André Caron

[Radioactive Waste Importation Act, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I am somewhat surprised to hear what members opposite have to say about from the Liberal government's position on the management of radioactive waste.

According to the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James, who brilliantly defended the government's position, and according to the hon. member who just spoke, there is no problem, the existing regulations are effective and future legislation will settle the whole issue of the importation of radioactive waste. However, there is also that surprising comment by the auditor general in his May 1995 report, in which he said that Natural Resources Canada should concentrate on reaching an agreement with the major stakeholders on their respective roles and responsibilities and on approaches to and a plan for the implementation of solutions. He was referring to the management of radioactive waste.

According to the auditor general, radioactive waste management is not entirely satisfactory in this country. So it is somewhat easier to understand why the hon. member for Fraser Valley-East presented his bill to prohibit the importation of radioactive waste into Canada.

It is clear that, when there are no policies, no clear cut regulations and no legislation on the whole issue of radioactive waste management, it would be immoral for a country to allow its importation. For the same reasons as my colleague from Matapédia-Matane, I am inclined to approve the bill presented by the hon. member for Fraser Valley-East.

However, when we consider the tenor of the bill, a number of questions arise. The hon. member who presented the bill mentioned that what we have here is the famous not in my backyard syndrome. However, the fact remains that waste is being produced, whether industrial or radioactive, in all countries. We see it in our own regions where we often have problems.

If I look at my own riding of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, discussions have been going on for ten years in an effort to find a landfill site. For some reason, every community designated by the appropriate authorities to have a waste treatment site often manages by means of petitions and protests to ensure the site is not located in that community. Although today, things are starting to change.

Nevertheless, there comes a time when Canadian and Quebec citizens will have to realize that the industrial society in which we live has produced waste and that steps will have to be taken initially to prevent all this waste from damaging the environment and subsequently to treat the waste.

If we look at the whole issue of radioactive waste, I think it is disturbing to see what is happening throughout the world, not just in Canada. I am quite willing to admit we have been negligent in Canada, but look at what has happened in Russia and the Ukraine. I probably know the situation a bit better because of my role as a parliamentarian. I had an opportunity to look at the situation and to visit the country and I realized there was a problem. There was a problem worldwide with radioactive waste management.

I realize that I do not have much time left, but I want to say that like the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane, I certainly agree with the bill because in Canada we cannot afford to receive radioactive waste. We are not even able to handle what we have. Nonetheless, I think that Canada has a responsibility, as an advanced industrial society, to look for ways of helping other societies that are perhaps having a little more trouble right now, such as Russia, such as the Ukraine, to find ways of treating the nuclear waste produced, because it is a question of survival not only for Canada and for Quebec, but for all of humanity.

So that is the appeal I wish to make. At some point, we must quit saying "not in my back yard", seek information, and take the necessary measures in terms of research and development so that we can find a solution to the situation we are now facing.

My colleague said it, with what is now going on in Canada, looking at the waste produced in Ontario alone, and in thirty years, it will have increased fivefold, so if we do nothing, if we are content with temporary solutions, if we do not take the measures necessary and if we simply look for holes in which to bury the waste, I think that then we will not have found a solution.

It is high time that Canadians and Quebecers realized that this is a problem that must be solved, and we are going to support the bill presented by the member for Fraser Valley East. This does not change the fact that much remains to be done in Canada and in Quebec in this regard.

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to the bill introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby.

I listened carefully to the hon. member's arguments. Members with whom I spoke in the Bloc Quebecois, and I personally, are in favour of this amendment. It is clear that individuals who are ordered in civil court to pay damages in respect of an assault or battery or any another act that could lead to a conviction in civil court, should not be able to shirk their responsibilities by declaring bankruptcy.

Like our government colleague, I think this amendment to the Bankruptcy Act is admissible and useful.

There is also the aspect of interest payments which may be useful in an amendment to the bill introduced by the minister on the same subject.

However, I was less inclined to appreciate the arguments presented by the hon. member to justify his amendment. I agree there is a problem. In Canada, individuals convicted in civil court of causing damage as a result of violent acts or sexual abuse should not be allowed to escape the consequences of their actions. However, I think the hon member-and this is just a comment-was putting his amendment in a rather negative context.

There was a lot of talk about crime, a list of people convicted of sexual abuse or acts of violence was mentioned, cases were cited, and so forth. Perhaps the climate in my riding, in my region, and even elsewhere in Quebec is not quite the same, but I have not met many people in my area who are afraid to go out at night for fear of being assaulted or abused. These things can happen, of course, but they are not so widespread that they can be used as arguments to justify otherwise quite worthwhile amendments.

The hon. government member also noted that, last November, the Minister of Industry tabled in this House a bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act. This bill is much broader than the amendment proposed by the hon. member because it kind of overhauls the Bankruptcy Act. Like the hon. member who spoke before me, I did notice that there is an identical clause in the bill introduced by the Minister of Industry and in the bill presented by our colleague from the Reform Party today.

I even think that, had it realized this sooner, the committee in charge of determining which bills shall be considered as votable items might have decided that this bill was redundant in light of the minister's bill.

When I went over clause 105, a little paragraph further down caught my eye. It has nothing to do with this debate, but I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are quite lenient on the issue of relevance. I do not know if my colleague from the Reform Party saw this paragraph that makes it more difficult for students who are out of school but are unable to find a job to declare bankruptcy.

They are told they cannot do so within two years of finishing their courses. This is, I feel, an aspect which merits attention perhaps. I wanted to bring it up here in the House, and my party will debate it when the time comes. I believe that, after all of the Reform member's justifiable severity concerning people getting out of their responsibilities after a civil judgment, he ought to focus the same amount of energy on the student situation in order to determine whether there is a problem. We know that in Canada, and in Quebec, my region in particular, getting into the work force is a huge problem for students.

I feel therefore, that in the bill to be introduced by the Minister-I know I am not in order, but I feel this will have to be examined carefully. It is all very fine to want to be strict, to want to see people pay their debts, but one still needs to have a proper understanding of the situation. My colleague has justifiably pointed out that people found guilty in civil suits ought not to be exempted.

Looking at the student situation, however, we become aware that the minister's bill is very severe, considering that at the present time the job market for young people in Canada is very bad, and when it comes right down to it, one realizes the amendments proposed by the minister are unfavourably biased against students. A student who is unable to pay his debts after graduation is judged initially as in some way guilty of fraudulent intent in not wanting to repay his government loans. This is, I feel, not the case for the large majority of students. The bulk of young people forced to declare bankruptcy at the end of their studies do so because they really cannot pay.

Certainly there are some people who will take advantage of such possibilities to commit fraud. However, as was said this morning concerning the whole unemployment insurance question, when a system is put into place there are always some people who will try to cheat, but it is my belief that not everyone using the system ought to be tarred with the same brush as the dishonest few.

I hope that the government will take this into consideration when the time comes to examine this legislation, particularly since the unemployment insurance reform will mean that students who have terminated their studies will be hit hard by that as well. We realize that a student completing school and finding a first job will have to work 910 hours in order to qualify for unemployment insurance.

Lots of students today are on contract, and it is rare that anyone gets 910 hours in one go. Young people will not qualify. If they cannot qualify, they cannot pay their student loans. If they cannot pay their student loans, they will have difficulty meeting their obligations. Under the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act the minister has tabled, young people will not be able to pay and therefore will not be able to declare bankruptcy and will be unable to pay. It is not clear where they will end up.

In any case, I hope that, when the committee studies the legislation, it will look carefully at the amendment the member proposed, because I think it is acceptable, but I hope it will also look at other aspects of the legislation, which are tightening and toughening up the system. Basically, Canada's entire social system is becoming harsher. It is our whole way of looking at our young people in school and people having difficulty finding a job.

Our whole approach, that of Canadians and of Quebecers, is getting tougher. We accept the situation, because it is always being presented in the light of our difficult economic situation, but still, in such a situation, things have to be taken into account, as I suggested my colleague have done in connection with the whole issue of crime and its control through more severe measures.

I think we have to take things into account as well in our attitude toward Canadians and Quebecers who need a little more support from the government in a time of greater economic difficulty. I thank you for having tolerated my wandering slightly off the topic of debate.

[Prime Minister's Proposals, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned from a SOM survey that Quebecers are not swallowing the constitutional crumbs the Prime Minister is throwing them. Whether it is his feeble definition of distinct society, his veto right, which is not one at all, and his promise to make federal interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction more discreet, to Quebecers, it is nothing but the typical federal smoke and mirrors.

Yes, two thirds of Quebecers are dissatisfied with the Prime Minister's proposals. The federal propositions are being rejected by Quebecers, regardless of their region. Quebecers are nobody's fools.

This survey was carried out before the government's announcement that the number of regions to which the Prime Minister wants to give a bogus constitutional veto would be raised from four to five. This latest improvisation confirms the people of Quebec's judgment of the Prime Minister's proposals.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will gladly answer the question because some members may wonder how to define a Montagnais, a Malecite or a Nisga'a.

Allow me to answer by first asking a question and answering it. How do you define a Canadian? As far as I can understand, Canadians are persons who live in Canada and call themselves Canadians. Our hon. colleague told us: "I am a Canadian. I have been living in Canada since the late 50s". He said he came to Canada from Hungary after the insurrection over there.

I am sure the hon. member calls himself a Canadian, probably in his Hungarian or Magyar mother tongue, and never doubts for a moment that he is a Canadian.

Similarly, Quebecers are people living in Quebec who call themselves Quebecers. These people's ancestors may have been established in Quebec since 1636, or for 360 years, like mine, or for just two, three, four or five years. Perhaps their mother tongue is Greek or Spanish. Perhaps they are like my hon. colleague from Bourassa, originally from Chile, who calls himself a Quebecer.

Therefore, a Quebecer is someone who lives in Quebec, claims to be a Quebecer and recognizes that he or she and the other people living in Quebec share the same identity as Quebecers. Of course, this identity is coloured. The Prime Minister himself mentioned in his distinct society proposal that it should be recognized that, in Quebec, we have a French speaking majority and a unique culture, although the Prime Minister told us yesterday that there was no Quebec culture. At any rate, such are the vagaries of politics.

We have our own civil law tradition inherited from old France. Of course, the people of Quebec have a colour, as do the people of Canada. From what I can see, the predominant language among Canadians is English. There is a Canadian culture defending itself against the American culture, and Canada also has its social and legal institutions.

In short, a Quebecer is someone living in Quebec who claims to be a Quebecer, like a Montagnais from the Lac-Saint-Jean region, who speaks the same language as me and looks somewhat like me, come to think of it. It is someone who says: "I am a Montagnais from Lac-Saint-Jean, living in Mashteuiatsh, attending school in

Roberval, working at the Canada Employment Center in Roberval and proud to call myself a Montagnais".

A Montagnais is someone who claims to be a Montagnais and is recognized as such by other Montagnais, the same way that a Quebecer is someone who claims to be a Quebecer and agrees to belong to this nation, without any distinction based on culture, race or language. Quebec gladly welcomes everyone, as long as you call yourself a Quebecer.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, the opposition motion.

I will read the motion, for the benefit of the members who are here. It goes as follows:

That the House urge the government to not enter into any binding trilateral aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C. in the last year of the current provincial government mandate in order to respect the views of British Columbians on this issue as expressed by both major provincial opposition parties.

My comments will be twofold. In the first part, I will discuss the constitutional validity of such a proposal, and in the second part, I will deal with the issue of aboriginal claims.

Does a government, democratically elected in Canada according to the laws of the land and in compliance with our constitutional principles, have the right to govern? In other words, does a government that is the government have the right to be a government?

The Reform Party's answer to that question is no. Indeed, it is asking this House to urge the Government of Canada to not enter into any agreements to which a provincial government, duly elected according to the Constitution, would be a party, because such an agreement would not reflect public opinion, as expressed by the two major provincial opposition parties. In other words, the Reform Party is asking the House to ascertain, before entering into an agreement with a Canadian province, whether public opinion, as expressed by the opposition, is favourable to the proposal.

Our friends from the Reform Party do not seem to understand the nature of our institutions. This motion is wrong in the sense that it is an attack against the legitimacy of our institutions. It provides that the House should ask the government to determine, through polls, through supposedly scientific studies, perhaps through open lines in B.C., or editorials from the Vancouver Sun , the opinion of British Columbians, before entering into an agreement supported by the legitimately elected government of that province.

I am not sure whether our Reform Party friends realize what they are asking from the House. People participating in a political meeting could say: "Since the B.C. government is in the last year of its mandate, it no longer has the democratic or political rightto -", and so on. As you know, it is easy to organize a partisan political meeting. It is easy to resort to inflated rhetoric and to exaggerate, so as to make an impact on public opinion.

The motion before us comes from an official party in the House of Commons. That party got 52 members elected in the last federal election and is now asking the House to pass such a resolution.

Let us change the wording a bit in order to examine the unbelievable nature of a resolution such as this. What, for example, would our reaction be if the motion were to read, selecting Quebec at random as an example: "That the House urge the government to not enter into agreement with the Government of Quebec on the sharing and devolution of manpower training until such time as the Government of Quebec has passed a motion in the National Assembly recognizing the landslide victory by the no side in the last referendum"? I think everyone here would say it was unbelievable.

To take another example, what would our reaction by if the motion were to read: "That the House urge the government to not enter into any agreement with the Government of Ontario as long as that government plans to cut back on welfare payments"? We would say it was impossible.

Yet here we have a government, the Parliament of Canada, being asked to pass judgment on the legitimacy of another duly elected government within a federation. The legitimacy of the B.C. government is just as important, just as valuable, just as constitutionally justified, as the legitimacy of the Government of Canada.

Just looking at the wording of the motion would be enough to make the Bloc oppose it.

But there are other grounds. Basically, this motion casts doubt on the entire issue, on the whole process for settling aboriginal land claims in Canada.

I have just listened to my Reform colleague's defence of the proposition. He touched on many topics. He spoke of territorial rights, of the fact that aboriginal people living on reserves pay no taxes. When it comes down to it, he has challenged the rights of these first inhabitants of Canada to demand any particular rights whatsoever to certain lands within Canada. He even referred to the B.C. Reform Party's program on aboriginal issues which proposes that it oppose inclusion of aboriginal self government in the province's legislation. Yet it has been in the Canadian Constitution since 1982. According to a Reform government out there, however, there must be no mention in any of the laws of B.C. of any entitlement whatsoever to aboriginal self government.

There was another resolution that I hesitate to mention here, because in many ways it challenges the position of minorities in Canada. According to the Reform Party's provincial platform, before aboriginal peoples obtain certain rights in Canada, they should first have the consent of the majority of the population.

It seems this party wants to propose that in British Columbia, minority rights shall be subject to the will of the majority. It is unthinkable, in a democratic country like Canada that recognizes the rights of specific populations subject to certain criteria, that these rights should be subject to injunctions or decisions by a majority of the population.

Basically, the Reform Party's proposal challenges the whole issue of aboriginal rights in Canada. That is its general purpose, but the Reform Party also challenges specific aspects. Somewhat

ironically, the Reform Party's comments were fuelled by several kinds of issues.

There is a reference to the Nass River agreement now being negotiated with the Nisga'a in British Columbia. In fact, the Reform Party would rather see the agreement dropped, because of issues like commercial fishing rights, for instance. There are groups who are making representations. However, I think we should keep a sense of proportion in all this.

Today in Canada we have a major problem concerning aboriginal land claims. It is a problem that must be dealt with as quickly as possible, in a way that is fair to all Canadians and respects the rights of all concerned. The issue should not be used as an excuse to postpone agreements that may be finalized very shortly.

I think they are playing with fire, because today in Canada, there is a polarization of positions on these issues. If we read editorials in Canada or Quebec and listen to open-line shows, we realize that non-aboriginal groups are critical. They think there is some exaggeration in the whole issue of aboriginal claims, and they are right, but as a result of this situation, prejudice is rife, which is not conducive to good relations between aboriginal peoples and the general public in Quebec and Canada.

Opinions are becoming polarized, often with somewhat bizarre results. As an example of what will happen if we do not deal with these issues fairly quickly, I was reading a speech made by the hon. member for Churchill yesterday at a sacred assembly held in Hull. Now we should realize the assembly is more or less religious in nature and often the language is very symbolic. Our colleague said in his opening speech that the Creator had put aboriginal peoples in this part of the world known as Canada.

I agree one can argue that aboriginal peoples have certain rights because they were here before we were, because they were the first occupants, but I think it is a bit much to say the Creator put the aboriginal peoples in Canada.

This was said in a particular context before an audience of important dignitaries.

The Prime Minister of Canada was present at this gathering. Ministers of the crown were also in attendance. There was little reaction. The context is, however, a particular one. If native peoples get the idea now that Canada was given to the aboriginal people, like in the Bible, things are going to get tougher.

So, I think, in order to avoid things getting out of hand-because I think it could happen, and I am sorry to have to say it, out of respect for my colleague for Churchill-native claims have to be settled as quickly as possible and, in British Columbia, where things are developing, matters must be resolved right away. Because, in British Columbia, things go back a long way.

Between the end of the 1880s and 1990, native claims were not considered valid. In 1990, the British Columbia government began to recognize native rights, but only then. I heard the Minister of Indian Affairs say earlier that the situation of native peoples in Quebec was terrible. He said that journalists and some people are making remarks about the referendum vote. People are saying it must be awful for the native population.

In 1985 or 1986, the National Assembly of Quebec recognized 11 native nations. One of these nations barely has 500 members, but it was recognized because it had rights. The people of Quebec did not vote on whether a nation of 150 people constituted a nation. There was no vote. The National Assembly looked at the cultures and the characteristics of all the nations and recognized them. That is what happened in Quebec.

There is the James Bay agreement, which was signed in 1974 or 1975, as the minister pointed out. It was the first major agreement between Canada and the native populations. It was concluded in Quebec, while, in British Columbia, it was not until 15 years later that the territorial rights of native peoples were recognized and the validity of their claims acknowledged.

I think Quebec can hold its head high. The Montagnais of Lac-Saint-Jean, the Montagnais on the north shore and the Mohawks have always been respected. The Attikameks and the Maliseet are few in number, but worthy of respect and have certain rights they are claiming. It happened in Quebec. We the people of Quebec were among the governments and peoples of Canada to recognize the First Nations. We know that there is a Quebec nation, a Quebec people. But Quebec also includes other peoples.

We recognized 11 other nations. We negotiated. Our National Assembly recognized them. Agreements were signed with some of these peoples. An agreement is being negotiated with the Montagnais of the North Shore and Lac-Saint-Jean. Things were done. No one in Quebec told the government that it should not sign.

No one in the 1970s tabled a motion here in the House of Commons urging the Government of Canada not to sign an agreement with Quebec because the Bourassa government, which signed this agreement, was in the last year of its mandate. It was the James Bay agreement; it was not about fishing rights on a river somewhere. The James Bay agreement covers a vast territory. The Cree hold property rights over some lands, surface rights over others, fishing and hunting rights over other parts of the territory.

We did not undermine these people's rights by signing treaties with them. We respected them. We told them: "You are a nation, you will have territorial rights, you will be given money for

development". It was not a bargaining session, as demonstrated by the fact that, in the last referendum, 95 per cent of these people-this figure is a little conservative; it is probably higher-voted no in the referendum. Ninety-five per cent is a lot of people.

What this means is that, on some parts of this reserve, not a single person voted yes. No one in Quebec questioned these results or these people's legitimacy. No one accused them of being ungrateful after we gave them territorial rights. That is not how we do things.

We did not give them rights. They already had rights, which we recognized and enshrined in legislation. This legislation, this treaty, this agreement was also ratified by the federal government, which also had fiduciary rights and was a party to the case.

I hope that the House will carefully examine the content of this motion. First, it should realize that the motion limits the rights of a democratically elected government in Canada. Second, the motion challenges the rights of people in Canada who belong to a nation different from the so-called Canadian nation and from what we call the Quebec nation.

I feel it is important to be aware of all this and of native people's right to demand some land claim agreements in Canada. We must hasten to correct some visible mistakes that are emerging so that we do not end up in situations that would adversely affect the future for the people of Quebec and Canada and for all the native peoples in Canada.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the House on Bill C-110.

I have heard in recent days the speeches of a number of our colleagues in the Liberal Party and the other opposition party. I realized that I should perhaps offer a somewhat broader criticism of the bill.

Those who spoke from the Bloc Quebecois very successfully pointed out the extremely limited nature and scope of what is being called a sort of veto power, which will be loaned to Quebec and certain regions in Canada, so we can say that the Prime Minister has begun to fulfil the promise he made to Quebecers in the final days of the campaign.

I would like to make clear that the issues of the veto, the distinct society and the transfers of jurisdiction, do not only involve constitutional change. These issues are at the heart of what we Quebecers see as Quebec's destiny.

This week a paper reported a survey. Canadians in Quebec and elsewhere were being asked about their perception of Canada, their vision of its future. Basically, they were being asked whether, in their opinion, Canada comprised two groups, was the union of two equal language groups or was the juxtaposition of 10 provinces forming a country. The results differ significantly according to whether they come from Quebec, the west, Ontario or the Atlantic provinces.

I think this survey takes us to the heart of the debate, which involves defining Canada What was it in the past? What is it now? We see that Canadians are not agreed on how they view their country. We see that 64 per cent of Canadians believe basically that Canada is the union of 10 provinces. Twenty-four per cent think it is the union of two equal language groups: anglophones and francophones.

These figures are surprising. Yet, when we look at the distribution by region and province, we see that the split is quite substantial, even dramatic. We see that 70 per cent of Ontarians, 73 per cent of Maritimers, and 76 per cent of the people in the prairies think that Canada is the union of 10 provinces. In Quebec, however, 42 per cent of the people see Canada as the union of 10 provinces, 37 per cent as the union of two equal linguistic groups, and 15 per cent as neither.

These figures-42, 37 and 15 per cent-remind me of the results of some polls conducted during the referendum campaign. Some of the polls, perhaps those taken at the beginning of the campaign, showed that 42 per cent of respondents intended to vote no and 37 per cent to vote yes, with 15 or 20 per cent undecided.

As these figures demonstrate, the heart of the problem with Canada and Quebec is that Canadians and Quebecers do not see Canada in the same way. That is why we in Quebec talk about a veto, why we see this reality as important.

If we look at the people in the rest of Canada, we realize that they do not see all this as important. I have not heard people from B.C., Ontario or the Atlantic region say that they should have a veto on constitutional changes in Canada. Only Quebec makes this demand.

Why is Quebec making this demand? Because Quebec is basically a people who want to preserve their identity, who want to continue to be themselves. That is the reason why they want to have a say in any constitutional change. That is what lies at the heart of the debate on the right of veto.

It does not matter to us if this will be done this way or that way, if B.C. will have the same veto power as Ontario, if the Atlantic provinces will have a say, if Prince Edward Island will make special demands. To us, veto power is a matter of defending our distinctive culture, of defending what makes us a people. That is why, in the 30 years I have been following politics, Quebec has always had problems with respect to the right of veto. Not because we want to make trouble for Canada, but because it touches the very essence of who we are.

As you may recall, in the 1960s, there was the proposed constitutional amending formula called the Fulton-Favreau formula; there was the Victoria formula; there were the protests by certain Quebec movements when the Constitution was patriated. We were reminded yesterday that Quebec sovereignists voted against the Meech Lake accord. Just as well, since Meech was some kind of a reorganization of Canada designed to satisfy the very minimal demands put forward by the then Premier of Quebec, and those demands did not reflect in any way what I feel Quebec's basic needs are.

On the one hand, there were those who had a blueprint for nationhood and, on the other, there were those with nothing better to offer at the time than some vague revamping of the Canadian Constitution. In that context, I think that we sovereignists had a right-we did not have a choice really-to oppose this constitutional revamping.

I am puzzled about some of the attacks on us, when I hear people say about certain Bloc members: "So and so, who was sitting at the Quebec National Assembly at the time, voted against the Meech Lake accord". It is a good thing they did, because this accord was a

way for the federalists, who do not recognize Quebec as a people, to revamp the Constitution in the hope that, slowly but surely, we would all die off and disappear.

That is why, when we Quebecers are offered amending formulas, our gut reflex is: "Watch out. Red alert. They are dealing with fundamental aspects that make us what we are". We want to remain what we are and, in the future, to develop our own identity that makes us a part, as we see it, of the world community.

That is why, whenever the concept of a distinct society, a veto or administrative transfers are brought up, we consistently oppose them, because we believe that our future is in building in North America our own sovereign country, in order to be able to establish normal state-to-state relations with other peoples: the people of Canada, the people of the United States and the people of other sovereign countries of the world. That is the crux of the matter.

I can understand why many of our colleagues, members of both the government party or the third party, are tired of hearing our arguments because they take the same view of this issue as the other Canadians who tell us that Canada is a juxtaposition of ten provinces.

I can understand that they are tired of our arguments, of listening to us. I hope that, in the years to come, an agreement can be negotiated on new terms so that, in a spirit of mutual respect, we in Quebec can remain who we are and English Canada can continue to develop as it pleases, without either of us interfering with each other's growth, as the people of Canada and the people of Quebec.

[Indian Affairs, December 1st, 1995]

In that case, Mr. Speaker, will the minister give us formal assurances that, contrary to what his ADM suggested, his government did not and will not try to buy the First Nations' silence on their constitutional demands while Ottawa is making its so-called offers to Quebec?

[Indian Affairs, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. In his memo, Indian Affairs assistant deputy minister Jack Stagg suggested that federal subsidies be granted to aboriginal people, first, as compensation for supporting the no side in the referendum and, second, as a way to silence native constitutional demands while the federal government is making pseudo-offers to Quebec.

In light of his ADM's memo, will the minister confirm that he did not commit and does not intend to commit any federal funds to cover the costs incurred by the Crees and the Inuit to hold their own referenda in October?

[Protection Of Personal Information Obtained By Certain Corporations Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on November 24, I put a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I asked him whether the interim report he transmitted to the Prime Minister on behalf of this committee included the option of putting before the House a simple resolution on the distinct society concept and whether that option was the one favoured by his committee.

As usual, the minister evaded the issue, saying it was not up to him to reveal the results of the work of this committee and that later on, at the appropriate time, the opposition would see whether that was the Liberal government's option.

We asked this question because we wanted to warn the government against proposing to the House a simple resolution to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. We simply wanted to tell the Liberal government that it was useless, that it was an entirely symbolic gesture that would in any case fail to satisfy Quebec because it did not go far enough and would be rejected by English Canada because it would involve too many changes, according to them.

We wanted to say this because in Quebec, the distinct society issue was raised in the Liberal Party's platform around 1984 or 1985. Robert Bourassa, who was subtle in his approach, had found this expression and used it as a synonym of the concept of the Quebec people, to make it palatable to English Canada. Basically, Mr. Bourassa thought that Quebecers would agree, saying that it was in fact a synonym of the Quebec people and that English Canada would agree in the belief that it meant nothing. History has shown that English Canada was right.

At one point the concept surfaced in the Meech Lake accord. It has often been said that this particular concept was more important than the one in the federal government's current proposal, the claim being that it would affect the way the Constitution was interpreted and that the concept of distinct society in the Meech Lake accord would even take precedence over the charter of rights and freedoms.

This was far from obvious. Eminent legal experts in English Canada, including Professor Peter W. Hogg at York University, claimed the opposite was true, and said quite clearly: "The new section does not take precedence over the charter of rights and freedoms. In fact, as a straightforward interpretative clause, it is subject to the charter".

Had the Meech Lake accord been accepted in its day, we would have found ourselves again before the Supreme Court, which would-contrary to what Premier Bourassa said-again have concluded that the agreement Quebec had signed in good faith did not take precedence over a fundamental element of the Constitution, namely the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Obviously we have nothing against a constitution's containing sections aimed at defending citizens' rights, but nevertheless the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been useful to those wishing to block the aspirations of Quebec, to restrict its development culturally and linguistically.

That charter has helped these people, whom I could almost describe as malevolent, to hobble the development of Quebec and to make it so that today Quebec has no other solution than to promptly and firmly reject any notion of a distinct society and to come up with the proposition that was ours during the last referendum, which is to state loud and clear that Quebec is not a distinct society but a people, period.

[Manpower Training, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will never cease to amaze us. On the very day he proposed a symbolic motion to show that he intends to recognize Quebec's distinct society status, he completely denied that specificity by making an empty offer to all provinces, without distinction, regarding manpower training.

In a conference that reached new heights of improvisation, the Prime Minister even had the nerve to use vocational training to try to show his good will, even though his offer does not in any way meet Quebec's unanimous plea for the transfer of powers and resources in this area.

The first time he has an opportunity to show that he respects Quebec's distinct character, the Prime Minister chooses instead to treat our province like any other one. Should we remind him that it is Quebec, not Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia, that has been asking for years that the responsibility for vocational training be transferred to the province?