own affairs and from having accountability in their own officials.

The inherent right to self-government is an interesting phrase. What does it mean? When Reform MPs rightly ask what is meant by self-government, the previous speaker from Peterborough attacks Reformers for wanting to know the answer. Can we imagine anyone going into negotiations without knowing what all parties mean by the terminology that is being discussed? It is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of the member for Peterborough admitting the common sense of Reform in asking this question, he attacks Reform MPs for asking it.

I have been watching government members in the House for some time now. I wonder what constantly drives them to put down other elected members of Parliament. Is it because they have no answers? They started this terrible debt that is climbing up and up and up. We are trying to deal with it today and they do not have the answers. Are they trying to take the pressure off themselves? Is it because to attack means one does not have to deal with the issues?

The member for Madawaska-Victoria called us meanspirited. She said: "What about democratic rights? Reformers are always on about democratic rights". Yes, we are. We are discussing the democratic rights of all British Columbians and of all other Canadians. The treaty process does not involve a few people. It involves all Canadians. It is time we started to be honest.

The department of Indian affairs has not worked. Can anyone say it has worked? This process which has been encouraged by this government and by past Liberal governments has created a group of Canadians who are dependent on the Canadian government.

Past Canadian governments have created an institutionalized welfare state for native people. This is not kindness. This is cruelty. I wonder how many times we have to say that. It is not the Reformers who are being cruel. The Reformers are saying we should stop all this now, help people, deal with the issues, deal with reality and stop calling names because that does not get anybody anywhere. The House is far above that sort of presentation. It really distresses me every time I hear it.

I spent many years teaching students. I always taught them that in debate, if they do not have something to say, if they cannot back it up or say it in a proper manner, they should not bother saying it at all.

I watch repeatedly in the House people tearing at each other. I would rather see facts. I would rather hear arguments that are presented properly. I really am discouraged by it.

This morning the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development directed most of his remarks to the right of Reform MPs to raise this issue in the House. Have I missed something here? Are we not all elected equally? How dare anybody question the right of Reform MPs to raise this issue in the House? That is absolutely disgusting.

He proceeded to describe Reformers as aboriginal bashers because we were making him uncomfortable; that is all I can suggest. I guess it is the old story: the best defence is an offence. I have often heard the word racist. It disgusts me too. If members take the time to look it up in the dictionary they will see that it means giving special priorities to a certain group. Reformers repeatedly say that we must all be equal. If we are all equal that is not racist. Some members should start telling the truth in the House. The House is far above the petty squabbling I witness day after day.

Native people soundly defeated the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. What does that say to members of the House? It was not suitable to them. Distinct society, as presented, was not suitable to them.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a few points.

We passed Bill C-107 regarding the B.C. Treaty Commission. The B.C. Treaty Commission is formed by five people. One is appointed by the governor. One is appointed by the lieutenant

governor. Two are appointed by the summit. Then the chairperson is appointed by the three parties I just mentioned.

Truth is always a question of perception. Many times I am very disturbed by the truth the Reform Party raises. I suppose we are not on the same wave length and that is why we are on opposing sides of the House.

I agree to some extent with the member. I am quite distraught most of the time by what is going on in the House and by the lack of kindness we see here.

As for the aboriginal people, it is true we should all be equal. However aboriginal people have been in distress for too long. They are in a situation where they need help. We must start on an equal basis in order to be equal. We have to help them first, put them on an equal basis, and then we can all be equal.

I have two questions for my colleague. She mentioned that in reply to her householder 91 per cent of the people said that they wanted equality. How many people answered her householder? Whenever I ask questions in my householder I always have a very low response.

Does she feel that the comments of her colleague from Kootenay West made on the Liberal caucus of British Columbia were actually kind comments? I take exception to what he said. We have been working very well in spite of the fact that we are so few. We have been able to achieve quite a few things.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware that Bill C-107 was passed. I did not get a chance to speak on it and I very much wanted to. With 52 MPs on the Reform side, many of us do not get to speak on the issues we would like to speak on. Since it impacts directly on this I certainly wanted an opportunity to do so.

No one represents the people. I must insist that all the names the hon. member mentioned were appointed, as she said, but who is representing the people of British Columbia? Nobody is.

Aboriginal people have been in distress for too long. Those who know their Canadian history will realize that not just the aboriginal people were in distress in the history of the country. They should know about the Acadians who were torn asunder, who lost family members, who lost their lands, who were sent all over the world and had nothing. Nobody paid them anything. No one re-established them. Nobody did anything. They were good, worthwhile people.

We also had the Loyalists who were driven out of the United States to Canada. They had nothing. They had to leave. What did we do when the Loyalists came to Canada? We did not give them anything to set up. They had to do it on their own. Today they are better off having done that. It makes their lives a lot easier. Too bad we did not do that with the native people.

What about Japanese Canadians? We just took and took. With these examples I am trying to say to the hon. member that we have made mistakes. We admit we have made mistakes, but is it not time to start on an equal basis for everyone? I strongly suggest we should.

Regarding my householders, I keep track and I have been running at a 2 per cent to 6 per cent return. I have about 58,000 in my riding. We do not have them all in at this time because it only went out and we are waiting. We have had over 1,500 returned, so it is 91 per cent of the 1,500. That is the best I can tell the member right now.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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 Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt-Department of National Defence; the hon. member for Mackenzie-Canadian Wheat Board; the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Environmental Protection Act-the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra-Vietnam; the hon. member for Saint John-National Defence.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to respond to the motion by the hon. member for North Island-Powell River.

At the outset I must say I find the motion puzzling. No doubt the hon. member means well, but I do not think he has thought through the consequences of the motion. If adopted, parliamentary democracy in Canada will slow down to a crawl. The hon. member asks us to forgo signing land claim agreements because the people of British Columbia may be going to the polls soon. His motion refers to the last year of the current provincial government mandate.

I wonder how he expects any business to get done in a federal state, let alone one with ten provinces and two territorial governments, and soon to be three. In any given year at least one of these governments may be facing an election. On average two and one-half of them will be facing an election every year.

It would seem the hon. member wants to paralyse the decision making process. The convention is that elections are held every four or five years. How do we know which it will be? Should we begin clamping down on a government's right to sign agreements during the third year or the fourth years of its term?

What about the case of minority governments? The pattern in Canada seems to be that minority governments call an election after two years in office. This is not a constitutional principle. It is not even a convention. It is simply a reality of minority government. If we were apply the hon. member's motion in these situations, we would not sign any agreements with a minority government that had been in office for more than one year.

We can imagine the results. A new minority government is sworn in. The new ministry has a few months to become accustomed to power and to learn something about the ropes. Just as it is hitting stride and beginning to get some things accomplished, other governments in the country say: "Sorry, we can't sign any agreements with you. We have to respect the views of your electorate who may be going to the polls soon. They may want to change something".

Yet I hear over and over again from the members of the Reform Party that government must pay attention to the grassroots. The last speaker from Mission-Coquitlam made much of this point. What is their idea of paying attention to the grassroots? The member for Mission-Coquitlam said that we should read the answers to the questions she put in householder and that is it.

It is sort of like following the opinion polls, setting up hotlines so that people can phone in their views. It is town hall meetings and radio talk shows. I have nothing against any of these practices. I do them myself. I commend any effort to encourage Canadians to express their views. We have to understand one thing: taking an opinion poll or gauging the views of the people who phone in to a hotline or having a show of hands at a town hall meeting is not the same as representing the grassroots. The important word is representing.

This is a representative government. We are all representatives of the people of this country. The way I try to do it, and I suggest most of us do, is we get involved, to learn, to listen. We go to committee meetings, we question witnesses and we study and debate those issues which are of particular concern or about which we have some particular expertise.

When I ran in my riding to represent the people, I told them what I stood for, what the party was going to do and what the issues were with which the government would deal. We were fortunate enough to receive a majority of the votes in this country and represent the majority of the seats. Therefore, the Liberal party in this House is, I submit, the only truly representative body here. That seems to be self-evident. We come from all across the country. We represent every ethnic group in the country, including the aboriginal people. Therefore, we try to represent what the majority of Canadians think and feel about this country.

The grassroots is largely made up of people who do not phone in to hotline shows. They have little inclination to talk to Raife Mair on the radio. They do not go to town hall meetings. They might not have a strong opinion one way or another on a particular issue because they do not know enough about it, that is until they happen to be asked their opinion by a pollster. If the wrong question is asked, the wrong answer will be given.

Certainly most people believe all Canadians should have the same rights. The member for Mission-Coquitlam said that the Department of Indian Affairs has not worked. By today's standards and what we know now, it was an ill-conceived plan. It was a way of integrating another culture and people into ours. We have learned a lot since those days. I would agree very much with my colleague that we should do all we can over time to get rid of the paternalistic attitude of the Indian affairs department.

That does not mean that we can then say that all of us should have the same rights when we are not starting from the same place. If we do not understand that the Indian idea of property is different from ours, that it is culturally different and spiritually different, then we are never going to solve the problem because they will never agree.

Let us hear no more of the self-righteousness of the members of the Reform Party with their claims that they speak for the people. People elected the hon. member from North Island-Powell River on October 25, 1993 just as they elected me. They elected him to represent them. We both speak for the people in our ridings and people will have an opportunity to judge our performance in the next federal election.

The people of British Columbia elected the government of British Columbia and they will have their chance to render their verdict on that government in the coming months. In the meantime, we will continue with the job of governing the country and we have to carry on with the job of negotiating comprehensive claims with the First Nations of British Columbia. They have waited for 200 years to reach these agreements. Most have never had the opportunity to sign an agreement outlining their rights.

This is an historic anomaly in Canada. First Nations in all other provinces and in the territories have treaties, principally because most of the land unsettled is owned by the Queen in right of Canada in other provinces and territories.

The only treaties signed exclusively in British Columbia were concluded before the province joined Confederation in 1871. When the province joined Confederation, all the unclaimed land, except where the Indians had been pushed into reserves, was held by the Queen in right of British Columbia, which is not the same situation across the rest of the country.

This is where the grassroots beyond the aboriginal community can have their say. They are not left out of the process. Neither the Government of Canada nor the Government of British Columbia is interested, hopefully, in negotiating treaties that would ignore the

interests of non-aboriginal British Columbians, any more than it is going to ignore the justifiable interests of the aboriginal people.

We do want to get on with the process. We want to remove the uncertainty. We cannot let the process become derailed because this government or that one nears the end of its mandate.

The negotiation of a comprehensive claim is a long and painstaking process. That is how it should be. That is how it has been. That is how it will be. These are very important negotiations. They define how people will function over the long term. They set the parameters for how aboriginal people and their institutions will relate to the federal and provincial governments.

The simplistic ideas we have heard so far this afternoon from Reform Party members seem to ignore completely that the Indian people are a people. They are protected, as we all are, under the Constitution. They have inalienable rights to self-government and they have inherent rights in this land. Those are the things we have to define.

After waiting for more than a century, the First Nations of British Columbia know the value of patience in making sure that the negotiations are done right. Perhaps a little of that patience would not hurt the members down the line.

At the same time, we should not set up artificial barriers by tying the hands of legislators that must pass the legislation to bring the treaties into effect. I urge the House to vote against this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion has been misread. It depends where you are coming from sometimes how you choose to read something. Nowhere in this motion does the Reform Party suggest that governments cannot sign agreements in the last year of their mandate.

We are saying that when there is a significant, a major, a costly and a divisive issue, in the same way that the Mulroney Tories in the dying days of their government, low in the polls, signed the EH-101 and the Pearson deals, this is a divisive issue in British Columbia. It is precedent setting and worth billions of dollars. It is totally inappropriate for the government in the last year of its mandate to sign this treaty. In actuality the election is most likely only months away. It will be in the spring.

I want to make it perfectly clear that this is a basic assumption that was promoted by the last speaker and it is incorrect. Nowhere are we saying that, nor is that our intent.

There was a suggestion by the member that only a Liberal government is qualified to govern and only a Liberal government is qualified to judge the issues. I find that very difficult, particularly in the context of British Columbia. That is a stretch of unimaginable proportions.

The member made some statements about lands and about treaties. The significant thing in British Columbia is that British Columbia spent many years after Confederation contributing lands to the federal government to reserve for native people. That was a commitment made at the time of Confederation under the Act of Union. It was an unfulfilled commitment up until 1924. In 1924 the federal government, by order in council, agreed that the province of British Columbia had fulfilled its obligations.

British Columbia has two-thirds of all the reserves in Canada. About 18 per cent of registered Indian people in Canada live in British Columbia. Those reserves contain, within a provincial context, 14 per cent of all lands reserved for Indians. This is not insignificant. It is the crux of a very large issue. There is no legal imperative to negotiate treaties.

We are not saying that treaties should not be negotiated. We are also interested in removing the uncertainty from the landscape and from this whole issue. This is an appropriate way to do it. However, right now is not the time to conclude a final agreement.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for North Island-Powell River. I listened to his speech, as I have listened to them all. I suppose one might answer a question with another question.

I suggest, in the scheme of things, that two years is scarcely sufficient time for the B.C. treaty commission to prove its worth, as the member knows, as he listened as I did to the current head of that commission. Two years ago the commission started from scratch to set up a service organization to get the board together and write some policies. Since it only began in 1993 and we are in 1995, it has had scarcely two years which was not to negotiate treaties. It was, as my friend knows, to start the business, develop the expertise, set up the office and interest the First Nations of B.C. in coming forward to negotiate. Since a little more than 70 per cent of the natives in B.C. are involved in the process now, it seems to me we should give them a little time.

I appreciate the member filling me in with respect to the order in council in 1924. I am little confused about his numbers because I believe he said that B.C. had 17 per cent of all reserves in Canada and then went on to use the figure of 14 per cent. I want to ask him about that.

I also want to ask the member whether the election in B.C. is a foregone conclusion. I thought he might bring up the helicopters and the Pearson airport deal, but if he casts his mind back he will realize that the Pearson airport deal was signed in the midst of an election which the government was losing very badly. The helicopter deal was a statement in the red book and in the platform of the Liberal Party before it was signed. Again, it was within months of

the election. I might remind the member that this House had not sat effectively for about a year and a half before that election.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to speak to this shortsighted motion moved by the hon. member from the Reform Party.

This undemocratic motion suggests that the views of British Columbians cannot and are not being respected in the treaty process. I want to correct this ill-informed impression by providing the hon. member and his equally ill-informed colleagues with some facts.

Before doing that, I would like to take exception to something said by my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam. I know Canadian history and I strongly believe that the aboriginals, because of their culture, had much more difficulty becoming part of our society and they still do.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Did you write that?

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, I wrote that. They have gone some way but they have to go further to be equal. Perhaps my choice of words is incorrect. My hon. colleagues have received a heap of factual information on the treaty process in British Columbia, but they seem bent on seeing things that are not there.

If they are involved in some science fiction movie, we are not in Hollywood, and let us get back to reality. We cannot stop all negotiations for almost one year. What for? Do we want to fool the First Nations once again? What would we accomplish? The treaty negotiation process is well under way.

Around ten teams are now at the framework step which is the fourth step of the process. We are all anxious to see the conclusion of these negotiations. It is important for all of us because the uncertainty has been too severe for years and has caused real hardship in British Columbia.

In B.C. the governments have set up structures to hear, discuss and solicit the advice of province wide interests. The Reform Party seems to ignore that advice is being sought. It wants to perpetuate the fear and concern which we all know exists. The Reform Party needs to understand that debate and discussion can take place without some of the hyperbole and rhetoric easily associated with treaty negotiations.

Let me talk about the consultations. In mid-1993 the federal and provincial governments formally established and advisory committee to advise ministers and senior officials on province wide treaty issues. The treaty negotiation advisory committee is made up of representatives from 31 organizations in British Columbia.

Among those organizations are four fishing industry representatives, five labour union representatives, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, guides and outfitters, The B.C. Council of Forestry, the B.C. Trappers Association, outdoor recreational interests, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and others.

More important, the members come from throughout British Columbia. They are not all from Vancouver. They come from Smithers, Terrace, Kamloops, Quesnel, Prince Rupert and Vancouver Island. Each brings his or her organizational perspective but also the sense of how their neighbours and communities are reacting to the treaty negotiation process.

The objective of the treaty negotiation advisory committee, TNAC, is to ensure that the interests of the members' organizations are understood and taken into account in the negotiation of modern day treaties and to contribute to treaty agreements with aboriginal people which are workable and lasting and have the understanding and support of British Columbians.

Those are high but necessary objectives. Governments are committed to not just hearing and understanding their advice but taking it into account when negotiating.

The federal government not only wants a means by which negotiations can be effectively conducted but also must seek effective and efficient advice from third parties whose interests might be affected by treaty settlement.

TNAC is structured to enable all members to know as much about the issues that could be negotiated and to notify governments of potential problems or concerns.

My colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has attended three of TNAC's bi-monthly meetings. To ensure he maintains a direct relationship to the committee, I serve as the minister's representative to the committee. We are as a government directly and closely involved in the discussion and advice from the TNAC table.

We are all working together, trying to come to an agreement we can all live with. At times it is difficult but with everybody's goodwill we will get there and solve a far too longstanding discrimination.

Because of TNAC things are changing every time we meet. We are listening. It is not an easy process but we are slowly getting there and learning to understand each other. Now we all recognize that 31 members is a large committee and that some issues require more specific discussion. Hence five sectoral committees were established. These committees meet monthly and are divided into lands and forests, fisheries, wildlife, governance and energy mines petroleum resources. Recently the energy mines committee folded its work into the governance committee.

An important step in building our understanding of third party interests was the development of interest papers by each of the five

sectoral committees. I say a step because issues will evolve and be addressed over the course of negotiations.

Knowing the interests of third parties is a gradual approach but it has a clear objective. We want treaties that work and address the interests and needs of all participants in the economy.

In the year and a half I have been on TNAC I saw great improvement in communication and much better understanding of these complicated issues and better co-operation. In addition, the Government of British Columbia with which we are co-operating very well organizes province wide monthly advisory meetings which are reaching all British Columbians. It is a shame that such intolerance is being promoted by some people in B.C. who do not seem to want to solve the problems.

I will identify a few of the interests common to all parties in the process. Certainty and economic stability were essential. Effective local and regional advisory processes were essential. Access to land base for all economic and non-economic interests was essential. The continuation of government authority in areas of resource management was imperative to successfully concluding practical and affordable land claims settlements.

Both governments have taken these interest papers seriously. As we work through the development of specific negotiating mandates the advice TNAC has provided through these papers will be considered, assessed and integrated wherever possible. Through the consultation process and eventually through Parliament the government will be held accountable for how it has used the advice of third parties.

Now the Reform Party seems obsessed by secrecy even when it no longer exists. In September 1994 I presented to TNAC the minister's position on the openness of the consultation process. The minister accepted the concerns of TNAC members that a confidentiality restriction overly limited their ability to seek advice and direction from their colleagues and organizations. Now the media is invited to all our meetings. That restriction has ended. TNAC members can and do fully discuss information provided by governments to TNAC members.

The B.C. Treaty Commission in its annual reports has talked of the need to consult and for people to know what is going on in the treaty process. Perception can become reality. It only takes a willingness to request some written information because material is available.

The chief commissioner, Alec Robertson, came to the September 1995 TNAC meeting to report to members and hear their concerns about the treaty process. That is another important link in the treaty process. At this time 120 bands representing 79 per cent of First Nations are negotiating.

A couple of weeks ago in Sechelt I met the chief of the Sechelt Band who cheerfully told me how well his framework agreement negotiations are going. He expects conclusion by next August. The Sechelt Band was the fourth to sign a framework agreement, the first step of the negotiating process. I was in Sechelt in August for the signing of the agreement and there was a real celebration.

At the centre is the need to negotiate workable, effective and affordable treaties. Unless those treaties are surrounded and supported by a strong consultation process which provides for a frank and open exchange of information, advice and interest, the objective of publicly supported treaties will be difficult to achieve.

Consultation is important. The government takes the views of Canadians seriously. We want to ensure our policies and their implementation are sensitive to the advice and interests of communities, people and interests which might be affected.

We have to work together, all of us, and through dialogue we can eventually give our aboriginal people the tools necessary to become self-sufficient. For too long they were deprived of their integrity and pride. Their children must be strengthened and the people of the new generation must be able to find a place in society that makes them proud of themselves.

I am pleased to have contributed factual information to the debate today. Consultations are essential to ensuring that negotiations can be successfully completed. I hope the opposition will soon join this consultation exercise. We could all come out as winners.

I conclude with a comment I made in the House on October 19:

This country can simply not afford to lose another generation of aboriginal people able and willing to make a contribution to this country. The young aboriginal people of today can be our professionals, our trades people, our inventors of tomorrow. They represent our past and our future. If we lose them it will be an incredible waste.

I ask hon. members to vote down this unfair motion brought forth by the third party.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak in favour of Reform's motion on the subject of B.C. land claims.

I have been listening to the preprinted, standard run of the mill, say the right thing style of speeches emanating from members opposite. Frankly, anyone in touch with the feelings of B.C. can see straight through the facade of the Liberal political correctness going on.

The hon. members for Vancouver Centre and Vancouver East spouted exactly the line we would expect from old line politicians completely out of touch with reality. I have no doubt whatsoever that the speeches of any other Liberal B.C. members are equally as irrelevant. They must have some sort of big sausage machine upstairs. They turn the handle and crank out all this meaningless stuff.

Last Tuesday in Vancouver radio talk show host Rafe Mair read out the names of the six Liberal MPs from B.C. three times. He emphasized the voters of B.C. have to remember the six names. He said: "Remember exactly how out of touch these people are with the voters of B.C.".

Even the hon. member for Richmond, who had a meeting in his riding last Saturday, supposedly to get the feelings of his constituents on the issues, told his voters he would vote against their wishes and that he put their interests after the Liberal Party of Canada. He insulted his own constituents. This is typical of the attitude we hear on issues such as land claims and unity. If it does not fit into the Liberal Party agenda, Liberal members are not interested in hearing what the people have to say.

We can see the same pattern of debate in the motion before us today. Instead of coming to the House with meaningful speeches about the concerns of British Columbians, government members have read from canned speeches prepared by their political masters who live and work thousands of kilometres away from the problems of the native land claims of B.C.

Some government members whose ridings are also thousands of kilometres away from B.C. have claimed or implied that Reform members are meanspirited or that we have some inappropriate motive for bringing this motion before the House. That is balderdash.

Here is some important news for government members. The Reform member for Beaver River taught and lived on an Indian reservation before she became an MP. The leader of the Reform Party worked for Indian bands as a consultant for a number of years before he was elected. The Reform member for Yorkton-Melville has taught on an Indian reservation. The Indian affairs critic for the Reform Party is married to a status Indian.

Mr. Speaker, anytime you hear someone say we are not in touch with the problems, the injustices or the difficulties with Indian land claims, please tell them they are wrong. We probably have more experience and knowledge about the problems than the entire Liberal caucus, certainly a lot more than the minister.

There are large Indian reservations in my riding. I have lived there since 1979. I have had plenty of opportunity to listen to and understand the concerns of both natives and non-natives in my riding.

A government member earlier today quoted from Mr. Hume, an editorialist with the Vancouver Sun . He quoted Mr. Hume as if he were some sort of expert on B.C. opinion. He fell right into a trap. The people of B.C. watching today will laugh. Mr. Hume does not represent the ideas of the people of B.C. Mr. Hume has a special interest of his own and his rantings have no relevance whatsoever to the opinions of B.C. voters. He regularly criticizes Reform, but if his rantings had any relevance we would not have 32 Reform MPs from B.C. He is completely out of touch, just like the government members.

It would be much more productive if government members would abandon their politically correct position, their canned speeches and their closed minds and listened to what we have to say as the true representatives of B.C.

It is not just us; both opposition parties in B.C. have made it clear the whole land claims deal is going off the track as B.C. approaches the next provincial election.

Government members should stop for a moment to say to themselves: "Maybe these B.C. MPs are trying to tell us something important. Maybe I should stop and listen. Maybe I should trust the majority from B.C. telling me there is something wrong here". Maybe they would just say that they should support what we are trying to do here, which is to prevent a terrible disaster from happening if things are rushed through on the eve of a provincial election.

What a treat it would be if government members would abandon their party lines just for one day and help us with a major problem in our province. It is a problem which they cannot understand because they do not have the unique set of circumstances in their province that we are experiencing in B.C.

Allow me to repeat the text of the motion before us today so that members can hear again our deep concern for the problems we have to face. We want the federal government to hold off making any treaties in haste on the eve of the provincial election because there is so much uncertainty surrounding the B.C. government. Everybody has heard of the bingo scandal. The government that is there right now might make some very unwise decisions. Our motion really does not call for too much. It just says:

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.

That is not too much to ask. I urge hon. members to please support us this one time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.