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

Yukon Quartz Mining Act June 4th, 1996

moved that Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Supply May 30th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke comes from Chile. In the early seventies until the change to democracy it was a country that gave 40,000 to 80,000 lives to preserve democracy.

He says he is not paid anything or receives anything in Canada. I might remind him he is paid to be a parliamentarian in the Parliament of Canada and well paid.

He says he is here for harmony. I come from Italian ancestry on my maternal side. What kind of harmony does he bring to this country from Chile if he would separate the 450,000 Italian Canadians in Montreal from the one million Italians in Toronto? They have one thing in common. They are Canadian.

What kind of harmony does he bring to this country if he would separate the five million francophones of Quebec from the 600,000 francophones in Ontario? Would he do that in Chile?

They have Yugoslav communities in Chile. They have aboriginal communities in Chile. They have Hispanic communities in Chile. Would he go back to Chile and split Spaniard from Spaniard, Yugoslav from Yugoslav? Would he do that? If he is prepared to do it in Canada, then perhaps he should be prepared to go back to Chile and do it there.

I might remind him that it was not P.E.I., Newfoundland or Ontario that saved his hide. It was Canada that gave him his passport. May I remind this member, that yesterday when we celebrated 14 Parliaments, on that podium were five French Canadians: the Speaker of the House, the Speaker of the Senate, the Governor General, the person who sang the national anthem and the Prime Minister. Only one of those French Canadians came from Quebec, two came from Ontario, one came from Manitoba and two from New Brunswick. Would he split that type of spirit?

May I end with this. This hon. member sat with other Bloc members during the national anthem with five French Canadians up there trying to keep this country together. They did not sing a word, some of them sat with their arms crossed. Is that the kind of harmony that he would bring from Chile to Canada?

I say to this hon. member that he should be ashamed of himself if that is his stated goal. It is certainly not demonstrated by the party he has joined which incidentally does not think highly of immigrants, if we look at what Mr. Parizeau said after the referendum.

I suggest to the member that he should be ashamed of what he is doing to Canada. He should be ashamed of what he is doing to the immigrants who do not support his position.

Supply May 16th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to ask a question of the leader of the Bloc. This is a major problem which at some point has to be addressed.

Within Quebec there are aboriginal peoples: Abenakis, Montagnais, Cree, Innu, Algonquin, Mohawk, Huron, Micmac, Malecite. According to Mr. Turp, the former adviser to the Bloc, they have the superior right to self-determination. Everyone knows about the outcome of the referendum taken by the Montagnais, Cree and Innu. They are Quebecois. They are aboriginal people living in Quebec.

Within Montreal, for instance, there are 450,000 Italian Canadians. These are Canadian citizens living in Quebec. Twenty-three of the 30 ridings in Montreal voted no. The people in Hull, the Pontiac and eastern townships want to remain part of Canada.

How does the Leader of the Opposition intend to deal with this? Is he saying that 50 per cent plus 1 takes away the rights of all these people who want to remain Canadian citizens? It is a very difficult question.

Indian Affairs April 25th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Bloc is applauding what in a sense is a tragedy.

Mr. Gabriel writes to the Deputy Prime Minister and purports to be the chief. Her staff prepares a letter responding to him as the chief. That does not change what I have just said in this House today or what I said in the House several months ago.

Indian Affairs April 25th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered this question once already.

As the hon. member knows, in that First Nation, right now there are two people who purport to be chief. The first, Mr. Peltier, was elected. We spent almost $50,000 to have a reputable consulting firm come into Kanesatake for a three year period. The second person, Mr. Gabriel, referred to by the hon. member went in by petition supposedly a couple of months ago. At this stage I have to get some direction from justice. We may not even have the authority to remove Mr. Peltier.

It was said from the meeting that he had resigned. This is not correct. He sent me a letter saying he is still the chief. In fact until it is sorted out either in the court or hopefully by the people in the community, there are two chiefs in Kanesatake.

Telecommunications April 24th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from the meetings that there has been no definitive finding of illegality. If there is, it is up to the authorities in Quebec to stop the illegal action. It is clearly within their jurisdiction. If they do not want to exercise it that is their problem. It is their decision whether the event is illegal or legal.

Telecommunications April 24th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, the setting up of equipment per se is not illegal. If there is an illegal act it will be dealt with by the authorities in Quebec.

There have been meetings between Grand Chief Norton and the Quebec government. They set out rules of combat: no biting, no scratching and no time outs, which I found was a preference by the Mohawks in the province of Quebec for the next referendum rules.

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act April 22nd, 1996

moved that Bill C-19, an act to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade, be read the third time and passed.

Nisga'A Land Claims March 27th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, again the Reform proves to all members that it does not know what it is talking about. If it does know what it is talking about, it is giving the wrong information to the House.

The Nisga'a deal proclaims that in the 12 years, after we help them, the Nisga'a will be paying taxes like every other Canadian. They are under the Criminal Code. They will be under the charter of rights.

This party purports to have some spiritualism. Let me read something:

The mainline churches support these negotiation processes in principle because we have been trying for over 30 years to face our own role in this sad history-We either get on with it as immigrant people, or face our First Nation neighbours in the streets and at the barricades-John Siebert, program officer, human rights and aboriginal justice, United Church of Canada.

Nisga'A Land Claims March 27th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, the premise is patently wrong but a comparison of what the Bloc and Reform do is interesting. The party to my far right, Reform, has opposed the Yukon legislation, the Nisga'a legislation, the Davis package, the Arctic exiles package, the B.C. treaty process.

The Reform Party has voted against every piece of aboriginal legislation brought to the House except the Norman Wells legislation that benefited an oil company. If Reform members want to compare themselves to Bloc members, if the Bloc supported one piece of legislation, Reformers would be at least tied with the Bloc. If the Bloc supported two pieces, it would be 100 per cent better than the Reform.