Well, that was a very long-winded question, but let me see if I can answer it by being brief, for a change. Under the current arrangements, as a jurisdiction, there is no way for us to protect ourselves from the federal government withdrawing from any spending area. The family allowance is a universal program, but that is not in the Constitution. It is just a program that the federal government introduced at a time in history when they thought it was a wise thing to do, and politically, a very wise thing to do.

At this time, they are withdrawing from the full application of that particular program, for whatever reasons. The fact is, when you have no money, you try to limit your spending to only certain areas and I think that, in the final analysis, the federal government will do what it can to keep as much flexibility in its ability to spend or not spend as possible. My understanding of it is that, in the division of powers, we are extended some protection to negotiate intergovernmental agreements and bilateral agreements to protect ourselves from the situation that the Member is raising, and we do not have that now.

If the amendments are carried, then we, at least, have the option to negotiate agreements that will protect us from sudden changes of heart on the part of the federal government, at least to a certain extent.

Mr. Chairman, I think if the suggestion was that this process was not a comprehensive process, that if this process had started on March 12, and had only included representations made to that date, then I think that there would be some reason to think that it is possible, perhaps, that the deal might be better if specific groups representing or purporting to represent women and all women of Canada were at the negotiating table.

The fact is, every person who was involved in the negotiations were duly elected. The only people that had specific mandates to represent specific groups of people were the aboriginal leaders. Aside from that, we had duly elected Members of the Legislature there, and members of the provincial and federal governments. I believe that the reports, the numerous reports that were made to provincial Legislatures and the federal government, before and since the Meech Lake Accord, were all taken into account in the course of these negotiations.

I think that it is important to point out that, for instance, if this process had taken another turn, perhaps we could have made a better deal. Perhaps if Preston Manning was negotiating for Alberta, we would have a very different deal, perhaps no deal at all. I think people have to take that into context. I do not mean this in any way as a threat, but, when we look at the process of the negotiations on this deal, I think that it is very important for people to realize that you cannot call it an accident of history, but the fact that Ontario had a Premier by the name of Bob Rae, interested and willing to work a few extra hours every session, and he made a significant difference in the development of this package.

The fact is, that Quebec not being there for the initial part of the negotiations affected the outcome of the negotiations. The fact is, the Premiers and the first Ministers allowing the territories, and the aboriginal organizations to come into the talks made a significant difference. If we suffered under the illusion that all of the same circumstances and the same players are going to be around for a second round, if we decide to reject this and hope for a better deal next time around.

I think that, when you stack it up against the odds, I would say the chances are slight because the players will change. The fact is, since the Meech Lake Accord, almost all of the major players of Meech have come and gone. It was with the advent of new people coming onto the political stage that made it possible for us to make the achievements we did.

By and large I would say I have not lost any sleep over it at all. I think that the gains made by aboriginal people, are overall significant, they are historic.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the plight of aboriginal women, and the rights of aboriginal women, were adequately addressed in the course of these discussions. I believe that absolutely. There are certain representatives of womens' groups that suggest otherwise. I have listened to those concerns for months, I have listened to it last week. I do not buy the arguments. I understand that there are fears, and the fears have to be addressed, but it is not going to be done by grabbing prime time on national T.V., or a woman who alleges to represent 52 percent of the population of Canada,

making all types of statements. She has concerns, that is fine, but you ask me the question, and I try to respond as straightforward as I can. There is nothing in this deal takes away from the rights of women, and nothing that will erode what women have at the present time. If anything, as I said earlier, women have made gains, and specifically, Metis women in particular, as one part of a collective that has historically suffered from a lack of recognition from governments and peoples, across this country. Metis people have made the biggest gains.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Trudeau was the Prime Minister who, some time ago agreed to allow the notwith standing clause be included in the constitutional package, back in 1982.

Governments and people of this country have had to live with it since then. In particular to aboriginal governments, as they are being formed, I believe that aboriginal women will be fully involved, I expect them to be in the forefront of developing these forms of aboriginal government. Certainly if they form 52 percent of the population of Canada, and a massive part of their communities, they will have a very decisive say it endorsing any type of governments that are being developed.

The not withstanding clause was extended to aboriginal governments because to not allow it to be extended to aboriginal governments would have made this third order of government somewhat inferior to provincial and federal governments. It was the view of the aboriginal leaders that the not withstanding clause may be useful in the protection of the aboriginal languages, and the culture and traditions of the aboriginal people themselves. Where it comes into conflict with the Charter, that the collective rights of aboriginal people should be paramount in the political view of the aboriginal governments. It is necessary to take some decisive action there and that is, how you further bind the governments, the duly elected governments of aboriginal people of the future. There was no in-depth discussion about it the course of the negotiations. Thank you.

Let me try this, one of the approaches. One of the big points that was made by the aboriginal leaders, from the onset is, it is necessary to give some comfort to aboriginal people and aboriginal governments. They do not have to follow strictly the practice and traditions of provincial and federal governments, let us say a parliamentary system of government. There are certain cases to be made, where it is going to be their choice, it is going to be the choice of aboriginal people themselves as to how their governments are going to function. If the Charter of Rights conflicts with that first law, then there is going to be some concern, and in fact, it was argued, for a certain period of time, that the Charter of Rights should not apply to this third order of government. In the end, they agreed, that the Charter will apply, but that the not withstanding clause will be extended to aboriginal governments.

There is no reason, I believe, in advance of aboriginal governments developing, for women to fear that they are going to be left out in the dark, or that they are going to be trampled all over, in the development of these new governments. I believe that the suggestion is, that if it is possible, politically possible, to develop an aboriginal Charter of Rights, that this will be considered in future constitutional discussions. At the present time, this was the understanding that was reached in the course of the negotiations.

Mr. Chairman, the constitutional package, as it is proposed to be amended now, does not

threaten the rights of aboriginal women. I believe it enhances it.