Debates of Nov. 26th, 1998

Ontario

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the PC government in Ontario has led the nation in economic growth and job creation. Ontario's economy will grow by 4% this year because Ontario knows and Premier Harris knows that if taxes are cut the jobs will grow.

When will this government and when will this finance minister give the same type of economic growth to the rest of Canada by cutting taxes, as Ontario has done, to ensure that all Canadians have the economic opportunities that the Government of Ontario has provided to the people of Ontario?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, in the last budget, as the hon. member knows, we cut taxes by $7 billion over three years.

But if what he would like to do is talk about job creation, in the five years since we have been in office private sector jobs have grown by 1.4 million.

In the five years under the previous Tory administration jobs were up by only 180,000. In fact full time jobs under the Tories were down by 97,000 and in our case they are up by 1.4 million. In the last five years of the Tory regime the unemployment rate went up by 3%.

Business Of The House

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader what the agenda is for the remainder of this week. In fact, I would like to know the remaining agenda, right up to the last day and whether, in fact, the last day is December 11.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question put by the hon. opposition House leader.

This afternoon we will continue with Bill C-49, respecting first nations land management. This will be followed by Bill C-56, respecting Manitoba settlement rights. Time permitting, we would then turn to Bill C-35, respecting imports; Bill C-41, the mint bill; and Bill C-40, respecting extradition.

Tomorrow we will consider Senate amendments to Bill C-52, the nuclear test ban bill, which will be followed by third reading of Bill S-16, respecting certain tax treaties.

I do not expect to call business other than those two items tomorrow.

On Monday we will resume the list that I have just described.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day, with votes on supply at the end of the afternoon. I understand that there are a number of other votes as well that have been deferred, or possibly will be deferred later today and on other days.

On Wednesday of next week we would like to turn to Bill C-43, the revenue agency bill. If there is time left on Wednesday we will then turn to Bill C-57, the Nunavut court bill.

Beyond that we will also be entertaining the pre-budget debate before we adjourn for Christmas. Obviously, to be very precise for the last remaining days will require a bit of time yet. But I am grateful to all House leaders, indeed all parties, for their co-operation in terms of allocating the business of the House for the remaining days until we adjourn for the Christmas break.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the framework agreement on first nation land management, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the motion that the question be now put.

First Nations Land Management Act

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in my remaining few minutes I would like to clear up any difficulties that some members opposite may have.

Let us set the record straight. Let us make absolutely sure that we are not disputing the right of Indians to honour their land treaties. That is not the issue. The issue that is before us today is how we are going to bring about accountability with this bill. How are we going to change the conditions which the hon. member for Wild Rose mentioned?

There are some questions that hang very heavily on the shoulders of elected officials on the government side of the House. Why are we denying thousands of people the right which we enjoy of self-determination in government? Why do we continue to do that? Why are we prepared to go ahead with massive land claims when the people at the grassroots want accountability? The government is not helping them to attain that.

Those areas which have accountability, to a large degree, are areas in which we do not see what the member for Wild Rose saw. The more transparency, the more accountability, the better it is for everybody. We have no right in this House to deny the term and the meaning in totality of self-government. As we go into a new century we should not be considering legislation that puts the cart before the horse.

To deny shows that this government is not really looking at reality. Government members can talk all they like about accountability and partnership, but until we put into place the machinery that brings about accountability, the machinery that brings about local grassroots governments, then we are going to continue with the mess that we have in many areas across Canada.

What I ask of this government is to not keep putting forth bills with no end to them, but to look at the reality of what is happening in Canada. Let us look at what we have to do to cure the biggest social issue facing Canada today.

The government can hide from it. Obviously it does not want to take responsibility. Sooner or later the responsibility of what goes on from coast to coast without self-government and without transparency will rest on the shoulders of government.

Why should we be promoting more avenues and more room for land claims which we agree with, but which we do not agree with if they do not contain accountability? This government is quite prepared to do that, but we are not.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-49, the first nation land management act.

The impetus to create this legislation came from the first nations which developed a workable land management system to enable them to manage and control their lands and resources. The new land management regime outlined in this legislation is a government-to-government agreement that ends the authority and discretion of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to manage these lands under the Indian Act.

This new regime goes to the very heart of our efforts to try to make life better for aboriginal people across Canada. It places control over the daily management of lands back into the hands of several first nations. With this control they will have the tools to guide their own destiny and to support strong, healthy communities fueled by economic development and supported by a solid infrastructure of institutions and services.

This new regime is a striking example of the kind of productive arrangement envisioned in the paper “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”.

When this government launched that paper in January, we committed ourselves to renewing our partnerships with aboriginal people and to finding new approaches to bring about real, practical improvements in the lives of aboriginal people. This legislation leads the way in our efforts to give first nations greater autonomy and to strengthen their capacity and expertise.

Hon. members may recognize much of this legislation. It came before us in December of 1996 as Bill C-75. It received second reading and then died when the House was dissolved.

Those familiar with the legislation will know that it has a history that goes back even further. The bill before us, as with the legislation of the last parliament, seeks to ratify a framework agreement signed by these first nations in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick. This legislation would apply to 14 first nations.

The framework agreement provides authority for these 14 signatories to govern their lands and resources under their own laws. The first nations must first develop a land code that will set out their basic rules and procedures to govern lands and interest in land and resources after the land provisions of the Indian Act cease to apply to these communities.

The land codes must be consistent with the framework agreement, which can only be amended by the parties to it. The lands affected will be known as first nation lands and will continue to be reserve lands for the purposes of other applicable federal legislation. For example, the Indian Oil and Gas Act will not be affected by this agreement.

Each first nation will also enter into an individual agreement with Canada to determine a level of operational funding for land management and to set out the specifics of transition from the current to the new regime.

My colleagues across the way must understand that this framework agreement requires each first nation's land code to set out a whole series of requirements: the requirements for accountability on management of lands and money to first nation members; the procedures for making and publishing first nation laws; the conflict of interest rules for land management; a forum for the resolution of disputes; general rules and procedures for granting or expropriating interests in first nations lands; the general authorities and procedures for delegating administrative authorities; and the procedure for amending its land code or approving an exchange in lands.

It seems from the discussion across the way that these requirements are not well understood.

I would also point out that these provisions must be voted on by the community as part of their opting in procedure. These measures ensure the participation of the community at the outset and seek its approval for the process. In this way the first nations can be assured that their memberships are fully aware and fully apprised of all aspects of the opting in process and subsequent administration of the lands and moneys. In other words, this is an accountability process built to very high standards.

Both the land code and the individual agreements require community approval. All members of the first nations who are 18 years or older, whether resident or off reserve, would be eligible to vote in the community approval process. At least 25% of eligible voters would have to approve those land codes and individual agreements for them to be valid.

This process of ratification is further evidence that the framework agreement will help build and strengthen aboriginal governance. It will support strong communities, strong people and strong economies. I would remind the House that these are the major objectives in the paper “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”. There is just so much that one can say in speaking to this agreement.

It is important to note that the bill provides for each first nation and the minister to appoint a verifier to confirm whether the proposed land code and community approval process were consistent with the terms of the bill and the agreement. The verifier would also determine whether the land code and individual agreement had been approved by the confirmed process.

The legislation before us enacts a framework agreement that will benefit everyone. The signatories will benefit from greater control over their lands and resources. Neighbouring municipalities and affected provinces will benefit from economic development spinoffs. The federal government will benefit from no longer having to administer certain specific sections of the Indian Act. It can reduce its involvement in the day to day management decisions and activities of those first nations.

Other first nations will benefit from being able to study the effects on these 14 signatories and from using the framework agreement as a model for future self-government agreements.

Bill C-49 is a good piece of legislation. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments that Bill C-49 is a good piece of legislation. I would agree with her that it is a good piece of legislation.

I would like to address a couple of the fallacies in this legislation and a couple of what I believe are mistakes in some of the statements made by members of this House.

Certainly there are some difficult issues in this legislation but it is a very positive piece of legislation and one that will give control of land management to first nations, something that they do not have now.

I would like to correct the member for Souris—Moose Mountain who stated that there was no accountability in this bill. This bill is all about accountability. Perhaps there are parts of the bill the member did not read. I will explain the accountability sections in this bill for members of the House.

Historically the Indian Act has given DIAND virtually all decision making authority regarding the use and disposition of reserve lands and resources. The minister has limited accountability to the members of the first nations for management of reserves and has limited accountability to the members of first nations for the management of land transactions, resources, environment and revenue.

As the law exists now, there is no accountability at all. The 14 first nations that have signed this agreement have made accountability to their members one of the main principles of the framework agreement.

Bill C-49 does not deal with elections or other subjects such as governance which remain under the Indian Act. There are a couple of important points that should be made about accountability in this bill.

The framework agreement ensures that a first nations council will account to both on reserve and off reserve members. First nations members both on reserve and off reserve must approve the decision to opt out of ministerial administration of reserves, the content of the land code and any amendments to the land code and the individual transfer agreement with Canada. A first nations council must manage its lands for the use and benefit of the first nation. That sounds like accountability to me.

A land code must contain provisions to ensure accountability and transparency of decisions for lands and related revenues. A land code must contain provisions for first nations law-making procedures and the publication of first nations laws. All land codes are public documents available to the members of first nations and the general public. The land code must identify a local dispute resolution mechanism for land management decisions.

This bill is about accountability and it is strictly about accountability. I think it is time that some of those who are in opposition to this bill sat down and read the bill. Let me give a few more examples of accountability.

Eligible voting members can introduce first nation land laws for consideration. Proposed land laws must be publicly posted and distributed to members before being voted on by council. First nation land laws must be published. The public has access to those laws at the first nation office during business hours. Conflict of interest rules require that persons in conflict may not participate in making decisions on the matter.

Eligible voting members must approve certain types of leases and licences of first nation land. Council must adopt a budget, explain it to its meeting of members and make the budget available for inspection by any members who request it.

Expenditure and contract controls, books of accounts and records must be kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Any adult member can receive a copy of these financial statements. The auditor has complete access to the financial records. It is an offence to restrict access to the financial records.

Community approval for a ratification vote is required before certain laws or land transactions can be made. At the annual meeting, first nation members are required to discuss land matters and to receive the auditor's report.

That is about accountability. That is what the bill brings to the nation. That is what the bill brings to the 14 first nations that have signed the framework agreement.

It is important to understand that those 14 First Nations stretch from coast to coast in Canada. There are five from British Columbia: Westbank; Lheit Lit'en; Musqueam; N'Quatqua; and Squamish. There is one from Alberta, Siksika. There are two from Saskatchewan, Muskoday and Cowessess. The one from Manitoba is the Opaskwayak Cree. From Ontario there are four: the Chippewas of Georgina Island; the Mississaugas of Scugog Island; the Chippewas of Mnjikaning; and Nipissing. There is also Saint Mary's in New Brunswick.

Are other first nations interested in joining this initiative? Yes, 40 or 50 first nations are interested in joining this framework accord for land management. A number in my own province of Nova Scotia are interested in joining.

There is absolutely nothing in this agreement that changes the Constitution. There is nothing that changes the charter of rights. This does not deal with the difficult issues before us in the House of Commons. This deals with a very simple idea that all of us should be very familiar with and that is control of lands that one owns.

For first nations to try to take their place in Canadian society, to share in the economic opportunities of this country, it is criminal that the Indian Act discriminates in the way it does. The minister of the crown is responsible to tell a first nations individual living on reserve whether or not they can cut firewood on that reserve, whether or not they can cut timber on that reserve, whether or not they can have a gravel pit on that reserve, whether or not they have an opportunity for mining interests on that reserve.

Nor does this bill exclude any other bills that have already gone through parliament. The Indian Oil and Gas Act still pertains. This does not change legislation. This simply gives an opportunity for us in the Parliament of Canada to allow first nations to have economic opportunities of their own upon reserve in Canada.

It bothers me very much when I listen to the opposition's discussion of this bill. I have looked at this bill. I have read it backward and forward and frontward and sideways and I really cannot see the problem with it.

There was some discussion of first nations women and how they would be accepted under the aegis of this bill. The fact remains that the bill deals with the breakdown of marriage. It deals with the separation of husband and wife. It deals with children after the breakdown of marriage.

The bill deals with all the pertinent issues that are before the first nations with the ownership of land upon reserve. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to support positive legislation. Certainly this is a piece of positive legislation.

There are many things that are difficult for us as members of parliament to do. I addressed them before but I think it is important to point them out again, and that is what this piece of legislation does not do. It does not change the Constitution of Canada. It does not change the laws that govern the equality of rights under the charter of rights. This bill allows first nations economic opportunity and control of their own land. It is a good bill. I support it and I would ask other members of the House to support it.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with real intent and interest to my colleague who just spoke. He referred to clauses of Bill C-49 with regard to accountability which is very reassuring.

However, we all know that the requirements for accountability in every facet of expenditures of money in the interests of Indian people have always been there. Those requirements for accountability have always been there yet we hear from the grassroots people, Indian people, some of whom I have spoken to this afternoon.

When I ask them about Indian self-government and what they think about it, they tell me they are concerned about it. I ask why they would be concerned about. They tell me very clearly that they are concerned about granting their leaders greater powers and authorities over them. When I ask what the problem is now, they go on and on at length to explain the problems. My colleague from Wild Rose and my colleague from Skeena have given examples of the problems the grassroots people have.

I do not think there is anyone in Canada who would not be willing to continue the direction of resources into the aboriginal community for the benefit of their standard of living, education and so on. But if it is not reaching them, as the word is coming to us over and over again from all points on the compass, then we have to look at the whole area of accountability.

Bill C-49 will pass, but it is the duty and the responsibility of members in opposition to warn about the defects of the bill as we see them. The whole area of accountability is of very serious concern to us and to all members who have talked to Indian people at the grassroots level.

The unfortunate problem is that there are aboriginal people at the grassroots who cannot take their concerns to their chief and council for whatever reason. They cannot take their concerns to the minister because the minister will be criticized and attacked by the chief and council if she begins to meet with the grassroots. She will be accused of going around the local elected representatives. The minister is caught in a bind in this regard.

I do not know what the answer is other than to insist on accountability for 25% of those bands that are not acting responsibly even though there are guidelines for accountability in terms of the expenditure of money for the welfare of Indian children and in terms of schooling, education, health care and their standard of living. There is a lack of accountability for the expenditure of funds at the band level. There is a concern.

We are putting our warning voice on record in this regard. No one in the House does not want to see aboriginal self-government. However it has not been defined yet. Why has the government not defined it? Why do we not have a model upon which to base it and allow the aboriginal people to take greater charge over their own lives and their own affairs? It must be done on the basis of accountability to their own grassroots people.

I do not know what the answers are to many of the problems I have heard about. They are not unlike those of the larger Canadian society. We as the Reform Party are asking for populist principles which allow for the people to hold their elected representatives more accountable for the manner in which they run the affairs of the country, including plunging us into debt and having many of the children living in poverty after taxing us at the highest rate of the G-7 countries, after borrowing and spending $585 billion over the last 25 or 30 years. Still one child in every five is reported to be living in poverty.

There must be greater accountability in this place. We want more free votes in the House. We want the right of the people to recall us if we do not honestly and faithfully represent their views and concerns. That is the kind of mechanism within any level of government which the people must have. Perhaps it is the answer for aboriginal people and those answers must come from them.

The degree of accountability in the bill looks good. There are policies and regulations demanding and calling for accountability in the way moneys are expended, yet we still hear the cry from the grassroots. Until that cry is listened to and the problems are addressed, the bill may be simply adding to the problems of the grassroots, not to the problems of the Reform, Bloc, NDP, PC or the Liberal members of the House. It may be adding to the problems we hear coming from the grassroots in that it will grant greater power and authority over local government. That is where there seems to be a lack of the accountability these people are requesting.

Our duty is to place our concerns on record. We hope everything works out well, as everyone does, but it has not so far. We are saying that the bill is placing a greater degree of power and authority in the hands of the very same people the grassroots are concerned and complaining about.

I will give an example. Laura Deedza lives in my community but she is from one of the northern Alberta reserves. She has been trying to get financial statements from her band. For months she has had nothing but a fight on her hands as she has been trying to get even parts of those financial statements for the present year and for years past. She has nowhere to go except to the minister. She is continually complaining to my office that she meets a brick wall at that level. The procedures for access to these kinds of documents are clearly outlined in the bill. They are outlined as well for financial statements to which every band member is supposed to have access. Laura is just one of many. She is continually asking us for help.

The meeting which will allow for grassroots people to express their concerns further to members of parliament on Saturday in Edmonton ought to be attended by every concerned member of parliament to hear what they have to say and to bring that message back to the House. I wish members of the government would attend that meeting as well so that they can hear directly from the grassroots people and take their concerns back to the minister and back to cabinet.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on the motion that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with representatives of all parties and I believe you would find consent to defer the recorded division requested on the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning second reading of Bill C-49 to the expiry of Government Orders on Tuesday, December 1, 1998.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, an act respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land, and respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the debate on the bill up to this point has been very interesting. Since the Norway House Cree Nation is part of my riding, I would like to add my own comments.

The bill represents the end result of many years of negotiations among the Norway House Cree Nation, the province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada. Any legislation introduced in the House of Commons to implement agreements negotiated with other parties, particularly when these negotiations take place for a number of years, is legislation that includes a great deal of delegated trust.

In this specific case since the duly elected government of the Norway House Cree Nation signed the agreement and the people of Norway House ratified it in a referendum, we must trust that this agreement is satisfactory to the people of Norway House. This does not mean we believe there to be unanimous support for the agreement. Since the people of Norway House voted in favour of this agreement, it must be assumed that it reflects the opinion of the majority.

During this debate some members of the House have questioned whether this agreement reflects the will of the people of Norway House. Let us be clear about what these members are implying. By questioning the legitimacy of the referendum results, they must be alleging that some sort of electoral fraud took place. This is not the type of allegation that should be made lightly.

At a time when first nations are finally able to regain control of their affairs, the department of Indian affairs and ultimately the Government of Canada must ensure that the democratic rights of every first nation member are not ignored. Failure to do so is setting their governments up for failure.

Any member of parliament who believes as I do that first nations have a legitimate right to self-determination knows that it is not parliament's place to tell first nations people what to do. Throughout the history of Canada's relationship with the first nations this kind of patronizing attitude has lead only to tragedy.

To avoid repeating the errors of the past first nations must be free to make their own decisions and determine their own path. Thus, in the absence of unassailable proof that the referendum was fraudulent, I cannot in good conscience oppose what I must conclude is the desire of the majority of the people of Norway House and their democratically elected band government.

To help put this matter in context let us compare the Norway House Cree Nation with the nearby Cross Lake First Nation. Both these first nations were among the five affected by the flooding in the 1970s and both signed the northern flood agreement. Each has a democratically elected government and as is its prerogative the government of Cross Lake is following a different path in its fight for compensation.

Unlike Norway House, Cross Lake has not reached an agreement with the province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada. The government of Cross Lake has not been satisfied with the compensation offered by the federal and provincial governments for the flooding of their land. Thus they have decided to hold out for the compensation they were promised under the original northern flood agreement.

What we have is two first nation governments faced with similar circumstances choosing different paths to confront their circumstances. Norway House has chosen to make a deal while Cross Lake has chosen not to do so. Some have said that Norway House has made the wrong decision, but we as members of parliament have no right to tell these first nations what to do. I support their right to self-determination so the people who must make this decision are the people of those communities.

The referendum result and the fact that they re-elected their chief and council indicate that the majority of the people of Norway House support this agreement, and I respect their decision. Likewise I support the democratically elected government of Cross Lake's decision to follow a different path.

It is important to note that the position I am taking to support the self-determination of each first nation reflects the position of the first nations themselves. At the last annual general meeting of the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, the chief of Norway House pledged his support for Cross Lake in their struggle for compensation. Clearly even when they choose different paths for themselves first nations stand in solidarity and support each other's self-determination.

I am pleased that the Norway House master implementation agreement is bringing some resolution to the community. Most if not all members who have taken part in this debate have never been to this fine community in my riding.

I am pleased to report to the House that economic development is moving forward in Norway House. A new mall was opened this week creating dozens of new jobs in the community. The community has embarked on many substantial projects including a new day care centre and a paving project last summer. Virtually every road in Norway House is now paved. In addition, there are also new tourism initiatives under way highlighting the community's long history and spectacular natural beauty.

However, I am upset and deeply disturbed by recent developments in Cross Lake which indicate that the Government of Canada and the department of Indian affairs are trying to leverage that first nation into signing the master implementation agreement against its will.

The chief of Cross Lake has asked me to tell the House about the pressure his government and his people are under from the department of Indian affairs and the Government of Manitoba.

Cross Lake is the only first nation that has yet to sign the agreement. Like any government in this day and age, the government of Cross Lake First Nation also carries a debt. Unlike most other governments Cross Lake needs the department of Indian affairs to underwrite its debt. Now the department of Indian affairs is threatening to stop the underwriting of the band government's loans, meaning the band will go bankrupt unless it can immediately pay off its debt.

Imagine if Canada's creditors demanded immediate repayment of our national debt. It would not be reasonable to expect this and neither is it reasonable to expect this from the Cross Lake First Nation.

The department of Indian affairs has effectively put a knife to the throat of the Cross Lake First Nation. If it signs a master implementation agreement the immediate cash payments will allow it to pay off its debt and avoid bankruptcy. But the Cross Lake First Nation has made it clear that it does not want to sign a new master implementation agreement.

The Progressive Conservative Government of Manitoba has so far been unwilling to offer fair compensation so Cross Lake has chosen to continue with the more time consuming process of pressing for the compensation it was promised under the northern flood agreement. It must be free to make this choice.

This blackmail by the department of Indian affairs is despicable and betrays the Liberal government's utter contempt for the principle of first nations self-determination. I call on the Liberal government to end its blackmail of the Cross Lake First Nation immediately.

We can see that the Liberal government has the capacity to be unethical in its treatment of first nations. However, there is no unassailable proof it has used these underhanded tactics with other bands such as Norway House. In the absence of such proof we must assume the democratic process is legitimate.

I know the members who are opposing the bill have good intentions and they feel they are supporting what is right for Norway House. There are members within the Norway House First Nation.

Support for this agreement is not unanimous in Norway House and that is the democratic right of those who oppose it but I call on all members of the House to support the wishes of the majority of the people of Norway House by supporting the bill.

I also call on members to join me in fighting the terrible injustice that the government is currently perpetrating against the Cross Lake First Nation.