House of Commons Hansard #150 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aboriginal.

Topics

The HomelessOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Liberal

Herb Gray Liberal Windsor West, ON

I certainly do, Mr. Speaker.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

This has been a rather good week for us in parliament in the sense of the visitors we have welcomed.

I draw to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of a group of Canadian performing artists of extraordinary talent and accomplishment. They have devoted their lives to enriching our cultural lives in Canada.

They received the Governor General's Performing Arts Awards for 1998, the highest tribute Canada can pay to performers.

I will call out your names, my dear recipients, and I would like you to stand and be recognized by the House: Paul Buissonneau, Bruce Cockburn, Rock Demers, Arnold Spohr, Jon Vickers, Joseph Shoctor, and a group we will all recognize, the cast of the Royal Canadian Air Farce with Roger Abbott, Don Ferguson, Luba Goy and John Morgan.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

There will be a reception for this group in Room 216. I invite all of you to meet the recipients.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, as deputy opposition House leader I rise on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to ask the government House leader the agenda for the next sitting week and the remainder of this week.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, this is no doubt the best question asked today. Today we will continue with the second reading of Bill C-49, the first nation lands bill. In the event that this is completed we will then resume Bill C-48, the marine parks bill.

Friday we will take up the Senate amendments to Bill C-37, the Judges Act. If any time is left we will then return to measures on which debate has begun today but has not yet been completed, including Bill C-49, should that not be completed, Bill C-48 and Bill C-56, the Manitoba claims bill.

Next week is a recess week for Remembrance Day. On Monday after the recess we will continue with Bill C-37, should that debate not have been completed. We will then consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-53, the small business bill if this available, in other words if it has returned from parliamentary committee on time. Otherwise, we will take up the report stage and third reading of Bill C-42, the Tobacco Act amendments.

On Tuesday we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-53 if this has not already been completed. With any time left we will continue with measures on which the debate has begun but not yet completed in the following order of priority: Bill C-42 and then Bill C-48, Bill C-49 and Bill C-56. On Wednesday we would continue with whatever is left of the agenda I have just described.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding a motion that was passed yesterday evening. The motion adopted the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The report had all-party agreement at the committee level and yesterday was adopted unanimously in the House. The report recommended standing order changes regarding Private Members' Business.

Mr. Speaker plays a very important role in this matter. You are the protector of the private member and the keeper of our rules.

In my point of order I will argue that some of the recommendations in the report could clearly be implemented now and some may require the assistance of your clerks to draft standing order changes.

I argue that recommendations Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 8 should be implemented immediately. These changes are very briefly as follows.

When a division is taken on a private member's item, the calling of the vote will begin with the sponsor and will then proceed beginning with the back row on the sponsor side of the House and then the back row on the other side of the House. This recommendation is intended to protect private members from being intimidated by the front benches.

There is now a process in place whereby a law clerk and a parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons will be appointed to be responsible for the provision of legislative drafting services for members. That person or persons will be provided with sufficient staff.

Priority will now be given to the drafting of private members' bills and motions for members who have not previously had a bill drafted during that session of parliament.

Recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 would require standing order changes. I will comment briefly on these changes.

An item outside the order of precedence that has been jointly seconded by 100 members will be placed at the bottom of the order of precedence. If a bill or motion has merit, it will now move forward instead of being subjected to the lottery draw which is often frustrating and humiliating for the sponsor.

There is protection from the threat of prorogation. A private member can now reintroduce a bill at this stage.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

We are sort of getting into the debate and the explanation. I would hope the hon. member would stay focused on the point we are discussing now rather than getting into the merits or whatever it is. If the hon. member wants to point out something to the Chair I am more than willing to listen, but his point should be quite succinct. I would ask him to direct himself to that and maybe take another minute to wrap up.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Since the one I described is not a government initiative but a report drafted and adopted independently by members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and subsequently adopted independently by the House, the onus to implement these rules changes is on Mr. Speaker.

Last June the House asked the Clerk to draft new rules regarding changes to the supply process. When the House returned in September these rules were in place. There was no need for a second step since the request was clear and the House order was in place.

The circumstances today are identical. We are coming up to a break week. I would like to know if the rules recommended in the 13th report that require standing order drafting could be in place by the time the House resumes on November 16.

I would also like Mr. Speaker to confirm my observations as to which rules are now in place and do not need a standing order change.

I suggest that when these rules are drafted, you solicit the support from private members and avoid the usual solicitation from the party leadership, particularly the cabinet. The cabinet has absolutely no say in this matter of Private Members' Business.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief and address the point. If I understood correctly, what the hon. member is trying to get at is that he has now recognized that the passage by rather surreptitious means yesterday afternoon of a report does not change the standing orders the way he initially thought it did and now he is asking the Speaker to change them unilaterally. That is what I understand his point to be.

I read the eight clauses of the committee and my reading tells me that six of them require an actual drafting of rule changes. The drafting presumably would have to be approved by the House afterwards because draft rule changes are not in six of the eight items that refer to particular changes. The other ones I recognize are matters which are under the purview of the Speaker or the administration of the House, but six of them have particularly to do with the rule changes.

If the hon. member across sees fit to raise this issue with the Speaker, it is because he has recognized that this artificial way of getting this motion through yesterday did not change the rules the way he initially thought it did, otherwise he would not have to bring it up right now. Now he has asked if the Speaker or others will arrange to have actual words put in place in time for the House to come back.

Mr. Speaker, if Your Honour, the clerk or anyone else around here wants to prepare draft rule changes, that is certainly their prerogative. My submission to the Chair respectfully is that once those draft rule changes have been prepared by the Chair, assuming that the Chair would be so inclined, it would be up to the House to decide whether or not it likes those draft rule changes. If it does, subsequently it would adopt those draft rule changes if and when it sees fit to do so.

The mere fact that the member has raised this today in the House does not change the rules of the House. Heaven forbid if we ever get into a situation where one member of the Reform Party decides himself to change the rules for the rest of us around here, democracy would take a beating that day.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this point of order in support of the Reform member's recommendation.

First of all, this is a report that we as the House of Commons moved concurrence in last night, which we have the authority to do. Second, it is a report that was tabled from the procedure and House affairs committee of which I am a member and on which the Liberals have a majority membership. It was approved by that particular committee and tabled in this very House.

I am puzzled as to why the hon. government House leader would make reference to “artificial means” or “surreptitious means” when it came to making this particular report something that is going to be substantive and that will convert into actual rule changes. His definition of surreptitious means is that a motion was moved in the House last evening and the motion was given unanimous consent. Every single member of parliament who was in the House last night gave unanimous consent to have this particular report embraced and adopted. If the government House leader calls that surreptitious, we have a huge problem in this country because it was a democratic decision. It was nowhere near surreptitious.

What is surreptitious is when the government House leader stands in this House and attacks democracy like that from behind the cover of his cabinet post.

My view is that the report was tabled by a committee dominated by Liberal MPs. It was embraced by all MPs in that committee, of which the chief government whip is a member. We are now asking to have all of these recommendations of the report made into standard operating procedures of the House of Commons effective as soon as possible.

I would support the Reform Party's move on the basis of those particular points.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to concur with what the member just said in the sense that what we are talking about here is some pretty basic democracy.

This is a decision that has been made by this House. It is definitely in the interest of private members and private members who are largely marginalized in this House by the rules. Those rules were suggested to be changed by the committee.

I take great umbrage at the House leader making the implication that somehow what we are doing is wrong. What the government is doing is wrong. When a motion has been presented in the House, when concurrence has been moved, and then the government does not act at all on it is what is in violation of democracy.

I concur very, very heartily with what my NDP colleague has said and I certainly concur with the point of order.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

As we all know the sequence of events, this matter occurred late yesterday afternoon.

I had reviewed the situation before coming in, but now that I have heard further information from you, my colleagues, I wonder if you would give me a few hours. I will come back to the House today. I will make a decision on this particular matter before adjournment today. With your concurrence of course I will take time.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Derrek Konrad Reform Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns a couple of rulings today and I am looking for some consistency. Before I am finished I will bring up a point from an earlier edition of debates.

The word “misrepresent” was used twice today. My colleague, the member for Dewdney—Alouette was required to withdraw the word “misrepresent” when it was used in his second question. In a later question the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill was allowed to continue speaking when the word “misrepresent” was used in her second question.

I would like to point out that in the Debates of October 10, 1980, page 3591 the then Minister of National Health used the words “that she is misleading the House”. The member for Yukon at the time raised the question and the Speaker ruled that this expression was allowed provided it was not qualified by the words “intentionally” or “deliberately”.

I think it would be consistent if we applied that rule to the word “misrepresent” so that members of this House might know if that word is acceptable. It is possible to misrepresent someone not even intentionally and I do not think it is necessarily unparliamentary to say so.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

I thank the hon. member for bringing that up.

A few weeks ago we had the question of some words being used in a certain context. As you know, many times here in the Chair when these words come up, sometimes they cause a disorder in the House and sometimes they do not.

As a general rule there is no word which in and of itself is unparliamentary. I should not have but I gave the explanation the last time how to use the word “liar” and then lo and behold it was brought in virtually the next day.

All this to say that it has to do not only with the word but it has to do with the tone and with the context and if there is any disorder caused in the House.

As you pointed out and rightly so my colleague, there are certain times when the word “misrepresent” can be unintentional and perhaps that is conveyed in the tone with which it is delivered. At another time “misrepresent” could be taken that it is a very serious accusation. That has always been left to the Speaker to decide.

I cannot give you any greater direction other than to say that when a word is used, if I feel that it is unparliamentary in the sense that it is causing a disorder in the House and disruption, then usually I will interrupt. Sometimes I will ask for a withdrawal. Witness the word “hypocritical” today. I should not even use those words in the sense that I know I am going to be faced with them probably next week. I would prefer that these words not be used.

On the other hand what are you to do? You have to use words to express yourself, so I am left with deciding at that time in that usage is it unparliamentary or not. I guess that is the best I can do to give you direction on that. Good luck the next time that you use it.

A final point of order, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises out of the hon. government House leader's recitation of the business. On Tuesday the government House leader indicated that Bill S-13 would be a matter for discussion at the House leader's meeting. That did in fact take place.

I am asking now if the government House leader will confirm that it is not the government's intention to assume responsibility for the carriage of Bill S-13. As well, is the government stating that it will not provide time for debate on this particular bill in this House?

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

I take that as a question of clarification and I am going to permit it. I am going to permit it because it had to do with a statement which was made by the government House leader.

I think in these circumstances because there was a referral to Tuesday's business, if the hon. government House leader wishes to address himself to it, and I do not want to get into a debate and I do not want another question and answer, I am going to permit the government House leader to answer this question if he so wishes.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, first of all Bill S-13 is not a government bill so the government does not call it. Precedence for private members' bills either from this House or the other place is derived by way of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs charged with private members' business.

We are hardly in a position to debate this bill on the floor of the House. It has not been introduced.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

I hope that this is some clarification.

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 amendment.

First Nations Land Management ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, there are some legitimate concerns about Bill C-49. It goes to the heart of some of the things that were being said prior to question period.

The British Columbia Native Women's Society has complained quite bitterly about this legislation. I want to quote a few of the things they have said in their letter. They are very important.

To put this in context, B.C. native women have already been through an experiment promoted by the federal government in 1992 and 1993. A native justice pilot program was started on southern Vancouver Island. It came to a rapid, screeching halt after a lot of politically correct thought went into trying to create a system that would be sensitive to the native communities.

What ended up happening in that grandiose experiment was that people who committed grievous offences in aboriginal communities in that area, largely men, were found right back in the same community the day after their sentencing. The old rules were thrown out, the justice system was thrown out, and a new system more sensitive to the needs of that community was put in place run by the very cronies of the people that were perpetrating the offences.

Guess who were the loudest complainants and the ones that got this travesty stopped? It was the native women. When we look at who is organizing, who tends to be out front in trying to correct the wrongs that are happening in great abundance on some of our reserves, who do we find at the forefront? We find native women. They may not belong to a formal organization or they may be fighting to establish a formal organization. Whatever the case may be, we had better listen because they have something to say and they have everything stacked against them.

The Canadian Human Rights Act is a basic and fundamental piece of legislation which we would assume covers all Canadians. It does not. It excludes any discrimination flowing from the Indian Act. That is a big problem. It does not protect native women from many of the things they are complaining about. They cannot win if they have everything stacked against them. I will quote from the letter:

—women living on reserves lack the protections available to all other Canadian women when their marriages break down. They cannot get an order for occupation or division of the matrimonial home—. The Indian Act provisions governing their situation were struck down by the courts in the early 80s and the federal government has done nothing to correct the inequality—

Whenever we find inequality under the terms of the Indian Act we find that the Indian Act is dependent upon defining who is a status Indian. In order to do that it goes through great gyrations. When governments certify ethnic or racial status it can become very complicated. It does not matter how hard government tries. There will be inequality in the definition of status Indian. I does not matter who designs the system. It could never be designed not to lead to some form of inequality. It tends to be stacked against Indian women. It is also stacked against others.

This has many permutations in how other legislation that affects aboriginals because the definition of status Indian is a basic building block. It is an inappropriate way to do things.

Every piece of legislation over time has taken away sections of the Indian Act, including the most comprehensive and contemporary treaty in Canada, the Nisga'a agreement in northwestern British Columbia. Only one part of the Indian Act is kept under that agreement. We do not have to guess what part of the Indian Act it is. They kept the part that defines who is an Indian because the whole thing will unravel if they do not have some form of definition. It is an artificial definition. The longer things go on and the more human nature exhibits itself, the more dysfunctional the whole arrangement will become.

Many things have been said today by members of other parties. There is always an attempt to pigeon hole and stereotype. It very discouraging that people like to do that when talking to an issue that is potentially charged with racial overtones because we are talking about status Indians and the Indian Act. They love to stereotype and try to pigeon hole where one is coming from. This is why I was greatly concerned about what the member for Churchill was saying earlier concerning what motivates members of the Reform Party in terms of some of this legislation.

There is an unholy alliance which I describe as a love-in between the Liberals and the NDP on some aboriginal legislation. I remind members of the House that we are now in the second parliament of this administration and we have yet to see a piece of aboriginal legislation that originated with the government.

All the legislation we saw in the last parliament and what we are seeing in this parliament is legislation initiated in the days when Brian Mulroney and the Tories were in government. All their initiatives are still being milked. All their excesses are still coming out from the legislative boiler room, wherever it might be. There are no original ideas. There is no new direction. It is apparent that is what is needed.

Further, the bill we are dealing with right now dates back a number of years. I cannot locate all the details, but this legislation under different formats has been worked on for a number of years. A lot of money flowed to participants who were developing a proposal that was turned into legislation. It is a very expensive initiative. It probably cost several millions of dollars. It could be over $10 million. It seems like that is always the case. Very little is accomplished for an awful lot of money, and I have concerns about that.

We all know that there is very enlightened band governance in Canada. We could all name examples. We recognize that the current policy framework of the department of Indian affairs is ineffective in allowing people to get rid of unenlightened governance.

When we cannot get rid of the bad apples the barrel tends to get tainted. That is what we are trying to change. We want all accountability mechanisms to be put in place because that is what people deserve. In actual fact we are finding out that is what people want. It is only the established powers that tend to resist because the status quo serves them quite well.

Bill C-49 purports to provide for the establishment of an alternative land management regime that gives first nations community control over the lands and resources within their reserves. In other words, Bill C-49 was drafted to give aboriginal people more control over the lands they occupy.

I have some very major concerns about the bill. The framework agreement on first nations land management will be ratified by Bill C-49. It extends to band governance broader powers than those extended to municipal governments under the various provincial-municipal acts. This is very troubling, especially from a local perspective. After all, it is at the local level that lives are lived. That is where things get done. That is where co-operation is developed. That is where families grow. That is where everything happens.

The bill has the potential to significantly impact relations between bands and local governments in a number of areas such as land use planning, environmental regulation and protection of third party interests. Again the federal government is imposing its will in terms of creating legislation that will destruct local and provincial relationships without saying what it is doing.

This kind of legislation is always wrapped up in a pretty package and the contents are allowed to seep out over time. There is no attempt to quantify what the consequences of the legislation may be even though the implications are vast and potentially far reaching.

Last year the union of B.C. municipalities and the lower mainland treaty advisory committee both expressed major concerns about the predecessor piece of legislation, Bill C-75, which was introduced in the dying days of the last parliament. It died and has now been resurrected a year later. To summarize their concerns, there was little or no consultation with the British Columbia government, local government and the public in general.

This was my critic area in the last parliament. The minister of Indian affairs, Indian lobbyists, backbench Liberal MPs and the minister's staff hounded the opposition House leader, the Reform House leader and me in the dying days of the last parliament prior to the election call. Everyone knew the election call was coming on the last weekend of April 1997. Everyone knew the June 2, 1997 election would be called in April. There was incredible pressure brought to bear on us to allow Bill C-75 to go through all three readings and obtain royal assent before parliament recessed due to the election call.

We refused to be stampeded because of our concerns, as I have just explained, about the lack of consultation with anybody involved other than the aboriginal band leaderships set out in the agreement. Despite this major and serious concern no substantive change has been made to Bill C-49 which evolved from Bill C-75 to ensure a smooth and harmonious relationship between local and band governments, which I also consider to be local governments.

The department of Indian affairs works in mysterious ways. I must admit that I have lost my grapevine having moved on to another portfolio. What has happened with this legislation is typical of many other pieces of Liberal legislation. The government gets stampeded by internal lobby groups. The minister commits himself or herself to action. Pressure flows from the minister's desk to staff and caucus. They all try to infect the opposition with a sense of undue haste and urgency. Then, if the legislation does not go through either in the dying days of a parliament before an election or prior to a recess, when we come back to the House, lo and behold the haste and urgency have dissipated.

It has been more than a year since the election and we are just seeing this piece of legislation slowly winding its way through this House.

I do not like this piece of legislation because it fragments the statutory framework whereby we have about 630 bands across Canada administered under the Indian Act.

We are trying to take 14 bands out from under some of the provisions of the Indian Act. However, far too much of the Indian Act will still apply to those 14 bands. It is piecemeal, partial, non-satisfactory legislation.

Another concern I have is about the leaseholders on reserve lands. The leaseholders have had, in some cases, multiple decades of holding their leases under agreements supervised by the department of Indian affairs. Perhaps there has been an eroding federal presence, but certainly this is a tremendously significant departure from previous lease arrangements for homeowners, cottage owners, long term land leases and other situations.

These people are going to be faced with a whole new set of rules with attendant uncertainties. Should they be unhappy with the new arrangements, should they consider that they have a legitimate beef, their concerns are not really addressed in this bill.

There is no protection against one sided land quotes which may totally devalue the investments they have made in improvements. That could really be considered a form of expropriation.

I think we can argue that natural justice would say that compensation should occur if land quotes impact negatively on people, but there is no mechanism for this to happen in the bill.

This bill is coming back to us again a year and a half later and not a thing has changed in terms of band, local or provincial protocol on environmental or land use issues.

First Nations Land Management ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

Derrek Konrad Reform Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I will just make the comment that aboriginals also helped to defeat the Charlottetown accord.

We talk about the community consultation review process and the impacts of that. B.C. native women are concerned about what happened to the results of the process.

Who in this country would be satisfied with the community review process if their rights were at stake or if their land and property were at risk and a ruling was made that had no prior government oversight? What if they were at the mercy of a local band and council and did not have a higher law to set limits on government? What if there were no limits to the powers they could exercise in relationship to their property, to the place they bring up their children?

First Nations Land Management ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, every system needs checks and balances in order to operate in the long term in an enlightened fashion. We have seen the pendulum swing a long way toward there really being no effective checks and balances under the Indian Act.

The department of Indian affairs became compromised by the fact that it was sitting on many things that were wrong. It really did not want anyone to discover what all of those things were.

The department started a cover-up operation a long time ago. It is a bureaucratic response to a problem. It would happen in every organization where there are no checks and balances.

There is no other department with a mandate for activities on the reserve. This has become a very large problem.

We are now developing some ad hoc mechanisms. The First Nations Coalition for Accountability, for example, has now developed enough of a membership and enough credibility as a grassroots organization, through its networking and contacts with provincial government cabinets, the media and so on, that there are now times when they can identify a problem on a reserve. They can then phone and tell them to fix the problem or heat will be brought to bear, and the problem gets fixed.

This is all brand new and it took five years of tough fighting. An awful lot of people put themselves in a very susceptible position.

First Nations Land Management ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Provencher Manitoba

Liberal

David Iftody LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, I just want to help the hon. member a bit. He is quite wrong to suggest that no consultations were held with respect to this bill, particularly in his home province.

Indeed, there have been 12 meetings involving the B.C. municipalities, I think on four occasions. There was an advisory group on three separate occasions. Two to three letters were written to the province of British Columbia. In fact there have been a number of letters exchanged with relevant stakeholder groups in British Columbia, as well as the 12 meetings with the union of B.C. municipalities.

Is the hon. member not aware of these consultations even in his home province?

First Nations Land Management ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of how the government pays lip service to consultation. I am also aware of correspondence from a member of the treaty negotiation advisory committee and from the union of B.C. municipalities about the real level of consultation that actually occurred, and the absence of what they termed consultation.

We have discovered over the past five years that the Liberal definition of consultation and the stakeholder definition of consultation are often diametrically opposed.

The proof is in the pudding because there has now been an additional year to carry on lots of further consultation, because of the great unhappiness and because it was admitted that there was a problem, and not one thing has changed in the legislation to address any of that.