House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was aboriginal.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Liberal MP for Sault Ste. Marie (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 1993, with 53% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Indian Affairs May 18th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of privately owned land, we have been consistent across this country to protect privately owned land and we try to compensate in those cases.

On the issue of taxes I find it passing strange that a province would make an offer on what is clearly our jurisdiction. I have made it clear to the province that the matter of taxation has to be solved with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue and Parliament at a national level.

As far as the question of status is concerned, this is something we are always negotiating. The leader of the Reform Party must realize that status is very important to aboriginal people for very legitimate reasons.

Indian Affairs May 18th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of the question. The issue of how much land, which is what we are talking about, will be provided to the First Nations is primarily a provincial responsibility since most of the available land is in the name of the provinces.

The offer, or the leaked offer because I have not seen it, by the province of B.C. is a question of a quantum of land. When the aboriginal people of B.C. get the offer they will respond to it and we will respond to it. But right now we provide money, the provinces provide land and that is their provincial responsibility.

Indian Affairs May 18th, 1995

No, Mr. Speaker.

Supply May 18th, 1995

Madam Speaker, in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement there are shared costs for instance for infrastructure, water, sewers and so on which we have paid. We are doing the accounts on that. It would be as inappropriate for us to send the bill to Quebec saying to pay it without question as I think it is inappropriate for Mrs. Beaudoin to say: "Here is the bill. Don't let a senior civil servant field it. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and I will deal with it. We will just cut a political decision".

I do not think, when we are dealing with large sums of money, that we can do these things that way. There has to be proper accounting. Senior civil servants who have the expertise have to sit down and do the accounting. That is all this is, an accounting. We accept that. What we do not accept is the Bloc using it as a political ploy which it is. We accept it as accounting within our normal relationship with Quebec, or any province in Canada from B.C. to Newfoundland.

Supply May 18th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that we spend $351 million a year in the Quebec region for aboriginal people. We spent $980 million on the Crees, $552 million on the Inuit and $69 million on the Naskapi, for a total of $1.6 billion.

We already gave Quebec $450 million for education.

Maybe I should not bother to mention it but $450 million of our money went to Quebec on education.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has expressed the problem we have. Quebec is saying that the Government of Canada owes 50 per cent but we have no say on the amount of money spent. We have no say vis-à-vis education with the province of Quebec. It will call the shots. That is not partnership. That is: "I am doing it. I will send you the bill and you pay it".

At the same time, I wrote to Madam Beaudoin in April saying that I would put my senior officials at the table to see if there is common ground. We will count the various moneys owing to see if we can find a just solution. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has done the same thing but he has gone further and has met with her. We are trying to do this in a practical manner.

I tend to agree with the Reform Party on one point. There are a lot of games being played here today. The issue is not what is owing to Quebec, the issue is separation. No matter which way we cut it, this is it.

The problem I am having is that the onus is not on this government to prove why separation is better. The Bloc is having a difficult time with it. It is having a difficult time explaining to Quebecers how they will be more sovereign if Quebec separates.

The reality is that with GATT, with NAFTA, with what we are doing with aboriginal people and within the cultural community, there is more sovereignty for Quebecers under federalism. There is more. They are starting to realize that. The Bloc is failing in its argument. It is up to its members to put their argument and convince Quebecers, not us.

Supply May 18th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address this motion today. Some very important issues have been raised.

The hon. Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs has clearly set out why the government will be voting against the motion. At the same time it is important to understand this issue within the broader context of what the government is doing on aboriginal issues both in Quebec and in Canada as a whole.

The government was elected on a mandate from the Canadian people to respond to issues of concern to aboriginal communities. In the 1993 election we addressed these issues head on in the famous red book. We stated quite clearly what a Liberal government would do and now we are fulfilling our commitments.

One of eight red book chapters is devoted exclusively to aboriginal issues, in addition to references to aboriginal policies in other chapters. Never before in Canadian electoral history had aboriginal issues received such a high profile. The opposition should bear in mind that on the strength of bringing these and other issues to public attention we received a strong mandate from the Canadian people.

In the red book we maintain that aboriginal people in Canada want two things: first, a new partnership with government based on trust, mutual respect and participation in decision making; second, a strengthening of their communities. In the red book we stated that our goal was a Canada where aboriginal people would enjoy a standard of living and quality of life and opportunity equal to those of other Canadians; a Canada where First Nations, Inuit and Métis people would live self-reliantly, secure in the knowledge of who they are as unique peoples; and, where all Canadians would be enriched by aboriginal cultures and would be committed to bringing their fair share of their potential to our nation.

Perhaps most importantly, the red book set out our goal for Canada where aboriginal children would grow up in secure families and healthy communities, with the opportunity to take their full place in Canada. This is our vision and I think it is everyone's vision in this House. We have been moving step by step to bring it alive. In the first year and a half of the government's mandate, we have already made considerable progress in Canada and in Quebec. I am not saying that this is the end-all or be-all, but we have made some progress which I think is significant, even though we have a long way to go.

In the first 18 months as minister I visited Indian and Inuit communities across Quebec and I met with most Quebec chiefs and several Inuit leaders. I have talked to Ghislain Picard of the Assembly of First Nations; I have talked to Chief Max Gro-Louis of the Huron; I have talked to Matthew Coon-Come of the Cree; Jean-Guy Whiteduck; Brenda Gideon Miller; Joe Norton, Dennis Ross, Jerry Peltier of the Mohawk; Marcel Boivin; Bernard Jérôme; Simeonie Nalukturuk of the Inuit; Zebedee Nungak of the Inuit; and Remy Kurtness. Perhaps people are saying I am talking too much. They all tell me what is being done, what needs to be done and how we can do better things together.

We forget. We deal with the aboriginal people almost from a point of ignorance. I was looking at the notes of Joseph-Elzéar Bernier, the Baffin Island explorer, when he first met the Inuit. This is from his own diary: "After firing 19 shots, I instructed an Eskimo to fire the 20th, telling him, you are now Canadian". That is how we started up there.

We forget that in Quebec there are 10 First Nations, over 40 communities and Inuit in the north. These communities are all over the place. They are a suburb of Montreal, they are extended along the St. Lawrence, they are in the interior and they are in the far north. We forget that when Cartier first landed he lost half of his people in the first winter. If it had not been for the Indians, who taught him to put bark and cedar needles and water together, they would have all died of scurvy. The Indians asked for nothing. They asked for nothing. And that is the start of their history.

We came here with a certain amount of avarice in our hearts, telling these people: "You've been holding this land for 5,000 years for us. It is really ours and we discovered it". We forget that they have a proud history. They had been here. They are nations, they were nations and they will be nations.

Some 20 years ago the province of Quebec and Canada solidified an important relationship with First Nations as the first comprehensive claims in Canada, the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the northeastern Quebec agreement, fostered a sense of pride throughout Quebec, and rightfully so. I must remind members of the Bloc that it was former Prime Minister Trudeau who was on our side when this agreement was signed, initiated, worked on. It was the present Prime Minister, who had my job, who brought this agreement to

fruition. The heritage of the Cree and the heritage of the James Bay agreement is not only a proud heritage of our country, it is a very significant heritage in the Liberal Party.

These modern treaties mark a pivotal point in our relationship with aboriginal people, not only in Quebec but throughout Canada. Much has already been accomplished under these agreements, but given their extraordinary scope and complexity it is not surprising that much more needs to be done.

When I visited the Cree communities in December I continued discussions with Grand Chief Matthew Coon-Come and Cree chiefs regarding implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. As a result, work has been undertaken to continue our dialogue on several key areas of concern.

I am pleased to report that under the first self-government legislation in Canada, the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act of 1984, significant progress has been made in bilateral talks on agreement on funding a five-year operation and maintenance budget for the regional and local governments.

We also recently reached an agreement with Chief Billy Diamond of the Cree of Waskaganish for fresh water and sewage treatment. I am pleased to report that the construction of the community of Ouje-Bougougmou was written up in National Geographic and in articles throughout the world as the way to do things. I think every parliamentarian should go to Ouje-Bougougmou and see how it is done and when we work together how it can be done right.

Chief Abel Bosum has been with us from the beginning there. He has lived with it. It is amazing. They took people from eight or nine scattered communities who were living in shacks. They met in a little house on a hill. They would come over in the evening and meet with the architect with suggestions. They were not just looking at plans. It was a living thing. They named each street after their traplines. If we could duplicate that in the 605 First Nations across Canada, problems would be solved.

I want to tell the House what Billy Diamond had to do when the Grand Council of Crees was started in 1974. Billy Diamond gave his health and his family. This is what he said on June 28, 1971: "This is our land. No one has obtained surrender from us. We never lost it in war. We never lost it in battle. We never signed a treaty. No one has taken it. And we are not allowed by the Creator to let anyone take it from us". That is the way we started. They have only had three leaders: Billy Diamond, Ted Moses, Matthew Coon-Come.

With the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada working together we can put things together, not divide things or separate things. We can come up with the Ouje-Bougoumous. That is what we have today. It is easy to divide. It is hard to keep people together.

In the area of policing, the department of the solicitor general signed a tripartite agreement on public security for all Cree communities. This illustrates a common goal for the Crees to govern themselves by assuming administration, management, and supervision of its own police force.

We are also encouraged to see considerable progress made on reaching an agreement to establish a Nunavik assembly of government. Although primarily a negotiation between Inuit and Quebec, Canada has been invited by both parties to have representation at these negotiations and we have provided the Nunavik constitutional committee with funding for these landmark negotiations.

Canada has other involvement with aboriginal groups in northern Quebec. We organized and participated with Makavik Corporation in the Inuit forum, a meeting held on a regular basis to examine progress and co-ordinate the application of the implementation of the JBNQA in terms of federal obligations. Canada signed the JBNQA implementation agreement with the Inuit in 1990, which provides for an amount of $22.1 million and various other commitments.

The Naskapis are also being innovative in developing partnerships. We recently signed a five-year agreement on housing and infrastructure and are discussing in concert with other federal departments an employment creation strategy.

Ninety per cent of the time I am in the field with the aboriginal people of Quebec they do not talk about self-government or about the referendum or about separation. They talk about education, infrastructure, water systems, housing, and their aspirations. This is what they talk about.

We talk about separation here. The intellectual dilettantes are always talking about separation. The native people are talking about things that are important to them and their kids: food on the table, jobs, security. These are the things we were elected for. We were elected on jobs, fiscal responsibility, getting on into the future and that is why we are staying on that agenda.

Following our 1990 implementation agreement with the Naskapi, I am pleased to hear Quebec is engaged in discussions and looks forward to resolving various issues related to the implementation of the northeastern Quebec implementation agreement.

Federal initiatives are not limited to northern Quebec. As I said earlier, the aboriginal people are throughout Quebec. For example, comprehensive land claims with the 12 Attikamek and Montagnais communities are of enormous importance to all of northeastern Quebec. I look forward to renewed and rejuvenated negotiations that will lead to a fair and equitable resolution of their outstanding and complex land claims.

It was odd, when I heard the Bloc speak today there was no mention of the fact that David Cliche, whom I like, although we disagree philosophically-he is a separatist and I am a federalist-went to the Attikamek and Montagnais and offered $400 million. That is not ancient history; that was a few months ago. Nothing was said about this, but he presupposed that $300 million of that was federal money. While Quebec was taking all the bows-I see the Bloc member smiling, but that is correct-and David Cliche was taking all the bows and Premier Parizeau was in the glow of this, $300 million of the $400 million was our money.

I remember one Bloc member standing up saying "I am here to defend the taxpayers of Canada", which is what they were elected for. They are not here to separate the country-they have said that themselves; they are here to do their jobs. I do not remember one Bloc member ever standing up and saying maybe we have too much money in there. I think this is the first time it has even been mentioned that $300 million of that $400 million came from the federal coffers. Luckily, in a way, the agreement was rejected.

There are also important developments involving the Huron-Wendat First Nation right next to Quebec City. This is interesting about the Huron. At one time the Huron were the largest of the six nations and a profound part of our history. Through disease, war and what we have done, they now have only one reserve, which is near Quebec City at Loretteville. It is very sad when this happens. We read so much about the Huron in the books. There are a few in the United States, but only one reserve in Canada.

I met with Chief Max Gros-Louis in November 1994. An understanding has been reached among the federal, provincial and Huron-Wendat negotiators to recommend the framework agreement for very important negotiations of the application of the Murray Treaty.

I have several pages on the Mohawk, who we hear about every day. I will skip over that, because my time is getting short. I will mention that it is working. The Mohawk round table is not the end-all, but it works. We are now talking to the Mohawk. Judge Réjean Paul is there and Michel Robert is there. It works. This government came in, and there are no more Okas. We talked and negotiated and dealt fairly with the Mohawks of Canada.

We are working with the Inuit, the Cree, the Naskapi, the Montagnais, the Algonquin, the Attikamek, the Huron, the Malecites, the Micmacs and the Mohawks in Quebec. I cannot remember a time ever in the history of the country when any government could say there was movement with all of these people. That is what is important, not the fact that the Bloc comes here today on behalf of the Government of Quebec and tells us there is money owing.

It is important for us to work together when it comes to aboriginal people. We can do a good job. As things are going now, this country is not going to separate so we had better start talking about the future. We had better not have such deep wounds that we cannot heal them. That could happen even here. We could create such deep wounds that we could never heal them. We have to decide what is important to us collectively.

The Bloc member for Saint-Jean is out there in the field. He is probably one of the more knowledgeable, maybe the most knowledgeable person in opposition on what is out there with the aboriginal people. He brings the concerns of food mail to this House. He brings the concerns of aboriginal people across this country. He made one mistake by going door to door in a Mohawk village and almost got kidnapped by the Mohawks because they did not understand he was a member of Parliament, but these things come and go.

We have to establish what is important to us and what our values are as people. If we do that, this country will survive and we will do a good job for the aboriginal people.

Aboriginal Affairs May 17th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, a letter is being drafted, in response to that letter, to the member. A full review is under way in this instance and I wanted to advise the member of it.

I repeat that members of the Reform Party never look at the good side of what is happening out there. They take isolated cases like they did on immigration and on anything else in the House that they oppose, such as the gun laws. I say they should go and talk with the people they represent. I can assure them that most people want to do the honourable and just thing for native people to get true self-government and to bring some dignity into the process rather than single out individuals in the House and come close to defaming them.

Aboriginal Affairs May 17th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I believe I responded to the question last week. I would be pleased to take the member's letter under consideration. Again I emphasize that there are 605 First Nations out there. Over 80 per cent run their affairs well, and I never hear the Reform saying that is good. Some 152 of the remaining 200 have remedial action plans in place and we are working with them.

We are working with the people to make sure they do the things the Reform allegedly wants. I quote the leader of the Reform Party when he said that his goal was to dismantle and decentralize my department's function, funding and responsibility and transfer them to local aboriginal agencies of government.

If the Reformers are complaining, that is good. That is democracy. At least they are showing an interest in what is happening.

Fur Industry May 17th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, as well as assisting the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs wherever we can in whatever format and whenever we can to get the matter settled because it affects industry, we have put significant amounts of money-I do not have the exact amount-into training and into the development of a more humane trap.

The problem is that we think no matter how humane the trap is there will still be European backlash against animal furs. We are doing our best to overcome it but it is a problem. To say it is not a problem would be misleading the hon. member.

Privilege May 12th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.

The Reform Party today made an allegation that the hon. member for Prince Alberta-Churchill River has a conflict of interest because he was honoured by his constituents. That is a fairly serious allegation.

We tend to let most things go in the House because there has to be a give and take in democracy. However, it is fundamental to the rights of any member that he or she can stand up with impunity and charge a member who is not in the House, who happens to be chair of the aboriginal committee, with a conflict of interest, which is illegal and immoral.

I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that you either rule on it or that the hon. member should withdraw the remark.