Ron Irwin

[Indian Affairs, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member. I thought the Bloc had forgotten about me.

I consider Davis Inlet one of the success stories of the government. I went in there, unlike the Bloc. I went to Atlantic Canada five time. I went to the community once. I met with the leadership in Ottawa several times. I met with it in Halifax several times. We provided a package of almost $80 million of federal funds for that community.

We have done 35 consultative reports with those people. We are working on their education facilities and we are building houses. We are not building houses for them; we are working with them. They are building their own houses and they are getting trained. We are working in the health facilities.

Unlike what happened under the former government, this was not only a local story or a provincial story, it was an international story, which it no longer is, and we did it.

[Yukon Quartz Mining Act, December 14th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-120, an act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act.

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

[National Aboriginal Day, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I did not speak with clarity yesterday but I hope to today. I support the efforts to make June 21 aboriginal solidarity day.

This was put forward as a vision by the national chief on behalf of his people. We talked about reconciliation, a day when aboriginal communities can celebrate themselves and their contribution. They can organize festivities.

This vision was approved by his people, the grand chief and his assembly, by all the spiritual leaders who were there, not only the native spiritual leaders but the spiritual leaders from the Mennonite church, the Anglican church and the Catholic church, every church, and by this minister.

[Translation]

[Indian Affairs, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, not only does the hon. member have the wrong speech but he has the wrong day. I am referring to the speeches that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and I initiated at the start of the debate on distinct society and the veto legislation.

We were not talking about a holiday per se. We were talking about a recognition. It is in place now in the sense that the AFN has a unity day on June 21. We can build on that because at the spiritual gathering, all the churches were there: the Mennonites, the Anglicans, the Roman Catholics, all the spiritual leaders.

All the parties were there except unfortunately the NDP and the Reform. I am looking at both of them. Maybe if they had been there they would understand what we are trying to do collectively as far as putting some spiritualism and recognition into what the aboriginal people have done for this country and continue to do.

[Indian Affairs, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the member, who spends a lot of time on the aboriginal file, did not hear the speeches of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice or myself.

If he had, he would have heard that the words were very similar in each one of the speeches. They were very clear that the distinct society clause does not derogate one iota from either the inherent right or the treaty rights of aboriginal people.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I want this question because I often hear this member questioning the health minister and I have always wanted to respond to him.

This member is a doctor and we would think he would bring his skills to the House. If he brought those skills as a doctor to the House he would see the suicide problems we have in First Nations. He would realize that a lot of these suicides are a result of no self-sufficiency because there is nothing left. We took all the lands. We took it all.

He would realize that there is more than having social workers there. There has to be self-sufficiency. He would realize that where there is self-sufficiency, where there are richer reserves there is stability and there is health. He would go out and learn this. He would know what is happening there.

Instead he sits here in a nation that provided him with medical skills and encouraged him to go to school, subsidized him and encouraged him to go through school and become a doctor, to bring this knowledge and skill to the House. But he says: "Let us spread this poverty equally. They are poor. Let them go out and be self-sufficient".

The bottom line is when we negotiated these treaties, and he should know this, in many cases we spent a day or two. In British Columbia, with treaties 6, 7 and 8, in a couple of days with three treaties we took away a whole province. We took away the resources from the native people.

We have spent 200 years to not make the same mistake in B.C. and make sure there is some self-sufficiency there, that we have a vision and we can work together as partners. What does this hon. member do? He is going to vote: "Stop the process. Do not negotiate any further. Let those poor people fend for themselves". Shame on him.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member has said. I see the member for Saint-Jean out there working hard.

However, we have a fundamental difference. We just went through the referendum. Last week we heard the guru of the Bloc. I thought he was gone but he just stepped to the back of the bus. He was quoted in the Globe and Mail . What did Mr. Pierre Bourgault say? It is the Jews, the Italians and the Greeks who vote in an ethnic block who are the racists, not us. They only have one objective, to obstruct things. They are saying these Jews, Italians and Greeks, because they want to be Canadians, are obstructionists. If we multiply that by about fivefold we have an idea of the Cree, the Montagnais, the Attikamekw and the Micmac and their feeling of alienation within the province of Quebec.

We have to have a uniform philosophy. As much as I appreciate what the Bloc is saying today it cannot blame the Reform for what is happening out in B.C. and have a different philosophy in Quebec. Reform in B.C. cannot side with us to protect the Indians of Quebec because it fits its agenda and because it is taking an anti-francophone position, but not do the same thing in B.C.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Once in the four-year mandate I would like to hear Reform members talk about the housing conditions and what we can do on reserves. Once I would like to hear a Reform member talk about suicide problems. I have to go out there and meet with people who have lost their children. Once I would like to hear the Reform talk about health. All we get is denunciation, denunciation of Indian people for one reason, because they are Indians.

The country will not tolerate that. What Reform learned in New Brunswick and in Abbotsford it will learn in the next election. The people of B.C. want to be proud of the members they send here. The people of B.C. are nation builders and what they see strips away that pride. The Reform Party will learn that in the next election.

When the Reform Party came to my riding it said to the steelworkers of Sault Ste. Marie when the company went under and the unions had to take it over "do not give them a penny". They now have eight months of profit and two weeks ago the men did it, the men this party does not want to represent. They now have $400 million in the financial community and have invested it. They are working, no thanks to the Reform Party.

Every time the Reform Party comes up to my riding of Sault Ste. Marie every steelworker there will know that along with all the other things I have said about Reform and the groups it excludes, it has excluded the working people of the country.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

-or a group of intellectuals sitting around discussing the Constitution. I will address the Reform. I am talking about the poorest of the poor, the constituents of the Reform Party that seems to think they do not count. Reformers do not consult with them. They do not talk to them. They do not meet with the chiefs and we have roadblocks. It is the job of the Reform Party to go out and represent these poor people. We were not elected to come here to cater to the rich, to the haves, to the white communities. We were elected to come here to cater to Canadians.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

I am not talking about the Charlottetown accord.