Pierre De Savoye

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as you can well imagine, I too am going to speak on Bill C-22, because apparently, our colleagues across the floor have not yet understood how essential and urgent it is to have a royal commission of inquiry to get right to the bottom of this matter.

I am going to go over the arguments presented to help them in their reflexion. We have to know first if the plan to privatize terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport in Toronto was in the best public interest. If not, who benefited from this project?

I remind you, because this was repeated time and again, that at the end of the request for proposals process which was rather brief, only two bidders had made a proposal for a 57 year lease-yes, Mr. Speaker, you heard it right, 57 years-to administer the two terminals.

In fact, we had a proposal from Paxport and another one from Claridge. Then, on December 7, 1992-and I am quoting the Nixon report here-"Paxport Inc. was announced as the best overall acceptable proposal". Very interesting: between two bidders, they chose the best. Well, yes and no.

No, because on February 1, 1993, Paxport and the other company, Claridge, joined forces to form a joint venture partnership called T1 T2 Ltd.; T1 was probably for terminal 1 and T2 for terminal 2. These two distinct bidders whose proposals had certainly been prepared separately decided to join forces when one of them was awarded the contract. I am sure it was pure coincidence.

However, on October 7, 1993, the then Prime Minister gave explicit instructions that this transaction, that is the signature of the agreement with the new company, be concluded the same day, even though the current Prime Minister, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, had indicated clearly during the election campaign that if ever an agreement was signed, he would cancel it.

We can ask ourselves this question: Why would a Prime Minister get up one morning and decide that on this marvellous day, she was going to act stupid? No, a Prime Minister does not get up one morning with such a thing in mind. I am convinced she believed she was doing something intelligent. Well, according to the Nixon report, that intelligent thing was, and I quote: "-the concluding of this transaction at Prime Ministerial direction in the midst of an election campaign where this issue was controversial, in my view flies in the face of normal and honourable democratic practice. It is a well known and carefully observed tradition that when governments dissolve Parliament they must accept a restricted power of decision during the election period. Certainly-and I am still quoting the Nixon report-the closing of a transaction of significant financial importance, sealing for 57 years the privatization of a major public asset should not have been entered into during an election campaign". And Mr. Nixon concludes:

It is my opinion that the process to privatize and redevelop terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson fell far short of maximizing the public interest.

My question thus brings out a first conclusion: it is not likely in the best interest of the population that one morning the Prime Minister decided to have that agreement signed. In whose interest then? Or for what reason? And why?

I would like to be naive, but as you can see I have a hard time believing, and an even harder time stating, that this decision was made only for altruistic purposes on the part of the parties involved.

Therefore, I am quite happy that the Prime Minister of this 35th legislature decided to terminate that agreement through Bill C-22. However, a second question comes to mind. That bill gives the minister the authority to pay compensations, which are for all intents and purposes quite discretionary, to those involved who might have sustained losses. I repeat: Is that in the

best public interest? There again, I might be a bit naive, but I must say that anyone with a twisted mind could say that strictly speaking this section of the bill is tantamount to a blank cheque to the minister, with taxpayer's money. This is not only dangerous, it is unacceptable.

Once more, to whom could this benefit? Who are these altruistic people who were part of this deal for the greater interest of the public? Let me give you a few names of these generous people. Who was part of Paxport, the company which won the contract? A few key figures: Don Matthews, former chairman of Mulroney's leadership campaign, in 1983; Ray Hession, former Industry deputy minister and a top civil servant at Supply and Services during the Trudeau era; Bill Neville, Conservative lobbyist, hired by Hession when Paxport was formed; Hugh Riopelle, a lobbyist hired by Hession as soon as the call for tenders went out. He had access to Mr. Mazankowski, the Deputy Prime Minister and strong-man of the Mulroney cabinet. John Llegate, another lobbyist hired by Hession and who had access to the Conservative cabinet, more precisely to Michael Wilson. Fred Doucet, another Conservative lobbyist, former chief of staff of Brian Mulroney, and senior advisor to Kim Campbell during the election campaign. This is for Paxport.

Let us look now at Claridge, because we know that the two companies have merged. Peter Coughlin, a senior officer; Senator Léo Kolber, member of the board according to the Financial Post Directory of Directors . He was host to Charles Bronfman at a $1000 a plate dinner at his residence, where the present Prime Minister went at the beginning of October during the election campaign. Herb Metcalfe, lobbyist with the group Capital Hill, which represented The Claridge Properties, and former organizer for the present Prime Minister. Pat MacAdam, Conservative lobbyist and college chum of Brian Mulroney. Bill Fox, Conservative lobbyist, former press secretary and personal friend of Mr. Mulroney. Harry Near, Conservative lobbyist and long-standing Conservative activist. We could also mention Gary Ouellet, David MacDonald and Scott Proudfoot, all well-known Conservative lobbyists. Ramsey Withers, Liberal lobbyist with strong links to the present Prime Minister. Otto Jelinek, former Conservative minister, now chairman of the Asian branch of the Matthews group.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced just as you are, because you and I are, shall we say, somewhat naive that all these people acted in the best interest of the public. They all deserve to have their name cleared, their reputation absolved of any wrong-doing, and for that we have to know what really went on.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we need a royal commission of inquiry. My colleague from the Reform Party said that it would be too costly and that a committee would be more appropriate. A committee does not have the authority to subpoena witnesses and to have them testify under oath. What we want is the truth and the only way to get it is a royal commission. Quebecers and Canadians deserve it.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22, the subject of today's debate, is a rather particular piece of legislation. This bill deals with agreements arising out of the request for proposals for the terminal redevelopment project at Lester B. Pearson Airport, and the negotiations concerning that project.

The bill states that these agreements have not come into force and have no legal effect. Moreover, it provides that no action or other proceeding may be instituted against Her Majesty in relation to these agreements.

This is an extremely serious piece of legislation. The previous government concluded a contract with some corporations, and this government is trying to renege on that deal by pretending that it never took place.

Why is that? Later on I will show how the process was flawed in a number of ways and that indeed the government should not go ahead with this contract.

The bill also authorizes the minister, with the approval of the governor in council, to enter into agreements to provide for the payment of amounts in connection with the coming into force of that act. This second part seems to be a convenient provision to ensure that parties which may have been prejudiced can be adequately compensated following the cancellation of the contract.

However, while it may seem appropriate to do so, the wording of the provision makes you wonder, and so do some connections which can be made between various events. I will attempt to show that, because of these events which may leave public opinion with a bitter taste, it is important to look more thoroughly at what went on before the agreements were negotiated and concluded, as well as to what is going on now.

To put the legislation in its proper context, clause 3 provides that the agreements which have been concluded:

• are hereby declared not to have come into force and to have no legal effect.

Moreover, clause 4 says:

1. For greater certainty, all undertakings, obligations, liabilities, estates, rights, titles and interests arising out of the agreements are hereby declared not to have come into existence.

As for clause 9, it provides that:

1. No one is entitled to any compensation from Her Majesty in connection with the coming into force of this Act.

So far so good. However, everything is spoiled by clause 10 which reads:

10.(1) If the Minister considers it appropriate to do so, -if he considers it appropriate- -Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into agreements on behalf of Her Majesty to provide for the payment of such amounts as the Minister considers appropriate in connection with the coming into force of this Act, subject to the terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.

I certainly do not question the good judgment of the minister or the governor in council. However, I would like to refer to a few excerpts from Mr. Robert Nixon's report, who was appointed last October 28 by the current Prime Minister to look into this transaction. Mr. Nixon's report was submitted a month later, on November 29. What does this report tell us? To quote Mr. Nixon:

Prior to the conclusion of the legal agreement the Leader of the Opposition (now the Prime Minister) indicated clearly that parties proceeding to conclude this transaction did so at their own risk and that a new government would not hesitate to pass legislation to block the privatization of Terminals 1 and 2 if the transaction was not in the public interest.

Mr. Nixon's report goes on to say: "On October, 7, 1993, the chief negotiator for the Government of Canada received his written direction indicating that it was the explicit instruction of the Prime Minister that the transaction be concluded on that very same day. On October 7, 1993, therefore, the legal agreement to privatize and redevelop terminals 1 and 2 was made".

It was a very substantial agreement. In fact, when we talk about terminals 1 and 2, we are talking about a major air transportation hub in this country. To quote the Nixon report:

According to a 1987 Transport Canada study, Pearson has a $4 billion direct economic impact on the economy of the province of Ontario and was directly and indirectly responsible for over 56,000 Ontario jobs. It is by any estimation more than the sum of its parts or the total of its assets and liabilities.

This is a contract which has an enormous impact on a region's economy, by letting private interests manage an air terminal of that size, while for many years, airports near nonheal have been under-used. In Central Canada we have created a powerful magnet for air traffic that can draw traffic away from the country's other major airports, especially those near Montreal.

And how many years would this contract be in effect? I am still quoting Mr. Nixon: "Terminal 3 will be privately leased and operated for"-I was going to say at least 25 years, but no, Mr. Speaker-" a further 57 years". Not only our own generation and the next, but our children's children would have suffered as a result of this agreement. There would be fewer objections if the usual procedures had been followed. Again, I quote from Mr. Nixon's report: "The RFP having as it did only a single stage"- specifications with a single stage are not only unusual, Mr. Speaker, but also extremely disturbing-"and requiring proponents to engage in project definition as well as proposal submission and, all within a 90 day time frame".

I used to be in business, and I received government calls for tenders, and believe me, it is quite a job to read all the specifications. There are pages and pages of the stuff, and you have to read them carefully. And then, preparing a bid is also a complex undertaking. The primary concern is, of course, to make a bid that will not bankrupt the company. The price should be right, but you still have to make a profit, because if you do not make a profit, you cannot deliver. So the first thing is to make a bid at the right price and be able to make a profit.

Second, you have to make sure that your bid will be competitive with those of the other parties who are bidding, so the price has to be fine tuned to give you a good chance to get your bid accepted and win the contract.

You see, Mr. Speaker, when you know that there are only 90 days for something that complex, you can assume that there will not be much competition and, consequently, the price is probably not the best the public could have had. I quote Mr. Nixon again: "In summary, it is my opinion that the process to privatize and redevelop Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson fell far short of maximizing the public interest".

All that happened under the Conservative government. Having the Liberal government cancel the deal is a good thing. However, the clause I was mentioning a moment ago, which will allow the minister to consider compensation when appropriate, is more troublesome, particularly knowing that major actors in this Pearson deal have connections with the Liberal Party.

We could mention Claridge Properties, a company belonging to Mr. Bronfman; we could mention Mr. Colbert, from Claridge, who gave a dinner for Mr. Bronfman and the Prime Minister at a $1000 a plate. I am not questioning the honesty of members and ministers of the Liberal Party, what I am saying is that there is an appearance of conflict and the only way to shed light on this affair and dispel any doubt in the eyes of the people of Canada and Quebec, is to have the public inquiry that the Bloc Quebecois and I are requesting.

[Quebec's Chief Electoral Officer, April 28th, 1994]

I have already asked two questions. Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister had been here, I would have been happy to ask him a question, but he is not here.

[Quebec's Chief Electoral Officer, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, do you not think that the minister should realize that he is going against the commitment made by the Prime Minister on Tuesday that his government would respect Quebec's election law and that his attack is petty and contradicts what the Prime Minister promised, a petty attack against the Chief Electoral Officer who, as you will agree, oversees a fundamentally important institution in the democratic life of Quebec?

[Quebec's Chief Electoral Officer, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last night at a $250-a-head Liberal fund raising cocktail party in Quebec City, the Minister of Foreign Affairs publicly attacked the credibility of Quebec's Chief Electoral Officer. He described Mr. Côté's warning with respect to federal parties' involvement in the next campaign as a biased and partisan attack.

[Canadian Hemophilia Society, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. The Canadian Hemophilia Society has to lay off staff because the minister has not granted the requisite funding, effectively putting a gag on the society.

Does the minister agree that appointing this committee of experts will do absolutely nothing to shed light on the tainted blood scandal?

[Canadian Hemophilia Society, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health, and I hope I will have better luck than the hon. member for Drummond.

A group of international experts was recently assigned to the Krever Commission on tainted blood to do a comparative study of the best blood supply systems in the world and make recommendations to improve the blood products supply systems in Canada.

Why does the minister provide very substantial amounts of money for these international experts, while the Canadian Hemophilia Society is still waiting to receive the money it needs to adequately represent its own members before the Commission?

[Bilingualism, April 25th, 1994]

On April 13 last, I had the opportunity to put two questions to the Prime Minister concerning bilingualism.

Part of his response to one of the questions was as follows, and I quote:

It seeks to protect its rights.

The Prime Minister was referring to Canada's francophone and Acadian community.

However, it also deplores the fact that some francophones like the Parti Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois members are the ones who create the most serious problems for it.

Mr. Speaker, statements like this call for an apology or, at the very least, some serious explanations. Here is how I see these statements and why I find them exceedingly disagreeable. To begin with, the rights of Canada's francophone and Acadian communities are not dependent on Quebec. These communities enjoy them outright. They enjoy these rights because of what they are. Moreover, these rights are entrenched in the Constitution and in the Charter.

Whether Quebec is or is not part of the Canadian confederation does not take anything away from the fact that these rights are legitimately theirs. The Prime Minister seemed to be saying that, if Quebec were no longer around, either the Liberal government could not be counted on to ensure compliance with the Constitution or the Charter, or Canadians would not normally be inclined to uphold their Constitution and Charter.

Are we to understand then that the government wants to hold Quebec accountable for the future to which Canada's francophone and Acadian communities are entitled? Are we to understand that the government wants to hold Quebec accountable for the way in which other Canadians from coast to coast will treat their francophone and Acadian communities?

I hope that this was not what the Prime Minister was hinting at. Therefore, I think some explanations are in order. In short, either the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Liberal government, has no intention, in Quebec's absence, of ensuring compliance with the Constitution or, the Prime Minister believes that, in Quebec's absence, Canadians from coast to coast will not have the will, determination or sense of fair-play to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the Charter.

Which is it? Or should these words never have been spoken in the first place?

Not only am I waiting for an answer, Mr. Speaker, so too, I have no doubt, are tens of thousands of other people. There are 900,000 anglophones in Quebec and that province has never once said that it would treat them any other way but very fairly. There are 960,000 francophones in the rest of the country, 60,000 more than there are anglophones in Quebec, and they are waiting for an answer now.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank the hon. member for Churchill who gave us a lesson in history. He spoke from his heart and also with great wisdom, and I can only hope that his speech will help improve our relations with aboriginal nations, as well as our understanding of those people.

This having been said, we have before us a bill to approve, give effect and declare valid the comprehensive land claim agreement of the Sahtu Dene and Metis, which was signed on September 6, 1993. The region covered is a territory of 280,000 square kilometres, in which live some 2,000 people representing five communities. The Bloc Quebecois supports this legislation.

At this point, I would like, for the benefit of those who are listening here and across the country, to give a chronology of the events which have led to the tabling of this bill today.

In 1976, the federal government started negotiating under a land claim process with the Dene and the Metis of the Mackenzie Valley. In 1981, these negotiations led to a final agreement which was concluded in April of 1990. On September 6, 1993, the agreement was signed by the Queen and the Sahtu Tribal Council, in Fort Norman, Northwest Territories.

A plebiscite was held from July 5 to July 8, 1993, to ratify the agreement. The agreement was approved by 85 per cent of the Dene and by 99 per cent of the Metis. On January 13 and February 11, 1994, the tribal council approved certain amendments to the agreement. Just what is this agreement all about?

First, its purpose is to achieve certainty and clarity of rights with respect to ownership and use of some lands and their natural resources. The agreement is divided in two parts. The first one deals with issues such as self-government, royalties on resources, taxation, financial and economic measures, rights over water, as well as wildlife harvesting and management.

Financial compensations totalling $75 million, in dollars of 1990, are to be provided over a period of about 15 years. An annual proportion of royalties collected on resources from the Mackenzie Valley is also covered by the agreement. As well, an annual proportion of royalties collected on resources from the Norman Wells oil and gas development is also covered. Indeed, 7.5 per cent of the first two million dollars collected by the government during a given year and 1.5 per cent of any additional amount will be used as royalties.

The agreement also includes participation in land use planning, renewable resources management, water and land control, as well as preservation of the Sahtu heritage in the region covered. Federal, territorial and municipal laws will continue to apply to Sahtu Dene and Metis, and also to the land.

A Renewable Resources Board is created. This board is a legal entity, which means that it can take legal action and can itself be sued. It can also set policies and propose regulations on the commercial harvesting of wild animals and on commercial activities related to wildlife. It will be the main wildlife management organization in the region. It is composed of seven members appointed jointly by the federal government and the territorial government, with at least three members chosen from a list submitted by the Sahtu Tribal Council.

I said that this agreement was in two parts. The second part concerns land and distinguishes between areas with rights to underground resources and areas with only surface rights. Property rights cover 41,437 square kilometres in the Mackenzie Valley region, with mining rights for 1,813 square kilometres.

At this time, I think it is appropriate to talk about the aboriginal question in a broader way, going beyond the specific subject before us now and putting it in the larger context in which it belongs anyway and on which the rest must necessarily be based. Perhaps we could begin with the native issue in Quebec.

I remember a song heard fairly often on radio and television in the 1970s, which told the story of what our colleague from Nunatsiaq was talking about earlier, I believe.

In the beginning, in his tent, a very easygoing native man received a white man, who asked permission to plant a stake, just a single little stake. The reaction was, "Well, my God, it is just a single stake, so why object, it is so simple and easy; it is not much, go ahead, plant your stake". Some days passed and he was asked permission for a second stake; a few more days went by and a request came for a third stake. Several months later, after a series of stakes had been installed across the forest, he was asked to let a wire go through. Every time, the native had always agreed in good faith and complied with great pleasure.

Once the wire was installed, he found himself with concrete, highways, houses, buildings and he finally had to move his teepee. The song goes on for about three minutes, but I have to shorten it. However, I believe that it expressed a certain inescapable reality.

Many people have asked me, and I am sure that many of my colleagues in the Bloc have been asked the same question, Mr. Speaker, "What will Quebec do about the native people?" That is the wrong question. Not only is it the wrong question, but it is one which should not be asked in the first place.

First, we are not doing anything about the native people. If something is to be done, it will be done together, as equals. It is not up to us or anyone else to decide what must be done about native issues. This is a matter that must be negotiated and covered by agreements between equal nations. The question arises how this translates in Quebec and how our perspectives on the matter have developed since the sixties.

I may recall that on April 8, 1963, the Government of Quebec resumed contact, administratively speaking, with the aboriginal peoples within Quebec territory. Until then, the federal government's responsibility was paramount and it still is today. The Government of Quebec at the time established the Ministère des richesses naturelles et de la Direction générale du Nouveau Québec. Within New Quebec, the department was responsible, with the exception of those areas that were already administered by Quebec, for the administration of justice, provincial police services and the services of the department of lands and forests. At the time, the purpose was to develop natural resources.

Not until federal responsibility for community and municipal services was transferred to the province 17 years later, in February 1981, was the direction générale du Nouveau Québec able to start concentrating on education, although it had, as in 1963, stated its desire to respect the Inuit language and culture.

By the way, I would like to commend the hon. member for Nunatsiaq on using his mother tongue. I don't understand when he speaks in his own language, but we must realize that language communicates culture. When I speak French, I am able to express ideas in a certain way, and I would be unable to do so in English because language is a reflection of culture. When the hon. member speaks in his native tongue, we don't understand, and I think that is his message to us. We don't understand. And when we realize that we don't understand, perhaps then we will start showing respect, and he has my respect.

To continue this short history, in the early seventies, the federal government published a White Paper on native policy. Quebec established the Commission de négociation des affaires indiennes , whose purpose was to work together with the department of intergovernmental affairs and other departments involved in negotiations with the Confederation of Indians of Quebec, and with the federal department of Indian affairs and Northern Development regarding Quebec's responsibilities vis-à-vis the Indians of Quebec or Indian affairs.

The Commission de négociation des affaires indiennes was also supposed to make recommendations on an integrated policy on Indian affairs and to propose measures to be taken in order to implement the policies concerning Indian affairs.

On November 11, 1975, the Quebec government signed the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement with the Crees and the Inuit. On January 31, 1978, it signed the Northeastern Quebec Agreement with the Naskapis of Quebec.

We were then facing a new reality in Quebec government departments: the aboriginal reality. And the whole of the Quebec policy on aboriginal people was summed up in two agreements only. Therefore, we had to give ourselves a more comprehensive policy; that is why on January 18, 1978, the Secrétariat des activités gouvernementales en milieu amérindien et inuit was created and the Direction générale du Nouveau-Québec and the Bureau de coordination de l'entente were abolished.

Then came the eighties. In January 1987, the secrétariat was given a new name, Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones , and its new mandate was to negotiate global agreements in co-operation with the various departments involved. Let me remind you that the preamble of the Charter of the French Language says that ``the National Assembly of Québec recognizes the right of the Amerinds and the Inuit of Québec, the first inhabitants of this land, to preserve and develop their original language and culture''.

And self-government is certainly the focus of discussions between aboriginal people and governments. It was the subject of four constitutional conferences held in Ottawa between 1983 and 1987. There again, they talked about the principle of the inherent right to self-government, but unfortunately that right was not entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. Natives have to get some political leverage if they want to really exercise that self-government because this is the way to their economic self-sufficiency.

Self-government means giving aboriginal people complete jurisdiction over health, education and social services they receive. It means giving them full jurisdiction also over the administration of justice, environment, public safety and land and forest management.

I would now like to present this House with some statistics that should give it some food for thought. It should interest as well those who are watching this debate at home.

In 1991, there were, in Quebec, 39,590 Indians living either on reserves, in establishments or on treaty lands, whereas 15,794 Indians lived off their reserves. On top of that, there were 6,400 Inuit living in northern settlements in the Hudson and Ungava Bay area.

We are therefore dealing with a native population of 61,754 according to the 1991 Census, which represents one per cent of the total population in Quebec. The lands set aside for them amount to 14,770 square kilometres. The main native peoples or nations are the Mohawks, with close to 16,000 members; the Montagnais, with more than 11,000; the Crees, with a little more than 10,000; and the Algonquins, with more than 6,000.

Nations vary in size from 242 for the Malecites to more than 15,000, very close to 16,000 for the Mohawks. Fifty per cent of these communities have less than 500 members. Their annual birth rate is 2.4 compared to 1.4 for other Quebecers. Seventy per cent of Indians living on reserves do not have a high school diploma. Their suicide rate is three times that of Quebecers. The native infant mortality rate is three and a half times higher than in the general population. Life expectancy for Indians on reserves is 8.6 years shorter than for the rest of the population. Indians account for 2.74 per cent of inmates.

Here are now a few statistics for Canada as a whole, again as food for thought. Twenty-five per cent of natives are unemployed, whereas Montreal, with 19 per cent, has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

The average income is 33 per cent lower. The unemployment rate for native people on reserves is 33 per cent, and 16 per cent of natives say that their race is a barrier to employment, which proves that racism and discrimination are probably fairly prevalent.

In 1990, 13 per cent of native adults did not have any income, compared to 9 per cent for the general Canadian population. Only 5 per cent of natives had an income in excess of $40,000 in 1990, compared to 15 per cent among Canadians in general. Seventeen per cent had an income of less that $2,000 and 29 per cent were on welfare. Forty-two per cent of native welfare recipients lived on reserves.

The main problems encountered by natives are, in descending order of importance: chronic unemployment, alcoholism, family violence, suicide, sexual abuse, rape. Six per cent of natives have diabetes compared to two per cent in the general population, even though this disease was unknown among native people in the 1940s.

Forty-five per cent of Indians on reserves claim that their absence of mobility is a problem. Twenty per cent of native housing is in need of major repairs against eight per cent for all dwellings in Quebec. Ten per cent of native dwellings did not have toilets, less than half were heated with electricity. Nevertheless, the average rent was $410 in 1991.

Crib death among native infants is 4.7 times higher that the national rate, and deaths in the 15 to 44 age group resulting from drowning, fire, shooting and vehicle accidents, can often be linked to alcohol abuse. The suicide rate among young adults is 22 per 100,000, twice the national average.

The only way to give back their dignity to the First Nations is to treat them as equals. Nobody has a secret formula for reaching the results which must be obtained before the next century, but everyone should keep an open mind and a fair attitude. We could thus negotiate on an equal basis and come to suitable agreements like the one signed with the Dene, which is before us tonight.

[South Africa, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, South Africa will have a non racial election this week, four years after opposition political parties became legal. However, the democratic forces in South Africa are still the target of violent attacks. Bloc Quebecois members deplore the politically related attacks of the last few weeks, including those which took place this morning and the one which occurred yesterday, close to the ANC offices, in Johannesburg.

Members of this House, as well as several other observers from Quebec and Canada, are presently in that country to bring their support and ensure a smooth election process. For the millions of Black voters in South Africa, this is a first opportunity to participate in a democratic election.

I am sure that all members of this House will reiterate their strong support for a free and democratic election in South Africa.