André Caron

[Indian Affairs, June 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Deputy Prime Minister justify her government's decision to resume negotiations with Jerry Peltier, if the inquiry into alleged misappropriation of public funds has not been completed?

[Indian Affairs, June 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Raymond Gabriel, a Kanesatake Mohawk leader who values traditional ways, warned the government not to make any further financial concession to the Kanesatake band council. Reminding the government of the $700,000 deficit accumulated by the band council, Mr. Gabriel asked the federal negotiator to review the operations and the management of the band council since Jerry Peltier was elected chief.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Before resuming negotiations with chief Jerry Peltier, can she tell us if the government has concluded the inquiry announced by the Minister of Indian Affairs into allegations, by Mohawks in Kanesatake, of misappropriation of public funds by Jerry Peltier?

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the high-speed train, I must point out that such a train will link France and England. I do not think it will stop in the middle of the Chunnel for a passport check.

Assistance to independent workers has been cut. I think it is unfortunate because this program was very beneficial to some workers. I could add that, a month ago, my city of Jonquière became a designated area under the independent workers assistance program. We can say it is great and congratulate one another, and I think all the local people were glad, except that we and Sherbrooke have one of the highest unemployment rates in Quebec.

We had large paper mills. We had the Alcan plants. We were clearly well off economically and, 10 or 15 years later, we have become a designated area and we are forced to accept with pleasure for the time being but after we take control of our own destiny, we will certainly do what is needed to escape the poverty the federal system has plunged us into.

However, for now, we must say that we are very glad to have a good program, as my colleague from Bonaventure was saying earlier, except that there is a 27 per cent unemployment rate in his riding, so I hope he will tell his unemployed constituents that there is a new dryer and that a subsidy has been granted to Rimouski. Everyone must be happy, the subsidy machine has come through.

The people of the Gaspé and the Lower St. Lawrence have been subjected to planning experiments for many years and have benefited from federal programs which were scrutinized by everyone but, after 20 years of work and of federal and Liberal subsidies, they still end up with a 27 per cent unemployment rate.

So there is nothing new under the sun. They boast about federalism and theorize but when we go see the people on unemployment or on welfare-go ahead and laugh but these people may be at home watching us and shaking their heads.

They say it is very nice. There is a nice post office with a nice red flag in my village but I am afraid that-

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion of my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. It is the first time since I have been in the House of Commons that we talk about regional development. The motion moved by a member from the Bloc aims at making the public aware of the sad situation that exists in the regions of Canada, and particularly of Quebec.

The motion says: "That this House condemn the federal government's ineffective regional development interventions". Today, I heard our Liberal friends speak highly of Canadian federalism. I heard them speak about grants, about money given everywhere in Quebec and in Canada. According to them, that is a godsend for the good people and everyone should be happy and say "thank you, my good government". But if we look at what is presently going on in Quebec, particularly in the regions, what do we see? We see unemployment, regions that are stagnant, populations that are not growing and, most of all, we also see, and that is dramatic, young people who are leaving their region.

I look at my region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, and particularly my town. Ten years ago, in Jonquière, there were 62,000 inhabitants; now, there are perhaps 58,000. What happened? The young people do not like their region any more? That is not the case. What happened is that people have to leave their region in order to survive. There are regions in Quebec that have almost become under-developed countries. Why are people leaving their region to go elsewhere? It is because they want to eat. And that is what are presently doing many Quebecers who are leaving their region to go to Quebec City or Montreal because they are hungry, they are hungry for work and for opportunities.

Let us look at our regions. What happened? Is it because people who work there are inefficient? There is a considerable number of development programs both at the federal and provincial levels. Some people work on the development of those programs as administrators or regional sponsors. Those people act as volunteers and give their time and their energy

because they are committed to the development of their region. There are also federal and provincial civil servants working.

Since my election I have been in contact every day with a lot of federal civil servants. I know they are competent and committed to their work but if we look at the results we can see that nothing works well because of the endemic unemployment in the regions. In my own area of Chicoutimi-Jonquière, the unemployment rate is about 17 per cent, or 15 per cent in the greater area. There must be something going wrong. I cannot see what our Liberal friends have to brag about or congratulate themselves for. They should meet the unemployed and the students who cannot find work and tell them that everything is going well; and we will see what answer they get.

Let me give you two examples of the inefficiency of regional development in my region. I blame that situation on the inefficiency of Canadian federalism. In my own region, an incredible story has been going on for about fifteen years and it is about the famous Alma-La Baie Highway.

This is a highway which was to link the towns of Alma and La Baie. There was a federal-provincial agreement for the construction of this highway. The federal agreed, the provincial agreed, the municipalities agreed, everybody agreed, but there is still no highway. Every two, three, four or five years we add three or five kilometres. When we want to go ahead there is always someone to object.

At times it is the provincial government which objects, other times the federal government which asks for delays. There is conflict, and discussion, but no construction.

This is an example of a non-functioning federal-provincial agreement endorsed in good faith by local governments which did not realize that there was a fundamental flaw: there were two decision-makers. When important decisions can come from two different places, very often none are made.

This is an example that shows that Canadian federalism does not work in the area of regional development. A divided highway is essential for a region, but we still do not have one because Canadian institutions are flawed.

Let us take another current example. There is a passenger train service between Jonquière and Montreal which is managed by VIA Rail. Some people in Canada say that rail service is not cost-effective. They say that some lines make no profits, and that cuts are needed. But where should we cut? Of course they are going to make cuts in the means of transportation between the large centres and the remote areas. They want to eliminate one mode of transportation which is important for my area, in several respects.

First of all, it is important because an area like mine, which is quite remote, needs a variety of means of transportation for its development and to be connected to larger centres. We have the Laurentian Highway, which is not yet a divided highway, in spite of several projects which might come to fruition some day, for our grand-children to see. We have a deep water port and we have the railroad.

An essential and fundamental aspect of rail transportion is that it carries passengers. The Jonquière-Montréal train is a very well kept secret. There is no publicity. People think it does not exist any longer. They believe it is gone for good. So, nobody takes the train, and since nobody takes the train, it becomes easier to eliminate it.

A rumour is circulating to the effect that the railroad is going to be closed. It may be more than just a rumour. I can tell you that people in my area do not agree. The CRDE, municipal councils from Jonquière to Montreal, people in Joliette, in Shawinigan, the Prime Minister's own town, have been sending petitions asking that the train be kept running. What has the federal government done? It does not have a regional development policy and it does not see how important and fundamental this train is.

It will be even more important in the future. Right now, road transportion is in. Trucks carry very heavy loads through the Parc des Laurentides and ruin the road. It would be better done by train. If the railroad is used less, and if there is no passenger service any longer on that line, what are the great planners in Ottawa going to say? Your train is not being used. Let us also eliminate rail transportion of goods, remove the tracks, and build bicycle paths instead. Where we come from, bicycle paths are the major projects.

In the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, the biggest development project is the construction of a bicycle path around the lake. We support the bicycle path, it is important, but when in a area, the major project, the highest priority, is to build a bicycle path, it means that something is wrong with regional development policies. We are going to have to solve the problem. How are we going to do it?

The Bloc Quebecois has a solution. We will not talk about sprinkling grants around, but we will say that someone in the regions must be responsible for regional development. Who should that be? We believe that it should be the government closest to the people. And who might that be? The answer is the Quebec government and regional governments.

As part of the Bloc's sovereignty program, every possible decision-making mechanism would be handed back to Quebec. This is what a sovereign Quebec would do and this is how

regions would be treated. We want them to have decision-making and spending powers.

We have devoted this entire day to focusing on regional development with the intent of getting this message across to the House of Commons and to our regions. Our regions want to survive and to have effective policies. They want a future in which they can flourish and continue to build on past accomplishments. With the good will, ability and talents of the regions, I am confident that a sovereign Quebec will flourish and I am especially confident that this day will come very soon.

[Via Rail, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has announced he will implement the $100 million cut in VIA Rail's operating budget proposed by the previous Conservative government. This cutback will cause a reduction in services to remote areas, possibly including the Jonquière-Montreal line.

This service, which connects my region to Quebec's major economic centres, is vital to the development and quality of life of the region.

In my opinion, the government should abide by the policy drafted by the Liberal Caucus in November 1989 and declare a one-year moratorium on any decision affecting VIA Rail, in order to allow for public hearings.

However, the minister has refused to consider public consultations. It is another indication that when they were in the opposition, the Liberals were far better-intentioned than they are now as the governing party.

[Postal Services Review Act, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on a bill the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell introduced in order to impose some kind of regulation over the closure of rural post offices. In the last few years, under the previous Conservative government, many communities in Quebec, in Canada and in my own area had to fight to try to keep their post office. The people affected by those closures told us that this struck at the very life of their community.

Rural communities, of which I have a few in my riding and many in my area, are often built around the parish church, the school, and the post office. Those are the usual three institutions to be found in those communities. In many cases, they have already lost their school, some do not have a full time priest in their church any more and their post office has been closed

down. People in these communities are dismayed at the demise of communities on which their founders had put all their hope.

I am pleased to support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell because it provides some kind of parliamentary control over the closure of post offices. It is a fact that the Liberal government declared a moratorium on the closure of post offices in smaller communities, but a moratorium is no more than that. The minister who declared the moratorium can lift it just as easily. In view of the significance of an institution such as the post office in small communities, I think the Parliament of Canada should have some control over the potential closure of those offices.

I went through an experience last week in my riding. It was not the closing of a post office, but of a school in the Saint-Jean-Eudes neighbourhood, in Jonquière. Saint-Jean-Eudes was once a municipality. After an amalgamation some time ago, it became a neighbourhood of the city of Jonquière. The people of Saint-Jean-Eudes had a city hall, a credit union, a post office and a school; they even had two schools.

Now, there is no city hall any more, no credit union, the post office is gone and they have been announced that their school will be closed.

When I visited these people last Sunday, I could see that they really had a feeling that a part of their community was going with their school. I was able to understand the feelings of the people of Saint-Clément, in Québec, and of St. Albert, in the riding of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. These people have seen a part of themselves, have seen major institutions leave their community, and they are concerned.

I think it is important for the Parliament of Canada to make sure that justice be done for small communities, that they be given the necessary means to remain alive and well. Of course, the argument that they are being given is that their post office is too isolated, too expensive, not profitable and that cuts are necessary. It has been said in the case of some small communities, and it is now being said even for some regions.

For example, some say that the Lac-Saint-Jean or Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region is too far from metropolitan centres like Quebec City and Canada and that we will no longer be able to provide some of the services.

As a matter of fact, they are now thinking of abolishing the passenger service between Jonquière and Montreal because it is not cost-effective, and the distances involved are too great. And so they cut a number of services in my region under the pretext that we are a remote area and that we must understand how the market operates. When it is not cost-effective anymore, we must stop spending.

I think that people have good reason to resist arguments like those because the government's responsibility with regard to regions, small communities and people in need is still the same. The government must ensure that its services meet the special needs of regions, small communities and individuals. It does not mean that we must give out all kinds of grants and pour money down the drain, but I think that before closing some institutions, a post office, a school or some services in the regions, members of Parliament should really think twice. They must ask themselves if they must apply only the law of the market or if it would not be better to be more generous and to take some initiatives so that these institutions can survive and keep the wheels turning in our country.

Canada is not made up only of big cities which work well and are cost-effective. It consists of a great number of communities, on the North Shore, in southern Quebec, or what have you; all these communities make up our country. Before taking measures that would jeopardize communities built by our fathers and institutions established by our predecessors, I think the Parliament should think twice and do what it must do so that these institutions, towns and communities will be able to survive and expand.

I invite my colleagues to support the proposal of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, since I think it seeks to maintain important things and to help Quebecers and Canadians live and be happy in their communities.

[Indian Affairs, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us exactly and directly what measures he has specifically taken to stop the cutting of trees in the pine grove and the work on the golf course road?

[Indian Affairs, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.

After trees were cut in the Oka pine grove, the Kanesatake band council yesterday authorized removing the pavement from a private road leading to the golf course, in order to expand the Indian cemetery. The Mayor of Oka called this action a provocation.

Does the Minister of Indian Affairs, who is the guardian of the Mohawks' rights, intend to intervene directly with the Kanesatake band council to convince it to stop the work and to follow through the negotiation process which he just set up and entrusted to Michel Robert?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the proposed unemployment insurance reform. I have already criticized certain aspects of the proposed reform and today, I would like to draw the House's attention to one particular measure which would reduce UI premiums to $3 as of January 1, 1995.

As everyone knows, the premium was increased to $3.07 on January 1, 1994. In its budget, the government party stated the following:

The UI measures proposed in the budget will enable the government to rollback the UI premium rate for 1995 to $3. By the end of 1996 there will be 40,000 more jobs in the economy than could be expected if premiums were allowed to rise.

What is the government saying? It is saying that unemployment insurance premiums increased on January 1, 1994, that is while the current Liberal government was in office, and that this increase resulted in the loss of 9,000 jobs in Canada. Yet, the government did nothing to stop the increase from taking effect.

The premium rate was slated to increase to $3.30 in 1996. The government is saying that if the rate increase were allowed, in view of the cost to employers, roughly 31,000 jobs would be lost. When we add 9,000 jobs and 31,000 jobs, we come up with a total of 40,000 jobs. And yet, in the budget, this is called creating 40,000 jobs.

I think this illustrates one typical way the current government has presented the facts in the last six months.

The government floats some figures as to what might have happened had it not acted in a certain way. People are left with the impression that jobs have been created. The figure of 40,000 jobs is almost equivalent to the number of jobs announced in the infrastructure program of which the government is boasting of late.

In the meantime, what is the government doing for the jobless person in a region such as my own, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region? It is a region in need of industrial development, a region, particularly my riding, where major industries, workers and the surrounding population once flourished. Large companies such as Alcan and Abitibi-Price paid their workers handsomely and brought obvious wealth to the region.

This glorious era is long gone. Large companies are converting their operations and rumours are flying in the region that employment levels will decline even further.

Alcan in Arvida and Abiti-Price in Kénogami have reduced the workforce at their plants by at least one third in recent years. Unemployment is high in my region. People are hoping that governments will take adequate steps to ensure that wealth is generated and employment picks up.

What do we find in this Liberal government budget? A hypothetical measure which, had it been implemented, would have caused a number of jobs to be lost but, since the government is dropping it, fewer jobs will be lost.

And that is presented as a job creation measure! I would say that in the regions, people are worried, particularly in resource areas like mine, in which traditionally, heavy industry has developed natural resources and produced primary products.

What Alcan produces is primary aluminium for use abroad in the manufacturing of industrial goods. What the Abitibi-Price plant in Kénogami produces is paper and paperboard for the export market. Our regions have come to depend on these industries and today jobs cuts have local residents concerned.

Some have lost their jobs while others live in fear of loosing theirs. So, what does the government have to suggest in its budget to ensure some kind of a future for these people? First, it announces cuts to the unemployment insurance plan at a time when people need it the most and, second, it proposes no concrete measures to create jobs.

Instead, you find hypothetical measures like the one I am denouncing now. There is also the infrastructure program, but these are all measures that take time to implement and even so, I have noticed that certain municipalities take advantage of the infrastructure program to get the federal and provincial governments to pay for work they would have done anyway.

One can seriously doubt the job creation potential of such programs because, after all, part of this work would have been done anyway. Creating jobs, and creating new infrastructure for that matter, does not ensure that we will have a stronger financial base in the future. All this does is to make the federal and provincial governments foot the bill for work that would have been done anyway.

I am therefore amazed that a party which ran on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs, produced this kind of budget.

The unemployed and, in my region, small business owners, people looking to market new products, those who want to continue to build our region which celebrated its 150th birthday just two or three years ago, are disappointed.

Some of these people had expected a lot from this government. You will say that in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, the Bloc Quebecois candidates captured perhaps around 65, 66 or even 75 per cent of the vote like my leader, Mr. Bouchard, in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean.

You will say that a lot of people may not have believed in the illusions, in the nice promises of the Liberal Party, but there were still people who looked at the Liberal Party's platform and thought it contained a few measures that would have improved our economic situation.

These people may have voted for the party because of these promises and they now realize that nothing of the kind has been done after six months and a long development process. We are told that the Liberal government has been in office for only six months, except that the whole election platform development process had started a year or a year and a half earlier, so we can say that the Liberal Party platform has been around for a year and a half.

A year and a half later, the people of my region who need new development programs to kick-start their economy see nothing in the government program that can meet their needs.

I think it is important to reduce UI premiums. They obviously place a heavy strain on employers. But if it was so important and if we should be so proud of it, why does this reduction not take effect on June 1, as proposed by my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup?

Why must we wait another year to give hope to the people, to create jobs? Because if, as we are told, this measure had caused 9,000 job losses as of January 1, by cancelling it now we could assume that 9,000 jobs would be created. What is the Liberal government waiting for when it could be creating 9,000 jobs? It is waiting for January, for people to be even more desperate, for a number of people now on UI to go on welfare. Is that what the government is waiting for?

We see that deep down the government did not have a firm policy and that it has pursued the policy established by the previous Conservative government because this premium increase which took effect on January 1 had been planned by the Conservative Party.

In closing, I must point out that this new economic wind, this new hope for workers and the unemployed that had been raised by the Liberal Party of Canada in the last election campaign did not materialize. I will be happy to support the amendment of my colleague who wants the proposed UI premium to come into effect on June 1 so that jobs can be created as soon as possible.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this is a Bloc Quebecois amendment and I want to comment on it. It would amend Bill C-17 which proposes to freeze the federal contribution to the Canada Assistance Plan.

You know that the Canada Assistance Plan is financed by the federal and provincial governments.

According to Bill C-17, the federal contribution to CAP would be capped after March 1995.

CAP is a plan that was developed in the 1950s and 1960s for the sake of social justice for classes of people who, for some reason, cannot support themselves.

So, it is a plan that really addresses the basic needs of some of our fellow citizens. The government's proposal would impose a unilateral freeze on the federal contribution to CAP.

My party denounces this way of proceeding. This change would have major consequences that we parliamentarians can hardly assess at the present time but we in the opposition know that some parts of the population would be severely affected.

With this in mind, my party proposed an amendment calling for a standing committee to study the whole question so that the members of this House could know the real impact of the Liberal government's proposal on the most needy in our society. As parliamentarians, we must in all honesty seriously consider the consequences of our decisions.

I think it is not improper to really want to take into account the serious impact that could result from legislation we pass here. It is therefore important that people, through their representatives, be made aware of the situations that could result from a proposal such as the one the Liberal government is making.

I also want to denounce the practice followed at various levels of government, that is using a seemingly harmless measure to freeze transfer payments to other levels of government. That is what is called passing the buck, shifting one's problems, one's responsibilities onto someone else.

That is exactly what the federal government is doing now. And what will happen? Provincial governments will get less contributions. To maintain their present level of services, provincial governments will have to spend more and perhaps go deeper into debt or they will have to bear the responsibility of cuts in programs affecting the most disadvantaged members of our society.

But then the federal government will wash its hands of the matter, saying that it simply made cuts in transfer payments whereas provincial governments decided not to make supplementary expenditures in order to offset the cuts.

I think this is dishonest and hypocritical, because the government proposing this bill knows perfectly well what will happen, but it is going ahead with it nevertheless; when in 1995, 1996 or 1997, provinces have to either cut services to the most disadvantaged members of our society or borrow money to maintain services, they are the ones that will have to face criticism for their actions.

As parliamentarians, I think we have to be responsible for our actions. If we want to cut social programs, we should say so. We should not force others do that by putting them in a situation where they will have no other choice, but that is typical of this Liberal government.

We know that a reform is under way. Mr. Axworthy, the Minister of Human Resources Development, announced it. Committees are studying the matter. Experts were hired to determine the government's position. The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development is exploring different avenues. The government has no project, no overall plan. Things are done in a piecemeal way. We hear that cuts might be made in UI or in social assistance or that the student loans program might be redesigned. But since they are informed of all this in such a fragmented way, Canadians cannot assess the whole reform. And we parliamentarians cannot say to our constituents what our objectives are and what results we want to achieve in a few years.

So this proposal, which looks pretty insignificant but will have important consequences for many of our most disadvantaged fellow citizens, is a patent example of the hypocritical and often lying way in which our country is now ruled and its social policy for the poorest members of our society is designed.

I will certainly vote against the main proposal on freezing federal transfer payments, and I will vote for the amendment moved by my party to strike a standing committee for the purpose of reviewing all these proposals and gauging their impact. Parliamentarians will thus be accountable to Canadians on important measures and bills such as the one before us today.