House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was nisga'a.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as Liberal MP for Kenora (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2019, with 30% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Aboriginal Affairs November 21st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, let me put this question to the member again, as I did last time, and then I will answer the question for him. Is his party saying that the Government of Canada should guarantee every transaction between the private sector and a first nation?

If his party is suggesting that the government should go good for every single contract that is out there in the private sector with a first nation, we are talking about literally billions of transactions every year. This responsibility lies with the first nation government and the private sector and that is where it will stay.

Aboriginal Affairs November 21st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, again it is unfortunate that the member does not get himself well briefed. I tried to explain last time he or one of his colleagues asked this question.

Since 1995 we have spent above and beyond our normal capital funding for water treatment plants and sewer treatment plants, with some $500 million extra. This year we will spend over $200 million in water treatment plants alone to upgrade the systems on reserves.

The information that the member has submitted to the House is blatantly false, and I wish he would stop putting those comments to the House.

Aboriginal Affairs November 5th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, last spring when I answered a question from the leader of the fifth party I gave him assurances that the government took its interests and responsibilities very seriously as they relate to water on reserves.

We have put together a comprehensive plan. That plan will be rolled out. We are looking at all the risks and making sure that no first nations citizen is put at risk in this country.

Question No. 18 November 1st, 2002

With regard to specific treaties being made between the crown and aboriginal bands or communities in the Maritimes, the British crown signed a number of historical documents with the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy people between 1725 and 1779. These historical documents are commonly referred to as treaties, but only three of them, the two LaHeve treaties of 1760-61 and the Cope treaty of 1752, have been formally recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as having the constitutional status of treaties.

In response to part (a) of the question, it is important to consider the geographical boundaries and political structures of the Maritimes in the 1700s. In the Marshall decision, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that “...the British signed a series of agreements with individual Mi’kmaq communities in 1760 and 1761 intending to have them consolidated into a comprehensive Mi’kmaq treaty that was never in fact brought into existence. The trial judge found that by the end of 1761 all of the Mi’kmaq villages in Nova Scotia had entered into separate but similar treaties”. It is important to note that during the colonial period, Nova Scotia was considered to include modern day New Brunswick.

Regarding parts (b) and (c) as they relate to the Supreme Court of Canada decision on Marshall, only the 1760-61 treaties were recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as treaties under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The 1760 LaHeve treaty was signed on March 10, 1760 in Halifax. The 1761 LaHeve treaty was signed on November 9, 1761 in Halifax.

In addition, the other “historical documents” that have been identified from various archival sources are virtually identical to the LaHeve treaty of 1760 with the exception of the February 23, 1760 agreement with the Saint John (Maliseet) and Passamaquoddy Indians, which contained similar promises but also renewed previous peace and friendship treaties with the crown.

Copies of the following 1760-61 documents were provided to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in May 2001:

Renewal of 1725 Articles and 1749 Articles, with the delegates of the Saint John and Passamaquoddy, at Chebucto (Halifax) Harbour, 23 February 1760; Treaty dated 10 March 1760 with Chief Michael Augustine of the Richebuctou Tribe; Treaty with Chief Paul of LaHeve Tribe at Halifax, 10 March 1760; Treaty with Claude René, Chief of Chibennacadie and Muscadoboit, concluded at Halifax, 10 March 1760; Treaty with the Merimichi Tribe, concluded 25 June 1761; Treaty with Chief Claude Atouash of the Jedaick Tribe, concluded at Halifax, 25 June 1761; Treaty with Etiene Apshobon of the Pogmouch Tribe, Halifax, 25 June 1761; Treaty with Joseph Argimaut, Chief of Mesiguash Indians, Halifax, 8 July 1761; Treaty with Chief Jeannot Picklougawash on behalf of the Pictouk and Malegomich Tribes, 12 October 1761; and Treaty with Chief Francis Mius of the LaHeve Tribe, concluded at Halifax, 9 November 1761.

In part (d) reference is made to “Marshall or Halifax treaties”. It is assumed this is in reference to the LaHeve treaties of 1760-61, which were considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Marshall decision. Therefore, with respect to which bands or communities are covered by these treaties, the Government of Canada is of the view that while modern day first nations are the most likely successor groups of the original signatory groups, it is impossible to determine a direct correlation between the application of treaties to modern day first nations.

It is important to keep in mind that the passage of time has meant that there have been changes to the composition of some of the signatory groups. We recognize the difficulty in connecting the signatories of historic treaties to particular contemporary first nation communities. This may be due in part to migration of first nations, intermarriage, government policies creating bands and other initiatives such as the centralization of reserves. However, since the court found that all Mi’kmaq communities participated in the treaties, members of modern communities are likely beneficiaries of these treaty rights.

For these reasons, the Government of Canada has determined that the most appropriate course of action is to enter into a dialogue with the 34 Mi’kmaq and Maliseet first nations in present day Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec to consider the implications of the Marshall decision.

Parts (e) and (f) of the question are unanswerable since only the two LaHeve treaties of 1760-61 and the Cope treaty of 1752 have been formally recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as having the constitutional status of treaties. In addition, the Government of Canada maintains that while modern day first nations are the most likely successor groups to the original collectives that signed the treaties, it is impossible to determine a direct correlation between the application of treaties to contemporary first nations. As for which bands are not covered by treaties, part (g), the question is unanswerable due to changes in the composition of some of the signatory groups over the years. Nonetheless, the Government of Canada has drawn from the observations of the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision on Marshall and has determined that working with the 34 Mi’kmaq and Maliseet first nations on the implications of this decision is the most appropriate course of action.

Aboriginal Affairs October 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate and I can understand why even the Alliance does not want that member in its caucus. The facts are these. Over the last number of years we have attempted that process, as the members have asked today, of whether this first nation and the community members, the non-native members of Lynn Lake, would want to look at an urban reserve creation. There was no agreement of that process so we had to move on with the other alternative, which is to build a community down the road.

Aboriginal Affairs October 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, if the member is suggesting that he has changed the policy of the Alliance Party by agreeing to urban reserves, I am quite intrigued by that because so far that party has opposed every urban reserve creation that the government has attempted.

Aboriginal Affairs October 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I think the member unfortunately has dealt with this issue from the perspective of trying to suggest that people of course are being relocated. This community has never had its home territory as part of its community.

The objective of the Government of Canada is to build a community and a future for these people.

Aboriginal Affairs October 22nd, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I can account for every nickel that particular band has spent on education, but that is not the issue. What the member is trying to do is confuse the real issue. The real issue is that there is a dispute between that school board and that band on education issues and it should be resolved at that level.

Aboriginal Affairs October 22nd, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I think the member would agree with me that accountability is a two-way street. One of the issues that is being debated between the public school board and the first nation is the curriculum and the issues dealing with the children themselves. That is an issue that should be resolved between the school board and the band. That is the way we will build the relationship in this country.

Aboriginal Affairs October 11th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, it will be amazing to see how long the member will be the critic for that party if he still does not know what the legislation says.

The legislation says specifically that through aggregation first nations can allow the tribal councils and/or larger organizations to deal with these matters. It is up to them to choose it that way. I am sure the member understands that first nations will want the efficiencies that this legislation will give them.

I recommend very strongly over the week when the member is at home that he read the legislation instead of asking questions that are very much nonsense. That is not what the legislation--