Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was industry.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2004, with 39% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply November 19th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I can always look forward to a bit of levity when the member for New Brunswick Southwest gives his speeches. There are not a lot of facts, just levity.

Let us get down to the facts. We inherited from the hon. member's government a $42.5 billion deficit that we cleaned up in five years. His government was in for nine years and it just made things worse.

The hon. member said that we cut money to the provinces. Here is what happened in Ontario. What he says is partially true. We did in fact cut transfer payments to the province of Ontario by $5.9 billion. But we gave Ontario extra tax points which amounted to $4 billion. As well, we have the lowest interest rates in 30 years, which represent $1.3 billion worth of savings—

Supply November 19th, 1998

It is good literature.

Canadian Wheat Board November 17th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

The so-called Farmers for Justice are complaining that the voters' list for the Canadian Wheat Board contains the names of people who are deceased.

I would like the minister to explain why they are putting dead people on the voters' list.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act November 16th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the fact that this has dragged on for 21 years and that it has taken this government to find a solution is the answer to the member's question.

For five years we have brought forward good legislation that has put this country back on track. For five years we have been working on solving problems that previous governments have not. I think we have done a darn good job of it.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act November 16th, 1998

That is right. That is the point. Unfortunately, the Reform member opposite belongs to a regional party which represents the west and that is his only interest. My interests concern the nation.

When this bill is in committee, if the member has any problems with this legislation, that is the time and that is the place—

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act November 16th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Peterborough for his question. Yes, is the simple point and the answer.

We are debating this bill at second reading and it is going to go to committee. The hon. member across the way wants to know why I was chosen. My interests concern all of Canada. I am not only interested in what happens in Ontario, I am also interested in what happens in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act November 16th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has probably taken shots at any one of us over here out of his absolute frustration of the success of this government over the last five years. We have taken a deficit of $42.5 billion down to zero in five years. We have taken unemployment from 11.9% down to 8.1% in five years. I can understand the hon. member's frustration in making a statement like that.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act November 16th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-56, the Manitoba claim settlements implementation act. My colleague, the hon. member for Provencher, has made it clear that the proposed legislation will address outstanding commitments to several Manitoba first nations. I will comment on the elements of the bill that pertain to the establishment of reserves in Manitoba.

The overall objective of this part of the bill is straightforward, to advance the implementation of claims agreements in Manitoba by facilitating and thereby accelerating the transfer of lands to reserve status. In “Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan” this government stated its belief that treaties provide a basis for developing a stronger partnership with aboriginal people. But in order to move in partnership into the future we must first honour our past commitments.

One of Canada's longest standing commitments is to deal with treaty land entitlements, claims that involve lands promised under treaties and signed mainly with the first nations of the prairie provinces. This is for a variety of reasons. Not all first nations received the full amount of land promised to them when they signed the treaties. For example, in certain first nations incorrect counts of memberships occurred when reserves were created.

As hon. members can appreciate, this has been a contentious issue with first nations in western Canada for many years. Our government intends to bring closure to this difficult problem by fulfilling Canada's obligations to provide additional reserve lands to first nations with treaty land entitlements. This process has been spearheaded in Saskatchewan where a treaty land entitlement framework agreement signed in 1992 has paved the way for the final agreements with individual first nations. Now we are focusing our attention on righting this historic wrong in Manitoba.

While the majority of Manitoba first nations received their full land allocations when they signed treaties between 1871 and 1910, others did not. Over the past 50 years or so numerous efforts have been made to resolve this problem. Some progress was made between 1994 and 1996 when seven of the affected Manitoba first nations signed individual treaty land entitlement agreements that provided about 170,000 acres of land to be added to reserves.

The major breakthrough came in May 1997 when the governments of Canada and Manitoba signed a framework agreement with the treaty land entitlement committee of Manitoba on behalf of 19 first nations whose claims had been accepted. Under this agreement about 1.1 million acres of additional reserve land will be provided to 19 first nations. About 90% will be crown land provided by the Manitoba government. The remaining 10% will likely be purchased from private landowners by these first nations using cash contributions provided by Canada. The remaining 10% needs to be purchased privately because certain first nations are in the areas of the province where there is not sufficient crown land available.

We have now moved into the next phase of the settlement process in which each of the 19 first nations ratifies its own treaty entitlement agreement based on the broader framework agreement. Six such agreements have been completed and we hope to finalize a number of other agreements this fiscal year.

The process is moving forward but our experience in Saskatchewan has taught us the importance of having better legislative mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of land to reserve status. This is particularly true where these lands carry one or more interests held by third parties. Bill C-56 provides these mechanisms.

I bring the attention of hon. members to three main provisions of the bill that relate to the establishment of reserves under the Manitoba claims settlement. First, Bill C-56 will empower the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to set apart as reserves any of the lands selected by Manitoba's first nations under a claims agreement. The Indian Act is silent on the power to create or add to reserves. However, the historic practice has been for the governor in council to issue an order in council granting reserve status. For the purposes of Manitoba claims agreements only, Bill C-56 will eliminate the added step of obtaining the order in council.

The second and third measures both deal with the issue of the third party interests on proposed reserve lands and in particular, with the timing of first nations' consent to the continuation or replacement of existing interests or the creation of new interests.

Under the government's additions to reserve policy, the reserve status can only be conferred on lands if third party interests on these lands have been identified and resolved prior to Canada's acquisition of the lands. Unfortunately it is often very difficult and sometimes impossible to meet this policy goal using the existing laws which can act to impede resolution of these interests. Let me give an example.

A Manitoba first nation has selected a certain parcel of land that it would like to purchase under its treaty land entitlement agreement. A hydro company happens to have an easement across this land which was previously granted to it by the province. Before the first nation can purchase that land, the additions to reserve process requires that the hydro company's interest be resolved. Typically the hydro company would require the first nation's consent to continue the easement.

Here is the catch. The Indian Act gives a first nation the power to consent to the creation of interests on land that is already part of a reserve but not on land that is simply being proposed for reserve status. Thus, the first nation would not have the power to consent to the continuation of the hydro easement. It would be a fairly big problem for anyone who is taking hydro off of that line.

Hon. members can no doubt see the dilemma. Without the first nation's consent that the easement will continue, the hydro company may be, quite understandably, unwilling to cancel its existing provincial easement. Through no one's fault, a potential addition to the reserve becomes stalemated. An opportunity to forge a new working partnership between the first nation and the hydro company is delayed and possibly even lost.

Bill C-56 will resolve this potential catch 22 by allowing a first nation to consent to a third party interest on selected lands before those lands have been granted reserve status. In this manner the third party interest is continued and not put at risk as it would be under the current regime.

The process for the first nations to grant such consent will depend on the nature of the interest. For example, exclusive use interests, such as leases, would require the first nation membership to give consent through a designation vote. Non-exclusive interests, such as rights of way, would require only the consent of the first nation council.

These distinctions are parallel to those applicable to the existing reserves under the Indian Act. That is to say the important feature of these new designation and permit powers is that they would allow the first nation to give consent when it is most needed, indeed at the very time at which it is the most helpful to the reserve creation process. Of course the interest consented to would take effect only if and when the land becomes a reserve.

I want to point out that the pre-reserve powers to designate lands or issue permits would be available to deal with the protection of existing interests and to allow the first nations to put in place new development deals that would take effect upon reserve creation. This ability to take advantage of the new opportunities will ensure that first nations do not have to leave their selected lands undeveloped until reserve status is granted and that first nations can compete on an equal footing even while the reserve creation process proceeds.

The driving force behind this legislative proposal is Canada's commitment to settle treaty land entitlements with 19 Manitoba first nations. The mechanisms in Bill C-56 will also be made available to the seven Manitoba treaty land entitlement agreements negotiated in advance of the framework agreement reached last May. Canada is also prepared with full provincial support to make the bill's mechanisms available to all other Manitoba claim settlement agreements, existing or future, which have addition to reserve components.

For example, two specific claims have been settled with the Manitoba first nations that oblige Canada to create new reserve lands. These first nations will be able to use the reserve establishment provisions of Bill C-56 in this process.

Hon. members will also be aware of the master implementation agreements signed by four Manitoba first nations to implement the northern flood agreement. In fact part 1 of Bill C-56 will affirm to certain elements of the agreement recently completed with the Norway House Cree Nation, an agreement that provides for the conversion of about 55,000 acres to reserve status. The reserves establishment provisions of Bill C-56 speak to this commitment and to reserve creation commitments Canada has made to other northern flood first nations. Given that Norway House is also owed additional reserve lands under its own treaty entitlement agreement, it will benefit from Bill C-56 on two fronts.

Finally as I have said before, any first nation that negotiates future claims that include a commitment to create a reserve land in Manitoba may opt into the new process.

I want to make it clear that the mechanisms to be made available by this legislation will be limited to additions to reserves that are the result of the Manitoba claims settlements where first nations ought to avail themselves of the legislation. The extension of these mechanisms to all types of additions to reserves in Manitoba and elsewhere across the country cannot happen now and would not happen without broad and extensive consultations with all our first nations and provincial partners.

Hon. members should also know that part 2 of Bill C-56 is not needed to give effect to any claims agreement in Manitoba. These legislative proposals are intended only to facilitate the creation of reserves under these agreements, in large part by achieving a key objective: enabling first nations to accommodate and to protect third party interests that are identified in the reserve creation process. This bill will significantly reduce the time required to add lands to reserve which under the current system can approach three years.

Given the technical nature of these provisions, it is fair to ask what the practical day to day effect will be on first nations communities, on children, on families and on businesses. The answer is this. By accelerating the implementation of the claims agreement, the proposed legislation will pave the way for improved socioeconomic conditions in the first nations communities throughout Manitoba.

The sooner that selected lands can become reserve lands, the sooner the affected first nations can develop these lands and benefit from them. In many cases, lands will be selected because of their development potential, or for commercial and institutional ventures which in turn will contribute to real improvements in the lives of the aboriginal people.

Bill C-56 will move Canada forward in meeting our goal set out in Gathering Strength: to build stronger first nations communities and to end the cycle of poverty. The treaty land entitlement first nations of Manitoba have waited patiently for the day when their claims would be resolved. Bill C-56 will facilitate and accelerate this process to the benefit of all parties. It could serve as a legislative template for similar efforts in other provinces. It will send a clear message that parliament not only intends to live up to the commitments made to the aboriginal people but also stands ready to legislate a process that helps make this happen.

Third parties that hold an interest in the lands that a first nation has selected will also benefit from this legislation. Their continued interests will be protected by having the first nation's consent prior to the reserve addition, giving them the commercial certainty in the face of this process that they have long been seeking.

In closing, I want to assure hon. members that the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba has been consulted on this legislation. The bill was also shared with the province of Manitoba and the seven first nations that had previously signed individual treaty land entitlement agreements.

The bill has also been made available to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and to the Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Research Centre which is operated by the representatives of the Manitoba first nations. The centre recently expressed its support for the legislation in a letter dated September 18 to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In it Chief Jim Prince notes that with the new legislation in place, “the process of conversion of land to reserve status will be considerably enhanced”.

Other parties were extensively consulted and represented by the province of Manitoba during the negotiations which led to the signing of the Manitoba treaty land entitlement framework agreement.

We have consulted. We have listened and we have acted. Manitobans want this legislation.

I urge hon. members to join with me in supporting this bill so that it can be sent to committee for review.

National Horse Of Canada Act November 4th, 1998

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-454, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canadian horse as the national horse of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock for seconding my private member's bill, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canadian horse as the national horse of Canada.

This bill is designed to pay tribute to an animal that has played an important part in our national history and has helped to build Canada as we know it today.

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

Globe And Mail October 30th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail has always prided itself on providing context and insight in its reporting, but lately this attempt at balance has been sadly lacking in its coverage of the financial management of the First Nation reserves.

In a letter to the editor printed in today's edition, Chief Stanley Arcand, chairman of the chiefs' summit steering committee on financial accountability, blasted the Globe and Mail for its failure to provide balanced coverage of the complex issues surrounding the financial management of the reserves. He noted that the Globe and Mail argument was “devoid of any meaningful examination of the real issues and causes behind the problems facing first nations—it was an extreme example of using the exception to prove the rule”.

The Globe and Mail would be well advised to take into account first nations that have—