House of Commons Hansard #208 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aboriginal.

Topics

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:35 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, again I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That, in relation to its permanent Order of Reference under the Statutory Instruments Act, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations be authorized to travel to Toronto from September 25 to 27, 2002, in order to attend the “Red Tape to Smart Tape” Conference and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: (Mr. Bélair)

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for St. John's West, Fisheries and Oceans.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and to make related amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Questions or comments.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rob Anders Canadian Alliance Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Out of curiosity, on those particular motions that the hon. member just stood on with regard to travel budget requests, is it true that they total $24,000--

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

I am sorry, but we are on questions and comments to the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. Points of order are completed.

The hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain on a point of order.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the minister spoke on the bill about five minutes before question period today. We went immediately into members' statements. Then we started without anyone having the opportunity to ask the minister some questions. I am wondering if that opportunity will not be available, not that I want to grill him or anything, but there is some information I would like. I was wondering if he will be back in before we just--

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

At the start of a reading, the first three speakers are not subjected to questions or comments. As of the fourth one, as is the case right now, then we do have questions or comments. If the minister has spoken very briefly, that is his prerogative on this.

Questions or comments? If not, resuming debate.

The hon. member for Dauphin--Swan River.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Inky Mark Canadian Alliance Dauphin—Swan River, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-60, the specific claims resolution act, on second reading, representing the PC Party of Canada as an independent Conservative member of the House. It is rather unusual to debate two bills on aboriginal affairs back to back. As we know, yesterday we debated the first nations governance act, Bill C-61.

I made reference during yesterday's debate on Bill C-61 to the fact that the member for Winnipeg Centre made a recommendation to the minister that aboriginal representation be included during the hearing process of the standing committee. I can certainly say at this time that the PC Party of Canada supports that recommendation. In fact, we would suggest that the recommendation be extended to Bill C-60 as well.

We all know that the land claims issue in Canada has been longstanding and has not been easy. Aboriginal treaties and land claims are part of Canada's history. I believe that Canadians want these outstanding land claims to be resolved in an expedient manner. It is in the best interests of all Canadians, including aboriginal Canadians. Bill C-60, in the PC Party's opinion, is a progressive step.

My first involvement with land claims was in 1995 with the Rolling River first nations band in my riding of Dauphin--Swan River. The then chief, Dennis Whitebird, who is now the grand chief in Manitoba, was one of the leaders involved in the entitlement land claims initiative in Manitoba. As the mayor at the time I learned a lot about land claims through the process and supported the Manitoba entitlement claim initiative. In fact, Dauphin--Swan River is fortunate to have 13 first nation communities as well as 88 other municipalities.

The land claims process, as I found out, is not as simple as it sounds. At this point I would like to relate some of the basic information that I had to learn to understand and I believe it would be in the interest of the viewers following this debate.

First nations in Canada have signed agreements with the crown that are called treaties. There are three groups of treaties: pre-Confederation treaties, numbered treaties, and modern treaties, which we designate as land claims. In July 1817 the Selkirk Treaty in my own province of Manitoba was signed by the Saulteaux and the Cree First Nations and the Government of Canada.

The pre-Confederation treaties include King George III's royal proclamation of 1763. Those treaties were negotiated in Canada before Confederation. Also included are the Robinson Treaty of 1850, Treaty No. 13, and the additions to the Robinson Treaty which are known as Treaty No. 12 and Treaty No. 14. Numbered treaties are the treaties numbered 1 to 11, which were negotiated between 1871 and 1877 with first nations people across Canada.

The third group of treaties is known as the modern treaties, or land claims as we know them today, which consist of land claims negotiated according to Canada's land claims policy established in 1973. The land claims policy recognizes two broad classes of claims: comprehensive claims and specific claims.

I will explain briefly what comprehensive claims are. Comprehensive claims are based on the assertion of continuing aboriginal title to lands and natural resources.

Comprehensive claim settlements are negotiated to clarify the rights of aboriginal groups to lands and resources in a manner that will facilitate their economic growth and self-sufficiency. Settlements are intended to ensure that the interests of aboriginal groups in resource management and environmental protection are recognized and that claimants share in the benefits of development.

These rights and benefits usually include: full ownership of certain lands in the area covered by the settlement; guaranteed wildlife harvesting rights, which I will come back to later and discuss in a little more depth; guaranteed participation in land, water, wildlife and environmental management throughout the settlement area; financial compensation; resource revenue sharing; specific measures to stimulate economic development; and last, a role in management of heritage resources and parks in the settlement area.

I would like to speak about how guaranteed wildlife harvesting rights has impacted both aboriginal and non-aboriginal individuals in Dauphin--Swan River this past winter.

No one disagrees that aboriginal Canadians have the right to fish and hunt on a sustenance level. In real terms, sustenance means putting food on the table, in the absence of aboriginal commercial rights to fish.

This past winter in Dauphin--Swan River we saw a small group of aboriginal net fishers net fishing on an unlimited basis in stocked lakes under the guise of sustenance. That is wrong. This illegal activity is not supported even by aboriginal people. Most of this illegal catch ended up on the commercial market through the Manitoba freshwater fish marketing board, which is a creature of the federal government.

Unfortunately this issue is still unresolved. Manitoba has no provincial regulations pertaining to unlimited net fishing by aboriginals. In fact, the Manitoba conservation minister is himself an aboriginal Canadian. He wants band bylaws on resource management to be applicable outside the boundaries of the reserve. This goes against the Sparrow decision.

The issue of unlimited net fishing by aboriginals in stocked lakes will not go away unless all stakeholders in Manitoba meet and come up with a solution. The provincial minister currently picks and chooses who should sit at the table. If humans do not agree, fish and game will be the big losers. We will all lose if we lose our wildlife resources.

Most specific claims are related to land other than a loss of reserve lands without lawful surrender by the band concerned or the government's failure to pay compensation where lands were taken with legal authority. Other specific claims arise with respect to the administration of Indian moneys and other assets such as timber and mineral rights.

This brings me to Bill C-60 dealing with specific claims. Before I talk about the bill I would like to put forth the Progressive Conservative position. We would respond energetically to the co-operative settlement of outstanding land and other claims with aboriginal people ensuring that they have full opportunity to grow, develop and prosper within Canada.

The position of the Progressive Conservative Party differs from the Liberals in that we would work with aboriginal people to expressly define aboriginal rights as a matter of public policy in a non-confrontational balance and interest based negotiations. We believe that the ineffective, paternalistic, colonial approach of the Indian Act must give way to greater self-reliance through effective education, economic development, social justice and local control.

The PC position is very clear. We do not share the position of another party in the House that believes special rights for any targeted racial group is contrary to the principle of equality and that they should be indistinguishable in law and treatment from other Canadians.

The minister said in committee that something was wrong when legal fees outstripped settlement targets. In principle the PC Party supports Bill C-60. On the matter of litigation we support the policy that Canada will not entertain a claim or participate in negotiations if first nations have active litigation on the claim.

The existing claims process has been criticized by many over the years. These are some of the criticisms. This was a backroom process hidden from the public. There is a lack of fairness and transparency in the area of research and assessment. It does not provide a level playing field for negotiations. Finally, there is a lack of independence and partiality and accountability. The new bill, Bill C-60, hopefully will address these concerns.

Canada's specific claims policy was first established in 1973. Over the years this policy has been amended several times to reflect the evolving legal and policy environment. Despite its shortcomings, it has settled many claims. In fact, 232 claims were settled, totalling $1.2 billion, averaging $5.3 million per claim and adding 16,000 square kilometres to the reserve land base. Approximately 580 claims, with an estimated contingent liability of $2 billion, have been added to the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada inventory of unsettled claims.

Calls for the government to establish an independent claims body have been numerous over four decades by three parliamentary committees: the parliamentary joint committee 1946-48; the joint committee of 1959-1961; and the Commons standing committee on aboriginal affairs in 1991. There was also draft legislation introduced twice in the House in 1963 and 1965. They all failed.

Three independent reports made similar recommendations for an independent claims body: Gérard La Forest in 1981; the Canadian Bar Association in 1987; and the royal commission on aboriginal peoples in 1995. There are other advocates who recommended the same point of view: the Indian Specific Claims Commission in 1991 and the first nations Canada joint task force created in 1996.

All stakeholders agree that establishment of this independent body is long overdue. The centrepiece of Bill C-60 is the establishment in law of the Canadian centre for the independent resolution of first nations specific claims. It will be comprised of a commission division to facilitate the negotiation of claims settlements between the parties by providing a range of dispute resolution processes and a tribunal division as a last recourse to adjudicate the validity of and compensation for claims where negotiations and dispute resolution processes have proved unsuccessful.

The commission and the tribunal will establish neutral arm's length claim facilitation and adjudication bodies, enhance transparency, remove the funding of first nations to participate in specific claims process from the minister's jurisdiction, simplify the existing structure and bring greater rigour to the process and provide an effective alternative to litigating specific claims, which are expensive for both parties, by actively promoting negotiated settlements and/or exercising its authority to render binding decisions.

One area in Bill C-60 which calls for debate is the fear of patronage appointments process. Why does the government get to pick all the commissioners in both divisions? How can it operate at arm's length and be impartial and away from political influence if this occurs? Does the aboriginal community have representation on those commissions?

June 21 is an important day as we celebrate National Aboriginal Day. Aboriginal history is a part of this country's history. How many Canadians know that during the war of 1812-1814 the aboriginals in central Canada, through their efforts in aiding the British, basically prevented the takeover of this country by the Americans?

Two weeks ago I had the privilege to help open the first annual parkland aboriginal festival in Dauphin, Manitoba. I am sure the festival will become an annual event and will continue for many years to come. I applaud the Dauphin Friendship Centre for taking the initiative to organize the event, with the full support of the aboriginal community.

In closing, Bill C-60 is needed. The PC Party supports the bill in principle. I look forward to the upcoming hearings by the standing committee.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak for the member for Oxford in support of the bill respecting the specific claims resolution act.

The act would establish the Canadian centre for the independent resolution of first nations specific claims. This body would be composed of a commission division to facilitate negotiations on specific claims by first nations and a tribunal division to resolve disputes involving those claims. This system would expedite disputes and save money over the long term. It would also emphasize that both the Government of Canada and the first nations would rather negotiate than litigate. It would allow us to quickly resolve a number of historic grievances.

By settling these claims, we would remove a roadblock to economic development. Investors could proceed with confidence and first nations could negotiate from positions of strength. As the title of the act indicates, resolution is the objective to provide the certainty of a fair, equitable, transparent and just system.

The overall purpose of the new commission would be to facilitate the resolution of negotiated settlements on specific claims. The new tribunal would make binding decisions where dispute resolution mechanisms failed, with no appeal except to the federal court. Binding decisions would avoid costly recourse to court actions that would drag on and prevent the certainty of final resolutions, which are very expensive and frustrating.

The tribunal would determine compensation on claims to a ceiling of $7 million, ensuring access by most claims in the current inventory. I understand that 80% of the claims would come under the $7 million ceiling.

Certainty would allow aboriginal people to become investors and would encourage the investors to start new businesses and to expand opportunities. Certainty of resolution of specific claims would mean a new climate of strength and confidence for both first nations and partnering non-aboriginal communities.

Through the legislation, first nations would be moving to a more equal footing with other Canadians, able to pursue their dreams and sure that their claims are being dealt with fairly and impartially.

On behalf of the member for Oxford, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to participate in this important debate on this important legislation.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties in the House of Commons regarding the following motion which I would like to propose to the House and which has resulted in unanimous consent, at least of House leaders. I would now like to offer it to the House. It has to do with the date of recall of parliament in the fall, which would be on a Monday. Given that it is a Jewish Holy day, I would like to propose the following. I move:

That, for the year 2002 only, the phrase “the second Monday following Labour Day” in Standing Order 28(2) shall be changed to “the third Wednesday following Labour Day”

This would have the effect of backing up the date of our return by two days so that members will not have to sit or travel on the Jewish Holy day.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Some hon. member

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and to make related amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, as we have agreed to send this important bill to committee, I will be brief. If my partner shows up I will be sharing some time with him.

This is a tremendously important bill to me. I may be a little selfish but there is a lot of land in my constituency and there will be claims that I will want be able to address. I want the opportunity to question the committee and submit questions for my own satisfaction in dealing with other governments because once a land claim is made it is not just over. We will be dealing with changes in the acquisition of land, changes in the tax bases for municipalities and a whole set of agreements. It is not a simple thing. It is far reaching. It even goes into the tax base to fund public schools and so on.

It is a very difficult situation. Some of the rules and regulations in land acquisition in my province have a particular formula. I am sure it is the same formula as my colleague from Dauphin--Swan River just spoke about.

With regard to land acquisition, there is a point that no one has mentioned and it concerns me a lot. If one is going to lose or take out of the agricultural industry or the base for a certain community 20 farmers from a given portion of land, and if they move elsewhere, then we should know well in advance because the businesses that have traditionally served those 20 people will have to change their operations in order to adjust to the loss of customers. Heaven knows, in Saskatchewan we are losing enough customers as it is and that is a very serious concern.

No matter what people have to do to make their claim, I want to make absolutely sure that our position in land claims negotiations will be to ensure respect for existing property rights, affordable and conclusive settlements of all claims, and an open, transparent process, including all stakeholders. I can assure the House and the committee that the bill will set up that it is imperative that the committee understands the total results of what happens when land is taken over.

The first question I have concerns the independent centre. How independent will it be? In the true sense of independence, when the government selects the people, the chief executive officer and so on, how independent can the centre be? To answer that question, from what I have read, it will be about as independent as one could expect from government appointees. Let us keep that in mind.

The second question that has bothered me somewhat concerns the fact that the bill dictates that the centre must be located in Ottawa. That might be all right for the centre itself but I would suggest to those going into the committee and to the minister that it would be a lot easier to move the appointees to the area of dispute or to where the claim is being made than it would be to bring people down here. I have no objection to the centre being located here but I would suggest that its mobility be recognized. I really believe there is a necessity for that.

I would like to point out that the centre will be audited by the auditor general within six months of its operation and then it will be audited annually. I see nothing wrong with that. It is a whole lot better than some of the government programs today. Some of them have not been audited for years.

I would like the minister to take a look at grants in lieu of. It is a very indepth study but in some cases the grants in lieu of are grants made because of loss of business. While the transaction may be legal other outside interests will lose. I think the commission should be prepared to listen to that.

When the federal government came into our province under the PFRA back in the thirties it established huge grazing pastures. The RMs, who lost the real tax base, were given a grant every year in lieu of taxation.

In the case of land claims by first nations, a formula is in place but I think we have to re-examine that formula. Let me give the example of the RM of Golden West in my area. The amount of land that it has lost through land claims, and I do not want to use that word lost, but lost only to taxation purposes, leaves that particular rural government in the position, even with the formula, of no longer having the financial means to properly operate.

Some will say that is all right, that they can be swallowed up by other local RMs, which is possible, but I would like the minister to take a look once more at that formula and check with the Association of Rural Municipalities in each of the provinces to see if it is working. We need to have everybody on side or it will not work.

My hon. colleague from Dauphin--Swan River talked about something that has hurt this process and will continue to hurt this process. There is a man made lake just inside of his constituency called the Lake of the Prairies. People came in last winter, illegally netted the fish in the entire lake, loaded the fish on trucks and took them far away.

I want to say up front, that was not sustenance fishing and everybody knows that. However in my own area we reported the massive slaughter of elk one winter. The elk were taken out in refrigerated trucks. Although this was totally against conservation and totally against the environment no one, as far as I know, was ever apprehended or cited with an offence. If we want co-operation, we must realize that these things can no longer take place. They will hurt us in negotiations.

The next question I have concerns the minimum of seven million claims. What if one group of people submitted three seven million claims? That would amount to 21 million claims? Would they be allowed to submit three seven million claims? It is a moot question but it could be the way in which an agreement is finalized that normally could not be finalized under this group.

I am not on the committee but I hope the committee gives this the due attention it needs. It is very important because we must get this over with as quickly as possible.

My final question has to do with the time limit on the claims. Is there a time limit or do we have to wait for 20 years until another $7 million claim comes in? I think that is important too.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the purpose of Bill C-60 is to create an independent centre that would provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims.

It has been a longstanding opinion of a number of people throughout the country that these claims should be dealt with in a speedy fashion and in a fashion that will once and for all resolve the issues that surround the purpose of settling these claims.

The Canadian Alliance has strongly supported getting these claims settled in the best and speediest way possible. However I am not convinced in the slightest that this particular bill would achieve that. It seems like it is pretending to address the problems but I really wonder exactly where this will end up in the long run if it is approved. I am sure it will be approved because once again we have some legislation brought forward by a majority government and in this country the majority government always has its way.

I hope government members have listened and will continue to listen to the debate that is going on and that they will take into consideration some of the things that are concerning a number of people.

Although we are moving in a direction that is supposed to resolve long lasting problems, problems on reserves go on every day according to the individual people with whom I have met. Again today I received an e-mail from a fellow by the name of Keith Chiefmoon. Keith has written to the minister directly requesting immediate help for a flooding situation in Stand Off, Alberta. The situation has become desperate. The reserve has lost its drinking water and there are problems with sewage.

We need to learn to respond to these individual needs because the tragedies and grievances that these people are suffering on these reserves are absolutely pathetic in many instances. We have continued to lag in addressing the problems that surround the reserve issues to the point where even the United Nations has recognized most of the reserves to be no better than other countries in the world that have been classified as third world conditions.

Some of the people on the reserves are living in squalor and are struggling with difficulties simply because of the lack of accountability and lack of concern for anything other than regulations that enhance the needs of a few but do not look after the needs of the many.

I wish this legislation, which would create a centre to deal with land claims, would address the real down to earth problems. We need to give assurances to the many mothers and grandmothers on the reserves, who have contacted me and who I have met with personally in my travels across the country over the years, that their families can grow and achieve the prosperity that so many Canadians enjoy. They want to be part of that through whatever process or means we try to achieve. We need to give them some hope, which they do not have today, and give them some help which they feel is not available. They do not know where to turn.

I have met many times with ministers of Indian affairs over the years, including the present minister and the one prior to him. It just does not seem to happen that we address the real issues at the heart of the difficulties that surround the people who are affected. We seem to concentrate on the larger picture of establishing claims and making changes to the Indian Act.

These are the things we must address and look to in the future. We are putting the cart before the horse when we do not start at the bottom where the problems exist. The problems are with individuals in many of our reserves across the country.

I do not know how many times individuals have contacted me and said that they do not know who to turn to. If they go to their chiefs and councils regarding the issues that mean the most to them they are told to go home and that they will be looked after, but they never are. If they continue to make a fuss, then there are reprisals against them. There are problems that come their way because they speak out too often. They are told to go to the indian affairs department. I attended many meetings with them in Edmonton.

These people have pleaded with the indian affairs department to help them in their dire situations and the department's only answer is that it does not get involved with these problems. It is an internal problem. They are told to take it to their chief and council. Around and around it goes. It seems that is the way it has been going for years and years.

I see that a committee would be struck. There would be a centre and it would create a commission or tribunal. All the commissioners and adjudicators would be appointed by the Prime Minister. That bothers me right from the start. He has not had much luck in his appointments over the last few years that I could account for.

The claims process would then proceed as follows. There would be an intake and a preparatory stage. The first nations would submit claims to the commission which would arrange research funding for the first nations. It would notify interested parties of the claim and would facilitate preparatory meetings.

Exactly who would be involved in those preparatory meetings? Would it be the hundreds of grassroots natives who are constantly crying out to the minister and the government, who have been crying out since they were young and are now elders in their communities? Would they have a voice? Would they be heard with regard to where this would all lead? Would it address the cares and problems that these mothers and grandmothers in particular are trying to point out day in and day out through their many efforts? Or would it go to the upper echelon authorities?

I look at the validity stage where the crown would decide whether or not to accept the claim. If the crown were to refuse the claim, then the first nations could ask for a dispute resolution led by that commission. All these other people would sit on the sidelines while the elite would sort out the problems of settling these claims. Where are the first nations voices in all of this?

What about the taxpayer? I have never met any taxpayers in this country who are not willing to help the situation that exists in our country with regard to the livelihood and welfare of our native people. If only they knew where their dollars were going and what they were going to achieve.

Year after year the auditor general reports to the government about how it is failing to address the seriousness of the problems that exist in the hearts and minds of these people and their lives. Taxpayers become disillusioned when they look at millions and billions of dollars that goes along with running the indian affairs department. Yet they see their neighbours on reserves living in third world squalor conditions.

This is all fine and wonderful. We earn triple digit figures in salaries and all the big shots throughout the country will come together and make these great settlements, but who will truly benefit? Will there be any guarantee from the commission that at last the people who have been suffering for years on the reserves will have some relief? Will the taxpayers of Canada for once in a number of years say their dollars were well spent and that the Government of Canada and first nations did a good job? When will that day come? Will it be because of Bill C-60 or Bill C-61? I think not, not until there is a willingness to accept the challenge of taking care of our citizens, especially the aboriginals of Canada.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to revert to questions on the order paper?

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to return to questions on the order paper?

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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