Fernand Robichaud

[Immigration, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, the Reform Party proposes to reduce immigration levels by half.

I think that the minister of immigration does not share that view. However, I want to assure the hon. member that I will inform the minister of her concerns, and I am convinced that he will provide an answer at the earliest opportunity.

[Immigration, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I want to reassure the hon. member and tell her that I will certainly provide her with the information requested. Indeed, I will make sure that the minister answers her concerns.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claimssettlement Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to address the House on Bill C-33, the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act.

The government's red book clearly stated our commitment to the resolution of outstanding land claims, a commitment we intend to meet whenever we can.

By settling land claims in a way that is responsible and equitable, the government will resolve former differences with the First Nations and ensure that old grievances between native and non-native people will gradually disappear.

Nowhere is the need to act more evident than in Yukon. The council for Yukon Indians land claim entitled"Together Today for our Children Tomorrow" was accepted by the Government of Canada in 1973. It was among the first of the land claims accepted by the government and its settlement is long overdue.

We have come close in the past. An agreement in principle was reached in 1984 but was not ratified by a sufficient number of Yukon First Nations to move the process forward toward negotiations of a final agreement.

Based on the 1988 agreement in principle the Council for Yukon Indians and the Governments of Canada and Yukon were able to negotiate the Yukon Indian final umbrella agreement. That agreement was signed by all three parties in May 1993 and is the basis for Bill C-33.

Hon. members should realize that the approach to resolving land claims in the Yukon clearly differs from what has been done elsewhere in Canada. This is due to the simple fact that the Yukon is different from all other regions.

It is unique in that, first of all, most aboriginal people do not live on reserves. As a result, programs and services are dispensed by the territorial government with which a close relationship exists.

Because of the unique situation in Yukon the negotiation of the final umbrella agreement was only the first part of the settlement process. It remained to conclude land claims agreements with each of the 14 Yukon First Nations; four such agreements have been reached and will be given effect through Bill C-33.

Also as part of the settlement process, certain Yukon First Nations will be negotiating transboundary agreements to resolve overlapping claims with aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories and British Columbia.

Throughout the negotiations that have taken place over the past two decades, the effected interest groups and the public have been consulted extensively. The end result is that we have territory-wide support for the settlement agreements.

Numerous public hearings were held to discuss the contents of the final framework agreement. The Yukon Legislative Assembly also set up a special committee on land claims and self-government. Based on the favourable response it received during its visits to Yukon communities, the committee strongly recommended that the four agreements negotiated to date be approved.

Interest groups have also had direct input to the settlement process. A good example of this occurred during the selection of settlement lands by the four First Nations that have reached final agreement.

As part of this process, the Yukon Outfitters Association whose members will be affected by the designation of settlement lands was widely consulted and was able to negotiate compensation for provable losses under the final umbrella agreement.

First Nations are continuing to work with this association to minimize any commercial hardship that may result should the agreements come into force during the outfitting season.

We also sought the views and backing of groups representing the energy and mining industries. We consulted with all municipal governments, churches, chambers of commerce, recreational associations and other groups, and heard some very valid comments.

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from several letters which the government received from Yukon organizations. The person signing each letter expressed firm support for the land claims settlement agreements and urged Parliament to move quickly to pass the enacting legislation.

The Anglican Bishop of Yukon, the Right Reverend R.C. Ferris, has written to the government on behalf of his diocese. Right Reverend Ferris asked that the settlement legislation be brought forward without delay and expressed the community's distress after so many years of struggle on the part of all parties to achieve an acceptable agreement. Settlement legislation is not yet a reality.

Mr. Dan McDiarmid, chairman of the Mayo District Renewable Resources Council, wrote to the minister in April stressing the importance of the land claims agreements to everyone in Yukon, requesting that the government introduce and approve settlement legislation at the earliest possible date.

The Yukon Chamber of Mines noted that the land claims settlement agreement had the support not only of Yukon natives, but also of many other territorial groups, and among others, of the mining industry.

Mr. Steven Powell, the president of the United Keno Hill Mines Limited, sent us the following message: "Thanks to this agreement, Canada will be able to close the door on a difficult chapter in the history of its relations with aboriginal peoples. Therefore, I urge you to press your colleagues in the Commons to debate the matter in a level-headed manner and to endorse these agreements".

The entire Yukon Legislative Assembly urged the government to act. On April 27, the assembly passed a resolution calling upon the minister to urge Parliament to enact the land claims settlement legislation. Furthermore, the resolution called upon the members: "-to act expeditiously to adopt the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act which will safeguard the rights and interests of the Yukon's first nations and enable the territory to move into the 21st century".

One of the most candid and compelling letters the government has received came from Chief Robert Bruce, Jr., writing on

behalf of the Buntut Gwychin tribal council whose final agreement will be given effect by Bill C-33.

In his letter to the Prime Minister Chief Bruce stated: "The people of Yukon and the Government of Canada have worked very hard to reach the compromises and innovative concepts that are embodied in these agreements. It is very important to see these efforts translated into action now while enthusiasm and expectation are high".

Mr. Speaker, in light of all these comments, it would be inconceivable for the House to reject Bill C-33. Clearly, all sectors of Yukon society overwhelmingly support the land claims settlement act.

There is good reason for that support. The first four nations final agreements that will be given effect by Bill C-33 are good agreements. They will bring many social, economic and political benefits to the affected Yukon First Nations. They will also provide many substantial indirect benefits to non-aboriginal residents of the territory.

Yukoners are now calling on Parliament to do its work, to give this legislation speedy passage so that it can get on with the job of building a stronger, more prosperous future. I can see no other reasonable or responsible course of action.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 45 will be answered today.

Question No. 45-

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I said that I hoped the example of New Brunswick would be followed across the country, and you say that perhaps we should go further.

Of course, adjustments are always necessary, but I am concerned, and I do not see any positive contributions coming from the Reform Party when we hear proposals in this House that are aimed at changing or eliminating the official languages program.

In the case of communities in New Brunswick and many communities across the country, this legislation has played an important role, and I fail to understand why the Reform Party says it wants the well-being of the entire community and at the same time tries to eliminate the programs that helped us survive and in fact develop our potential to a very considerable degree. I am surprised at these statements from the Reform Party.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say the Constitution was just a piece of paper. I acknowledged the importance of the constitutional amendment on official languages in New Brunswick. What I meant and what I actually said was that Canadians would prefer to see us discuss the reality they face every day, which is about jobs and the dignity of work.

During the last election, Canadians realized there had been enough talks about the Constitution and that we should focus all our attention on the problems facing them every day: finding a job and having the dignity of working at that job to earn a living.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I simply wanted to say that they tell us they want to separate without harming the rest of Canada, and I find that hard to take! I think Canadians know better than to be convinced by such arguments.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. member, and I must say that every time the parties opposite refer to Meech and Charlottetown without mentioning the Charest report, I begin to wonder. After all, it was a solution. Some people even resigned because of certain developments.

When they talk about Charlottetown, on which a referendum was held, I get the impression that the whole Bloc machine did not want the accord to make it, for the simple reason that it would have been good for Quebec and would have completely eclipsed the separation option.

It hardly makes sense for you to invoke Charlottetown. At least to me it does not. You mentioned the recession, but you have now reached the point where you want to-

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but members opposite are talking about a recession, and through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to their concerns. The hon. member told us he did not want separation to be at the expense of the rest of Canada. For heaven's sake, how are you going to do that? The way you talk about separation today is already sending waves of uncertainty on the markets. This country is no longer seen as a good place to live and do business, now that its citizens are starting to worry about the future of the country. And yet this is the country, this is the Canadian federation that has been instrumental in bringing us all, including Francophones in the province of Quebec, Acadians and all other groups in the country, where we are today. And now you tell us you do not want separation to come at-

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is for me a real pleasure and an honour to participate today in the debate launched by the Reform Party. It will be an opportunity for me and for each of us to reflect on a fundamental and crucial issue and to reaffirm, I repeat reaffirm, our desire to live together in a united country.

I am speaking today as a Canadian, as a New Brunswicker and as an Acadian. I want the members of the House to clearly understand this. While I have a distinctive history and roots as an Acadian and as a son of New Brunswick, I am also fiercely proud of being a Canadian.

Since our ancestors arrived here, often at the cost of bitter struggles, this part of America became a sturdy cradle for our language and culture. Our country is not only a territory but a crucible for the historic union of two languages and cultures.

Today's debate reminds me of the 1992 debate when this House approved the constitutional amendment proposed by New Brunswick to enshrine in the Canadian Constitution the main provisions of the law recognizing the equality of New Brunswick's two official language communities.

It is important to remind Reformers, who were not here at the time, of the significance, the real and symbolic value of this constitutional amendment. First of all, this measure validates in an almost irreversible fashion the progress that the two linguistic communities have made together over the years and the common future they want to build in a spirit of co-operation and partnership.

This measure also demonstrates the social maturity of two linguistic groups who want to live together and pass on to future generations of New Brunswickers the will to continue the social and economic experiment they started. New Brunswick is thus in several respects a mirror of our federal reality.

By working hard, by making concessions, of course, and especially by respecting other people's reality, we in New Brunswick have managed to create a climate of harmony favourable to successful and satisfactory linguistic accommodations.

New Brunswick has always been a place of refuge for our two language communities. First, many Acadians went there after they had been deported in 1755. Also, Loyalists who fled the United States after the Treaty of Paris settled there.

Today, this welcoming tradition is still very much alive in our province. From all over the world come new citizens who want to build a happy future with us, for themselves and of course for their descendants. I strongly hope that this example of respect for differences, tolerance of cultural diversity and openness to others will spread to all of Canada.

Despite the problems we sometimes have in expressing our national identity, we nevertheless have more in common to celebrate than differences to divide us.

Canadians have shown the generosity of spirit which has made ours one of the most open societies in the world. It is clearly reflected by the composition of the House. Unfortunately, I am sad to say that while Canadians are generous and tolerant, this does not seem to be the case for the two regional opposition parties. They want to divide Canada. They want to divide our country into French versus English, into region versus region, until finally it will be so divided there will not be a country any more and we will not be able to recognize Canada. That is sad.

I have heard the Reform Party bring forward motions in the House against the official languages policy, a policy which is a fair and practical approach to recognizing the linguistic facts of life in Canada, a policy which imposes linguistic obligations on the federal government alone and which gives linguistic choices to Canadians. When I hear this policy opposed by the Reform Party I hear a party which understands neither the official languages policy nor the values of fairness and pragmatism on which it is based.

When I hear the Reform Party attempting to come to grips with multiculturalism I do not hear tolerance. Nor do I hear a party in touch with the reality of western Canada, a place where Ukrainians, Chinese, Germans, Swedes and dozens of other peoples have come to make a better life for themselves and their children, a life free from persecution and free from intolerance. It is a place where they are free to adopt a new home and still proudly claim their heritage.

Recognition and respect for cultural diversity are part of the Canadian identity. When we walk down the streets of our cities or visit our small towns and farms we see that multiculturalism is not just a policy, it is a reality. I am not sure the Reform Party fully understands that.

Yesterday the Prime Minister was in Normandy commemorating the 50th anniversary of D-Day and the brave Canadians who fought and died there. The Prime Minister noted that those people had many backgrounds, many colours and many cultures but they fought side by side as one. Allow me to quote from the Prime Minister's remarks. Of the soldiers he said:

They had one thing very much in common: They were all part of a young nation, a new kind of nation, where the ancient hatred of the past was no match for the promise of the future, where people believed they should speak different languages, worship in different ways and live in peace. They did not die as anglophones or francophones, as easterners or westerners, as Christians or Jews, as immigrants or natives. They died as Canadians.

Unfortunately, some politicians deal only with the negative. Negativism and a gloomy way of seeing our great country are a way of life for them. Yes, of course we have our difficulties and much work remains to be done, but what country does not have problems? Throughout the world, Canada is envied because our living conditions are so good.

You surely know that this year again, a United Nations report put us in first place among nations. This report says that, considering all factors that contribute to a people's happiness, Canada is the best country in the world in which to live. The constant threat to Canada's unity is doing us great harm. The confidence of other countries in our economy and our future is shaken.

The different levels of government spend more time fighting over powers than trying together to solve the problems which concern us. The trade barriers which we keep in place in our country hinder our economy, while everywhere else in the world the trend is to eliminate them. Federal and provincial powers overlap and programs are duplicated. That is why we as a government prefer to set aside constitutional questions and concentrate instead on co-operation and practical, realistic

solutions to our problems, unlike the Bloc Quebecois which wants to separate and destroy the country.

We were elected a little less than eight months ago. After listening to the people, we have set ourselves some very clear objectives. Our first objective was, of course, and still is, job creation; the second one is fiscal consolidation; the third one is the reform of social security system, while the fourth one is restoring integrity in public affairs.

We have spent all our energy promoting economic growth and job creation because, in our opinion, this is the number one priority. We must give back to those who, unfortunately, must rely on unemployment insurance or social assistance, the dignity that comes with having a job. I think this is the main concern of every Canadian and public official in the country, and we must pursue that fundamental objective.

If, during all those years, we had devoted as much energy to promoting economic growth and job creation as we did talking about the Constitution, we would be much farther ahead, and Canadians know that. Let me give you a few concrete examples of our efforts to find practical solutions.

Today, the Minister of Industry is meeting his provincial counterparts to discuss the domestic free trade issue. As I just mentioned, we noticed that trade barriers between provinces were impeding domestic trade. Consequently, we took action. We co-operate with the provinces and impressive progress has been made.

I just referred to the overlapping and duplication between the federal government and the provinces. This is another issue which we are looking at closely. The President of the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is actively reviewing this issue. He is looking at each case of overlapping and duplication, in co-operation with every province and federal department. This exercise is conducted to reach administrative agreements which will enable us to serve Canadians better and more efficiently.

We have set up a national infrastructure program. This program is an example of what can be done for the well-being of the country as a whole, when the three levels of government co-operate. (English follows)

These are the types of specific actions the voters of Canada told us to engage in when they elected us last October. They voted for an end to the constitutional wrangling that preoccupied the previous government for almost a decade. Canadians voted overwhelmingly for job creation. They voted for a message of hope. They voted for honesty and integrity in government. They voted for a party that has stood for and defined federalism since the inception of Canada.

The government and the citizens of the country know what is right about Canada and we want to work to make it even better. That is the meaning of good government and that is what the people of the country want. They have a right to expect it and we intend to deliver.

We all know that words can hurt, that words have hurt people in the country and indeed the country itself. For years now Canadians have heard themselves and their country scrutinized, criticized and put down by the very people who should be offering leadership and a sense of confidence for the future. Words can do harm because it is with words that the opposition party leaders are trying to deceive Canadians about the reality they see around them every day.

Reality is out there with people living and working for a peaceful and productive future, not in endless debate over abstract definitions on a piece of paper. We are unwilling to tie ourselves into a straitjacket of words.

The Leader of the Opposition says "Ah". Well, two weeks ago in Shediac, the Acadian community rejected the opposition leader's comments aimed at promoting the separation of the country. People simply told him "thanks, but no thanks".

Our political debate should be focused on how to create jobs, build our economy, protect our social safety net, how to protect the environment and how to make government work better at a lower cost to our citizens. Our political debate has for too long been infected by a virus of self-doubt and anxiety. It is sad that the leader of the Reform Party has come down with this virus.

I want to quote Michel Doucet, an Acadian activist of long standing who, recently, when referring to the Canadian vision of our country's future, described the vision which I just mentioned and said: "For Canadian francophones in general and for Acadians in particular, salvation is conditional upon maintaining a federal system; a federal system in which Quebec and the francophone and Acadian communities of Canada would find the means to ensure their cultural security, since it is essential that Canada remember that French culture is the one which is threatened in America".

One of the thrusts which resulted in our Confederation is the firm belief that we could do great things by working together rather than in isolation, and that the citizens of each of the provinces would have a better future if they were all part of the same country.

Mr. Speaker, since you are telling me that my time is almost up, I would like to take this opportunity to move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words after "Canadians to" and replacing them with the following: "Continue to live together in a federation".