House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 44% of the vote.
Bell Canada March 21st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.
The people of Peterborough riding follow the affairs of Bell Canada with great interest, whether they are employees or customers. Bell Canada was recently allowed a rate increase.
In the light of this, will the parliamentary secretary comment on Bell Canada's forecast of a 40 per cent increase in profits at a time when it is cutting 10,000 jobs?
National Unity March 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, here is an example of what a group of Canadians in Peterborough riding are saying about national unity:
"We believe the only effective way to heal this country's wounds and avoid separation of its peoples is not to rely solely on the efforts of our politicians, but to do whatever we can as citizens, working in concert with you and others.
"We believe only a groundswell or grassroots movement of some kind can truly heal this country's wounds and avoid a separation of its people. Only individual Canadians of common purpose working collectively, massively, can make the profound impact that must be if this country is to survive".
These are excerpts from a letter to the Prime Minister from a small group in my riding working actively to strengthen Canada.
I call on all citizens and members of the House to join them.
Child Support March 7th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in his latest budget, the Minister of Finance has agreed to a long standing request made by women all over the country. Starting in May, child support payments will not be included in the income of the custodial parent for tax purposes nor be tax deductible for the payer.
This change to a system left untouched for 50 years will put an end to the unfair distinctions made under the tax system between separated spouses and parents who still live together. It is important to note that the additional tax revenue this change will bring us will be redistributed among children and low income families.
Petitions March 6th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of residents of Peterborough riding who call to the attention of the House that an innocent spiritual man, Leonard Peltier, has been wrongfully held a political prisoner by the United States of America under the guise of a dangerous criminal. Leonard Peltier has been denied appeals over and over again.
Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament lobby and advocate to the United States judicial system on behalf of Leonard Peltier for a new trial and that justice be done in this case.
Economic Recovery March 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, although all the figures on deficit reduction are not yet available, I will venture to say that the performance of our government in this connection deserves praise.
Our Bloc colleagues, however, have devoted all their energy since their election to criticizing our strategy, without proposing any serious alternative. Now he is the premier of Quebec, the former leader of our official opposition surely has a better understanding of the dilemma of preserving social programs while putting one's financial house in order.
To foster economic recovery and and create jobs, our colleagues will have to take off their sovereignist blinkers and help us attain these objectives for the good of all Canadians.
Education February 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the speech from the throne focused on youth, the mobility of Canadians within Canada and science and technology. I was also pleased that we will build in a cash minimum in the Canada health and social transfer. All of these emphases will be good for the economy and the future of our nation.
I urge the Minister of Finance to recognize in his budget that our colleges and universities are already involved in all of these throne speech themes and are greatly affected by the block transfers. They are one of the great focuses for our young people. They provide for and encourage the movement of Canadians within Canada and they are the foundation of our science and technology. I hope the minister remembers they are also key beneficiaries of the Canada health and social transfer.
We must do all we can to sustain and strengthen higher education in Canada.
Endangered Species Act December 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislative proposal of the Minister of the Environment for an endangered species act.
In our diverse Confederation there is always a danger of government inaction simply because of the daunting prospect of complex, legal and political negotiations. To get things done someone has to have the nerve and energy to take a firm first step.
In the case of over 250 endangered species that do not know or care in which jurisdiction they live, it is most appropriate the federal government take the lead.
The minister has produced a detailed draft of an act that would protect endangered species. If necessary, I urge that she proceed alone with the legislation to the limit of her jurisdiction. However it is my hope that the provinces and territories will move quickly to join her.
Supply December 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I apologize to members opposite. They are absolutely right and I apologize for mentioning the Reform member by name.
"The Reform Party's campaign to kill comprehensive land claims settlements is characterized by its sheer misinformation, its deliberate confusion of separate processes and its shameless manipulation of media that seem ignorant of history".
That quote is not from someone outside the province of British Columbia. It was written by Stephen Hume of the Vancouver Sun on April 10, 1995.
Supply December 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I have relatives in British Columbia who live in Kamloops and I visit frequently. I know the riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley well. I regularly visit the city of Vancouver. I have visited the Peace River country. However, I do not pretend to be a resident of British Columbia. I am a member of the Parliament of Canada and I am concerned about all Canadians.
The hon. member asked who was negotiating. It is the duty of members of Parliament to explain these processes. The B.C. treaty commission process is a good one. It is transparent. There has been legislation in the House related to it. It is for the Reform members to explain those matters in detail to the people of their ridings.
I would like to read something and members opposite can guess where it comes from. Perhaps this comes from Ontario too. I am proud to be a resident of Ontario, but I try to represent all the people of Canada. The quotation reads: "Statements made in the House of Commons that native people who live in inadequate reserve housing without running water or basic sewage should simply move away are naive and racist in nature. Those uninformed comments made by Reform aboriginal affairs critic Mike Scott show the true character of his party. Reform members have become notorious for making offhanded, uninformed accusations concerning First Nations". That is by David Neale of the Victoria Times .
"The Reform Party's campaign to kill comprehensive land claims settlements is characterized by its sheer misinformation, its deliberate confusion of separate processes and its shameless manipulation of media that seem ignorant-"
Supply December 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.
I rise to express my concern and shock at the motion of the hon. member from North Island-Powell River. He asks us to delay the land claims process in British Columbia during the final year of the mandate of the provincial government.
It makes me wonder if he and his colleagues will not be here next year with a similar motion asking us to delay it for the first year of the mandate of the next government while it gets itself organized. It seems to me that in Canada we cannot proceed in that fashion.
The Government of Canada has maintained that providing justice and equity for aboriginal peoples requires two ingredients, self-government and a process for making modern day treaties through comprehensive claims. Canadians have been wrestling with these issues for years. The Reform Party has used the self-government issue to fan the flames of fear and apprehension during the debates over the Charlottetown accord. Now it continues to stir up controversy in British Columbia through its misrepresentations of the treaty process.
I heard hon. members opposite make a great deal of the media reports of the total First Nations claims adding up to 110 percent of the province of British Columbia. The total should not surprise us. Why should the claims not overlap one another? The First Nations have shared the land and its resources for centuries. They have migrated and tapped the resources of different locales at different times.
They have been asked as a part of the treaty making process to describe the geographic area of the First Nation's traditional territory of British Columbia. They provide a map of the traditional areas of their ancestors. This map depicts the territory of a nation as it occupied it historically. These maps are used to provide negotiators with a general idea of what area of land is under question. This is simply part of stage one of the process which is called a statement of intent.
A statement of intent is not a settlement. A claim is not a treaty. A treaty is the result of negotiations, and those negotiations are just beginning. The claims are but the starting bargaining position. No First Nation would expect to receive the entire region described in its statement of intent. The First Nations do not expect a fee simple title to the entire province. When two First Nations have overlapping traditional territories, they will settle the matter as the negotiations proceed. The federal and provincial governments do not participate in negotiating an overlap settlement.
Several members from across the floor, members who ought to know better, have been using the claims to instil fear among British Columbians. They infer that these opening positions will lead to lost property for third parties across the province. They ask British Columbians: "What will become of your summer cottages? What will happen to jobs in the mining and forestry sectors? What will happen to the fisheries?" They raised these fears without adding that the treaty process provides for cottage owners and a broad spectrum of the industries of British Columbia to have a voice in the process.
They neglect to tell the people at town hall meetings or on radio talk shows the Government of Canada consults with a treaty negotiations advisory committee representing many of their interests. They do not tell people no negotiations can proceed until a regional advisory committee has been created to provide the views of British Columbians from that part of the province who are not at the negotiating table.
This pattern of misinformation and fear mongering is typical of the tactics some members on the other side of the House have used to score cheap political points. They have often criticized the government for its dedication to the inherent right of self-government as a cornerstone of the Government of Canada's aboriginal policy.
We have said since the beginning, since the red book that provided our election platform, that we believe the inherent right of self-government is an existing right within Canada's Constitution.
Hon. members across the floor have often made the case that no one has defined what self-government means. That argument has been erected as an obstacle to prevent justice from getting through to aboriginal communities across the entire country. That argument speaks to a kind of mean spirited and narrow minded approach that has thwarted efforts to bring justice to aboriginal issues. It speaks for the tyranny of the status quo. It speaks for the preservation of the paternalism of the Indian Act. Is that what Reform members want to uphold? I like to think not. Do they really want to impede progress, impede the righting of past wrongs, impede certainty for the future, impede economic stability, impede job creation?
All Canadians want the claims settled. They want an end to the uncertainty, an end to ancient wrongs. The negotiations are about how, not whether, the settlements should be resolved.
We want to make progress. One way we are doing this is by acknowledging that the inherent right to self-government is an existing right. We are now negotiating with the First Nations on how that right is to be implemented.
I would like to remind the House of the six stages that a claim must go through before a treaty comes into effect. I think hon. members will observe this is a very thorough process.
In the first step a First Nation files a statement of intent with the B.C. Treaty Commission. The commission makes sure the statement is complete and forwards it to the federal and provincial governments. It is at this stage that the First Nation describes the geographic area in British Columbia it considers its traditional territory. Forty-seven statements of intent have been filed. These represent over 70 per cent of the aboriginal people of British Columbia. That is progress.
Second, the commission convenes a meeting to prepare for the negotiations. All three parties exchange information, consider the criteria, discuss the research they will do to prepare for the negotiations and identify issues of concern. Each party appoints a negotiator with a clear mandate. Each party establishes a ratification procedure, and the parties agree on the substantive and procedural matters that will be negotiated.
This is the stage at which Canada and the British Columbia government establish their own mechanisms for consultation with non-aboriginal interests. One requirement the B.C. Treaty Commission imposes on the two governments is the establishment of a regional consultative mechanism to represent thirty party interests.
When the commission determines that all three parties have met the criteria for readiness, it confirms they can proceed to stage three. This is where all three parties negotiate a framework agreement, a negotiated agenda that identifies the issues to be negotiated, the goals of the negotiation process, special procedural arrangements and a timetable for the negotiations.
So far four framework agreements have been signed and another four initialled by the negotiators. Again, this is progress.
In the fourth stage of the treaty process the parties negotiate an agreement in principle. These are substantive negotiations and the parties examine the framework in detail.
Fifth, the principals negotiate to finalize the treaty. Any remaining technical and legal issues are resolved at this stage. Then, and only then, the sixth stage is the implementation of the treaty. Long term implementation plans need to be tailored to specific agreements.
All commissions agree that significant progress has been made by the treaty process. The B.C. treaty commission process is working. It is fair, equitable and open. No one denies that the negotiations ahead will be tough. There are some very complex issues to be brought to the table. However, it is time that we settled these claims so that all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, can get on with the job of building a prosperous society in that province, a society where all groups can enjoy the wealth of resources the province can offer. It will benefit all British Columbians.
It is time to get on with the job. It is not a time for fearmongering. It is a time for fairness and certainty. It is certainly not a time for delaying while we wait for a provincial election which would create a precedent and would be very much uncalled for.
I do not represent aboriginal people who have claims that are hundreds of years old. I represent over 2,000 aboriginal people. Their treaty was signed in 1923, in modern times. Yesterday I attended a funeral in my riding of the first woman Indian chief in Canada. She died at the age of 73. In 1953, when she first became a chief, she was a young woman and a young mother who was concerned about these issues. When she died, only this week, she was still concerned about them. Her mother died two years ago at the age of 103. Throughout her life she was active in trying to resolve the problems of the First Nations in my riding.
The native people would like to negotiate. I think all Canadians would like to negotiate. Every time we have a standoff all Canadians suffer. I am very concerned that the member would bring forward such a motion today.