Bob Nault

[Native Peoples, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am here answering his question. The answer to it is they will be coming here on Monday. We will be talking about how to deal with the Marshall case. Then we will be announcing the long term process to all the House.

[Native Peoples, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will be having a meeting with all the partners. The partners, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I are working on a long term plan and I hope to announce it next week.

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, any time an aboriginal community tries to create an economic development opportunity for themselves it becomes a win-lose for the Reform Party.

I see the Musqueam issue as a win-win in the sense that first nations people will make economic benefit from this legally binding contract. I do not know what the Reform Party would like to see the Government of Canada do. If its members would give us their position on that particular file, if they would like us to subsidize the first nations to the tune of $7 million to deal with it, I would be prepared to look at it. So far all the Reform Party is doing is running at aboriginal people but not giving us solutions as to how we deal with the situation.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I will be setting up a number of tables. Those tables will be like any other negotiation that we have done in B.C. or across the country, as I have mentioned earlier. We will sit down with the people, the chiefs of the Atlantic region and other interest groups, and we will then come up with a resolution as to how best to proceed with the treaty right confirmed by the court.

That will not happen tomorrow, next week or the week after. We will set up these tables and we will work through it over the winter. We hope that in the short term, which is in the next year, we will have some solutions to the issues. That is how it will be done. It is not the simplistic view of some members opposite that we should just go out there and ask people to break the law or change the law because we do not like the results of what the courts have ruled.

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, obviously members who have a preoccupation with the fishing strategy are asking very specific questions, but they seem to have lost the gist of the speech and what I was trying to suggest.

I want to make it very clear to members that when the courts rule on particular rights of first nations they rule with the intent of saying to Canadians and to governments, provincial and federal, that the rights exist. Then they suggest to parliamentarians and members who are on the government side that they sit down with the aboriginal people to negotiate how those benefits from the treaty will flow, and they flow in a number of ways: from the economic development side of the issue, which was mentioned by my colleague earlier in his question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans; the issue of how first nations people would be involved in the regulatory regime of the fishery itself; how they would be involved in other resources; and in gathering, which was part of the statement that was made by the court. Those issues were not defined. That was the whole issue. For someone to be as simplistic as to say that we should be prepared and coming out with a plan tomorrow and saying here it is, that is not what the courts asked us to do. The courts have asked us to sit down with the first nations and to define exactly how that treaty right will benefit them.

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to Reform members' interventions in this debate. It is always very interesting to see where they are coming from.

I am pleased to join my hon. colleague in debating this motion.

The supreme court has provided valuable guidance on how an agreement between two parties, the 1760-61 Mi'kmaq treaty, should be interpreted as we enter the 21st century. However, the court did not specify how those treaty rights are to be implemented and respected both now and in the future.

It is very important for people to understand that the court's decision is complex and far-reaching. There are no quick and easy solutions, as has been suggested by some people already this evening. A constructive resolution requires that all parties work together to respect an affirmed treaty right in a way that is sensitive to the interests of all those who rely on the fishery for their livelihood.

We have much more work ahead of us—governments, first nations and non-first nations—to reconcile and understand the court's interpretation of this and other historic treaties. The process by which we can work together toward finding a settlement is not new. In fact, it is well under way. Our commitment to negotiate with first nations in the spirit of partnership is ongoing. So too is our commitment to finding settlements to legitimate outstanding first nations obligations. These commitments were reconfirmed last year with the launch of “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”.

The government's response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples affirmed that agreements are best negotiated in a way that respects the rights and concerns of first nations and those of their neighbours.

This is nothing new. We see it taking place across the country every day. On the west coast the British Columbia Treaty Commission is negotiating modern day treaties with 51 first nations where no settlements were negotiated. In the Yukon, comprehensive claim settlements, self-government and shared resource management are returning certainty to the territory. In the Atlantic region a process is under way with first nations to find approaches to identify and settle legitimate outstanding obligations to first nations. The same spirit of partnership will be needed to understand historic treaties.

In “Gathering Strength” we said that the continuing treaty relationship provides the context of mutual rights and responsibilities which will ensure that aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can together enjoy the benefits of this great land.

Unfortunately, for too many years first nations have not fully enjoyed the benefits of this great land, in part because they have had limited access to fish, forests, minerals and other natural resources. Yet, court rulings have consistently and clearly demonstrated that first nations do indeed have rights. They have worked relentlessly to have aboriginal and treaty rights recognized.

I would like to quote from a letter to the editor in today's edition of the Vancouver Sun . Miles Richardson, the chief commissioner of the British Columbia Treaty Commission, writes: “Aboriginal rights exist whether or not they are set out in a treaty or agreed to by anyone. But without a treaty it is unclear about how and where those treaties apply. The courts have continually said that the best way to resolve these issues is through good faith negotiations with give and take on all sides”.

I agree completely with those words. I can confirm that my department is working in partnership with first nations and other governments across Canada to ensure that treaties are fully respected.

It is clear that the supreme court ruling on the Marshall case has implications for the people of Atlantic Canada, both first nations and non-first nations. My colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, is working very hard to arrive at a fair and equitable solution involving access to Atlantic fishery resources in light of the Marshall decision.

The impact of the Marshall case likely will not be confined to fish and it likely will not be confined to Atlantic Canada. I will be reviewing with others involved how these broader issues should be addressed. After all, this is a shared responsibility among all parties. It is up to all of us to help explain to all Canadians the meaning of treaties and the treaty relationship.

I think we are seeing that the days are gone when one minister, the minister of Indian affairs, is the only one working on or speaking to aboriginal issues. These issues are of significant importance to all ministers and I commend and support my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, for his efforts.

My role is broader. I see it as having the federal lead to work closely with first nation leaders, my provincial counterparts and my cabinet colleagues to explore together an overall approach to the broader question of the treaty relationship and aboriginal access to resources.

As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I am just one person among many who is working on or speaking to aboriginal issues. These issues are of significant importance to all ministers. Again, I commend the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his efforts. Together we will explore an overall approach to the broader question of the treaty relationship and aboriginal access to resources.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear to the member, I represent 51 first nations so I do not need a lecture from him on the needs of aboriginal people. I have forgotten more about aboriginal policy and politics than he will ever know.

If the member really cared about aboriginal people, he would start by supporting C-49. C-49 which we voted on yesterday is a good move for economic development to get people out of poverty in those first nations. What does he do? He plays the game of oh, there are a couple of women who are going to be upset about this, or they might have some rights that the municipalities or provinces already take for granted so we cannot do that because natives are not capable of looking after themselves.

From my experience with the first nations communities that I represent, if we keep on the track that this government has set out to build a partnership, we will see the unemployment rates in those communities go down. If they take on the municipal vision of the Reform Party, they will go backward. That is why there is not one aboriginal in my region who will ever vote Reform as long as the party is around.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 we did not run to scrap the free trade agreement; it was the election before that. I know the member was probably busy running Brandon so he did not have time to keep an eye on it. In 1993 we ran on the fact that we needed to make some improvements to the free trade agreement and that is exactly what we did. But let me tell the member very quickly that $42 billion are 42 billion reasons why there are very few of those members left on that side.

I sat over there when the Tories sat over here. Day after day we tried to warn them about what was going on in the countryside. Day after day they kept increasing this front bench. There were over 40 cabinet members all looking for cash. No wonder we were in such big trouble. That is the kind—

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yes I did speak of hope and I am a supporter of the EI reforms that were made and this is why. There was a necessity in this country to deal with behavioural change. I do not for a minute think it is acceptable for members of parliament to suggest to their electorate that it is okay to be on unemployment insurance, that it is a good thing to be on unemployment insurance, that people can work for two or three months a year in the fishery and then spend the rest of the year on EI and say that that is good enough.

The whole objective of EI reform was to bring in behavioural change so people would say to themselves “Maybe now that my children are growing up I may not be able to do anything about it but maybe I can move them into industries where there is more potential”. We will be proactive enough. That is why we have the regional development programs in Quebec, ACOA in Atlantic Canada, WED in the west, FedNor in Ontario. The whole objective is to help people. That is what this is all about.

Let me remind the member that the federation has given Quebec $8 billion to $10 billion more than it gives back to the federation. This country is working because it is sharing its resources to help have not regions. I do not think the separatists are going to get away with this continued—

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was not blaming Conrad Black. I was just suggesting to the folks who are writing the articles in the National Post that they should be a little more in depth.

One of the people I like is an editorial writer by the name of Mr. Fisher. Everybody knows that when we read the columns by the dean of the writers around this place, there is some research to them. But when we read the National Post we get the sense that if we just cut taxes, everything would be happy around here.

I only wanted to make it clear to the member that I understand he had to jump parties in order to get elected. God bless him, he is here. But I do not think he has made much of a difference or a dint so far. Do not blame Ontario, which is a large portion of the Canadian population, that they voted for one party massively because they could not buy into the nonsense of the Reform Party.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

The lone Tory who is here says never. I am not too worried about that, quite frankly. But I really think that the government itself needs to be pushed on the vision of what Canada should look like.

We are having to do it ourselves internally because Reform members spend their time trying to figure out: “Here is one couple, they get this. Here is another couple, they get that”. Can we imagine what the people at home are thinking? They just do not get it.

Let us get real. Let us get serious about why they are in opposition. I really would like to see them focus on the issues that Canadians put them there for.

The thing that is important to me is the vision of the Liberal Party. I have urged the ministers involved, now that we have our fiscal house in order, to put together the vision for the new millennium. Our vision is going to carry us for about 50 years if it is a good vision, as the visions of past generations have done.

I think the Minister of Finance has done an excellent job of starting that process, of putting us in line to have this great debate. I look forward to the debate. I look forward to the different visions because in the end Canadians will decide. So far they have bought the Liberal Party's vision and have said to the other parties “No thanks. We don't agree with you. We think you are way off base”.

Let us get into the next phase. The next few budgets will really define where we go as Canadians.