André Caron

[Starred Questions, February 6th, 1995]

As of November 1, 1994, how much money has the federal government invested and how much will it invest under the Economic and Regional Development Agreement (ERDA) and, more specifically in relation to the project to upgrade the highway linking the municipalities of Alma and La Baie, Quebec (highway project 70/170)?

[Canada Grain Act, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 under consideration today is an administrative bill. It is designed to make the operation and administration of the Canadian Grain Commission and the grain industry more efficient.

Canada's reputation for grains of constant and reliable quality is commonly recognized as Canada's winning card on international grain markets. The Canada Grain Act will be amended a number of ways by the bill before us, to strengthen the role played by quality in the Canadian grain industry.

Under the provisions brought forward today, the Canadian Grain Commission, which is responsible for administering the Canada Grain Act, will no longer have a duty to set maximum elevator charges. We know that these charges are fees levied by elevator operators for the handling, cleaning, storage and drying of grain.

This deregulation of maximum charges will be introduced in stages. There will be a two-year transition period during which the commission will retain the power to set rate ceilings by regulation. During and after this transition period, the Canadian Grain Commission will act as an ombudsman, investigate complaints and try to settle them. Following the transition period, the Canadian Grain Commission will retain the power to set maximum charges by regulation, as required.

This enactment will give elevator operators more flexibility in setting their prices, enabling them to compete. It will also encourage much needed capital investment.

Bill C-51 will lift the requirement for grain to be hauled from province to another exclusively by common carrier. This will benefit the producers, in our view, by giving them transportation options that could help them cut their marketing costs.

The Canada Grain Act, 1912, established the Canadian Grain Commission mainly to look after the interests of grain producers. Their protection remains the main focus of the act and several of the proposed changes are designed to ensure this protection. Among the amendments is one giving the Canadian Grain Commission the power to take measures against companies making illegal use of the grade names established under the Canada Grain Act.

The bill also requires licensed grain dealers to use the official grade names established under the Canada Grain Act in all their dealings with producers.

There is also a provision allowing the Canadian Grain Commission to suspend primary elevator operation licenses when surpluses exceed the allowed limits. A surplus is the difference between the quantity of grain stored in the elevator and the amount that should be there according to shipment records and receipts.

The bill also contains provisions giving the Canadian Grain Commission the authority to require operators to fully insure the grain stored in their elevators. Finally, it requires eventual licensees to provide specified financial data proving their solvency.

Under the bill, the Canadian Grain Commission would license elevator operators and grain dealers and hold security posted by licensees, to help protect farmers in cases where a licensee defaults in its payment to a grain producer.

After the bankruptcies of two licensees who had posted insufficient security, the courts ruled that the shortfall should come out of general revenue or, in other words, out of taxpayers' pockets. The bill before us proposes several amendments intended to clarify the respective responsibilities of the Canadian Grain Commission and of grain producers and to protect taxpayers against future disbursements.

These amendments include a provision that protects producers by regulation during a fixed period following grain delivery to a licensee. Should producers not try to obtain payment during this period, they will not be eligible for reimbursement out of the security posted by the licensee, in case the licensee goes bankrupt, of course. Based on the consultations which the Canadian Grain Commission held with producers and industry stakeholders, the statutory period will be 90 days.

The bill also contains a provision requiring the grower to notify the Canadian Grain Commission within 30 days if a grain company has not met its obligations.

It also contains a provision making the grower responsible for determining whether he is dealing with a duly accredited company. Since accredited companies are the only ones that have to provide security to the Canadian Grain Commission, claims against the security will not be valid if a grower deals with a non-accredited company.

We also find a provision requiring the grower to obtain documents authorized by the Canadian Grain Commission from grain dealers and other Commission licensees.

The bill also contains a provision allowing the Commission to set a limit on the protection afforded by the security. The Commission could not use this regulatory power without the approval of the Governor in Council. At present, the protection is total-100 per cent-and will remain so in the foreseeable future.

There is also a provision explicitly limiting the Canadian Grain Commission's obligation to the amount of the security provided by the companies which it accredited. This provision exists to make the protection which the growers enjoy closer to the security provisions commonly found in other sectors. It is similar to the limits set on the amount guaranteed by the government when financial institutions fail.

I realize that I went quickly, but for these reasons, I will support Bill C-51 presented by the government.

[Criminal Code, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak to the bill tabled by the hon. member for York South-Weston, which would delete section 745 of the Criminal Code. This section gives an opening to those sentenced to life imprisonment in Canada because they were found guilty of murder.

The purpose of the bill is simply to delete this section of the Criminal Code. When I read a bill like this one, I always feel embarrassed, because there are two aspects to be considered in such situations.

First of all, we should put ourselves in the shoes of the victims and their families, who went through the horrible tragedy of seeing loved ones murdered. We say to ourselves: It is quite normal for people found guilty of such crimes to go to prison for the rest of their lives, since it was the sentence handed down by the court, the jury, the judge.

Yet, other considerations must be taken into account. First, Parliament put this provision into the Code following the great debate held in the mid-1970s on the abolition of capital punishment in Canada.

As you know, Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976 following a great debate in Canadian society. Those opposed to doing away with the death penalty demanded that lawmakers see to it that the people convicted of first- or second-degree murder in some circumstances be incarcerated for life.

However, Parliament introduced into the Criminal Code a provision allowing those who have served 15 years of a life sentence to apply for parole to the Chief Justice in their province.

A whole process is then initiated to review their applications. A jury is empanelled to represent citizens and hear the application.

This is not an automatic process, therefore, in that the application is reviewed. When making its determination, the jury must take into account the character of the applicant, his conduct while serving his sentence and the nature of the offence for which he was convicted.

The members of the jury represent Canadian citizens and they must make a decision based on the information provided by prison authorities. They must decide whether to reject the application, accept it at a later time, or let the applicant be paroled. In other words, this provision in our Criminal Code does not mean that those who serve life sentences can be set free after 15 years.

Why did Parliament introduce this provision in the Criminal Code? I believe it was felt, rightly so-as this was the prevailing philosophy back in the seventies and still is-that after a person has spent 15 years in jail, it might not be a bad idea to see if he should be paroled.

This has nothing to do with erasing a past mistake or offence: It is simply a matter of providing the possibility of serving one's sentence outside, instead of being kept in jail. The whereabouts of a person released on parole are still monitored and the parolee must still meet a number of conditions in order to continue to qualify for parole.

I think that the lawmakers were right to include this provision in the Criminal Code. They believed that after 15 years, a person who had committed a horrific crime could change, after thinking about we he had done and after receiving counselling from professionals while in prison. Of course, there are many people who believe-and this is somewhat the reasoning behind the motion of the hon. member for York South-Weston-that if a person has committed a crime and been sentenced to a certain number of years in prison, he must serve out his full sentence. He did what he did, the person must be locked up and a rigid approach must be taken.

However, this mind-set seems to be characterized by vengefulness and the belief in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is an approach that denies the possibility that human beings can change and improve, that under certain circumstances, they can adopt a different attitude, and once released, they will no longer necessarily pose a threat to society.

In closing, I would like to say that since this provision was first introduced into the Criminal Code, of all the applications received, 128 have been deemed admissible. Of the 128 inmates concerned, 71 have actually applied for parole. Of course, many realized that because of their conduct and the nature of the crime they had committed, there was no chance at all of their being granted parole. Of all the applications received, only 43 have actually been reviewed. Some were turned down, some saw their sentences reduced, and some were given a conditional release.

I think it is fortunate that under our Criminal Code, individuals can take advantage of an opportunity like this one. It is not very permissive. Canadian citizens who are on the jury still have the right to consider the case and to pass judgment on behalf of society. We then have an opportunity to consider the individual's potential for rehabilitation and ability to make a valid contribution to society.

I think Canadian society should be proud of having such provisions in its statutes. It shows we are not a closed society, not an intrinsically punitive society, and that we still provide certain opportunities for offenders who have served part of their sentence and who have rehabilitated themselves.

I think everyone will agree it is normal for people who have committed a crime to be punished, and no one in my party wants to make it easy for these people, but I think it is important to have a provision on the books that shows we do not give up entirely on people who have the potential to be rehabilitated.

Consequently, I will vote against the bill, because I believe that in Canada, this is a valid and useful provision to have in the Criminal Code.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the minister of Indian affairs concerning the pitiful state of public health in aboriginal communities on reserves. According to Statistics Canada, the tuberculosis rate among status Indians is 43 times higher than for Canadians born in Canada.

This rate is comparable to those found in the third world, whether we are talking about Africa or Asia, in countries that do not enjoy the benefits of the kind of economy we have in this country. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development let the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health reply on his behalf. The parliamentary secretary mentioned the amounts now being spent by her department to improve the health of aboriginal communities.

She mentioned one million dollars this year and several million dollars over the next couple of years. I think this is not a satisfactory answer, considering that such a high tuberculosis infection rate, according to many experts, is an indication of sub-standard housing conditions. I think it would have been appropriate for the minister of Indian affairs to answer the question, since he has a fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal communities, for aboriginal reserves in this country.

Moreover, the minister could have mentioned that two years ago, the aboriginal affairs committee had examined the state of aboriginal housing and that the title of its report was Time to Act . In its report, the committee found there was a backlog in housing construction on reserves, and it also pointed out that there was a lack of funding to renovate existing units.

Furthermore, in recommendation No. 7, the members of the committee asked the government to deal immediately with the health and safety problems arising from the condition of aboriginal housing.

Finally, it is essential that the minister of Indian affairs, until such time as appropriate and much needed action is taken, make it clear to his colleagues at Health, Public Works and Finance that budgetary cutbacks are not to be used as an excuse for allowing these appalling conditions in aboriginal communities in Canada to continue, shaming us in the eyes of the rest of the world.

I would like to know whether the government really intends to do something about this.

[Native Peoples, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We just learned from Statistics Canada that the tuberculosis rate among status Indians is 43 times higher than for non-native Canadians born in this country. In fact, the infection rate is higher than in some of the world's poorest countries.

Since this incredible rate reflects appalling living conditions, can the minister tell us which concrete proposal his colleague from Public Works made to native leaders who recently met with him, to improve the housing conditions which are at the root of these health problems?

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I simply want to say that as far as aboriginal land claims are concerned, whether we are talking about Canada or Quebec, I think it is important to put this debate in its proper historical and geopolitical perspective.

I also wish to emphasize that at the negotiations, a spirit of justice and tolerance should prevail, both among federal and provincial authorities and leaders of aboriginal communities. I think anyone with political responsibilities in Canada has a moral responsibility to ensure that in these discussions, we do everything in our power to avoid making accusations that are sometimes unfair and that merely create ill feeling, so that the people of Quebec, the people of Canada and the aboriginal

peoples concerned can live in harmony on Canadian and Quebec territory, and this vast issue of aboriginal land claims will finally be settled in Canada as far as possible.

I agree one can never obtain satisfaction on all aspects of these claims, but I think that if we develop a spirit of justice and tolerance, we can conclude agreements that are acceptable to the various communities concerned.

[Petitions, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 500 residents of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, who, considering rumours that the passengers railway connection between Jonquière and Montreal will be closed, are asking for a moratorium before any decision is made and for public hearings to be held so that the people of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean can express their concerns and present arguments in favour of maintaining this railway connection.

[Public Service, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is telling federal civil servants that they should fear sovereignty for Quebec, his government is about to make cuts in its public service.

According to persisting rumours among civil servants, which were even repeated by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, 30,000 positions will be eliminated in February, when the next federal budget is tabled. It appears that these cuts would primarily affect civil servants working in the national capital, since regional staff has already been reduced significantly.

Consequently, this massive reduction in the public service population of the Ottawa region has nothing to do with the threat of separation, the election of a PQ government, or the role of Bloc Quebecois MPs in this House. This government will be the only one to blame if such despicable cuts are made in the public service.

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-55, the last in a series of three bills aimed at implementing the provisions of agreements in respect of certain lands in Yukon, negotiated by Yukon, Canada and Yukon first nations.

To give an indication of the importance of adopting this kind of bill, I would like to start by putting it into the context of the broader issue of aboriginal land claims, not only in Quebec and Canada but throughout the world. We all know that the rights of aboriginal peoples have become an issue in many countries: in North America, South America and Asia, where since the 15th or the 16th century, Europeans came to settle lands that were occupied by aboriginal peoples.

The Europeans became established either through conquest, colonization or various other ways, and as their numbers increased over the centuries, aboriginal populations were pushed into a minority position. In the past 20, 25 or 30 years, aboriginal peoples have become aware of the importance of surviving as a people and maintaining their identity. They drew up land claims so that, in certain regions, areas or countries, they could continue, as much as possible, to live according to the traditional ways of their ancestors, or otherwise obtain the requisite political and economical leverage to be able to perpetuate their identity as a people on a viable basis.

The bill before the House this morning is part of this vast endeavour to satisfy the land claims of the aboriginal peoples, while bearing in mind the hard cold fact that other people now live in these territories as well, and in some cases, have done so for many centuries, and also have the right to live there.

Canada and Quebec have initiated negotiations with various first nations on their territorial claims. In Canada, a number of agreements have already been concluded, such as James Bay in 1975, the agreement on Nunavut in the MacKenzie River Delta, and now Yukon.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I have, of course, been involved in the proceedings of this committee, and since I also have a personal interest, I read up on the situation in Yukon and what had happened so far, and I realized that it was imperative and absolutely essential to ratify these agreements as soon as possible.

As you know Yukon is in Canada's north. It was originally part of the territory that was given to the Hudson's Bay Company by the Crown and that included all of northern Canada and northern Quebec. This immense tract of land became the property of a private company. The Hudson's Bay Company took

advantage of the territory's resources, especially through its involvement in the fur trade.

Aboriginal people in Yukon came into contact with the white man in the person of the employees of the Hudson's Bay Company. They were also exposed to influences from the south, in a perhaps more brutal manner, during the famous gold rush in the Klondike at the end of the 19th century. At the time, many people came from the south to look for gold in Yukon, disrupting the traditional ways of the aboriginal peoples in this region. There was also the construction of the Alaska Highway in the 1940s by the United States, to connect the U.S. territory with the territory of Alaska.

The result was that Yukon was brutally invaded by people from the south. We are not here to pass judgment. It happened long ago, people behaved the way they were used to, and I do not think it would serve any purpose to dwell on the past. However, we have to realize that injustices were created and that new arrangements must be put in place if the people who live there are to develop in harmony, and if their economic, social and political needs are to be fulfilled.

I think that we have to watch our language carefully. When we look at what happened in Quebec over the last 20 years and what is happening now, we realize that governments and people are demanding that we settle the outstanding issues. Except it is extremely fragile. Negotiations are often difficult because the issues are complex. There are important constitutional and economic questions involved. There is also a basic political dimension.

When we talk about self-determination, self-government or sovereignty, we deal with emotionally-packed concepts and all sorts of reactions from the people. We just have to recall the reactions to the recent declarations of a Quebec native leader in New York, where the word "racist" was bandied about. I think that it is rather inappropriate to use such a word in that particular context. We are in a negotiating context, where you must keep your cool to be able to come up with something which will be fair to all involved.

When issues like racism are raised, a notion so emotionally charged because of the long racist history of mankind-just think of what happened to the Jews and the Gypsies during the Second World War-we are often taken aback, stunned and disappointed to see it surface in the papers, in the minds and in conversations, and being applied to situations occurring in Canada.

We cannot say that the situation in Canada is one of racism. I believe that no one among native people and non-natives is going to form a particular opinion about a specific group because one member of this group is of a different ethnic origin or race.

One must be very careful in Canada when using the word racism. One may talk about ethnocentricity, prejudices or many other similar things-there is no shortage of terms-but I believe that accusations of racism must be avoided because it could trigger a chain reaction with far-reaching consequences, especially with respect to negotiations which have been going on for years and could fail because the negotiating parties might see in each other all kind of sinister intentions.

I wanted to get this off my chest before dealing more specifically with Bill C-55.

This piece of legislation seeks to set up a board to settle disputes that might arise between parties to the agreements reached in Yukon. As we know, last June this House passed Bill C-33 and Bill C-34, which were enacted in July. These acts give effect to land claim agreements concerning Yukon and deal with certain matters relating to self-government for native people in Yukon Territory.

Negotiations prior to these agreements had been going on for over twenty years. There were many difficulties. The negotiation framework was hard to develop. People took a very strong stand at first, one party wanting everything while the other was reluctant to yield anything, vetoing the claims, so to speak.

Little by little, over the years, people learned to know one another, setting up the framework for the negotiations. These negotiations finally ended in the early 1990s. The agreement before us this morning is simply to ensure that there are arbitrators are appointed when disputes arise between the parties to the agreement in the Yukon.

Before getting further into the consideration of Bill C-55, I would like to take a second to remind the hon. members that both bills we have passed recognized that Yukon aboriginal peoples did have rights over certain lands, that is to say surface and subsurface rights over some lands and surface rights on others, lands that can form the basis for a certain economic life so that these peoples will no longer be dependent upon federal government subsidies.

Like me, Mr. Speaker, you have no doubt read the Auditor General's report and noted the rather explicit criticism of the social assistance provided to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. It is reported that approximately 40 to 45 per cent of natives in Canada depend on social assistance. On certain reserves, it is up to 80 or 85 per cent of the population. That is a huge percentage! There is an enormous problem there. The Auditor General tells us that it costs $1 billion, because that is how much is paid out to the people, the people who are running the reserves, and that insufficient control is exercised over the use made of these funds.

I agree with the Auditor General that tighter control is required. But what the Auditor General is telling us in his report is that control over this $1 billion may not be perfect. At the same time, he says that $1 billion is paid out to aboriginal peoples because they are really having a rough time on the social, economic, health and education front.

In such circumstances, I do not think that the thing to do would be to say: "We need a billion dollars. We will take this billion and use it for something else in the budget and let these people manage on their own". We must think instead in terms of creating conditions where they will no longer need social assistance.

I think that the kind of agreement we have reached respecting the Yukon, and those respecting other parts of Canada such as the Mackenzie Delta, the Nunavut, the James Bay area in Quebec-and there are more coming-all these agreements will enable the aboriginal peoples concerned to lay the economic foundations required to no longer depend on government assistance for their social and economic development.

I think that this is essential and that is why agreements such as this one must be encouraged and legislation to implement such agreements be passed as quickly as possible.

As my colleague from the Reform Party said earlier, certainly it is quick. At the Indian affairs committee, we considered both Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 in June. These were complex bills. There are often concepts involved that are very difficult to grasp. While the committee may not have been pressured, it certainly had to make haste.

This committee even sat all night on one occasion. This unusual experience shows that important decisions were made. I think that sitting all night on this committee will be a highlight of my life as a parliamentarian. Representatives of Yukon first nations came and spent the night with the committee to show us how crucial this bill is to them.

It is sometimes ill-advised to move too fast; however, when dealing with important issues, it is often pointless and even harmful to drag things out. That is why we must act now so that the representatives who negotiated in good faith in the hope of improving the lives of their people will not be disappointed. In such cases, when an agreement is reached after 20 years, we cannot afford to disappoint people by unduly delaying its adoption. Especially when we know how hard it is for a standing committee and even for the House of Commons to challenge agreements negotiated with the help of many experts and lawyers over a number of years.

I think that we must put some trust in those who negotiated the agreements and those who reviewed them, like the Bloc members on the standing committee who, after examining the entire bill, did not find anything that would justify unduly delaying its passage.

Of course, we can improve any bill by proposing amendments to it. With respect to Bill C-55, I might have had some concerns, like my colleague from the Reform Party, about how committee members are chosen. It might have been better to ensure as much as possible that committee members are not appointed because of partisan considerations-if that can be done within the party system prevailing in Canada.

Canadians increasingly feel that the people appointed to government positions should be chosen for their personal ability and not because they belong to a party. I think that people in Yukon will be especially sensitive to the quality of those appointed to this board.

I am pleased to support this bill. I hope that the people of the Yukon will implement it as soon as possible so that they can ensure their own development and that we as Quebecers and Canadians can establish the best possible relationship with them in the future.

[Mouvement Desjardins, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the chairman of the Mouvement Desjardins, Mr. Claude Béland, urged Quebecers to actively participate in the referendum campaign and support Quebec's sovereignty.

The Mouvement Desjardins is a vast network of co-operatives, financial institutions and insurance companies with assets totalling $75 billion. It has played an active role in the economic and social development of Quebec throughout the 20th century.

Mr. Béland is now inviting Quebecers to get out of the current deadlock. He said: "We merely tried to negotiate the concept of a distinct society and we were rebuffed. The same thing is now happening with the issue of occupational training".

The current deadlock means that Quebecers have to choose between taking control of their own destiny or an unaffordable status quo.