John Finlay

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to my colleagues' comments. Having worked with most of them on the aboriginal committee, I know from whence they come and I know they are genuine in their statements.

However, we are dealing with a separate piece of legislation that has the purpose of making an agreement with the Norway House Cree so that they can get on with the business of running their community, of getting the land they are entitled to and the compensation they have been denied by a long and cumbersome process that started in 1977.

This is, in miniature, what my colleague from Saint-Jean talked about regarding the Nass Valley. I too was there the week before last to honour the opening of the new legislative building of the Nisga'a, who worked for 120 years to get to that point.

The bill deals with an agreement made with the fourth of five first nations affected by the Manitoba northern flood agreement. The reason we have this agreement is that the other one does not work very well, because it allows for the kind of thing my colleagues across the hall have deplored. It allows for confrontations in court. It is costly and inefficient.

In order to get around this stumbling block, the parties, including Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro, Canada and the northern flood committee, have come up with a way of negotiating an implementation agreement with each first nation individually.

The first part of the bill deals with compensation for the Norway House Cree Nation, which it is situated 450 kilometres north of Winnipeg. There are over 5,000 members, and nearly 4,000 of them reside on reserve. As my colleague from Prince Albert has said, and he was involved in the surveying, the best land along the rivers was flooded. These people are in need of land to compensate for that loss at about four to one. As my colleague from Churchill said, the chief and council have agreed with the bill.

One of the reasons rights are not mentioned is to get around the very problem of making this a treaty, which it is not, and maintaining it as an agreement, which it is. This, in line with “Gathering Strength”, our aboriginal action plan, moves the agenda forward.

If we accept this motion to add that word then we are back to square one. We are back to pre-Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples days. We are back to Chief Justice Hamilton's comments about certainty in inalienable rights and aboriginal rights. If they are not clearly defined we get into trouble. We are not trying to define them in the bill. We are saying there is a problem. These people deserve compensation. We will compensate them according to the bill.

The second part of the bill affects more first nations, particularly Manitoba first nations, potentially all Manitoba first nations, in that it aims to facilitate the addition to reserve commitments under a variety of existing and future Manitoba claims settlements. While the most significant of these commitments at present are to the 20 Manitoba first nations covered by the 1997 Manitoba treaty land entitlement framework agreement, other first nations in Manitoba will also derive benefits under part 2, relative to other existing and future settlements.

It is imperative, in order to move the agenda on, in order that the first nations of Manitoba can get the support and the freedom to act they need, that these amendments be defeated. If they are not we will go back into a very murky situation that existed 22 years ago. That is not progress for the native people. It is not progress for the government. It is not progress for the country. It is a lack of progress.

There is no danger in this act to any first nations treaty rights, aboriginal rights, inherent rights or any other rights. The bill rights a wrong, an overdue delay in settlement with the Norway House Cree. It makes further settlements with the other bands in Manitoba much easier to accomplish because people have to sit down and agree on what they need, how much they can have, where the land is, add it to the reserve, et cetera. As Chief Gosnell said in the Nass Valley, confrontation is not the way to go. Consultation, agreements and negotiation are the way to go. That is when everybody gets the most value for their efforts, the government and the first nations. I urge the House to deny these motions.

[The Environment, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I call attention to a bylaw recently passed by the city of Woodstock in my riding. The city has enacted an idling bylaw that restricts non-essential vehicles from idling for more than five consecutive minutes. Woodstock's goal is to reduce harmful air pollution and illness that arise from this pollution while also ensuring that we have a cleaner environment.

It is measures like those taken in the city of Woodstock that will assist Canada in reducing emissions and reaching its Kyoto commitments. I congratulate the city council for those measures and Mr. Doug Steele from the CAW Local 636 for his work on this issue.

I also urge other communities across our country to enact similar bylaws to protect our environment. Woodstock is setting a fine example of how to think globally and act locally in solving our environmental problems.

[Glendale High School, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate a group of students from Glendale High School in Tillsonburg who are joining students from four other schools of the Thames Valley District School Board to visit France for D-Day ceremonies next week.

Accompanying the students will be six veterans, three of whom fought at Normandy, and our colleague from London—Fanshawe, the chair of the defence committee. The trip's organizer, Robin Barker-James, a history teacher at Glendale, is to be commended for his efforts in making history come alive for his students.

I want to tell these students how proud we are of them for taking part in these ceremonies. They will better understand the sacrifice made by our soldiers—not much older than themselves—who fought and died on those beaches in a fight for their nation and for freedom.

In the words of their teacher “Freedom isn't free; it's bought”.

[The Environment, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I came to the House as an environmentalist and today I still call myself an environmentalist.

I realize that our world is magnificent and that it is incumbent upon each of us to do all we can to protect the earth and the species that live upon it.

With this in mind, I was delighted to hear the Minister of the Environment introduce the species at risk act earlier this week. The act covers all wildlife species listed as being at risk and their critical habitats. As well, the act recognizes for the first time the Council on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. The minister will have to report annually to parliament on the council's assessment of species at risk in Canada.

This is a strong step forward to protect the biodiversity of our natural environment. I congratulate the minister for his work thus far.

[Petitions, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 84 people. The petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation to establish an independent governing body to develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.

[Drama Awards, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, three Oxford county community theatres took home honours in the Western Ontario Drama League pre-festival awards earlier this month.

The Thistle Theatre in Embro brought home three prizes. These recognized the work of Terry Todd for outstanding direction, Jocelyn Rioux for best actress and Jim Harrison for best supporting actor in the Thistle Theatre's production of 1949 .

The W.O.D.L. also recognized the outstanding performance of Tony Harding as Phil Moss in the Woodstock Little Theatre's The Motor Trade .

Two special awards of merit were given to Theatre Tillsonburg in recognition of Penny Durst's set and costume execution and Stacey Tricket's research design of women's hair.

In one of my past lives I was a member of the Woodstock Little Theatre and know the value of community theatre. The hard work and commitment of everyone involved with these productions is to be commended, especially those recognized by their colleagues for outstanding work.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the last three speakers.

I have a small comment before I approach the clarity bill from the point of view of my constituents. I must say to my colleague from Matapédia—Matane that he appears to have forgotten that although we talk about two founding nations there are others. We also have aboriginal people who have been here for more than 11,000 years. We have just established Nunavut within Canada, an Inuit territory. We have just passed the Nisga'a treaty in B.C., an Indian nation. In fact, many Newfoundlanders consider themselves to be part of a fairly unique group. We have the Acadians in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

My friend says that we have the nerve to tell the French Canadians, the Quebecers, what to do. That is not so. The government has the responsibility to maintain the federation, if possible, and to see that it is not broken apart on a vague question because some people feel disadvantaged. Lots of people feel disadvantaged.

The member for Saint-John, with whom I have worked very hard on a couple of committee, said that Quebec tax money is coming into Ottawa in undue amounts. That is not so. I do not know why we have to argue about figures which have been the same for a great many years.

Ontario is a have province. Quebec has been termed a have not province. That is not out of disrespect of course; it is due to the equalization payments of the provinces.

Just this year the cash paid to Ontario was raised to equal the per capita rate that is paid to Quebec. Ontario people knew that and they were very pleased. Finally they were being paid at the same rate as Quebecers.

My friend also said that we will stand up and sit down like rabbits to vote tonight, or soon. There is an easy way to cure that. They could withdraw the unnecessary amendments. Then we could all get on with the nation's business and discuss a lot of other important things that we need to do.

Twice this afternoon speakers from the Bloc talked about sovereignty with a partnership. That is what a federation is. It is a partnership among equal partners. That is what we have in this country and we want to maintain it.

I agree also with the member for Scarborough East. My constituents support this bill. They think it is long overdue. They are fed up with the uncertainty and the instability which the spectre of sovereignty raises every other year or so over industry, exports and farm products.

The bill follows the supreme court decision on the Quebec secession reference and it asks for a clear majority on a clear question. My friends in the Bloc are upset about 50% plus one. I would ask the question that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs asked: If 50% plus one is a clear majority, what is an unclear majority?

In my experience on organizations, hospital boards, school boards, unions, Liberal associations and other associations, at an open meeting on a matter that goes to a vote, if there are six votes for and five against it passes. However, that does not hold for constitutional amendments. Most of the organizations I belong to require 66% or a two-thirds majority for a constitutional amendment, and even that is only following notice and discussion which has probably taken six months or a year. To make a constitutional amendment any faster than that would require 90%, not 66%. Why is that? Because it makes awfully good sense.

It means that a rump group or a group of zealots cannot change the constitution of a well respected association, of a government, a country or a company by marching into the annual meeting and taking over. It is to preserve the policies, the methods, the rules by which we live, the rules by which we conduct our business. It is not to get around anything, it is to protect us from undue change and unlawful takeovers.

Canada is unique. We have two founding nations. We have two official languages. In the schools in my county French language instruction begins in grade 3. We have French immersion in our public schools. We have French immersion in a high school. Students take all of their courses in French, and this is in the heart of southwestern Ontario. Our children know the value of the federation and their Canada includes Quebec.

Since the 1995 referendum I have co-operated with my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi in Quebec on a student summer work and exchange program between my riding and his. I am glad to say that this program has now spread across the country and literally hundreds of students each summer go to Quebec, New Brunswick or other parts of Canada on a work exchange, to live within the community, learn about that community and return home better people. They have no trouble understanding, working with or playing with students from Quebec. They find themselves and their parents to be very much alike.

Our young people know that Canada is respected around the globe. Canadians who travel abroad are always happiest when they return to Canada's shores and set foot again on Canadian soil. They display the Canadian flag wherever they go because it is sine qua non. It is an entry to every country in the world, and yet here we are trying to establish a bit of a rule and clarity on how long we will keep this country going. We will not have it broken up by frivolous and unworthy claims.

The last clause in the bill states:

No Minister of the Crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to effect the secession of a province from Canada unless the Government of Canada has addressed, in its negotiations, the terms of secession that are relevant in the circumstances, including the division of assets and liabilities—

This sounds like a divorce to me. It continues:

—any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.

I wonder how many people have thought about what that would comprise and how long it would take, a possible change in the borders of the province.

Most of the people I discussed the matter with are concerned about four changes. First, the Inuit of northern Quebec would obviously have to be given some territory because they would not stay with Quebec if they could stay with Canada.

Second, the Cree of James Bay in northern Quebec would have to have a large chunk.

Third, maybe the Outaouais-Hull area would want to become part of Ontario because its citizens do a lot of work here. They have been freely interchanging for years.

Fourth, in my thinking about this I look at the independence of India and the partition between Pakistan and India. Eventually the two parts of Pakistan, thousands of miles apart, ended up as Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. There has not been peace between India and Pakistan since they were established. I think that if Quebec were to go, then we would have to talk about a land connection between Ontario and New Brunswick.

[Dan Doyle, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on March 6 at 10.30 a.m., Dan Doyle of Woodstock, Ontario demonstrated great generosity and selflessness when he jumped between a car and a baby stroller, saving Brenda Craig and her 22 month old son, Barry. In the resulting collision, Dan Doyle suffered a fractured leg and rib while the mother and her child were unhurt.

Police and public alike are calling Mr. Doyle a hero. Mr. Doyle's wife commented that his actions did not surprise her as he is always watching out for other people and lending a hand whenever possible.

We are not often faced with life-threatening situations. It is heartening to know that there are some citizens who are not afraid to put themselves in harm's way to save the life of another.

I am proud to acknowledge the heroism of Dan Doyle. Thank you, Dan, for your heroic example.

[Infrastructure Program, March 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

In light of the budget announcement regarding a new infrastructure program and considering that many local communities in my riding and across Canada are eager to participate, could the minister detail her timeframe to negotiate agreements with the provinces to make this program a reality?

[Rural Health, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and the new federal rural health directorate have been working hard to tackle the special health problems of rural Canada and small towns like Ingersoll and Peterborough.

The Summit on Rural Health Research in Prince George brought together representatives of all stakeholders in rural health care. There are in effect two health care systems in Canada: one for the big cities and one for the rest of the country.

While it is clear that some major health facilities have to be in large cities, there is no good reason why basic, rapid response, modern care cannot be available to all Canadians. It is the task of the federal government to make sure that our health care system is available to all.

I urge that Health Canada be given the resources to translate its fine preliminary work into action. This will improve health care for all rural Canadians.