Debates of Nov. 26th, 1998

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-56, the Manitoba claim settlements implementation act. When we look at the bill we see that it has two parts. The first part relates to the settlement of matters that arise from flooding of land and the second part is a means to facilitate the implementation of land claim settlements in Manitoba through the creation of new reserves or the addition of land to existing reserves.

I will highlight some difficulties with the second part that have arisen because of the treaty land entitlement process in Saskatchewan and that have been brought to my attention by rural municipalities and by people who are C-31 Indian people. There is some difficulty with that.

The flooding of course occurred when the Churchill River was developed for hydro projects and Indians living along the river lost the land they had lived on. They lived a hunting and fishing sustenance lifestyle. I have been there because I was involved in the development of those hydro projects as a land surveyor and parked out on the Hudson Bay at the mouth of the Churchill River and met some of the people who probably have been affected by this legislation.

We are talking about almost 12,000 acres of reserve land and over half a million acres of bordering non-reserve land in this project. That needs to be replaced so that the people can continue to make a life in the north. There has been some question about the method of arriving at agreement on the referendum raised by people from Norway House. They have charged there have been profound irregularities and vote buying. I call on the government to look into their charges if they have made them to the minister as well, because we do not want any question left when this is over that the right thing had not been done for the people at the time it was done.

We believe that the chief electoral officer should have authority over Indian governments in elections to ensure that they are fair and lawful so that there could be no question as to whether an election or a referendum had been held legally in all respects.

We do not have any proof of the allegations but they are serious allegations that need to be looked into.

The treaty land entitlement history is that in the western provinces when the treaties were signed, the treaty commissioners had searched the countryside for Indians at that time to determine their status, to set aside land for them and get their names. However, when the surveys were first done it was found that there was a shortfall in the number of acres that had been promised to each individual Indian. So at a specific point in time funds were set aside in Saskatchewan for bands to purchase land for descendants of those people for whom lands were not set aside at the time of the purchase. The amount they should have got at the first survey was 128 acres per person, which works out to 640 acres or one square mile for a family of five, more than sufficient for a family to earn a living.

Some of the current problems with the treaty land entitlement process that have come to my attention by way of Indians themselves who have brought this up are that the Indian register was used to obtain funds to purchase land at this point because there is not enough crown land left in Saskatchewan to transfer to Indian bands.

The band list, on the other hand, has been used to deny access to benefits. The band has control over membership of the list and has a safe list which is used to guard it from unwanted members gaining access to the band and to the benefits that flow to it.

That creates real difficulties for people who have a right to the benefits the band has obtained in their name. We need to ensure those band lists are not closed when benefits have been given to the band using their names.

The Reform Party has always felt that private ownership often should be made available for people who have a lifestyle different from the bands themselves. Imagine someone growing up in a major city having to move to a band in northern Saskatchewan, to a reserve, to enjoy the benefits that should be theirs as a result of the treaty land entitlement process. These people do not want to leave behind the schools, friends, relations, hospital services and all the services that are available in an urban community. They have not grown up on a reserve and they do not see themselves as a part of that process. They need a way to take advantage of the benefits set aside for them.

I would like to point out another difficulty that arises from the treaty land entitlement process. In Saskatchewan bands are free to buy from any willing seller at a price agreeable to both of them. The band then applies to have the land designated reserve status. Immediately the rural municipality has a reduced capability to collect taxes. I know there is an amount set aside which is supposed to generate enough interest to provide the services. However, when we come to the business of building roads across reserves, we find out that when we build a road up to a reserve or if we have driven these roads that have been built up to reserves, they are a completely different lower quality from across the reserve because it is not in the band's interest to spend its money on a road which is possibly marginal to its operation. This is happening throughout Saskatchewan.

Haul roads are being built across the province. They are designated as haul roads and known as super grids. They are necessary because railroads are being pulled up and rural elevators are being shut down. Consequently haul roads are assuming greater importance to rural municipalities.

When a budget is set up for a reserve an amount is set aside for road construction but there is no requirement for the band to spend the money as shown on the budget which is simply a document that states how the money has been given to the band on the basis of so many dollars. For example, when a rural municipality builds a road it identifies haul roads in agreement with other rural municipalities and the provincial government and funds are set aside for their construction. It receives 73% from the province. The rural municipality taxes its ratepayers to come up with the other 27%.

A rural municipality in Saskatchewan recently constructed a new haul road which crossed three miles of reserve land. The band did not participate in funding for construction which made the costs as follows. The federal government contributed 67%, the rural municipality contributed 33% and because the road was on the reserve, the province contributed nothing. The band also contributed nothing. This meant the rural municipality's portion rose from 27% of the total cost to 33% which represents an actual increase in taxes needed to build the road of 22%. That is a very large tax increase.

With the proliferation of reserves due to the treaty land entitlement process, bands are buying land all over rural municipalities as they have the perfect right to do but the reserves begin to have a checkerboard effect throughout the rural municipalities. Therefore when we are building roads we are continually coming across these sections with no tax base to support the construction of roads, never mind the maintenance of roads which includes gravelling, grading, snow clearing, weed control and that type of thing which falls under the road allowance.

Rural municipalities have asked me to tell the government about the situation they are facing. They are looking for the government to ensure that the money given to bands for road construction be used for road construction and not for other purposes as important and as laudable as they may be.

The band in question has agreed to supply gravel over the next few years until the value is arrived at, and that is a fairly enlightened viewpoint, but no band is required to do that. Bands have the ability to make the rules for road construction when the rural municipalities are bound more by the province and more by their own needs of their ratepayers, the farmers who farm the land, and must get to a delivery point or a market on the other side of a reserve. It is a very large problem that needs to be addressed and arises from the treaty land entitlement process. I trust the Manitoba government will take up the farmers' position on this so rural municipalities will not have to bear increasingly high costs of road construction as the checkerboard effect of small Indian reserves throughout the rural municipalities takes effect.

We agree with the intent of the legislation that land taken for road construction purposes should be replaced. The treaty land entitlement process is an historic process that is accepted policy in Canada. As such there is no point in fighting it. There definitely needs to be some review of the method by which the tax income for a rural municipality is replaced. Otherwise they will be taxed out of existence.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague, who made a very good analysis of the problem, if he could expand just a bit on this checkerboard of land that is purchased by the Indian bands in various parts of the municipality.

It is not automatic that these lands become part of a reserve because it seems to me that the Indian band may purchase these lands and those lands are then held in fee simple. If they are held in fee simple, then the tax base that exists for other land in that area is precisely the same on the land owned by the Indian band as would be the case if another person owned that land.

Is it the contention that what the municipality should be looking for is some sort of a shift in legislation or some predictable way in which the decision would be made by the federal government as to how these fee simple lands that have been purchased by the Indian bands from individuals will become part of a reserve?

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, bands that purchase lands under the treaty land entitlement act apply to the provincial government for reserve status, which takes it out of the tax system. As I mentioned, there is a set-aside, an amount paid into a fund which is held in trust, the interest of which is supposed to pay for services.

However, there is another problem. If the province grants reserve status to farmland, what happens is that the amount that is paid is based on the current assessment, which is quite low for farmland. If they convert it to country residential, let us say, and it is subdivided into 20 acre parcels, on 160 acres that would be eight separate parcels. That means that eight families may end up living there. There would be more bussing costs, education costs and health related costs. The costs would escalate and the rural municipality would still be left building roads for the extra people and making sure that services were delivered.

The re-zoning is not subject to the rural municipality's objections. That of course goes to the federal government because it is now federal crown land. There is a definite loading of expenses onto this level of government in the rural areas of Canada without commensurate tax revenues.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the answer of the hon. member for Prince Albert to the question of whether or not these fee simple lands were taxable and I am not sure what his answer was.

However, the legislation states very clearly that it ensures that fee simple lands provided to Norway House as part of the compensation plan do not fall under the Indian Act as special reserve lands. So they are fee simple lands, plain and simple. Members can draw whatever other conclusions they may want to from that, but they are fee simple properties.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for South Shore. He is right, they do purchase them in fee simple and they can be held in fee simple, but the fact is that because it belongs to a band it can apply for reserve status. Once that happens, then it loses its tax exempt status, as reserve land obviously does. Fee simple lands held by a corporation or anything like that are obviously taxable at the going rate.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take a long time to debate this bill today. Part of my problem with the bill is not so much what the bill contains, but how it contains it.

There is a real danger in approaching legislation in an omnibus fashion like this. We have two quite different pieces of legislation in one bill. Perhaps we should not be trying to hurry this legislation through the House. We have a number of pieces of good legislation that we are trying to deal with. We should take the time to examine this bill carefully and understand all of the pertinent issues.

Bill C-56, the Manitoba claims settlement implementation act, has two parts, the first part being the Norway House Cree Nation master implementation agreement to establish reserves.

The Norway House signed the master implementation agreement in December of 1997. The legislation before us allows the government to affirm certain provisions of that agreement, although it is being implemented. What this implementation does is to ensure that fee simple lands provided to Norway House as part of the compensation plan do not fall under the Indian Act as special reserve lands.

It also ensures that money provided as part of the compensation agreement is administered by a trust for the first nation. This prevents the money from becoming band money as defined in the Indian Act, thus it is at the disposal of the first nation to be used as it decides. I guess the wording of that would be Indian money as declared under the Indian Act. Otherwise they would have to continue with the time consuming and onerous administrative requirements of the Indian Act. Instead, this improves their opportunity for self-reliance and is a step toward self-government.

The Northern Flood Agreement sets out a means of providing compensation to the first nations affected by the flooding of their traditional lands. The agreement was so poorly constructed, however, that the implementation never occurred. This legislation attempts to bring some form of closure to many of the elements of that agreement.

The second part of the legislation improves the process of establishing reserves. The process could be faster and more efficient with the minister rather than the governor in council approving reserves.

First nations also have the opportunity to improve their economic developments with this legislation, since it allows them to have third parties continue or begin developments while the process is ongoing to establish a reserve. This has been a hindrance to both economic opportunities for first nations and the parties trying to develop interest on reserve lands.

With a certain willingness to see this piece of legislation pursue the course of parliament and get to committee before Christmas, I have no problem allowing this legislation to continue. I am not going to continue the debate at great length today. However, I will say again that there is a danger in this type of legislation which deals with more than one issue. Actually, we are dealing with three issues. There are certainly two big issues. There is a certain danger in that. I caution parliament that if we are going to continue to do this, in the long run we will end up slowing the process because we do not have time to study each separate issue in its entirety.

For example, the Northern Flood Agreement consists of 155 pages. That is just one part of this bill. I realize that all legislation is complicated and can be fairly onerous, but this legislation would be much better suited in two bills.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I have had many conversations with members of the Norway House band over the last year and a half. It is important for members to understand and agree that before parliament ratifies and passes this kind of legislation we understand where the members of the band are coming from and whether there is consensus. There should be at least general consensus on the part of the people who are most affected by this bill that it is something they can support.

I want to talk a bit about the referendum results. I believe this is critical to this issue.

The Norway House Indian band held a referendum to determine whether or not they wanted to proceed with the agreement that this bill represents. I began getting calls to my office a little more than a year ago from band members who were making serious allegations over irregularities and improprieties surrounding the vote.

The first allegation made was that the initial referendum failed. The Norway House band actually held a vote and the band council, I think in partnership with the department of Indian affairs, decided to hold a second vote on exactly the same agreement. Nothing had changed.

The second allegation that was made was that the second vote was conducted, but not before a liberal amount of money was used to buy votes. I do not know if that is true, but that was what I was told.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would caution the member in the debate on this bill in his use of language about buying votes. These are serious allegations and I would caution the member.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I think in this particular instance the hon. member for Skeena was very aware of the nature of what he was saying and, as a matter of fact, made the statement that in fact these were assertions made to him and in his case he has the responsibility to follow up.

Therefore, I do not believe this to be a point of order.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very aware of the seriousness of the allegations. Let me point out to the House and to the hon. member opposite who raised these concerns that I certainly did not start phoning Norway House asking for opinions. These people contacted me. They were making these allegations and they asked me to look into them on their behalf. They have asked me and other members of the Reform Party to go to bat for them, as it were, to try to get to the bottom of this because they are making some very serious allegations. They made allegations that people were actually paid money to change their position with respect to supporting this agreement. Since I was not there I really do not know.

I would like to ask the government if this referendum was overseen by Elections Canada. Was there a disengaged third party, as we have in all elections in this country? Every federal election in which I have run has Elections Canada, a disengaged third party that oversees the election so that it can fairly determine at the end of the night the veracity of the results. Without that, how can anyone ever say that they had a referendum and it passed or it failed? No one can do that. Canadians, I submit, would never accept that.

I think the people on these reserves are absolutely beside themselves. They are asking why there is one set of rules and regulations for Canadians that ensures fairness and on their reserves people can do whatever the hell they want and nobody cares.

I find it passing strange that the Liberal Party is trying to represent itself as the voice of aboriginal people when there are very serious allegations that it does not want to deal with. We did not have this fairness. We did not have an unbiased third party, Elections Canada or elections Manitoba or some responsible party, to oversee this referendum. That did not happen.

Was there a complete and proper enumeration done of all of the voters? Do we know that? Where is the evidence to support that? I have asked for that, but I do not have it.

We have to have assurance and the people in that community have to have assurance that this was a fair representation of community support. I submit right now that we do not have it.

I want to use another example. It is more recent and it is in my riding. The same principle is involved. I do not mean to digress. It is very important that we understand the issue. The principle here is whether or not these are fair and honest referendums that actually represent the consensus or the majority view of the people to be affected by these agreements.

I want to talk about the Nisga'a agreement for just a minute. We were told approximately 14 days ago that the Nisga'a people in northern B.C. had a referendum and that they ratified their treaty. This is the first stage. It has to be ratified by the B.C. government now and then it is going to be ratified by the legislature here. Apparently without any free votes, the Prime Minister is going to ram it down parliament's throat like he does everything else, but I digress again.

The Nisga'a people voted for two days. The referendum started on Friday and finished on Saturday night. I live in Terrace which is just south of the Nass valley where the Nisga'a treaty is going to come into effect. I waited on Saturday night with bated breath for the referendum results. I did not get them Saturday night. I waited all day Sunday and I did not get them Sunday. I started waiting into Monday. Monday morning there was an announcement on the radio saying that there should be some results that afternoon.

On election night Elections Canada counts approximately four million or five million votes, or maybe it is six million votes, anyway it is several million votes and we get the results within an hour and a half. In two hours we know who the next government will be. We know on an individual basis whether we were elected or re-elected as parliamentarians.

In a referendum where just slightly more than 2,000 cast a vote, it took two days to get the preliminary results. They were not final results, preliminary results.

This is what happened. On Monday afternoon we were told that the Nisga'a agreement had been ratified by 70% of the Nisga'a people. It hit the headlines and was carried right across Canada on CBC, CTV, et cetera. The next day we were told no, that was not an accurate figure, it was really 51%. I submit there is quite a difference between 70% and 51%. Again three or four days after that we were told that no, the final tally was actually 61%. That is supposed to be the final number.

We have had three different results on one referendum involving 2,000 people. It is a little difficult to accept the veracity of those results.

I was concerned about this matter. I started getting calls from some Nisga'a people who were not in support of the treaty and who felt that this referendum had some irregularities to it.

I phoned the department of Indian affairs in Vancouver and asked who oversaw the election. They told me that the Nisga'a tribal council, the very people who had negotiated the agreement, were actually in charge of the referendum. If anybody across the way wants to submit to me that that is a fair process, I would like them to argue that out in public because I do not think the Canadian people would buy that for a minute.

I found out that the department actually had only one observer to cover seven polling stations: four in the Nass valley, one in Prince Rupert, one in Vancouver and one in Terrace. There was one observer for all seven polls over a period of two days. No one can possibly persuade me or the Nisga'a people who are not in support of this treaty that that was a responsible way to oversee this referendum and to give assurances that the results are fair and accurate.

These people further made allegations that financial inducements were offered. Again these are allegations and I have not seen the hard proof, but I am told by Nisga'a people who live in the Nass valley that they have seen it for themselves.

I have also heard allegations that underage people were casting votes. In one case somebody made an allegation that a deceased person actually cast a vote. I do not know if that is true. I am not accusing anybody of anything.

What I will say is that there was not something like Elections Canada, some disengaged third party that is responsible for overseeing the vote and doing a proper enumeration, making sure that people who have not been enumerated and who claim to have the right to vote are given a fair opportunity to state their case and cast a ballot with a provision that they would have to have their credentials checked. I do not have a problem with the way Elections Canada does it and I do not think Canadians do either. It could be done the same way in the Nass valley for the Nisga'a people or with the Norway House band.

I find it difficult to understand how the Nisga'a government can say that 61% of its people supported this treaty in a referendum when slightly more than 2,000 people voted and it is a band with over 5,000 members. I did not get top marks in math at school but my math is a little better than that. I do not understand how the Nisga'a tribal council, or the Liberals for that matter because they are totally in support of this, could have us believe that this represents 61% of the Nisga'a people.

Before we can get on with debating the merits of the bill, and I am not saying there are not some, we have to have a very clear and complete picture of what the level of support is. I am concerned most that the people in the department of Indian affairs are aware of these allegations and may possibly be turning a blind eye because they have a vested interest in seeing these agreements supported and that they go through. I would never suggest that they would be actively involved but they may be turning a blind eye to irregularities and downplaying irregularities and just doing what they think is the bare minimum to get these things passed rather than seeing that the right thing is done.

The government should show us the irrefutable evidence that this was a fair, open and honest referendum, free of influence or collusion and free of inducements so that it can come to the House and tell us that it was the will of the majority when it comes to Norway House. I submit there is no way the government can do that. There is no way the government can come to parliament, come before the Canadian people, and say that this was a fair, open and honest referendum and that nothing disreputable or in any way reprehensible was done or engaged in. Until the government can do that, we do not have anything to debate in this House.

I certainly continue to hear from people from Norway House who are beside themselves. They consider this is being rammed down their throats, that it was undemocratic, was not a proper process to follow and that they will have to live it. They will be stuck with it and their children will be stuck with it. They do not accept that the referendum was in any way fair.

I challenge the government to lay before us the irrefutable proof, if it has it and I know it does not, that this was a fair process, that it was overseen by Elections Canada or some independent third party, that there were observers, scrutineers, and that there was no undue influence being exerted at the polls by anybody and that what we have is a fair reflection of the will of the people of Norway House. I am told that is not the case.

I cannot say with authority that the allegations are true. What I can say is that in the absence of a process that guarantees a fair result, the Liberals across the way are just blowing hot air if they try to tell parliament and the Canadian people that this agreement was supported by the band members of Norway House. I do not think they have any solid evidence to support that at all.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is looking for “irrefutable evidence” that fraud of some sort did not take place. We have heard this talk all day. We have heard it on many bills, on C-49. The member again raises Nisga'a. I am confused at this because each one of the members has said that they support C-56 but spend 10 or 20 minutes of their precious time in the House pouring vinegar and ashes all over the deal. I want to know whether they support it or not.

I would like to read something into the record for the member. I wish that he would do his homework before he speaks to these kinds of matters suggesting, and I say this respectfully, that there was some improper tampering.

On November 25, the federal court, trial division dismissed a motion that was brought forward by some band members. They had a right to bring these motions forward with respect to the second vote that took place on the Norway House agreement. On this basis the court found “that nothing improper or illegal had occurred in holding the second referendum for the ratification of the master”. The federal court has ruled on this matter. It was open to the people to challenge it, as they did.

If the hon. member had read the facts on this and investigated that side of the case, he probably would not have risen in the House and made those kinds of allegations and suggestions. This has been through a proper court of jurisdiction which found that nothing occurred that was wrong, improper or illegal.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think if my friend were to look at what the court actually considered and decided, it was whether or not it was improper to conduct a second referendum. That was the issue. The court did not go into any of the allegations regarding process or perversion of process that were made by some band members simply because the court did not have the jurisdiction to do so.

In turning to whether it was legal or proper for a second referendum to be conducted, I suppose we have seen cases where governments that disagree with a popular vote in a referendum, not only in Canada but in other jurisdictions, continue to bring the same question back to the people until such time as they get the answer they want. Whether that is illegal is one question. Whether it is moral is quite another question.

I think if the parliamentary secretary checks his facts, he will find out that that was the only issue the court was ruling on. It was not going into the allegations of vote buying or any of the other concerns that were raised with regard to irregularities in the referendum process.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do apologize in advance if this has already been discussed.

My colleague from the Reform Party indicates there were many allegations of concern with the vote process that was going on. I am wondering if he has received any written confirmation of those allegations. If he has, has he forwarded those allegations on to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes to both. I have received a substantial amount of written documentation and allegations from band members. They have been forwarded to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

One of the concerns people have in these communities is that once they stick their heads up, they are liable to get shot at. They are concerned about that. They have to live in these communities. These are small communities and oftentimes the people with whom they are in disagreement in their own communities could be friends or relatives.

I am sure my colleague would understand that unless band members give me specific instructions or specific agreement to distribute the information that I receive, I do not do it in a public nature. I feel that I have to respect that confidentiality.

We have a file that is about an inch and a half thick on Norway House. The department of Indian affairs is aware of those concerns and nothing has been done about them.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a comment in support of the bill that is before us at this time. It is my hope that the bill will not only pass but will pass unanimously. We have a long history of trying to resolve our issues and claims with the aboriginal people. It is one of the blemishes which I believe the bill will help to eradicate or erase.

We must act in good faith, sit down, negotiate and end up with an agreement that is supported, although we know negotiated agreements never have 100% support and approval. I understand the view of the member opposite that he should be the voice for those who are the malcontents. I doubt they would ever be satisfied with anything brought forward in the House.

There is a time for us to set aside partisan attitudes. It is time for Canada to move forward and treat aboriginal people with the kind of respect this claim settlement will achieve. We can then move on proudly to a new era of Canadian history. I hope he will join the government in this initiative.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the wonders of Liberal spin never cease. Because we stand to voice the concerns of grassroots people who come to us asking for our help, the member across the way tries to turn that around and say that somehow we are against aboriginal people or that we are trying to set ourselves up in some kind of partisan way.

That is completely irrelevant to the debate we are having. How can we have informed debate in the House when members opposite make those kinds of comments? It is beyond me altogether.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague from Skeena in this debate. He raised the very important issue of making sure elections are conducted in a proper and fair manner.

Canadian people have a proud tradition of fair elections in our democratic process to elect members of parliament, members of legislatures and members of councils across Canada. We also travel to other countries throughout the world, countries such as the newly emerging democracies of eastern Europe and third world countries, to help them in the democratic process and to try to guarantee some kind of fair process. At the same time we see that the Canada elections process is not applied to things like the Canadian Wheat Board ballots or in areas like the land claims my colleague has spoken about.

Does it not seem contradictory to be going around the world telling people how to conduct elections when we are not doing it fairly at home?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We send observers all over the world, most recently to observe an election in Chiapas, Mexico. In some cases we do not follow these rules within our own borders. That is reprehensible.

I have been a member of a municipality. I have voted in municipal elections. I have voted in provincial elections. I have voted and participated in federal elections. Otherwise I would not be here. I have never had anybody in any municipal, provincial or federal election I have been involved in as a voter, observer or participant ever question the results at the end of the night.

In the 1993 election an Edmonton riding was decided on as little as four or five votes. At the end of a judicial recount everybody went away satisfied that it was an expression of democracy. Why can most Canadians have that sense of confidence but as far as members across the way are concerned people living on reserves do not have to abide by the same standards? I do not understand. The people who live on those reserves want to have the same sense of fairness, justice and confidence in their systems as we have in ours.

Until that happens, when we talk about self-government we are getting way ahead of the pack. We have to make sure that there is democratic and fiscal accountability in place first.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.