Jim Abbott

[Dangerous Offenders, December 13th, 1995]

What arguments?

[Dangerous Offenders, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In a filibuster, does the member not have to use some reasoned argument at some point?

[Dangerous Offenders, December 13th, 1995]

Oh, oh. And we have got gun control now too.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 13th, 1995]

It is absolutely amazing. I think it would be even more instructive if we were to take the words of the self-declared constitutional expert, the man from Vancouver Quadra. I will quote from an article dated November 30 where he acknowledges the regional veto system was resurrected from a constitutional conference in 1971. It may have come about for no other reason than because "someone in the Prime Minister's office mentioned it and nobody happened to point out that what worked in 1971 would not work now. I think it is as simple as that". That is what the member for Vancouver Quadra said to a reporter in Vancouver on November 30. It will be very instructive to visualize how this member will end up voting later in the day.

Why do we get there? Because the Prime Minister panicked because he had a totally worthless plan for trying to fight the referendum. That is the only reason we get there. We have a Prime Minister who has no vision and is out of touch. Quite frankly, it is my judgment and apparently the judgment of all of my colleagues in the House that the Prime Minister should seriously reconsider his future in the role of Prime Minister of Canada. He has no vision.

I will quote from another authority. I consider this person to be an authority because as the former premier of Newfoundland from 1979 to 1989, Brian Peckford went through a tremendous number of constitutional wars. He points out something very subtle here:

Furthermore there are other problems with what is being proposed. In a ruling in September 1981, the Supreme Court of Canada said about a federal unilateral initiative to patriate and change the Constitution that it was inconsistent with the

conventions of the Constitution which required the substantial consent of the provinces. This ruling is significant for at least two reasons:

I will give one:

The concept of "conventions" of the Constitution. It can be argued that the present federal proposals involve a process that is really backdoor constitution making, given that it is possible in the future for the high court to rule that these proposals form part of the conventions of the Constitution. Therefore you actually have the likelihood that these will be viewed in a constitutional way even if they are not specifically put into the written Constitution.

He summarizes and submits that "the present federal proposals use a process which is contrary to what Canadians wish to see as the process for constitutional change". As a matter of fact, I would parenthesize again and say that this process is totally outside constitutional law. The Prime Minister is tinkering with the Constitution outside of constitutional law.

The Supreme Court ruling of '81 casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of the process being used, in as much as what is being effectively done is tantamount to a constitutional change disregarding the convention of first obtaining substantial consent.

That raises a whole host of questions. Where is the substantial consent to these changes? Nowhere, except with 177 sheep. That is where the substantial consent is.

These federal proposals if passed could be viewed by the supreme court in the future as part of a convention of the Constitution and hence carrying more weight than is currently being ascribed to them.

It is scary stuff. Very scary stuff. What is going on is that we have a fundamental subversion of the constitutional process, of the very document on which Canada and the relationships not only between the provinces, but between us as Canadians are founded. These are the rules under which we live together. These are the rules under which our various jurisdictions function.

The Prime Minister, out of a sense of panic, has gone ahead and made these changes. He is oblivious to the fact that according to the expert I just quoted, because these changes will form part of a convention and a part of the way things are done, they could be viewed by the Supreme Court of Canada as being substantive changes to the Constitution.

Who has the Prime Minister consulted? No one. That is who. Let us briefly look at the consultation process. Did the Prime Minister go to members of his Liberal cabinet? If he did go to those members, what did the Minister of National Revenue say to him? Or did he totally disregard the fact that the Minister of National Revenue is supposedly touted as being the minister representing the viewpoint of the province of British Columbia?

He cannot have it both ways. Either he did not go to the revenue minister and the rest of his cabinet and did this thing on the back of an envelope with chewing gum and baling wire, or he did go to the Minister of National Revenue and chose to disregard the advice of the Minister of National Revenue. I suppose one could even ask if the Minister of National Revenue was awake that day and realized what a major problem we are stumbling into in Canada.

The second question: Did he go to his caucus? He said today in the House that he went to his caucus. I would suggest that he probably went to his caucus well after the fact, well after it was etched in stone, and caucus members were too embarrassed to stand up and be counted, as they should stand up and be counted on behalf of Canadians.

Did he go to provincial officials? Clearly not. We have received copies of letters from the premiers to the Prime Minister. I read part of a letter from the premier of British Columbia: "I am writing in regard to the bill currently before the House of Commons entitled an act respecting constitutional amendments. The Government of British Columbia strongly objects to the fact-", and it goes on and on. Where was the consultation?

We are led to believe by the news media that the Prime Minister, just by happenstance, may be calling some of the premiers to say: "Guess what we are doing today?"

In the Calgary Herald today the premier of Alberta is quoted going on about the fact that the Prime Minister was completely out of touch and had not contacted him. In fact, the premiers are still being told, probably by an aide to the Prime Minister, what is going on. Where is the consultation?

That is the crux of it. The blatant disregard which the Prime Minister and his party have for the people of Canada is appalling. He has not gone to the people of Canada at any point and he is talking about substantive changes to their Constitution. It is their Constitution and he ignores them. He does not consult them in any way.

Why would the Liberals vote for this egregious piece of legislation? I suppose it is because they like being parliamentary secretaries or chairmen of standing committees. Maybe they like the privilege of being able to travel around the countryside or on international junkets. I believe this is where the whip comes in.

When the hon. member for Mississauga West was on television a few weeks ago she said: "Look at the number of free votes we have had in the House of Commons". Sure, there have been free votes in the House of Commons for Liberal members, but every single, solitary one of those free votes was on private members' business. There was no exception. The whip has been on when it came to

government business. Any member who voted against the government whip, against the wishes of the Prime Minister, has been banished, chastised and disciplined. It is absolutely and totally contrary to what the red book told Canadians. It said that this government would be different and there would be free votes.

Why vote? It almost leaves me to ask: Why have a House of Commons? Why do we come here, as we have today, realizing that the debate which started at approximately 3.30 this afternoon will be terminated by the Liberals at 5.15 p.m.? The bill will substantively change the Constitution of Canada. I say: Shame on the Liberals. There is no excuse for this kind of pile-driving and ramrodding of legislation.

I suspect that my words have fallen on deaf ears on the Liberal side. They just do not understand. They do not even show up for the debates. I cannot comprehend where their head space might be.

What can I say? When the Reform Party is elected to government in 1997 it will repeal this bunch of legislation, which is so divisive, so discredited, so damaging and, I suggest, so deceitful. The Reform Party will ensure that any future changes to constitutional law will include the provision that the people of Canada will have a say over their Constitution by way of one person, one vote. That is democracy. That is the Reform way.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 13th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commence my speech today on behalf of the Reform Party with regard to Bill C-110 by speaking about the attitude there seems to be on the part of people in the government.

This attitude is led by none other than the Prime Minister. People in the House have learned, they have listened and understand well. The attitude is that if there is vacuousness, in other words, nothing to talk about and nothing to offer, then attack the other person's motive.

I was deeply dismayed yesterday and I quote the Prime Minister when he said: "There has not been one day since we have been talking about this problem that he"-referring to the leader of the Reform Party-"has not been in bed with the Quebec separatists. There has not been one day he does not want to try to make life difficult for a government that is trying to save Canada. There has not been one day that he is not causing some disturbance in Canada because he has no interest in keeping the country together".

I find that kind of personal attack beneath the dignity of the person who has the title of Prime Minister of Canada. It is exceptionally unfortunate that he is setting that kind of a tone for the people in his party when he has absolutely no content, no idea of what he is doing. He is running this country from the back of an envelope. He attacks the motives of the leader of this party or anyone else who does not go along with his flavour of the day.

His flavour of the day apparently has now changed and we are going to have a veto for the province of B.C. While there are few things said by the Block Quebecois I agree with, I agree with the last speaker that this veto for the province of B.C. is nothing more than an additional piece of chewing gum to add to the chewing gum and baling wire that has been used to put together this concocted Bill C-110 in the first place.

How did we get there? Contrary to the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister who apparently has taken the comments and the direction of the Prime Minister to heart to the point of ending up in tears here in the House of Commons, contrary to her point of view and the way in which she chooses to express it, there are people in Canada, including members of the Reform Party, who are avowed federalists and believe in the concept of keeping this great nation together. The chewing gum and baling wire effort at this point is so absolutely and abjectly inadequate as to make my stomach turn.

Why do we have this bill? It is, first, because the Prime Minister panicked. Obviously the "don't worry, be happy" attitude he had when he came to British Columbia saying everything is fine, did not work. "I am really pleased that nobody in British Columbia, nobody in the west, has been panicking over the fact that we have not really been running in this referendum debate. It is really nice that you have not been running and creating any problems, therefore don't worry, be happy".

That was approximately two weeks before October 30 when the first string quarterback, Jacques Parizeau, decided to replace himself with a backup quarterback, the leader of Her Majesty's official loyal opposition as the person who was going to lead the province of Quebec out of Canada.

When that happened, the people of Quebec started to listen to the siren songs and the abject lies of the separatists. They listened to them and actually believed that by voting yes, this group to my right were talking about making a better place for Quebec in Canada. What the people of Quebec did not know at that time was that the leader, the vice-premier of Quebec, was actually at that time circulating to four embassies saying that on October 31 you will recognize us as an independent state. The people of Quebec did not know that.

The leader of Her Majesty's official loyal opposition that the Liberals want in the position of Her Majesty's official loyal opposition decided that he would continue with those lies. He obviously got away with it to the extent that 38 per cent of the people who voted yes in the referendum actually believed those lies and that they were going to be a part of Canada.

What did the Prime Minister do? He absolutely panicked. He turned around and said: "Let's see, what do I have in my grab bag of tricks? What have we tried before? Why do we not take a whack at distinct society? Hey, that is a good idea. Let's do distinct society. What about veto? Yeah, crumb, let's do veto too. That's a good idea".

That is how we are in this House today with the government having rammed distinct society down Canadians' throats and tonight ramming veto down Canadians' throats.

Why did we get here? Some of the responses from my province are indicative of the kind of rage there is not only in British Columbia but around the nation. I will read a paragraph from a letter from Jack Weisgerber who is the leader of the third party in British Columbia. It is dated November 28 and addressed to the Prime Minister. He says:

If your aim is to truly keep Canada united from coast to coast, as I certainly hope it is-

I might parenthesize that there are some people in Canada who would question the Prime Minister's motives. Because I find that act reprehensible on the part of the Prime Minister and the Liberals, I will not do it. Then he says:

-you must have the courage to articulate a vision of Canada that is consistent with the views of most Canadians in every province. From British Columbia's perspective, the only vision of Canada that is acceptable is one where all provinces and all Canadians are equal, with special status for none. Surely that should have been the lesson learned from the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord, which is being entirely ignored by your government.

It is really telling the way in which this government has chosen to bring this legislation forward with a complete ignorance of the fact that the people of Canada rejected these provisions in the Charlottetown accord. Yet it is jamming it down their throats in spite of what the people have said.

The Reform Party is very clear and unequivocal. If there is to be any change to the Constitution, the Constitution must be approved by the people of Canada, not the provincial legislatures, not this assembly, but by the people of Canada because the Canadian Constitution belongs to Canadians.

We currently have an amending formula in our constitutional law. It is called the seven and fifty formula. That is the formula where seven provinces representing a total in excess of 50 per cent of the population of Canada would be able to ratify most changes to the Constitution. For the sake of time I will not go into the detail of the exceptions to that. That is a broad enough statement.

An interesting comment was written in the column "The write stuff" by constitutional experts David Bercuson and Barry Cooper. They say in part:

First, remember that we do have a Constitution in Canada; it contains an amending formula. Mr. Chrétien surely knows that. Given his pivotal role in its adoption back in the early 1980s, he must have once believed that the current amending formula is a good thing. But now, with Saint Lucien about to become the great helmsman of the separatist cause in Quebec, the Constitution is no longer convenient.

What then, can Chrétien do except to pretend the Constitution doesn't exist? Hence his proposal of wholesale change to the structure of government without following the rules. It is a plan that, if successful, will allow Chrétien to avoid the minor inconvenience suffered by Brian Mulroney of having his proposals for constitutional change thrown back in his face.

Chrétien's proposals are, in our view, more dishonest, more divisive, and far more repellent than anything the Mulroney gang ever dreamed up.

They go on to say:

There is no such thing as a "region" in the Constitution, or anyplace else in Canadian law. So, giving a constitutional veto to a "region" isn't much different than giving a veto to all red-headed, left-handed, green-eyed women in Canada. Both entities are equally recognized in the Constitution and both have the same status as constitutional players, namely none.

These experts, in looking at these things, are very incisive in their comments. They reveal the fact that the government and indeed the whole country of Canada are currently being run by a Prime Minister and his cabinet from scribblings on the backs of used envelopes.

In a column by Joan Bryden, entitled "Veto for B.C. fuels constitutional uproar" I read:

Although B.C. will now be recognized as a fifth region with its own veto-along with Ontario, Quebec, the prairies and the Atlantic region-Premier Mike Harcourt complained the move will make it even harder to amend the Constitution in the future.

It means, effectively, that seven provinces representing at least 92 per cent of the population must approve any constitutional change before the federal government will consider giving its own stamp of approval.

That's a stiffer requirement than the seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population currently needed for most constitutional changes.

Forest Minister Andrew Petter, B.C.'s point man on the unity package, said Chrétien is putting a "straitjacket on Confederation" and accused him of making up his unity strategy "on the back of an envelope".

Truly that is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing. Yet the Liberal members, like sheep, will come to this House tonight, fall in line and vote for this straitjacket on the Canadian Constitution.

We have a situation where we are giving a veto. Perhaps I should stop for a second here and just detail my concept of what a veto is. Simply, if someone being one of many has a veto power and that person's vote was negative then that person would be able to stop the process in spite of the fact that the majority of the vote was positive. That is my understanding of the word veto.

What this Prime Minister has done is to give Canada's federal government constitutional veto over Canada's Constitution to the separatist government in Quebec. It is absolutely unbelievable. It is so unbelievable I have to repeat it: The Prime Minister is giving Canada's federal government constitutional veto over changes to Canada's Constitution to the separatist government in Quebec.

It goes beyond exasperation to think that those people would come back into this House tonight and actually vote that way simply because their Prime Minister says so. I should explain that there is a lot of embarrassment on the part of Liberals in the province of British Columbia because they have the misfortune of having the name Liberal. I will read from a column by an MLA candidate:

The federal government has made its spectacular move. In an effort to appease the disgruntled Quebec separatists, the Prime Minister is putting the true union of Canadian provinces at risk.

The thinly disguised `veto to all' will leave Quebec in the position of stopping any constitutional changes, no matter how logical they may be. British Columbia, the fastest growing and third largest province has been pushed aside once more.

I say in parenthesis that this was written immediately prior to the extra inclusion of the veto for British Columbia, but the sentiments are exactly the same. This B.C. Liberal is trying to distance himself from the crazy federal Liberals. He goes on to say:

The unity committee, as designed by the Prime Minister, has one western Canadian representative-and she is from Edmonton. This committee now should be disbanded because Chrétien's latest move has made it redundant.

The `distinct society' clause will enshrine a special status for a small section of our society and will inflame relations with Quebec for years to come.

Liberals, this is a Liberal speaking.

The Prime Minister has no inkling as to what makes Canada tick! He is completely out of touch!

The Charlottetown accord of 1992 was defeated because of the inclusion of this type of special treatment.

I wonder who the minister of western alienation is? This individual is doing a commendable job!

This was said by a B.C. Liberal candidate. But what does the B.C. Liberal leader say? When he was interviewed on December 6 the questioner asked: "You have no embarrassment though that they are Liberals and you are a Liberal in name?" The B.C. Liberal leader wanted to distance himself from these people over here because he said: "Our party is totally separate from the federal party. I am embarrassed for British Columbia that they are not standing up in Parliament and speaking up for the interests of British Columbia, which is what I believe their task is".

[Senator Selection Act, December 13th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-365, an act to allow the electors of a province to express an opinion on who should be summoned to the Senate to represent the province.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce my private member's bill, an act to allow the electors of a province to express an opinion on who should be summoned to the Senate to represent the province.

The Reform Party's ultimate objective always has been true Senate Reform, a triple E Senate, elected, equal and effective. We can change the method of appointing senators so that they are elected.

This bill will change the method of appointing senators through an election process without constitutional revision. It will require that the Prime Minister wait to receive the expression of opinion from any province with a senatorial selection act similar to the Alberta senatorial selection act which resulted in Senator Stan Waters being appointed to the Senate.

The current Senate has not been able to perform its role effectively because the selection process has undermined its legitimacy. There is considerable urgency for the introduction of this bill now because the Government of Canada is cramming through veto legislation which will create constitutional gridlock.

I am introducing this bill today as a result of the forced vote to be held this afternoon on Bill C-110. The long range interests of Canadian federalism will truly be served by Senate reform.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Government Appointments, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when Canada is overburdened with old ideas and old institutions the government has come forward with far reaching, regressive veto legislation that will etch in stone for all time parliamentary anachronisms such as the current Senate.

The Prime Minister's outdated, outmoded, traditional political practice of stuffing that institution with patronage appointments has loaded this powerful unelected body with partisan failures, flatterers and pleaders of special interests.

Tomorrow I will be introducing my private member's bill that will give electors of a province a vote on who should be summoned to represent them in that chamber. It is absolutely vital that we remove porky patronage appointments from the Prime Minister's paws, if we are to have any true legitimacy in Canada's upper house.

Let us make no mistake. The Reform Party always has been and always will be driving toward true Senate reform, that of an effective, elected and equal Senate.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

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

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

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

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

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

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful if the member were to spend a little time in British Columbia rather than in Peterborough. Then he might have some comprehension of what is the content of the speech from the Department of Indian Affairs that he just read to us. He clearly has no concept of what is going on in British Columbia.

When the member says this is an open process, the people in British Columbia, who are concerned about this, which is probably the majority of British Columbians, would ask: What open process?

I am consistently asked: "Who is negotiating for us? Who are they? How were they selected? Where do they meet? When do they meet? I do now know who they are". More important, I am also asked: "What is their mandate? Who gave them the mandate? How do we even know what they are negotiating on our behalf?"

I am inclined to agree with the member that if we have a problem, which we clearly do in this situation or in any situation, that it is very helpful to have negotiations with people who are sitting down eyeball to eyeball.

However, what we have in my constituency in British Columbia is 3 per cent of the people that are represented by people who are constantly in touch with them, who clearly understand what the mandate is and, more important, who go back to their people to report regularly. They also know that they are going to be subject to a ratification vote at the end of the day. Therefore, they know that they have to negotiate in good faith on behalf of the people they

represent. The same is absolutely not true of the non-aboriginal side.

I ask the member if he would care to come to British Columbia and maybe we could clue him in a little bit.