CONTENTS
Monday, April 18, 1994
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 3132
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 3154
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3155
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3156
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3156
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3156
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3156
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3157
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3157
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3157
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3158
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3158
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3158
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3158
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3158
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 3159
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3159
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 3159
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3159
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 3160
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3160
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 3161
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3161
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3161
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3161
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3162
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3162
Bill C-237. Motions for introduction and first reading agreed to 3163
Consideration of motion resumed. 3165
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 3169
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 3172
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3178
Division on motion deferred. 3192
3127
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, April 18, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Deputy Speaker: I believe there is unanimous consent to
have a statement by the Minister of National Revenue. Has that
been agreed to?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank in particular the hon. member for
Mission-Coquitlam for allowing me to step in before
continuing with her motion.
It is certainly with a heavy heart that I rise in the House today
on behalf of Revenue Canada and the government to express my
deepest sympathies for the families of the two customs officers
who died in a tragic accident over the weekend in New
Brunswick.
The two officers killed were Inspector David Moore and
Superintendent Jim Finnamore, both of Perth-Andover.
They were swept to their deaths Saturday night by a sudden
rise in the flood swollen waters of the Aroostook River.
I want to stress that they died not because of carelessness,
error or mistake. They died by reason of their high concern for
the safety of other customs officers under their command.
Briefly, the facts as far as they are now known are as follows.
The customs office at Tinker's Road, which is some 15
kilometres from the Perth-Andover office, was threatened by
rising flood waters on Saturday evening. Although the two men
had spoken to the customs inspectors who were on duty at
Tinker's Road and had been told that the situation was
satisfactory, Mr. Moore and Mr. Finnamore decided to check the
situation personally. I want to stress that is the type of men they
were, dedicated professionals determined to do everything in
their power to ensure the safety of their staff.
A short distance from the Tinker's Road office they met an
RCMP officer and several provincial government employees
who were monitoring the rising flood waters. The customs
officers were in fact joined by an RCMP officer for the
remainder of the short trip.
Once they arrived at Tinker's Road office, Mr. Moore and Mr.
Finnamore met with the two customs inspectors who were
working there. After reviewing the situation the four men agreed
that there was no immediate danger of flooding at that particular
customs post. The two men then left with the RCMP and started
back on the road to Perth-Andover, the same road they had
travelled less than a half hour before. It was at this point that
tragedy struck.
(1105)
An ice build-up on the river suddenly released and a torrent of
water swept over the river bank and the adjacent roadway just as
the vehicle of the three men was traversing a low point in the
road. The vehicle was swept to the side of the road, nose down in
the ditch, and was almost totally submerged. All three men were
successful in climbing on to the roof of the vehicle. The two
customs officers tried to reach land while the RCMP officer
stayed with the vehicle. Tragically, they failed to reach the
shore.
Shortly after a search was launched for the missing three men.
The RCMP officer was located and taken to hospital at midnight.
The search continued in the darkness for a further three hours
without success.
Yesterday morning at daybreak the search resumed. The body
of Mr. Moore was found first and the body of Mr. Finnamore was
recovered shortly after.
Coping with such a loss is always difficult, but it is so much
more difficult when the loss is sudden as a result of a series of
events that cannot be explained.
David Moore is survived by his wife Kelly. James Finnamore
is survived by his wife Frances and their three children, Tamara,
Brent and Peter.
Yesterday I spoke with both widows to express my most
profound sympathy for their loss and to tell them that the
department will do all that it can to support them and to help
them through this very difficult time.
3128
David Moore worked for the department for six years and
James Finnamore was an employee of Revenue Canada for
almost 18 years. We have lost two fine men, highly professional
public servants, dedicated to their work and to the people of
Canada. They will be missed dearly at home. They will be
missed by those with whom they worked, who are both their
colleagues and their friends.
I know all members of this House will wish to join with me
after the statements of other party representatives to stand for a
few moments to reflect on this tragic event and to remember
these two fine individuals who died in service of this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, very briefly
and on a serious note, the members of the Bloc Quebecois agree
fully with the comments of the hon. Minister of Revenue. We
wish to convey our deepest sympathies to the families and
friends of Mr. David Moore and Mr. Jim Finnamore.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I join with members of the government as expressed by
the minister and my Bloc colleagues in expressing the grief and
sympathy of Reform members in the tragic deaths of Inspector
David Moore and Superintendent Jim Finnamore.
I grew up beside the South Saskatchewan River and know first
hand the beauty, the benefits and also the danger associated with
our waterways. In fact, I remember as a young boy when my
father lost an employee to the river. We sense the shock and pain
and sorrow those involved in this situation are experiencing.
I have also visited the Perth-Andover area and I can envision
the landscape and the beauty of the Saint John River valley and
the rolling hills in western New Brunswick. I have met with
some people in that region and I am sure they share in the grief
caused by this accident. I am also confident that the community
is rising to the situation and will give comfort and support to
Kelly Moore and to Frances, Tamara, Brent and Peter
Finnamore, as well as to other loved ones.
With my colleagues I express appreciation for the lives of Jim
Finnamore and David Moore and our sympathy and prayers go
out to their families and other loved ones.
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask that we rise and have a
moment's silence.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]
3128
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
(1110 )
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam) moved:
That, in the opinion of the this House, the government should permit members
of the House of Commons to fully represent their constituents' views on the
government's legislative program and spending plans by adopting the position
that the defeat of any government measure, including a spending measure, shall
not automatically mean the defeat of the government unless followed by the
adoption of a formal motion.
She said: Mr. Speaker, in the time available to me today I
would like to explain my motion so that members of this House
will clearly know what they are being asked to vote on.
As this is a votable motion, declared so by the procedure and
House affairs committee, it will be the first time, at least as far
as I can determine, that members will have the opportunity to
express themselves on the issues of confidence and flowing
from that the issue of freer voting in the House.
I would also like to address the history of voting in this House,
a history which has been characterized by political party
discipline or voting along party lines. I will refer to the
experience in other jurisdictions such as Great Britain where
there has been a noticeable relaxation of the party whip.
My research indicates that in Australia and New Zealand,
while party discipline is somewhat less than in Canada but more
than in Great Britain, there are clear avenues for backbenchers,
private members, to influence the policies of their party.
I will conclude by dealing with the criticisms of allowing
freer voting by members of the House of Commons. I must
admit that I am surprised there are any criticisms because of the
support this issue has received in the last two Parliaments. When
I first spoke on this subject on January 21, the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood took issue with my arguments and
more recently at a meeting of the House of Commons committee
on procedure and House affairs I was amazed by the arguments
raised by members opposite.
I believe it is necessary that these be addressed, fears put to
bed so that all members of the House may join together to
support this motion. The motion refers actually to three matters:
relaxation of the confidence convention, freer voting and
representation of constituents' interests.
By relaxing the confidence convention I mean that only votes
that are explicitly labelled as confidence votes when lost by the
government bring about the government's resignation. There is
a myth that has been spread about this place for many years that
3129
the government cannot lose votes. If it does it must resign,
either forcing an election or putting the Governor General into
the position of calling on someone else to see if she or he can
form a government.
Intellectually, we all know this is nonsense. Yet it is the
practice followed in this House, and my motion would narrowly
define the confidence convention. The result of a narrow
definition of this convention should be that members, especially
government backbench members, should feel freed from the
strictures of party discipline to occasionally vote against the
party line.
In fact, the beneficial effect of this motion applies to all
members, both government and opposition. Government
members would feel free to vote against the party line because
losing an occasional vote will not mean the defeat of the
government. Once this type of thinking is understood by the
party leadership, those voting against the party line should also
not be subject to retribution or punishment. At the same time we
in opposition should feel free to vote with the government
members from time to time. The government cannot always be
wrong, even this government. It is incumbent on us in
opposition to recognize this fact and from time to time vote with
the government even though our party leadership may try to
convince us otherwise. I also want to make it clear that I am
speaking about freer voting and not the declaration of free votes
which is done under the direction of party leadership.
(1115)
Finally, why or when would the break come with party
discipline? My motion reads that it would be done ``to fully
represent their constituents' views''. This is one example of
when it may be done but there are others. However, I want to
deal with the issue of representing constituents' views because
there seems to be a lack of understanding of the position of the
Reform Party on this matter. Let me be very clear.
Unlike some elections in the past, the 1993 election was
significant in that the three recognized parties that are now in
the House set out for Canadians platforms which to a great
extent detailed how the parties would deal with the major issues
as these issues presented themselves in the fall of 1993.
They were what Canadians voted for when they voted on
October 25, 1993. To a great extent, we believe that when an
issue arises which was in the party platform then the member is
obligated to vote the party line. I could argue that the Liberal red
book may be long on theory and grandiose but very short on
implementation plans and there is room for departure from the
party line. However, I am not here to discuss Liberal Party
policies.
My main point is that issues will come along which are new,
issues which are not found or addressed in party platforms. Two
such issues come quickly to mind; cigarette smuggling and
constituency boundary redistribution. On these issues and issues
like them members should feel less inclined to blindly support
the party line.
As well as breaking with their party to represent constituents'
views, members could also be representing their own views
based on common sense logic which the individual member may
bring to the issue in question.
There is a feeling that if members are suddenly freed from
party discipline there will be chaos with complete
unpredictability in the system. Members will be voting every
which way and Parliament will become unworkable and the
country ungovernable.
This is not where this motion leads at all. It simply recognizes
that on occasion members without fear of retribution from party
leadership may vote against the party line. The government will
not fall. The sun will still rise in the east and I believe the
interests of Canadians will be better served by their elected
representatives. Is that not what we are all here to do, serve the
Canadian public to the best of our abilities?
Enough about the content of my motion. Now I would like to
deal with the history of this matter, a history which began long
before most of us got here. It began with a feeling of
dissatisfaction among the Canadian people which was detected
by the Canadian Study of Parliamentary Group in a Gallup poll it
commissioned in 1983.
A question was asked as to how MPs should behave when
voting. The response was that 49.5 per cent felt members should
vote according to their own judgment. By way of contrast the
view that the member should vote as the party wishes received
very little support. The national average in the survey favouring
the MP as party loyalists was only 7.9 per cent.
The frustration with MPs following the party line which the
public expressed in this survey found its way into the 1985
report of the special committee on Reform of the House of
Commons. This committee believed that ``the purpose of reform
of the House of Commons in 1985 is to restore to private
members an effective legislative function, to give them a
meaningful role in the formation of public policy''. One of the
main methods by which this goal was to be accomplished was by
attitudinal change. This would result in a relaxation of the
confidence convention, allowing members to occasionally vote
against the party line without fear of bringing down the
government or retribution by the party leadership.
The report of the McGrath committee was quite clear on the
subject of the confidence convention and freer votes. The
committee stated that ``once elected, members of Parliament are
legally and constitutionally entitled to act independently''. In
3130
the House they can speak and vote as they like. ``If they choose
to deviate from the party line they are free to do so provided they
accept the political risks''.
(1120 )
It was these political risks that the McGrath committee
through its recommendations was trying to minimize. The
committee went on to describe the ideal situation. ``Rigid
discipline is hardly compatible with a philosophy of a
democratic political party, and reasonable latitude consistent
with loyalty to the party should be permitted the individual
members of any party''.
This was the middle ground which the committee sought and
it is the middle ground that the motion before the House today
seeks to establish: loyalty to a political party, but not blind
loyalty, loyalty combined with the latitude to vote against the
party line on occasion.
The McGrath committee offered five observations on the
confidence convention and this is one of them.
In a Parliament with a government in command of the majority the matter of
confidence has really been settled by the electorate. Short of a reversal of
allegiance or some major cataclysmic political event the question of confidence
is really a fait accompli. The government and other parties should therefore have
the wisdom to permit members to decide many matters in their own deliberative
judgment. Overuse of party whips and of confidence motions devalues both these
important institutions.
We are fortunate in this Parliament to have two members of
that committee still with us, the hon. member for Winnipeg
Transcona, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is my hope
that both will find time to speak on the motion before it comes to
a vote.
More recently in April 1993 the House management
committee recommended:
Members of Parliament should be made more aware of a confidence
convention and the observations of the special committee on Reform of the
House of Commons. With few exceptions, motions proposed by the government
should be considered as motions of confidence only when clearly identified as
such by the government.
However, the committee which was made up of many
members who are still in this Parliament, such as the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons, the Minister of Health and the hon. member
for Saint-Léonard were realistic in its prediction of the effect of
this recommendation. It stated:
The Canadian parliamentary system does have extremely strong party
discipline, one that is perhaps stronger than in many other systems. The
committee endorses the idea of freeing up voting in the House but we hesitate to
create unreasonably high expectations. It is not a procedural issue. Ultimately it
is up to the individual members and Parliament.
Why did these groups of members of this place in previous
Parliaments feel relaxation of the confidence convention and
freer voting were so important? I believe that these members
properly read the mood of the Canadian public.
With the advent of the information age, the public is better
informed about political institutions. The work of the members
of these institutions, and as a result the public, is less willing to
follow without questioning the lead of elected representatives.
They expect their representatives to be well informed and
represent the best interests of their constituents. This well
informed public does not respond to leadership the way it used
to. The actions of Canadians in the referendum on the
Charlottetown accord is ample evidence of their refusal to be
blindly led.
The public also expects its elected representatives not to be
blindly led. As well the public feels disenfranchised when
members are forced by the threat of dire consequences to a
member's political future to vote in a fashion which is perceived
by the public to not represent the public interest. Lack of
independence in voting is equated with lack of influence in the
policy making process. Those involved in the political process
make the argument that the influence of the private member is
exercised in caucus or in private meetings with ministers. For
the public this is not good enough any more.
The public wants to feel that its views are taken into
consideration more than just every four or five years at general
elections. The public also wants to see a public demonstration
that its views are being heard and acted on. This public
demonstration most often occurs in the act of voting by an MP.
This exercise of independence by members of the House of
Commons has occurred to a great extent in Great Britain and
their system of responsible government has survived. In the
period between April 1972 and April 1979 there were 65 defeats
of the government in Great Britain. These defeats were
important because they helped destroy the myth that had arisen
to the effect that any government defeat endangered its
continuance in office.
They were also important in that they influenced the
behaviour of subsequent members of Parliament by established
a precedent. MPs from all parties became less willing to accept
party dictates on matters of policy and voting. Those who defied
the party whips discovered they could do so with little negative
sanction and were encouraged to do so more often. Others were
influenced in turn by their example.
(1125)
In Canada our experience with cross voting is more limited
but in the sixties and seventies we did have experience with
governments losing votes and not resigning.
3131
Therefore I believe I have established that a relaxation of the
confidence convention and freer voting has been the subject of
study and positive recommendations of at least two
parliamentary committees, many members of which are still
sitting in the House today. As well we know of at least one other
jurisdiction where what would be the results of my motion has
been put into action with no dire consequences. Responsible
government still prevails, political parties still exist-they
have not been deemed obsolete-and most important of all, the
public through its members in the House of Commons has some
real influence over the policy making process.
I would like to address some of the criticisms that have been
levied against relaxation of the confidence convention and freer
voting in the House. It is argued that freer voting would have a
negative effect on the future well-being of political parties.
Political parties are vitally important to the system, especially at
election time, for the development of policy and the support the
leader can give individual candidates. Also between elections
political parties can give tax receipts for contributions.
I cannot stress it enough; freer voting will not have a negative
effect on either the continuance of political parties, nor on their
ability to meld together various divergent viewpoints. Freer
voting does not mean that on every issue members will be voting
in unpredictable ways. As I stated in the beginning of my
speech, on issues where the party platform is clear, members
would be expected to support the party. It is in those other areas
outside the platform where I believe freer voting should be
allowed.
It is also argued that the government will be criticized for
bringing legislation forward and then telling members that
defeat of the measure will not be deemed to be a vote of
non-confidence in the government. It will be argued that the
government is wasting House time with proposed legislation
that it does not care about.
I believe that instead of being criticized for such an attitude
the government will be praised for allowing all elected members
to take part in the policy influencing process. Too often
governments have taken the House of Commons for granted,
paying lip service to obtain support on critical votes and lapsing
back into a dictatorial demeanour.
Another argument presented against freer voting is that if
dissent is allowed the government will not be able to make tough
decisions because members will duck making unpopular but
necessary decisions. While the possibility of dissent may make
it tougher for political parties to take potentially unpopular
stands, it also presents a challenge, a challenge to inform the
public of the necessity of an unpopular decision. It may also
force political parties when they are developing an election
platform to be as forward thinking as possible so most issues are
covered in the party platform and there are no surprises for the
public after the election.
Another point often made is that there are plenty of other
avenues open to a member to show his or her displeasure with
party leadership than voting against the party line in the House
of Commons. While at first glance this may seem to be true,
there are in reality few effective means available to members to
express dissent.
For example, a private member's bill takes a very long time to
become law under the best of circumstances. Question period,
because the list is controlled by the party leadership, is a
difficult time for a dissident government backbencher. Such a
member may get to ask one tough question and that is it.
The criticisms regarding the relaxation of confidence
convention and freer votes are simply not valid. What is valid is
the need for the political courage necessary to start freer voting.
Leadership on this issue must come from the government. Once
this has been shown, opposition parties must agree to allow
dissent so that all members are free to express views which may
differ from those of their political party leadership. This will
require a change in attitude and political courage. However if
this results in more members playing a vital role in the
influencing of public policy then dissent will have been worth
the time spent to reduce party discipline.
I look forward to the debate on this motion and I urge all
members to support it as it will send a clear message to
Canadians that we are not afraid of the party leadership
punishing us for exercising independent thoughts and actions, as
has been done in the past. We want to play a meaningful role in
influencing the formation of public policy which addresses the
needs of all Canadians.
(1130 )
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, because of the statements
earlier, the private member's debate will last until 12.08 p.m.
I would ask all members to please refer to people who are still
in this House by the names of their constituencies or titles rather
than by their proper names.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
after hearing the thoughtful address by the member for
Mission-Coquitlam, I was unfortunately reminded of a recent
movie entitled ``Back to the Future''.
The ideas of the Reform Party on the Constitution seem sadly
out of date, as if they had been reading pre-1914 textbooks.
Without any derogatory reference to the member for
Mission-Coquitlam, I would rather have heard the other
Jennings invoked. I refer to the Jennings whom you know, Mr.
Speaker, and I know and who taught briefly at the University of
British
3132
Columbia before going on to greater fame in other arenas, Sir
Ivor Jennings.
It is a fact that by the 1920s and the 1930s it had been
recognized generally throughout the former British Empire and
the British Commonwealth that the defeat of a government on a
measure does not automatically warrant its resignation. It
requires a qualitative judgment.
Indeed, to speed matters up I would remind the House that in
the spring of 1968 when the government of the day, the Pearson
government, was defeated by accident-the failure of some
members to return in time from other places-it was not felt
necessary for the government to resign.
I appeared on nation-wide television with the then NDP
leader and others and we concluded that the precedents that
Canada accepted at that stage did not require an automatic
resignation.
In the 1979 episode when Prime Minister Clark was defeated,
as it was said, by bad counting, his whip had failed I think to
count up the numbers in government and opposition, Mr. Clark
concluded that perhaps he should resign. He went to
Government House. It is believed that the Governor General
tried to suggest to him that the precedents did not require that
particular course of action.
As we know, Mr. Clark's request for dissolution was not
granted immediately. The Governor General suggested he return
to Parliament and he phoned him later.
I am simply saying that the issue of confidence is not
interpreted today in 19th century terms. It is a matter for a
qualitative judgment. Here again I regret that the Reform Party
has not paid enough attention to Canadian parliamentary
practice.
The Prime Minister rightly reminded us in an address to the
House of Commons on January 20 that the House is not a group
of independents who have been elected on their own. We are
dealing with a team. Law-making today is a sophisticated
process of give and take, of exchange and discussion. It is a
dialectical process of law in the making.
To cite only my own experience in the brief time that I have
been a member, I receive the views of my constituents as a
member. I communicate them to the members of my provincial
group. We meet once a week. We meet also once a week in a
regional caucus with members from all four western provinces.
We meet again in a national caucus and we discuss. There is a
give and take. There are the all-party committees. That is the
reality of law in the making today, that members do not have to
participate by simply voting yes and no. If they do that they are
voting after the event.
The dynamic process of law-making today requires
contributions, give and take discussion while measures are
evolving. That is how one influences the law. I think that is how
we have to undertake to interpret our role as members in a
modern contemporary sense.
It is to say that constitutional law is in full evolution. There is
a danger with the best of intentions that the member for
Mission-Coquitlam has of attempting to legislate
constitutional conventions. The life of constitutional
conventions has not been logic. It has not been legislation. It has
been experience. It is this and error testing process. The
interesting thing about law making today is that all parties
participate in the all-party committees. To cite only the two to
which I belong, the members of the Reform Party have
contributed significantly and constructively. I have welcomed
that. I have seen the changes in measures that might otherwise
have been drafted or put forward differently, and that is to be
welcomed.
(1135)
It is not a matter of saying that members do not represent their
constituents or do not fully represent their constituents' views.
Any member who does not do this has been neglecting his or her
function today as a member to consult regularly with the
constituents, to bring it back to the provincial caucus, to speak
out in the regional caucus, to speak out in the national caucus,
and to discuss it in the all-party committees.
That is the life of Parliament today. That is the reality of law
making. It is not the way it was in 1914. It is not the way it was
before the other Jennings wrote his beautiful works. These
works have been studied in Canada and they are part of our
practice.
I would welcome the Reform Party joining with us in moving
forward into the future and recognizing the changes that have
been made and not trying to legislate and therefore stultify and I
think arrest a process already in creative evolution today.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I feel that the private
member's bill before us today could be one of the most
important that we will have in this 35th Parliament.
I think that all of us recognize that there is something wrong
with this place and that is the reason we have to re-examine the
very structure of the way it operates.
First, we have to look at what people are saying. I believe that
to simply put our heads in the sand and not listen is a disservice
to those people. People have lost confidence in this place. They
believe that they send their MPs and they get gobbled up down
here. Sometimes we have referred to that as Ottawa fever or
whatever we want to call it. It leads to a situation where we have
messages being taken from Ottawa to the constituency with the
reverse seldom ever occurring.
I think that the election results probably were a good
indication of where that sort of thing occurred.
3133
What about the MPs themselves? They come here and they
follow the party line. There is little free thinking. Attendance
drops off. Mr. Fisher, in speaking to our caucus prior to us
coming here, put it very well when he said that most or a lot of
MPs become good constituency people. Really that is giving
them the benefit of the doubt that in fact they must be working in
their constituency because they are certainly not working here.
We have to try and find the answer. Some say it is in
committee work. For others, it is that they had better toe the
party line or be kicked out. Freer votes, I believe, are a solution
to at least part of this problem. This was recognized in the throne
speech in 1991. It was said that freer votes were definitely a way
to make this better.
The famous red book in 1993 suggested that MPs should be
given a freer vote and count for more in committees and in the
House. So it goes. Freer votes have been dealt with by many,
many people but have not been instituted as yet.
Why have we come to this conclusion? Why do we feel this
way? Maybe we can examine a little deeper some of the reasons.
The first one might be in committee work itself. It is said, as I
have said, that you can make a difference in committee work and
that it does not have to be just that old party follow the line sort
of thing.
(1140 )
I have seen discussions occur in committee work. In our
committee we had a two-day seminar where we looked at the
areas of interest to our committee. Members got a feel for where
the members of Parliament on that committee really were at.
When it comes right down to it, it seems that we will go back
to the organizational phases of the committee. Here we should
have looked at things like merit. We should have looked at
where they were from in the country and whether there was fair
regional representation. We found that the party whip or his
assistant came along and made the decision that Bloc members
should be the vice-chair of every committee.
It did not matter whether we had representation from all parts
of Canada or not. We have been looking at the estimates. The
party position seems to come through loud and clear. I suppose
when we do our reports, again we will have a party position or
that of the chairman, vice-chairman and so on because of the
majority situation.
Opposition members will be left to do little else than submit a
minority report and one does not really know whether anyone
looks at it or not. What does that do? It makes one wonder why
one really works so hard on committees. Let us look at the
House.
In the House we sit and listen. I know that members are aware
of the excellent ideas, the good research and the good speeches
that are given here by all parties. Does it really matter because
we always come back to voting the party line? I suppose the best
example that was brought out to me was when I moved an
amendment to a motion to exclude the Senate from joint
standing committees.
I felt that was something the electorate was saying about the
other place. Most MPs feel that way about the other place. Again
we voted the party line. Again we could not have a free vote. We
could not say what we or the people of Canada thought. Instead,
we thought about the spin doctors of party politics.
How can we develop a national pride and trust in politicians if
we are always going by party line? How should we decide a
vote? How should it really go on any bill? We should listen to the
speeches. As I have mentioned, the quality is certainly there. In
committees we should go into the depth of the issues, look at the
details, the facts and the solutions. All members should then be
made aware of what occurred. That would be how they get their
information.
We must get the constituents involved. We must have town
hall meetings from day one. We should have phone blitzes, TV
shows and householders that are not simply political
propaganda or what MPs feel is good material. It should really
count for something. We should really be trying to inform the
electorate.
I am really impressed with how the general public
communicates with its members of Parliament. Those people
have given some thought. They expect their member to vote
their will, not simply the party line of thinking. Members can
see why many politicians and many members of the public have
lost faith in the system we have here.
The procedures of Parliament as I would see them then would
result in a bill being introduced. It could be stated up front
whether it is a confidence motion. The committees would report
in detail on the bill. The members would speak and other
members would come to listen. It would count for something.
The members' speeches would have some meaning.
Members must have the opportunity to communicate with
their constituents. Finally, when the vote occurred it could be
passed, modified or defeated. That would not change or put any
aspersions on the present government. In order to make this
happen, we must re-educate a number of people.
(1145 )
We must re-educate members of the media. They cannot look
on every defeat of a bill as being a defeat of the government.
They must see the positive side of having all of that extra input.
The government must not think of things as being a defeat or a
win or a lose situation. The opposition of course must not take
advantage of the situation where a bill is defeated and hold that
3134
over the government. Instead it must be looked on as a
constructive measure for the good of the country.
The public must realize the MPs they elect really do have a
say in what happens. Then they will be more careful in their
selection of their MPs. They will make sure it is someone they
can trust to represent them and not just the party position.
Freer votes will mean that MPs will express the views of their
constituents better. It will take government right back to the
people. Some of executive power will be moved out of cabinet
hands to the true representatives in the House. It will allow for a
much greater accountability of MPs because members will not
point to a party line when voting against the wishes of their
constituents. MPs should always be responsible to the wishes of
their constituents.
We have greatly underestimated the ability of the electorate to
get involved, become informed and thus participate in direct
democracy. The more complex form of representative
government got us into the $500 billion deficit and other serious
problems we now have. Let us let freer direct democracy get us
out of those problems.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the House for giving me the opportunity to speak to
motion M-89 of the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.
Right off the top I want to say I do not accept the position of the
hon. member's party on confidence.
I would like to address the three points put forward by the hon.
member, the first being relaxing the confidence convention, the
second being history, and the third being the aspects of freer
voting.
The first concerns relaxing the confidence convention. If
there is one conclusion that can be drawn from 300 years of
political thought it is that there is not one correct interpretation
of confidence. Reform's view is that confidence need only be
expressed in formal votes. I think this is a mistake in the thought
process.
To quote the hon. member's remark to ``feel free to vote with
the government members from time to time'', I assume she was
speaking of the opposition. I asked the table clerk to provide me
with the number of votes we have had since the beginning of this
35th Parliament. We have had 31 votes and not once from day
one has anyone from that hon. member's party broken ranks.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Keyes: And some of them applaud. Well, congratulations
to that party and the solidarity it shows behind its ideology and
its ideas about how this country should act and look.
On the position of history, like my colleagues in this House I
am privileged to serve my constituents. I am privileged to serve
the constituents of Hamilton West. They know Stan Keyes. They
know what he stands for. They know what he has no tolerance
for. They know his deeply held beliefs, his deeply held
convictions.
(1150 )
The hon. member opposite is sadly mistaken if she thinks I or
anyone else on this side of the House can be blindly led. If I
supported a government objective that went against any of my
well known principles I would be laughed out of this office, out
of this House, out of this job. I remind the member for
Mission-Coquitlam that I was re-elected.
The third point was the issue of freer voting. Since the
opening of the 35th Parliament Reform MPs have repeatedly
called upon the government to accept the doctrine that ``the
government not consider the defeat of a government motion
including a spending measure to constitute an expression of
non-confidence in the government, unless it is immediately
followed by the passage of a formal non-confidence motion''.
This is directly related to the Reform Party's desire to see
increased direct democracy within the Canadian federal system.
Reform has long argued that direct democracy is manifested
through citizens initiatives, binding referenda, a recall
mechanism and free votes in the House of Commons. Let us look
at that for a second.
This weekend the hon. member's party, the third party of this
House, tried a little experiment in direct democracy. According
to an Ottawa newspaper: ``Reform leader Preston Manning
learned democracy does not always go as planned when a
majority of people watching a televised town hall meeting last
night voted in favour of allowing doctor assisted suicides. To
quote Mr. Manning, care has to be exercised in making a
simplistic interpretation of the results''.
Well what about the simplistic, shallow, minimal amount of
time presented by both sides of that argument. It is very easy to
get on national television to present arguments pro and con on
any matter and then ask everyone on the basis of those
arguments to phone in, if they can afford to have a touchtone
phone and there are many Canadians who cannot. That process
shuts out how many Canadians who either cannot afford to have
a phone or have a dial phone so they cannot participate in that
party's direct democracy. Then a decision is made based on
those arguments by dialling whatever number for whatever
decision a person wants to make, yes or no, right or wrong, pro
or con.
How does one prevent the process of stacking in such a
process? We know what stacking is. Some of us here in this
House went through the abortion debate. Stacking means the
ability of one organization to overcome the organization
through organization. It is the ability to put the process together
better than the other guy because maybe they have more money
than the other guy. This is where the faultlines and cracks are in
this party's ideas.
3135
Is the decision that will be made by the caller on the particular
weekend based on all the facts presented to them? Or has that
decision been made as a result of what could be a very moving, a
very powerful statement made by one individual over another?
We have heard some of the debate in this House. Some of the
members have the most powerful arguments, the most powerful
delivery. If we get into a passionate subject where life or death is
involved we know what kind of arguments can be put forward.
Because one is presented more passionately than the other, does
that make that argument the right one and there can be no other
conclusion but to vote for that particular person's point of view?
``I will not even hear the other side. That guy was so good I am
voting yes'', or ``I am voting no''. It is a dangerous policy.
(1155 )
To secure freer votes Reform would release the government
from demonstrating that it retains the confidence of the House
except for those occasions when the House is asked to express
itself on a formal confidence motion. Members in turn would be
able to vote as they choose on any given issue secure in the
knowledge they would not be subject to party discipline.
According to Reform these two practices would allow
members to better represent their constituents, particularly
when issues arise where constituents clearly indicate they do not
support the member's party's position on that issue.
In the leader of the Reform Party's point of view when
confronted with such a situation that member's choice is clear:
``If push comes to shove in my view'', says Mr. Manning, ``the
will of the constituents will prevail over my personal view or my
party's view''. Mr. Manning however then goes on to say: ``I am
not talking about turning members into a voting machine where
all they do is go home on the weekend, count noses and come
back here and stick up their hands. The relationship between a
member and his constituents has to be one of dialogue''.
Both the Prime Minister and our government House leader
have indicated the government's desire to see more free votes in
the House. What we have not done is to accept the Reform's
interpretation of free votes. While not rejecting Reform's view
completely, the Prime Minister and government House leader
both have argued there are valid and longstanding reasons for
the government to approach confidence from a more
comprehensive perspective.
The Prime Minister for example has referred to the mandate
given the House in the recent election: ``This House is not a
group of independents who have been elected on their own. We
too are members of a party and we had a program. It is the red
book and it will be implemented''.
That is what we stand for here as a group. It is not the
individual vote; it is the collective. It is the understanding of
what we believe to be in the best interests of our constituents, of
our riding, of our province, of our country. That is what we are
doing here.
This motion cannot be allowed to undermine that Canadian
democratic process. I am sure the people who elected me would
not approve.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
when talking about freer votes in this debate it is important to
keep in mind the fact that when the pendulum swings it does not
always have to swing to either extreme.
What we are looking for in this Parliament and the single
factor that would probably distinguish this Parliament thus far
from the last Parliament, is that there is a great deal more
balance. The government has gone out of its way to try to
provide that balance and provide input in government from
opposition and from the Liberal backbenches as well.
I am reminded particularly of the opening days of this session.
So many of us were brand new to this House. We were very
nervous about what we were doing, myself included. We had the
opportunity to engage in a couple of very important debates over
quite a few days. It gave us the sense of belonging and
participating and an opportunity to actually do something.
Here we are with this notion of freer votes. Before we talk
about the mechanics of exactly what free votes or freer votes
are, we should look at a couple of things. One would be our
party's history in this House.
As the hon. member who spoke to this motion just a moment
ago so rightly pointed out, it is somewhat paradoxical that we
are talking about the need for freer votes yet since we have been
in this House all of us have voted together.
Basically all of us voted together from all parties. That has to
be because we were all elected on the particular platforms with
the particular ideology we were promoting. It is only reasonable
to assume we would follow through as our ideology was
presented in Parliament and vote according to however it was we
said we would when we were elected.
(1200 )
It is interesting also, in conversation with others who have
been in this House much longer than I, that very often a vote
when in opposition is opposed. The role of opposition is to
oppose the government, to be a check and balance to
government to try and ensure that government thinks through all
of its policies.
This government has a very substantial majority and that
substantial majority flows through to the committees. The
essence of this place is that we as members of Parliament have
the ability to try, as others have said before, to influence the way
3136
government would think about its agenda. However, the reality
is that the government agenda is the agenda that will come
through this House.
What we are talking about is not to change things 100 per cent,
but merely to create the atmosphere in which members feel free
to exercise their own independent best judgment, not just in the
House but in committee. Even more important is before it gets to
committee, when it is still a germ of an idea in someone's head,
when the formulation of policy is put together, before we get all
the political capital organized in a particular mode of action so
that if that course of action is changed in any way it becomes a
vote of confidence in the government or in the person who
initiated the action.
That is what has us in this position today as a nation. It does
not matter whether all of us are 100 per cent right all of the time,
because we are not. That is the beauty of this place. There are
295 members here and the collective judgment and wisdom of
all of us here today is infinitely better than the individual
wisdom of the smartest and most intelligent among us.
We find ourselves in a situation in which in this Parliament or
in business if the leader happens to come up with an idea or says
something that seemed like a good idea at the time we all scurry
about trying to justify whatever the leadership or the leader or a
particular person might have said, even if it is a slip of the
tongue. God help us, we cannot in any way endanger this person
by saying that if this person is not 100 per cent right all the time
then perhaps this person does not have the ability to lead.
I am not suggesting that is true of any particular party. That is
just as true in our party. We have to be careful and we have to
guard against that. This is human nature. It happens in business,
it happens in politics and it happens everywhere.
The real job of all of us is to question and to say to the
leadership: ``Do you really think that is what we should be
doing? I know we started out on this and perhaps the bill is in
second reading already, but do you not think it might be a good
idea if we changed it?''. I guess that is what we want, the
flexibility, the wisdom and the freedom to change and learn as
we go along.
Our experience here has been kind of fun because we have
been talking about freer votes and when the votes come up
members opposite watch to see who among us is going to be the
first not to vote along the party line. We are looking forward to
being the first not to vote along the party line because we know
that sooner or later we are going to have to otherwise certain
members are never going to give us peace. We are going to do it
sooner or later somehow.
However, the reality is that we have to follow the principles
that got us elected in the first place. We gain from experience. I
am gaining from experience as we go along. I am certainly not
shy to admit the fact that many of the preconceived ideas that I
had about how this place worked I have changed since I arrived
here. I see how this place works and I am learning every day, as
we all are.
(1205 )
I would like to conclude my comments by quoting someone I
think is of particular value to this House and whom we might all
keep in mind as we go into the future. There are two people
whose names are brought up many times in this House. One is
the famous Edmund Burke. In Edmund Burke's letter to the
electors of Bristol he pretty much debunks the whole notion of
representative democracy. He was in support of delegate
democracy through which once every election the electors
decide who they are going to vote for and they vote for that
person and for better or worse that person ends up in Parliament
and they get their next crack at him four years hence.
Members opposite would know that this famous letter to the
electors of Bristol was written in 1776 or thereabouts and had to
do with the treatment of the British patriots, the sailors who
were called pirates. They were captured, taken to England and
held there for three years, given a fair trial and hanged. He did
not think that was a good idea and said so. His electors thought it
was a good idea and they said so. He wrote the letter to the
electors of Bristol saying: ``You not only have my body, you
have my mind. If you do not like what I am doing turf me at the
end of my term''.
Interestingly, they did turf him at the end of that term and he
went on to be re-elected in a rotten borough.
The other person, a contemporary of his, was Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine was the adviser to Thomas Jefferson and helped
to frame the famous Declaration of Independence. He wrote in
his work The Rights of Man that the greatest tyranny of all is the
tyranny of the presumption of ruling beyond the grave, and that
each generation has the right and the responsibility to govern for
its times and should not bind any future generation to its
decisions any more than this generation should be bound by
decisions made by past generations.
I would ask that as this debate unfolds we consider that our
generation and this Parliament are setting the foundation upon
which future parliaments will base decisions. If we can relax the
rules of discipline it would be for the benefit of all Parliament
and all parliamentarians and we need not be concerned about
going all in one direction or another.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I have two minutes so I shall try to be very effective.
3137
I believe that the motion is well intentioned but it does
contain a number of flaws. As a result of that I cannot possibly
support it.
Let me raise a few of those points because this does raise some
very important questions. For example, in one of the comments
there was a statement that the government's agenda is coming
through. Of course the government's agenda is coming through.
It must, it has a majority, it has a moral responsibility for
making absolutely sure that what it says it will do and the way it
interprets that will be carried out.
There is a suggestion that direct democracy is important and I
think most of us would agree that it is. We must make awfully
certain that direct democracy does not replace the judgments
that we have to make as duly elected members of Parliament.
One can see the danger. For example, the opposition party that
brought forward this motion had direct involvement recently,
last night, on direct democracy. The leader said that perhaps he
would support this and needs to check this out to make sure it is
not flawed. That is another flaw.
The other thing is when we start changing something like a
budget we know that if we change one part there are
repercussions for other parts. We simply cannot unravel one
little part without considering the implications for the other.
I may have time for a final point. I am a little worried that this
could lead to ransom by a minority group.
(1210 )
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the motion drops to the bottom of
the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3137
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should:
(a) amend the Official Languages Act to reflect the philosophy of ``territorial
bilingualism'', which holds that French should be the predominant language of
Quebec and English the predominant language of the other provinces, and that
federal government services should be available to official language minorities in
their own language in any part of the country where there is demonstrable local
public demand;
(b) continue to facilitate the use of English or French in the debates and other
proceedings of Parliament, in the records and journals of Parliament, in federal
courts, and as the languages of federal legislation; and
(c) refrain from expending monies on those aspects of language which fall under the
sole jurisdiction of the provinces.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in making this motion, before we get
started I would really like to get the attention of everyone whose
minds are already made up.
There will be a lot of automation out there saying if a
Reformer is getting up and talking on the Official Languages
Act it has to be bad. The Official Languages Act is not working
well. Whether one favours it and carte blanche says it has to be
good or whether one says maybe it really should be changed,
please give a listen to what we are going to say here. Do not
prejudge it. Let us go along with the lines of what is good for
Canada and what is good for Canadians.
My basic premise here today is that the Official Languages
Act has not been working well. It is divisive for us as a country
and it is too expensive. It is not just this member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan saying so, each and every commissioner
has had problems with it. So has the Royal Commission on
Bilingualism and Biculturalism. So have people across the
country. So has the Bloc Quebecois and so have les gens de
Québec, ainsi que les gens de la Colombie-Britannique. We
have all had problems with it. What are we going to do about it?
Listen to the debate this afternoon and as you are doing so I
ask you to please put your own minds in gear and ask how we can
do it better.
Let us go back in history and I hope to paint you the picture-
The Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member please put his
comments to the Chair. Please try not to use the word ``you''.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I will try mightily to do that.
Let us collectively look at history and ask how we can
improve things. In 1608 New France was founded by
Champlain. In 1752 Acadia was conquered by the British and
therein was the first and most horrid example of linguistic
intolerance. As soon as the Brits conquered Acadia they kicked
out all the Acadians. They said: ``We do not need your language.
We do not need you-out''. That is the worse case we have had.
Maybe in one sense historically we have improved things, at
least from that point.
(1215)
In 1759 New France was conquered. By the standards of that
day, the Brits really made some improvement. They said: ``Fine,
there will be a tolerance not only of the French language but of
the religion''. Let us remember in historical perspective that
religion has been part of the language equation.
3138
Moving on to 1774, we had the Quebec Act which confirmed
the rights of French-speaking people and catholics. In 1791 we
had the constitutional act which created a legislature for Lower
Canada. Because French became the language of legislation,
francophones essentially became politically active for the first
time.
Between 1820 and 1840 we started to have problems again.
The rapidly rising English-speaking minority worried the
French dominated assembly in Lower Canada. As a result, they
adopted a series of intolerant laws regarding the districts and the
eastern townships, denied them representation and invoked a
head tax on immigrants from Britain.
Between 1837 and 1838 we had real problems, including a bit
of open rebellion and almost warfare. It is important to note that
from 1840 to 1880, as the proportion of English speaking and
French speaking people balanced, people felt a little more
secure. Things quietened down nicely in those 40 years up to
1880.
It allowed the British North America Act to be passed in 1867.
So quiet were things that the BNA Act was hardly mentioned at
all. People were comfortable with it. It did of course guarantee
in section 133 that both languages would be used in Parliament,
the Quebec legislature and in laws.
I am trying to paint a picture of the see-saw of what has been
happening in Canada and the emotions that went with it. From
1880 to 1920, the proportion of French speaking people in
Canada and catholics-we might as well put in-started to rise
thus sparking fears in English Canada and among the protestants
that their status would be reduced to a minority position.
As a result, one province after another adopted laws that were
restrictive of the educational rights of francophones and
catholics; New Brunswick in 1871, P.E.I. in 1874, Manitoba in
1890 and again in 1916 and Ontario in 1912. Here we can speak
with shame. Regulation 17 in 1912 was the most restrictive
educational law in Canadian history. It made it unlawful for any
francophone child to be educated in his own language beyond
grade three. That is bad news but it illustrates that pendulum
swing.
Where were we after that? From 1920 to 1960, once again that
stability was achieved. There was stability in the language
environment. What did we see in Quebec in 1963? We saw rising
nationalism. All right? There is going to be a reaction to that.
Lester Pearson therefore established the royal commission on
bilingualism, the B and B commission. It filed six volumes up
until the year 1971.
That commission endorsed territorial bilingualism which I
will address in detail in a few minutes. Territorial bilingualism
is really a compromise between the territorial principle and the
personality principle. Incidentally the findings of that
commission were essentially compatible with Reform
principles as we espouse them officially today.
(1220)
The spirit of thought of that commission is in this quote: ``A
bilingual country is not one where all inhabitants necessarily
have to speak two languages. Rather it is a country where all
principal public and private institutions must provide service in
two languages to citizens, the majority of whom may very well
be unilingual''. Think on that. It is not bad.
In 1969 the first Official Languages Act was passed. That is
what we are critiquing today. Twenty-five years later there is
unhappiness with it.
This Official Languages Act favours the personality principle
in which individual minority language rights are to be extended
as widely as is politically feasible with the result that onerous
obligation to respect these rights are placed on the majority
populations and, of course, particularly on taxpayers.
It is clear that in passing that act Pierre Trudeau did what he
believed to be a just and generous gesture. He repeatedly states
that the law's goals of justice and national unity are inseparable.
One can understand that. But Trudeau's technocratic view of
society is also built into the act, one of its key features being the
creation of a supreme language bureaucrat, the Commissioner of
Official Languages. That was 1969.
In 1972 Quebec, fearful that its French language was in
decline, said it had better pass a law. That was bill 22, the
Official Language Act for Quebec.
In 1977 the Levesque government passed bill 101. These are
now getting to be famous or infamous in this country, bill 22 and
bill 101.
We go from there to 1982. This is a very important date as well
in that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gave
recourse to those offended by bill 22 and bill 101 and allowed
them to appeal the injustice, shall we call it that, of the Quebec
legislation.
In 1988, finally the Mulroney government rescinded the old
Official Languages Act and introduced a new one, the current
one, which somewhat extends the scope of official bilingualism
and in fact perhaps to too great a degree.
I would like now to define territorial bilingualism because
this is really what we are talking about here. It is a compromise
position between the legitimate desires and concerns of
linguistic minorities and the legitimate concerns of linguistic
majorities. It is one of four distinct and clearly articulated
philosophies designed to bring justice to the matter of language
policy.
These policies are, first, the personality principle. This is
really the one championed by Pierre Trudeau. He believed that
the key to a just system is that all individuals wherever they
might be located in the country have the right to communicate
and receive services from the government in their preferred
official language. That is what we are trying to put in place in
Canada today. We say it is not working and cannot be afforded.
3139
The next principle is the territorial principle which should not
be confused with territorial bilingualism which we will come to.
The territorial principle holds that language rights should be
territorial and non-portable in nature. In the case of Canada it
means that everyone living in Quebec should be expected to live
and work in French and everyone in the other nine provinces
should be expected to live and work in English.
(1225 )
This principle has been successfully implemented in
Switzerland but it will not work in Canada because our minority
populations in Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario are so much
larger than in Switzerland.
Next we hit territorial bilingualism, not the territorial
principle but territorial bilingualism. As I said, it was first
proposed by the royal commission on B and B, since adopted by
the Reform Party. It is essentially a compromise between the
extremes of territorial and personality principles.
Under this model, language rights and minority language
services would be extended only to those minorities large
enough to survive over the long term. Smaller minorities would
not receive full rights on the basis that the burden imposed on
the majority population, which has to foot the bill for all of this,
outweighs the benefit being received by the minority.
This model has been successfully employed in Finland in
dealing with its Swedish-speaking minority. If practised in
Canada the model would extend full minority language rights to
the large francophone communities in eastern and northeastern
Ontario, to the Acadians of New Brunswick, as well as to the
anglophone community of west end Montreal. The rest of the
country would be unilingual.
The fourth principle or style of language policy is what we
might call asymmetrical bilingualism advocated by the Bloc
Quebecois which calls for full and generous language rights to
be extended to francophones living outside Quebec and very few
rights to be extended to anglophones living inside Quebec.
The logic of this asymmetry is that French is in danger of
extinction in Canada and can only survive on an equal footing
with English if it receives preferential legal treatment. Most
English Canadians find it unbelievable that someone would
actually advocate such a position. Nonetheless, it is genuinely
believed by many to be the only true and just language policy.
There we are. We have a situation that has hurt Canada and
that we must collectively address. I leave it to this House to
listen closely to the ensuing speakers. Be critical of yourselves,
be critical of us, but at the same time be positive. What can we
do to be just and furnish proper services to everyone across the
country where the numbers warrant? Where numbers warrant is
a little buzz phrase that is fought with difficulty. I think on that
one we have to get down to brass tacks and put numbers on it and
say: ``This is where the numbers warrant and this is what we can
afford or we cannot afford''.
We must address all those points. I would ask the House to
think in positive terms as we go through the speeches that
follow. We must think about our history which I have gone to
some length to expand. It really has been a back and a forth. One
group gets stronger and the other group gets afraid and starts
putting in restrictive legislation. This is not good news. Let us
try and balance it out and be together.
That is all, Mr. Speaker. I would ask everyone, you and others,
to consider seriously the adoption of this motion to amend the
official languages to reflect the philosophy of territorial
bilingualism.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to comment on this
motion. I have met the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan
and I have always found him to be a reasonable person, that is
until today.
(1230)
Today, I find the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan to be
far from reasonable. I feel great disdain for someone who seems
to want to destroy our country, or distort its long history.
As a fourth generation Franco-Ontarian and as a member of a
minority, I find the Reform member's comments abhorrent. To
him, language is a financial question, or at least that is what he
claims. He seems to be suggesting that majority groups should
trample on minorities. He speaks of the French language in
Quebec and of the English language everywhere else.
What can francophones outside Quebec aspire to? How can
they live in our country, a country that Mr. Ringma, or his
parents, probably adopted some time ago? How can they live
here? How should I respond to a Reform member's surreptitious
attack on my language, considering that the Bellemare family
has been in this country since the 17th or 18th century and that
my ancestors fought first for France, and later for Great Britain,
and defended Canadian institutions of British origin?
French-speaking Canadians fought in both world wars. They
fought against the United States to protect their country. We
want to be a part of Canada, but the Reform member feels that
we are not entitled to belong, unless we agree to be assimilated
and become, as in my case, an anglophone.
3140
The hon. member spoke of generosity. Does he really
understand the meaning of the word? Does he really know what
he is talking about when he speaks of education within and
outside Quebec? Does he truly understand this country? He
compares Canada to Switzerland and Belgium. Again, does he
really understand our country?
Since I will be speaking on this issue a little later, I will
conclude by saying that the Reform member should not have
worn a dark suit to address this House today, but rather a white
sheet.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I find that really sad. It is damn
sad. Right at the beginning, I tried to explain it to people, but
they have to listen. I said what we are proposing. Obviously,
some members did not listen at all and then they attack me,
saying that I want to destroy Canada. That is an insult. I must
also say that it is awful, what they are saying to the effect that I
am attacking the French language. That is false.
(1235)
I challenge you, Mr. Speaker, and those who did not hear what
I said to find those words. When you read Hansard tomorrow, or
even the blues this afternoon, you will see that we are making an
effort to keep Canada united, to preserve the rights of
francophones and the rights of anglophones in Quebec. We want
everyone to keep their rights, but we do not want it to cost us too
much.
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask a question. How do members of the Reform Party explain the
economic decline of francophones outside Quebec and what
policy do they propose to reduce the gap?
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, it is very hard for me to explain
why francophones' standard of living is falling; I am not an
economist and I do not know the reason. It is all a question of
money.
Perhaps it is because our economy is in decline and in a very
precarious situation now. Foreign governments look at the
situation in Canada and think that there is probably a problem
between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Also, Quebec is
considered to be too hard on anglophones. A lot of money is
going out now, the economy is suffering and Quebec too, I
suppose.
That is all I can give as an explanation for that question.
[English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very closely to the hon. member and I am
afraid what he proposed is not very clear.
If I understand correctly he rejected a territorial language
policy which would have all of Quebec French and the rest of the
provinces all English. He seemed to propose a territorial
bilingualism in which he said he would accept the extension of
the provisions of the Official Languages Act to the minorities in
eastern and northern Ontario, into northeastern New Brunswick
and into the west island of Montreal and that there would be
unilingualism for the rest of the country.
If I understood him correctly, he was rejecting official
bilingualism for any part of the west, including Manitoba. He
was rejecting it for the eastern townships where I lived as a child
in Sherbrooke and have roots. He was rejecting it for the Gaspé.
He was rejecting it for the Outaouais, Aylmer and Papineau
county and so on. Is this what I understand?
If that is what he is proposing, it is not as bad as the
territorialism which would have all the provinces English
except Quebec, but it approaches that. I want to be absolutely
clear in what he is proposing. ``Where numbers warrant'' seem
to be exceptionally large ``warrants'', leaving out francophone
minorities in different parts of the country and anglophone
minorities in Quebec where they have had long historical roots. I
think particularly of the Gaspé and the eastern townships.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the
question which is a very legitimate one.
The examples I used were just that. They were examples and
were not meant to throw away the St. Boniface area of Winnipeg
or the Gaspé or Aylmer or anything of the sort. It was illustrative
of the sort of the territorial bilingualism that we should discuss
in detail.
The critical matter, and the hon. member mentioned it, is the
phrase ``where numbers warrant''. That is what is in the act
today and that is the matter that is giving us such problems. For
example we could adopt the policy of the Canadian Association
of Municipalities which puts a number on it. It says either 10 per
cent or 5 per cent and one can go from there. If the phrase
``where numbers warrant'' is inadequate, let us put numbers on
it and let us collectively agree where we will provide minority
language rights.
(1240)
[Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, just as the importance of official languages is being
questioned in this House, I am happy to have this opportunity to
clear up some misunderstandings and set the record straight.
Official languages issues have always been sensitive. They
arouse passion, give rise to rumours and myths and are very
seldom approached in a rational manner. Today I would like to
set the record straight on official languages and contribute a few
thoughts to the debate.
If I may, I would like to start by giving some historical
background in order to establish the basic principles behind the
Canadian policy on official languages. Official languages in
Canada are rooted in both the past and the present. Since French
and English have been evolving side by side for several
centuries, the Official Languages Act and the policy underlying
it do not in themselves represent a new concept, but show the
high
3141
regard in which the Fathers of Confederation held the notion of
association.
In fact, the foundation of the official languages concept dates
back to the birth of this country. In 1867, considering this notion
as essential to the survival of Confederation, our forefathers
passed the Constitution Act whose Section 133 recognizes
everyone's right to use French or English in the debates, acts,
records and journals of the Parliament of Canada and the
legislature of Quebec, as well as before any Canadian or Quebec
court.
I should point out that the current policy on official languages
is based on this legislative framework.
[English]
Provision for the payment of a bonus to candidates who could
write in both of Canada's official languages was first made in
the act amending the Civil Service Act in 1888. This
bilingualism bonus, which is still paid today to employees
whose position requires knowledge of both official languages, is
received by only 30 per cent of public servants. Most employees
of the public service are not bilingual and do not automatically
have to become so to have access to other jobs, contrary to
popular belief.
By the end of the 1800s the key federal institutions gradually
began to reflect the linguistic duality of the country. In the
provinces however the situation was quite different, particularly
where education was concerned. Although the language
question initially was not particularly controversial, the open
mindedness displayed by the federal public service toward the
official languages does not seem to have extended to the
provinces.
The politicians of the day did not show the same wisdom as
the Fathers of Confederation and did not respect the spirit of
Confederation in language and education, a situation that the
minority French speaking communities would denounce and
would later try to remedy.
In 1927-I mention this in passing-the first bilingual
postage stamps were issued to mark the 60th anniversary of
Confederation and this practice would subsequently become
standard.
(1245 )
The federal government translation bureau was established in
1934 and was to change the face of the Public Service of Canada.
However, official acceptance of the general principle that every
citizen should have the right to receive federal services in the
language of his or her choice and that the federal public service
should reflect the makeup of Canadian society came only in the
1960s with the Heeney report and the report of the Royal
Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
[Translation]
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism
was a turning point for official languages. It noted that Canada
was undergoing the most severe crisis in its history. So, it
recommended among other things that governments contribute
to the development of official languages minority groups and
that the civil service be bilingual with regard to both provision
of services and language of work.
Following up on the royal commission's recommendations,
the government of the day adopted the Official Languages Act in
1969, thereby making French and English the official languages
of Canada.
I would like to stress one point at this time, especially after
hearing remarks made by our colleagues from the Reform Party.
[English]
This act did not seek to make all Canadians bilingual. Its main
objective was to establish the equality of status of English and
French in the public service. It provided for the delivery of
services in both languages so that the government could better
understand and be better understood by the public. Whatever
may be said, this is still the case today. No one wants to force
any member of the public to speak both English and French.
The progress made possible by the passage of the Official
Languages Act did not come without some difficulties along the
way, but it proved to be very positive. Francophones have been
the first to benefit from the act. It declared that the official
languages, French and English, are the very essence of our
identity as Canadians and that it is important to promote their
development in all the provinces and territories of the country.
This to my mind represents unprecedented progress.
After its adoption in 1969 the Official Languages Act
gathered ground in the provinces. That same year New
Brunswick declared itself officially bilingual in a unanimous
resolution. We are now at the 25th anniversary.
A few years later other provinces followed suit. They relaxed
their legislation and gave back to French speaking Canadians
the right to education in their language, something that had been
prohibited at the turn of the century as I mentioned earlier,
notably in Manitoba.
[Translation]
During the seventies, Canadians showed a growing desire to
live in an open and tolerant society, a society concerned with
allowing individuals to live in their own culture and language.
Young people, for instance, proved to be increasingly interested
3142
in second language training, which they considered as
expanding their personal and cultural horizons.
This wind of change blowing across the country made it
possible to take the promotion of official languages a step
further. So, in 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms enshrined the official status of the French and English
languages in the Constitution. Section 23 recognized the right to
receive primary and secondary school instruction in the
language of the minority where-as pointed out
earlier-numbers warranted. To this day, this represents one of
the most valuable gains made by linguistic communities which
perceive education as the best way to ensure their development.
The purpose of that section was to redress historical injustices
French-speaking minorities had suffered in certain provinces.
[English]
Following the promulgation of the charter however many
questions were raised. What was meant by ``where the numbers
warrant?'' Did it mean that official language communities had
the right to manage their own schools? What was the actual
scope of section 23? French speaking parents turned to the
courts to find the answers to their questions. From then on the
management of schools became their rallying cry.
(1250)
In the wake of the charter the federal government decided to
update the Official Languages Act in 1988. It conferred on the
secretary of state the mandate to foster the development and
vitality of minority official languages communities and to
promote the use of French and English in Canadian society. This
mandate is now my responsibility as Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
During the same period the decision by the Supreme Court
confirmed the right of francophones to manage their own
schools. Yet despite the clear decision of the Supreme Court the
constant pressure of French speaking communities and the
repeated offers of support by the federal government, several
provinces were slow to take action to respect their constitutional
obligations.
[Translation]
In order to foster dialogue and encourage provinces, which
assume responsibility for education, to do something regarding
the teaching of the French language, the federal government
adopted concrete measures to support the implementation of
school management and post-secondary education in French.
This initiative resulted, among other things, in the
implementation of several management projects across the
country, as well as in the setting up of the community college
network, something which was long-awaited by Ontario
francophones.
Moreover, in spite of the fact that we are going through a
difficult economic period, the Canadian government has
decided to spare school management from the recent budget cuts
so that, at last, school boards can get down to business.
We hope that the management of French-language schools by
francophones will soon become a reality and we are working
hard to that end.
We made significant progress regarding the promotion,
spreading and teaching official languages, and this includes the
legal recognition of their status.
This is not the time to back off, because there is still a lot to
do. Minorities are always vulnerable, but minorities speaking
one of the official languages within each province make an
essential contribution to our identity and our national unity, and
they deserve the government's support.
The Department of Canadian Heritage subsidizes 350 groups
which work to promote official language communities in our
country. These groups provide direct support to the
communities and form dynamic organizations within our
society.
In co-operation with the federal government, these groups are
active in almost every field, including literacy, the economy
and, of course, education.
Under co-operation agreements signed with each province
and each territory, the federal government also helps these
jurisdictions to provide education in the language of their
minority.
This co-operation translates, for example, into the
construction of new educational institutions for francophones,
such as the Cité collégiale, in Ottawa, and the École de droit at
l'Université de Moncton, as well as the development of new
teaching programs in French and the setting up of independent
school boards.
It must be pointed out that, without the federal government's
support in the field of education, provinces would have to
absorb all the costs related to such initiatives.
Moreover, federal funding helps over 2.7 million students
learn French or English as a second language, including 300,000
students enrolled in French immersion.
Surveys even show that three out of four Canadians want their
children to learn French or English as a second language.
[English]
Why do so many Canadian parents and children want to learn
the second language while here we are discussing the relevance
of promoting official languages in the country? They do so
because they see a definite advantage to be gained. During a
period of economic change countries simply cannot isolate
themselves and linguistic duality is an undeniable strength.
3143
(1255)
Having worked in the world of diplomacy and international
relations I can assure you that questioning the whole official
languages policy amounts to ignorance of today's world.
Markets are joining together to form large economic units that
will in the future set the rules of the game. Developments in
information technology such as satellite rebroadcasting have
radically altered the concept of space and time.
The success of our country is closely linked to our ability to
communicate in the languages and appreciate the cultures of
other people. In a world where an estimated 6,000 languages are
spoken in some 200 countries, Canada is not alone in having
more than one official language. Having two world-class
official languages can only be of net advantage to us because no
fewer than 25 of those countries have French as an official
language and 33 English.
Apart from being personally enriching, knowing both official
languages makes our country better able to build up commercial
relations with various countries. It is no surprise that our main
competitors such as Japan and Europe are attaching increasing
importance to teaching second languages in their schools. They
are making the change to a modern world. Should we not?
The official languages question however is not solely
confined to financial aspects. Linguistic duality is one of our
fundamental characteristics as a society, as attested by our
common history. Seeing that about 96 per cent of the population
has French or English as its first language, no one can deny the
coexistence of the two main languages in this country.
At a time when spending is being cut some ask whether we
should not simply abolish the official languages policy. Others
persist in bringing up the cost of the official languages policy
and do not pay attention to its true value.
[Translation]
For my part, I am quite convinced that, more than ever, we
must promote the use and promotion of both official languages
and make sure that they are taught throughout Canada. The key
to the development of any minority community, and our country
as a whole, is education. All the efforts, energy and time spent
by francophones to take control of their own schools must come
to fruition.
Through special measures regarding management and
post-secondary education, we have made progress on issues of
priority concern to francophones, and we intend to continue in
that direction. We will work towards fostering the economic
development of francophone communities, which will require
the participation of other departments and agencies.
I intend to call upon my colleagues to promote both official
languages, which is part of my mandate as Minister of Canadian
Heritage. We must renew our partnership with official
languages communities and revamp our approach. Finally, I am
looking into exploring new and fairly novel avenues which
would give these communities almost unlimited opportunities,
not only internally, but also internationally; I am thinking, in
particular, about the information highway and the whole field of
telecommunications.
Why not use the information highway to offer and diversify
education services to francophones in remote areas? Could we
not take advantage of this new technology to set up a
French-language network for francophones, thus giving them
their own electronic space? Those are questions I intend to
explore with my colleagues and associates. I want to look at the
future, and at how the official languages can contribute to the
full development of Canada. But I am already convinced that
having two official languages is an undeniable asset for our
culture and our presence on the world scene.
(1300)
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, the Reform
Party has put a motion before the House today, and for the
benefit of our listeners, I would like to start by reading the
motion and then comment on a number of aspects I feel are
particularly important and which I think each and every one of
us should give some serious thought. The motion reads as
follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should:
(a) amend the Official Languages Act to reflect the philosophy of ``territorial
bilingualism'', which holds that French should be the predominant language of
Quebec and English the predominant language of the other provinces, and that
federal government services should be available to official language minorities in
their own language in any part of the country where there is demonstrable local
public demand;
(b) continue to facilitate the use of English or French in the debates and other
proceedings of Parliament, in the records and journals of Parliament, in federal
courts, and as the languages of federal legislation; and
(c) refrain from spending monies on those aspects of language which fall under the
sole jurisdiction of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, when this motion was presented by the Reform
Party, the mover of the motion said, and I quote:
[English]
-the Official Languages Act is not working well.
[Translation]
I agree with what he said. In fact, I believe the Commissioner
of Official Languages himself pointed out that the legislation
was not as effective as one would expect it to be.
The hon. member for the Reform Party went on to say that this
act-
3144
[English]
-is divisive and too expensive.
[Translation]
Well, we in Quebec do not feel that this act is particularly
divisive or that it creates dissent. It is too bad the hon. member
for the Reform Party seems to think there is a measure of dissent
and divisiveness, and I suppose that later on he could perhaps
explain how he arrived at this perception. He also said the
Official Languages Act was too expensive.
According to the Commissioner of Official Languages, this
legislation costs 0.3 per cent of total federal spending. If less
than one-third of 1 per cent is too expensive, how low must we
go to meet the criteria of the hon. member for the Reform Party?
At this point, I would also like to set the record straight on
something that was said by the previous speaker. He referred to
the ``asymmetrical bilingualism advocated by the Bloc
Quebecois''. The position of the Bloc Quebecois is clear:
bilingualism must be the rule in all federal institutions. There
are also a number of obligations in this respect that must be met
at the provincial level. However, neither the Bloc Quebecois nor
any other party can influence the will of the provinces.
Incidentally, I would like to draw your attention to the fact
that today, New Brunswick is celebrating 25 years as a bilingual
province.
An hon. member: That's right!
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you.
(1305)
For all this bilingualism enjoyed in this country since 1969
and all the goodwill in that respect, we must nevertheless realize
-as the Commissioner of Official Languages indicated- that
access to federal services in French has not always been
satisfactory. Francophones outside Quebec should be able to
receive services in their language not only from federal agencies
but also from provincial ones. And that is where the shoe
pinches.
Let me quote Mr. Jean Dufresne who said, in an article
published in Le Journal de Montréal: ``Mr. Goldbloom, who
speaks his mind but at the same time shows a moderation fitting
a man whose mastery of French I can only envy, acknowledges
that federal services in French have deteriorated so much that, in
certain regions, francophones do not even bother to complain
any more. In British Columbia and the Prairies, for example, the
number of complaints dropped by half last year. Mr. Goldbloom
attributes this drop to the clients' frustration with the little
progress made by various institutions.'' And he concluded by
saying: ``Overall, not a very positive report.''
I might add that problems exist not only in British Columbia
and the Prairies. Last Sunday, in my riding, I met with Mr.
Duval, from Cap-Santé, who showed me a number of things,
including UI cheque stubs. On these stubs, you can read:
[English]
-UI benefit statement, date 3003, 1994 from federal tax,
Quebec tax, et cetera. It is all in English. This is in Cap-Santé
for Mr. Duval.
[Translation]
Something is seriously wrong. The figures relating to
bilingualism in the Public Service certainly make you wonder.
Take the number of bilingual positions in Quebec for example.
Excluding the National Capital Region, there are 15,500
bilingual positions in the province, as compared to 39,500 in the
National Capital Region and 8,800 in the rest of Canada. You
will tell me that this is in line with the relative numbers of
francophones and anglophones across Canada. That fact of the
matter is that it is not.
You see, with 900,000 anglophones in Quebec and, excluding
the National Capital, there are 15,500 bilingual positions in the
province. On the other hand, 968,000 francophones are living
outside Quebec, that is to say 68,000 more than anglophones
living in Quebec, and to serve all of them, there are only 8,800
bilingual positions, that is a bit more than half the number found
in Quebec. In other words, this means that francophones outside
Quebec are entitled to only 57 per cent of the level of service
provided to anglophones in Quebec. And I am not making this
up. I am just quoting figures from the Commissioner of Official
Languages' annual report.
I would also like to mention this other finding by the
commissioner. In Foreign Affairs, 44 per cent of francophones
report using English as their written language of work and,
according to 85 per cent of the sample of employees interviewed
by the commissioner, meetings are held only or mostly in
English. Bilingualism is not very well, Mr. Speaker.
(1310)
In fact, given the figures I just gave you, we can see that the
government's efforts to conceive and carry out bilingualism
programs only work in Quebec. Simply put, we can see that a
vast majority of bilingual positions in Canada are located in
Quebec and the National Capital Region. Quebec and the
National Capital Region account for 55,000 bilingual positions,
compared with 8,800 in the rest of the country. Quebec is where
bilingualism can be found.
I would now like to move on to education.
Education, as everyone knows, is a provincial jurisdiction
and, although the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
provides for certain obligations with respect to minority
language rights, we must realize that some provinces still lag
behind.
3145
It is worth mentioning that these rights were made clearer by
two Supreme Court decisions in 1990 and 1993. But these rights
have been in the Charter for ten years now, and the provinces
should have delivered the goods ten years ago.
Nevertheless, francophones outside Quebec had to fight to
have their rights recognized and we know that, at least in
Ontario, the situation is still not settled or even very clear at this
time.
As for the three provinces that legislated in this field more
recently-namely Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-, I
hope that, if it took them ten years to come up with a law in line
with the Charter, it will not take another ten years for reality to
reflect the spirit of the new legislation.
A word on Ontario. The President of the French-Canadian
Association of Ontario, Jean Tanguay, recently said that the
Commissioner's report did not reflect the fact that his
community is in a state of crisis. He went on to say that,
unfortunately, the Government of Ontario continues to
deliberately defy the law in matters of school management.
The Liberal member for Ottawa-Vanier said essentially the
same thing on the TVA network on March 23: ``We asked to
manage our own schools because it goes hand in hand with
normal management. We still do not have it in Ontario, in spite
of continuously asking for it for 30 years.''
Bilingualism in Canada is not well, not because of the law or
the Charter but because there is resistance somewhere.
I would like to point something out to the Reform speaker
who, as he admitted himself, was unable to come up with a
satisfactory answer to a question he was asked earlier about the
wage gap between francophones and anglophones.
We know that the income gap between francophones and
anglophones keeps growing outside Quebec, while it has
declined considerably in Quebec. So why is there a gap and why
does it keep growing outside Quebec?
Well, here is the answer. We can observe that it is partly due to
the fact that francophone minorities do not control the
management of their primary and secondary schools, because
we know that education is one of the most important things for
success in life. If our francophone minorities outside Quebec
cannot have access to education in their mother tongue, they
automatically lose the equal opportunity that their
English-speaking fellow citizens have.
(1315)
The gap is not small. In 1977, it was 4.4 per cent in favour of
anglophones. Not only did it not stay the same but it grew to 10.3
per cent in 1992; that is a tragedy.
I would also like to talk about a statement that the Hon. Prime
Minister made in this House last week. Speaking of Quebec
sovereigntists, our Prime Minister said: ``When they have
achieved their objective of separation, a million francophones
will probably lose their language.'' That was a regrettable
statement. Francophones do not have rights because Quebec
exists. Francophones outside Quebec have rights that belong to
them, irrespective of Quebec. These people, these
French-speaking citizens, have their own culture that belongs to
them and in no way depends on whether Quebec exists as a
sovereign state or not. However, I see that some people are not
able to appreciate the rights of these minorities.
Believe me, Quebecers are very strong defenders of French
culture in all of North America and especially in Canada from
coast to coast and in all the provinces where these communities
are established and have grown and developed over the years.
They deserve to be supported by this government; more than
deserve it, they are entitled to it.
I will say that the sovereignist forces in Quebec have already
announced a generous policy with respect to the anglophone
minority. I also consider it unfortunate that the Commissioner of
Official Languages believes that English Canada would
eliminate the rights of French Canadians outside Quebec if
Quebec became sovereign.
At this time, you will understand that it is all the more
important for Quebec to unconditionally support all the
francophone minorities in the rest of Canada if the federal
government abdicates its duty in this area.
To conclude, I have a few questions for the Reform Party. If
the present bilingualism policy were abolished, as the Reform
Party proposes, what policies would that party propose so that
francophones outside Quebec could enjoy the same rights,
privileges, guarantees and respect that anglophones in Quebec
have? Would they be in favour of francophones outside Quebec
managing their own schools? What do they propose as an
alternative to respect and support for francophone organizations
outside Quebec if the government did not spend money on
aspects of language policy that are within exclusive provincial
jurisdiction?
I have stated some facts, I have raised some issues, I believe
that if the Reform Party wants to follow through to the end, it
must do more than propose a notice of motion, it must propose a
solution that respects all linguistic minorities in Canada, be they
French or English.
(1320)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, sometimes I find it hard to keep calm when I hear some
of the comments being made across the floor.
3146
First of all, the hon. member claimed that, according to the
report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Official
Languages Act was not working. Nothing could be further from
the truth.
I am sure all Canadians watching the House of Commons on
television today know the Commissioner of Official Languages
is an ombudsman. It is his role to point out any shortcomings,
which there always will be, in any society. It is his role to
identify them. Not in order to condemn this government or the
previous government or anyone at all, but to improve the
system.
Similarly, the hon. member opposite raises questions during
Question Period not, I hope, to say that the people sitting on
these benches are a terrible bunch, but to improve the system
and make this Parliament more effective. Well, the
Commissioner of Official Languages does the same thing, to
improve the act and not to condemn it.
Second, I wish the hon. member opposite would explain his
calculations. First of all, he chose to discount public servants
working in the National Capital Region as far as minority
language services are concerned. Does he not know that in
addition to the national role played by public servants in the
National Capital area, these people also administer regional
programs? For instance, half of all francophones in Ontario,
perhaps as many as 150,000, live within a radius of about 100
kilometres of this city outside Quebec. They are not served by
regional offices in other locations, they are served by offices
here in Ottawa. When the hon. member artificially excludes
people who work in Ottawa, does he realize that he is skewing
the figures?
Finally, with respect to the future of francophones outside
Quebec, one does not have to be a lawyer from Baie-Comeau to
realize that there is more to this than protecting the rights of
francophones, important though this may be. What has kept us
alive as a group in this country is critical mass. I am a
Franco-Ontarian, and personally I believe that in my country,
Quebec has played a major role in helping my language survive.
We must be realistic and look at the facts.
The United States has no Quebec with its critical mass. Did
the francophones there survive? No. The French fact is mere
nostalgia in Louisiana and nothing at all in the rest of the United
States, although originally there were more francophones in the
United States than in Canada. Why? Because they did not have
the critical mass or percentage. And that is what the Prime
Minister means when he says that the francophones in Quebec
are important to the survival of us all in Canada. Francophones
in Quebec have helped to differentiate us from the Americans.
We owe them that. We are a different country largely because of
them. And anyone who says that we can take this out of Canada
and everything will remain the same is wrong. Never mind about
being politically correct. The truth is right there.
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to this. First, I
respect the cultural solidarity mentioned by the hon. member.
However, I do not have much respect for his mathematical
skills.
Let us take his first argument. Indeed, Quebec is certainly, for
French-speakers outside its borders, an important focal point,
and it will continue to be unless the Government of Canada tries
to enforce a violent opposition to it, which I doubt.
(1325)
Now, for the mathematical part. The National Capital Region
is not only the Ottawa side, it also includes, whether you like it
or not, the other side of the river, that is Hull and Gatineau. You
know that, Mr. Speaker, I am sure. When the hon. member says
that bilingual public servants in the National Capital area serve a
Franco-Ontarian population, I expect they also serve a Quebec
population. Otherwise, this would be tantamount to abuse.
This aside, when I compared Quebec with the rest of Canada, I
took care to say, and I repeat, that I was excluding the National
Capital area, both from Quebec and from the rest of Canada. I
am therefore comparing apples with apples and oranges with
oranges. However, the hon. member may find it to his advantage
to skew reality. As he said, let us leave political correctness
aside and let us show things as they are. We give 57 per cent
more service to English-speaking persons in Quebec, than
French-speaking persons receive in the rest of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the member for Portneuf who is
always able to put his thoughts together and present them in such
an engaging way.
Does the member for Portneuf think there is even a prayer of a
chance that the French fact will be able to survive outside
Quebec even to the degree that it does today if Quebec were to
decide to separate. Why would the rest of Canada treat the
French minority outside Quebec any differently from any other
linguistic minority? Why should it treat it any differently in the
absence of Quebec?
I would also ask the member for Portneuf to comment on the
fact that we feel we have an obligation to represent and to be
considerate of the French language minorities particularly in the
west. The reality of the situation is that the French language
minority in my city is the third, fourth or fifth language. It
comes after Ukrainian and now Chinese. How should these
minorities be treated vis-à-vis English and vis-à-vis French?
The hon. member also mentioned the disparity in incomes and
that the income of French speaking Canadians in Quebec has
gone up over the last few years relative to French speaking
Canadians outside Quebec. I wonder if that could not be in part
3147
because of the rise of the entrepreneurial class within Quebec
and the outflow migration from Quebec of anglophones.
As a final parting shot, I would like to mention the irony of
getting a lesson in minority language rights for the rest of
Canada from the perception of the rest of Canada having been a
witness to Quebec Bill 101 knowing the rancour and disbelief
generated in the rest of Canada by Bill 101. There is some irony
to now be getting this lesson in understanding.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the hon. member
for Portneuf, I have to tell him that he will have as much time as
the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest used.
[English]
Mr. de Savoye: I am surprised at being asked how we think
this or that could work. We are not the ones putting forward a
motion. The Reform Party is putting forward a motion. They
should tell us how things would work for the French speaking
communities outside Quebec.
(1330 )
How will the Reform Party ensure that these French
communities evolve and the French speaking people get good
jobs and good salaries? They are the ones who should be
supplying those answers.
What we are saying is that Quebec, as a sovereign state, will
continue and enhance its effort to support all French speaking
communities from coast to coast. That has been pledged over
and over again. I am not going to explain why I believe these
people will make it. They have done so against tremendous odds
up to now. Hopefully if the laws of the country continue to
support bilingualism and if-this is the second if-they are
implemented correctly, which they are not at the time, then these
communities will be able to sustain themselves.
However, I am asking the question again. It is not for me to
answer those questions. The Reformers are putting forward a
motion. Let them support how it will work in the real world for
the French speaking communities from coast to coast or do they
want them to be eradicated?
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, before I start
my speech I would like to make a comment to answer the final
remarks of the previous speaker who talked about when Quebec
is a sovereign state it will look after its language policy from
coast to coast.
We understand that if Quebec ever becomes a sovereign
nation it will not have to worry about coast to coast because the
small shore of the St. Lawrence will be the only coast that it has.
The motion put forward today shows that the Reform Party
has concern as a federalist party for Quebec, for French and for
our language policy from shore to shore, and let it always be
from shore to shore.
The Official Languages Act is designed to ensure that the
people of the province of Quebec and French speaking people
from elsewhere in Canada have the opportunity to be able to
participate and enjoy the benefits of this country using their own
language. That is why we want to discuss it today because
unfortunately the language act is not working.
In 1968 the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, mentioned in
the throne speech the need to create some linguistic justice in the
country and to forestall what was perceived to be Quebec
separatism. In his speech, Mr. Trudeau said:
You will-be asked to consider measures relating to-citizenship, to national
symbols, to cultural agencies-Some of these proposals involve the righting of
wrongs and others the opening of opportunities long denied. Together they
exemplify the essential connection between justice and national unity.
Unfortunately he did not adopt the recommendations of the
language commission that had reported up to that point in
introducing territorial bilingualism. He introduced a personal
bilingualism. As I mentioned, it was to forestall Quebec
separatism that was seen to be rising again. Little did he think,
back in 1968, as he sat in that seat over there that after 25 years
the present Prime Minister would be looking across the floor at
54 MPs who are committed to taking Quebec out of this country.
Unfortunately it demonstrates that the Official Languages Act
has not worked.
We need change to ensure that they stay in this country, that
they do not pack their bags and leave as the 52 people in this
House wish to do.
Language fractures a country. In a multicultural,
multi-language situation, it is perhaps the most divisive thing
that we have to deal with, not only in this country but we see it
around the world. A large part of the tensions in Yugoslavia
today are racial, ethnic and language oriented. The divisions in
the Soviet Union are degenerating into nationalism and cultural
ethnic groups and language again. Around the world language is
a problem.
(1335)
However, we thought that we were mature enough to work
together and achieve some sort of harmony. We thought we
could work together and overcome our difficulties. However,
the unfortunate thing is we cannot legislate morality and we
cannot legislate the way people think.
Therefore, if we are to have harmony in language let us
recognize that the road ahead will be difficult. We have to work
3148
together to bring about acceptance of the need and the
recognition that Canadians speak more than one language.
The French and the English go back a long way to 1608 when
Samuel de Champlain first landed in this country. At times the
French language dominated and the English language has
dominated at times. It has see-sawed back and forth and through
the accidents of history the English language now dominates.
However, we recognize the rights of the French speaking people
in this land. We want them to be recognized. We want to ensure
that they have a place in Canada.
We want to ensure that the Official Languages Act is changed
so that when we have another election there will no longer be 54
people sitting in the House who are dedicated to breaking up the
country. We want 295 people in this House who are committed to
working together and staying together.
The Reform Party has addressed the problem and it has said,
let us go back to the commission that was formed in the 1960s
which reported that we should have territorial bilingualism.
Obviously the personal style of bilingualism does not work
which is why we have these 54 people here today.
Let us recognize that we should change the system in order for
it to work better. We want the French to speak in their own
language, we want the English to speak in their own language.
We do not want to shove another language down people's throats
if they do not want it. That is what generates the backlash.
We should also try and defuse language as an issue. From
1867 to 1969 there were virtually no language laws in this
country. We have to get back to the recognition that the fewer
laws we have in this field the better and the more harmony and
desire we have to make it work the better. That is why as
Reformers we propose that language become a provincial issue
rather than a federal one. Let each province decide which
language is going to be spoken in the province, bearing in mind
that each must account and accommodate the language where
population warrants, that it be French, English or both.
That is why we put this motion today, to elevate the need to
talk about this before the 54 Bloc Quebecois get their agenda on
track and march right out of here.
If the 54 Bloc Quebecois members take Quebec out of this
country they have left behind the thousands of French speaking
Canadians in the rest of the provinces. They will be left hanging
high and dry with absolutely no support. They will be alienated
from the people in Quebec. The Bloc will be doing these people
a great disservice. That is why I say to these people, work toward
making federalism work rather than packing a bag and leaving.
We have invested a great deal of money over the years. Even
Mr. Spicer, the first language commissioner said that perhaps we
should add it all up and find out how much we are talking about
and what it costs us. He said:
But surely there is merit in keeping more meaningful accounts. Without them, those
dealing language reform will have to continue waffling under the recurring question of
costs-hearing but being unable to contradict convincingly such deliciously polemical
estimates-as ``three billion dollars a year for bilingualism.'' It would seem more
sensible to pull the whole lot of linguistic items together, specify the purpose of each,
tote up the terrifying sum, add on ten per cent for indirect or integrated costs, then
publish and defend the thing as a high but necessary price for being Canadian.
(1340)
That was Mr. Spicer, the first Commissioner of Official
Languages quite some number of years ago. Today we have all
kinds of numbers being thrown out. How much does it cost, $2
billion, $4 billion? We do not know.
We do know we pay $50 million a year as a bonus to people
who speak two languages in the federal civil service whether
that is required of their job or not. We know that we spend
hundreds of millions of dollars on other aspects, translation,
bilingual commissions; $200 million for education. The cost
adds up, but how much? We do not know.
Mr. Spicer said quite some number of years ago: ``Let us add
it up. Let us find how much. Tell Canadians what it costs us and
let that be the price for keeping this country together''.
As I have said many times, the Reform Party wants Canada to
stay together. We want a language policy that will bind us
together in unity and understanding. The official language
policy as it currently stands will not work and must be changed.
That is why we brought the item to the forefront today.
Let us sit down and develop a new structure. Let us not adopt
the attitude of the Bloc Quebecois and say: ``That's it. If you
can't tolerate it, go''. Let us tell the Bloc Quebecois not to be
selfish and walk out on this great experiment that has been
Canada.
We have said to the Leader of the Opposition, and we have
said to other members of the Bloc Quebecois: ``Let us sit down
and define a new federalism''. They said: ``No. If a question is to
be put on a ballot on a referendum in Quebec it will be a choice
of what we have today or separatism''. They have said that they
are not interested in sitting down and making this experiment
called Canada work. That is tremendously unfortunate for the
27.5 million Canadians-that includes French
Canadians-right across this land and the French Canadians in
the province of Quebec who want to be in Canada, who want this
country to stay together.
3149
That is why it is vitally important that we sit down and
develop a brand new act so that after the next election a majority
government of Reformers will be running the country and no
Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank my colleague for his comments.
He will agree that when we have these debates we must be
very careful that what we say is founded in truth and reasoned
analysis and not in rhetoric.
He said several times in his remarks that the presence of the
Bloc is due to Canada's official languages policy. I submit to
him that the presence of the Bloc is actually due, as is the
presence of the Reform Party, to the failure of the previous
Conservative government to retain the confidence of the people.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Official Languages Act.
I would further say that he and a previous speaker have made
several references to language as a cause of dissension and some
unfortunate incidents in the past. A specific reference was made
for example to the Acadian expulsion.
I submit that the expulsion of the Acadians had nothing to do
with language. It was a case in the 18th century of what is today
known as ethnic cleansing. The Acadians were removed not
because they spoke French but because they were of a different
religion and because they were an economic and a military
liability in Nova Scotia at that time.
I would further say that if he looks back in the past at the type
of impartiality that the Reform Party prides itself in he will
discover that the history of English people has shown a
tremendous tolerance for French. Throughout the middle ages
and throughout the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries and even the
19th century most of the upper classes, shall we say, and the well
educated people in England and the British possessions spoke
French regularly. Indeed, this tolerance for the other language
existed into the 19th century. He is blaming language for
something for which language is not responsible. Language is
basically a form of communication. The better we understand
one another's language the better we can understand one another
and the better we can overcome the type of tribalism that may be
characteristic of the type of principles that the Bloc stands for.
The Bloc represents the same type of people that I belong to,
other Canadians.
(1345)
The language enables us to reach out to one another. I think we
Canadians have to do everything in our power to make sure that
as many Canadians have the opportunity to speak both
languages as we possibly can.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, in some ways I think the hon.
member should have been over on this side writing Reform
speeches because we agree with some parts of what he says.
There is no question in my mind that the language policy of
Canada today has in some way created the fact that we have 54
people sitting there today.
In 1968, as I said, there were divisions in this country. There
was a desire to achieve linguistic justice in this country. Mr.
Trudeau, the Prime Minister at that time, addressed it by
introducing a languages act. He went against the
recommendations of the commission that said ``territorial
bilingualism'' and introduced the concept of ``personal
bilingualism''. If Mr. Trudeau thought he had separatism in
1968, he had no idea what separatism would mean in 1994 in this
very House.
The hon. member also talked about how the English language
tolerates French and other languages from around the world. I
think that is true. We as Reformers and as English speaking
Canadians are bending over backward to try and do what we can
to ensure that this country is good for everybody, coast to coast.
We only ask that we get the same kind of recognition as
Canadians from the people in Quebec who feel that because they
have been slighted in some small way that they should pack their
bags and leave, which will be the destruction of their own
economy and perhaps the destruction of the Canadian economy
as well.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member mentioned that the Bloc does not want to make
this experiment called Canada work. I wonder in light of some of
the comments of the Reform member using such terms as
``dominance of English in this country'' and ``Quebec with only
a shore along the St. Lawrence'' whether that is an attempt to
hasten the separation of Quebec from Canada rather than trying
to heal any wounds and whether that is the goal of the Reform
Party, to hasten Quebec leaving this country rather than trying to
live in a country that compromises and has two official
languages.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves.
Seventy-five per cent of Canadians are English speaking and 25
per cent of Canadians are French speaking. In our neighbouring
country to the south there are 250 million people who speak
English. If the province of Quebec goes alone and forms a
separate country it is going to be a French speaking island in the
sea of English speaking North America. It is going to be lost in a
big sea with no friends. No anglophone group will be there to
help it. If its language and economy are to be preserved, it would
be far better off in a larger group such as Canada than by itself. If
it sets out on its own and feels it is going to preserve French with
no friends whatsoever, it is going to be totally dominated by the
cultural impact of the rest of North America.
3150
With regard to the hon. member's other point about the
shoreline of the north shore of the St. Lawrence, it is a fact that
that is what Quebec would have. It is far better to recognize the
facts and call them for what they are than to pussyfoot around
and let the people of Quebec or the 54 MPs from Quebec who
advocate separation push the Liberals around.
(1350 )
They have been pushed around for so long that we have found
ourselves in the situation where our country is at risk. Let us
recognize the problem, deal with it aggressively and solve it
once and for all.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I did not intervene immediately for a very good reason;
I wanted to hear the comments from both sides on the speech the
Reform Party member just made. I think members interpret in
various ways and disparage the reason why there are 54
members of the Bloc Quebecois in this House. I believe that
some members live in a hothouse, totally disconnected from
reality.
I would like to ask the Reform Party, and particularly the
member who just spoke, where they were at the time of the
Meech Lake Agreement and of the Charlottetown Agreement,
when English Canada twice said no to Quebec. Where were they
then? Maybe they will understand the reason for the Bloc
Quebecois being present in this House, they will understand why
54 out of 75 members are here to defend Quebec's interests, to
advocate and promote Quebec sovereignty.
Since we are drifting slightly away from the Reform Party's
motion on bilingualism, it is easy to present various ideas and
explanations, but in the member's speech, I never understood, I
never saw any concrete measures-we are talking here about
Quebec separating from Canada and I think both sides are
speaking as if it were a fact, as if Quebec were separated
already; but what are you going to do with the francophones? I
understand the Reform Party members when they say that they
will welcome everybody and treat all minorities very well. But
they never made any concrete suggestions. What exact measures
will the Reform Party put into place for francophones outside
Quebec when Quebec becomes sovereign?
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the question deserves one
answer. We are working very hard to keep Quebec in Canada. We
are proposing a new way of handling the official languages in
this country. That will ensure that there is French available for
Canadians coast to coast for the people who wish to speak in the
French language.
That can be done best by ensuring that everybody, including
the 54 Bloc Quebecois MPs who want to work for the benefit of
their constituents, has an opportunity to work and communicate
in the language of their choice in this great country called
Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: The time is up for questions and
comments. Resuming debate. I believe the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage intends to divide
her time.
[Translation]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, the Reform
Party has put before the House today a motion asking the
government to amend the Official Languages Act so that French
can be the predominant language in Quebec and English the
predominant language in the rest of the country. Reformers also
want federal services to be available in the official language of
the minority where there is significant demand.
Obviously, the motion was drafted by someone who does not
understand the Official Languages Act very well or by someone
who wants to give a distorted image of the letter and the spirit of
the Act.
[English]
Who could deny within the Reform Party or elsewhere that
French is the predominant language of Quebec? Who could deny
that English is the predominant language of British Columbia,
Alberta, Ontario or Newfoundland?
Not only does the Official Languages Act do nothing to
change that, it recognizes it. It recognizes it by ensuring that
official language minorities have access to federal government
services where there is significant demand. This is much of what
the motion asks and it is what the act already does. What is new?
Perhaps it is only a new attempt to foster resentment and
discontent among Canadians.
I would advise the hon. members of the Reform Party to get
better acquainted with the official languages policy if they are
interested in meaningful debate based on facts, not simply
rumours or misconceptions. Perhaps they might read the
brochure ``Myths and Realities'' to see whether they are on the
side of myths or realities. Maybe then they will stop fighting
windmills and join with the government in tackling the real
problems of this country.
(1355)
[Translation]
The position taken by the Reform Party on the issue of official
languages more than proves they do not understand a thing about
government policy. It shows that they do not understand what
Canadian identity is all about. We know that the members of the
Bloc Quebecois want to break up Canada and ensure Quebec's
separation. That is very clear. The Bloc deals with its own
contradictions as it sees fit, but its basic option is without any
ambiguity whatsoever.
3151
Unknowingly, the Reform Party is also proposing the
break-up of Canada. They want to break up Canada by attacking
our Canadian values and the major policies, such as official
languages and multiculturalism, which unite our country.
[English]
Like sorcerers' apprentices our opposing friends would like to
throw away long held policies and workable solutions with total
disregard for the dire consequences which would fall upon
Canadian unity and Canadian identity.
Our task as parliamentarians is to reinforce unity, not
uniformity. Our mission is to contribute a sense of a country
which respects the many ways of being a Canadian.
Language and culture are sensitive issues in any society. They
touch the very essence of how people define themselves and
their place in society.
Public debates do not always honour the facts.
[Translation]
The Canadian people want policies that reflect such Canadian
values as dialogue, understanding, equity and mutual respect for
policies based on a definition of citizenship which includes
rights as well as responsibilities, for policies which urge all
Canadians to take their place in a pluralistic Canadian society.
However, do not attach too much value to labels like
multiculturalism, pluralism, diversity, bilingualism, linguistic
duality, official languages that go beyond minorities or to
semantics on which people do not necessarily agree. These
terms have one thing in common: they all refer to solutions
made in Canada. Canadians have tried to develop policies that
would reflect the various aspects of their society and the
challenges they face.
These very Canadian policies have been used and are still
used as models elsewhere, but they were made here, in Canada.
[English]
The raison d'être for our official languages policy is clear.
The presence of two significant language communities is one of
Canada's defining features. Ninety-eight point eight per cent of
Canadians speak either English or French and these are the
principal languages used by Canadians in their daily lives.
The official use of both English and French within the
institutions of the government has roots which even predate
Confederation. It is hard to look at Canada without seeing the
importance of these two languages within Canadian society.
Approximately one-quarter of Canadians have French as their
first official language and three-quarters have English. A
majority of both language groups are unilingual. Seven per cent
or over 1.5 million Canadians live in provinces where their first
official language is in the minority.
The value of languages is made clear in public opinion
surveys which show that three out of every four parents want
their children to learn the second official language.
This has resulted in large numbers of parents enrolling their
children in French immersion programs.
The Speaker: The hon. member still has approximately four
minutes. The hon. member will be given the floor when the
debate resumes.
It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the
House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
3151
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, recently a
small, close knit community in my riding was shocked at the
brutal killing of one of its own, Miss Joan Heimbeker of
Clifford, Ontario.
Her parents have lost a daughter, the community has lost a
friend and society has lost the potential of a shining young star.
The recent string of violent crime across the country has
disturbed the friendly and safe country which we all love. We as
Canadian law makers must take concrete action to ensure that
there is proper punishment and deterrents to crimes like this.
We must recognize the sorrow and anguish felt by the victims'
families and give them quick but fair justice so that they may try
to resume their lives without their loved ones.
Canadians look to their government to provide the judicial
system with the appropriate laws to deal with the realities of
today. Society needs to know that it is being protected from
violent offenders and that those violent offenders are given stiff
sentences for the crimes they commit.
The return of corporal punishment must be revisited as a
deterrent to these acts of atrocity.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, my
constituents and I wish to congratulate Mr. Jacques Sormany, a
biology and mathematics teacher at the Chicoutimi CEGEP, who
com-
3152
peted in the Dictée des Amériques, on March 26, and came first
in the Senior Professional category. Mr. Sormany is one of four
champions who successfully avoided the many pitfalls of this
dictation given by Antonine Maillet.
The three others are: Daniel Albert, in the Junior category;
Ronald Cawthorn, in the Senior category, French as a second
language; and Vincent Renaud, of Ottawa, in the Senior
Amateur category.
Two hundred candidates, divided into four categories, took
part in this event. They came from Quebec, Canada, Latin
America and the United States. We are proud of Mr. Sormany's
remarkable performance.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, whose responsibility is it to ensure Canadians, in this
case British Columbians, receive accurate and reliable
information on the drinking water and the methods used for
disinfection?
Is it the municipalities that form the local greater Vancouver
regional district boards and have direct input and control of the
poisons put in our water systems? Is it the province and the
greater Vancouver regional water district that together
contribute to the logging of our watersheds and thereby increase
the amount of sediment and organic material within our drinking
water and that gave our watersheds a new name, tree farm
licence No. 42?
Is it the federal government and the environment ministry and
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that could initiate a ban
on chlorine and all chlorinated compounds which have already
proven extremely toxic to fish? Is it our health departments that
should be aware of the many research reports clearly indicating
the increase in cancer and heart problems since chlorine has
been used in our water systems?
Canadians want honest answers and accountability.
* * *
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to be able to inform the House that full police service will
soon be restored to the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council
communities in Manitoba through the implementation of an
interim policing arrangement.
DOTC communities have been without full police service
since the disbanding of the DOTC police service five months
ago. This interim policing service will be made up of RCMP
officers and former DOTC officers under the general direction
of the RCMP.
The interim policing arrangement will remain in effect until a
more permanent tripartite policing arrangement is negotiated by
the federal government, the province of Manitoba and the
Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council.
I would like to express my thanks to the Solicitor General of
Canada, the Manitoba justice minister and the Dakota Ojibway
Tribal Council for their efforts. Without their goodwill and
co-operation this arrangement would not have been made.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
everywhere in the world-in the former Yugoslavia, in Central
Africa, and in the Far East-we see ethnic groups tear one
another to pieces because they cannot accept language, religious
or cultural differences.
(1405)
Freedom means the right to be different. A country's
greatness can be measured by how tolerant it is of differences
and how readily it welcomes them.
[English]
On behalf of my colleague from Don Valley North I invite all
MPs in this House to celebrate our love of this country by
participating in the citizenship ceremony to take place
tomorrow, April 19, at 1.40 p.m. in the hall just outside this
Commons chamber. I refer to that portion of this building known
as the Hall of Honour.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday marked a decade of remarkable social achievement in
Canada.
On April 17, 1984 the Canada Health Act received royal
assent, ensuring the availability of health care to all citizens.
Today we continue to cherish its five principles: universality,
accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public
administration.
Yet there is a need to control costs and still provide adequate
funding, to enhance efficient and effective use of resources and
to gain a broader understanding of the determinants of health.
Ten years ago a Liberal government triumphed over the dual
threat of user fees and extra billing. Today, with the national
forum on health chaired by the Prime Minister, this Liberal
government shall triumph again and face new challenges with
renewed vigour.
3153
We shall succeed because we believe in the five principles of
medicare. We shall succeed because medicare is a force for
national unity. We shall succeed because Canadians want us to
succeed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, according to
the
Commission de la construction du Québec, the Louvicourt
mining project in Abitibi is the largest industrial project in the
province of Quebec.
The Louvicourt project near Val-d'Or is on its way to
becoming the largest underground copper mine in Quebec.
Roughly $300 million will be invested until the construction
phase is completed. Testing of the concentrator will begin next
July, while underground systems will be operational in October
1994.
On behalf of all the residents of my riding of Abitibi, I want to
congratulate the Aur-Novicourt-Teck partnership and all those
involved in this venture which will employ hundreds of workers
and stimulate our region's economy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians were relieved and grateful this past weekend to learn
of the release of 16 of 17 Canadian UN personnel who had been
held hostage by Bosnian-Serb forces.
However, we are still very disappointed and dissatisfied with
these tactics and call upon the Bosnian-Serb leadership to order
and effect the immediate release of the remaining UN prisoners.
Furthermore, we call upon Bosnian-Serb leaders to honour
the ceasefire agreements arranged to stop hostilities in and
around Gorazde and to come to the negotiating table prepared
and willing to work toward a solution which will result in peace
in Bosnia.
Canadians have no wish to take sides in the situation in Bosnia
nor do we ascribe blame to any one group over another.
Canadians do think that this is the time for all three ethnic
communities to come together, negotiate with openness and
good faith to end the fighting and build a lasting peace.
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to recognize that 12 years ago yesterday, April 17,
1982, on the front lawns of the Parliament Buildings the
Canadian Constitution was repatriated.
A few days ago, last Friday, the Prime Minister at a ceremony
at Rideau Hall signed an amendment to that same Constitution
with Prince Edward Island.
Yes, federalism is alive and well in Canada and last Friday is
just another example of that.
The beauty of the Constitution and that of federalism is that
they contain the principles of pluralism, diversity and tolerance
in today's society.
I congratulate Canadians today. Federalism and the
Constitution represent the very fabric and the will of this great
nation and its people.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, this is Earth
Week which culminates in Earth Day on April 22. This is a time
to celebrate planet Earth, its ecosystems and the life forms that
inhabit it.
While we celebrate we should also think of ways to prevent
pollution and manage natural resources so that our children and
grandchildren will inherit a healthy planet and environmentally
sustainable resources. We are often reminded that all things are
interconnected and in the long term what we do to the soil, water
and air we do to ourselves.
(1410)
The United Nations conference on environment and
development made this point clear and produced agenda 21, a
document for decision makers to keep in mind not just this week
but all year round. Our actions must be guided by the knowledge
that we only have one planet on which to live. Therefore every
day is Earth Day.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, this past
weekend, the media reported that, according to the Equality
Party leader, Ottawa should take every necessary measure to
keep Quebec from becoming a sovereign state, including an
intervention of the army, even following a referendum vote in
favour of sovereignty.
We join together to denounce these shameful, irresponsible
and anti-democratic comments.
The right of Quebec to self-determination is no longer an
issue, nor is the peaceful, legitimate, legal and democratic
character of each stage leading our province to sovereignty.
[English]
We expect each and every member of this House to make sure
he or she joins us now in denouncing firmly this attitude which
3154
goes totally against one of Canada's most profoundly respected
values, the respect for democracy.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker,
today at noon debate began on a motion to amend the Official
Languages Act.
The motion put forward by the Reform Party would not
eliminate bilingualism or the Official Languages Act but would
make implementation of the act more practical and cost
effective.
We realize this issue is a sacred cow for the Liberals as they
are the authors of the act. However, we call on the government to
set its prejudices aside and listen to the points we make in an
objective and fair manner.
The Prime Minister often states in this House that Reform is
against official bilingualism and wants to eliminate it. This is
simply not true. We are merely against the implementation at
any cost attitude of the current and former governments.
I ask for hon. members opposite to listen carefully to what we
are saying today on this issue and put aside the rhetoric-
The Speaker: The time has expired. The hon. member for
Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, today marks the 25th anniversary of the Official
Languages Act in the province of New Brunswick.
We in New Brunswick are proud of the distinction of being the
only officially bilingual province in Canada.
[Translation]
Over the last 25 years, significant progress was achieved by
providing government services in both official languages to
each linguistic community. Every day, we can witness the
cultural, educational, social and economical benefits resulting
from this change.
[English]
As the anglophone parents of two young children, my wife
and I watch our boys grow up in an environment in which
knowing both official languages and embracing both cultures is
now the norm.
I know many join me in congratulating New Brunswick for its
25 years dedicated to the promotion of and leadership in official
languages legislation in Canada.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, the red
book said it and we did it: a youth employment strategy which
includes Youth Services Canada, youth internship, a summer
employment program, a youth learning strategy and the
improvement of student loans.
[Translation]
I invite everyone to applaud this initiative which will
translate into more jobs and a better future for young Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to congratulate the members of the West Ottawa Rotary
Club for their generous donation to research on schizophrenia.
They follow the fine example of Dr. Michael Smith's donation
of half his Nobel Prize, $.25 million, to schizophrenia research
and the $775,000 announced in his honour by our industry
minister.
Schizophrenia strikes one in a hundred Canadians, usually in
their late teens or early twenties. Forty per cent will attempt
suicide. Ten per cent will succeed. The rest will occupy one in 12
of our hospital beds, live homeless on the streets, or represent a
disproportionate share of the prison population. Yet
schizophrenia receives only a small fraction of the research
funds of many less prevalent diseases.
(1415)
I wear this iris today as the symbol soon to be adopted by the
Canadian Schizophrenia Society in support of more awareness
and research.
* * *
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, the anti-gun lobbyists
would have us believe that Great Britain has been very
successful in keeping its peasantry disarmed and docile. Tough
gun laws work they say.
A couple of weeks ago I discussed this with a Scottish gun
merchant. He told me: ``Great Britain is awash with illegal arms.
It is a lot quicker and easier to buy them in pubs than from me,
and cheaper too because there are no sales or import taxes''.
3155
Now, according to yesterday's Ottawa Sun the same situation
is developing here in Canada.
Our Minister of Justice should consider getting tough with
criminals and stop musing about his intent to further harass and
intimidate the millions of decent Canadian citizens who own or
wish to own firearms.
_____________________________________________
3155
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Everyone was relieved to learn of the release of the 16
Canadian peacekeepers who had been taken hostage last
Thursday by Serb forces near Visoko in Bosnia.
However, this news was tempered by the simultaneous
announcement that Serb tanks were advancing on Gorazde and
that the shellings of the Muslim enclave were intensifying.
Has the minister obtained sufficient assurances that Canadian
peacekeepers in Bosnia are safe, in particular their colleagues
who relieved them at the checkpoint in Visoko where the
hostage-taking incident occurred last Thursday?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I know that all members of this House were extremely
happy to hear the wonderful news over the weekend that,
following negotiations, the Canadian soldiers were finally
freed.
I can tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that Canadian
soldiers and those from other countries serving under the UN
flag face difficult situations while on duty, particularly when the
warring factions do not respect the peace agreements that have
been negotiated.
May I remind this House that in several regions of the former
Yugoslavia, peace agreements have been brokered and UN
peacekeepers are maintaining peace and order. Unfortunately,
agreements are being violated in certain regions and problems
have arisen. That is why we are stepping up our efforts to secure
peace among all factions throughout the former Yugoslavia.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, can the minister give us a status report on the situation
in Gorazde where Serb shellings have intensified and Serb tanks
have rolled into the city? Can he tell us if the UN has finally been
guaranteed the safety of the helicopters used to evacuate the
wounded?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, the situation is changing by the hour. According to the
latest information we received, an agreement in principle had
apparently been reached with the Bosnian Serbs and relative
peace was to return to that part of the country.
I cannot tell you what the situation is at this precise moment.
Intensive negotiations are continuing. However, I can tell the
House that the United Nations Security Council will be meeting
this afternoon to discuss the situation and that this morning,
NATO ambassadors were briefed on the situation in Bosnia.
(1420)
Obviously, our goal is to get all warring factions to come to an
agreement and to accept a peace plan for all of the territories of
the former Yugoslavia.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister not recognize that the advance of
Serb tanks on Gorazde and the violation of the ceasefire by Serb
artillery forces could jeopardize the peace process?
[English]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that we have seen very risky
operations on the part of the Bosnian Serbs. There is a genuine
effort involving the participation and the co-operation of the
Croatians, of the Muslims, in order to make some progress
toward peace.
Representations have been made at the highest levels with the
involvement of the Russian representative, the American
representative and also obviously the representative of the
United Nations.
We are doing our utmost to convince the Serbs it is in their
own interests to be part of these peace negotiations. We hope
they will understand it is in the interest of everybody, including
themselves, to come to the table and negotiate a total peace
settlement for the entire ex-Yugoslavia.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The issue of
MacLean's magazine published today contains new revelations
on the Ginn Publishing deal, this time implicating the current
Minister of Finance.
It says that the minister participated in a meeting with his
colleagues from Industry and Heritage before the government
authorized the sale of Ginn Publishing. The minister, through
his Nellmart Ltd. holding, owns three cinemas in Vancouver and
leases them to Famous Players, a Canadian subsidiary of
Paramount Communications.
Does the Minister of Finance confirm that he participated in
the meeting over this deal with his colleagues from Heritage and
Industry on February 16, two days before the government
authorized the sale of Ginn Publishing to Paramount, even
3156
though the minister has direct business links with Famous
Players, a Paramount subsidiary?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
have seen the article the member refers to. I wish to state
categorically that I personally had never discussed the Ginn
matter with the Minister of Finance until today when I saw the
article. I wished to confirm to him that my assistant was
misquoted in the article. No such discussion ever occurred.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's spokesperson was still quoted as saying:
``Martin participated in a meeting over the Ginn deal between
Manley and Dupuy.'' Who is telling the truth? Bill Milliken, the
spokesperson, or the minister?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, the
member seems to have trouble understanding my answer.
[Translation]
The spokesperson was misunderstood by the journalist. There
was no such meeting, and there were no discussions between
myself, the Minister of Heritage and the Minister of Finance. It
never happened.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure all Canadians want their government to
create a heritage all Canadians, especially young people and
future generations, can be proud of. But the Liberal
governments, past and present, have been leaving a heritage of
debt, taxes and joblessness.
(1425 )
The best job creation program for Canada's young people
would be a program of deficit reduction which would boost
investor and consumer confidence in the Canadian economy and
lead to lower taxes.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. Why is the government creating more debt to buy
mere temporary employment for a handful of people at $10,000
per temporary job instead of encouraging the creation of real
jobs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, on Friday we made the
announcement of the different initiatives.
When I left the meeting I was approached by a number of
young people who are involved in a street kids organization in
Ottawa. They asked me whether I would be prepared to meet
with them because our announcement gave them some sense of
hope that somebody does care about them and is interested in
trying to help them get back into the labour market.
What we are trying to say to the hon. member is that maybe he
should try to have some of that same sense of caring for a
number of young people in society. They have had a tough time
being out of the labour market for years. Now they want to get
back in and this is a government that wants to help them do that.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, there is nothing more disillusioning to young people
than false hopes.
There is nothing wrong with leaf raking and sign painting but
these youth corps jobs are very short term. The debt the
government is creating is very long term as is the tax burden and
unemployment that young people will inherit from this Liberal
government. This phoney job corps reflects a 1970s mentality. I
expected disco music to be playing here in the House.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us if
any permanent jobs ever were created by the 1970s make work
projects? Can he tell us how many permanent jobs have been
destroyed by the high taxes and high interest rates driven by a
quarter century of Liberal and Tory deficits?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks about
programs that reflect a 1970s mentality. I would say the hon.
member's question reflects a 19th century mentality.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, it is really disappointing not to get any answer to a
question at all when we are looking after the benefit of young
Canadians and trying to create an atmosphere of hope for them.
I note the minister has been handing out some very nice youth
corps T-shirts and caps made out of canvas, suede and leather.
How much did these things cost? How many youth were
employed, if any, to make these souvenirs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, it is quite true we want young
people working in this national youth corps to be identified with
Canada.
They are providing a service to the community. They are
working on behalf of Canadians helping to clean up the
environment, to work with inner city children, to develop a
number of
3157
projects that will be of enormous service and contribution to this
country.
In this time and age when we particularly want young
Canadians to feel proud of their country we think there is
nothing wrong with wearing a maple leaf on their chests.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Faced with the amount of criticism of both the federal
government's intentions for the reform of social programs and
its way of proceeding, the Minister of Human Resources
Development had to cancel the federal-provincial conference
that was to take place this very day in Ottawa. Furthermore, the
impasse between Quebec and Ottawa on labour force training
continues.
Does the minister confirm that it is because other provinces
besides Quebec were strongly opposed to the government's
policies and procedure that he had to cancel the
federal-provincial conference at the last minute, something rare
if not unique, without first advising the Prime Minister?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is unaware of
some recent history.
To begin with all the first ministers and the Prime Minister
agreed in a meeting in late December that there must be a social
policy review. Since that time we have had two very important
rounds of meetings with ministers of all provincial
governments. We held them last January and last March.
Substantial areas of agreement were reached.
The reason we did not proceed with the meeting today is that
some provinces wanted more time. It seems only reasonable and
logical that in an important, complex process like this if some of
the parties want more time that we as a government that looks
toward co-operation would give them more time.
(1430)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. Given the gap that he is trying to hide between the
positions of his government, of certain provinces and of Quebec,
does the Minister, following the cancellation-and it is quite
something to cancel a federal-provincial conference at the last
minute; conference goers have seldom seen that
happen-promise to review his proposed reform of social
programs to make this reform meet the traditional aspirations
and demands of Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, this hon. member should take a
look at a few books dealing with federal-provincial relations
over the last 120 years. If she thinks this is a great change in
precedent, I would suggest that it is quite the opposite. Any
federal-provincial meetings must contain a number of
adaptations.
By the way, this is not a cancellation, simply a postponement.
We have asked our officials to sit down and look at certain areas
where they want more time, where we can share more
information and that is all.
I suggest to the hon. member that her party's attempts to
create some great alarmist crisis out of this event is simply one
more effort by them to try to undermine federalism in this
country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Last week several ministers and provincial counterparts
complained that the minister has no interest in genuine
consultation as far as social reforms are concerned. They
suggested that the minister is trying to ram through his own
ideas rather than looking for fresh input.
Does this minister already have a specific proposal in mind to
present to the provinces? If so, why is he pretending to seek
input through consultation?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I would be very interested in
receiving, and I ask the hon. member to table, exactly what
provincial ministers he is quoting. When I received calls from
provincial ministers and spoke to them on Friday, no one said we
were trying to ram something through.
If the hon. member is going to make charges of that kind,
putting words in the mouths of provincial ministers, he owes it
to the House to table those reports.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
Is this minister truly committed to working with the
provincial ministers on social reform or is this consultation
process just a sham?
3158
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the
question is yes. The answer to the second part is no.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, after being
told last Friday that Quebec's refusal to take part in the
federal-provincial conference on social programs reform was
one of the main reasons that had prompted the Minister of
Human Resources Development to cancel the conference, the
minister went ahead and announced his own youth program.
Does the minister recognize that his six-point strategy is the
work of civil servants working in isolation here, in Ottawa,
without regard for provincial areas of responsibility, the
consensus in Quebec on the matter and the waste of public
money due to extensive duplication at present?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member said is
incorrect. A meeting was held about a month ago, at which time
we discussed all of these youth initiatives with the provincial
ministers. A consultation process was also established at that
time. So, what the hon. member is saying is wrong and I ask him
to apologize.
(1435)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, before
introducing several new youth programs, would the minister not
agree to say that Quebec already administers several programs
in that particular area, including the Volunteer Youth Action
Program? Did the minister make a point, before taking such
actions, of calculating the exact cost of the overlap he is creating
with his new program?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, there are over 400,000 young
people in this country without employment.
It would seem to me that any effort, whether it is by local
governments, provincial governments or the federal
government to help those people should be welcomed, not
attacked.
We have talked to the provinces. We have worked out ways in
which we would work in co-operation to make sure there is no
overlap. The program we produced on Friday is a national
program that affects Canadians from one part of the country to
the other. It allows young people to travel from one part of the
country to the other to see what a great country we really have.
That is why it is so different from programs offered
exclusively by provinces. It a national program with national
objectives with a national perspective in mind.
If the hon. member was not representing the kind of party and
ideology that he is, he would be one of the first to applaud our
attempts to work with the provinces to help young people.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister in his concern for public safety must be
aware that there are approximately 1,000 criminals facing
deportation currently free on the streets of Toronto. Not only
that but there are another 400 prisoners about to be released who
have deportation warrants pending against them.
People in Toronto and across the country are upset and
concerned about safety in their streets. What is the Prime
Minister going to do to ensure that these criminals are deported
immediately upon their release from prison?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, first of all the
reports are incorrect.
There are not 400 prisoners currently. There are 200. They are
in the prisons and in the jails at this time serving out their
sentences. At the end of the service of their sentences due
process and the immigration department will ensure that they
are returned to their countries of origin.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
One of the reasons for this backlog in deportations is the
shortage of deportation officers. I understand there are about
24,000 deportation orders across the country that are unable to
be acted upon.
Can the Prime Minister or the parliamentary secretary for
immigration explain why the immigration minister is not
reducing government red tape but instead is laying off a third of
the front line deportation officers in Toronto?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I again assure the
hon. member that the immigration department is following the
law of the land and following due process, that the number of
people to be deported will be handled by the minister and by the
department in due course and the hon. member should not worry.
3159
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
A task force study commissioned by the Quebec forum on
employment reveals that unemployment has resulted in a $32
billion loss for Canada. Moreover, the study shows that
Canada's unemployment rate is higher than that of most
industrialized countries.
Will the minister confirm the conclusion of the study, to the
effect that the recent lowering of the unemployment rate is
primarily due to a reduction in the number of people looking for
work, and not to job-creating activities?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt, and
we have said so ourselves, that the real reason for the lower
unemployment rate is a reduction in the number of job
applications.
However, it must be pointed out that, for the most recent
month, we created 48,000 jobs, and a total of 114,000 over the
last two months, which is almost a record for the last five or six
years. Consequently, the government is very proud of its
performance. However, the hon. member is absolutely right
regarding the enormous cost of unemployment.
(1440)
In fact, this is one of the reasons why, unlike the Reform
Party, we believe that, to lower the deficit, we must not only
make cuts, but also stimulate employment. This is the best
approach to a more reasonable deficit and a more adequate
financial situation.
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr.
Speaker, when does the minister intend to put forward a true
job-creating strategy? Does he realize that, by not lowering UI
contributions to $3 now, he delays for one year the 40,000 jobs
which he planned to create in 1995 with this budget measure?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I should point out, and
this is why our approach is a well-balanced one, that the deficit
must be lowered to stimulate employment and to foster
economic stability in our country.
We would love to lower UI contributions now, but we need
money to do that and we need the UI reform which will be
proposed by my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
When you look at the budget initiatives regarding
apprenticeship programs, if you co-operated with us, instead of
stubbornly objecting to the measures put forward by my
colleague to help young people and to train older workers, we
could create many more jobs.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Young women are smoking at a much higher rate than are
males of the same age. This is especially disturbing in light of
the news that U.S. tobacco companies are adding some 600
chemicals to their cigarettes, 13 of which have been proven
hazardous to human health.
What steps is the minister taking to ensure that Canadian
cigarette manufacturers make the public aware of all such
additives in their products?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member raises an issue of concern to all Canadians.
All Canadians have a right to know what is included in the
tobacco products they smoke, what goes into their lungs and
what goes into the atmosphere around them.
I am determined to bring all pressures to bear on Canadian
companies to also disclose the list of ingredients which are
included in their tobacco products. If they do not then Canadians
can take it for granted that the 599 ingredients listed in the U.S.
are perhaps those that are included in Canadian cigarettes.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
We are still trying to find out the true cost of the official
languages program in Canada. For example, the commissioner
states that the armed forces spent $35 million on bilingualism
last fiscal year. The department gives the cost as $47 million but
adds that the cost may actually be much higher.
Will the minister admit that his government does not know the
real cost of bilingualism and will he establish an accurate
system to determine the total cost?
The Speaker: I would submit that the debate today is
partially on this question. However, I will permit the hon.
minister to answer the question if he so desires.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, all the figures concerning expenditures by the
Canadian government on official languages are contained in the
report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. I could refer
to the pages if need be but they are all there.
3160
The total amount, if the member takes the time to add up these
figures, is $601 million for the whole policy for the fiscal year
1993-94.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I am
merely responding. My initial question was to the comments
made by the minister last week that they do not really know the
true cost. I am wondering how we are going to determine that.
The first Commissioner of Official Languages, Keith Spicer,
said in 1975: ``It would seem more sensible to pull the whole lot
of linguistic items together, tote up the terrifying sum, then
publish and defend the thing''.
Two decades later we still do not know the true cost. Will we
have to wait another two decades before we see Mr. Spicer's
proposals put into practice?
(1445)
The Speaker: I think there is a question at the end. The
Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I did not say at any time that we did not know what the
cost was. If the hon. member wants a breakdown I will give the
cost. The exact breakdown is $297 million for services, $292
million for the promotion of languages and $12 million for the
Commissioner of Official Languages. The total is $601 million.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Recently, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
confirmed that the government was to review the status of 4,500
Chinese nationals who had been denied political refugee status
but were allowed to remain in Canada because of the human
rights situation in China. These people may now be deported,
which would obviously have a negative impact on their personal
safety.
Since the repression of all forms of dissidence has increased
in China, as pointed out by Amnesty International, does the
minister realize that by proceeding with the deportation of these
Chinese nationals, we are putting their lives at risk?
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the minister is
very aware and tracks human rights' problems world-wide. No
one will be removed from Canada to situations where they will
be put in danger.
The minister has promised a final resolution on many of these
cases by the summer. The question of human rights and the
safety of these people will be taken into account as a first
priority.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister realize that pursuant to a decree
passed recently by the Chinese government, these people, upon
returning to China, may face jail terms of up to two years and
fines representing up to a year's salary?
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I wish to again
reassure the hon. member that the minister is very aware of the
situation in China. His department continues to monitor the
situation.
I reiterate again, as the minister has said on several previous
occasions, that we do not and will not remove people to
countries where their lives or freedoms would be threatened.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
It was less than six months ago that the Tory patronage train
was permanently derailed by the people of Canada. It now
appears that the Liberal government has launched its own gravy
train. Three passengers were picked up last week: a Liberal
campaign manager, a minister's official agent and an
unsuccessful Liberal candidate.
The Liberal red ink book promised to end the Tory practice of
choosing political friends for appointments. Can the Prime
Minister explain for the people of Canada why he has broken
this promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, a
lot of appointments were made last Friday. Some of them were
Liberals. We named a Lieutenant Governor who had been a
member of the assembly in Saskatchewan for many years and
who is the first farmer to be appointed Lieutenant Governor in
almost 50 years.
We named a woman who, yes, ran for the Liberal Party. She is
a lawyer. She has been appointed to the port authority of Quebec
City where she lives. She is a very competent woman. I will not
apologize for that.
According to Mr. Gallup, 55 per cent of the people are Liberal
these days. Should we disqualify 55 per cent of the Canadian
population from serving the Canadian government?
3161
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister uses the same hollow defence of patronage made
famous by Brian Mulroney: ``All my friends are qualified''.
If the Prime Minister is serious about ending the political
abuse of patronage, will he commit to making this process both
transparent and available for public scrutiny?
(1450 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
many of the jobs are advertised and people can apply for them. If
the hon. member had any guts he would point out which of these
three people is not qualified for the jobs that have been offered
to them.
You cannot be unfair to people because they believe in
democracy and are trying to get a party elected. Who is
complaining because I named a former Tory minister in Ontario
the chief justice of Ontario. Nobody got up to congratulate me
for that. Who is complaining because I named the former
Speaker as an ambassador? He is a competent person but sat in
the House as a Tory. I will not apologize for that and I will not
disqualify someone who had the judgment to vote Liberal.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Now that Ukraine has voted in a new Parliament and is
searching for means to strengthen its infrastructure and its
economy, what role will the Canadian government play in its
foreign policy relations with Ukraine?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, first of all I want to thank the hon. member for giving
me notice of his question. I want to thank him and those with
him who participated as Canadian observers to the elections in
Ukraine. A number of parliamentarians, senators, MPs and
representatives of various Ukrainian organizations in Canada
were willing to devote some of their time to go there to witness a
country moving to a democratic process. It is to the credit of all
those who accepted to serve in these circumstances.
To specifically answer his question I want to assure him that
Canada is committed to co-operating with the authorities in
Ukraine to move this country toward a more democratic society,
to move this country toward a market economy, and certainly to
increase trade and good relations with the people of Ukraine.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The cabinet has adopted guidelines for awarding government
contracts for advertising or opinion polls.
Under these guidelines, a minister will be able to award
contracts at his own discretion to an advertising agency or
polling firm, without necessarily having to go with the lowest
bidder.
Does this new cabinet guideline mean that the government is
prepared to waste public funds for the benefit of friends of the
party?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
no guidelines have been issued yet. The question is still before
cabinet, and as soon as we are ready, the guidelines will be
tabled.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is also directed to the Prime Minister.
With its refusal to adopt strict guidelines for awarding
contracts to advertising agencies or polling firms, does the
government mean that Liberal favouritism is not as bad as
Conservative favouritism?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
obviously his supplementary was prepared before he rose in the
House, because the guidelines have not yet been finalized.
In other words, the first answer applies to the second question
as well.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The Deloitte and Touche draft audit of the Métis Society of
Saskatchewan identified that minutes of the society's meetings
were tampered with. Métis society members have been denied
access to this draft audit.
Can the minister tell the House how he plans to deal with these
irregularities and enforce the law?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the audit has not yet been
completed or made public. I expect it will be made public by the
end of the month and at that time I will comment on it. I do not
think it is appropriate for me to offer comment before it is public
and in the hands of members of the House.
3162
(1455)
I can say that information about the audit appears to be, at
least to some extent, in the public domain. I deplore the leaking
of any information about an audit that is not yet completed and
released publicly.
I can inform the House that as far as the Department of Justice
is concerned we are making inquiries to ensure that no
information was inappropriately leaked by anyone at the
department under the authority of the Department of Justice.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
Core funding for the Métis Society of Saskatchewan is
provided by the minister's department. Can he assure the House
that no fiscal 1994-95 funds will be released to the society until
the investigation is completed and the financial mismanagement
addressed?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, an audit is now going on. Until we see the results of the
audit it would be premature to pass judgment on the
performance of this group.
* * *
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister and seeks clarification.
A few weeks ago he made a statement in regard to human
rights and trade that quite frankly disturbed a lot of Canadians.
In a statement he made in a scrum he seemed to imply that
Canada's policy varies according to the country being dealt
with. If we are dealing with China, we are just too small to have
any influence. But if it is Haiti or Somalia then our principles are
not be the same. In other words, name me your country and I will
name you my principles.
The Prime Minister knows that Canada's policy approach
goes back 30 years to the days of the Right Hon. John
Diefenbaker and that every government has subsequently
adopted the same approach.
I would like to know from the Prime Minister exactly what is
Canada's policy now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have a policy of protecting human rights and we raise that
question with every country when it is involved.
In the question the hon. member referred to, I answered that
when there is an international boycott we participate in the
international boycott. When there is no international boycott
and we have trade relations we have to maintain those trade
relations. That is exactly what I tried to explain. If the member
did not understand, that is what I said.
We are not happy with the level of human rights in China and
we protest. We always mention them. However, we want to do
business with China.
In my view it is very important that we do business with these
countries because not only will it have an economic benefit, but
the more open a country like that becomes the greater is the
chance that eventually human rights will be respected.
The hon. member referred to Haiti or Somalia. When there
was an international boycott, Canada was there trying to help
while still respecting the boycott. We did that and we were the
last ones.
For example, concerning South Africa, we supported the
government that was here before that unfortunately is not very
well represented in the House any more.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Last week, the Standing
Committee on Agriculture unanimously requested that the
government impose a one-year moratorium on the sale of the
BST growth hormone. This moratorium reflects the wishes of all
the farming organisations and consumer associations in Canada.
Is the Prime Minister ready to follow through with the
committee's unanimous recommendation and take the necessary
steps for the government to impose a one-year moratorium on
BST?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Health answered this question which has been
asked several times already. If the committee made a unanimous
recommendation in this respect, the Minister of Agriculture will
take it into account, and if this issue comes under the Minister of
Health's jurisdiction, she will take it into account and will report
to the House in due course.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We eagerly await the
release of a new package on the east coast fisheries, meanwhile
several problems on the west coast demand immediate attention.
(1500)
For instance, in 1989 and 1990 fish in Fergus Creek in Surrey
were killed by chloramine, a chemical used on a trial basis as a
secondary disinfectant.
3163
Is the minister prepared to disallow the use of chloramine by
the greater Vancouver regional district in order to protect
salmon and other marine life?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his question and advise him that
I met just before question period with the AFAWU from British
Columbia in my office to discuss a wide range of issues
affecting the province of British Columbia.
With respect to the member's question I quite frankly am
unable, because I am not properly prepared, to answer the
question, although I will take the matter under advisement. I
want to assure him that anything that interferes in a serious way
with habitat and fish will be investigated and a stop put to it if
the problem is as serious as has been described.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
There are several francophone communities outside Quebec.
For instance, in my riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt, the
francophones in Saint-Isidore-de-Bellevue have worked very
hard to have their own school boards.
[English]
Can the minister tell me if the francophones of Saskatchewan
and across Canada can count on this government to protect their
language and culture?
[Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, in October 1993, the federal government concluded a
special agreement with Saskatchewan regarding school
governance, under which the federal contribution will amount to
roughly $22 million over six years.
On top of these special measures, in 1993-1994, the federal
government contributed nearly $3.6 million to this province
under a bilateral agreement regarding minority language
training.
And lastly, the government is also supporting the
development of the francophone community in general through
a three-year $10 million Canada-communities agreement, and a
framework agreement with the Saskatchewan government
regarding translation services and the setting up of a
francophone affairs co-ordination office. The francophone
community in Saskatchewan is being well treated.
[English]
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of the hon. Mr. Wammuhamadnoor
Matha, First Deputy House Speaker and leader of the Thai
delegation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, one of the ministers in answering a question challenged
a member to table a document. I have such a document, if the
minister would still like it tabled.
It is an article from the Globe and Mail that quotes Tony
Silipo, Ontario's minister of community and social services,
who said: ``Mr. Axworthy heard very clearly from a number of
us provincial ministers at our last meeting-
The Speaker: If there is unanimous consent of the House a
private member can table a document. Is there unanimous
consent to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: It is not agreed.
_____________________________________________
3163
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1505)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-237, an Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act
(priority of claims).
He said: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the fruits of our labours
are sacred. Unfortunately, when a business goes bankrupt,
wages are added to other debts and given no special status,
which means that in the event of a bankruptcy, employees are
deprived of what is owed them.
The purpose of this bill is to change the priority of claims
when an employer goes bankrupt, so that payment of an
employee's wages and pension fund, up to a total of $9,000,
takes priority over all other claims.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
3164
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege to present in the House a petition started last October
by a coalition of 24 organizations in the Saint-Maurice-Bois
Francs area, at the suggestion of the Third World solidarity
committee of Trois-Rivières.
This petition shows that 275 organizations throughout Quebec
have endorsed the demands of the coalition by a resolution of
their executive, which means that more than 350,000 Quebecers
not only support the substantial reduction of our military budget
but request that the amount saved be invested in the fight against
poverty, in jobs, health care, education, the environment, Third
World aid and reducing the deficit.
I was also given more than 6,600 cards signed by as many
people from my riding and across Quebec and containing the
same request for the Prime Minister of Canada. These cards do
not, however, meet the standards of the House for official
tabling, but I can assure petitioners that I will be glad to send
them all to the Prime Minister's office within the next few days.
The Third World solidarity committee of Trois-Rivières is to
be commended for its outstanding humanitarian initiative.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the Standing Orders, I wish to present a petition signed by 29
residents of my riding who request a referendum on the issue of
official bilingualism in Canada.
These people have the impression that we spend far too much
money on the policy of bilingualism in this country. I do not
share their views at all, but I nevertheless see it as my
democratic duty to inform the House of the views of my
constituents.
Mr. Plamondon: That kind of petition has been criticized
before. If he agrees, let him table them, but if he does not agree,
then he should not. He is under no obligation to do so under the
Standing Orders. This is just more hypocrisy.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Simcoe North, on the same point of order.
Mr. DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present the views
of my constituents, and I have every right to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Richelieu, again
on the same point of order.
(1510)
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The
Standing Orders make it very clear that if a member does not
agree with the substance of a petition, the member does not have
to table it. We are either for or against a petition. In the latter
case, we either return the petitions or ask a member who agrees
with the content to table them. We do not say: I am tabling the
petition but I do not agree with it. Let him stand up and be
counted. Either he agrees or he does not.
The Deputy Speaker: To be fair to everyone concerned, one
more last round. The hon. member for Simcoe North.
Mr. DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, of course I am against this
petition, but-
Mr. Plamondon: Do not table it!
Mr. DeVillers: It does not matter what the Standing Orders
say. I think it is my democratic duty to present the views of my
constituents.
[English]
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition which I am pleased to present and support.
It has to do with calling for a ban on the sale of killer cards, as
they are referred to, collector cards in Canada. The cards, as
most people know by now because there have been several other
petitions presented, feature the killer and a description of the
acts of the killer. I find it very repulsive but I think it is an
attempt to glamorize this repulsiveness and idealize it in the
minds of young people.
I am sure the killers, if they are in prison, must be flattered to
think that somebody was interested in their endeavours. I do not
know how in a civilized nation we can have this. It is an attempt
to desensitize this thing. I am very much against it and I am
pleading with the government to put in place legislation that
would prevent the display, the sale or the exchange of killer
cards in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This concerns
the last member who spoke. I have the following question for the
Chair: regarding the point of order raised earlier when the
petition was tabled, is the Chair prepared to examine the
Standing Orders and, for the benefit of members who are new
and not fully acquainted with the Standing Orders of this House,
possibly take the time to look into this matter and tell us whether
the hon. member who tabled the petition acted according to the
3165
Standing Orders or not? I would appreciate the Chair's opinion.
Perhaps the Chair could take this under advisement.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the case is closed, but since the
hon. member put his case quite reasonably, I will give it some
thought and get back to the House as soon as possible.
* * *
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House agree that all questions
be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3165
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage has four minutes
speaking time remaining.
[English]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, large numbers
of parents have been enrolling their children in French
immersion programs. Enrolment increased at a phenomenal rate
over the past decade. Significant increases have also been seen
in other French second language program schools outside
Quebec and English second language programs in Quebec.
The most recent census shows that as a consequence of these
programs the level of bilingualism in the 15 to 25-year group
has risen from 16 per cent to 23 per cent in only 10 years.
(1515 )
The value of our official languages is also reflected in the
desire of our English and French speaking minority
communities to have access to quality public education in their
language as a key to retaining their vitality. The Government of
Canada has assisted and continues to assist in the development
of the minority official language education system across
Canada.
[Translation]
Canadian identity is a reflection of who we are. It must
therefore accommodate native people, linguistic duality as well
as the multicultural nature of our society and our regional
diversity. It is important for Canada to reflect all its citizens.
The notion of ``belonging'' applies not only to those who had the
good fortune to be born in this land, but also to those for whom
Canada is a country of adoption.
Our concept of citizenship must also include the values we
share and those we would like to be associated with. Equality
and respect for diversity form an integral part of our shared
vision of Canada and the vital elements of our identity.
[English]
The public debate has often been so focused on what divides
us that it often overlooks the things we have in common,
including our grassroots civic commitments to building our
communities. This active concept of citizenship encompasses
not only a legal status but rather our active commitment to the
fundamental values we share which give us pride in our
citizenship.
[Translation]
How do we go about edifying a common vision of Canadian
identity? In my mind, this cannot be done in isolation. Existing
tensions can only be overcome if all Canadians have an adequate
knowledge and understanding of the fundamental realities of
their country and aspirations of the communities that make it up.
It is not by accident that language and culture are recurrent
themes in Canadian society. No parliamentarian or government
can afford to overlook these issues. They must be addressed
openly, transparently. There are certainly adjustments to be
made to the application of the official languages policy and
there is still room for improvement, as the Commissioner of
Official Languages pointed out last week.
Public debate should focus on these improvements. It should
deal with hard facts, and not myths, misconceptions and
exaggerations. The hon. member's motion is based on such
misconceptions and exaggerations.
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to take part in this
debate and to show the importance of our official languages
policy for Canadian identity. And I have no doubt that, put
before the facts, this House will reject the proposal before us
today.
3166
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I was anxious to participate
today as the minister with legislative responsibility for the
Official Languages Act and to debate the motion to amend that
act as moved by the hon. member opposite.
The Official Languages Act is no ordinary statute. It
embodies protections that are enshrined in the supreme law of
our land. It strikes a balance between high principle on the one
hand and on the other, its pragmatic application. It belongs as
the Federal Court of Appeal has said to that privileged category
of quasi-constitutional legislation that reflects certain basic
goals of our society. In short, the Official Languages Act
reflects both the Constitution of the country and the social and
political compromise out of which it arose.
We would do well to give due consideration in this debate to
the fundamental nature of the statute, to the fact that Parliament
has already devoted considerable attention to ensuring that it is
modern, forward looking and adaptable and that it meets the
changing needs of Canadians in a changing time. Amendments
that could disturb the equilibrium achieved by the legislation
between respect for constitutional principles and their
reasonable interpretation, amendments which could be tested in
the courts, should not be undertaken lightly.
(1520)
[Translation]
The original Official Languages Act passed in 1969 was
extensively targeted for reform and renewal during the mid
1980s, a process which resulted in Parliament adopting the new
Official Languages Act in 1988.
Our party which, while in office, introduced the first Official
Languages Act fully supported the 1988 reforms.
The aims of this reform were fourfold.
Firstly, to ensure that the provisions of the act were consistent
with the language rights guaranteed in sections 16 to 20 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Secondly, to put in place a more flexible legislative
framework for applying constitutional provisions in a fair,
reasonable and practical manner with a view to developing
policies and related programs.
[English]
As my hon. predecessor the then Minister of Justice asserted
in this House upon moving the 1988 act for second reading,
reform of the official languages policy had to be undertaken.
Parliament had a duty to bring the provisions of the Official
Languages Act of 1969 into line with the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
As the present Minister of Justice and therefore in a sense as
the legal custodian of the Official Languages Act, I believe it is
incumbent upon me to review with hon. members of this House
some of the guiding principles of the legislation to the extent
that they relate to the motion before the House today.
The approach of the Official Languages Act is essentially one
of institutional bilingualism. It is a functional approach. It
requires government bodies to organize themselves so as to have
the capacity to provide services in either official language to the
extent necessary to serve the public or to allow public servants
to work in the official language of their choice in accordance
with the act.
[Translation]
The first three parts of the act flow directly from
constitutional requirements which Parliament and the Canadian
courts have upheld since Confederation.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the aim of the
legislation's provisions was to guarantee ``equal access for
francophones and anglophones to legislative bodies, the law and
the courts''.
[English]
I can therefore only welcome that portion of the opposition
motion that would have the House resolve that the government
should continue to facilitate the use of English or French in
parliamentary and judicial proceedings as well as the use of both
languages as the languages of federal legislation.
The Department of Justice has particular responsibilities in
ensuring the drafting quality of legislative texts that must be
equally authoritative in both official languages. It must ensure
that representations made before federal courts on my behalf as
Attorney General of Canada are done in the official language
chosen by the non-governmental party.
[Translation]
Part IV of the Official Languages Act pertains to the
constitutional right of Canadians to communicate with and
receive services from federal institutions in the official
language of their choice.
[English]
Section 20 of the charter clearly provides that any member of
the public in Canada personally has the right to services in
English or in French from any head or central office of an
institution of the Parliament or Government of Canada.
Section 20 also provides that the public has this right with
respect to any other federal office where either there is a
significant demand for communications and services from that
office in that language, or if due to the nature of the office it is
reasonable that communications and services are available in
both languages.
Simply put, all of us as Canadians, indeed all members of the
public in this country have the constitutional right to deal with
their national government in the official language of their
choice. This includes departmental headquarters and at those
other offices across the country where it is reasonable due to the
nature of the office or where a significant demand exists.
3167
(1525 )
I emphasize this is not just a minority language right. Whether
they are part of the English speaking majority outside of
Quebec, the French speaking majority within Quebec, the
French speaking communities outside Quebec, or the English
speaking communities within Quebec, all Canadians have these
entitlements. These basic rights are reflected in the
corresponding institutional obligations set out in the Official
Languages Act and the regulations on services to the public.
[Translation]
The new act and its regulations respecting services to the
public take an office-by-office approach which is both
consistent with the requirements of the Constitution and more
flexible and effective, the aim being to ensure the provision of
services in both languages where numbers warrant.
[English]
The motion to amend the Official Languages Act would limit
the circumstances where federal services should be available to
official language minorities in their own language to situations
where there is a demonstrable local demand. The act's criteria
and the regulations thereunder are already largely directed to
meeting local needs, although the burden is not placed on
minority members of the public to demonstrate demand.
A significant concentration of the minority language
population in terms of numbers and proportion is sufficient in
most circumstances to warrant the provision of federal services
under the act in both languages. It avoids the administrative
costs of actually having to measure demand at each office. This
also helps to put to rest a longstanding difficulty in living up to
the promise of the act. In the past demand from minority
communities was often stifled because there were no bilingual
services and there were no bilingual services because there was
little manifested demand.
This brings me to comment on that portion of the opposition
motion that would amend the act to reflect the philosophy of
territorial bilingualism. If this notion of territorial bilingualism
is meant to reflect the predominance of French in Quebec and
English elsewhere, then I would respectfully reply that the act
already reflects this predominance to an appropriate degree.
If however what is sought is territorial unilingualism whereby
English and French are not only the predominant but the
exclusive languages for all intents and purposes, I would have to
say this would contravene not only the basic principles upon
which the act was built but also the Canadian reality.
[Translation]
I have already said that with respect to federal services made
available to members of the public, the principle of bilingual
services was not absolute and that availability varied according
to demographic and other factors. With respect to internal
services made available to federal employees and the language
in which public servants perform their job, under section 16 of
the Charter, the two official languages are guaranteed equality
of status ``as to their use'' in federal institutions. This great
principle of equality is reflected in the duties and functions of
federal institutions set out in Part V of the act.
In the National Capital Region and in certain designated
regions, particularly in the Montreal area and in New
Brunswick, federal institutions must ensure that their work
environments are conducive to the use of both official
languages.
[English]
Outside the prescribed regions the duty of federal institutions
is essentially one of preserving fair practices as respects the
minority language.
In conclusion, I respectfully submit that the Official
Languages Act is a worthy and reliable instrument for the
protection and the advancement of Canada's linguistic duality.
Amendments that go to the principles of the legislation and
which may impinge upon its constitutional underpinnings would
serve no useful purpose and would likely deflect our energies
from the real issues of the day.
The administration of the Official Languages Act is required
by the legislation to be reviewed on a permanent and ongoing
basis by a committee of Parliament. It is at that level we should
be working to ensure that the implementation of the principles
of the act is in accordance with the best practices.
I therefore encourage the House not to support this motion. I
thank hon. members for their attention.
(1530 )
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the Minister of Justice would agree that the current
Official Languages Act plus the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
adequately protect the rights of all minority language groups in
the country. If so, how is it that we have the situation still en
route in Quebec in which Bill 22, Bill 101 and Bill 178 together
combine to make for injustice, which the United Nations has
ruled on, against the country and against the province of
Quebec? We still have not solved this problem with the existing
legislation.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, in defence of the statute in its present
form I referred to the compromise, social and political, out of
which the statute arose. I think that in this country, with respect
to this act as with so much else, what is required is a constant
3168
monitoring of that compromise to ensure that it meets society's
needs while still reflecting our underlying principles.
In dealing directly with the question I have been asked, I
cannot speak for the legislatures of specific provinces which
have seen things differently and seen fit to enact their own laws
from time to time about language. I can say that as a national
government and a confederation we defend this statute as
reflecting principles of nationhood.
Yes, it is a compromise and yes, it is imperfect. At least to the
present it is the best instrument that has been devised to reflect
the linguistic duality of the country and the need which grows
out of fairness to provide services where they are required in
both languages to Canadians.
My response is perhaps not as direct as I would like to my hon.
friend's question. I cannot speak for the legislature of Quebec or
what may have motivated it from time to time in passing
language laws of its own. I can simply say that from the federal
perspective the Official Languages Act in its present form
reflects the way this government sees the two languages in this
country.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, what I was really trying to get at is
perhaps an admission on the part of the federal government,
represented by the hon. Minister of Justice, that Canada has in
effect been derelict in its duty in the case of Gordon McIntyre
whose case was presented to the U.N. The Government of
Canada has not fulfilled its obligation in being critical of the
laws of the province of Quebec in this regard vis-à-vis the
United Nations ruling.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, I disagree. I think that the federal
government has met whatever obligations it faces in that regard.
Certainly the position of the federal government was
communicated to the United Nations committee that considered
the matter and I am sure our position was taken into account.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Whip of the Reform Party I wish to advise the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), our speakers on
this motion will be dividing their time.
As a preamble to my formal remarks I wish to recognize that
whenever we want to introduce change, whether it is legislative,
whether it is organizational change, whatever it might be, there
needs to be first of all the acceptance of the recognition that
something needs to be changed. There needs to be some
ownership and some admission that everything is not as perhaps
it ought to be.
My purpose this afternoon is to show that the federal language
policy has failed in its primary objective which was and is to
unify Canada. I submit it is doing the very opposite.
(1535)
How does it do this? I will approach the answer from two
perspectives. First, the federal language policy is unjust.
Second, it is impossible or almost impossible to implement the
provisions of the language policy.
On what grounds to I believe that the federal language policy
is unjust? Justice is a word we use to describe doing what is
right and fair. It describes the interaction of rights and
obligations. A right is the legitimate expectation that one will be
treated in a certain manner by other persons and institutions. An
obligation is the duty of an individual or institution to treat
another individual or institution in the expected manner.
Canada's language policy has not been guided by such a
concept of justice. Instead it is the result of the strong
dominating the weak, depending on where one lives in Canada.
The concept that justice is nothing more than the personal
interest of the powerful was successfully refuted many years ago
by Plato.
It was Prime Ministers Pearson and Trudeau who had the great
idea of bringing Canada long needed justice. Trudeau spoke
often and eloquently about the just society. Simultaneously,
with bringing about a just society these two Prime Ministers
wanted to bring about national unity. They chose language
policy as the vehicle to achieve it.
From the beginning, however, whenever the principle of
justice clashed with the principle of unity justice was sacrificed.
Thus the federal government took a contradictory stand. It
subsidized French-speaking minorities outside Quebec and
English-speaking minorities in Quebec. At the same time it was
trapped into silently aiding an enforced French only
unilingualism in Quebec.
Such a self-contradictory stand is unjust and in the long run
destructive to national unity. Thus the federal government's
policy has become inconsistent, confused and generally
counterproductive.
Add to the injustice of this policy the perpetuation of
ignorance among Canadians about the federal policy and we
have the consequences of ignorance. When people are kept in
ignorance about government policies that affect them there is
great potential for breeding suspicion, resentment, prejudice
and ultimately hatred.
Some of these attitudes are beginning to surface. If we want to
unite Canada, we must have a language policy that is just and we
must tell Canadians what it is.
Even the bilingual and bicultural commission understood
justice in terms of the rights for the language minorities. It
wanted a policy that was essentially utilitarian, the greatest
good for the greatest number of people. It rejected the notion
that every Canadian had the duty to become bilingual. The B and
B commission report states a bilingual country is not one where
all inhabitants necessarily have to speak two languages. Rather,
3169
it is a country where the principal public and private institutions
must provide services in two languages to citizens, the vast
majority of whom may very well be unilingual.
In contrast to that fair and just position, federal language
policy is now more in line with asymmetrical bilingualism. In
practical terms, every day operational terms, that means protect
French everywhere in Canada, especially in communities where
there are few francophones, but do not extend the same rights to
the English in Quebec.
This policy results in contradictory explanations of the
federal language policy. In Quebec the policy is explained
asymmetrically. In the rest of Canada it is explained from a
utilitarian perspective.
The most disturbing aspect of all of this is that there is no
single comprehensive vision of Canada and its linguistic
identity. To achieve that requires a just language policy. Let us
remember that only with a government that is just will we have a
stable country.
I move to my second aspect of the federal language policy. I
submit that the present language policy is difficult if not
impossible to implement.
(1540 )
I wish to direct my attention particularly and the attention of
this House to the third goal found in the 1988 Official Languages
Act. The goals are that the proportion of French speakers and
English speakers in the public service reflects Canada's
linguistic make-up. This proportionate level of representation
is to be achieved in the overall composition of the public service
and at all levels of seniority and all fields of operation without
infringing on the merit principle, hiring and promotion.
The hon. Minister of Justice talked a few minutes ago about
the pragmatic application of that particular act. I suggest that in
order for us to meet that goal it is impossible to hire on the basis
of merit alone and that in some cases people will be hired on the
basis of language alone.
Most recently the hon. Minister of National Defence on
February 25, 1994 gave an even better illustration of how
difficult it is to administer this act: ``I want to tell the member
that by 1997 anybody aspiring to the lieutenant-colonel rank of
the military will have to be bilingual. That means we are putting
on notice anglophones who want to be generals or chiefs of staff
that they have to be totally and absolutely bilingual''.
There are two problems. First, are anglophones the only ones
who are being put on notice or are francophones being put on
notice as well, or is this another example of asymmetrical
bilingualism?
Second, can anyone ever claim to be perfectly bilingual?
After all is said and done regarding these things, the real issue
for me is that I want Canada to be united, a country in which we
can work together and respect one another in either of the two
official languages without forcing each other to become
individually bilingual.
Our country is bigger than any one of us individually. It is
bigger than any one province or territory. It is only as we
preserve justice for all that we will have a stable country. If we
become greedy for power, for the power of self-serving, for
special treatment, in this case because of language, we will tear
this country apart.
Let us create a just language policy. Such a policy will
combine common sense with reality. It will be affordable and
make Canada an example of what a country can and should be.
That is the purpose of this motion. That is what we are
debating. We hope the House will see it that way as well.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member
of the Reform Party.
I have a short preamble to my question. If one were taking a
drive through the province of Quebec right now and turned on
the radio it would not matter what station, one could hear Anne
Murray, Gordon Lightfoot, not just francophone recording
artists, Canadian anglophone recording artists.
When driving outside Quebec, in any other part of Canada
where there are another 1,400 or 1,500 radio stations, one cannot
hear francophone recording artists.
Because these are Canadian airwaves, not French or English
airwaves, does the member not think that as a measure of
fairness it would be a good idea to have Canadian recording
artists heard on all radio stations in Canada?
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is yes, of
course. The answer also is one can hear French recording artists
in Kelowna, Vernon and Armstrong. These are little cities in
British Columbia. One can hear them in Alberta, Saskatchewan
and Manitoba.
I would encourage the hon. member to drive through those
provinces and to tune in to those radio stations because this does
occur.
(1545 )
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member give his speech. He said
that the present law was unjust because in part it was
asymmetrical with respect to the anglophones in Quebec. He
said that the provisions of the federal Official Languages Act
did not protect the anglophones of Quebec as they did the
francophones outside Quebec.
3170
I am an anglophone from Quebec. I know of no provision that
applies in a lesser way to the anglophones of Quebec than it does
with the francophones outside Quebec. I was surprised to hear
him say that.
Our problem in Quebec as anglophones has not been with the
federal law. The federal law has protected our rights and
enhanced those rights. Our problems have been with Quebec
Bill 101, Bill 178, Bill 22 and others, not with the federal law.
I would like him to tell the House where the federal law
provides lesser rights to the anglophones in Quebec than to the
francophones outside Quebec. I doubt that he can provide the
House with that information.
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, the point clearly is the difficulty
with Bill 101.
Mr. Allmand: That is not a federal law.
Mr. Schmidt: That is correct. The fact of the matter is that the
infringement on the constitutional rights of Canadians by the
provincial law is not being enforced by the Canadian
government. That is where the problem lies.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I would just
ask the members if they would accept reciprocity, that is,
Quebec anglophones would be treated exactly as francophones
throughout Canada. Use the rights of anglophones in Quebec as
a basis. I am sure that if francophones outside Quebec received
25 per cent of what Quebec's anglophone minority gets, they
would be very happy.
Would the ideal not be to have a kind of reciprocity? That is
what I ask the hon. member, with respect for his opinion. Any
right taken from Quebec's anglophones would be taken from
francophones, but any right given to Quebec's anglophones
would be given to francophones in the rest of Canada as well.
Would he agree to that?
[English]
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, that question is not answered
easily. It takes time. It is a difficult question and a good
question.
Reciprocity assumes that equality applies and that this is done
logically. The point remains that the Court of Appeal in Ontario
indicated that where numbers warrant, 12 people would
constitute such a group. The Court of Appeal also said the only
way the French language rights could be preserved in the
educational system was by having separate French school
boards.
If reciprocity means that in every community even where
there might be five or ten people there would be a school board,
we would end up with a proliferation of school boards which
would add tremendous costs. This is only one example. There
are many others. There are trustees to be paid, superintendents
to be paid, other administrative and professional staff, support
and so on.
Therefore reciprocity is not an easy question to address
directly. In principle I would agree.
The Deputy Speaker: The time is up for questions and
comments.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
our motion today deals with facts.
The fact is that the Official Languages Act is a total failure. It
is divisive. It is so overwhelmingly expensive it would even be
impractical in a booming economy with an overflowing
treasury, neither of which we currently enjoy.
One of the most curious aspects of the act is that no one asked
for it. Quebec did not ask for it. Most certainly neither did the
rest of Canada.
Quebec wanted the French language in its own province and
we agree with that. It wanted access in French to key federal
institutions such as Parliament and the Supreme Court and we
agree with that. It expects federal services in French. We agree
with that where there is sufficient demand to warrant cost
effective provision of that service.
(1550 )
Given that the majority of the people in Quebec are not
concerned about it and even a larger majority of Canadians in
the rest of Canada are not in favour of continuing with it, why
are we spending so much money to maintain a program that does
not work, that we cannot afford and that no one wants?
One theory generally follows the concept of Newton's first
law of physics that an object in motion will remain in motion
unless acted upon by an external force. In other words, the status
quo reigns supreme.
In actual fact, given that the program is in fact flourishing it
appears many are operating under their own special agendas
without concern for the fact that the time for this program to end
has long since past.
I would like to focus today on one particular aspect of the
bilingual implementation program. The area I am personally
concerned about is the introduction of bilingual services to the
air traffic control system. These implementation programs are
horrendously expensive and at times compromise the safety of
the Canadian traveller.
Air traffic control primarily uses two types of services: tower
control, which controls the movement of traffic on and in the
immediate proximity to the airport; and radar control, which
controls aircraft flying by use of aircraft instruments within a
defined area of airspace.
The Official Languages Act imposes a duty on all federal
institutions to ensure that the public can obtain all services
3171
available from federal offices or facilities within the national
capital region in either official language.
In keeping with that, Ottawa tower became fully bilingual 16
hours a day as of June 1990 and 24 hours a day as of March 1991.
The cost of this was and still is outrageous. The staffing of
Ottawa tower calls for 17 controllers but at present there are
only 9 controllers available for duty. Part of the problem is that
all positions are designated as bilingual imperative. This means
a controller must be fully bilingual to even apply for the
position.
I for one have no problem with the concept of providing
bilingual service where demand is sufficient to warrant cost
effective language services. I already mentioned this at the
beginning of my talk. Just how much demand constitutes
sufficient is a questionable point and well worth examining
here.
Before I begin to discuss the need in the tower I would like to
add that the full bilingual service is in place at Ottawa tower. It
is now in the process of being implemented in Ottawa terminal.
Let us look at how one might determine what demands are and
how much service is needed to satisfy those demands, if in fact
they are in need of being satisfied.
Simulations were run on equipment then located at the
research and development department in Hull. Operating from a
single bilingual position, traffic that included 30 per cent French
speaking pilots was handled acceptably. This establishes a rate
at which we can then look at staffing plans if it can be
determined that the demand exists. What of the demand?
Controllers at Ottawa tower record each contact requesting
service in French. The optimum amount of requests they receive
is 2 per cent, one-fifteenth of the amount that has been
demonstrated can be handled safely from a single position.
A little side note on that 2 per cent figure, these figures
include Air Canada pilots who can obviously speak and operate
in English. It includes an airline whose next stop after Ottawa is
Boston. It includes pilots from Transport Canada who fly all
over this country.
I suggest there is no justification at all for bilingual air traffic
control services in the Ottawa area. If there is, it should only be
in that single position originally envisioned which could
demonstrably control not only that amount of traffic but a
tremendous and unexpected amount of growth in the future.
The cost of this bilingual service is just one of the concerns of
this program, but it certainly is a significant one. At present the
combined cost of the overstaffing needed to implement the
bilingual program in Ottawa terminal plus a shortage of three
bilingual controllers from the tower who are now on training for
the terminal to staff the new bilingual positions is almost $1
million per year. There are English speaking tower controllers in
Ottawa who can relieve this cost but they are not allowed to
control in the tower because they do not speak French. These
costs are only the tip of the iceberg.
At the beginning I also mentioned the concern about safety.
The source of this concern is the way the English speaking
controllers are being dealt with during this highly questionable
implementation of bilingual services. Incumbent rights are
being ignored. Original implementation plans are being
scrapped. Controllers' futures are up in the air, no pun intended.
(1555)
I fly a lot, as do most of the members in this House. I would
not want to have open heart surgery from a doctor whose face I
had just slapped the night before. Why then are we doing the
same thing to the people whose hands we place our lives in every
time we take to the skies?
This is but one small example of the problem caused by the
Official Languages Act. However it is a very important example
of the extent to which this is getting out of hand.
The time to end the problem is now. It is time that we became
the external force that will put an end to the motion of a program
that has never worked in the interests of anyone.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Mr. Speaker, for a moment I did not
know where I was, until the member had concluded his remarks.
I want to correct the record. This capital city has already
declared itself bilingual. In excess of 30 per cent of the people in
this city speak both official languages. There are over 1.1
million people who live in the national capital region and use the
international airport. I would say that over 55 per cent of those
people speak French and English.
Is the hon. member trying to tell me that if I were a
francophone living on the Quebec side and I used the
international airport that I should not be entitled to speak to
somebody in French?
On the other side there is a correction to the hon. member's
comments. The Ottawa international airport not only serves
other municipalities across Canada and the United States but it
also serves some places in Europe. It is an international airport.
It is our intention to enhance the bilingual services at the
Ottawa international airport. My hope is that we will reach a
point where every airport in Canada will have the same
flexibility and the same kind of services that are now provided at
the Ottawa international airport.
I was not born a French or English Canadian. I came to this
country a few years ago. I look at it as an enrichment and an
honour for me to be able to speak French, English, Arabic and a
little bit of Italian. I am working on my Chinese.
3172
If anything we should be moving toward trilingualism in
Canada and not just bilingualism. The whole world is moving
toward not just one or two but three languages. The hon. member
should travel to Europe to see that. In Europe the vast majority
of people speak at least two languages.
Is the hon. member suggesting we should deny the majority of
the people who live in the national capital region the right to
services in French as well as the right of other people in the
national capital region to services in English?
Mr. Gouk: After that counter speech I am not quite sure
where to begin.
First, does the hon. member who posed that convoluted
question think that 55 per cent of the French speaking people
who live in the national capital region go up to the cockpit while
they are on some flight, use the radio and handle the aircraft
control procedures for the pilot?
The two per cent is documented. It is the optimum figure in
terms of the French language used in the national capital region.
I would love to compare passports with the hon. member. I
suggest that I travel at least as much as he does and probably
quite a bit more. English is the international language of
aviation.
I have no problem with the idea of using French in Quebec
because that is the language there. I would even go along with
providing the service here. However, we are going so far beyond
the amount necessary to provide the service to those who require
it that it is absolutely ridiculous.
When the member talks of implementing this right across
Canada it is no wonder the budget is so totally out of control.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to point out there is some inconsistency in
what the hon. member has said. He started out by saying that one
of the problems with the official languages legislation is that it
is divisive. I suggest that if there is a divisive element in this it is
the putting forward of some of these bizarre notions as fact.
(1600)
Twice categorically the member said that nobody in this
country wants this. I do, so he is wrong. A lot of people do.
Come visit New Brunswick and see how many people are lined
up to get into immersion and programs like that. The suggestion
that it is a failure disregards reality. Reality has it that in 25 short
years in the context of the history of a country that large
numbers of people are becoming conversant in a second
language who would not have that opportunity outside of the
official languages policy.
The suggestion has been made repeatedly that somehow this
legislation forces people to become bilingual when in fact it has
exactly the reverse effect of allowing people not to become
bilingual and get services from their government.
If you speak French in Saskatchewan you do not have to be
able to speak English to get services from your government. If
you speak French in Fredericton, New Brunswick, you do not
have to be able to speak English to get services from the
government. That is what is provided, not the requirement to
become bilingual but the opportunity not to be.
Finally, I would suggest that the cost argument that is put and
is put often is very divisive in this debate. Consider the numbers
of people who are being served by the provisions in this
legislation relative to cost. I think of my province of New
Brunswick and the numbers of people who get service. There are
250,000 Acadians who are being served by the federal
government in their first language. Much of it is enhanced by
this legislation. The cost relative to the numbers of people is not
excessive at all. It is a divisive argument. It is an unfounded
argument and I would ask the member to respond.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, the member does not like my use of
the word divisive but found many uses for it himself.
Yes I said that no one wants it and the member challenged
that. I suppose he is right. There is absolutely nothing I can think
of where there is absolute unanimity all across the line.
I would point out to the member that the last survey I saw
suggested that 63 per cent of all those surveyed in Quebec did
not agree with the national bilingual program and there was a
higher percentage than that in the rest of Canada.
The hon. member suggest that because many people take
French language training that they are in favour of this. I have
taken Spanish and I have taken Portuguese and I am not in
favour of Canada implementing bilingualism in Spanish and
Portuguese either. Therefore, his argument does not hold much
water.
With regard to the fact that no one is forced to take bilingual
training because of the provisions of the bilingual service, tell
that to the controllers at the Ottawa terminal.
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, I will be
dividing my time with the member for Carleton-Gloucester.
[Translation]
I am glad to speak on behalf of the President of the Treasury
Board in this debate-
3173
[English]
-and to be able to express the point of view of the Government
of Canada, the government of all Canadians, on the motion by
the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan on official languages in
federal institutions.
First I would like to express some amazement with respect to
the position taken by the hon. member on this motion, an
amazement that I am sure is shared by many members of this
House and many Canadians.
The motion seems to display a perhaps deliberate
misunderstanding of the very purpose and spirit of the Official
Languages Act and its regulations. It seems to be challenging
the very make-up of Canada's approach to language rights and,
indeed, one of the founding principles of this nation.
The main purpose of the Official Languages Act, to make it
clear to members opposite, is to guarantee the equality of status
of French and English Canadians in the use of the two official
languages in federal institutions.
(1605 )
The act rests on the principle of institutional bilingualism, the
principle that federal institutions must be able to serve
Canadians and to communicate with them in the official
language of the choice of the citizen. In fact, the act forces
neither English speaking Canadians to speak French nor French
speaking Canadians to speak English. Rather it is offices of
federal institutions that must be bilingual in localities where
demand is sufficient for services to be in both official languages.
These are important distinctions for anyone wanting to
address the issue of official languages in this country and
specifically the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
Institutional bilingualism does not mean that all employees of
federal institutions must be bilingual, but that federal
institutions are responsible for bilingualism. It is up to them to
take all necessary measures to ensure that, wherever required by
law, members of the public can be served and receive the
information they need in the official language of their choice.
[English]
Institutional bilingualism means as well that Canadians of
both linguistic communities may obtain employment and have a
career in the federal public service in the official language of
their choice. They may do so while remaining unilingual if that
is their choice.
These are the principles that underlie the official languages
program in federal institutions. These principles are simple and
fair. They are a reflection of the rights conferred upon
Canadians by our constitution. They lie at the very heart of our
identity and our cultural heritage. They embody the very
essence of Canadian linguistic duality, one of the fundamental
characteristics of this country.
These principles guarantee Canadians, whether English or
French speaking, the right to receive federal services and
information in the language of their choice.
[Translation]
These principles give federal employees the right to work in
the official language of their choice, in circumstances and
regions specified in the legislation. They also give Canadians of
both linguistic communities equal opportunities for
employment and promotion in federal institutions.
These basic principles are an integral part of the laws of this
country. And federal institutions must see to it that Canadians
can exercise these rights.
The official languages regulations on communicating with
and providing services to the public enforce specific provisions
of the Official Languages Act.
These regulations define the circumstances in which federal
institutions must serve the public in both official languages. It
may be because there is sufficient demand for their services or
because of the very nature of the services provided.
The official languages program is the instrument through
which federal institutions implement the official languages
legislation.
In short, these are the basic principles underlying this
program. I would now like to explain why, in my opinion, these
principles are valid.
[English]
In my view the Canadian approach to language rights has two
fundamental characteristics. It is both reasonable and just. It is
reasonable because it gives Canadians the right to receive
federal services in the language of their choice but, at the same
time, limits the scope of these rights notably by defining
significant demand. It is just because it gives Canadians open
and easy access to the services of their government in both
official languages enabling the vast majority of Canadians to
receive services in the official language of their choice.
(1610 )
What is also remarkable about the Canadian approach is the
sense of fairness and balance. In fact, that is why there is not one
and only one definition of significant demand for services.
The variations that the regulations in the legislation allow
may be based on the importance of the service to be provided,
for instance, where health and security are involved. Obviously,
any Canadian has to be able to understand the service they are
being provided and to communicate.
3174
When it is a matter of such issues as transportation in which
any Canadian may be involved at any time, of course they have
to be entitled to the services of their government in the official
language of their choice.
I want to conclude very briefly by saying that we could have
taken a different approach and as some would have it, we could
have applied a simple rule that is based purely on mathematics.
We chose not to do that. We chose to do it based on need and
importance of the service.
We have decided to remain true to the principle of fairness, to
rules that make it possible to meet the needs I mentioned earlier
and the legislation was intended to meet. That is simply for
Canadians to have accesses to the services provided by their
country's institutions.
We want Canadians to be able to work together in the official
language of their choice in the same institutions within bilingual
regions as provided for in the act. The government has made a
commitment to the equitable participation of Canadians of both
linguistic communities in federal institutions. It is committed to
ensuring that federal institutions reflect the presence of English
speaking and French speaking Canadians, taking into account
their mandate and their locations.
The Canadian approach whether it deals with service to the
public, language of work, or equitable participation reflects the
choices made since the beginning of the history of this country. I
remember a time in this city when if one was a francophone one
was unlikely to get hired by one's own government and if one
did get hired one certainly did not get promoted. As one who
believes in equity in employment, I would not tolerate that
situation again in my community or in my country.
I also want to refer to the phrase territorial bilingualism. In
my view we have had far too much of territoriality in this
country in recent years. We have had far too much of pitting one
person against another, of looking at every public policy issue
from a selfish point of view. It is time to start realizing that our
different communities have to work together toward common
goals and common purposes. That is what makes Canada unique,
a country respectful of our differences and proud of what we
have in common.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciated hearing the hon. member's comments. I
have a couple of questions for her.
First, I would like a response to the fact that in a community in
my constituency, Kindersley, members who receive cable
television are not able to understand much of the proceedings
because they do not get services in the language that they all
understand but in the language of the floor.
If one is bilingual that is well and good. However the
members in my riding who receive this do not even know what
the Official Opposition is saying. In fact, we are not even
getting service in our part of the country that we can understand.
The other thing is that for environmental consideration I have
suggested and I expect others have as well that considerable
savings could be made if we provided publications in language
of choice rather than having every publication bilingual where
one receives both languages. This uses twice the paper and it is
twice the cost to put these documents together.
I know most Canadians would prefer these documents in one
language or the other because they only use one. I would like to
have the hon. member's response in the way of environmental
and fiscal responsibility as to providing services in the language
that is required, not in both languages.
(1615 )
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my first comment is that we
could save an awful lot of money if we simply closed down the
Government of Canada and ceased completely to provide
services to Canadians.
We could save an awful lot of money if we ceased having a
national postal service, if we ceased having a national
transportation system. However, certain prices go with the very
nature of the country, its diversity and its size, and as a famous
Canadian said before me, I for one pay those prices gladly.
Naturally we are always interested in ways of reducing the
cost of implementing any government program or policy. In fact
the cost of providing official languages has dropped
significantly in the last couple of years. I would be pleased to
give consideration to the comments of the hon. member and to
discuss them with the minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, it may be difficult for Reform Party members who can
function in English every day to imagine how French Canadians
who do not always have the opportunity to do so in French feel.
In Canada, it is hard to imagine that our children, whether
they are French or English-speaking, cannot receive an
education in their mother tongue, or have no choice but to
participate in socio-cultural activities, or rely on essential
services and vocational training, in a language which is not their
own. Yet, for more than 1.6 million Canadians, which includes
francophones outside Quebec as well as English-speaking
Quebecers, being able to use their mother tongue is something
they cannot always take for granted.
The French and English languages are integral parts of the
Canadian identity. Language is a vital component of what it
means to be a Canadian, and has been since the very beginning.
The fact is that close to 99 per cent of Canada's residents speak
either French or English. However, close to two million
Canadians live in provinces and territories where their mother
tongue is the minority language. This linguistic duality is
therefore a basic social reality in our country, and Canadians are
proud of
3175
that reality which distinguishes us from other nations such as the
United States.
This is why francophone communities, of which I am a
member, want their children to be able to preserve their
language in a primarily English-speaking environment. This is
also why anglophones in Quebec are concerned by their
decreasing numbers and the need to preserve their social,
cultural and educational institutions.
[English]
There are real concerns in the daily lives of many Canadians
who are members of linguistic minorities. This is the reason why
the federal government works with community groups to
support their efforts to turn things around and to help them take
charge of the development and future of their communities.
It would be hard to imagine promoting the use of English and
French across Canada without strongly supporting their every
day use in a community context.
It is through education that the federal government has mostly
contributed to the development of the minority communities
while respecting the fact that matters concerning education are
under provincial jurisdiction.
When Canada adopted the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in 1982 it took a stand in favour of the rights of
minorities, including linguistic rights. Section 23 of the charter
guarantees minority official language communities not only the
right to education in their language but also the right to manage
their own institutions.
These rights have been clarified by two decisions of the
Supreme Court of Canada, the Mahé decision and the reference
on education rights of Manitoba in March 1993.
As citizens of Canada we must respect those rights. That is
why the federal, provincial and territorial governments are
co-operating to provide opportunities for English speaking
Canadians in Quebec and French speaking Canadians outside
Quebec to be educated in their own language and for all
Canadians to learn English or French as a second official
language.
[Translation]
Moreover, the federal government recently extended the
scope of its action to support minority language education.
(1620)
Indeed, the government adopted special measures to help
some provinces set up structures which will allow a minority to
manage its schools, as provided by section 23 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and facilitate access, for
francophones outside Quebec, to post-secondary education in
French.
This support will help provide young people who belong to
linguistic minorities and who are tomorrow's adults an equal
opportunity to participate actively in our country's development
and prosperity.
In my province, for example, these special measures by the
federal government allowed for the setting up of a network
comprising three French-language colleges, including the Cité
collégiale, here in Ottawa, which is already a resounding
success.
The Franco-Ontarian community has been working
relentlessly for years to ensure the creation of colleges in certain
regions and the success of the Cité collégiale confirms the real
need for such institutions.
[English]
The importance of minority language education to minority
language communities is obvious. As the B and B commission
pointed out, the absence of adequate education prevented these
minority communities from contributing fully to Canadian
society. Only now are we beginning to reverse the impact of
these previous deficiencies.
I belong to the French speaking minority community and I am
proud of my origins. Like me, almost 978,000 people living
outside Quebec have French as a mother tongue. Furthermore,
some 665,000 persons living in Quebec have English as their
mother tongue. This is an important segment of the Canadian
population. In fact these minority communities are more
numerous than the population of several provinces.
Our official language minority communities are spread out
across the country. As a fourth generation Franco-Ontarian, I
am proud to state that half a million francophones live in
Ontario alone. The Acadians form one-third of the population of
New Brunswick, Canada's only officially bilingual province.
The largest provincial minority of all is the English speaking
community in Quebec.
Numerous or not, concentrated or scattered, those
communities are important contributors to Canadian society.
[Translation]
The motion before us proposes territorial bilingualism, which
is described by Reform Party members as territorial
unilingualism, as a new linguistic arrangement in Canada. The
Reform Party proposes a form of ethnic cleansing. This
territorial solution, which exists in some European countries,
may seem attractive at first glance. However, on closer
examination, we see that it does not reflect the regional and
demographic realities of Canada.
3176
For example, unlike Switzerland and Belgium, where
linguistic groups live in well-defined areas, the two Canadian
linguistic communities are present right across the country.
Canada has a real interest in ensuring that official language
minorities participate fully in the social and economic life of our
society.
[English]
The Liberal Party has contributed more than any other party in
the House toward building a united Canada, a country united in
its cultural and linguistic diversity. We will continue to work
toward that goal. Our vision of our country is one wherein all
francophones and anglophones are first class Canadian citizens
regardless of where they live in Canada.
[Translation]
Canada has been thriving thanks to the co-operation
displayed by the two major linguistic families, and it will
continue to thrive in unity and prosperity, as long as we will be
wise enough to protect what unites us and courageous enough to
eliminate what could divide us.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester. It is good to hear that he has settled
down, at least I sense that his speech came from his heart.
I would just like to present a few statistics from the 1991
census for the member and ask for a response to a question.
My riding is quite different from his riding. Perhaps in his
riding official bilingualism, as we practise it and it is legislated,
fits. However, Kindersley-Lloydminster has a population of
63,871 people. English is spoken by 61,325 and French by 35.
Then there are some non-official languages, such as Chinese,
130; Spanish, 40; German, the largest after English 1,130.
(1625)
Another interesting statistic is English only: English as the
only spoken language 61,645; French as the only language is
zero according to this census.
I want to turn back a few pages to another riding in the
province of Quebec, the riding of Saint-Maurice, which is
represented by the Prime Minister. There are some very
interesting statistics: the total population is 75,185; English is
the home language if 555 residents; French 73,370. There are
very few non-official languages, 10 Spanish, 60 German and a
few others. Those able to communicate only in English is 45
people; those able to communicate in French only is 61,405
people.
Carleton-Gloucester is not actually representative of all of
Canada. In Kindersley-Lloydminster because of lack of
funding, school are being closed, education services are being
restricted. Several hospitals in my constituency have been
closed for lack of funds.
I wonder if the hon. member understands the feelings of
people who see services that are very important to them close
down partly because of services provided to people of which
there is not one person in my constituency. No one in my
constituency relies on services in one of the official languages.
To the north of me are the native people who were here before
the anglophones and francophones but they have no official
status whatsoever.
It all seems very unfair and just does not seem relevant to a
Canada which is about to go into the 21st century. That is why
we need to move forward. I would like to see the minister get in
step with that and prepare Canada for the next century, not
looking back to the 19th century.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I find the comments made by
the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and House leader for
the Reform Party to be insensitive. He gave us statistics and said
that in his riding, unlike mine, there are very few francophones.
Is the member trying to tell Canada
[English]
French is not wanted in Kindersley-Lloydminster, or if you
are French, we do not care about you and do not dare ask a
question en français, especially to your federal government
since that is where the services are. I wonder if that is really his
attitude, his attitude of caring for Canada, his attitude of
wanting to provide for minorities.
I find his attitude similar to those of all the other Reform Party
members who spoke earlier. He asked me: ``Does he understand
the feelings of the people?''. Does he really understand what
prejudice means? It is one thing to practise it, but it is another to
receive it.
I will tell a little story. I remember getting my first job in this
city as a student. I got to work as a summer student, 16 years of
age, and I had forgotten my lunch. I lived downtown. I wanted to
call my mom because I knew she would take the bus and deliver
the lunch. I asked permission of the secretary of the office if I
could call my mother. She said yes.
I called my mom and I said to her: ``Mom do not bring my
lunch. I forgot it. It is my fault. I will go and get it. I have my
bike. Do not worry''. At that very moment the superintendent of
that division of the federal government grabbed me by the arm
and said: ``Young fellow, if I hear you speaking in French once
more in this office you will be fired''.
I wonder if your party is really thinking of what you are
saying. I wonder if your party is really thinking of what you are
telling French Canadians. I think all of you are a bunch of bigots.
3177
(1630)
The Deputy Speaker: Having heard the story that the
member just recounted, I wonder if he was carried away in the
heat of the moment and if he would not agree to withdraw that
word as being one that does not help the atmosphere of the
House.
Mr. Bellemare: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not have my
hearing aid on.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I repeat what I said. I appreciate the
story just related by the hon. member, but I wonder if he is
prepared to withdraw the word ``bigot''?
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I did not accuse Reform Party
members of being bigots.
[English]
It was a thought and perhaps my tongue projected my feeling.
I truly feel that because of the manner in which they act. One
always judges someone according to his acts. I really feel that.
Because it is unparliamentary I will withdraw this French
word ``bigot'' because they find it extremely offensive. I am not
sure if it is because it is a French word or the definition or that
they are uncomfortable with the definition.
The Deputy Speaker: I would like to thank the hon. member
for withdrawing that word.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my anger in regard
to the term ethnic cleansing in terms of linguistic ethnic
cleansing used by the hon. member.
I have been accused because I am a Reformer of supporting
such atrociousness. We do not support that. I would like to go on
the record as being an Albertan who has a daughter in grade
eight. She has been in French immersion since day one of her
education. We are proud as a family that this is an opportunity
that she has as a Canadian.
I would also point out that it costs the taxpayer of Alberta an
extra $450 per student to be educated in French. I believe that
extra amount should be paid by the individual who is receiving
the benefit, the student involved or the parents.
I would like to ask the hon. member for his comments on that
situation.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, the member from the Reform
Party takes great objection to my comment about ethnic
cleansing. I remind him that the member for St. Albert, a
Reform Party member, is the one who brought up that topic a
while ago when he said that the problems around this world are
ethnic in origin. He made references to activities across the
ocean that are occurring right now.
If the problems are of ethnic origin, if he and his party want to
create a Quebec français and an English Canada, is that not the
member's definition of ethnic cleansing? If it is not, what
exactly is it?
As far as paying to go to school, is the member suggesting that
only those who can afford an education have a right to that
education?
(1635 )
They give us an example that there is a school closing here
and there and a hospital closing somewhere. It is certainly not
Klein's fault. Whose fault is it? Is it the fault of minority
language?
Are the school closings in Alberta and B.C. caused by the
province of Quebec, caused by Saskatchewan, caused by
everyone but them? No, it is always a question of over spending.
What they would like to do to this country is take the key and
lock it and every time they come up with whatever topic, helping
the poor, assisting the minority groups, respecting official
languages, respecting their country, all they want to do is shut
down this country, shut down the government and go back home.
That is all they want to do.
The Deputy Speaker: I would be very grateful if we could
avoid using terms such as were used by both speakers just now.
As you know, a word to be unparliamentary has to be disruptive.
The word used by the hon. member did not seem to be disruptive
with the Reform Party members but I would ask members,
particularly given what is going on in the rest of the world, if we
might try to avoid words which are so loaded with emotion and
strong feelings that they do nothing to create good will and what
I think Canadians would want us to do in this House.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): I would just like to
ask a question of the member. I guess we do not all realize that
we are all trying to arrive at a better solution for Canada. I guess
that is not accepted and I do not know what I can do to put the
concerns of the hon. member to rest on some of these things.
Just as an example of a policy gone too far, I have an
electrician in my riding who tried to get a copy from
Employment Canada of the major contractors and locations of
the major projects in British Columbia. This document is
available and was submitted to the employment office in British
Columbia. It is a catalogue, something like a Simpsons-Sears
catalogue, and it is a significant document with hundreds and
hundreds of locations, jobs and so on.
When he found out about this he went to the employment
office and asked if he could have a copy of that so he could get on
with his job search. He has been out of work for several months.
He was told, although the document was brandished across the
desk, that until it was translated into both official languages he
3178
was not allowed to have it so that he could get on with his job
search.
He sits, as I speak, at home waiting for the translation. It will
take several weeks, in which case he sits there, and he has been
on my doorstep as well, asking why can he not get that when in
my riding I think there are 40 unilingual French people.
I realize we can provide the service to them but for the 70,000
people, a good number of whom are looking for jobs, they want
to have access to that document.
It seems that it is a good idea sometimes, a good concept, but
it is pushed so far, pushed to such an extreme that this person sits
on the unemployment roles waiting for access to this document.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Reform Party
member made a slip of the tongue when he referred to the
Simpson Sears catalogue, because I am convinced that Alberta
is living with its times and that Albertans know that, for at least
20 years now, it has only been Sears.
I also want to illustrate another mistake made by the member,
who just found out, talking to someone from Alberta, about the
difficulties Canadians can experience when they contact federal
offices. He said that the person could not get a document in
English because the French version had not yet been published.
(1640)
I apologize to him, but the federal government often
experiences problems. Particularly in the last eight years. The
federal government's policy is to publish in both official
languages in order to serve all Canadians. If he knows someone
in his region who worked for the federal government and who
had a document in English only, then that person also had a
French version, because both are always published at the same
time. Documents are only distributed once they have been
prepared in both languages, so that people who request a copy
can get it either in English or in French.
The hon. member forgot to mention the case of the
francophone waiting in line at the manpower office. When his
turn finally came after a close to two-hour wait-and I am
relating situations which I witnessed or which were reported to
me-the francophone was told: Sorry, I do not speak French but
we do have a bilingual person working here and would you go
back to the end of the line, which means another wait of 45
minutes or more, so that maybe that particular officer will be
available when your turn comes again.
Yes, it is hard to serve people in both languages, but what we
are trying to do in Canada is create an atmosphere that makes us
proud to be Canadians, that makes us feel good to be Canadians.
It is because of attitudes such as yours that many Quebecers got
fed up and sent us grumblers like Bloc Quebecois members.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I was faced with two choices. Either I refrained from
saying anything at all, or I spoke from the heart. I have chosen
the latter course of action.
What I have heard since the start of this debate convinces me
more than ever that Quebec is doing the right thing. It is clear
that Quebec has made the right choice to embark on its march to
independence.
I realize that the junior member from thirty-five kilometres
away will try to cut in, but since I have listened carefully almost
all day to the speeches of the other members, I would ask them to
extend the same courtesy to me and to refrain from commenting
while I am speaking. I will be happy to field questions and
comments later.
Canada's official languages are guaranteed under the
Constitution. Education rights are also guaranteed under the
Constitution. That is all well and good, but what about our
francophone minorities outside Quebec? They are having
trouble getting schools-
Mr. Speaker, would it possible for you to ask that members
refrain from making comments while I have the floor?
The Deputy Speaker: If the members opposite could be quiet
for a few minutes, other members could also be heard.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): I recently
completed a trip across Canada. I visited all of the provincial
capitals, with the exception of Charlottetown. I met with
francophone minorities outside Quebec. I heard some amazing
stories.
A resident of British Columbia was told that there were no
bilingual stenographers in all of Canada, whereas there are at
least 17 bilingual court stenographers in Montreal alone. A
person was asked if he would agree to a preliminary hearing in
English and was promised that the transcripts would be
translated into French afterward. That person was later told that
the $20,000 cost of translating the transcripts was too high.
When the time came for that person to go to trial, he was told
that since his preliminary hearing had been in English, then
surely he was also capable of understanding trial proceedings
conducted in English.
(1645)
In my office, I got a lot of information and press clippings
intended to show me how well French is doing outside Quebec. I
picked up only four before leaving my office this morning.
In Ontario, for the school census, they are unfortunately
unable to correct the form, which says that the photocopiers
3179
cannot print on both sides. That is the reason which the ministry
gave to Ontario's francophones.
In 1994, a key year for Franco-Ontarians, the Auditor General
of that province criticized the Ministry of Education for not
providing francophones with good services and he says that the
services given to francophones are inferior. Our friend from
Carleton-Gloucester is quoted here: ``Deploring the lack of
bilingual judges, six-year wait for civil cases in Ontario,
backlog of 1400 trials''.
The gem is Mr. Vastel's article, where it mentions that
someone is looking for ``sewers, preferably bilingual''. Let me
explain. In Kingston, the city where they want to relocate the
military college because it is bilingual, the Employment Centre
has an advertisement for a ``sewer''; let me spell it out in case I
do not pronounce it correctly, so that there is no ambiguity. It
should be translated in French as ``couseur'' or ``couseuse'', but
the advertisement says ``égout''-quite a different sewer!
Another situation. I just heard someone from Saskatoon ask
the Minister of Heritage a question. There is an advertisement in
the Saskatoon Employment Centre for a ``cook for menu in
family style restaurant'', which was translated ``faire cuire de
menus dans famille coiffée de restaurant''. Those are a few
gems.
To get back to something more serious, although we need to
laugh a little, we will talk about bonuses. I admit that
bilingualism is costly. We talked about bilingualism bonuses,
for example. Do you know that such bonuses have existed since
1888? In 1888, bilingualism bonuses were established. They
were $50 for any francophone civil servant who could take
English dictation or for any anglophone civil servant who could
take French dictation. So Canada has always wanted to
recognize bilingualism with a bonus. In reality, in constant
dollars, $800 is not much compared to the $50 offered in 1888
just for writing a dictation. Now they are given a bonus to be
operational, so that they can respond and give service. I do not
think that $800 is a lot.
If you want to make cuts in bilingualism, I do not think that is
the place to do it. Training is where the cuts should be made. If
you need to be bilingual for a position, you should be bilingual
before you are hired and not have someone take courses and
more courses and still more courses, which is very expensive.
Why take a public servant from his office and send him for three
months of immersion somewhere, the Château Frontenac,
perhaps, for the Christmas holidays, or maybe Toronto, if he is
French-speaking.
(1650)
I find it inconceivable that, 25 years after the passage of the
Official Languages Act, we continue to send unilingual public
servants on language training at public expense. If bilingualism
is a condition of employment, then they should be bilingual at
the time they are hired. I am not talking about refresher or
upgrading courses, which are relatively inexpensive. But to pay
for the basic language training of unilingual civil servants is too
expensive. We could easily save close to $96 million a year, if
you count the training costs plus the program administration
costs. That is no paltry amount.
I would like to call imagination into play. In a draft article
which was sent to me, Professor Bouvier calls it the ignorance
bonus versus the bilingualism bonus. The latter, the bonus paid
to those bilingual civil servants who fulfil their duties
satisfactorily, should remain. As for the other one, the ignorance
bonus, we could do away with it.
According to an article published in The Ottawa Citizen, the
report just produced by Mr. Goldbloom must be seen as
conveying a double message, both a judgment and a warning.
Why a warning? Year after year, we are reminded in that report
about all that is going well and all that is going wrong in Canada.
Let us face it, it is not a bed of roses for francophones outside
Quebec.
When you think about ways of preserving your language, it is
important to know that you can get served in your own language.
I can remember back in my youth, when we went out shopping.
We could safely go to Dupuis Frères knowing that we would be
served in French. But beyond Saint-Laurent Street, you were
sure to have to ask to be served in French because it was not
automatic; they would answer you in English. We had to besiege
Sainte-Catherine Street to get the restaurants to translate their
menus. Is it through these little day-to-day battles that Quebec
was able to assert its French and French-speaking colour more
and more.
I listened carefully to the hon. member for Nanaimo who
spoke first, I think, on behalf of the Reform Party, as he
enumerated all the milestones, but I could not help but notice
that he had major memory blanks. He systematically failed to
mention any legislation passed in Quebec that favoured
anglophones. He only talked about those that anglophones had
trouble with, like Bill 101 and Bill 178 on signs for example.
When I travelled in Canada, I saw unilingual signs everywhere
except in airports.
I drove to Calgary to visit the Dinosaur Museum-the real
ones- and along the way I encountered no road sign that bore
anything beside directions in English, not even international
symbols. The same thing last week in Newfoundland, I saw
nothing but English all over the place. So, when they come and
tell us that there were trials and cases were taken all the way to
the United Nations because poor little English Canadians were
treated badly in Quebec, give me a break. People should come
and see for themselves that it is possible to live both in French
and in English in Quebec. In fact, it is the only place where it is
3180
possible. It is not possible to live in both official languages
anywhere in Canada except in Quebec.
I am talking about entire provinces. Of course, in Northern
Ontario there are towns that are 100 per cent French-speaking.
That is true, there are some in Northern Ontario.
(1655)
There are towns in New Brunswick where people can live in
French even when surrounded by English. But there are others in
the Prairies, in Western Canada, in the Maritimes, and if their
numbers do not warrant it, they may obtain nothing. We read in
the newspapers about what happened in Kingston; they may be
up to 4,999, but there is still one missing; I may move there to
bring that number to 5,000 so they can receive services in
French.
What seems extremely important to me is to stop dreaming
and realize that Canada is an English-speaking country. When
one lives abroad-I lived in Portugal for ten months and
whenever I said e esto Canadense, everyone would speak to me
in English. Nobody thought that I could be francophone. And as
I spoke French, they said, ``Ah, there is some French there.''
In every embassy except in Paris, we are addressed in English.
Let us stop putting our heads in the sand. Canada is an
English-speaking country. Why did the Trudeau government
pass a law in 1969? To stop the rise of nationalism in Quebec.
That is why Mr. Trudeau drafted his law in 1969. That was the
only reason.
Section 23 of the 1982 Constitution Act protects the rights of
French-speaking communities outside Quebec, with respect to
their schools in particular, but even Supreme Court decisions
were not enough to put this in practice. Mrs. Landry, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, had to give $112 million to the
provinces, and I agree with our friends from the Reform Party
that it costs the federal government a lot of money because the
provinces do not assume their responsibilities. The provinces do
not respect the Constitution and the federal government's only
recourse is to give them $112 million so that they can respect
their minority populations.
I think it is extremely important to realize something else.
Among the many symbols we are very proud of in this country is
the national anthem we still have in common, namely O Canada,
which was first performed on June 24, 1980, and officially
proclaimed as our national anthem on July 1, 1980. The music
was composed by Calixa Lavallée and the lyrics were written by
Mr. Routhier. I remember very well the debate that took place in
this House, and it would be quite informative for the members
who did not have the opportunity to follow that debate. I
remember how difficult it was to draft the English version and
even today I meet anglophones who are surprised to see that we
changed the lyrics of their national anthem. It is time to set the
record straight. Canada comes from Quebec. That is where
Canada got its start, just like the national anthem. It should be
pointed out that when each province joined the Canadian
community, the majority was French-speaking. If
francophones' rights had been respected from the start, we
might not be where we are today.
Before I sit down, I want to remind members of one last thing,
namely that belonging to a country has its price. Here, Canada
decided to be bilingual. Those who find it too expensive can
move to the United States. It is cheaper to live in the United
States. But there is a price to pay for living in a bilingual
country. It seems extremely important to me, and Quebecers are
also aware that, costly as it is to be Canadian, it may be a little
more expensive to be a Quebecer, but at least we will have all the
tools we need to grow the way we want.
(1700)
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, personally I am
disappointed by the hon. member's speech, and I am sure
Canadians must be surprised at the position and views of the
Bloc Quebecois on official languages.
I have a question. The other day, the hon. member, who is the
heritage critic, asked and I quote:
[English]
``When will they,'' meaning the provinces, ``start treating
French Canadians as well as the English are treated in Quebec''.
[Translation]
Her leader, commenting on the same subject, said and I quote:
[English]
``The Quebec government did not do enough, even the Péquistes
did not do enough. The federal government certainly did more
than Quebec. I am ready to admit that''.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my question is, why do Bloc members not speak
the same language?
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): I think we do,
Mr. Speaker, but I did not think that was the point of this debate.
I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage asked this question, because I am
disappointed as well.
What I find particularly disappointing is the position taken by
the Liberal Party-I do not know whether I am supposed to say
that here-by the government, I should say. It is the same thing.
What I find disappointing is that the minister arranged for two
planted questions, and trick questions at that, one from the hon.
member for Madawaska-Victoria and one from another
member who talked about Saskatoon today, in which they
praised the government for not making any cuts.
Francophone communities are in dire straits, and the minister
was very sympathetic to the needs of francophone communities.
Budgets have been cut. Last year, there was a 10-per-cent cut in
funding for these associations. They expected another
10-per-cent cut this year, and they got another 5 per cent on top
of that. In some cases, some associations will cease to exist or
they will have to lay off several staff members.
3181
When we no longer have associations to defend our rights,
it means being left without any protection whatsoever. That is
what is so disappointing. Our position is clear. We respect the
francophone community. We want to work as partners when
Quebec becomes a sovereign nation, and we will do everything
to try and defend that community as long as we are part of
Canada. However, we cannot give them the 5 per cent the
government refuses to give them and which they need so badly.
That is the truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for St.
Boniface. Unfortunately in the 10 minutes I will have and the 10
minutes he will have, we will not have enough time to respond to
all of the arguments that have been put forward in this debate,
especially some which I believe are false and misleading.
The hon. member from Nanaimo of the Reform Party
proposes three things in his motion. First he proposes to amend
the Official Languages Act to provide territorial language
rights. Generally speaking it would mean there would only be
one official language in Quebec, which would be French and one
official language in the rest of Canada which would be English.
While he did not accept that extreme expression of the
territorial principle, some members in his party in speaking to
the debate have supported it. The Reform Party has not been
completely together on this one. He said that bilingual services
should apply in the east and north of Ontario, in the northeastern
part of New Brunswick and west of Montreal. He gave those as
examples. When I questioned him on it, he said he was not hard
and fast on the examples but at least it gave us an idea of the
territorial bilingualism he had in mind. As I pointed out in the
question which I put to him, it would leave out the anglophones
in the eastern townships, the anglophones in the Gaspé and the
anglophones in the Outaouais region. It would leave out the
francophones of Manitoba that have had historic rights in that
province. It would leave out the francophones in Nova Scotia,
the Acadians.
(1705)
What we are talking about is how wide or how narrow is
interpreted the expression ``when numbers warrant''. It would
seem that the hon. member from the Reform Party would
interpret it widely so it would be very difficult for many
minority communities to qualify. He would interpret it in a way
that would leave out, to a greater extent than we do, minority
language communities.
We oppose the first proposition in his resolution because we
believe that the one million francophones outside Quebec, as
citizens of Canada, have rights and those rights should be
protected. The approximately 800,000 anglophones in Quebec
have the same rights, to be protected under the federal Official
Languages Act and policy.
The second point in his resolution is to provide for English
and French in the Parliament of Canada and the institutions
relating to the Parliament of Canada and to the Federal Court.
That is the law and the policy right now. I do not know how that
part of his resolution would change anything. I may be incorrect.
He did not spend much time speaking to that part of his
resolution.
The third part of his resolution asks that we refrain from
spending on those aspects of language which come under
provincial jurisdiction. He did not speak to that part of his
resolution either but if we were to adopt that policy, it would
mean cutting assistance to the provinces for minority language
education and second language education, including immersion.
That would be a bad thing.
The money the federal government provides to the provinces
for second language education, including immersion, and for
minority language education is a good thing. It is done for the
national unity of the country because many of the provinces
could not afford to give adequate minority language education.
The hon. member from Nanaimo asked that we keep an open
mind. I came to this debate with an open mind but I must say in
listening to the speeches, as a party the policy has been unclear
and ambiguous. I am not saying all of them. I listened to them
all. I was here for the entire debate. They gave different
versions. In fact some of them proposed things that were
contrary to the resolution. Some of the proposals they spoke of
were truly retrograde, a step backward in protecting the
language rights of Canadians, including minority language
rights.
He said in his opening remarks that the act was not working
well, therefore it had to be changed. He said in many cases it was
divisive and too expensive. He suggested that commissioners of
official languages had supported that criticism.
That is not correct. It is true that from time to time, and the
reports of the official languages commissioner will attest to
that, they are critical of the administration for not following the
provisions of the act or where there have been mistakes or
errors. That is the role of the Commissioner of Official Lan-
3182
guages, to point out where the administration has failed to live
up to the principles in the act.
No commissioner that I know of has criticized the principles
and the general policy of the act. As a matter of fact, all
commissioners agree that without the act things would be much
worse with respect to our language minorities.
As to whether it is working well or not working well, these are
relative concepts. In fact, there are now 162,000 francophones
outside Quebec in 700 French primary schools. There are 23,000
francophones outside Quebec in 45 colleges and universities.
Four million Canadians, or 16 per cent of the population, speak
both official languages.
(1710)
The second criticism he made is that it is too expensive.
Again, I do not know of any Commissioner of Official
Languages who criticized the entire policy as being too
expensive. The present commissioner criticized the bonus
program and suggested we get rid of it but he has not said that
the policy is too expensive in a global sense.
Commissioners have criticized specifics within the policy
and asked that they be corrected, but not that the entire policy be
cancelled or cut back.
With respect to expense, in fact it only costs 20 cents out of
every $100 that the federal government spends on programs.
That comes to three cents per day per Canadian. In response to
the member of the Reform Party, it will not keep many hospitals
open that are closing in his constituency. The cost for official
language policy is a very small percentage of our entire budget.
Finally, he says it is divisive. Again I do not know of any
Commissioner of Official Languages who says that the
principles of the act are divisive. It is divisive in the sense that
some people will not accept the principles in the Official
Languages Act. It is their democratic right to oppose it and we
hear that today. I do not think the reason, the cause of the
divisiveness, is the principles in the act. It is just that some
people will not recognize the rights of linguistic minorities.
The polls that I have looked at-I do not want to spend too
much time, but they are on the record-indicate that from 60 to
75 per cent of Canadians support the policies in the Official
Languages Act.
The purpose of the Official Languages Act is to provide
legally enforceable language rights and language justice for the
two official language communities in Canada, that is the one
million francophones outside of Quebec and the approximately
800,000 anglophones in Quebec. It is also to serve the interests
of the six million francophones in Canada, including those in
Quebec because they are a minority in the entire country.
It is a law that is based principally or inspired by a need for
tolerance, understanding and generosity. I am pleased that our
government is going to bring back the court challenges program
because it is no use having rights in law if you cannot enforce
them in the courts.
There is no obligation to become bilingual under the Official
Languages Act but I heard members of the Reform Party once
again saying today that French is being thrust down their
throats. No language is being thrust down the throat of the
consumer of services. It is true that if you are going to provide
those services some people have to speak French and some
people have to speak English in order to provide the services but
generally speaking that is in the institution.
By the way, 70 per cent of all federal government positions
are unilingual either English or French. Only 30 per cent of the
positions are bilingual.
I thought I had until 5.15. I wrote down the time. How much
time do I have left?
The Deputy Speaker: Zero.
Mr. Allmand: I have zero time on such an important subject.
Unfortunately we do not have the time to debate this
important matter in the way it should be debated. I have many
points I would still like to make. I will have to come back on
another day.
Please put the motion before the House again so we can all get
at it once more.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member say that the Reform Party has been
saying this is being thrust down people's throats. No, it has been
thrust on to the backs of the taxpayers at the sacrifice of
hospitalization in this country. We have to prioritize. This is all
we are saying on this side of the House.
How can I tell people in my constituency that they have to
wait for months for hospitalization and for operations and still
fund official bilingualism from the pockets of the taxpayers?
They do not understand it. It is not a priority out there. We do not
have the numbers.
(1715 )
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, of course health care is
important. I do not have the figures here today as to how much at
both the federal and provincial levels we are spending on health
care, but it is probably not enough. However, to suggest that you
can save hospitals with the little bits of money that we are
spending on our bilingual program at the federal level is to
mislead Canadians. It plays to the minds and hearts of bigots
when you do that.
3183
I am not saying that the member is one, but when you suggest
that you can save the health care system with the budget that we
have for official languages that is distorting the situation.
I will give examples. They could be given in English Canada
as well. An elderly anglophone who is close to me went to a
hospital, in this case in Quebec but it could happen to a
francophone outside Quebec, for health care and could not
communicate with the nurses or the doctors in that hospital
because nobody could speak English. I know there are many
examples on the other side where francophones go to hospitals
and they cannot get service in French and they are trying to
describe their ailments, which is not easy even if you have a
doctor or nurse who speaks your own language.
Therefore, to suggest that it is either one or the other, it is
health care or official languages policies or services, is to
mislead Canadians. Both are necessary on a basis of justice and
social policy. I suggest that you will never save one hospital or
one major health care program in this country with the little
bitsy budget that we have for official languages.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to address a couple of points made by the hon. member.
One part of the problem is the costs of official languages. The
problem is that we do not know what those costs are.
Now we are told $601 million per year. We are told three cents
on every $100. Frankly, I have received correspondence from
the Department of National Defence specifically telling me:
``Here is our figure of cost of this thing but we cannot tell all
because of Treasury Board rules and regulations''.
It is our perception that much of the cost of official languages
is hidden somewhere or other. We would really like to unearth it.
Perhaps that is the procedure that we can follow in the standing
joint committee.
The other point that I would like to address which was made
by the hon. member concerns the overall. What is it that we are
trying to do here in examining the Official Languages Act? He
was taking territorialism as an example and using the example
that I was giving and saying that it did not go far enough. I agree.
Let us take St. Boniface, Gravelbourg and Maillardville outside
of New Westminster as places where it does merit it. Surely what
we should be doing is studying the thing and not just rejecting it
out of hand and saying the act is good, most people agree with it,
therefore let us not look at it.
Please, let us go at it step by step and examine things that
come up with a policy that works for all of us.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on his first point, with respect to
the true costs, I would agree with him. If the present costs that
are put forward by the government are not the complete costs
then let us have the complete costs. I do not think it serves the
debate well to have varying versions of the costs.
I do not know whether these costs are the full costs or not but
we will have a chance in the committee to tie officials down on
that. I think all the costs should be put on the table and then we
can judge. I am sure, however, that in comparison to other
programs they are still very small as a percentage base
compared to health care, social services and so on.
His next point was with respect to what should be the exact
definition of where the people demand the services. I was on the
official languages committee in 1968-69 for the first act. We
spent almost a year on it. I was on the committee in 1988 for the
second version and we went through at great length the points
that are being raised by the member: How narrow or how wide
should the definition be in covering minority language
communities? Should you cover Gravelbourg or not cover
Gravelbourg? Should you just cover large areas like the east and
north of Ontario and leave out, let us say, the Acadian
community in Nova Scotia? We went through that for months
and months in 1988.
(1720)
The hon. member and myself are both on the official
languages committee and we will have a chance to go through it
again. That does not strike to the heart of the legislation, to the
principles. Here we are debating how wide or how narrow, that
concept of which populations should be served and where, how
big that should be before we give the services. We will have a
chance to go at that.
It comes also to a question of justice. Take the eastern
townships as an example. There is a majority of francophones in
the eastern townships now but the first Europeans to come to
that part of Quebec were anglophones who fled from the United
States to towns like Cowansville, Knowlton and Frelighsburg. I
have lived there. I lived in Sherbrooke. They built a university
there and they built colleges; Stanstead, Bishop's, Compton
Hall and so on. Now it is mostly French speaking. Are we to
leave these people out altogether with these long historic rights?
That is a very important question.
We studied it before and we will study it again.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, as a francophone member from Western Canada, I am
pleased and honoured to speak on this motion.
3184
Our policy, that is the policy in force at the present time, is to
ensure that our country is one in which all Canadians,
francophone and anglophone, can feel at home, regardless of
where they choose to live.
I had planned to speak exclusively about French language
education governance.
[English]
Having heard some comments, I cannot help but address not
only the government's French language schools and
post-secondary opportunities in French but the proposal being
made today.
Many people will know that the key to growth for minority
language communities is quality education. The government has
assisted in the management of minority language schools. The
charter recognizes this right. The management of schools, that is
its realization, has required much effort. It is still not complete,
but for those where it is not complete the federal government is
available to render some assistance.
The point I would like to make is that if you are going to
develop the French language or English language community
you need quality education. You cannot have the highest quality
education unless it is the people themselves who govern, who
manage, and that is a basic issue that we need to understand.
We also need to understand that without the help of the federal
government this would never, never have happened.
Look at the language rights accomplishments of provinces
throughout the years, whatever the political stripe. It has never
been terribly generous. Quite to the contrary. They have done as
little as possible in spite of judgment after judgment to do it to
the contrary. That is where the federal government has that
important right. It has an important responsibility to the people
of Canada.
Where do you think immersion schools would be today if it
had not been for the federal government's involvement? Where
do you think the management of schools would be? Where do
you think post-secondary opportunities in French would be if
the federal government had not been willing to assist in their
financing?
Without the federal government we would have accomplished
a great deal less.
[Translation]
I would like to quote from a document that I read recently. I
think it will be extremely useful since it expresses what I have
been saying. I quote: ``The establishment and expansion of
centres of excellence for francophone communities outside
Quebec was made possible thanks to the assistance of the federal
government''. For example, the Collège universitaire de
Saint-Boniface in Manitoba has become the finest
French-language post-secondary institution in Western
Canada. Each year, the international centre for French common
law at the Université de Moncton in New Brunswick welcomes
several dozen interns from a number of francophone countries.
Its reputation now extends beyond Canada's borders.
(1725 )
[English]
We are richer for those particular institutions at a time when
countries' boundaries are no longer nearly as important as they
were, at a time when we talk about globalization, when we reach
out and we talk to other countries not only about economic
development but other types of development.
It would seem to me that our minority communities, indeed all
language communities, are a tremendous asset to this country.
I want to talk about the proposal. I will not dwell too heavily
upon some of the points that have been made, but what is
territorial bilingualism. I fear territorialism. We have
territorialism in the former Yugoslavia, I fear.
It is a little tent here for someone with a little tent here for
someone else. We put the tribes into those tents and sometimes
they decide not to talk to each other.
Is territorial bilingualism really not French for Quebec and
English for the rest of Canada? Is that not a nice way of saying
it? Is it not a recognition that if that were to happen that over
time those small fragile communities, very often with very few
people, would disappear?
What is demonstrable local public demand? What percentage
is it? Who is that makes the request?
There is a French language school in St.-Lazare, Manitoba,
which is several hundred kilometres away from Winnipeg. Is
there a demonstrable local public demand there? What is it
exactly?
We talk about the costs. What I resent most is there is a
suspicion that the costs are much more than the $601 million
that has been mentioned. Rather than wait for the proof they
prey on the prejudice of people who think that. Rather than say
let us find out in committee, oh, no, that is not good enough.
This is why I deplore this particular proposal. It is insidious.
It is malicious. I think it is intellectually dishonest. It is preying
on the prejudices of people.
It is saying to the crowd ``What do you want? We are prepared
to give it to you because we want to keep your support. We want
to keep your support''.
Why give languages back to the provinces? Why? They know
the records of most provinces. They know that provinces have
not been generous. They know that over time the provinces
would reduce those particular language rights and that is the
3185
intellectual dishonesty. They know that and they are trying to
put forward that position without owning up to it.
To suggest as was suggested before that the budget attributed
to official languages would keep hospitals open is the height of
irresponsibility. I said irresponsibility. There are other words
that could have been used.
As I indicated before it is the old tribalism back at work. We
have our tribe. You can have your tribe. Within each of those
tribes, and we have seen that, there are some members who are
more valued than others.
We are having a debate about official languages. What will be
the next target? Multiculturalism? Aboriginal
self-government? Obviously there are people out there who are
concerned. I share those concerns and I am quite prepared to talk
about them but let us be honest about it.
I do not deny, I have never denied, and I have written
professionally about this topic, that the Official Languages Act
costs money. I have said it. I have outlined the costs and I will
continue to say it. But you have to look at it in perspective. You
have to stop pretending that for the deficit and the debt and the
hospitals there is a miracle cure. I am tired of hearing that kind
of nonsense and I think a lot of others are tired of hearing that
kind of nonsense as well.
If the Reform Party of Canada is truly interested in official
languages why would it not look at what we have and try to build
upon it as opposed to destroying it? It is among the first who
would blame the Bloc for wanting to separate and destroy a
country. I have asked the Bloc: Why not stay with us and help us
build a better country? I say to the Reform Party rather than
destroy the official languages, rather than perpetuate the myths
that are out there which are frightening people, why not join in a
debate that is intellectually honest?
(1730)
Why would you not say that if the federal government does
not continue to be involved that those small communities will
disappear? Those small communities are fragile. Have you ever
lived in one of those small communities? Do you know how
difficult it is for someone to retain that language? Do you know
how long they fought to do it? Do you know what price they had
to pay? I doubt it because if you did-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows
very well he is to put his remarks to the Chair. The reason we do
not want members saying ``you'' is to avoid emotions getting
too high. Will the member please do that.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the hon.
members who brought forward this motion had lived in minority
language situations as many people have had to do, if they had
had that experience they would not have brought forward this
motion.
I ask them, through you Mr. Speaker, to put away their
prejudices and look at how we can improve it. Of course it can be
improved. There is not a program in government that cannot be
improved. Of course money can be saved. There is not one
program in government that cannot be improved in terms of
more efficient use of funds.
That should be the focus of the debate. The debate should
consider what kind of Canada do we want. What kind of
investments are we willing to make in our minority language
communities? How are we going to make sure we make the
investments that are sufficient not only to sustain them but to
permit them to grow?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I have one final comment. Like
my colleague who preceded me, I would have liked to have a
little more time. I would simply ask my hon. colleagues to try
and be constructive, rather than destructive.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, first
I will address the comment of whether any of us had lived in
minority situations. I was a kid in Vancouver and I was one of
those foreigners and heard: ``His parents are foreigners. What is
a name like Ringma anyway? That is funny sort of foreign name
to me''. I have lived it probably more than others in this House.
I heard the last speaker talk about intellectual dishonesty. I
want to say I heard some intellectual dishonesty coming out
from there saying why would we not build on the official
languages policy rather than destroy it. It is precisely what we
are trying to do. We are saying to amend the Official Languages
Act, not chuck it out. We are saying to amend it and build on
what is good in it.
I heard talk about intellectual dishonesty. If we are talking
about bilingualism now, what will be next? Multiculturalism?
Native rights? Do we not have a right, an obligation in this
House to talk about these matters without emotions coming to
the fore and people saying: ``You cannot talk about that''. This is
nonsense. That is what Parliament is for. I will stand on my
rights to talk about all of these subjects. It is my duty, how much
it may hurt.
Finally, demonstrable local public demand is the phrase that
was picked out of the motion. I agree it is a difficult one. It
equates to what is in the act today, where numbers warrant. That
is an area we should go at together. We should specify whether it
is 5,000 or 10 per cent or 2 per cent of the population and under
what circumstances. Let us put it out. Let us not just deny it.
3186
(1735 )
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, first I want to make certain that
my colleague who just spoke does not misrepresent what I said. I
at no time said that we should not be talking about these topics. I
said we should be talking about them in an intellectually honest
way. I object so much to the suggestion that the costs are such
that hospitals are closing and people are suffering as a result of
that. That is the intellectual dishonesty to which I refer.
When we talk about territorial bilingualism and demonstrable
numbers there is a significant difference in what the critic and
some other members of his party are saying. They have to decide
whether or not they are talking about the same terms in the same
way. I have heard significant differences in the speeches today. I
will try to do a standing order statement on those differences just
to point them out in case some people think I am exaggerating.
The member suggests I am saying we cannot talk about this.
Of course I did not say that. I said we need to build. I suggest that
what is being proposed today is destroying and not building. The
provinces will not protect minority language rights. Looking at
their record, it has not happened over time. That is what would
happen.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, this
is a subject that I care deeply about. The rights of francophones
outside Quebec are very much affected by the Official
Languages Act and this law-
[English]
Official bilingualism in Canada is a complete failure. There is
no doubt about the fact that it is a complete failure. The Reform
Party talks about costs in dollars and cents but does not refer to
the human costs of the failure of official bilingualism in Canada.
There are some MPs who talk about rights, especially
anglophones in Quebec talk about their fundamental rights. If
there is a community in Canada that has never had their rights
respected, it is the francophones outside Quebec. Their rights
were denied in spite of guarantees in the Constitution. Those
rights were abolished illegally by every single province in
Canada, every single one, right after Confederation. It was just
Quebec that respected its English speaking minority. Every
other province in Canada, every single province abolished
French language rights in those provinces.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The answer must be brief; time is
already up.
The parliamentary secretary has the floor.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I understand very well that there
has been a huge loss for Canada, the whole country, because
minority communities like francophones outside Quebec were
neglected for years. Because of this neglect, it took extra effort
to help them rebuild their infrastructure.
I know that it is not much use making comparisons because we
all have our prejudices; I prefer my solution, you prefer yours
and so on. Nevertheless, when dealing with such a sensitive
subject as this, I would like us to consider people first and what
can be done to help them keep the language they had since birth,
whether it was French, English or some other language. For me,
a Canadian very strongly aware of his roots, I most certainly
want all Canadians, not only francophones or anglophones, to be
able to keep their language and culture and at the same time to
work and join with others.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I will
dive right into my speech without commenting on some of the
things that have gone on.
(1740 )
In his report to the Prime Minister of England a century ago,
Lord Durham's characterization of Canada was profound and
enduring. He described English and French Canada as two
nations warring within the bosom of a single state. We cannot
hide the unfortunate reality that there have always been varying
levels of tension between the two groups.
Because of their numbers the English have in times past
enjoyed the lion's share of political power within Canada. We
find an example in the federal civil service which employed very
few francophones in proportion to their share of the population.
Federal services were almost unavailable in French, which was
clearly unjust. In Ottawa, the nation's capital and an hour and a
half from four million francophones, many services were simply
unavailable in both official languages.
For nearly a century there was very little overt reaction but
Quebec underwent a fundamental transformation after the
second world war. After it had served there so nobly like a
sleeping giant, Quebec shook itself awake and it defined itself as
Confederation's underprivileged partner. Its intellectual elite
began to pursue redress with a vengeance in a quiet revolution.
The Canadian way is the way of compromise. Some see this as
a political weakness. That can be true, but in general the way of
compromise is the way of peace and reconciliation. Rwanda is a
nation without compromise. The democratization of South
Africa we hope will be an example of noble compromise.
The Liberal government saw that compromise was necessary
in order to keep Quebec within Confederation. Under Pearson
3187
the federal government began to right the old wrongs in part by
providing services in French and hiring more francophones.
It also passed an act of Parliament in 1969. The Official
Languages Act was designed to quell calls for Quebec's
independence. Its architect was Pierre Trudeau and his purpose
was to satisfy other Quebec intellectuals by making federal
services bilingual across Canada. The notion that some federal
employees might not want to become bilingual did not appeal to
Mr. Trudeau. The fact that there might be no demand for it in
certain regions did not concern him. The cost of this venture
went unestimated.
Twenty-five years later what do we find? Has the purpose of
the act been fulfilled? Is Quebec satisfied? With the expenditure
of over $600 million a year is Quebec now more comfortable
within Confederation? I should say not. Quebec is closer than
ever before to separation and the Bloc Quebecois is calling the
act a failure.
On April 12 the Commissioner for Official Languages tabled
a report that describes in detail not how civil servants across this
land have embraced bilingualism, not how services are now
adequate in both languages, not how the administration of the
policy has been cost effective, no. The commissioner reported a
litany of bilingual woe across Canada.
Many offices designated as bilingual can hardly deliver the
service. Offices that have virtually no demand are hounded by
the commissioner's language police to display bilingual
signage. Imagine a Canada employment centre in Saskatoon
being rebuked by the commissioner for putting up an ad for a job
that was not translated perfectly. This rebuke came in response
to one complaint and this is in Saskatoon. The commissioner
forced the letter of the law upon an unwilling office.
Let me talk about a small post office in my constituency in the
community of Sardis, B.C. The Official Languages Act says that
where there is a significant demand for two languages, the
service shall be provided by the Government of Canada. There is
no definition of the word significant in the act although it does
define a bilingual district as an area where 10 per cent of the
population speaks the minority language.
To transfer the meaning of the word significant to my
constituency, it would require a population of at least 8,000
people with French as their mother tongue to require services in
French. After the last census the government determined there
was a significant number of francophones who needed bilingual
services in the tiny Sardis post office.
What does the word significant mean to the government? One
point seven per cent of the population identifies their mother
tongue as French. That is 1.7 per cent. Far fewer actually speak
the language. That is their mother tongue. To top it off there was
not one request in the post office for service in French, not one
ever. Yet bilingual service must be provided. This is just one
example of a silly policy that becomes horrendously expensive
when it is repeated in different ways thousands of times across
Canada.
It is no wonder bilingualism costs $660 million every year.
That is only the official figure. Add in the administrative
inefficiencies, enforcement, lost opportunities and the
opportunity costs and the real world figure is much higher.
(1745 )
A comprehensive study done by Scott Reid says it seems
reasonable to set this overhead cost at approximately 5 per cent
of all public service staffing costs or $951 million per year.
Donald Savoie, a noted Canadian scholar, hikes the figure to
20 per cent.
Is this incredible cost necessary to hold Canada together? Are
French and English bound only by the glue of this frustrating,
burdensome regulation, inefficiency and waste? Why maintain a
charade of bilingualism when after trying and spending for 25
years people still do not want it?
If the loss of the Official Languages Act would cause Quebec
to separate then the act must be one of the main pillars on which
this country rests. We managed for a century without such an
act. Is bilingualism really the substance of Canadian unity? I do
not believe it.
Canada is much greater than that. Canada possesses the only
cords strong enough to bind a nation together. They are not the
shackles of language law, they are historic ties, unity within
diversity, the bonds of shared sacrifice, shared elements of
culture, shared hopes and values, bandaged where necessary
with generosity and good will.
Petty arguments over language cannot sever the fundamental
oneness felt between all Canadians. Like a storm on the ocean,
there may be tumult above but beneath the waves the deep
waters lie undisturbed.
I am grieved that the Bloc Quebecois, along with other
intellectuals, has created such a storm in Quebec. Even though
the problems of inequity are largely resolved, the media and the
politicians have for 20 years repeated their perception that vast
inequities still persist. They have trumpeted this concept and
held out false promises to persuade people to pursue them in
their folly.
What will be the result of their actions? Every Canadian of
every group will suffer, chief among them the people of Quebec.
I question the attitude of the Bloc when I hear of its support
for unilingualism in Quebec, asserting at the same time that
even if Quebec separates the federal government should force
bilingualism on English Canada. This is not the spirit of the
tolerance and generosity that has helped make Canada one of the
3188
best places in the world to live. This is the kind of political
ambition that breeds mistrust and anger.
The Commissioner of Official Languages expressed a great
principle at the beginning of his report when he quoted
Montesquieu: ``Nothing is just merely because it forms part of
the law; rather, it should be law because it is just''.
The commissioner said that the form of law must reflect the
substance of justice. The law simply reflects an underlying
reality. I agree fully with that concept. Where there is
significant demand, as our motion states, it is only just that
bilingual services reflect that demand. The Official Languages
Act is an attempt to change Canadian reality, to shape a different
Canada, to create a new reality by forcing bilingualism coast to
coast on what is frequently an unwilling population. It is
expensive, it is intrusive and it is unnecessary.
The Reform Party does not oppose bilingualism. All
Canadians would profit by learning another language if they
would like to. Reformers are not unkind or insensitive to the
rights of minorities. The Official Languages Act is not the act
that makes us kind or sensitive. It is my desire and the desire of
Reformers to make law reflecting underlying reality by giving
jurisdiction over language to the provinces and using federal
powers to protect all minorities from linguistic injustices.
We live in a changing Canada. Millions of new Canadians
today were born neither French nor English. They too deserve to
become part of the Canadian language equation.
The Reform Party of Canada wants to effect a new Canadian
compromise, to reach out to French Canadians to cement and
rebuild our great national home, not on the artificial, unstable
basis of language or ethnicity but on the sure foundation of
mutual respect, understanding and equality for all races,
cultures and languages; on the desire for peace and prosperity
rather than on power, anger or unrest.
To this new vision of Canada we pledge ourselves today and I
invite all members to join with us in this grand adventure.
(1750)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, I have
endured the debates all afternoon, but now, I know that my time
is short, but I will try to speak calmly.
The Official Languages Act was a late attempt to right serious
historic wrongs, and to answer the question forthwith, Mr.
Speaker, before it is overlooked, as a young francophone from
Ontario used to say: ``What you call Quebec's French
unilingualism, we would really like to have as Ontario's
bilingualism.''
Come and see the reality of rights. Come and see the reality of
rights in schools, in social services, in hospitals for
English-speaking people and in the debates within the Parti
Quebecois to preserve these rights. And I would like it if, in
Canada, they had the same debates to preserve rights when
Quebec is gone. Because I will tell you one thing: a debate such
as the one here today will not give anyone in Quebec the desire
to stay in this country.
There is an historic dimension missing. Perhaps I should
apologize for the fact that my ancestors arrived around 1647. I
must apologize for that. Their name was Tremblay and others
came later. I must apologize for what they built at the time. They
were Canadians, real ones, the first ``Canadians''.
They were all over the continent you know, they also explored
the West, but we do not have time for a history lesson. After the
conquest, ``Canadians'' were mostly confined to the territory of
Quebec, but over the years, they maintained the desire to go all
over Canada.
I would like to mention one fact. In 1928, headlines in Le
Devoir stated that Montrealers were worried because
francophones, instead of going West where there were some
good lands, were emigrating to the United States. For a hundred
years, 10,000 French-Canadians a year went to the United
States-there were large families in those days-but why did
they not go West? Because in 1928, it would cost $48 to have a
family come over from Liverpool, but $928 for the same family,
that is ten children-as was common in those days-and two
parents, to cover the same distance but from East to West.
We must realize that ``Canadians'' tried desperately to make a
place for themselves, their schools and their own religion in this
country but they were kept from doing so. Mr. Trudeau tried,
although belatedly, to remedy the situation, yet he knew full
well that in Quebec things had already started to move and that
the measures he was implementing were no more than a paper
barricade.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, there was not really a question at the
end of that but I certainly caught the gist of the member's
comments. I can try and understand historically some of the
frustrations, not being from Quebec.
Overall the French culture and the French language have done
very well within the Canadian context. The people the member
mentioned who went south into the United States were not able
to hang on to their culture and their language by and large and
they have lost that and have become assimilated.
As I mentioned earlier, there were wrongs in the past. To take
note of them and try to rectify them where we can is obviously
what Canadians have tried to do. A further mistake would be to
3189
try and redress past wrongs in a way that exacerbates another
problem somewhere else.
Our motion is to try and get at the nub of the issue which is
where numbers warrant and where there is significant need for
the French language outside of Quebec then those services
should be provided; likewise in Quebec where there is
significant demand for the English language.
I will use my own province as an example. French barely
makes the top ten languages in British Columbia. Chinese is by
far the second most frequently used language. In my own riding
people who are either unilingually German or use German as
their mother tongue outnumber French-speaking people
perhaps 200 to 1.
(1755)
Where there are numbers and where we can justify it and
where we can financially afford it, for that reason, because we
want to provide it, I say let us provide it. We cannot have a
Canada wide policy to try to redress some wrongs from the early
part of this century. It is not practical. I do not think we can
afford it. I do not think it redresses those wrongs and makes
people feel better. If it did we would have unanimity. As it is we
have people who are actually driven apart by the act.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired for questions and
comments. The member was dividing his time with the hon.
member for Calgary North.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, my
colleagues have discussed at some length the problems we have
had in Canada with the policy of official bilingualism and I
would now like to take a look at how the policy has worked in the
public service.
The recent annual report by the Commissioner of Official
Languages echoed Lester Pearson, as annual reports have done
practically since the inception of official bilingualism, with the
following words: ``The Official Languages Act requires federal
institutions to ensure that English-speaking and
French-speaking Canadians have equal opportunities for
employment and advancement within their ranks''.
This is a high minded and noble goal, one that all of us in this
House can agree with. It is hard, however, to reconcile this ideal
with a statement made by the hon. minister of defence, for
example, on February 25: ``We are putting on notice
anglophones who want to be generals or chiefs of staff that they
have to be totally and absolutely bilingual''. This is in Hansard
at page 1855.
He later commented: ``Anglophones have more to be worried
about than francophones because of the tougher bilingual
requirements for senior officers''.
It seems pretty clear and obvious from these completely
opposed statements that the ideal and the reality of official
bilingualism are two different things.
I do not believe for one moment that the hon. minister of
defence favours French-speaking Canadians over
English-speaking Canadians, but I think the minister is faced
with the problem of having to defend an inherently flawed
system.
There is good reason for the fact that of the 3,000
communications received by the ombudsman under the Official
Languages Act over half were complaints of one sort or another.
To put it very simply, the current implementation of official
bilingualism does not work. It does not work for anglophones
and it does not work for francophones.
The term bilingual describes a person who is equally
proficient in both official languages. By this definition there are
very few Canadians who can claim to be fluently bilingual and
yet we persist, after 27 years of failure, to believe that this
policy will somehow be made to work if only we wish harder and
spend more money.
By way of example let me draw your attention to many of the
members on both sides of this House, myself included, who
would not be eligible for employment in virtually all the senior
positions in the public sector today because our command of the
other official language is less than functional.
It is ironic that although many of us in this House are not
bilingual we expect anyone who wants to advance in the public
sector to be fluent in both languages.
The reality is that the great majority of Canadians are not
bilingual and those who claim to be often are not.
The second problem is that the designation of bilingual
postings is increasing, often doing so when there is no real need
for bilingual services, as my hon. colleague has just indicated.
One example of the unnecessary designation of public service
posts as bilingual was uncovered by the Ottawa Citizen in 1991.
In that case there were eight positions designated as bilingual. It
turns out that the eight employees were asked to use their
bilingual capabilities just once in the past two years and that was
when an English-speaking caller had a wrong number and the
employees were able to direct him to the right one.
(1800 )
The example I have just given is one of scores which show
that many public service positions are unnecessarily designated
as bilingual.
There is an alternative to the present implementation of
official bilingualism which will not only allow public servants
to speak in the language of their choice, but will also eliminate
language based discrimination.
3190
In 1977 in response to the problem of de facto discrimination
against francophones, the royal commission on bilingualism
and biculturalism recommended that the public service be
reorganized into two parallel hierarchies of unilingual work
units. French would become the language of about 25 per cent of
those work units and English would be the language of the rest.
It is important to keep in mind that this would not be a quota
system because anglophones could try to win jobs in the French
language work unit and vice versa. However, in each case
workers would be allowed and required to communicate with
fellow employees in the language of the work unit.
The big picture within the public service as a whole would be
that employees could choose whether or not they wanted to
make the substantial financial investment required to learn the
other official language. Either way there would be a place for
them to work in the language of their choice. Not only would the
choice have been left to the employee, but the enormous cost of
government sponsored language training would have been
saved.
This proposal has been tested in the private sector and has
been very successful in bilingual companies. Most positions can
be filled by unilingual speakers of one language or another and
only a few bridge positions need to be filled with bilingual
employees. Had this model been adopted when it was
recommended 27 years ago full equality between the languages
would have been achieved by now and there would be no
meaningful discrimination against speakers of either official
language.
However, Trudeau chose to adopt another model in which
every individual position was designated as to the official
language skills it required. Francophones and anglophones
would be expected to work in close proximity throughout the
public service which means that many posts, including all posts
beyond the most junior level would involve regular
communication between speakers of two languages.
In this situation two unfortunate results were inevitable. First,
the traditionally dominant language, English, would continue to
dominate. This is why virtually all public service meetings
continue to this day to be held in English. Second, there would
be a huge need for bilingual people to occupy all supervisory
positions since the rules now proclaimed that each person must
be supervised in the language of his or her choice.
It is in the wildfire spread of bilingually designated posts that
the real tragedy has occurred. On the one hand the system helped
to boost the number of francophones employed by Ottawa. This
is because two-thirds of the designated bilingual posts in the
public service are occupied by francophones. On the other hand
between 60 and 70 per cent of francophones in Canada do not
speak English. For this majority the chances of finding
employment in the public service have been reduced by the
system of designating individual posts as bilingual.
In fact between 1974 when the policy was introduced and
1992, the number of positions in the federal civil service open to
persons capable of speaking only French dropped from 34,000
to 25,000. This is a drop of 26 per cent. Even more staggering is
the impact in Quebec itself where over half of all the jobs in the
federal public service are open only to persons who speak
English as well as French.
If the majority of francophones face discrimination the
situation among anglophones is even worse. Nearly 90 per cent
of Canadian English speakers are incapable of speaking fluent
French. This means that most English Canadians are ineligible
to rise above the junior public service or above the rank of major
in the armed forces. The result of this situation is dramatic.
In a 1990 survey by the Professional Institute of the Public
Service of Canada over one-third of anglophone respondents
stated that the policy of designating individual posts had
negatively affected their advancement opportunities in the past.
Over half of the respondents stated they believed the policy
would hurt their promotion opportunities in the future. Nearly
42 per cent stated that on at least one occasion in the past they
had not even bothered to apply for a post solely because of the
restrictive language requirements.
(1805)
In other words, because they structured their reform so
poorly, the federal government managed to actually increase the
level of discrimination faced by the average francophone and
simultaneously introduced discrimination against the average
anglophone. Canada is probably unique in having managed to
systematically discriminate against both its major language
groups at the same time by means of the same policy.
The way out of this mess is to toss aside the present system
and to finally adopt the system of French and English language
units proposed by the B and B commission 27 years ago. New
Brunswick has recently adopted elements of this model for its
provincial language service. It seems to be a success. That
would be our territorial bilingualism policy within the public
service. We believe it is time for Ottawa to follow this example.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker, I
have been listening to the debate all afternoon. I would like to
say most respectfully that the members of the Reform Party have
been intellectually dishonest in this debate.
The member from Calgary said, or implied at least, just a few
moments ago that because very few Canadians are bilingual that
represents failure of the bilingualism policy of this country.
Nothing could be farther from the truth because there was never
any intention of the Official Languages Act of 1969 to cause all
Canadians to become bilingual.
3191
Similarly and earlier the member for Fraser Valley East said
that he was not against bilingualism. He said that he was in
favour of Canadians picking up a second language. Again it is
not the intention of the Official Languages Act to cause
Canadians to become bilingual. It is the intention of the
government to provide bilingual service to the founding
language groups in this country.
It offends me that the members would use-
The Deputy Speaker: Does the member have a question?
There are two other members who wish to ask questions or make
comments too.
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I will ask a question by framing it
this way. Earlier it was said that the Reform Party would like to
see priorities set and spending cuts with respect to cutting back
the provisions of the Official Languages Act. I would ask this:
What would be a greater priority than the federal government
providing French language service to the four million unilingual
French speaking residents of Quebec and also service in English
to the millions of English speaking-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, the hon. member for
Calgary North.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
The first thing I would like to say is that we do not see the
policy of official bilingualism as making Canadians bilingual.
What I was talking about was the need of the policy to provide
equality of opportunity for all Canadians to participate in civil
service jobs and in the defence sector in our country and that it
has not done.
Second, the member asked what greater priority would the
government have than to make sure that there was a provision of
services for both official language groups in the country. I would
like to point out on behalf of over 12 million Canadians whose
mother tongue is neither French nor English that this
government is to serve and to meet the needs of every single
Canadian, of all Canadians.
It is time we recognize the fact that Canada is changing. I
would say that the greater priority that this member asked about
would be to ensure fairness for all Canadians, equality of service
for all Canadians. That should be the greater priority that we
should now be moving toward.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, to start with,
regarding the motion, I would like to tell the member from
Western Canada that in my riding of Gaspé, which takes
approximately 7 hours to cross by car, around 11 per cent of the
population is anglophone.
(1810)
If the notion of French predominance were to be accepted,
that would mean that, for all intents and purposes, the
anglophone communities of my area would be deprived of
services. Even when Quebec is sovereign, I will be the first one
to offer the people in this part of Quebec the right to speak their
own language and to be served in both official languages.
The question I want to ask the member of the Reform Party is
this: If the goal is to save money, it can be done through less
emotional means than that, and will the member support a
motion to eliminate overlapping, for instance? I would like to
point at to her that only in training, we could save $250 million
in Quebec, or one billion for Canada as a whole. A while ago, we
were talking about a figure of $660 million. Would she be
willing to vote in favour of the elimination of overlapping
jurisdictions?
[English]
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to point out to
the hon. member that we in our motion are suggesting that
services be available to official language minorities in their own
language in any part of the country where there is demonstrable
local public demand. It would be a judgment that would have to
be made by the government as to whether in this member's
riding, with 11 per cent anglophones spread across a very large
area, it would constitute a significant demand. I think it would
certainly constitute larger demand than the one my colleague
just spoke of where there was 1.7 per cent but still requiring
bilingual services or at least the offering of bilingual services by
the commissioner.
We want to be careful that we do not get into these matters
simply on the basis of dollars and cents. We have to get into the
situation on the basis of common sense and on the basis of this
significant demand and not just ask where can we cut back. We
need to ask where do we really need the services, where do
Canadians really require these services. On that basis there can
be savings. We are suggesting that because there are services
provided where there is no real demand, there is no significant
need, that money is being wasted.
We need to approach it from the point of view of the needs of
Canadians rather than simply from a straight dollars and cents
viewpoint.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, this will be one of the shortest speeches I have ever
delivered. I think we have about three minutes left.
[Translation]
I am pleased to take part this afternoon in this debate on the
Official Languages Act.
[English]
I do not agree with this business of territorial bilingualism.
3192
[Translation]
I represent a riding in the province of Ontario, where the
majority of people speak English. According to the principle of
territorial bilingualism, as defined in the motion before the
House, English would be the predominant language of the other
provinces, hence of my province of Ontario. Most of the people
in my riding are French, and they live in a province where the
vast majority of people speak English. Like myself, almost 70
per cent of my constituents have French as their mother tongue.
According to the hon. member, in such a case, territorial
bilingualism would apply at the riding level, but that would not
work either. What would such a policy do to some of the
communities in my riding, to the 35,000 anglophones living in
my riding?
[English]
Thirty-five thousand anglophones in my riding, if you
applied this territorialism at the riding basis, would be denied
their rights; 65,000 if you applied it on a provincial level. That is
how impossible that proposition is.
[Translation]
I would have liked it if we could have used today's debate to
criticize the flaws of the Official Languages Act, since all
legislation has flaws, and to suggest changes to the Official
Languages Act to ensure it can better serve the people of
Canada, and by that I mean the unilingual people of Canada,
because if the population were already bilingual, we would not
need an Official Languages Act.
Neither the member for Quebec-Est nor I need this
legislation, for we are both fluently bilingual, but the people we
represent have the right to be served in their own language. It is
for them that it is important to have an Official Languages Act,
not for the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
personally and not for my colleague who is also a
Franco-Ontarian, sitting across the way, from the riding of
Québec-Est.
So I would have liked to learn today how we could use this
Official Languages Act to unite both founding peoples of this
country, not to divide them. That is the topic I would have like to
have debated today. Speaking of the history of these two great
peoples, I heard one member speak earlier of her ancestors who
came here around 1640-mine arrived in La Prairie in
1680-and of all the other members who are new Canadians who
came here a few years ago, like some of my colleagues in this
House, or whose ancestors have been here almost forever, as in
the case of our native colleagues. So I regret that we had this
debate today, especially with this slant; I would have preferred it
to be otherwise, needless to say.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m., in accordance with
the provisions of Standing Order 81(16), it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I
have been requested by the deputy whip to defer the division
until a later time.
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the
proposed motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the
division on the question now before the House stands deferred
until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m., at which time the bells calling in
the members will be sounded for no more than 15 minutes.
[English]
It being 6.18 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.)