Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The document that we discussed, the first recommendations, I am concerned about the wording. It states that, "we will be endorsing the whole package that was presented to us." Like I said yesterday, I do not feel comfortable with this package, and by endorsing it would mean to me that I fully understand it, and I fully accept it, and I am willing to go into my communities and explain this package to everybody there.

It is difficult to say that I endorse it on that basis. The content, the specific aspects of it, like the inherent right to self-government that I have been fighting for all of my political life, I fully support. Other aspects of it, in some areas, especially the economic aspect of it and the different things that are in there, it is difficult for me to say that I am fully comfortable with it and that I fully endorse it.

I guess it is due to a lack of information that I say this. If you could change the word in that first recommendation, maybe we could vote on it. I fully support a lot of the aspects of it, but there are some areas that are pretty grey for me right now, to say that I endorse the total package. I think the endorsement will happen by other people in the communities. Certainly, I will explain to people to the best of my ability, because the communities need to get all of this information as soon as possible.

I have been asked by a lot of people for documentation and information on the total package, the Charlottetown Accord. If you could change the wording of the first recommendation, I could probably vote on it.

Thank you. We are still in general comments. When we get into those recommendations, at that time, your comments would be more appropriate. General comments. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, I am not too sure, but did we agree to take a break between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m.?

From 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., and I would also like to remind the Members that there will be a meeting, when we are having a break, of the Special Committee on Constitutional Reform. General comments. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, are we having a break, or having a meeting? No, just kidding. Mr. Chairman, I was on this committee since it started. In June, the aboriginal issues started being addressed by the first Ministers. At that time, I was requested by the chairman, Mr. Kakfwi, to start attending those meetings. A lot of compromises were made, distinct societies were eliminated, treaty lands and aboriginal lands were eliminated. We did a lot of elimination, and came up with what we thought was the best that we could do, under the present circumstances.

Naturally, even to the last day in that Lester B. Pearson building, Quebec and Newfoundland were having problems accepting the deal. One of the difficulties is in recognizing aboriginal rights for Metis people, does that also mean new lands allocated to those people? Basically, because of that fear, if we recognize all those new rights for aboriginal people, that would mean a whole new land allocation for aboriginal people. I think a new section was also involved to the effect that it is the understanding that inherent right to self-government does not mean lands and resources, or something to that effect.

The other thing is that all during the process, it was a six month process, the Charlottetown Agreement was only, is only, about two weeks old. During the six month process, we had lawyers, and ourselves from the territories. We had at least three lawyers present all the time. We also had several resource people there all the time, and they were working on what they term "rolling grass."

When we talk about rolling grass, is that people, the Ministers, who would come up with an agreement, or general consensus on an agreement, of what was really said, and whether it is Senate reform, or any other discussions. Once there was general consensus, then it went to the resource people, and the legal people, so there was a rolling grass continuously. Once an agenda was not completed, but was discussed, and then there was the general consensus, things went to the lawyer, and it kept going like that for six months. Even at that point in time, with regard to the legal text, I believe that the final analysis is that basically what is written in the Charlottetown Agreement, would not change that much as far as legal wording would go, I would think. It took a long process, even for the lawyers to come up with what they thought was being said.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that I have, as an aboriginal person, aboriginal values. One of them is that many years ago, Mr. Chairman, I think we got into a lot of trouble because of this, that was that word of mouth was good enough at one time, but that is not the case any more. Everything has got to be so defined that we lose the intent, and maybe our own values.

My position was that based on the aboriginal section of this agreement, I would lobby in support of it. Mr. Chairman, one of the things is that, the failure of Meech Lake Accord was a result of what we got for the aboriginal package. We had nothing before the aboriginal package, except section 35. We have made a lot of gains and the section, with regard to the treaties, would be interpreted in a wide liberal manner.

I think that the Treaties 8 and 11 have already been interpreted by the courts. It was based on those interpretations that a movement towards land claims had started, back in 1967, 1968, and 1969. That was the opinion of the court, that what was in the treaties was not what was said at that time of the treaties. You have two versions, but it was based on a judge travelling into the communities. Even at that time, the judge respected the words of those aboriginal people, it was not written documents, it was not a legal text that they referred to. Judge Moore based it on the aboriginal values, that their word is truth.

I would think that what was negotiated by this government, and the aboriginal leaders, is that because we are an aboriginal government, not an aboriginal government, but a public government with an aboriginal majority, that what we are telling the people out there, is the truth, regardless of whether we have a legal text or not.

I would like to think that, Mr. Chairman, the hard work that we have put into it, I realize that not all the Members were there, but the Members did give us the mandate to be in Ottawa and try to go for the best possible deal. I think that is what we have done. If we do not support it, then we do not know what the results would mean.

My own personal observation, is that in my region, we do not have land claims. We have a lot more to lose, if something like this is not in place. I think Mr. Nerysoo mentioned it yesterday, is that we will have self-government in a public government forum. That is where people have already ratified claims, and that are ratifying claims. For the people who do not, I think they have a lot more to lose, by not going to that process, at least this would give them the opportunity to negotiate inherent right to self-government, as opposed to extinguishment.

Mr. Gargan, your 10 minutes are up. We will take a lunch break, and come back at 1:30 p.m. That reminds me, the Special Committee on Constitutional Reform will meet during lunch.

---LUNCH BREAK

This committee will come back to order. We are still on Committee Report 18-12(2), Committee Report 10-12(2), and Minister's Statement 82-12(2). We are still on general comments. Are there any further general comments? Mr. Nerysoo.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure. Are we going to deal with the details? Just before I get into the details, I want to make a statement on recommendations if I could.

I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, earlier today, this morning, all Members were at an Ordinary Members' Caucus, and asked me to try and work out a solution on recommendation one, with Mr. Kakfwi. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Members that, in fact, proposed that I try and work something out, were Mr. Lewis and Mrs. Marie-Jewell. Now, I tried to do that this morning. It is obvious that the proposal of accept and support, or accept and support in principle, was not accepted by the Members of the Special Committee on Constitutional Reform.

I can say this to the Members, that I can now continue to chair the Ordinary Members Caucus, but I think prior to making any recommendations, we try to work out some solution with Cabinet, or with government, that it had better be clear in my view what the solution should be, because the proposals that have been made, I think, would have accommodated some of the concerns of that Members had. That was not the case.

I know that on the matter of the first recommendation, there will be Members that are going to vote against the endorsement of the agreement, and that is not to suggest that we do not support it. I am going to be one of those. I hope that it does not reflect badly upon this Assembly in that I have already indicated that I would support, but I cannot endorse the agreement without the people voting to support my position. I think that is the case. Even Mr. Koe proposed, so I just wanted to make those comments.

Thank you. Are there any further general comments? Does this committee wish to go to details now? Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you. I do not want to create a debate here, but the fact is, Mr. Chairman, and I think it should be clear in the minds of all Members including the Chairman of the Special Committee on Constitutional Reform, the vote on October 26 has nothing to do with the text. It has to do with the report, and accord, reached in Charlottetown, not with the text. I think it is incumbent upon us to be clear, that what we endorse is not the legal text. It is this agreement, and all I am saying to you is that I support it. How am I supposed to suggest that I endorse something that the people may vote against? In the end, in the final analysis, the people will vote, and then this Assembly cannot endorse the report. There is a very important distinction between those two words. I think that what you are doing, or making as a suggestion, or what your special committee is suggesting, is that we should endorse something that the people have not consented to. I accept and will support the agreement, but I cannot and will not endorse it, because that is the work that you have to resolve, in terms of ensuring that when this Assembly deals with it, in the end, that we are happy, and that we can, as an Assembly, endorse the agreement based on the decision of the people.

Maybe some people here want to override the vote, maybe that is what you want to do, but you should say that and state it clearly. I intend to move a motion of amending, that would suggest that we accept and support the Consensus Report. If you vote against that, that is clearly up to you.

At this time, the Chair would like to recognize, in the gallery, Michael Barry, and his grade seven class from St. Patrick's Elementary School. Welcome to the gallery.

---Applause

General comments? Would this committee like to go to the recommendations now? Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe just to add a little bit more on what has been happening, nationally. Last week, before the House of Commons recessed, all the three federal parties supported the Charlottetown Accord. It was based on that support that they now have gone out into the country to try and get a "yes" vote for this.

I have no problem, Mr. Chairman, supporting the Charlottetown Accord. Basically, what will happen is that if the accord is supported and passed, the legal text is going to have to reflect exactly what that means. If it is not what they agreed on, with any of the organizations or provincial governments, then it will be made known at that time, and they would not support it, based on what was agreed upon.

Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty in why I would not support this accord. If I did, I would got out into my constituency and convince the people on why we should endorse it, or vote for "yes" on the accord. One of the things that I want to say, is that it was never in aboriginal history, we have not made that many gains in such a short time, as we did during the last six months. It was significant, in my view.

Further, Mr. Chairman, if the Meech Lake Accord was ratified, we would have had basically nothing with regard to further aboriginal rights, just limited rights. Having a lawyer sitting in front of us, or myself, I am not a lawyer, I think I know what the intent of the aboriginal section means, and I think it is a great gain. We have not lost anything, and for that reason I am going to convince the people that we have never had as much before, as we have now. Not endorsing it, or not formally endorsing it, is suggesting that we deny the people that right to say "yes" or "no". I think by endorsing it, we are saying that we have a general consensus on what has been agreed to by the Charlottetown Accord, and we explained that as best we could to our constituencies. I will do that. I do not think I will go to the point and say that I think we have a good deal, I will convince my constituency that we do have a good aboriginal package with that accord, and that I will try to convince them, perhaps maybe to vote in favour of it. I will not say that you should vote "yes".

Thank you. We are still on the general comments. Member for Thebacha.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regards to some of the discussion, and the suggestion of the Members accepting the principles or the recommendations that are being put forth in this report.

I have stated some concerns yesterday as a Member, and I am still trying to get a copy of unedited transcript to see the Ministers point of privilege that he brought forth in the House today, and compare it to the media's report. However, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat concerned that there are still some questions and some concerns, and a number of questions that have not been put forth in respect to this whole issue.

I believe that it is the intent of the Members to fully support the principle of the accord, and we are not arguing that, in regard to us bringing forth our concerns on some of the details and legal text, or concerns in regard to some of the details of the accord.

There appears that these type of questions are not being answered. That we are being told, basically, that we should endorse the accord. I recognize that we did gain a lot in respect to the accord, but out of common courtesy, the Chairman of the committee, of this Constitutional Committee, should at least have the courtesy to answer our concerns and not expect us to outright endorse this and vote in favour of his recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, I have quite a few questions. I think maybe since we are going to be here until 7:00 p.m., and we agreed to take two days to bring forth this item, as an item of business in the House, I will continue to bring forth my questions and concerns.

I want to ask the Chairman of the committee, that whereas the accord states that all aboriginal people of Canada should have equitable access to the process of negotiations, and the Supreme Court of Canada has stated in mid August that the Native Women's Association of Canada, has been unconstitutionally excluded from the multilateral meetings, and no immediate provision has been made to include the Native Women's Association of Canada in the final negotiations of the Charlottetown Accord, can he advise me as to what assurances can he give to aboriginal women that their existing constitutional rights to represent themselves in negotiations will be put into immediate action?

I do not want him to just basically fall under the Charter and the Constitution of Canada, under section 35, because under that particular section, it indicates where gender equality can come in, and I mean this government has been far from trying to achieve gender equality.

I would like to ask the Chairman that particular question, please, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you. Member for Thebacha.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, the Minister was not really listening, and that does not really surprise me.

I asked the Minister a simple questions, and I did not ask him to go into the Metis Accord. That is a different issue. If, in regards to the Metis Accord, they were well maintained in the body of the whole accord, then I wonder in my mind why the provinces would even create a Metis Accord. There must have been some fundamental purposes, and they are to give the Metis, basically, assurances that they would given equal opportunity.

I asked the Minister, and I would like to ask him again, what assurance can he give to aboriginal women that their existing constitutional rights to represent themselves, within the negotiations, will be put forth. Does he have a position on this? Does he have a proposal on this issue? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you. Are there any more general comments? Member for Thebacha.

Mr. Chairman, we are all aware that the Charter of Rights, and under the particular section that the Minister is trying to refer to does agree that there should be equality to male and female persons in looking at gender equality. At the same time, we know that in order for women to achieve gender equality, they still have quite a way to go.

This Minister is even trying to address gender equality in regard to pay, in regard to many different issues within his government, and he still has not even been able to do that.

There are many questions that are posed in opposition to womens' groups across the country and have been voiced by womens' organizations, and this includes the Native Women's Association.

They also indicated that the package, which allows provinces to opt out in national social problems, will be a barrier to new national social programs, such as national child day care, if they ever get one, and threatens existing programs such as medicare, education and programs addressing violence against women. I wonder if the Chairman, the Minister, and representatives can indicate whether or not they agree with the view that the new division of powers, proposed in the constitutional package, would make it less likely that the federal government would take the initiative to develop new national programs, since the federal government has been making such hasty decisions in curbing and cutting universal programs.

I take for example, the family allowance bill, that went through the House just last week. I would like to ask the Minister that particular question. Thank you.