André Caron

[Petitions, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 257 petitioners from my riding who pray and call upon Parliament to ask the government to abandon plans for voice mail for seniors.

[Kanesatake Reserve, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, given the minister's response, are we to assume that the federal government will put an end to any discussion, present and future, on setting up a casino in Quebec?

[Kanesatake Reserve, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Prime Minister.

Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to rule out the possibility that Ottawa would hold discussions with Chief Jerry Peltier and the band council about setting up a casino at Kanesatake, although the Government of Quebec has categorically refused to consider it, primarily for reasons of security.

Given the refusal by the Government of Quebec, the sole games and lotteries authority, can the federal government tell us whether it plans to continue discussions with Jerry Peltier?

[Agriculture, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be part of the debate on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Center and to support it.

The hon. member suggests in his motion that the government immediately pursue negotiations with the provinces in order to re-assign jurisdictional responsibilities in agriculture and eliminate overlap. I support the motion because since I have been in politics, I have always been very critical of overlap in various areas in Canada.

The Reform member has realized that overlap is harmful to agriculture and probably to the whole Canadian economy, then I am happy to see that he has woken up, at least in that area.

On the other side, it is ironic that a member of the Reform Party-which often claims to support Canadian federalism and refuses to see that there is an urgent need for a change in federalism, if it were possible-would introduce such a proposal. This is the kind of speech we have heard for a long time in Quebec, whether in the 1950s under Mr. Duplessis, in the 1960s under Mr. Lesage, and Mr. Lévesque who was a minister under the Liberal administration of Mr. Lesage in the 1970s. All nationalists in Quebec have opposed jurisdictional overlap in Canada and have used that argument to defend the idea that Quebec should become sovereign. Jurisdiction would then be clear and everyone would know exactly who is responsible for what.

I find ironic that a member of the Reform Party, which stands as a supporter of Canadian federalism, would present such a motion. Perhaps it means that it is possible that the Reform Party can one day reassess Canadian federalism. At the same time, I think it shows the Reform members' naivety. We have learned from experience in Quebec that, in matters of jurisdiction, the federal government never gives in.

During the 1960s and 1970s-I am not going back to the turn of the century here-, at a time of intense discussions on jurisdiction, the federal government was asked to get out of jurisdictions which are clearly the provinces'. It always refused because it views constitutional matters from its perspective of imperialistic federalism.

The federal government is held, by federalists, to be responsible for everything that goes on in Canada, to be entitled to intervene in any field where Canadians may have interests, no matter who has jurisdiction or what the constitution says. Every time that the Quebec government or Quebecers have addressed the federal government to point out that its jurisdiction had clearly been violated, the federal government, without denying that the Canadian constitution does not give it jurisdiction in a given sector, has relied on its spending power to intervene.

So, it uses its spending power to intervene in education, health, agriculture, manpower, in all fields about which provinces have protested, because Quebec is not alone in protesting against the central government's encroachments. Over the years, various provinces in Canada have defended their rights with the same results. It is always under its spending power that the federal government has intervened in provincial fields of jurisdiction.

In a sense, this was to be expected. Canada was built on a duality, on the fact that there are two peoples in Canada. Over the years, the federal government has grown. Other provinces were created and, in 1982, we found ourselves with a Canada made up of ten provinces, all of them having the same rights. Of course, Quebec rejected this unilateral change in the rules of the game. But the federal government, supported by the Supreme Court, proceeded to revamp the constitution. At that point, Quebec was, I would say, morally excluded from Canadian federalism.

That is why my support for the Reform Party's proposal is in line with the demands and philosophy of the nationalists in Quebec. At one time, in the nineteenth century, many Quebecers saw a future in Canadian federalism based to some extent on national duality. They were disappointed. We saw the federal government encroach on our jurisdictions. We saw Canada define itself without us. And this year, we fully intend to act accordingly.

We want to become a sovereign country, to ensure that our rights are defended as they should be, and that the Quebec government is able to intervene in all areas, in our best interests. In the longer term, we want the people of Quebec who have been around for centuries in Canada, who tried Canadian federalism and were disappointed, we want the people of Quebec to continue as such for centuries to come, to preserve their identity and take their place among the nations of this world.

Proposals like the Reform Party's motion confirm that our analysis of Canadian federalism is the right one, and we are increasingly convinced that the option we have proposed, which is to establish in North America a sovereign, French-speaking state, will mark the end of all these constitutional squabbles that are so counterproductive in Canada and Quebec and create a

political and economic situation that is not in the best interests of the people.

[Petitions, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by 585 people in my riding, who are asking Parliament to maintain the existing social security net.

This petition is in addition to the one on the same issue, which was signed by 11,000 people from my region, at the initiative of Solidarité populaire Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, and which I forwarded to the Department of Human Resources Development.

[Low Level Flights, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Deputy Prime Minister justify the fact that her colleague at National Defence has already begun negotiations with a view to increasing the number of low level flights, even before Cabinet has made its decision on this matter known?

[Low Level Flights, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Recently a federal environmental review panel recommended that the number of low level flights authorized annually in northern Quebec and Labrador be increased to 15,000. The panel's findings are incomplete and the populations most affected by these flights have refused to participate at hearings.

Does the Minister of the Environment acknowledge the shortcomings in the panel's report and does she intend to reject its recommendation that the number of flights be increased substantially?

[Suicide In Aboriginal Communities, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, over a six month period last year, in the Ontario reserve of Pikangikum alone, out of a total population of 1,600, 50 young people aged 15 to 24 attempted to take their own lives and, sadly, five others succeeded.

In the face of this tragedy, how does the minister explain his stubborn persistence in uprooting young aboriginal people at a cost of thousands of dollars instead of building a local assistance centre, as requested by the community?

[Suicide In Aboriginal Communities, March 23rd, 1995]

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

The federal government was criticized by the Canadian Human Rights Commission mainly for doing nothing to curb the alarming incidence of suicide in aboriginal communities.

In light of the fact that the government was reminded time and time again of how serious the problem of suicide among aboriginal people is, how can the Minister of Indian Affairs explain that, 16 months into his mandate, he still has not done anything to remedy the situation, forcing the commission to take him to task once more?

[Supply, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's comments. I want to ask him about an issue to which I alluded during my speech. What happens to those who make bad investments? What happens when interest rates get too low? What happens when banks go bankrupt? It may sound a bit ridiculous that a bank could go bankrupt, but it has happened in western Canada. It almost happened with the old Barings bank, in England, which experienced serious problems following some unfortunate investments by one of its managers. What happens if the tax-exempt money put in safe banking institutions does not grow? What happens if, after 10, 15 or 20 years, the personal security plan is ruined by some crisis?