Bob Nault

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Broadview—Greenwood who has been a seatmate of mine for 11 years now. Since we entered this debate some 11 years ago a lot of changes have occurred.

I know that the member for Calgary Southeast is quite new to this place, so he may have forgotten who he used to vote for before the Reform Party came along. I am sure he would like to tell us sometime who he used to vote for before he decided to create his own party. Now he is going to try to create another one because he is not happy with the one he has.

I am a little disturbed that he cannot seem to get his parties right, but he does know that the party he voted for when I was in opposition with my colleagues here on that side was a government that racked up a huge deficit.

When we first got to this place some 11 years ago, as the member for Broadview—Greenwood said, Canadians had absolutely no hope. Everywhere I went in Kenora—Rainy River, one of the largest rural ridings in Canada, probably one of the largest pieces of geography for one member to represent in all of North America, everyone was very down and out and very depressed about where we were going as a country. I can understand why because there were no choices, no options.

Last year was the first time in my voting life that I voted for a government that had a balanced budget. Imagine that. I am not exactly a young man, but the fact remains that I have never voted for a government that had a balanced budget.

What did the pundits say last year? Not much. They had a real tough time saying congratulations to the Canadian government for starting to get its fiscal house in order and starting to show some understanding of how the country should be run.

This year we had a second balanced budget. Of course the right wing pundits were out there saying “That is not good enough. You have got two balanced budgets for the first time in 50 years, but you have got to start getting your act together. The country is going to fall apart because you did not cut enough, you did not do enough in debt reduction and you are starting to spend money”.

Here are the criticisms that I have heard so far about the budget. This is a very telling tale. The criticism of this budget is that we did not spend enough on health care, we did not cut taxes enough and we did not reduce the debt enough. That is the kind of criticism that I think is exceptionally well placed because when I first got here these debates did not occur. We were so confused as a country, wondering whether we were ever going to get out of the quagmire we were in, that we could not even criticize how much debt we paid down or how big a tax cut we would have. We were wondering whether we were going to be a third world country soon because of what we were doing.

Now we are at the point where we can see some hope. Canadians are showing that. We are having debates now, serious debates about where we are going. The fact is that we have balanced budgets.

We now have a discussion about the fact that unemployment has gone from 11.4% to 7.8%. When we first got here, if unemployment had been at 7.8%, we would have been dancing in the streets. Now we are being criticized that that is not good enough because the Americans have 4.5% unemployment.

I think that is a great debate because my riding is a big rural riding. I wish my friend from Prince George—Bulkley Valley was here because, quite frankly, I am quite concerned about this whole debate of tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts over there from rural members of the Reform.

One of the parts that interests me about the budget is the flexibility to build a nation. Where I come from building a nation means building infrastructure. Without government there would be no infrastructure. We can bet in Kenora—Rainy River, where three-quarters of my riding has absolutely no roads, no infrastructure at all, that that is a great potential for the future of our young generation. If we keep talking only about how much tax we have, are we ever going to get to building a nation? That is what I want to do in rural parts of Canada.

I would like to spend billions of dollars on a national highway program, a national infrastructure program part two, so that we can start putting money where it really belongs so our kids will have a future.

If I had my way I would rather pay the debt down than make tax cuts because I have no sense of urgency to help Conrad Black who is one of the people responsible for the big taxes and the big debt we have in this country. It was his newspapers that were all supporting of Mulroney and his crew when they kept racking it up and up.

I understand why members of the Reform Party jumped ship. I would have jumped ship too if I had to sit there every day and try to explain as a right winger why somebody who was supposedly right wing could not get their fiscal house in order.

The next issue really is the future. We have been through the past as opposition members. We have now seen our government, since 1993, go from a $42 billion deficit down to balanced budgets, with a commitment for two more. We are now entering into a very key time in our country's development.

As I said to the electorate of Kenora—Rainy River in 1993 when I ran for the second time, I see this as a ten year program. It is going to take us one term to clean up the mess. It is going to take us another term to start to build a nation. We are now doing that. We are basically going on our seventh year. I think it is important now that the debate start to get away from the nonsense of whether there is a little scandal here in the shower or whether there is APEC or whether there is this or that. I think we need to start talking about where we want this country to go.

Let me give members an example of what I mean. One of the issues that I have discussed with the Minister of Health is the issue of rural health. Some people in this place talk about lineups. Some people talk about emergency procedures. Where I come from we have neither. We do not have lineups because we do not have hospitals. We do not have emergency procedures because we do not have doctors. This is not about rich and poor, this is about rural and urban. We need a national rural health care plan in Canada. The $50 million that the minister put in was all based on rural caucus asking this government to start recognizing the needs of rural Canada and ways that we could treat rural Canada differently because of the geography that we live in.

I was quite amazed that my colleague from Prince George—Peace River would even suggest that his main priority as a rural Canadian is to have tax cuts. I was in his riding two years ago. His infrastucture needs and his abilities to create an economy are the same as mine. He is a long way from getting where he wants to go.

Let us start talking about hope. Hope is the ability of governments to have flexibility. It is the ability of governments to decide what their priorities are.

We know where the Reform Party is at. It is at the point where it says it needs to recreate itself because it is not getting to where Canadians want it to be as a good alterative because it does not reflect the values of Canadians. Perhaps Reform members should think twice about why there are certain little areas that they are plugging into and start thinking about the huge picture, the vision of the nation as a whole. Then they would become a good alternative to this government if it got off track. But so far it has been on track.

[First Nations Land Management Act, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me as a representative of the most first nations of any member of parliament, some 51 and 40% of Ontario's first nations, to speak to this bill.

The first nations land management act obviously is a very important piece of legislation, important because it begins the trend and the change in direction of many years of a paternalistic policy that the federal government has had toward the more partnership oriented piece of legislation, a way of doing business.

Why anyone would be opposed to this is beyond me. I will speak a little to the opposition and its problems with the legislation as I go.

This bill is about accountability and about fairness. Again, I do not understand why anybody would be opposed to this bill. This is about 14 first nations opting out of the Indian Act sections on land management. This is about allowing first nations to establish their own regimes to manage their reserve lands and resources.

I do not know why anyone would be opposed to this in the modern society we live in today.

It is important, if we want to speak to an amendment or to where we are headed as governments, that we ask ourselves what would flow from this new regime. For a first nation chief and council what would this do for the first nation or the first nations that will flow over the years? This is only a start.

We hope other first nations will take on the challenge of this land management act. What will come out of this is experience and expertise.

Experience and expertise are important if someone is to change the way we do business between first nations people, the Government of Canada and the provinces involved.

What this will do is generate revenue through economic development. I wish my colleague from Macleod were here because he represents a very large first nation that has the basic infrastructure in place. Once there is the basic infrastructure, the next issue is economic development.

Without the tools at someone's disposal locally, economic development does not occur. I have a number of first nations in Kenora—Rainy River that are at the level of wanting to create employment for their children.

The way the Indian Act reads and is set up, they cannot even divide land for industrial development within their own reserve. That is ridiculous in the world we live in today.

People opposite say why can first nations people not have more employment. Here is a reason why. We are now starting on a new regime in order to entice first nations to do just that, to have land management, to create industrial parks.

Certainly they may have golf courses and things like that. Would any other community trying to create economic development not do so? Economic development flows from land management regimes. No one should have a problem with that. We are trying to get unemployment down, are we not, in all different communities.

It also ensures community decision making. That is where I have a really difficult time with my friends opposite. I have sat here now for a number of years listening to the Reform Party almost suggest that every first nation leader and council is crooked.

I am getting tired of that. I am getting fed up with hearing people say those elected people are not capable of making local decisions. I can speak from authority on this subject.

There are many first nations people who are as qualified as we are to run their communities and more so. Yes, there are problems in the aboriginal world relating to politicians who do the wrong thing. I suggest it happens here. It happens in provincial legislatures. It happens in municipal legislatures with non-natives.

We cannot use this huge brush over people to make it seem like first nations people cannot run their affairs. Quite frankly, that is total nonsense.

To the amendment and the little spin the Reform Party put on consultation, there is no law in Canada that says that parliament has to consult. It does not exist. There is no law provincially that says consult. It does not exist.

Ask Mike Harris. He does not consult very often. He did consult at election time. He won. I accept that. Now first nations people get elected. They have a chief and council. If they decide not to consult and they do the wrong thing, then people will make up their mind at election time whether they are the right people for the job. We will deal with that in a democratic process.

On the Reform Party position, it is very specific and very clear what its objective is. It looks at first nation communities as municipalities. A municipality is a creation of provincial legislation. This is not in the Constitution. It does not exist in the federal laws we have.

They can be changed by provincial governments whenever they so choose. I can say from experience in Ontario our friend Mike Harris has changed municipalities around so often we are not sure what we are any more. That is a scary sight.

I do not think it is necessary to consult all the time but I do think it is the neighbourly thing to do. We should consult because we live next door.

I do not think it is necessary to put that in the legislation. If I am to expropriate a particular piece of property on reserve because I am building a subdivision and I want to build a road where there are two houses, I do not believe I should have to talk to somebody in Vancouver about that if I am a thousand miles away. I think this is a frivolous and unnecessary amendment to the bill. As we know, if one wants to expropriate and some people do not agree they can go to the courts under this piece of legislation. They have rights just like we do. That is fair.

If members of the opposition really want to help first nations people out of poverty, they should think about this as far as accountability of fairness goes, stop playing politics with the issue, and stop believing that first nations are municipalities because they are not. They are more than that. They sign treaties.

If one wants to look at it from the perspective of the Liberals, first nations are more like provinces in jurisdiction. They are our partners and we will deal with it in that way. We cannot deal with it in the way we deal with municipalities because if we do we are destined to fail.

This is a great beginning but there is a long way to go. Only 14 first nations have taken the leap to look at the new opportunity to have direct land management on reserves. I wish all 51 first nations in my area, once they have had an opportunity to review this legislation, will make the decision to follow suit because what we are trying to do is create economic development.

I wanted to add my words today to those of the government side and tell the opposition members to get real. If they really want to see unemployment go down, they should start allowing first nations to have some control over their own lives.

[Privilege, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the debate was basically about the level of decorum in the House and that I was personally insulted as a friend of Mr. Young that people would be making that kind of allegation.

Yesterday I came into my place in good faith as an hon. member and said that if I had offended anybody with the fact that I am a little bit aggressive, and I think everybody would admit that, then I apologize.

Now we are back here because, wanting to get some cheap media hits, they come back into the House and suggest that I am basically running at them when in fact I am not. I have said it once and I am not about to say it again. I made it very clear yesterday that I apologized if they were offended by the fact that I had a difference of opinion with them.

[Privilege, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear to you, to all the members of the House and to the member who just spoke that we had a conversation below this place on the first floor. It was very much a debate thrust in a difference of opinion. I was making it very clear to the members, this member from New Brunswick particularly, that I thought their comments about a particular ex-member of the House were unbecoming of this place because they were throwing insults, allegations and slander when they would not do it outside the House.

That was the conversation. There was no intimidation. It was very much a debate that we have in this place all the time. I think it demeans the House when people say things like that about members, whether they are here or not, or whether they have gone on to another profession.

The only thing we have in this place is our name. Once we leave this place, if one slanders a person's name continuously in this place without any information to back it up—and I said to the member to say it outside and he refused to say it outside—

[Privilege, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since this was supposed to be put to rest yesterday based on your ruling, I would like to get some guidance from the Chair. Standing Order 10 of the House regarding Speaker's rulings states:

No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.

I am going to ask just a question, Mr. Speaker. If you are going to allow this debate to go on then I would like the opportunity to respond to the debate as it is now because it has become a debate, not a ruling—

[Points Of Order, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, just after question period the member for Cumberland—Colchester suggested that I had made some remarks to him that were intimidating. First of all, if it was intended to be that way, Madam Speaker, I can assure you he would not be sitting there today.

The whole objective of my comments of the other day were to make it very clear to him that Mr. Young, the previous minister of human resources, defence and transport, was a very honourable member in this place in the last parliament. He is a very honest individual for whom I have a lot of respect.

I was trying to make it very clear to him that in the way he was posing his question he was suggesting that Mr. Young had somehow done something illegal, that he was crooked, and that it was not something I cherished hearing from members on the opposite side because it is not very honourable.

If my comments suggested in any way to him that I was being intimidating and hurting his work, I want to take this opportunity to apologize because that was not the intent.

The intent was to suggest to the House that when one poses questions one should not pose the kinds of scenarios that he was suggesting toward Mr. Young which would in any way jeopardize his abilities to make a livelihood out there in the workplace now that he is no longer a member of parliament. Those were the reasons why I made those remarks.

[Sacred Walk For Healing, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today and recognize the efforts of Bishop Beardy from Muskrat Dam in my constituency. He is the first aboriginal bishop in the Anglican church. He is the spiritual leader of over 50 parishes scattered over 800,000 square kilometres in northern Ontario and Manitoba.

In August, Bishop Beardy and community members began the second Sacred Walk for Healing. They began in Lac Seul and have today reached their destination of Ottawa.

The purpose of the sacred walk is to raise awareness of past abuse in First Nations communities, to foster reconciliation between aboriginal peoples, non-aboriginal people and the church, and to raise money for community based healing initiatives.

As Bishop Beardy himself has said “You can't witness so much pain and do nothing. This is something we all can do, everyone together”.

I hope members of this House will join me in recognizing and applauding the contribution Bishop Beardy is making toward a more positive future for all Canadians.

[Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Human Resources Development Canada is now in a consultation process with the provinces. We are looking at a couple of elements, a couple of directions.

Once we finish that consultation with the provinces we will be going to the final phase of looking at alternatives and proposals that we will put to people. From there we will do like we did when the crisis first started, we will make sure we do what is right for the people who need our help.

[Motions For Papers, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this important issue and I welcome the opportunity to speak to the matter.

The federal government has provided $90 million to Tokamak de Varennes from 1981 to 1997. The government chose, however, not to terminate funding abruptly. This would have been unfair to the scientists and researchers.

When the government decided to terminate its support for fusion at the end of March 1997 it provided a lump sum payment of $19 million to Hydro Quebec thereby absolving the government of any future liabilities for this project. Hydro Quebec agreed to operate the facility for an additional three years, complete the experiments in progress and allow for an orderly shutdown of the facilities.

Hydro Quebec announced in May that it would be shutting down this facility earlier than anticipated because of budgetary pressures. It seems that Hydro Quebec has decided, like the federal government, that fusion cannot be a priority at this time.

Federal funding of fusion research has been a difficult issue over the years as the funding requirements kept escalating. Fusion research is expensive and equipment had to be kept up to date with advances in fusion science to be able to make meaningful contributions to the knowledge base. Although the science was very good the technology was very expensive and has a payback that is at least 30 to 40 years in the future. It is not certain the technology could be successfully developed.

Natural Resources Canada decided that fusion could not be a priority given the spending cuts that had to be made and the limited resources at our disposal. In energy R and D the government is focusing on those areas that have the greatest promise for reducing greenhouse gases and for helping to meet our commitment to the Kyoto protocol.

Many accomplished dedicated scientists were associated with this project. They are to be commended for their contribution to this field of research. The Government of Canada has a responsibility to Canadians, however, to manage public investments prudently and to establish strategic priorities in energy research. It simply does not have the means to fund all research, as worthy as it may be.

[Motions For Papers, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Halifax West concerning aboriginal access to forest resources on crown lands.

The key issue in this matter is the involvement of New Brunswick aboriginal people in the forestry industry in New Brunswick. The New Brunswick appeal court found that there was not sufficient evidence in the case concerning Mr. Peter Paul to support a treaty or aboriginal right to commercial use of the forests. In any event, court decisions in this case will not close the door forever on the question of aboriginal or treaty rights in the maritimes.

Including aboriginal people in economic activities throughout Canada can go a long way toward promoting economic development in aboriginal communities. This will help raise the standard of living and hope for the future among a group of people who remain the most disadvantaged in Canadian society.

The Government of Canada recognizes that this case deals with an issue that falls under provincial jurisdiction. The government is pleased to see that the Government of New Brunswick is amenable to negotiating immediately interim arrangements that would enable First Nation communities to participate more fully in the province's forestry industry.

The province's initial proposal is being reviewed by a coalition of aboriginal leadership and loggers. It is our understanding that a counterproposal will be submitted to the province shortly.

In addition, the province launched a task force led by former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Gerard La Forest. The mandate of this task force is to consider the immediate issues related to forestry, but also a broader agenda of concerns to the province's First Nations such as education and economic development.

We believe that this task force will help bring all parties together to support peaceful resolutions to this issue. While respecting the primary responsibility of First Nations leadership and the province to resolve these issues, the federal government is open to considering how it could assist the parties to facilitate a resolution. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and her departmental officials will continue to discuss this with First Nations and the province of New Brunswick.