CONTENTS
Thursday, June 13, 1996
Bill C-307. Motions for introduction and first readingagreed to. 3779
Bill C-308. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3779
Bill C-309. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3780
Bill C-310. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3780
Bill C-311. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3780
Bill C-312. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3781
Bill C-313. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3781
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 3785
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3786
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3790
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 3795
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 3795
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 3799
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3803
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 3806
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 3809
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 3813
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3820
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3820
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 3821
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 3822
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 3822
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3822
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 3823
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3823
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3823
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3823
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3823
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3823
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3824
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3825
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3825
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 3827
Consideration resumed of motion 3829
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3829
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 3831
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 3835
Consideration resumed of motion 3837
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 3842
Motion M-166. Consideration resumed of motion 3845
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais) 3851
Consideration resumed of motion 3851
Division on motion deferred 3852
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 3852
3779
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, June 13, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
The Speaker: I have the honour, pursuant to section 38 of the
Access to Information Act, to lay upon the table the report of the
information commissioner for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1996.
[Translation]
The report is permanently referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both
official languages the government's response to six petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in
both official languages, the report of the Canadian section of the
International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians, as
well as the financial report regarding the meeting of the
co-operation and development commission of this organization,
held in Ouagadougou, in Burkina Faso, on March 22 and 23, 1996.
(1005)
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-307, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(polling hours).
She said: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill entitled an
act to amend the Canada Elections Act (polling hours). As you
know, Canada is a huge country, with great distances, which does
not make life easier for Canadians although it does make it more
interesting.
One of the major problems is distance. Even though the CBC
broadcasts the same message at the same time from the Atlantic, to
the Pacific, to the Arctic, when we wake up in Vancouver, we know
that Canadians in St. John's, Newfoundland, have already had
lunch.
The time difference is a big problem on election day. Shortly
after 4 p.m. in Vancouver, we know the results in Atlantic Canada,
and shortly after 5 p.m., we know what the situation is in Quebec
and Ontario. In British Columbia and in western Canada, where
there are fewer MPs, this means that, depending on the results, the
outcome has already been decided in eastern and central Canada.
The bill proposes to have all polling stations, from
Newfoundland to British Columbia, close at the same time, taking
the time difference into account, which would give the west the
possibility of having a say in the future of the country together with
the other provinces.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-308, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(polling stations in hospitals).
She said: Mr. Speaker, today I would also like to introduce a
private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Canada Elections
Act, polling stations in hospitals).
Although in the current act, section 138, there is a provision for
elections to be held in a sanitarium, a home for the aged, a chronic
3780
care hospital or a similar institution for the care and treatment of
tuberculosis and other chronic diseases, nothing in the act gives
patients in hospitals an opportunity to vote.
Apparently this service is already provided but there is no
indication of it in the elections act. I would therefore like to
introduce a bill that would ensure all patients in hospitals during an
election have the same privileges as all Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-309, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act
(ingredients of food sold in restaurants).
She said: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to introduce
this important piece of legislation. As members know, thousands of
Canadians suffer from serious food allergies and are unable to
freely enjoy one of the simple pleasures most of us take for
granted, a meal in a restaurant.
For these Canadians, full ingredient disclosure of a restaurant's
menu items can mean the difference between good health and
serious illness, between life and death.
The bill promotes greater awareness of the issue of food allergies
throughout the restaurant industry and minimizes the health risks
faced by food allergy sufferers. It was developed on the initiative of
Mrs. Betty Lou Taylor of Burlington and is supported by over
100,000 Burlington residents. It follows many months of
consultation with the restaurant industry, the medical profession,
groups representing allergy sufferers and members of Parliament.
I would like to dedicate this bill to the memory of Christian
Taylor, a young many in my riding of Burlington who passed away
on June 23, 1987 at the age of 17 after eating an apple turnover
secretly flavoured with crushed hazelnuts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
(1010 )
The Deputy Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my privilege to present on behalf of well over 500 petitioners
from Kelowna-
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have four
private member's bills to introduce today. I was obviously not
recognized. Could we revert to that before petitions?
The Deputy Speaker: There has never been a mistake made by
Chair. Perhaps there was not notice. Who knows what happened.
We will revert with permission to private members' bills.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-310, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada
Act (meetings of the Board of Internal Economy).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce an act to amend
the Canada of Parliament Act, meetings of the Board of Internal
Economy. As parliamentarians know, the Board of Internal
Economy is a very secretive operation. The public is not allowed to
attend meetings. These are very important meetings because
decisions are taken by the board which cost taxpayers a lot of
money and there is no transparency or accountability with respect
to its decisions.
The purpose of the bill is to allow members with a particular
interest to attend and take part in meetings of the Board of Internal
Economy of the House of Commons. The bill makes board
meetings public with the exception of those devoted to certain
specific topics. This follows up on many other jurisdictions in
Canada which have made their boards of internal economy
meetings public.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-311, an act to amend to amend the Patent Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill entitled an
act to amend the Patent Act. The bill will limit the life of patents
for medicines to 17 years and allow for compulsory licences to be
granted for the manufacture and sale of medicines after the original
patentee has had the medicine approved for marketing for four
years.
It also takes into account that the royalty rate is to take into
account the amount of medical research carried out in Canada by
the applicant and the patentee. There is a provision for refusal or
deferral of licence if a patentee has been unusually delayed in
commercializing a medicine.
In essence the bill addresses Bill C-91, which has caused
prescription drugs to skyrocket in costs. It has affected our medical
care system by driving up costs of hospital prescription drugs and
3781
other drugs as well as to individual users. This will allow fairer
competition with respect to prescription drugs in the marketplace.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-312, an act to amend the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (money purchase pension).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to once again introduce
an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances
Act, money purchase pension.
(1015 )
This bill addresses many concerns in Canada about the cost of
members of Parliament pensions. It follows up on Saskatchewan's
lead in 1979 when the Saskatchewan legislature pension plan was
changed from a defined benefit to a defined contribution or money
purchase. It will save Canadians about $7 million or $8 million a
year. It will also provide a fair pension system for members of
Parliament.
This sort of plan has been endorsed by the National Assistance
Coalition and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. It will take
effect as soon as the bill is passed.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-313, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada
Act (other pension income).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my fourth and final bill this morning is an
act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (other pension income).
The purpose of this bill is to require all pension or retiring
allowance payments received by a member of Parliament that are
paid from public funds to be deducted from the member's sessional
allowance. What this does is it eliminates the real double dipping.
Many members of Parliament receive pension funds from
municipal, provincial or federal governments, boards, agencies,
commissions, teachers' pensions and so on. They come to this
House and talk about the salaries being too high. This will save the
taxpayers a number of dollars because a number of members
receive both public pension income and an MP's pension both of
which are paid by the same taxpayer. My view is that this bill
should be adopted to eliminate that as much as possible.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of well over 500
petitioners from Okanagan Centre, resident primarily in Kelowna,
Westbank and Winfield.
This petition asks and prays that Parliament not amend the
Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland and
refer the problem of educational reform in that province back to the
Government of Newfoundland for resolution by some other
non-constitutional procedure.
I present this to the House and I support the petition.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by numerous
residents of Kingston and the area. They are petitioning Parliament
to urge that we adopt Bill C-205, a bill introduced by the hon.
member for Scarborough West, at the earliest opportunity, which
will provide that under Canadian law, no criminal will profit from
the commission of his or her crime.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. Q-48 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 48-Mr. Caccia:
What will be the precise reduction of CO2 emissions per year to the year 2000 for
each of fluorescent and incandescent lightbulbs under the new energy efficiency
regulations announced by the Minister of Natural Resources in November of 1995?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
The total annual reductions in CO2 emissions, to the year 2000,
associated with federal energy efficiency regulations for
incandescent and fluorescent lamps are estimated to be:
Year Annual Reductions in CO2 (Megatonnes)
1996 2.6
1997 3.7
1998 3.6
1999 4.2
2000 5.3
Reductions in CO2 emissions were not calculated by lamp type
(i.e. incandescent and fluorescent), rather they were calculated
based on total energy savings of all lamps affected by the
regulations. However, it is estimated that approximately 80 per
cent of
3782
annual energy savings associated with the regulations would be
attributed to fluorescent lamps. In this regard, it would be
reasonable to assume that approximately 80 per cent of the total
annual reduction in CO2 would be attributed to fluorescent lamps.
[English]
Mr. Zed: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3782
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ) moved:
That the House encourage the federal government to acknowledge the
urgency of the situation of francophones in minority situations in Canada and
take the exceptional steps required in order to counter their assimilation and
allow their development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to address the House on
this issue which is very close to my heart. First of all, I would like
to offer my sincere congratulations to the associations promoting
the rights of francophone minorities in Canada, particularly the
Ontario ACFO and the Fédération canadienne des communautés
francophones et acadienne, for their courage in fighting for the
rights of francophone minorities in Canada.
(1020)
I know it takes a lot of courage and perseverance. I know that
from experience since I come from Penetanguishene, a community
near Toronto where we had to fight hard to obtain our own schools.
I have seen the discrimination against francophones on the part of
anglophones; I experienced it and I witnessed it. I have seen not
only the fight that francophones had to put up to get their own
schools, in Ontario and other regions, but also the problems that
such a situation can cause in families, the dissensions, the
assimilation of some people, the francophones who, once
assimilated, fight other francophones and the damage all that can
cause. I know what the results of assimilation can be.
Unfortunately, I also know that the government often exploits
this situation. Francophones are accused of being the source of all
the trouble in Canada. The francophone minority, even Quebec as a
whole, are blamed for Canada's troubles, when in fact the trouble
has its source in the hatred anglophones feel toward francophones,
in the discrimination they have subjected that minority to
throughout Canadian history.
[English]
I do not think anglophones know their history well enough. They
did not take the time to read the history which was biased. Today
we speak of francophones as being the black sheep of
Confederation, of being responsible for the problems of the country
when anglophones have created the problem because they have a
history of discriminating against the francophones. That is the root
of the problem in Canada.
I remind the House that Quebec existed two centuries before an
anglophone even set foot in this country which later became
Canada. Quebec was here two centuries before Canada was born.
It was a civilized place to live and was conquered in 1760. From
that day on there was a manifest and clear attempt to assimilate the
French. Anyone who reads the history of Quebec and later of
Canada will understand that there was a manifest intent to
politically dominate and to economically exploit the French, to
impoverish and assimilate them. This went on for almost a century
until a point of grave difficulty was reached in Quebec when people
were so impoverished and so politically dominated that it created a
rebellion in 1837.
Many francophones then left Quebec for Ontario and western
Canada. This is one reason there are large francophone speaking
communities in the rest of Canada. They could no longer survive in
Quebec because it was under a political domination and economic
exploitation by an English minority that made it so difficult for
them.
Then there is the report by Lord Durham in 1840 which was a
manifest document, clearly indicating that the English will was to
assimilate the French. Anyone who reads Lord Durham's report
cannot deny that he brought the discussion to another level. He
spoke of it in terms of racism, a battle of two races.
English Canadians recognize Lord Durham as a person who
brought a kind of parliamentary democracy to Canada. If one looks
at it from the francophone point of view, one sees a racist, a person
who hated the French and who used all the means at his disposal to
assimilate the French.
And so it continued until Confederation in 1867, which was
probably the crowning of this effort on the part of Lord Durham. It
did not really change the political context in Quebec under which
francophones lived. Quite the contrary. It was the accomplishment
of the attempt by Lord Durham to assimilate the French.
(1025 )
George Brown, the founder of the Globe which later became the
Globe and Mail in Toronto, was very anti-French. He wrote his
wife shortly after Confederation indicating that the English had
finally been victorious; they had drowned the French. The aim of
Confederation was to drown the French in a new country and they
3783
had succeeded because in Confederation there were three
English voices against one. Before that it was one on one. Today
it is ten on one.
The attempt to assimilate the French then had a political purpose
and it has continued to today. It has never altered. This
discrimination, this hatred against the French is manifest, it is
written all over the walls in this country. I can give you three
examples of this.
The public service in Ottawa functions in English to a large
extent. It is 85 per cent English. The public service in Ottawa,
which represented this country that was said to be bilingual after
Confederation, never recognized French. Everything functioned in
English. Canada did not have a word of French on any stamp until
1926. Canada did not have a word of French on any dollar bill until
1936. The federal government did not put out a single government
cheque with a word in French on it until 1956. This country was an
English country and it was the intent of the anglophones to
assimilate the French and discriminate against them.
In Ontario, as in other provinces, all the rights that supposedly
were guaranteed by the Constitution, all the rights that had been
negotiated in the Confederation debates by John A. Macdonald and
others, after Confederation were abolished from Newfoundland to
B.C. There were no exceptions. Only in Quebec, anglophones'
rights were respected and still are today.
In 1871 New Brunswick abolished French rights and French
schools. In 1870 Manitoba abolished French schools and French
language. In 1905 Saskatchewan and Alberta abolished French
schools and French teaching. In 1912 Ontario abolished French
schools and French language. In some provinces of this country
there is anti-French legislation that has lasted over a century.
In Ontario, my native province, which is the heart of this
country, there has been legislation on the books against the
teaching of French and a recognition of French rights for over 50
years. In 1912 règlement 17 was one among many laws passed by
the Ontario government to abolish the French language.
In the 1960s Quebec suddenly awoke to this discrimination,
political domination and economic exploitation that had been
exercised for two centuries against Quebec. Quebecers woke up
and said enough is enough. It was the quiet revolution. The
anglophones realized that francophones were not sheep or sheepish
and that they wanted their rights respected.
Then the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, the B and B
commission, was put together which verified the facts. Anyone
who reads those documents will recognize the inequity and
injustice in this country, the discrimination against the French.
There was a royal commission and that is why we have the
language laws of 1969. It was to redress these wrongs and
injustices toward the French. That is why these laws were passed. It
was to put back balance, give justice to the francophones who
represented at one time almost a third of the population, today
maybe a quarter of the population of this country.
(1030)
They have rights guaranteed by the Constitution that were never
recognized in the provinces out west. It was only recently, two
years ago, that we started to provide a school or two here and there,
but their rights were never recognized. They are still not
recognized in British Columbia, Ontario, Newfoundland and New
Brunswick.
In 1969 the first law was passed on official languages. It was
updated in 1988 with all kinds of additions. Today if we look at the
situation of francophones living outside of Quebec, we notice that
the situation has not improved tremendously. Some concessions
have been made. I can vouch for Ontario and how the francophone
community has fought tooth and nail for every school it won. It was
hard because the assimilation rate in Ontario is something like 40
per cent today.
The Constitution of Canada grants francophones the right to
administer their own school systems. However, this right is denied
in Ontario. It is denied in British Columbia. It is denied in
Newfoundland. In spite of the fact that these rights were laid down
in the Constitution of Canada, guaranteed by the charter of rights in
1982, reaffirmed by two Supreme Court decisions granting
francophones the right to administer their own schools, this right
still has not been granted 25 years after the official language law of
1969, 15 years after the charter of rights and eight years after both
Supreme Court decisions.
It is discrimination against the francophones on the part of the
English population. That is the problem. The problem is not that
Quebec does not respect its English minority. Give or take the
problems here and there that might erupt, that is normal. The
injustice of this country is toward the French minority which today,
after all these laws and these attempts to address the wrongs toward
a minority, still has not been established.
I mentioned the rate of assimilation. Over the last 20 years since
the adoption of the law of 1969, the assimilation of francophones
has increased by 40 per cent. The laws that have been passed and
the attempts by the government to redress these wrongs have not
worked. The francophone population is still being assimilated. Not
only are francophones still being assimilated as they were 25 years
ago but they are being assimilated at a faster rate. They still do not
have access to their schools. Even in those provinces like Alberta
and Saskatchewan that finally granted some schools to
francophones, it is only one in twenty francophones in Alberta who
have
3784
access to French schools. It is normal that the assimilation rate
should be so high.
Why is it that in the public service right here in Ottawa functions
85 per cent in English? This is confirmed by the Commissioner of
Official Languages. His recent report indicated, according to his
survey, that 85 per cent of all meetings that occur in the federal
public service in Ottawa are in English. Francophones complain of
the fact that the functioning of the public service in the federal
system is English. Only about 10 per cent of written documents are
in French. The public service in Ottawa still functions in English.
Look at Ottawa. This is the capital of the country of Canada
which says that it is bilingual. But anyone, even a blind person, can
see clearly that Ottawa, the official bilingual capital of a bilingual
country is an English town.
(1035 )
Even the francophone community that existed in Ottawa is being
assimilated at a rate of 36 per cent. The rate of assimilation is so
great that perhaps the next generation will be much weaker,
especially if they do not have access to schools, health services or
social services. Francophones have nothing with respect to that
except minor concessions and exceptions. That to me confirms the
fact that the discriminatory will exercised in Canada, which started
many years ago, still continues today in other forms.
``We do not want francophones in this country. We do not like
francophones in this country. Francophones are the problem in this
country. They are the black sheep and they are giving us all kinds of
problems''. The problem is that the anglophones wanted to
assimilate the French and they are terribly frustrated because the
French are still here and still strong.
It is surprising, when we speak of the francophone communities,
in spite of all the discriminatory laws, injustices and hatred they
have known, that they are still surviving, they are still vital and
strong. At the same time, there is a terrible urgency that the
government should act. But the government is not acting.
What the government is doing is making promises. Two years
ago, in August 1994, when the Prime Minister went to New
Brunswick, he took advantage of a great event in French Acadia
and promised that finally part VII of the language laws would be
applied in this country. This he did with great pomp and
circumstance. What do members think happened to that promise?
We know the Prime Minister is not too strong when it comes to
keeping his promises, but this is another one that fell by the
wayside. Nothing has been done. The report of the Commissioner
of Official Languages confirms in black and white that nothing has
been done.
There is an urgency in this country to provide the health, the
resources and the co-operation to ensure that francophone
communities can breath and have faith in their future but the
federal government does little or nothing, if anything at all.
Of course the speeches that will be coming from the Liberal
members will say that everything is fine and great. They will say
progress is being made and everything is going well. I heard the
President of the Treasury Board two days ago saying: ``My
goodness, we have made great accomplishments and extraordinary
achievements in this country in terms of bilingualism and the
French language in the public service and everywhere else. Things
are just great''. That is what we are going to hear from the Liberals
and the Reform Party but we will not speak about them.
The Liberals will speak to us about the fact that everything is
great which is part of the problem. The government does not even
want to recognize that there is a problem. If it does not want to
recognize that there is a serious problem then there is never a
solution.
The reason why this government does not want to recognize that
there is a problem is that the anglophone communities in this
country do not want to hear anything about francophones. They are
tired hearing about francophones. The Prime Minister knows very
well that he does not have any political advantage in trying to help
the French minorities that are in difficulty in English Canada.
The majority of the population of English Canada still has that
discriminatory anti-French feeling. I know because it is prevalent
all over Ontario particularly. It is knee-high and it smells, this
discrimination in English Canada. Therefore, the Prime Minister
does not want to fluster or frustrate the English majority who have
this anti-French feeling.
Furthermore, the government does not want to spend a cent
because if the Prime Minister took a single dollar more to help the
francophone communities living outside Quebec, my God, it would
be horrible what would happen in this country. We would have the
Reform Party hitting the Prime Minister and the Liberals would
have difficulty enduring the Prime Minister. So the Prime Minister
does zero, he does nothing. He has abandoned the francophone
communities. He has abandoned even the MPs who have been
elected in some ridings, Vanier for example.
(1040)
There is an MP who has resigned his responsibility toward the
francophone community. He was elected in Ontario to defend
franco-Ontarians. The AGFO organization is now trying to deal
with the federal government because it considered it had received
so little for so many years. It considers this year to be critical. If the
situation does not change, if the situation does not alter in terms of
finances and program, franco-Ontarians will lose many of their
organizations, they will lose many of the few services they have
right now.
3785
They are in a very critical situation and the francophone MPs
of Ontario do not even speak up for them. Quite the contrary. They
go to the organizations and say: ``The status quo is fine.
Everything is great. The government is doing everything it can.
The Prime Minister has made a lot of promises. Don't rock the
boat. We don't want anyone to be upset. Everything is fine''.
The francophone MPs who were elected in the Liberal
government who normally are supposed to be defending
francophone rights are not defending francophone rights at all.
They are not defending the schools that are disappearing or the
services that are disappearing. They use the typical Liberal tactic
which is to attack Quebec and say: ``Gee whiz, Quebec is really
maltreating the English. The English are really poorly treated.
After all, they might not be able to have bilingual signs and blah,
blah, blah, fundamental rights''. And still the English community
in this country, when we compare, is extremely well treated in
Quebec compared with the francophone communities outside
Quebec.
Assimilation, the will of domination, exploitation,
discrimination and hatred by the English of the French continues
today. I know a lot of anglophones personally. I know a lot of them
are not anti-French. They have open minds, but they are part of the
minority as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about discrimination, I am
surprised with the statements made by an hon. member of the
House who spoke about Canadian history in a biased manner, in my
opinion, an opinion that is certainly shared by the vast majority of
Canadians, and indeed, historians.
The hon. member talks about defending the interests of
francophones, but I would like to point out to you that he spoke to
us exclusively in English. He should at least have made an effort by
outlining this situation in French.
Having said that, I find the Canada the hon. member has
described to us is a Canada that no longer exists. I believe the hon.
member has forgotten to tell us about the real Canadian history. If
we go back to the conquest, when France, as you know, gave New
France to England, we must not forget that it is the French
administration that left us, that abandoned us. We must not forget
either that, at some point, we thought we could reconquer New
France, since England was in a position to give it back to France,
but, unfortunately, the French did not accept that. That is not well
known, but is worth debating and telling the people about.
In fact, when I sawthe premier of Quebec, accompanied by
several of his ministers, giving the Order of Quebec to Prime
Minister Juppé of France, I recall that the existence of Canada was
all but denied and that the Maple Leaf was nowhere to be seen. We
saw, for example, how the agency dealing with the Quebec
government protocol behaved.
(1045)
It did everything to hide the Maple Leaf. I find that rather
repugnant and, in my opinion, inappropriate in the current context.
I sometimes wonder, because I somehow have the feeling that these
separatists are behaving like mere colonials.
It is also interesting to hear them talk about Canadian history.
You know, 100 years ago this month, Wilfrid Laurier was elected
Prime Minister of Canada, the first Prime Minister of French
Canadian origin. I think we should not be surprised that so much
progress has been made since that period.
The hon. member did not even talk about the fact, for
example-I want to conclude on this, as it will certainly make for a
very lively debate-that, today, 350,000 young anglophones are
studying French full time in immersion classes throughout Canada,
while, only 15 years ago, there were barely 30,000 of them doing
so. I believe anglophones have made considerable progress, but the
hon. member does not talk about that. And I think that, today, we
will go back over the points that were raised by the hon. member,
we will debate them and we will certainly correct his version of
Canadian history.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, of course, I have nothing but
praise for the fact that 350,000 young anglophones are learning
French. I think this is a very good thing and I have nothing negative
to say about it, but this does not help the situation of francophones
outside Quebec. Francophone communities, for their part, are
being assimilated, and that is the problem.
The hon. member accuses us of being mere colonials, but in fact,
he too is acolonial, just like the minister who is about to speak,
perhaps. The arguments used always try to convey the idea that
Quebecers are all wet, that they misunderstand history. As if
Quebec were always responsible for its own problems and those of
Canada.
It is obvious that the hon. member, like his francophone
colleagues, rarely speaks to the issue of francophones outside
Quebec. They always want to point the finger at Quebec, as if
Quebec were responsible, as if Quebec did not respect the rights of
its minority, whereas it is English Canada that does not do so. It is
obvious that English Canada does not respect the rights of
francophone minorities, starting with the federal government right
here in Ottawa, which no longer has or seems to have the will to
respect minority rights, which has an impact on all the other
provinces.
So there is no significant progress, no concrete progress.
Minorities get a few goodies here and there, but there is no real
progress. That is why the communities themselves, in Ontario,
Saskatchewan and elsewhere, are raising the alarm, saying that it is
urgent for the federal government to react.
3786
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I like French Canadians.
[English]
I find the hon. member's intervention quite intriguing. He is
trying to polarize Canadians with comments such as English
Canadians hate French Canadians. Comments like that are
engendered to further the separatist cause, not to develop peace,
understanding and tolerance between groups. Its primary reason is
to engender hate, intolerance and misunderstanding between these
groups.
I debated with this member on television a week and a half ago. I
asked the hon. member that if Quebec separates, what will happen
to the French speaking people outside of Quebec. The response of
the member, who raised this motion, was a shrug of the shoulders:
``Who cares?'' This from the member who professes to fight for the
rights of French speaking people outside of Quebec and who
brought forth this motion.
(1050)
I ask the hon. member why he said that. What is his explanation
for that?
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I actually
said that, but it is certainly not the member who cares. It is
certainly not the government that cares.
I am the one who put forth this motion today and I am the one
speaking in defence of francophones outside Quebec.
Francophones know I am doing that.
Who cares? At least I care because I know the situation of
francophones. It is certainly not the Reform Party that cares. It is
certainly not the government or the minister who cares. What has
the government done to redress the injustices toward
francophones? The situation generally has worsened.
I am not trying to create a discourse on hatred or intolerance or
discrimination. I am stating historical facts. I do not hate
anglophones. I speak English and I deal with respect with
anglophones because anglophones are like francophones, people
who have to be respected, but the history of Canada has a place.
The history of Canada, with respect to the French, is undeniably
proof of a long term, well established and heavyweight
discrimination against the French. In some circles it is profound
hatred.
I want to denounce that. I want it to change. I want the
government to react.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the time allocated has
expired. Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to extend
this fascinating period of questions and comments?
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to reiterate the Canadian
government's commitment to francophone communities in
minority situations in Canada.
This world of ours is redefining itself. Never has there been such
an great need to look at the linguistic minorities issue. In this vast
redefinition effort, Canada is a fine example of a success story, and
I stress ``success''.
Unlike most countries, Canada was built on its two founding
peoples. Ever since the first European explorers set foot on the
American continent, linguistic duality has been a central feature of
our collective identity. This duality dating back to the beginnings
of this country has also enriched our country. Canada's official
languages policy partakes of this vision, which, while being rooted
in our past also propels us toward the future.
This policy was developed to promote the development of the
two major official language communities across the country. Its
main objective is to give francophones outside Quebec tools to
ensure their development in terms of language and culture as well
as in all economic sectors.
The official languages policy has always adapted to new
realities. It started by recognizing Canada's official language
minorities. Then, it encouraged them to find ways to assert their
uniqueness within the community. Today, it seeks to promote their
autonomy in every sphere of activity and to prompt them to look to
the future and take their place on the world scene.
This policy remains an undeniably effective tool as we approach
the turn of the century. Official language communities in a
minority situation must join in with the rest of our society to meet
the challenges of our times.
On this occasion, I would like to reflect on the key components
of this policy, a proven policy that has been instrumental in making
our country as successful as it is. There was a need, first of all, to
recognize the fundamental role of the two official language
communities of Canada. Enacting the Official Languages Act in
1969 laid the foundations of this recognition. This act
unequivocally recognized in law the right of anglophones and
francophones in minority situations to develop like all other
Canadians.
(1055)
Moreover, it gave the French and English languages equal status
and equal rights in Parliament, before the courts and in federal
institutions. Boosted by this recognition, linguistic minorities,
especially French-speaking communities, have been able to put all
their energy, imagination and resources into creating organizations
which would allow them to voice their concerns throughout the
country. First of all, those official languages minorities had to
3787
ensure that the majority was aware of their presence and heard what
they had to say.
Through its official languages policy, which gave concrete
expression to the text of the law, the Government of Canada
supported the collective effort by funding the new organizations
directly. This strong political commitment of the government,
combined with the inexhaustible vitality of the communities, for
they played a role as well, led to the emergence of a solid network
for promoting their interests and strengthening their communities
in all aspects of life in society.
There are many tangible manifestations of this support.
Everywhere outside Quebec where French is the language of
communication and solidarity, school-community centres have
opened their doors. New radio stations started to broadcast,
newspapers reflected the reality of the minority environment,
theatre companies sprang up, mutual aid associations were created
and cooperatives went into operation. Thus, by implementing its
official languages policies and programs, the federal government
set off an unprecedented period of growth, and changed for good
the vision that Canadians have of their country.
Second, in order to continue to promote the growth of the French
fact outside Quebec, many years of negligence in education had to
be compensated at all costs. This is why, in 1982, the Liberal
government then in office guaranteed the rights of linguistic
minorities to education in their own language in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The recognition, in section 23, of the right to an education in
French for all francophones in the country is an historic fact of the
highest significance. In addition to protecting the vital character of
an education in French, this section confirms the right of
francophones to manage their schools, as confirmed in 1990 by the
Supreme Court of Canada in the Mahé case.
Given its mandate under the Official Languages Act, the
Government of Canada decided to take the initiative and to help
reluctant provinces fulfil their commitments. Among other things,
it passed a series of special measures to make school management a
reality everywhere in the country. The facts speak for themselves.
In most provinces and territories, French speaking minorities now
manage their own schools. The Government of Canada does its
utmost, within the limits of its powers, to promote this reality in all
regions of the country.
In October 1994, this government reinstated the court challenges
program, an initiative which earned it the praise of the hon.
member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, who said, and I quote: ``On
behalf of the francophone and Acadian communities, one must
rejoice in the reinstatement of the court challenges program, the
abolition of which they had condemned. It is thanks to this program
that the right to be educated in French in Canada was recognized''.
The program provides francophones with the means to go to the
courts to protect the right to manage their schools. The
Government of Canada will continue to support these communities
on the political, financial and legal fronts, to ensure this right is
respected in every province and in the two territories.
Communities must now strengthen these rights and look after
their development in every leading sector of human activity,
particularly the economy and the communication and technology
sectors.
(1100)
At the World Acadian Congress held in August 1994, the
Government of Canada announced an initiative that will allow
francophone communities to play fully their role in the society of
tomorrow. Pursuant to section 42 of the Official Languages Act,
federal institutions and bodies have from now on the responsibility
to financially and technically support the development of minority
official language communities within the scope of their respective
mandates, which means that these communities can now rely on
new partners in each of the key sectors of their development.
For example, various concrete projects show the results such an
initiative can have. In Alberta, for instance, the Western Economic
Diversification Agency and the Department of Canadian Heritage
both helped in the establishment of the Cité francophone in
Edmonton.
In New Brunswick, the Law Faculty and the Electrical
Engineering Department of the University of Moncton enjoyed the
support of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the
Department of Human Resources Development. In Manitoba, a
heritage centre will soon come into being thanks to the
co-operation of the Western Economic Diversification Agency, and
the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of
Human Resources Development.
Francophones in Regina and Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, also
had the support of these three partners for the construction of a
school and community centre. In Nova Scotia, francophones in
Petit-de-Grat, Cape Breton, have set up a combination
school-community-business centre with the support of the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency and the Canadian heritage and
development of human resources departments.
Obviously, these are but a few examples, but my own department
is not the only one that does and should promote official languages
in Canada. Linguistic duality is a matter of partnership. The
Department of Canadian Heritage is also looking for a better
co-operation with provincial and territorial governments.
With each one of these governments, the department tries to
promote issues under provincial jurisdiction that have a direct
impact on the future of official language communities in minority
situations.
3788
Moreover, the Government of Canada has given more leeway
to official language communities despite the economic situation.
We wanted these communities to set their own priorities and
channel the resources provided to them into areas they consider
a priority.
We are convinced that people themselves are most able to
determine their needs and their future. That is why we have brought
in a unique type of co-operation that involves direct agreements
with the communities and gives them a greater financial
independence. Both these measures are the logical and unescapable
consequence of the Canadian government's vision of linguistic
duality. They help official language communities in a minority
situation contribute to the prosperity and success of Canada.
Also, because of the globalization of the economy, having two
languages is a major asset, especially at a time when geo-political
boundaries are becoming blurred. Our francophone and
anglophone communities give us access to two of the greatest
cultures of the world and their cultural vitality lets us assert our
originality within the community of the world.
For instance, the Canadian francophonie, which is centred in the
province of Quebec but spreads all over our country, has long been
maintaining close ties with the international francophonie, that
includes 47 member states.
(1105)
The Francophonie is getting stronger and stronger and becoming
a vibrant and invigorating force, a true culture and idea medium. To
be part of it is to join a partnership of more than 160 million people
scattered over five continents.
To be able to use two languages spoken throughout the world
also represents a clear economic advantage at a time of market
globalization. No less than 25 countries have French as one of their
official languages, and 33 countries have English. That is why our
official language policy promotes, through its programs, the
learning of the second official language and makes Canadians more
aware of the economic and cultural benefits several languages can
provide.
Moreover, many Canadians want to have the opportunity to learn
their second official language. An Environics poll showed that
three out of four Canadians want their children to learn and master
both official languages. Some three million young Canadians take
regular second language courses or take part in immersion
programs.
Communication, globalization and change are the new
watchwords. Because of new technological and scientific
developments, we are thrust into a complex and changing world.
The information superhighway which will soon link all the
countries in the world gives us only an inkling of the dimensions
the information-based society will take worldwide.
We must have access to this electronic highway and it is all the
more urgent for the Francophonie since it will need to find an
original way to emphasize its distinctiveness and to carve itself a
place in this otherwise unilingual and monolithic electronic
universe.
Nowadays, the Francophonie is undoubtedly an integral part of
the Canadian society and a major asset for this country. This is the
reason why the official language policy remains, after 25 years, a
good means to realize our vision of a free and forward-looking
country.
Partnership and accountability are the key words of our policy. I
unhesitatingly agree with these tools that will allow us to take up
the challenges of today and tomorrow. Co-operation between
various levels of government and their agencies, linguistic
minorities, their representatives and the majority should be
automatic. It must become second nature. I would even go as far as
to wish that the private sector be even more committed to the
promotion of the French factor in Canada. Businesses have much to
give and to gain in this area, particularly if they want to establish
business relations with francophones here and overseas.
Thus, partnership is a key to success and should guide us in the
future. It is then important to diversify the funding sources of a
policy that can no longer be only the concern of the government.
For such a partnership to work, all stakeholders must also
contribute their ideas, their creative abilities and their strengths.
Communities in particular must get what they need to be
self-sufficient and find within themselves the means to realize their
ideals. We will take measures to promote greater responsibility and
freedom of action. It is with the absolute confidence that we have
the instruments necessary to succeed collectively that I envision for
Canada a future which reflects its geography, one that is rich,
diversified and inexhaustible.
I think we have every reason to be proud of our Official
Languages Act. Incidently, initiatives taken towards the French
communities outside Quebec were praised by a former Secretary of
State of the federal government, Mr. Lucien Bouchard.
In 1988, he declared that these initiatives were made possible by
the enactment of the Official Languages Act, in 1969, by a Liberal
government. He also said and I quote: ``-their success was
astonishing, as reflected in the access that Francophones outside
Quebec have to education in their language and by the enrolment in
immersion courses. Their implementation, as he then concluded,
represents in every way a model of federal-provincial
cooperation.''
3789
In this case, I can only agree with what Mr. Bouchard said at
that time.
(1110)
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciated the minister's speech. Of course, she used many fine
words, such as ``reiterate the government's commitments'', but we
all know very well that if the minister really examined the situation
of francophone minorities, she would realize that, in fact, things
are not getting better, they are getting worse. Indeed, this is what
the associations themselves are constantly saying.
I have two brief questions to ask her as the acting minister of
Canadian Heritage. Here is the first one. The hon. minister will
recall that the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for
coordinating and implementing Part VII of the Official Languages
Act. In Part VII of the act, section 42 provides that the heritage
department is responsible for coordinating and ensuring the
implementation of Part VII. Why has Part VII not been
implemented yet, two years after the Prime Minister himself, at the
Acadian Convention in August 1994, formally committed his
government and his caucus to ensure it would be done?
I would like to point out to the minister that in a recently released
report, the Commissioner of Official Languages says, in black and
white, that nothing or close to nothing has been done regarding the
implementation and enforcement of Part VII.
My second question is as follows. The minister spoke beautifully
about her government's commitments, ensuring financial
independence, cooperation, alleluia. But, at the same time, her
department is cutting its financial assistance to francophone
communities. I am sure the minister did not have the courage to go
to the last ACFO convention, in Ontario, the ACFO being in the
process of negotiating with the Department of Canadian Heritage
to obtain the funding it needs to survive, while the department is
making all kinds of cuts. There is a lot of moaning and groaning
from francophone communities.
In Saskatchewan, it has already happened. The government has
cut almost 50 per cent of its financial assistance to the various
associations. There is a constant effort on the part of the
government to reduce to the lowest level possible the funding
granted to francophone association, at a time when the situation is
critical.
I will quote a letter about the cuts made in Saskatchewan. The
letter is addressed to the prime minister and comes from a
twelve-year-old elementary school student, Marisa
Gendron-Nadeau, from Saskatchewan. She writes very well, I
might add, even if she is only twelve. I will not read the whole
letter, but here is what it said: ``As for the documentation I am
supposed to receive from Heritage Canada, I am afraid it will not
be very informative since I already know that
Franco-Saskatchewanians will receive 37 per cent less over the
next three years, which means a 45 per cent cut for provincial
associations and a 10 per cent cut for community associations''.
Later on, she adds: ``Personally, I sell tickets that give people a
chance to win prizes. The proceeds from the sale of these tickets
would help pay for this year's trip for the eighth-graders in our
school'', which is a French school.
She goes on to say: ``Each time people ask me which school I
attend and I tell them that I attend the French Canadian school, they
call me a frog and slap the door in my face. That is the kind of
attitude that anglophones have towards us. It is unfortunate that
these people close their door to us, but it is downright unacceptable
that the people who have the duty to help us-namely Heritage
Canada-have chosen to do the same.''
She said in closing: ``Dear Mr. Prime Minister, at the beginning
of our correspondence-she had sent other letters previously-I
encouraged you to win the elections and to become prime minister
of this country. Today I wonder whether I was right or wrong.''
Can the minister tell me now, in spite of her wonderful speech,
why her department, which is directly responsible for the
application of Part VII, has done almost nothing and is even cutting
funding to francophone associations at a time when the situation is
critical?
(1115)
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the fist question by
the hon. member for Québec-Est, I think he ought to at least have
the courage to acknowledge that this government, through its
Prime Minister, did indeed commit in 1994 to the implementation
of section 41 of the Official Languages Act.
At that time, I would say it was somewhat of a novelty for
government to require various sectors, various departments, to be
concerned with the development of minority communities in the
country. Of course, we are just beginning that undertaking and
most definitely we have asked each department to provide an
action plan on the implementation of section 41. The
Commissioner of Official Languages has just reported on this. At
least he had the honesty to describe the action plans very clearly as
first generation.
For the first time, departments and agencies were required to
draw up action plans concerning the development of minorities in
Canada. The initiative must, I believe, at least be acknowledged,
although I fully agree that the plans are not perfect, and not up to
the expectations of the francophone communities. There is,
however, action under way and the wish of the government is being
translated into action which will improve from one year to the next.
Moreover, the report of the Commissioner of Official Language
will help us to improve the departments' action plans for next year.
3790
Although the hon. member for Québec-Est does not have the
honesty to do so, the action taken by this government must be
acknowledged. The same thing goes for the support to official
language minority groups throughout the country. Every time I
hear the hon. member for Québec-Est in this House, he is going
on about the end of the world, the assimilation of Canada's
francophones. He makes it sound like we are headed for a national
catastrophe or something.
I realize that the potential for indignation among the Bloc
Quebecois members is very great, very easily set off, but still
reality must not be denied. Has there been progress in this country
in the past 25 years, since the Official Languages Act was adopted?
Has there been a change for the better in the situation of the
communities? Yes.
Is the situation perfect? No. I am the first to admit that. We must,
however, acknowledge that we are in a situation of change, that
there has been a marked improvement, and that this government is
still committed to supporting the minority communities across the
country.
When I hear it said that I did not have the courage to attend the
ACFO convention, I would just like to remind the hon. member for
Québec-Est that, on this side of the House at least, we work as a
team, and a government team member did attend, the hon. member
for Ottawa-Vanier. He spoke at the ACFO convention, reiterating
the government's desire to sign an agreement with the
franco-Ontarian community. What is more, that community has
requested a meeting, which will take place tomorrow with the
parliamentary secretary for Canadian Heritage. Once again, let us
have all the facts before we jump to conclusions.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a quick question for the minister.
Hahamovitch Kosher Imports of Quebec was being investigated
by the l'Office de la langue française in Quebec for abrogating
French language laws.
(1120 )
The French language police in Quebec have dropped those
charges, yet this government through the Minister of Justice is
continuing to pursue charges against this group, this religious
group importing religious foods from overseas.
I ask the minister why her government is continuing to pursue
charges against the Hahamovitch kosher food company when
l'Office de la langue Française has dropped its charges.
[Translation]
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that, in this
country, there is legislation that must be respected in this area, and
a certain degree of flexibility is always required. There are always
interpretations of legislation. I can, however, assure the Reform
Party member that I shall be raising this question with the Minister
responsible for this within the government.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on this issue. Since the Reform Party policies on
bilingualism have been misinterpreted, misrepresented and
misunderstood, it gives me an opportunity to put them back in their
proper perspective.
I will comment on the speech given by the Bloc member for
Québec-Est. It is regrettable that it was one of the most insightful,
racist speeches I have ever hear. He tried to encourage other people
across the country to show their anger and frustration. He used the
word hate and said anglophones hate Quebecers or that
anglophones hate francophones. I do not know under what
authority, according to what knowledge, he can make that
statement.
I know the majority of Quebecers do not share his view with
respect to hatred, even if some are separatists. I know the majority
of Quebecers in two referendums voted to stay in the country. It is a
shame and a sham that the Bloc continues to want to push its
personal separatist cause to break up the country.
He also discredited himself in three ways. He failed to give proof
of his motion, which states in part that the government fails to
recognize the urgency. It does. It has a lot of audits. It has made
mistakes with the Official Languages Act and it is not perfect.
However, the member never proved the urgency he talked about.
His motion also says they should take exceptional measures to
counter their assimilation and allow for growth. There has been a
lot of movement toward respecting francophones who live outside
Quebec and working with them. I have evidence in my speech
which shows that.
The member also described himself by only complaining. That is
all he did, complain, complain, complain. He offered no solutions
to solve the problem. This gentleman does not wish to stay in
Canada. This gentleman has no interest in promoting
anglophone-francophone relationships and bilingualism across the
country.
There is proof of that. The final discredit was when he was on
television with my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, my
colleague asked him what would happen if Quebec separated to all
those francophones who live outside Quebec. He shrugged his
shoulders and said: ``Who cares?'' That is shameful. What
duplicity. It reminds me of the finance minister and the Prime
Minister. They are duplicitous too.
His speech strictly tried to create a myth to push the Bloc
agenda. The agenda should be what can the Bloc members of
Quebec do to make things better for Quebec. What can the Bloc
3791
members do to make this a better country to live in? Together we
can grow and nurture much better than if we divide and separate.
The consequences are as severe for the rest of Canada as they are
for Quebecers in Canada. They know it.
They hid the Le Hir reports; 10 or 15 reports were hidden.
Parizeau showed he cared only about a small select group, a few
people. He made bigoted and racist comments when he lost the
referendum, and now Bouchard will have another referendum.
When will it end?
He talks about democracy. They had two democratic elections.
Twice they lost. They want to do it a third time? What happens if
they get yes with 50 per cent plus one? That means immediate
break up, right? They will not have another referendum then, will
they? Bloc members are shaking their heads, ``no, we won't''. No
is never, but yes is forever, and yes just once.
(1125)
That is hypocritical. It is undemocratic. Quebecers should wake
up and realize these separatists are hurting them. There are
francophones and anglophones in Quebec who do not like what
they are doing. The majority do not like what they are doing. They
should stand up to them. That is the only way we will put this to
rest.
I have complained that he has not shown the urgency. All he has
done is make accusations. If he could have focused on how to better
spend the billion dollars a year we spend on bilingualism to
encourage bilingualism, even in Quebec, it would have been a
much more productive speech.
This motion would be much more productive if we talked about
how we could promote bilingualism. That is the problem. It has 63
per cent to 65 per cent of Canadians complaining about how
official bilingualism is not working in this country. Even
Quebecers are in the 60 percentile that complain about how this is
not working. If that is where the gentleman from Québec-Est is
coming from, to that degree I agree with him. I agree official
bilingualism is not working. The way to do it is to stop having it
misinterpreted.
The question is how to promote bilingualism. His lack of
attention to the word bilingualism to his own province is what is
lacking in his speech. What about the ethnics who come into that
province? Yes, they have to learn French first. Yes, they should
learn French first. Yes, they must be made to learn French. That is a
provincial jurisdiction and a provincial right.
What about those anglophones born in Quebec who remain
anglophones, 800,000 of them? Do they not have any rights? Will
they all be kicked out?
Let us look at the facts. The government spends over a billion
dollars a year and has done so for about 30 years, since Trudeau
started this; $30 billion or more spent on bilingualism. Do we have
value for our money? No. Sixty-three per cent of Canadians,
including Quebecers, say no.
The official languages commissioner sends confusing messages.
The person who is supposed to ensure this is being enforced right
does not know what he is talking about. Let me give an example of
that.
In 1994, I was on the Standing Committee on Official Languages
where I met Mr. Goldbloom. The first thing he said was Reform's
policy is not very good for Quebecers. He said if we went to
Montreal we would certainly hear that the English speaking
community, which is vibrant and has moved a great deal in the
direction of bilingualism, is still very much committed to its life in
English. This is for the Bloc members. Those people in Montreal
still want the right to have English.
I was able to point out our policies. I indicated our party's
position is that we are not anti-French, as some of the media likes
to accuse us. The principle of supplying bilingual services in
federal institutions should be where numbers warrant, where there
is significant demand. This is the one supported by the Reform
Party.
The question became, both for myself and the commissioner,
how to define the minority community, the size, how big it should
be to qualify for bilingual services?
Mr. Goldbloom said: ``A province, I respectfully submit, is too
large. The unity of this country matters to me. Unity means we are
talking about a unit. That unit is not a province, it is the country. In
the country there are 7 million people who speak French. It is not
the small number of people that is the issue. It is the whole country
and it is the history of linguistic duality''.
There are two messages there, how to incorporate and include
services in two languages to satisfy the 7 million French speaking
people and that there should be services required to serve the
balance of Canadians who, I presume, would be English speaking.
He says the unit of a province is too large but that the country is
the right size. That is a confusing message. I think everybody is
going away from what the original B and B commission indicated.
The B and B report, which Trudeau commissioned and which he
based on his bilingualism and biculturalism policy, was to have a
system for all individuals located in the country to have the right to
communicate and receive services from government in their
preferred official language.
3792
This has been interpreted as where sufficient numbers and
significant demand warrant. This has been reinterpreted by the
Official Languages Act that we must force all Canadians to learn
two languages. We object to having an Official Languages Act that
enforces bilingualism. People react to this, especially when one
province will not teach in the second official language. This
offends and upsets people. It is what is making this issue so
controversial.
(1130)
We should go back to the original B and B report and significant
numbers, sufficient demand. We could end the official enforcement
of two official languages and that money, whether it is a $500
million or $1 billion, would be better spent encouraging and
promoting bilingualism. To speak a second language is an
advantage, not a disadvantage.
We do know Canada's history, unlike what the member for
Québec-Est said. We all recognize that this is a country of two
primary languages, French and English. To promote and encourage
Canadians to learn a second language is positive, not negative. It is
similar to Europe.
I speak Hungarian. I am a first generation immigrant. There is no
official Hungarian language policy in Canada. I go into my little
pockets and pools where I can speak Hungarian to Hungarians. I
never spoke one word of Hungarian for 10 years.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Hungarian.]
[English]
I have learned to speak quite well in Hungarian. I have forgotten
some but not all of it. I am saying to Quebecers and separatists that
their argument that if they do not speak French every day all day
they will forget their language and if they do not force people in
Quebec to learn only French they will lose they language, is not
right. I am living proof it is not right. I guarantee that if every
francophone in Quebec never spoke a word of French for 10 years,
they would still remember how to speak French. I submit that very
humbly. They may forget a little bit. The argument that if they do
not speak French all the time and do not have it up there first and
foremost they will lose their language is wrong.
How did we get here? We got here through the B and B report
and through a confusion and misinterpretation of Trudeau's
intention for a just society. It is unfortunate that has happened
because although I do not respect the games the separatists are
playing, I respect their right to fight for what they want and what
they believe in.
By the same token, I would hope that they would give me that
same respect and I could speak against them in such a way that
shows them I really want to be their friend. I really want them to
fight for Quebec the way Reformers are fighting for B.C., Ontario
and Alberta. They should force the federal government. Le
problème c'est Ottawa, as our leader said. That is the problem and
that is where we should focus.
We can fix the Official Languages Act. We can move to
encouraging and promoting bilingualism. There is nothing wrong
with learning English or French no matter what one's first language
is, even if it is Hungarian. This is the way to solve the problem.
I have to go back to a couple of other facts mentioned by the
member for Quebec Est to give credence to his contention that
there is an urgency and a lack of respect for francophones. That is
simply untrue, totally and blatantly untrue. I respect francophones.
I stand here and defy anyone to say that I do not respect
francophones. I respect all Canadians.
For instance, the member said that there were only one or two
French schools in my province. Let me tell the hon. member what
the deal is. In Alberta 163 schools offered French immersion in
1994-95. That represents 27,717 students. The member asked: ``So
what if there is French immersion? What does that do for the
francophones who live there?'' What it does is when those people
whose first language is English learn French and become bilingual,
then the francophone has just found 27,717 new friends. That is
what it does. That is what builds a country. That is what will unite
us. It is what brings us together.
(1135)
On top of those 163 schools, 21 schools offer francophone
programs for francophones living in Alberta. Programs just for
francophones last year represented services for 2,765 francophone
students. They can even have their own French boards if they want.
I would like to share with the hon. member for Québec-Est that
for the first time there is a French only school in Calgary Centre.
That is in Alberta, where 23 Reformers have come from to this
House of Commons and are labelled as anti-French, a province
which has done nothing but promote bilingualism.
Those are examples of promoting and encouraging bilingualism.
People I know, lawyers, doctors and accountants send their kids
willingly to French immersion schools because they know the
advantage of it. The member should be doing the same thing for
francophones. He should be encouraging francophones to learn
English as well, instead of being so paranoid about his own
language which he will never ever forget how to speak and I know
that.
The Reform Party has done a poor job of representing its
bilingualism policy. We come across as anti-French. We come
across as anti-Quebec. What I am hoping to do today is to put on
the record quite clearly and unequivocally that we are pro Quebec,
we are pro French, we are pro bilingualism. In fact we are pro
Canada.
We want this country to stay together. We want this country to
show its ethnic backgrounds and diversity. Yes we agree that the
3793
way the government is doing it is not the right way. Yes we agree it
is easy for the member for Québec-Est to stand up and get the
government ticked off and get more separatist support, but that is
not the way to reach his ultimate objectives.
Look what is happening in the city of Montreal. After two
referendums and 25 years of trying to separate, it is has not worked.
Why not just forget it? Montreal has dwindled to half of what it was
25 years ago.
In 1969 I went to the University of Ottawa and bilingualism was
prevalent then. Sometime in the late sixties the separatist
movement started. A student union started it. I was there and saw
the birth of separatism, of that movement and that thought.
The difference in Ottawa was maybe 25 per cent or 30 per cent of
people were bilingual. Now I do not need a statistic. I do not need a
map. I do not need anything. I am here 25 years later and I get the
impression that 75 per cent of people in Ottawa are bilingual.
Everywhere I go they can speak two languages. Whether they greet
you in English or French, you go into the other language and you
just do not know. You are not safe to say anything in another
language assuming that the other person does not understand
because they do.
This is evidence that bilingualism has worked. Ottawa is an
example of it. In the House of Commons there are 1,400 employees
under the control and purview of the board which the Speaker looks
after. For 69 per cent of those employees, French is their first
language. That is great and good. It shows that it works. It shows
that things are being done positively within the system.
I want to explain what the Reform Party means when we say that
we would replace the Official Languages Act. We do not like the
Official Languages Act and we say a lot of the money being spent
is a waste. Let us spend it better. We would replace the Official
Languages Act with a territorial bilingualism act. It has its
credibility and concept from the original Laurendeau-Dunton
report, the B and B report. It goes back to that principle to
recognize language minority rights. It is a compromise between the
two extremes.
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 must foot the tax bill for minority language
government services outweighs the benefits being received by the
minority. This model has been successfully employed in Finland
for dealing with its Swedish speaking minority.
If practised in Canada, this model would extend full minority
language rights to the large francophone communities in eastern
and northeastern Ontario and to the Acadians of New Brunswick as
well as to the anglophone community of west end Montreal. The
rest of the country for all intents and purposes would not be
required to offer the services in two languages. By doing this we
then spend some advertising dollars on promoting and encouraging
the learning of a second language.
(1140)
When I went to high school in Arnprior, Ontario I was taught a
second language. It was French. I learned English at home and
French in school but I did not see the need for it. Times have
changed. This is the nineties. There is a need for a second language.
There is a need for people to expand their minds. People do not
have to learn a second language and if they speak just one language
they should not be ashamed or embarrassed.
There are places in Quebec where they are forced to do things in
English where there is no need. Some areas are so francophone it is
ridiculous to impose English signs and English services. They do
not need it, they do not want it and they should not have to do it.
The same exists outside of Quebec in a lot of areas.
If we want to achieve a balance, territorial bilingualism might go
a long way toward solving that problem. I am not saying it would
solve all of the problems because someone or something always
gets in the way. They are politicians, bureaucrats and government.
We as politicians should clearly enunciate the objectives of what
we want and then follow it up. The mistake Trudeau made is he
enunciated a good objective and he supported the
Laurendeau-Dunton report. That is all he wanted. He wanted to
encourage, promote and set in place some services that would make
francophones who left Quebec feel comfortable living outside of
Quebec. That is what he wanted. However other people came
along, for example the bureaucrats, and interpreted it differently
and started imposing rules. For example, I think it is silly to have
language police in a province. That is such a waste of money, but it
is just my personal opinion.
What else can I say in the minute that is left for me.
An hon. member: Why don't you sit down?
Mr. Silye: I do not want to sit down until my time is up. I have
every right to speak for 20 minutes just like the member for
Québec-Est. I know he is champing at the bit to get at me on a
question.
In 1995 the commissioner of official languages received 15
complaints regarding the Internet which dealt with the
unavailability of various information in French. When will the
Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal government catch up with the
Reform Party which has more French services on the Internet site
than both the Bloc and the Liberals? How is that for promoting
bilingualism? How is that for offering services in two languages?
How is that for showing
3794
that the Reform Party does care about Quebec, that the Reform
Party wants Quebec?
We need good Quebecers to run for the Reform Party to show
that we can make a difference here representing the province of
Quebec the proper way.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
know the member for Calgary Centre to be respectful and probably
one of the more progressive MPs in the Reform Party but he does
not necessarily represent the opinion generally expressed within
the Reform Party. Certainly I can well believe he is sincere in his
remarks.
However his remarks indicate clearly that he lacks a certain
understanding of the history of Canada, in particular when he
speaks about the Hungarian language and asking why do we not
have an official language policy for Hungarian in Canada. It is not
that I am against Hungarian. I would love to speak Hungarian. I
would love to speak many languages.
The fact is initially francophones were at the foundation of this
country. Again, it comes back in the messages that are sent out
from the Reform Party and the Liberal Party which are always
attacking Quebec as though Quebec were responsible for the
assimilation of francophones outside Quebec.
Quebec is still part of Canada and the assimilation of
francophones is increasing. It is increasing more and more rapidly.
We cannot blame Quebec for the fact that English speaking
provinces do not respect their commitments to francophones. Also,
I would humbly submit to the member for Calgary Centre that the
English community in Quebec is well respected. They have all their
rights, educational, hospital, social services. They are extremely
well treated in spite of disagreements in terms of details.
(1145)
For example, the member mentioned that it was Mr. Trudeau
who brought about the B and B commission. No, it was Mr.
Pearson who brought about the commission which recommended a
series of measures to help bring back the rights that had been
denied francophones, particularly in Alberta, which had denied
those rights since 1905. It took a long time before Alberta
recognized the right of francophones to their own schools. It
happened only last year. There are 14 schools in Alberta where they
teach in French. The member did not mention that, but it is
important, it is a great gain. But it was forced on Alberta.
Alberta resisted in spite of two Supreme Court decisions and the
charter of human rights, article 23, which demanded Alberta
respect the rights of francophones. Alberta resisted until the last
minute and the federal government had to pay Alberta to provide
schools and administer the school system in Alberta. So Alberta is
far from being an example.
I do not think that the people in the west could teach a lesson to
Quebec on how to represent its minority. However, the problem is
that Alberta and other provinces still do not provide a sufficient
guarantee or services to its French minority.
Finally, the policy of the Reform Party obviously, in spite of
goodwill, reduces it to a territorial administration. It would
obviously reduce even further the powers that French language
communities will have in order to survive. Clearly, according to
history, Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and B.C. do not
want to have any French in their provinces.
If the provinces are given the right to administer minority
language services, my God, it is going to be absolutely, zilch, zero.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I never said that we need a Hungarian
language policy. I am saying that we do not need the Hungarian
language policy. Hungarians will continue to retain their language
and culture, despite the fact that we do not have a policy here in
Canada.
My point is that it is not necessary to be so over protective of a
language to the degree that it will be lost and forgotten. There are
examples that it will never happen.
I never blamed Quebec for the mess we are in concerning
bilingualism. I never once in my speech blamed Quebec. I blamed
the federal government, prime ministers and the second tier, the
bureaucrats who were hired to implement those policies.
I thank the member for the correction as to who initiated the
Laurendeau-Dunton report, the B and B Commission, Mr. Pearson.
He was a fine gentleman.
In terms of the Bloc's policy, I talked about territorial
bilingualism and he indicated that it would not work. Here is the
Bloc Quebecois policy. It calls for full and generous language
rights to be extended to francophones living outside of Quebec and
very few rights to be extended to anglophones living inside
Quebec.
Where is the principle of equality there? That is avoiding it.
``The logic of this asymmetry is that French is in danger of
extinction in Canada''. It is in danger of extinction in Canada?
Seven million people speak that language and somebody says that
it is in danger of extinction. That defies logic. It goes on: ``It can
only survive on an equal footing with English if it receives
preferential, legal treatment''.
Let us say that it was in danger of extinction and we felt that we
had to do some extra work to ensure the language survived. What
offends anglophones is that the separatists in their own
province-not all Quebecers because the majority are not like
this-will not give the equal treatment to anglophones living in
that province. They tramp on their rights. That is what is wrong
with the separatists and the Bloc view of bilingualism.
3795
(1150)
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party member has raised a number
of points, and I find very interesting his claim that the francophone
community can survive without the necessary support or assistance
of the Canadian government. I think the hon. member is mistaken.
It must not be forgotten that francophones represent only one per
cent of the total population of North America, if Mexico is
included. Clearly, it is therefore to our advantage to make sure that
we have good ties with and, of course, the unconditional support of
the anglophone and bilingual provinces of the country.
There was also a reference to the case of Alberta, which, to some
extent, resisted the efforts of the federal government in a procedure
back in the eighties. Admittedly the whole thing had the support of
the Quebec government at the time.
I would like to hear the member's thoughts on this territorial
responsibility. He spoke to us about the Reformers' almost
electoral promise to encourage and promote the French fact and, in
particular, bilingualism, throughout the country. How could they
encourage French throughout the country when they are prepared
to support a policy of territorial management?
He proudly told us about the existence of 163 schools, or
educational establishments, offering French immersion courses. He
also boasted-and I am very glad to hear it this morning-that
there are over 27,000 anglophone school children in French
immersion in Alberta this year.
How does he think they could maintain or increase the number of
these French immersion schools if they followed his political
logic? How could a government headed by the leader of the third
party guarantee us the presence of French in that province and, of
course, in the other anglophone provinces? I would certainly like to
hear his comments on this subject.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his
question. It is a very good question. It is a very important question.
The Reform Party recognizes and realizes that French is a fact in
this country. So is English. French is the minority language because
fewer people speak French.
We are not against supporting bilingualism. When I was making
the point about compulsory enforcement and about not spending a
lot of money to encourage people to learn a language, I was trying
to show that the separatists use an extreme argument. They go
overboard in trying to retain their argument. There needs to be a
compromise between the two.
It against that point that I was stating the fact that if someone did
not speak the language for a number of years, they could still speak
that language. The culture of a province and a region is important.
There are many cultures across this country.
The member asked how we would encourage or protect French
minority language rights outside Quebec. First, all provinces have
jurisdiction over language and culture. It should be the same for
Quebec as it is for Alberta and for every other province. Within that
right, the provinces can encourage the people to speak the language
of its choice and to insist on education first in the language of that
choice.
The way to ensure that French is protected in Alberta, for
instance, is to recognize where the pockets, the pools, the
significant numbers and sufficient demand exist to ensure that
those people, through legislation, get the services they require.
That is protected by law. It is enforced by law.
However, to encourage more Albertans, more Edmontonians,
Calgarians, people from Red Deer, from Lethbridge, from
wherever they are to speak French, one has to sell and promote the
advantages of a second language. It has to be shown what are the
advantages for Albertans to learn French. A lot of good contracts
from Europe in the technological field are going to Quebecers and
Quebecers only because they speak French and supply the drawings
and the technical information in French.
(1155)
If Calgarians and Edmontonians or Albertans in general were to
take the time to become proficient in that second language it would
improve their opportunities to market themselves. It would
improve their ability to make deals in the global economy. The
world is shrinking. It will become a Europe. Therefore, the
protection of a second language, be it English in Quebec or French
in Ontario, will become more prevalent. The way to do it is not to
force people to do it but to encourage, to promote, to show the
advantages of it.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
minutes to come I will give troubling facts regarding assimilation
of French speaking Canadians outside Quebec. I remind the House
that today's debate is on francophones living mainly outside
Quebec. The opposition motion we are debating on this supply day
recognizes the urgency of the situation of francophones outside
Quebec.
As evidence of this fact, here are some very eloquent figures
which show the seriousness of the assimilation problem of
francophones in minority situations. Over the last 20 years in
Canada, the assimilation rate of francophones increased from 27
per cent in 1971 to 35.9 per cent in 1991. This means that more
than 35 per
3796
cent of francophones outside Quebec now speak English at home
and this trend is becoming more marked every year.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois encourages the federal and
provincial governments to acknowledge the urgency of the
situation and even more, to take the exceptional steps required in
order to counter the assimilation of francophones everywhere in
Canada and allow their development by appropriate measures.
It is very unfortunate that the federal government, and especially
Liberals who have been the most keen promoters and defenders of
bilinguism and multiculturalism in Canada, persist in denying the
real presence of francophones outside Quebec despite the
numerous reports of the Commissioner of Official languages and
francophone advocacy groups.
This situation is all the more incomprehensible since minorities
outside Quebec have traditionally voted for the Liberals. It is high
time we dropped the rhetoric and the lip service. The federal
government must act and not just make empty speeches. It must
promote effective legislation to save the francophone and Acadian
communities in the throes of death from assimilation.
In reality, the government is not meeting its statutory
commitments toward francophones in Canada. The proof is in a
memorandum issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Official
Languages on February 22, which indicates that, after
investigation, the office noted significant gaps in the training of
federal officials and in existing training and management systems
in terms of the provisions of part VII of the Official Languages Act
of 1988. Section 41 of part VII of the act provides that the
government is committed to ``enhancing the vitality of the English
and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and
supporting and assisting their development''. It is also committed
to ``fostering the full recognition and use of both English and
French in Canadian society''.
In the light of the latest statistics from Statistics Canada-and
this is what is important-supported by the latest reports of the
Office the Commissioner of Official Languages, it is as if the
federal government had forgotten the meaning of ``francophone''
in the act. It is, however, clear. The federal government has both the
obligation and the responsibility to ensure French linguistic
minority communities receive fair treatment in keeping with its
status of official language in Canada.
(1200)
I am going to read an extract of the February 1996 report of the
Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which clearly
proves the government's inaction, despite its obligation to act. You
will see on page 32, and I quote: ``It is not surprising, therefore,
that in a random sample of more than 550 senior executives, when
they were asked to say what initiatives their institution could
undertake to implement Part VII of the OLA, the two must
common responses were ``no idea'' (23 per cent) and ``nothing
needed'' (20 per cent), and that almost none suggested any
measures directly intended to enhance the vitality and support the
development of minority official language communities''. They
were not interested.
That is saying something. A majority of representatives in the
main federal departments and agencies in charge of programs for
francophones do not even understand the French speaking
community's needs. There is more: in the same report, on page 31,
under the first heading, in answer to a question, it says, and I quote:
``-except for senior executives who are members of one of these
communities or for rare individuals who had developed extensive
knowledge on their own initiative, the baseline of knowledge about
minority community characteristics and needs is extremely low''.
Where is the problem? Under these conditions, are the intentions
of the federal government realistic? That is why the Bloc
Quebecois is asking the federal and provincial governments to take
the exceptional steps required to counter assimilation of French
communities outside Quebec and encourage their development.
Here are other figures more closely related this time to
governments of provinces having an English majority and who still
resist the demand of francophones for real education services in
French, thereby contravening the Canadian constitution.
Take the case of Ontario for instance. Over 20 years, the
assimilation ratio among francophones increased to 38.2 per cent
from 27 per cent. Now, Franco-Ontarians who still speak French at
home are only 3.2 per cent of population. They are declining in
number. That is what we are saying. Now that is assimilation. This
situation is particularly tragic as Ontario is, as you know, the
province where more than half the francophone community outside
Quebec lives. It is therefore the most important in terms of
numbers.
In Alberta, the assimilation rate is 66.9 per cent. In
Saskatchewan, its neighbour, it is even higher, 69.6 per cent. In
Manitoba, the rate is 52.1 per cent. The statistics I quote come from
documents prepared by Statistics Canada, I did not make them up.
British Columbia, where the assimilation rate of francophones is
the highest, is the most obvious case. It is the province furthest
from the francophone nucleus, and it is therefore where the rate is
the highest: 75.2 per cent.
This means in fact that 75.2 per cent of the population in that
province whose mother tongue was French no longer speak French
at home and have turned directly to English. For a francophone,
those numbers are not at all heartening. You will agree with me that
this is the statistical reflection of a sad reality.
3797
With assimilation rates going from 38.2 per cent in Ontario to
75.2 per cent in British Columbia, francophone communities are
fading away.
Only Acadia is still holding its own, and I want to acknowledge
the courage and determination of the Acadian people. But, will it
last? That is the question. As a francophone and a francophile, I
sincerely hope so.
(1205)
Behind those statistics are intense, heartbreaking human dramas
often full of despair: those of francophones who believed in this
country, in its bilingualism policy and in the promises made by its
leaders.
The French speaking Fathers of Confederation rapidly lost their
illusions. They believed that new provinces joining Canada would
be bilingual. We know what happened. Provincial legislatures
abolished and denied francophones all their rights.
Despite the legislation and Supreme Court decisions
francophones are still without schools, health services, government
services and cultural services in their language, French. It is the
same story almost everywhere in Canada. Put down, betrayed by
the people who did not keep their promises, those French speaking
Canadians feel wounded but yet, they continue to fight, refusing to
admit that, maybe, they have lost the battle. They have all my
admiration. They have all the admiration of the Bloc Quebecois.
As a general rule, the Canadian government refuses to talk about
the assimilation of francophones outside Quebec and even refuses
outright to recognize it. I listened to the minister who just gave a
very nice and politically correct speech, but that was the icing on
the cake. We should look further than that but that is exactly what
the government refuses to do.
In this regard, the annual reports by the Commissioner of
Official Languages constitute a marvel of hypocrisy. But the best
example of that kind of attitude is given by the current Prime
Minister. His statements on language issues go back to the
implementation of Bill 101 in Quebec. It is at that time that the
Prime Minister started to get interested in Acadian and French
speaking minorities.
On one hand, at the time, in the late 1970s, the Prime Minister
prevented the decentralization towards Quebec of the federal
public service because he felt the Quebec government of the time
could not guarantee that displaced federal civil servants could send
their children to English schools.
I refer hon. members to page 5602 of Hansard, dated May 13,
1977. This is the Prime Minister speaking:
I have told the Quebec government that if they cannot give the anglophone
civil servants who would have to settle in Quebec the guarantee that their
children could attend English schools, we will not be able to decentralize in this
province.
On the other hand, in 1982, the current Prime Minister conspired
with English provinces, during the night of the long knives, to force
Quebec to accept the Canada clause with regard to the language of
instruction.
Another quote from the October 23, 1981 Hansard, page 12115,
says this. Again, it is the Prime Minister speaking:
We want to make sure that Canadians who speak English and move to Quebec
have the right to go to English schools. In return, we want to have the
constitutional right, for the first time in the history of Canada, for francophones
in the nine other provinces to have their schools.
Both times, of course, this advocate of the Quebec English
minority did not forget to assure Acadian and French speaking
minorities that they would have the same rights.
However, the Prime Minister unconditionally accepted to
transfer francophone soldiers to Kingston although he knew
perfectly well that Kingston's track record in French was so
atrocious that everyone knew that francophones would have to live
in English there.
It is only thanks to the Bloc's relentless attacks here, in this
House, that the situation of francophone soldiers in Kingston has
improved slightly. As you will recall we also came to the rescue of
the people who wanted a French school in Kingston. It is thanks to
the Bloc Quebecois that things started to happen. We put pressure
on the government and it took action. Public opinion played a part
too.
It is as if the Prime Minister were only interested in French
speaking Canadians to the extent that there is an English minority
in Quebec.
(1210)
He repeated it in this House, saying that in the event of a yes
vote, francophones will be the losers because the federal
government will not support them. I was present when he said that.
They are being held hostage here. The federal language policy is
based on the following logic: we must make people believe
francophones have the same privileges so that the anglophone
minority will not lose any of its own privileges. The fact that the
Prime Minister acquieseces to the frantic pace of assimilation of
francophones all over Canada clearly shows that this is one of the
reasons for the tragic decline of the Acadian and francophone
minorities.
Most of these people had to sacrifice their own francophone
community and their advancement within the federal government
because career moves can only be made with the support of the
majority, that is the anglophones.
3798
It is clear that the federal government and its leader pay lip
service to the equality of French and English under the law; they
certainly do not take any tangible action to change the status quo.
Equality of the two languages is a fiction. Out of the 1,242
complaints examined by the Commissioner of Official Languages
in 1992, 81.8 per cent came, as per usual, from francophones.
In some regions of Canada, the commissioner himself admits
that the situation is hopeless. He said: ``Where there were fewer
complaints (from the West, for example) this can be attributed in
part to the frustration felt by clients- at the lack of progress on the
part of various institutions''. This quote comes from the 1994
annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Therefore, the assimilation rate is on the rise; we must stress that
point for our colleagues from the other parties. We are not making
this up. Statistics Canada reports that assimilation of francophones
is increasing in Canada. So assimilation is gaining ground and the
government, particularly some public servants, do not seem to
care.
The situation is critical and it is our duty to remedy it because
assimilation will continue to destroy our communities. The
statistical profile of francophone and Acadian communities shows
without a doubt the seriousness of the situation in these
communities.
We have the right to ask others to respect the necessary
conditions so that our language and our communities are a viable
identification pole.
Before I conclude, I would like, here in the House, to
congratulate the Fédération des communautés francophones et
acadienne du Canada for its perseverance, and I urge it to continue
the struggle to preserve its language and its culture.
Finally, will the federal government have the wisdom to really
seek the advancement of francophone and Acadian communities,
which will involve talking about schools, because that is where it
all begins, and about real services in communities where there are
francophones. The situation is critical, and the government must
act quickly and efficiently to counter the assimilation of
francophones everywhere in Canada outside Quebec.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to add the voice of British Columbia to this debate. I am
neither a francophone nor an anglophone. I am originally from
Italy; this makes me a member of the multicultural, ethnic
community. But I speak both official languages, as well as Italian.
I must say that British Columbia is a young province, just
turning 125 years old this year. I must also say that it differs from
other provinces, as someone pointed out, in that it is a community
of communities, some of which are much larger than the
francophone community.
Still, I would like to make a few comments. I will comment on
this. For instance, when I travelled to Montreal before the
referendum, I was told: ``What are you doing here? This is not your
country''. But it was my country, too.
(1215)
I would also like to say that, during the referendum campaign,
my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois showed little interest for
communities outside Quebec. Indeed, I was one of the first to raise
the matter of francophone minorities outside Quebec during the
referendum campaign, because their party was just not interested. I
think that now they are trying to show to Canada that they care, but
I have never seen their party show any interest in the matter before.
On the subject of assimilation, I would like to say that, naturally,
in British Columbia, there is some assimilation taking place
because we have so many different communities, but we also have
60,000 francophones across the province, who form a very vibrant
and very active community.
I just spoke to them. I spoke to the Fédération de la francophonie
last week. I worked with the francophone community in British
Columbia for 20 years and I must say that it is one of the most
organized communities, and has a very good rapport with the
federal government. Yet, again, my colleagues from the Bloc
Quebecois were nowhere to be seen when the time came to sign an
agreement with the government. I was there though. I was there to
help, along with other Liberal members, and I have worked long
and hard for this agreement to be signed. Now there is a very good
agreement in place. And francophones are pleased. Just the other
night, their report was tabled.
I might add that, yes, we are not always happy with what
happened in the past, but what can I say? This is a young country.
My country of origin, Italy, is a much older country than Canada,
but just the same, Italy has a past we are not always too proud of.
We have to work together. I do not think that separating or getting
out of Canada will make a difference. I think we must work
together to maintain two main languages in Canada-as well as
minority languages-two languages that are very popular around
the world, especially the French language.
This is just a comment I wanted to make. It was important for me
to make this comment because I have not heard any other speakers
from British Columbia and I think I know British Columbia and its
francophone community pretty well.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great
interest to the comments made by my colleague across the way. I
think her remarks were totally fair. Today's debate is not about
Quebec sovereignty, but about francophones outside Quebec. May
3799
I remind you that, in 1994, the Bloc Quebecois developed a policy
to help francophone communities outside Quebec as well as the
Acadian community.
In 1994, under the leadership of the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata, we set out a policy to help francophones
outside Quebec in case Quebec achieved sovereignty, which did not
happen. The Quebec government also formulated a policy to help
these people. May I remind you that the red book, which is still
being promoted by our Liberal colleagues across the way, makes no
mention of what will be done about these communities.
In my speech, I talked about cold statistics. The hon. member
spoke with her heart, but I prefer to quote statistics that show us
beyond any doubt what is happening in this country. Statistics
Canada's figures paint an alarming picture. The assimilation rate is
now so high that, in one or two generations, there will be no
francophones left outside Quebec, only small organized groups.
These are Statistics Canada's own figures.
The other day, I went to a reception given by the Speaker of this
House, where we welcomed a great man, the RCMP commissioner,
who was just back from Haiti. This man is a francophone. I will not
give his name. He married an anglophone woman-love will find a
way-and they have three great children in their 20s, one of who is
a nurse and another one of whom has a teaching job abroad.
(1220)
I met these people. They were very nice, except that, with a
francophone father and an anglophone mother, none of the three
children speak a word of French. This did not keep me from
appreciating and even liking them, because they were good kids,
but they are indeed assimilated. That is what I want to say today.
This is the risk we face.
We are moving toward an irreversible trend. The members who
come from elsewhere can understand this. I go out in Ottawa all the
time, I go to restaurants, and there are not many francophones.
There are fewer and fewer of them. I met a lady who works for the
government and who has children. She speaks French, but her
children did not learn it. That is what is happening.
Today, we want to describe the situation to the government so
that necessary measures will be taken. Members across the way
also mentioned immersion classes. As we all know, any Canadian
who dreams about his child becoming Prime Minister enrols that
child in immersion classes.
Nowadays, it is better to be bilingual if one wants to hold public
office and to become Prime Minister. I do not question the validity
of immersion classes, I do not condemn them, but it is the
anglophones that make use of them. This is not like providing
services to francophones in their own environment.
My assistant in Ottawa is a francophone from northern Ontario.
He often tells me that his parents wanted him to study in French
and how hard they had to fight for this, back then. You certainly
know, Mr. Speaker, how parents in this situation had to fight to
preserve their French language and culture.
I do not wish to sound petty, but we all know that some members
in the House are first generation Canadians. Our country welcomes
immigrants, and so does Quebec. But we have a tradition. If the
Constitution stipulates that French is one of the two official
languages, that francophones have rights, it is about time the
government assumed its responsibilities, made the necessary
decisions and to made sure that the law is enforced.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the hon. member have
more to do with the anecdotal than with facts. Statistics are
mentioned and I find this very interesting. I do not accept
everything the government says, including Statistics Canada.
I would like to talk about the birth rate. As you know, the birth
rate of francophones living outside Quebec, and even of those
living in Quebec, is lower than the natural replacement rate. This is
something which Statistics Canada cannot explain, but which must
be taken into account.
Moreover, no mention is made of the increase in Canada's
population over the last 50 years. As we know, the population
increased tremendously because of the massive immigration
movement to Canada, which is known the world over as a good
host country. In fact, this is why people came here and helped build
the prosperous nation that we know. Canada's population has
doubled over the last 50 years, but not the number of francophones
living outside Quebec. These are the facts.
I realize that the proportion of francophones in Ontario is now
smaller, but their actual number has remained stable. I find it
regrettable that anecdotal information is being used and that, in this
debate, we are told that a francophone married and anglophone and
that their children are assimilated.
Let me tell you about my own situation. I would say that 95 per
cent of my work is done in French and that 90 per cent of my
speeches are in French. My wife's mother tongue is Spanish, and it
is true that, at home, we speak English together. However, this does
not mean that my children are not francophones.
(1225)
In spite of what Statistics Canada may say, it does not
necessarily mean that I am assimilated. Based on Statistics
Canada's criteria, the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is
3800
assimilated because his family speaks English. But this does not
tell the whole story.
My father, Alban Gagnon, and his mother, an Irish woman
named Jones, spoke English together. However, my father worked
to improve his skills and became bilingual. In fact, French was
spoken in the family. My father works exclusively in French.
The same is true in the case of my great-grandfather. His story is
even more interesting. He dared marry a Protestant, a Scot. You
cannot imagine how strongly the clergy protested at the time.
However, these people not only preserved their language, they
managed to promote it and to learn a second one. This is more than
anecdotal information. It shows that couples with French and
English speaking partners can actually help its members improve
their linguistic skills and their knowledge of both official
languages.
Let us not forget that 30 per cent of Canadians are now bilingual.
This means 10 million people out of a population of 30 million.
This is very interesting.
I also note, while acknowledging the point made by the Bloc
Quebecois, that French immersion programs for anglophones are a
tremendous success. I will end on this note. I hope more English
speaking Canadians will consider French immersion, as many have
done over the last 15 years.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member told us
about his origins. As we can see, he comes out of a true melting
pot. What you see is what you get, is it not? He did not want us to
talk about that, but he is the one who did.
Now, data from Statistic Canada tell us that the assimilation rate
has gone up from 27 per cent in 1971 to 35.9 per cent in 1991, and
this in spite of the hon. member's rhetoric; this is undeniable. We
simply point out, without wanting to squabble, that there is a
problem. Right now, the Liberals are in power, and as long as
people in Canada vote for the Liberals, they are the ones we have to
talk to and they are the ones who must take measures to deal with
the situation.
Thus, the trend toward assimilation seems to be irreversible.
Does the government have any solution to settle this problem? If it
has no solution, we, in Quebec, have our own. The ball is now in
the government's court. So, does the government have any
solution? That is the question that we are asking ourselves today.
We could surely trade anecdotes but, in our everyday life, we
meet people. Assimilation of francophones to English is much
more frequent than assimilation of anglophones. Why? The hon.
member will understand that, since he is, as you know, a young
man with good sense.
He will understand that we live in North America, where there
are many anglophones. It is quite simple, we live in a sea of
anglophones. Canadians always say that having two languages,
French and English, is the specific characteristic of Canada. How
nice. They should ensure that this will continue to be true a little
longer. That is what we are asking for. That is what the
francophones are fighting for.
As I look on the opposite side, I see a francophone member from
another province. He might not say so in the House because he a
member of the Liberal Party, but he would tell you privately that
both he and his parents have to fight every day to get quality
services. That is what the government has to look at now.
(1230)
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the discussion on this motion, which I will
read out carefully, because I do not want us to lose sight of what it
is all about.
Here it is: ``That the House encourage the federal government to
acknowledge the urgency of the situation of francophones in
minority situations in Canada, and take the exceptional steps
required in order to counter their assimilation and allow their
development''. In a way, this is an excellent motion, because
assimilation is indeed a problem. The struggle never ends. In a
changing society, a constant vigilance is required.
One of the main things we should be doing today is asking why
things are the way they are and looking for solutions. What is it we
should do to counter and stop assimilation and better support
minorities in their development?
The same message lies behind all the speeches of members
opposite, simply that if they separate and are left to their own
devices, there would be some kind of magic solution. We all know
there is no magic solution. I certainly hope that before the end of
the day, before the end of this discussion, political parties opposite
will come up with concrete, specific, sensible and thoughtful
solutions.
I am not suggesting that the federal government has that magic
solution, but I do say and emphasize that the government is
committed, and that this commitment is getting stronger. The
solution we now have is the best solution for francophones outside
Quebec.
At this point, I want to stop and reflect some more on Manitoba
as it was at the start. Take, for instance, what we have in Manitoba.
We have the Société franco-manitobaine, a special interest group.
Yes, we have to fight, we always had to-and we do it rather well,
you know-and we will continue to fight. But my hon. friends
opposite also have to fight, do they not, to try to find their own
place in the sun? We all have to fight. Canada must fight to carve
itself a place in this world of ours, in its relations with the United
States and Europe. It is a battle we all have to fight when we look at
3801
the society we live in and the people we represent. Francophones
outside Quebec are no different.
This Société franco-manitobaine has been promoting the rights
of francophones for a long time. It does a good job of it. Only
recently, after a very fierce battle, did Manitoba get a French
school board, where we manage our own schools. I must tell you,
this is a huge step forward. I hope other provinces, like
Newfoundland for example, which we have been discussing, will
do the same. I sincerely hope that in all the provinces and in all the
territories where francophones live and have French schools,
something that we see in Canada-they will have the opportunity
to elect their own representatives and to manage their own schools.
In Manitoba, we have the Collège universitaire de
Saint-Boniface, a university-based community college offering
education and upgrading programs in French. We have a university
attended by students not only from throughout Canada, but from
around the world. This is the only French language community and
university college in western Canada. It has been doing some
remarkable work, because it is still there after many years and is
renowned in Canada and abroad.
We also have a youth council that sees to our young citizens,
their needs, their education and their recreational activities. We
also have CKXL, a community radio station that helps us to talk to,
understand and help each other. And then there is the Cercle
Molière, the oldest French theatre company in Canada.
(1235)
We have a French Chamber of commerce. We have organizations
like Réseau and Plurielle, which fight for the needs and rights of
women. We have, for example, the Fédération des comités de
parents. We have the Association des juristes, and so on.
We have a major infrastructure, which sure helps us meet our
needs. All these organizations have received, at one time or
another, some financial assistance from the federal government.
But they help themselves. They did not survive only with the help
of the federal, provincial or municipal governments. They
contribute not only their talents, energies and creative abilities, but
also their money.
Now I will tell you about a very promising federal initiative. As
we already heard this morning, some hon. members vied with each
other in predicting the end of French communities outside Quebec,
backing this up with alarming figures on their assimilation. True,
there is a problem, but is it as serious as they say? Are they
exaggerating for some reason? Maybe to send another message? It
is up to the people to decide after hearing the speeches.
And yet, these communities are vibrant and, with the help of the
federal and other levels of government, they are giving themselves
the means to remain that way.
One of these means is the school-community centre. The first of
these centres, the St. Anne centre, was opened in 1978 in
Fredericton, New Brunswick. Since then, others have opened their
in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island,
Newfoundland, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and I like to think
that there may be one soon in Manitoba. This is a project I am
working on and hope to realize. I am working on yet another
project in the Yukon and hope that centre will open in the near
future. Each and every one of these centres benefited from the
assistance of the federal government. Without federal assistance, I
am not sure they would now be a reality.
School-community centres have many advantages. They give
French speaking citizens a school in a separate building. They also
allow for a more homogenous education and daily French language
immersion for the students.
[English]
French language education is one of the greatest values of
francophone minority communities and the best means of ensuring
their survival. It reflects the community's beliefs, hopes and
labours. It is a route taken by the francophone minority
communities to enhance their identity and to pass along their
language and culture. A close relationship between the community
and the school is essential in order to support the work being done
by the school.
Since culture is defined as the beliefs, behaviours and values of
the community, the community centre is a natural partner for
French schools and minority settings.
[Translation]
The school-community centre also allows the community to
gather together, hence ensuring a better cohesion of organizations
and one of the best consultation process regarding its needs. It also
helps coordinate activities and create a community spirit.
It combines and creates more activities in French for adults and
children. The experience of existing centres shows that there has
been an improvement in community life and the use of French. It is
not surprising, therefore, that many French communities have
chosen the school-community centre as anchor point and that the
federal government has chosen to support these initiatives.
The hon. member who moved this motion seems to consider
concrete signs of the vitality of communities as unimportant. The
centre Sainte-Anne in La Grand'Terre, Newfoundland, the
carrefour de l'Isle Saint-Jean in Charlottetown, Prince Edward
Island,
3802
the carrefour du Grand-Havre in Halifax-Dartmouth, Nova Scotia,
the centre Sainte-Anne in Fredericton, the centre
Samuel-Champlain in Saint John, the carrefour Beausoleil in
Newcastle, New Brunswick, the Kingston centre, the Beauséjour
school-community centre in Plamondon, the Calgary
school-community centre, the Fort McMurray school-community
centre.
(1240)
And, I hope, if I make this speech again in a few months, why
not the Manitoba school-community centre in Saint-Vital and,
maybe, another one in the Yukon? Most of these centres were
created in the last ten years.
They are further examples showing that the federal government
did not twiddle its thumbs and that French communities are better
equipped then ever before to meet their needs and view the future
with optimism.
The school-community centre is an important tool for the
development of French language minorities. By regrouping under
one roof the French school and different services and
organizations, it creates an homogeneous French-language
environment that promotes exchanges and cultural vitality. The
school-community centre is a small scale reproduction of a
complete society. It is a French centre for living whose influence
extends well beyond the immediate area it serves. It is a meeting
place, a source of pride and inspiration. It compensates for the
isolation and the scattering of the French language population.
The vitality of a community depends on more than the sheer
numbers of its members. The French speaking minorities show
their dynamism in all fields and the activities which take place in
community centres are a perfect illustration of that fact. With the
play groups for preschoolers, the fitness classes for senior citizens,
libraries, video libraries and cultural and sports activities of all
kinds, community centres support and promote the development of
French language and culture.
During a recent seminar on official language teaching, the
director of the Carrefour du Grand-Havre, in Nova Scotia,
presented very interesting data. For example, in the six years since
the opening of the school-community centre in 1991, school
attendance almost doubled. It must be stressed that the same is true
of all school-community centres.
The opening of such a centre has always been followed by an
increase, sometimes a significant increase, in the number of
registrations in French schools. The Carrefour serves a
cosmopolitan clientele coming from diversified school systems.
Francization programs were created for kindergarten and grade one
students and many community projects were initiated, like services
for preschoolers, access to the school library for the French
community, a videotape library, summer camps and sports,
cultural, social and religious activities.
[English]
I have chosen to use a more concrete example to illustrate the
vitality of francophone communities outside Quebec. School
community centres are proliferating at an increasingly rapid rate.
One wonders then why some speak of the disappearance of the very
communities that they are labelling as dynamic, the newly
emerging energies, the coming together of different generations
toward a common goal. These are but a few of the examples of the
achievements in which francophone minority communities can
take pride.
[Translation]
I would like to share a few things with my colleagues because I
think one of our obligations is to try to be well-informed. And,
when dealing with certain issues, we should try to stay away from
politics so that it does not prevent us from finding a solution to the
problem.
I have here a list of about sixty or maybe eighty francophone
organizations in Manitoba that receive financial assistance from
the federal government to help them meet specific objectives.
Whether they work in the field of theatre, music, radio, education
or training, they all receive assistance from the federal
government. They probably receive further assistance, up to a
certain amount, from other levels of government. It must not be
forgotten that francophones outside Quebec have contributed, as I
said earlier, not only with their talent, their dedication, their
creativity, their commitment, but also with their money, to meeting
their own objectives.
(1245)
What saddens me somewhat when dealing with such a motion is
the fact that it is indeed an important motion in itself. Yes, there has
been a certain degree of assimilation and, yes, there is still work to
be done. But are the members opposite really trying to identify the
problems and to find solutions to stop this assimilation process and
to help the francophone community to flourish? Is that what they
are doing? Or are they mainly trying to demonstrate that the federal
system does not work? I am sorry, but the federal system works just
fine.
Could it work better? It certainly could. Should it work better?
Yes, it should. Will the members opposite help us or will they just
try to destroy what has been done? When I heard my colleague say
that his party had a policy concerning francophones outside Quebec
since 1994, I could not help but notice that this was only two years
ago. So where were they before that? Were they on our side or on
the other side? Were they there to help us find sensible solutions to
our problems or were they there to play politics?
In closing, I would like to think that this debate will not only
help us identify the problems, but that it will also help us find
solutions that will allow us to meet the great challenges that lie
ahead.
3803
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, fifty years ago I had the pleasure of travelling through
the western provinces with my father, who had a folk group known
as Omer Dumas and his minstrel singers.
I visited villages with names like Saint-Jean-Baptiste,
Saint-Pierre-Joli, Otterburne and Saint-Claude. There was
Prud'homme, Plamondon and Bonnyville, the home of the
Campagne family that has formed the group known as Hart Rouge.
There was Beaumont, in Alberta. There was also St. Boniface,
which unfortunately no longer exists. St-Boniface, which was the
centre of life in Manitoba, has been merged with Winnipeg.
In those days, we had the pleasure of meeting the parish priests,
since the shows my father put on always took place in parish halls
and often in churches. He did not just tour in the west; he took his
show all through Quebec and New Brunswick too.
Parents we met said great efforts were made to preserve the
French language in the west, but the big problem was that more and
more the children would use English in speaking to each other.
My question to the member for St. Boniface, whose French is
excellent by the way, is the following: What language do 20-year
olds, the children of francophone parents, use?
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question, which I greatly appreciate. Fifty years ago, the struggle
was much harder than now. Things have evolved. True, 50 years
ago, people did not always look favourably on French education or
culture. Some people offered little if any support.
There has been a change, however. Not only in Manitoba, I
believe, but elsewhere as well. That is debatable, but when I look
around today, I see young parents, whether francophone or not,
with an openmindedness that would have been hard to imagine in
the past. I say this without any desire to make any political hay
from it.
I will give an example, and will also answer your very specific
question, dear colleague. When we see anglophone parents
enrolling their sons or daughters in immersion, whether they have
in mind that their child could become prime minister or a minister,
or what have you, it is because they believe it offers an advantage,
either a career advantage or an opportunity to develop a broader
mind.
I worked in that field for a number of years, and I was always
impressed by the answers parents gave. I do not think they all
believed their son or daughter would end up prime minister or a
minister. They were doing it for other reasons. To broaden their
child's horizons, to enable him or her to be able to speak to people
in Manitoba, Quebec, or elsewhere, in French.
(1250)
According to a fundamental belief being able to speak more than
one language gives a person a special quality and increases his or
her possibility of contributing to society. These are all valid
reasons. I can now see an open-mindedness that was not there
before. and I believe this trend is increasing, at least I hope it is.
As regards small communities, I will say this. They still are in
large majority. You are absolutely right in saying that St. Boniface
was amalgamated. But as the hon. member knows, St. Boniface
still exists. I am the member for the federal riding of St. Boniface
and I am proud to be. One of my colleagues, Neil Gaudry, is a
francophone and member for the provincial riding of St. Boniface.
When we meet in that part of the city, we do not call it Winnipeg
but St. Boniface. They wanted to amalgamate those two cities, but
St. Boniface still exists and it always will.
What language do young people in their twenties speak? I
believe a large majority of them speak both languages. I have three
daughters. The youngest, who is 16-years old, speaks French and is
now finishing grade 10 in a French school. I was one of the lucky
ones to be married to a francophone woman who speaks French as
well as I do. She learned it as an adult and is member of
francophone committees. For example, she is chairwoman of the
administration board of the Collège universitaire de
Saint-Boniface. She got that job because of her competence and her
commitment to French language and culture. She has that job
because francophones want her there.
Some only look at the dark side of things, but I believe there is
also a bright side and a lot of sunshine that some people do not
want to see. Let us acknowledge the positive things that were done
and the improvements that could and should be brought about. This
is what we must do today.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are some things members from the Bloc Quebecois
should understand. The purpose of language is communication. It
is not to be used as a political knife to wreak havoc among
communities and separate one community from another. Language
should not be used as a political tool to destroy a country and divide
people who are otherwise tolerant, understanding and who truly
care about each other and want to live together.
I would like to ask the hon. member about a few facts from his
party and the Treasury Board. In Quebec anglophones represent 15
per cent of the population but receive only 5 per cent of the jobs.
Treasury Board has said this is a deplorable situation and must be
rectified to provide a balance. For years the anglophone population
in Quebec has been trampled on under the guise of official
bilingualism. The reality is the anglophone population has its
rights, and its ability to communicate is being destroyed.
3804
I ask the hon. member what he will do to rectify the situation of
English speaking people representing 15 per cent of the population
in Quebec but receiving only 5 per cent of the jobs in the federal
government. Those are his own statistics.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and I am
delighted it has been raised. I have always believed that in Canada
we need to have fair representation for women, visible minorities,
aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, francophones and
anglophones.
I have said publicly and I continue to say that if there is the
spread my colleague has mentioned it needs to be corrected. I have
not seen the statistics. I have talked with my colleagues in the Bloc.
Some indicated an openness to that possibility.
(1255 )
We have to recognize as well that I do not run the province of
Quebec and do not aspire to do so. I will continue to make
statements such as the ones I have made in a positive way to
encourage them not only to have fair representation among women,
visible minorities, people with disabilities, but anglophones and
francophones. That is what the essence of government is, to make
sure people are fairly represented.
I am part of the government and I am proud to be part of the
government. Obviously the statistics with respect to federal
government operations are much closer in line if one looks at the
federal public service, if one looks at the military, if one looks at
the RCMP, if one looks at other organizations. The statistics reflect
quite accurately the make-up of both French and English speaking
Canadians throughout Canada.
We have noticed some difficulties elsewhere in terms of fair
representation among visible minorities and people with
disabilities and we are trying to correct those.
I do not want to be paternalistic about this and I do not want to
seek a conflict unless that conflict were to bring about a positive
resolution. At the federal level we have made some significant
gains in terms of fair representation particularly with respect to
English and French. We still need to make further gains with regard
to other groups and we are in the process of doing that. We have
done it rather well.
With respect to other provinces, I hope we look at the province
of Quebec to see whether there is a fair distribution of jobs in the
public service between English and French speaking peoples, and
that we do so in other provinces. We would look at every province
to see whether there is fair representation, English and French
speaking. Then perhaps we could put that on the table and have a
good debate about what is right, what is fair, what is just.
I would like to go beyond language distribution, although I think
that is an important issue, to look at representation from the
perspective of women, visible minorities, aboriginals, people with
disabilities. I give my total commitment to that kind of exercise in
a totally non-partisan way. If we want the best society on this planet
we need to do things like that with conviction and take the politics
out of it.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would first like to tell my colleague for Saint-Boniface that I will
not talk to him about the lack of French newspapers in
Saint-Boniface, because I know he does not like that. However,
when he was asking where things were before 1994 because no
policy had been established, I would remind him that the elections
were held in October 1993, near the end of the year.
I remind him as well that, early in 1994, we developed a policy.
If he were to read the red book from beginning to end, I would like
him to tell me just where the Liberal Party's policy on
francophones is to be found, because there is no reference
anywhere. Given that the Liberal Party has existed a bit longer than
the Bloc Quebecois, perhaps the member could tell me the
Liberals' policy on francophones outside Quebec? The Bloc
Quebecois has such a policy, I would remind you.
In terms of statistics, on the question he was asked about the
language young people speak in Manitoba, I would ask him if he
disagrees totally with Statistics Canada, and, if so, he can change
their statistics because it could be done in the name of democracy.
However, the figures say that, in 1971, 4 per cent of Manitobans
spoke French, whereas today the figure is only 2.3 per cent. Do we
abolish Statistics Canada or acknowledge its statistics?
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to abolish
Statistics Canada. I think other questions need to be asked. Could it
be that the English speaking population has grown significantly?
One should ask questions. We are not here simply to juggle figures.
Is there a reduction? I said earlier that there had been assimilation
and that there were problems. And I wondered why we could not
find solutions together.
The member said I did not want to talk about newspapers. There
is the newspaper La Liberté. It is a fine paper and has won awards
across Canada. I am very surprised that my colleague did not
mention it. I think he should read it, if he has not yet, because it
would help educate him. He would understand the francophone
community outside Quebec and the francophone community in
Manitoba much better than he does now.
3805
(1300)
He must not forget that we have newspapers. Are there as many
as in Quebec? I doubt it. You probably have some 6 million French
speakers, maybe a little more; in Manitoba, we have only some
50,000. The figures are a bit different, you realize.
As far as people not speaking French is concerned, I tell you
what I see. My daughter has a group of young friends. When I see
them, I speak to them in French. They answer me in French. From
time to time, and even quite often, I hear English. That is quite
normal. In our home, it is perfectly natural to speak both French
and English. Sometimes the parents think they are speaking too
much English, no doubt the reverse is true. Statistics Canada knows
what it is doing, and I applaud it. We certainly have to give this
issue more thought.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to start
with, since the House is soon going to adjourn for the summer and
given what the Reform member who spoke earlier said I wish to
officially invite him to come and visit my riding in Quebec during
the summer vacation, so he can see for himself that anglophones in
Quebec do not have such a tragic life, that the nasty separatists are
not waiting for them at each street corner, and that their life is not
in danger. So that he can change his perception of Quebec people
whom he sees as oppressors, I invite him to come and visit us.
I will also recall, for the information of the Reform Party, the
motion which is debated today. The Bloc Quebecois moved: ``That
the House encourage the federal government to acknowledge the
urgency of the situation of francophones in minority situations in
Canada, and take the exceptional steps required in order to counter
their assimilation and allow their development''.
My colleague, the member for St. Boniface, said earlier that
there is indeed an assimilation process. From what he said, what
else can we conclude-and I am going to give the House figures to
prove it-but that francophones outside Quebec are going through
difficult times? We are asking the federal government, and
therefore the Liberal Party, to take measures to help them improve
their situation.
That is why I have a hard time understanding why we are
accused of being nasty separatists, of wanting to tear down
everything, and so on. We will talk about that when time comes.
Let us set the record straight. Today, we are debating a motion in
which the Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to recognize
and affirm that francophones outside Quebec are in a difficult
situation and that we must join forces to help them. If the fact that
such a declaration comes from a democratically elected majority
party in Quebec does not please some members, even certain
French speaking Liberals like the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, it is just too bad. It is too bad if he
does not want to recognize there is a problem and if he resents the
fact Quebecers of another affiliation say it is so.
We are asking if francophones outside Quebec have a problem.
The answer is yes. Should federal and provincial governments get
together to help these communities instead of cutting their
budgets? I think the answer is yes again. That is what we are
debating.
If Liberals and Reformers want to keep on accusing us of being
separatists, we have news for them because, as long as we are here,
we will be separatists. If we want to talk about the Prince Edward
Island bridge or Pacific salmon and they object to our topic because
we are separatists, we have a problem. We were democratically
elected by the Quebec people.
Today's topic is not Quebec sovereignty but francophones
outside Quebec who are having a hard time according to statistics.
It must be absolutely clear that we are not talking against French
communities outside Quebec. Basically we want to help them.
Mr. Boudria: Since when?
Mr. Sauvageau: I am asked ``since when''.
(1305)
Even though this is not the time for questions and comments, I
will answer this question by asking one: To what did the Liberal
Party commit itself in the red book in order to defend francophones
outside Quebec? And if not a line can be found on this subject, I
will myself ask the following question: Since when has it been
defending them?
Mr. Boudria: We have always been defending them.
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell be decent enough and courteous
enough to observe the rules of the House and listen to his
colleagues' speeches? If not, may I ask him, through you, to show
that much courtesy?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Terrebonne.
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, since 1982, when the Constitution
was patriated, section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms guarantees French-speaking and English-speaking
minorities the right to their own school and to manage them as
well, wherever numbers warrant it. This is the problem.
In Canada, there are 260,000 francophones-theses numbers are
not coming from mean separatists-and only 160,000 have access
to education in French. But there still is a 100,000 gap. The
common denominator for all francophone communities is that none
of them have the right to collect their own school taxes. Therefore,
3806
they are all dependant on English school boards or the provinces,
which usually do not recognize the particular needs of francophone
communities, leaving them without enough resources to manage
their schools.
I am told that this is not so. This compels me to mention a few
facts. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in
Canada. However, it does not respect section 23 of the charter
since, on March 1, it abolished the French and English school board
to replace it with advisory parents'committees. From now on, all
the school structures are under the direct authority of the education
ministry, in other words public servants. This reform is deemed
unconstitutional by parents, who have applied for financial support
under the Court Challenge Program. When their application is
approved, they will be able to embark on preliminary research and
ask for legal advice to confirm that this reform is indeed
unconstitutional.
I am told that is not the case, Mr. Speaker. The Fédération des
parents francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador has been
waging a 10-year fight for the right to manage their own schools. In
1988-89, this federation filed its first lawsuit against the Province
of Newfoundland to obtain the right to manage their own schools
under section 23.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not informing you earlier. I am
dividing my time into two ten-minute periods so that one of my
colleagues could speak.
The Fédération des parents francophones issued a press release,
and I quote: ``This right is conferred to them under section 23 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the province still
refuses to implement it. The province's francophones are therefore
asking the federal government to intervene on their behalf when the
proposed amendment is tabled''. I should point out that there are no
Bloc MPs in Newfoundland and I understand that the premier there
is a Liberal.
This situation is totally unacceptable to Michel Cayouette, the
president of the Fédération des parents francophones de
Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. There is an inconsistency in all this.
On the one hand, clause 23 of the charter requires the provinces to
recognize minority language educational rights and, on the other
hand, Parliament is about to adopt a major constitutional
amendment affecting the way these schools are managed.
So we have two provinces, other than Quebec and Ontario,
which do not comply with that clause. Furthermore, eight out of ten
provinces, all English-speaking, are finding legal, administrative,
financial and other ways to contravene the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms by not providing the educational services
provided for in section 23. As a result, only one in two eligible
children in Ontario, one in five in Manitoba, and one in sixty in
Saskatchewan, goes to French school. There is more
undereducation among francophones outside Quebec than among
anglophones.
In 1994, 45.2 per cent of anglophones had graduated from high
school compared to 37.4 per cent of francophones. And, as we
know, education is the future.
(1310)
I have just been talking about education, but for these children
education is their future, knowing in which language they will
grow up and eventually be working.
I am going to answer a question put to me by my colleague for
Cape Breton Highlands-Canso who wanted to know if it could be
proven that the French fact had been strengthened or not
throughout Canada.
In 1951, 40 years ago, outside Quebec, in the other Canadian
provinces, 7.3 per cent of the population spoke French. And 40
years later, despite the Official Languages Act, only 4.8 per cent of
the population speaks French, a drop of nearly 50 per cent.
What about the mother tongue spoken at home? In Canada, 20
years ago, 25.7 per cent of the population spoke French at home,
this has now dropped by 2,4 per cent throughout all provinces,
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia. Ontario,
Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, this proportion has
dropped sharply from 1.7 per cent to 0.7 per cent over 20 years.
Statistics Canada does not give any indication that the French
fact has been strengthened in any province over the past 20 or 40
years.
If the Liberal Party of Canada and the Reform Party agree with
these statistics, then the situation is urgent. If they do not agree,
they are turning a blind eye and are putting their heads in the sand
when they wrongly accuse the separatists.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this debate brought us to do some research and
correct the Bloc Quebecois on some points. I think it is very
interesting that this Party is now concerned by the situation of
francophones outside Quebec. It was not the case before.
Mr. Bergeron: You just realized that?
Mr. Gagnon: Yes, the Bloc Quebecois just recently realized
that; for twenty years now, for a long time, we have been asking
separatists to pay attention to Canadian francophones outside
Quebec.
However, as we all know, the reply of the Quebec government
was that, last year, it closed its office in Edmonton; it just
abandoned that francophone community in Western Canada. I find
that very unfortunate.
But they still quote data so I will take this opportunity to quote
some data of my own which I find very interesting. They
mentioned today the percentage of Canadians who can speak
French.
3807
Over the last ten years, that percentage has increased. I am
speaking here about Canadians outside Quebec, excluding
Quebec. The proportion has gone from 9.4 per cent to 10.5 per
cent in ten years.
This is very interesting. We heard about immersion classes and I
would like to hear what the Bloc Quebecois has to say on these
facts I am making public here today. As concerns the proportion of
Canadians who can speak French, we can see for example that, in
my age group, 25 to 34, 8.2 per cent of the people can speak
French. However, the most interesting data are those pertaining to
the next generation, young people 15 to 19; in that age group, 16.7
per cent can speak both official languages and particularly French
in this case. That is, between these two age groups, the percentage
of young Canadians who speak French has actually doubled.
Another very interesting fact, and that is the one I prefer, of
course, with the mass arrival of new Canadians who came to enrich
the country, we find, as told you, in the population newly arrived in
Canada, that 22.8 per cent of young people aged between 15 and 19
also speak French.
So, compared to those in my generation, the number of people
who are able to speak French has almost tripled. I find that is very
interesting and that we must still encourage the government to
promote bilingualism and, of course, ensure the prominence of
French in Quebec, but also ensure that French is more widespread
throughout the country.
I would really like to hear the Bloc Quebecois has to say about
the data I have just given.
(1315)
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that they were
all over the map, but I will not, and will instead try to bring my
colleague back on track.
He was surprised to hear the Bloc Quebecois speaking about
francophones outside Quebec. My answer is that he will perhaps
have an opportunity to speak shortly, and while the others have the
floor, he can look in the red book where the Liberal party tells us
what it is going to do for francophones outside Quebec. We will no
doubt be treated to the great insights of the writers of the red book
and the wonderful French of the quotation, which my colleague, the
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, can be counted
on to read us in a few minutes when he has found it.
To help him out, I will tell him that his neighbour, the member
for Ottawa-Vanier, would rather collect money to oppose
legislation that has been prepared and presented by a
democratically elected national assembly in Quebec, than defend
francophones, who will see their assistance cut in Ontario. We will
not get into the economics of it, because they are already having
such a terrible time with numbers.
I would just like to point out to my colleague that when he says
that 16.2 per cent of young people between this age and that speak
one of the two official languages, that does not mean they are
speaking French, because one of the two official languages could
be either French or English. In other words, 16.2 per cent of young
people speak one of the two official languages, which probably
means French or English. One could therefore interpret this to
mean that 16.2 per cent, or a proportion, of these people speak
French and English.
I am answering his questions with other questions, because
clarification is required. If his statistics also come from the federal
government, there is a problem, and we could have a debate,
because Statistics Canada, in its catalogue No. 96-313F on
languages in Canada, says that 29 per cent of people spoke French
in 1951, while the percentage was 24 in 1991. Mathematics is not
my strong suit, but 29 take away 24 leaves 5 per cent fewer people
speaking French. This means that the number of people speaking
French in Canada can certainly not have increased by a third. I
could be wrong. The numbers come from Statistics Canada. In line
with my earlier suggestion, if the Liberal government is not happy
with the data provided by Statistics Canada, it can either replace its
chief statistician or abolish it altogether.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it will not be easy to speak no more than 10 minutes
on this subject. Naturally, I am rising to support the motion put
forward by my hon. colleague from Québec-Est, who has given, in
my opinion, a historical speech tracing the history of the whole
French language issue in Canada from Lord Durham or, indeed, the
conquest to this day.
We sometimes look back at our history, not to wallow in it, but
because the source of current problems can often be found a long
way back in time. Anyway, judging from Statistics' Canada
figures, on which I will come back later, the policy put in place
under Lord Durham to assimilate francophones seems to still be in
operation today, like it or not.
The motion before us is designed to make the government aware
of how urgent the situation is. Allow me to read out loud for the
benefit of those watching us. It reads as follows: ``The Bloc
Quebecois moves that the federal government and the provinces
acknowledge the urgency of the situation of francophones in
minority situations in Canada, and take the exceptional steps
required in order to counter their assimilation and allow their
development''.
In the circumstances, I find it somewhat deplorable that
francophone members from outside Quebec have the gall of telling
us how everything is hunky-dory in their regions, when we know
full well, as we will demonstrate throughout the day, that the
French language is in peril in every province of Canada.
3808
As you know, under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, anglophone and francophone minorities of
every province of Canada are guaranteed the right to have their
own schools and, where numbers warrant, the right to manage
these schools. The federal government and the English-speaking
provinces contend that the rights of francophone minorities are
protected under section 23. Unfortunately, it is apparently harder
to enforce this section than to recognize it. This reminds me of
the GST. It is easy to say the tax will be scrapped, but it is a
different matter to take action.
(1320)
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that francophone minorities
had the right to govern their own schools in their respective
provinces but, once again, the English-speaking provinces have
always tried to dissociate themselves from the conclusions reached
by the Supreme Court. As we speak, at least seven parents
associations have turned to the courts to enforce the rights
conferred to them under section 23 of the Canadian charter of
rights. These cases are before the courts in British Columbia,
Alberta, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, and the list
goes on.
This means that, even if the Constitution supposedly grants us
certain rights, we must fight in court to have them recognized. This
is the beginning of a long process that is not leading anywhere;
while this process goes on for many years, the assimilation of
francophones continues.
It must be noted-and this is deplorable-that the rights of
francophone communities outside Quebec are not respected, only
tolerated. These are fictitious rights. Francophones are told they
have these rights, but when the time comes to enforce them, they
must wage long, drawn-out battles, often in vain or for meagre
results in the end.
Demographic projections show that the rate of assimilation of
francophones in Canada is increasing, especially in the western
provinces, probably because they are further away from us. I would
like to quote other figures which may be challenged, but which
come from Statistics Canada.
They are taken from publication No. 92-733, for 1974 data, and
publication No. 94-319, printed and released in 1993 by Statistics
Canada. The comparison is made in Table 5.
The table deals with the net anglicization rate of francophones
aged 35 to 44, who are members of a French speaking minority
outside Quebec. It establishes a comparison between 1971 and
1991 for all the provinces. The term anglicization refers to a very
specific phenomenon. It refers to people who now use English, but
who have a different mother tongue. This is assimilation. It means
someone who is a francophone by birth and who, for all sorts of
reasons, now uses another language at home.
A member of my family lives in Portland, Oregon. This is in the
United States, of course, but it illustrates the phenomenon even
better. Both parents are francophones and their children were born
in the U.S. The children married Americans, as one would expect,
and when family reunions are held, which is fairly regular,
everything takes place in English. The principle is simple: the
majority rules. It is only normal.
We are told that this is how assimilation may occur, but that we
have two official languages in Canada and that the necessary
measures will be taken to prevent it from happening. However, the
reality is that these measures do not mean anything and do not lead
anywhere.
Let me go back to the document from Statistics Canada. In 1971,
Newfoundland had a rate of assimilation of 35 per cent; it was 65
per cent in 1991, 20 years later. In 1971, Prince Edward Island's
rate was 50 per cent; it reached 55 per cent in 1991. Nova Scotia's
rate was 42 per cent in 1971, and 51 per cent in 1991. We can see
that the rate of assimilation has gone up in 20 years, despite all the
measures that are supposed to have been implemented.
New Brunswick's rate was 12 per cent, and it is the only case
where there has been a slight drop, to 11 per cent. Things are
looking up, so to speak. I was in Acadia last year and it is true that
there is a strong feeling of attachment to things Acadian that can be
felt everywhere you go. There are Acadian flags flying on all the
farms and houses, and it is a sight to see. We can probably thank
New Brunswick's legislation for slowing down the rate of
assimilation in at least one province.
In Ontario, the rate of assimilation was 38 per cent in 1971; it
was 43 per cent 20 years later. In Manitoba, the rate was 45 per cent
in 1971 and 63 per cent in 1991. In Saskatchewan, the rate was 60
per cent in 1971; it was 79 per cent in 1991. In Alberta, the rate was
64 per cent in 1971; in 1991, it was 74 per cent. In British
Columbia, the rate in 1971 was 77 per cent; in 1991 it was 76 per
cent.
(1325)
These are the figures published by Statistics Canada. I will give
only one example. I prepared a little report on four or five western
provinces but, given how little time I have, I think I will stick to
British Columbia, a wonderful province I visited on many
occasions. It is the only province where I did not live, but which I
visited.
The B.C. legislature is far from complying with section 23 of the
Canadian charter. After several years of negotiations with
francophone parents, no progress has been made. The provincial
government has still not amended its school legislation. The only
3809
concession to parents was to pass a regulation that will take effect
July 1 and create a school authority without any power.
This does not amount to much: there is no taxation power, no
capital budget. Although the law, the regulation, is said to give
these people a prerogative, there is no way to enforce it. In the final
analysis, what the parents gained is simply the right to supervise
school management.
As we know-and this is something that has been condemned by
some people and that will be condemned by others today-the
basic principle that can be applied in the case of the minorities the
government says it wants to protect is that they must be given the
basic tools they need to survive by being able to complete their
education in their own language. This is what they claim they want
to do, but it is not happening.
The Association des parents francophones de
Colombie-Britannique and some other francophone organizations
deplore the fact that the school authority created by regulation is in
violation of section 23 of the charter, as there is no way to manage
this school authority.
In addition, as we know, a regulation is not a law and is much
easier to amend. This parents association also condemns the fact
that the jurisdiction of the school authority extends to only 18 of
the 75 provincial school boards, all of which are concentrated in
Greater Vancouver and Victoria. No school authority was granted
outside those two areas.
We can therefore expect another great legal battle-as we often
see in that province-that will surely go all the way to the Supreme
Court in Ottawa, since the Association des parents francophones de
la Colombie-Britannique revived its claim for full implementation
of section 23 of the charter. People from almost everywhere in
Canada, from every province, are challenging this clause because it
is not being enforced.
If this debate goes all the way to the Supreme Court, it would
mean another six or seven years of legal wrangling so that these
people can enjoy rights that are normally and theoretically
guaranteed by the charter and the Constitution but which they must
fight to obtain.
This parent association fights to get the minimum. A
spokesperson for the association, who in fact wrote to the Prime
Minister in 1994 to make sure francophone claims would be taken
into account, Mrs. Galibois Barss, explains very well what
motivates them to lead this fight: ``-the government is not
fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities. The measure does not
even meet the minimal requirements to ensure the smooth
operation of a French speaking school system''. The same claim is
made almost everywhere, in all the provinces.
Considering it may take six to seven years for a case to be heard
by the Supreme Court, we can definitely conclude that section 23
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not provide
an automatic guarantee that the rights of francophones living
outside Quebec will be protected. Given that statistics show an
already high assimilation rate that will continue to increase, we ask
the government to take note of the situation and to realize the
urgency of the situation.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, I must object to the way the Bloc
Quebecois manipulates data from Statistics Canada. It is
well-known that there are data on language, culture and values in
our country, as we move into the 21st century. They are published
by a government agency. We can see, for instance, that only 5.7 per
cent of Canadians aged 65 and over living outside Quebec speak
French. By contrast, the percentage of young people between 15
and 19 who speak French fluently is 500 times greater, at 22.8 per
cent.
(1330)
I will ask permission to table these statistics with the Clerk of the
House, in order to show their importance and make sure the
opposition parties and, of course, all the hon. members are aware of
them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House to table his document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, this shows how truth holds no
interest for the Bloc Quebecois. Unfortunately, figures were quoted
today. They reflected the interpretation and the perception of the
Bloc Quebecois of democracy in Quebec compared to democracy
in the rest of the world. It is deplorable to see the Bloc Quebecois
refusing to accept the reality of the figures that I have here.
Having said that, I regret that the Bloc Quebecois did not
establish a consistent policy on francophones outside Quebec.
Where we the separatist forces, a few years ago, when
francophones outside Quebec asked for their support on several
issues? Unfortunately, they did not get an enthusiastic response.
I know we are pressed for time, but I urge our listeners to
examine carefully and understand the data from Statistics Canada.
We know very well that the number of francophones outside
Quebec has gone up by 50,000 between 1971 and 1991. This fact
has been confirmed by Statistics Canada, an agency the Bloc is
fond of quoting.
Time flies, but let me say that if we were to examine the data on
and the level of success of Canadian bilingualism, which we owe to
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, I could tell you this: If we stay the course,
like we say in my riding, I am convinced the percentage of young
Canadians who use French outside Quebec will increase from 22.6
3810
per cent to 50 per cent in the next 20 to 30 years. It augurs well for
the future of the French language, and the future of Canada.
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat taken aback by
my colleague's question, because I think he does not make the
distinction between the number of people speaking a language and
what assimilation means. Even if, overnight, there were five
million more people speaking French in Canada, this would have
no impact on assimilation.
Being assimilated means starting out with one mother tongue,
losing it on the way, and ending up adopting the other language as
the language spoken at home. That is what assimilation means. In
Canada, right now, data from Statistics Canada prove that, for the
last 20 years, this process, that started with Lord Durham, is still
going on and is on the rise.
I will be pleased to send the official data from Statistics Canada
throughout my riding to satisfy my hon. colleague.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is with some sadness that I rise today and people will know why
when I am finished talking.
First of all, in response to the opening remarks made by the
member for Québec-Est, I would like to confirm that, yes indeed,
francophones in Canada are faced with several problems. They are
being assimilated, and I share some of his concerns.
Finally, it is true that our past, our more distant past as a country,
has been less than glorious when it comes to francophones.
However, I dissociate myself from his remarks and statements
regarding our more recent past.
(1335)
We totally disagree with what the member said about the past 30
or 40 years. But I will not repeat what the Acting Minister of
Canadian Heritage, who accurately described the role played by the
government during that time and the impact of some of its policies,
had to say.
Before going any further, however, I would like to respond to
two personal attacks from the member. First, he accused me of
abandoning francophones. Frankly, I find this comment somewhat
out of line, and I am compelled to go on a bit and tell the member
that maybe he should do his homework. He is not the one who
demonstrated to get a French high school, which we did get in
Ontario, before there even was a charter of rights and freedoms. He
is not the one who had to travel 40 miles morning and night to go to
this school. He is not the one, I am not the one either. But my
mother did all this. She was one of the four individuals who
invoked the charter to be given the right to manage our own schools
in Ontario. I just wanted to let the hon. member know what my
roots are.
The member accused me of abandoning francophones. I assume
he is talking about the closure of a school in Lower Town. The
member forgot to mention that it is an elected French school board,
managing its own resources, that was dealing with this issue. But
he did not mention that. He did not say that, in the end, the school
was not closed, because it suits his purpose not to say so.
The member accuses me of having chastised my French
speaking colleagues from Ontario at the ACFO meeting, but he was
not there, even if it was his job to do so as critic. He claimed he had
not been invited. I am sorry to hear that, but I imagine he was
invited to Sainte-Anne school. No, he was not. It simply suited him
to criticize a colleague, to make political hay at the expense of
others. I must stand up in my own defence, on that point.
Second, the member says that French speaking members from
Quebec adopt an attitude typical of the Liberal Party, that they
attack Quebec all the time. I dare the member for Québec-Est to
quote one case where I attacked Quebec. Really when making such
extravagant statements, one should be able to back them up.
I would like to tell the House a story, not mine but one that was
written by Antonine Maillet, that great lady, author of Pélagie la
Charrette, for which she won the Goncourt prize. It is the story of
two frogs who accidentally fell into a milk jar. Mrs. Maillet tells
the story much better than I can, because she is an extraordinary
storyteller. But this is how it goes roughly: both frogs swam and
move around but one weakened because it was not as determined as
the other frog. At one point, it could no longer hold on, and it sank
and drowned.
The other frog kept on and on, swimming all night long and
when the farmer looked in the milk jar the following morning, lo
and behold, he found one dead frog and one frog sitting on a block
of butter. As I said, I do not have the style and eloquence of
Antonine Maillet but the story is interesting just the same.
I dare say I am not the frog that gave up. I am not the frog that
went to seek refuge elsewhere. I am not the frog that bragged about
supporting the francophone community in Ontario, and then
abandoned it to use it for his own political ends. That is not my
style.
The member prefers to hold out the spectre of assimilation and
doom us to extinction within one generation, if I understood him
correctly. Let us examine the real situation. To that end, I will quote
from four sources. The first one is known by the member, because I
have quoted it before. It comes from a brief that was submitted to
the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resource
Development by the Cité collégiale, a French college in my riding.
The statement was made this year. This is important, to know
which government is being referred to.
3811
(1340)
I will quote a passage from it: ``We are aware of the efforts made
by the federal government, over the past 30 years in particular, to
stop assimilation, which was so insidious and destructive that it
threatened the survival of a whole civilization. The party which
nowforms the government has been, in this sense, at the forefront
of progress, often adopting unpopular but historic measures
without which we have to wonder where we would be today as
francophones and as Canadians''.
The second one comes from Jacques Michaud, the president of
the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du
Canada. It is dated April 2, 1996, and is quoted in the editorial page
of Le Devoir. I quote: ``There are several ways to measure the
vitality of a people or a nation that is in a minority situation on a
continent it shares with a majority from another language, another
culture. The most simplistic one is probably to make a comparison
with the majority. The most daring one is certainly to emphasize
the willingness of a people to live and to develop in its own
language and culture. However, this latter requires more than a
simple minicalculator to draw all the conclusions. Gains achieved
in recent years, not in absolute numbers, but in rights acquired by
the francophone community outside Quebec, as well as its
determination to take matters in its own hands, are the side of its
vitality that is hidden by statistics''.
Let me read a third one that comes once again from Le Devoir. It
seems this newspaper is highly thought of. It is from Ms.
Bissonnette. She talks about the visit she made in some
francophone areas in Canada. She talks about two people who are
very closely associated with the theatre in St. Boniface. I quote:
``The Mahés are everything but bitter. They understand that
Quebecers, as I have been repeatedly told in St. Boniface, only
know the statistics on the assimilation of francophones outside
Quebec and have trouble realizing that the French culture in that
province, with its unpredictable directions, is stronger today than it
was yesterday. This is no mystery. More comes out of less. It is
simply a passion that fires up and connects where it wants to''.
My last quote is also from Lise Bissonnette, an editorialist at Le
Devoir. Her May 3, 1996 article reads as follows: ``In the
Commons, the Bloc Quebecois erupted with the most hackneyed of
sovereignist arguments. According to its mouthpieces, there can be
no progress when the assimilation rate of francophone minorities
continues to rise in English Canada. The Bloc forgets that its own
policy toward the Canadian Francophonie prevents any statement
on its eventual demise. And it has a rather simplistic conception of
progress. True, figures are alarming, but cultural vitality also
counts. Anyone who knows anything about francophone
communities in the other provinces cannot deny that they are
stronger and less folkloric today than they were yesterday. The
sovereignists, who are always so quick to take offence anytime an
outsider has something negative to say about Quebec, are treating
others as they hate being treated themselves, again, as a result of
ignorance''.
I think it has become rather obvious that, if we look only at the
statistics, we can convince anyone of anything. This is what brings
me to question the motive behind today's Bloc resolution, which
refers to the urgency to act. They are trying to achieve their goal by
trying to sow the seeds of hatred, by painting everything in black,
by fabricating, inventing and trying to pit francophones against
anglophones.
The urgency may lie elsewhere. There may indeed be an
urgency, but it may lie elsewhere. Perhaps this urgency is better
explained by the fact that the members of this House who support a
certain option-call it sovereignty, independence, separation or
whatever-may be getting a feeling or urgency from how fast their
best arguments are slipping through their fingers.
Let us say we managed to divide, as demanded by the consensus
in Quebec, responsibilities and powers in the area of manpower for
instance-and, with an ounce of good will, I think it should be
possible-then, they would be losing one of their best pieces of
ammunition and it has them concerned because it would play havoc
with their plans to become sovereign.
(1345)
In Canada, the French language is in peril. That is what this is
about here today. This is the big argument on which dreams of
sovereignty, independence, or whatever, were built. In the past 30
years however, the trend in this country has not been what they had
hoped for. The trend has been for the bone and sinew of the
Canadian francophonie to regain strength, as one of my colleagues
pointed out earlier. He said so himself. That is a threat in itself for
those who dare hope for this francophonie to die, just to prove they
are right to want to become sovereign.
This explains in part where this sense of urgency is coming from.
You know, there is also a fair chance that, in the months to come,
some provinces at least will start giving the language of instruction
and the right to manage one's educational institutions the kind of
recognition they have been rightly demanding. Premier Tobin made
a statement on this subject. We hope he will deliver the
merchandise. We are confident Ontario will follow suit and that the
federal government, through its own programs, will continue to
support communities claiming this right and demanding that it be
recognized by the provinces. In short, the sovereignists realizing
that their best arguments in support of sovereignty is slipping
through their fingers and getting worried may well explain this
sense of urgency they are feeling. Personally, I am not worried at
all.
3812
Let us give our Bloc colleagues a word of advice just the same.
Bitterness and hate do not help in building a country. If they ever
manage to build a country, although I doubt they would succeed,
let us hope they will not build it on hate and bitterness. I could
not help but feel hurt this morning, when I heard three Bloc
members refer to Sir Wilfrid Laurier as a sell-out. To call Sir
Wilfrid Laurier, one of the first prime ministers of this country
a sell-out is to show incredible narrow-mindedness and a glaring
lack of intellectual rigour. In the face of such inability to have
an open mind, the only thing I feel is great sadness.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
did make comments in my speech regarding the hon. member for
Ottawa-Vanier and I wish to correct or clarify these comments.
Of course the member was elected by francophones living in
Ontario. Still, the issue is very serious, considering that several
schools will close, including Saint-François-d'Assise and
Champlain high schools. Sainte-Anne school would also have
closed, had it not been for the Bloc Quebecois.
The assimilation rate in Ottawa-Carleton is 36 per cent. If the
hon. member does not feel very concerned by the closing of
schools because school boards will look after the issue, fine. But
the fact is that the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario,
the ACFO, raised the alarm. I could quote from a large number of
press reports. The issue is very serious and has reached a critical
point. The association asked for money from the federal
government, but the latter reduced its funding by half. The member
for Ottawa-Vanier actually went and told the ACFO that it would
have to make do with the reduced funding.
So, the member was elected by Franco-Ontarians, but when an
issue concerns them he does not look after their interests but after
those of his government and tries to hide the reality and downplay
the urgency of the problem. Moreover, the member claims that he
is not attacking Quebec, but wants the Quebec Referendum Act
amended, as if it was any of his business. As a Franco-Ontarian
member of Parliament, he should at least take action to help his
fellow Franco-Ontarians survive.
(1350)
Again, Statistics Canada tells us the assimilation rate has
increased since 1971, going from 38 per cent that year, up to 43 per
cent now. The situation is urgent because the federal government
does not do its job, and that includes Liberal members elected by
francophones in Ontario and elsewhere. We tabled this motion
because neither the government nor its elected French speaking
members do anything, and we do not want to see francophone
communities disappear. It is in Quebec's best interests to ensure
that French speaking communities outside its territory are as strong
as possible, and also in the interests of the whole French speaking
community.
If the Liberals cannot do their job, the Bloc is there to try to
make them aware of how critical the situation is.
Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to a specific
case and his facts are wrong. He says the federal government is
about to cut by 50 per cent a grant to the Association
canadienne-française de l'Ontario. We will show him the results of
the ongoing negotiations so he can change his tune.
All I want to say is that I do not feel like a person who has
abandoned francophones in Ontario. It is quite the opposite.
Anyway, it is not for me to make that judgment, but for the people
of Ottawa-Vanier. They will be the ones who will decide if I have
abandoned the francophones in my riding. If they do not think so,
they might want to re-elect me, and I will be glad to discuss this
issue again at that time with the member for Québec-Est.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, no, I
will not talk to him about his frogs.
He gave an eloquent reading of several quotations from Lise
Bissonnette. I would like him to comment on the one I am about to
read. It goes back to May 28, 1995 and is entitled ``A First''. In the
middle of the page, we find the heading: ``The Bloc finally finds
the path of the Canadian Francophonie''. It was fine to quote from
Lise Bissonnette and Le Devoir a while ago, and this is the same
Lise Bissonnette and the same Le Devoir. Does anyone have a
problem with that? Thank you very much.
``On the other hand, the Bloc has even outdone the federalist
parties on this project''. She is referring to the Bloc's position at the
time on francophones outside Quebec. ``The Quebec Liberal Party
never had anything approaching a policy on francophones in
Canada. And there is nothing to suggest that it ever will. As for the
federal Liberal government, it was contributing large, but
ever-diminishing, amounts of money to support official languages
programs. The last budget continued the cuts introduced by the
former Conservative government, and the Prime Minister has just
turned down flat a recommendation by the official languages
commissioner to raise the status of bilingualism and francophones
by assigning responsibility for them to a new organization
reporting to the Privy Council. The Prime Minister turned the
whole matter over to the minister, Michel Dupuy, who was reduced
to admitting that he had no policy on francophones outside
Quebec''.
So, here is my question for the member for Ottawa-Vanier, who
is working very hard to come up with money to challenge Quebec's
democratic laws. What does he think of the cuts and of this article
by Lise Bissonnette?
3813
Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the article or
the editorial from which my colleague has quoted was written and
published before the one I quoted. We would perhaps have to
conclude that Ms. Bissonnette's thinking evolved.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, before I begin, I would like, first of all, to thank the hon.
member for Ottawa-Vanier for the excellent speech he gave in
this House a few minutes ago. I also thank the members of the Bloc
for also recognizing how excellent it was.
I would like to ask the member if he remembers, as I do, back to
what the Bloc members used to say some time ago, before they
became holier than the holy. But it was not so long ago, and I do not
know if the member for Ottawa-Vanier remembers, as I do, that a
certain parliamentarian, from a party I shall not name, said about
francophones outside Quebec: ``Our message to francophones
outside Quebec is clear: let us make our decision and mind your
own business''.
(1355)
I wonder if the member for Ottawa-Vanier remembers these
words. I wonder if he also remembers that a separatist member,
who shall remain unnamed, apparently told francophones outside
Quebec that they had engaged in a form of prostitution by
accepting grants from the federal government. On that occasion,
the MP, whom I shall not name, had said that francophones outside
Quebec had been bought.
I wonder if the member for Ottawa-Vanier would agree with
me that these insulting remarks represent the true feelings of the
Bloc Quebecois toward francophones outside Quebec, as opposed
to what we have just heard today.
Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I may disappoint my hon. colleague
and surprise my friends from the Bloc Quebecois. You know, in the
heat of the moment, we sometimes say things we later regret
having said. Who knows if I did not say things today that will be
thrown back in my face next month or the month after that.
If we go over everything I said since coming to this House,
which is not that long ago, we shall notice that I have done my best
to make a positive contribution, trying, successfully I hope, to
avoid personal attacks. I may have ventured a comment here and
there, like the one I made about Hull, which was meant as a joke.
Without repeating what my hon. colleague from
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said-and I am convinced what he
claims to have heard was indeed said-I wish we could debate this
issue with more rigour, raise the tone of the debate so to speak. I am
directing my remarks to our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois
too. Instead of attacking one another, stirring up bad feelings, I
would rather we proudly identify ourselves as Canadians. I am not
ashamed to say that I am raising funds to protect people, because
we are still-
Mr. Speaker, since I am running out of time, I will complete my
remarks on this matter at a later time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): To be fair, I will not
recognize any new speaker, as we are merely minutes away from
members' statements.
The hon. member for Rosemont, for a brief comment.
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ): Allow me, Mr.
Speaker, I want to come back to what I would call the parable of the
frogs as told by our friend and colleague, the hon. member for
Ottawa-Vanier, who is so proud of the fact that one frog managed
to survive. But he forgot to tell us about the one that died. When we
look at the situation in Canada, we notice that a growing number of
francophones are no longer speaking French. That is the fact they
are trying to hide.
Mr. Boudria: That is right. Showing the same contempt as
Suzanne did.
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont): The government whip ought to
behave decently.
Mr. Boudria: He has just shown the same contempt. You are all
the same. Shame on you.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, as it is now 2 p.m., we will proceed to
Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
3813
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to honour the volunteer efforts of Agnes
Boros.
Agnes spent six weeks in Panama City with CESO, an agency
supported by CIDA, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
and by hundreds of Canadian corporations and individuals.
Agnes had the task of reviewing the expansion plans of an
outdated, overcrowded cancer treatment centre.
Her efforts brought about real change. After discovering that the
only expansion site was the antiquated laundry facility of an
adjacent hospital, Agnes worked out a compromise that will allow
both hospitals to share a new laundry. Agnes also provided a
detailed cost estimate that facilitated agreement from various
authorities for a construction plan. She developed the concept plans
for both the bone marrow and intensive care units.
Like other CESO volunteers, Agnes has professional skills and
experience that she willingly shares with needy businesses and
3814
organizations in developing nations, emerging market economies
and Canadian aboriginal communities. Well done, Agnes.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
past, we have sometimes wondered about the judgment shown by
some public officials responsible for issuing visitor's visas for
Canada. This time, it seems someone really outdid himself.
On Tuesday, June 11, in Le Journal de Montréal, Franco Nuovo
told the following story in an article simply entitled ``Rosa'': Three
sisters from Ecuador, all wives, mothers and workers in their
country, were denied visitor's visas for Canada. Why did these
women want to come to Canada for a short stay? Was it a for a good
reason or a trivial one?
These women wished to come to Canada because their mother, a
Canadian citizen who had been living here for eight years and who
was suffering from lung cancer, had reached the terminal phase of
her illness. Rosa Saraguro died on May 30, without her three
daughters from Ecuador at her side, because some public officials
did not deign to use common sense and to show some compassion.
This is awful.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while members of this House often rise to
salute ceremonies taking place in their constituencies, I am using
this opportunity to condemn one that is taking place in my riding
this weekend.
The Surrey-Delta Sikh Temple will be honouring the late
Talwinder Singh Parmar, the founder of the Babbar Khalsa, and the
suspected mastermind behind the 1985 bombing of Air-India,
which killed 329 people.
In response to this ceremony, the RCMP issued the following
statement:
Mr. Parmar's recognition as a hero, despite what investigations have
confirmed and what the RCMP believe insofar as Parmar's objectives being
furthered by acts of violence and terrorism is-not only disturbing, but totally
unacceptable and intolerable.
I add my voice to those of the RCMP and the families of the
victims of the Air-India bombing in condemning this ceremony.
Perhaps now is the time for an official inquiry so that all Canadians
can see just what type of a hero Talwinder Singh Parmar really was.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
fate of the Winnipeg's Freshwater Institute and the environmental
lakes area hangs in the balance. Manitobans, northwest Ontarians
and the international scientific community are waiting to see if the
Liberal government is so lacking in vision that it will actually
follow through with its plan to destroy one of the jewels of
Canadian science and environmental research.
The world renowned institute first established the environmental
hazards of phosphates and detergents and its experimental lake
program was a key player in research on acid rain.
Honoured by the international scientific community for these
accomplishments, scientists at the institute are now being trashed
by their own government. They are facing unbelievable cuts of 70
per cent of their budget, cuts so deep that they will effectively kill
the institute. The rumoured promise of a small reduction in the cuts
would do little to save the integrity of the work done there.
The NDP calls on the government to back away from this
self-inflicted wound to the Canadian environment, Canadian
science and Canada's international reputation and save the
Freshwater Institute.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the election campaign is well under way. Wilfrid Laurier is just
days away from an election which he will win on June 23, 1896.
At the time, the problems were somewhat similar to those of
today. Laurier was an staunch Liberal protector of the rights of the
provinces, lambasting the centralizing policies of Sir John A.
MacDonald, who had a tendency to view provincial governments
as subordinate institutions.
Wilfrid Laurier favoured an optimistic and positive approach.
While in the opposition the previous year, he had said, in
Morrisburg, Ontario: ``If it were in my power, I would try the sunny
way''.
It is in this spirit of openness that I join the hon. member for
Québec-Est and all my friends in this House to say, like Wilfrid
Laurier did: ``Let us try the sunny way''.
3815
[English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next
Saturday in my riding of Vancouver East the world championship
dragon boat festival will start. For eight days dragons, boats, lions,
dances, multicultural food, arts and crafts from around the world
and competitions will bring to life the Plaza of Nations and the
Concord Pacific Place.
Although dragon boat races have taken place for eight years, this
is the first time the world championship will be held outside of
Asia, ``building bridges of understanding'' not only for various
people, but for the whole world.
[Translation]
This colourful and exciting festival will make Vancouver, a place
where the mountains and the waters meet to create one of the
world's most beautiful cities, an even livelier place. Local and
international teams will take part in the festival. The whole world
will represented.
(1405 )
[English]
I would like to congratulate all participants and organizers of this
massive event and in particular, Jon Markoulis, the chairman of the
Canadian International Dragon Boat Festival Society.
Ten years after Expo '86, Vancouver invites the world once again
to celebrate the ``world''.
* * *
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
year 1996 marks the 1,100th anniversary of Hungary, the homeland
of my parents and ancestors.
It was in 896 AD that Arpad, the leader of the most powerful
tribe of Magyars, then living on the western steppes of Ukraine,
was invited by the Carolingian emperor Arnulf to cross the
Carpathian mountains to help the emperor subjugate the Moravian
empire.
This federation of 10 tribes, or hordes, was known to its
neighbours as the On-Ogur, meaning 10 arrows, from the Slavic
pronunciation of which the name Hungary is derived.
Over the course of its 1,100-year-old history, the Magyar nation
has sent its sons and daughters throughout the world, including our
great country.
I am proud of my ancestry and of my country of birth, Canada.
Let us hope that 971 years from now, our descendants will be
celebrating the 1,100 anniversary of Canada and that when they do,
the 2,071-year-old Magyar nation will be there to congratulate us.
The Speaker: Magyar kac magyrok?
* * *
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, earlier
this week a coalition of national and local environmental groups
issued its report card on Liberal performance in the area of the
environment.
The Sierra Club of Canada blames the government in particular
for having flouted one of the few explicit red book promises, to
reduce greenhouse effect emissions by 20 per cent by the year
2005. This crucial Liberal commitment will not be fulfilled, quite
simply because the government has been unable to achieve a
consensus among the provinces.
Finally, this government has reduced the Department of the
Environment ``to a significantly weaker position and has shown a
more hostile position to environmental decision-making than any
other government in the 25 year history of the department-The
Chrétien government's record on the environment is significantly
worse than the Mulroney government record''.
What more is there to add to such a damning conclusion?
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, despite valiant attempts by the minister of fisheries to
dissuade sports fishermen from visiting the west coast, I want
fishermen from around the world to know that the regular sports
fishery on the east side of Vancouver Island and adjacent inlets
continues.
The minister has created a public relations nightmare of
confusion and delay in announcing chinook catch and release
programs specific to the west side of Vancouver Island. This forced
the good municipality of Campbell River and local businesses to
institute a $32,000 emergency advertising campaign to minimize
the minister's damage to this season.
Two things are true. Campbell River and area's multimillion
dollar sports fishery is open for business and the minister sat on his
hands for months, rather than make a decision. Then he made a
confusing announcement.
When is the rear admiral going to start leading from the front
instead of the rear?
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, 1996 is the International Year for the Eradication of
3816
Poverty. I rise today in honour of thousands of Canadians currently
taking part in the Women's March against Poverty.
Women represent 52 per cent of the population, yet many of
them and their children continue to live below the poverty line.
The march underlines the fact that women can only achieve
equality in society where the rights of the neediest members of our
communities are taken into consideration.
This march is about the kind of society we need to build for our
families and our communities.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, fetal
alcohol syndrome, or FAS, is a medical diagnosis that refers to
disabilities in children caused by the use of alcohol during
pregnancy.
(1410 )
Characteristically, a FAS child experiences growth retardation,
neurological abnormalities, behavioural dysfunction, learning
disabilities, facial and brain malformations to name a few.
Medical research has shown that even social drinking on special
occasions can cause birth defects affecting the growth and proper
formation of an unborn child's body and brain. Health experts
agree that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption during
pregnancy and alcohol can damage the fetus throughout the
pregnancy, not just in the first trimester.
In terms of numbers, 5 per cent of birth defects are caused by
alcohol and it costs taxpayers $2.7 billion each year in special
health care and social programs needed by FAS children.
FAS is a 100 per cent preventable tragedy and I therefore urge
Health Canada to warn expectant mothers of the dangers of
consuming alcohol during pregnancy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has not been easy trying to keep up with Lucien
Bouchard's political meanderings over the last few months.
After personally asking for a meeting with the Prime Minister of
Canada to discuss questions of importance to Quebec, Lucien
Bouchard cancels in an unprecedented huff, even threatening to
call an early election.
A few weeks later, he says that the reasons he gave for cancelling
the meeting were not really important, and turns around and asks
for another meeting. Following that meeting, he says he is satisfied
with the discussions, but less than a week later, he again lapses into
a pique and trots out the usual themes of humiliation and
centralization.
The separatist leader should, from time to time, review what he
has said the day before, and save all of us the trouble of trying to
figure out where he is headed next.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in a recent study released by the UN on social issues, we
learned that no fewer than 73 million children are used as cheap
labour. Ranging in age from 10 to 14, these children represent 13
per cent of the young people in the age grouping studied. They are
exploited in agriculture, domestic services, the carpet and textile
industry, and, shamefully, in the sex trade.
On June 11 in Geneva, labour ministers from 173 countries met
to look at ways of eliminating child labour, especially forced
labour, slavery, exposure to toxic products and child prostitution.
The government must play a leadership role in this issue and
must adopt strict measures to keep goods produced by child labour
out of Canada. Canada has a duty to demonstrate clearly the regard
in which human rights are held by the people of Canada and of
Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday I attended Federal Court in Vancouver to hear the case
regarding the native only fishery in the Alberni Canal in my riding
of Comox-Alberni.
The plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop the fishery and
challenged the fishery minister's authority to grant an opening to
one sector of society based solely on race. Rarely has a Federal
Court judge been so critical of a minister of the crown.
The judge charged that this was a very serious issue and the
courts were dealing with only half the information and half the
evidence, and he blamed the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
He said DFO had been negotiating secret deals that had impacts far
beyond those which involved the two parties before him in court.
When will this government, and particularly this minister,
realize that all Canadians, regardless of race or background,
deserve equal treatment and that all Canadians must be treated
equally before and under the law?
3817
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to inform the House that the Prime Minister today
signed a proclamation declaring the celebration of the centennial of
the Klondike gold rush, an event of national significance.
One hundred years ago the Klondike gold rush attracted fortune
seekers from all over the planet in search of adventures that
captured the imagination of the world.
The discovery of gold shaped the future of Yukon and indeed the
future of Canada. This anniversary is part of a decade of centennial
celebrations in Yukon. Today is also the 98th anniversary of Yukon
as a territory.
These events are being further commemorated today by the
unveiling of a series of commemorative Klondike stamps by
Canada Post. Earlier this year, the Royal Canadian Mint launched
its 1996, 14 carat gold coin ``Centennial of the Discovery of Gold
in the Klondike''.
(1415 )
I am pleased, therefore, to call on all Canadians to celebrate the
100th anniversary of the momentous discovery which launched the
Klondike gold rush, a colourful saga of the Canadian north.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
firm CAE in Ville-Saint-Laurent has just announced it will expand
its facilities. The project, estimated at some $8 million, will enable
the firm to provide an additional 500 jobs over the next two years.
This major expansion of the Montreal plant is due, among other
reasons, to the international reputation of its flight simulators. The
news comes at a perfect time to reward the efforts of all the
employees of this firm, which celebrates its 50th anniversary this
year.
This company, with its head office in Toronto, provides work for
more than 6,200 people in Canada, including 4,000 in the Montreal
area. With a full order book, quality products and highly trained
employees, CAE is proving once again the importance and the cost
effectiveness of investing in research and development in Canada.
3817
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice has revealed that, a few days after
his appointment as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, he approached RCMP authorities concerning the Airbus
affair.
Let us not forget that the minister has admitted that the
information he communicated to the RCMP originated with an
unidentified journalist.
I am asking the minister whether he advised the Prime Minister
of the approaches he was planning to make to the RCMP, before he
was appointed Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Canada?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, but there is an assumption in
the question that is wrong.
The hon. member asserted in his preamble that there has been an
omission that I involved myself in the Airbus investigation. That is
plain wrong. The choice of language and precision of expression is
important in this matter.
The House will know from what has been said that I have made it
a matter of public record that after consulting with my deputy
minister and the Solicitor General of Canada, I communicated to
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in November 1993, or
thereabouts, information which I had received with respect to the
previous government.
The RCMP then communicated with me after they had looked
into those matters and said that there was no basis for investigation.
Subsequently, separately, the RCMP commenced an
investigation into what is now called the Airbus affair. I had no
knowledge of or involvement in that investigation. My first
knowledge of it was derived on November 4, 1995 when one of the
lawyers for Mr. Mulroney telephoned me at home.
Those are the facts. In communicating information to the RCMP
that I had learned early in November 1993, I was not only acting
after consulting with the deputy minister and the solicitor general,
but as it appears from reports in the media in recent days, I was
doing exactly the same as at least one former minister of justice,
John Turner, said he did when he was fixed with information of that
kind.
3818
Therefore, I invite the hon. member to be careful in how he
expresses himself. I had no involvement in the Airbus
investigation, as that is known. That is a matter for the police.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister tells us that he communicated information to
the RCMP. I an not making any assumptions on the role he played
in the affair.
Having this information, however, and intending to
communicate it to the RCMP-I am not saying he interfered in the
investigation-I am asking him, knowing all this, when the Prime
Minister invited him to be Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
of Canada, did he not find it appropriate to inform the Prime
Minister of his intention to communicate that information to the
RCMP because, after becoming Solicitor General and Minister of
Justice, he would be the one responsible for the case.
Is this not a lack of judgment? Let us keep in mind, all ministers
speak on behalf of the government, commit the Cabinet, commit
the Prime Minister. Why then did he not inform the Prime
Minister?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, it is not.
In the first place, at the time when I was sworn in I had not yet
consulted either with the deputy or the solicitor general with
respect to the information in my proper role. Second, a police
investigation is not the responsibility of the attorney general and
the Minister of Justice.
If the hon. member will look at the roles and responsibilities of
officers of the government, he will see the RCMP conducts
investigations on its own. It is the solicitor general, not the attorney
general, who reports to Parliament for the police.
These are not simply matters of detail. They are fundamental
issues, as I said in response to a question last week from the hon.
member's colleague. Police investigations are run by the police,
not by politicians.
It is only those who choose not to see it who say there is no
distinction between an attorney general acting responsibly in
communicating to the RCMP information so it can pursue it and
exercise its own judgment about its importance and an attorney
general saying to the police: ``I will have no role in a police
investigation. That is up to you to decide''. Those are the
principles.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister tells us that he did not speak to the deputy
ministers or the people in the department before becoming minister
and Solicitor General. I can understand that, as he was not yet in the
position. The opposite situation would have surprised me greatly.
What I am asking the minister is that, when invited to join the
cabinet as Solicitor General and Minister of Justice-he was the
one who would have to deal with this matter later on. I am not
speaking of the investigation, or of the letters sent to Switzerland,
to a foreign government, by his department, which was
nevertheless responsible-would it not have been appropriate at
that time for him to inform the Prime Minister that he was privy to
some information, that he had heard certain things, allegations
from a journalist, in order not to be in conflict of interest or to
appear to be in conflict of interest?
[English]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I know this is an important matter. I
try to give all latitudes à celui qui demande les questions et à celui
qui répond. For the rest of question period I ask that you be very
precise in the question. Maybe we can cut down a little on the
preamble.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will poke in vain
through the entrails of this affair to find some squalid political
advantage.
There are two principles in operation here, and I abided in them
both. First, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, when I am fixed with information and consult with my
deputy and with the solicitor general and am then advised that it is
properly communicated to the RCMP, I do so. That is fulfilling a
moral obligation. I am encouraged to see that predecessors in office
have done the same, including John Turner.
The second principle is the police conduct investigations without
interference from politicians. When I communicate information, it
is up to the police to decide what to do with it.
In this instance they wrote back and said ``we have looked into it
and we are doing nothing with it''. Then if they on their own decide
to commence an investigation, as apparently they did, they are to
do that investigation without being controlled or influenced by
politicians. That is the second principle and that principle was also
respected.
(1425)
The hon. member will look in vain for any wrongdoing in this
case.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, in the House of Commons, the Minister of Justice denied
the report by the CBC to the effect that the libel suit brought
against the government in the Airbus deal might be settled out of
court.
3819
However, by indicating that an out of court settlement is always
the best solution, the Minister of Justice admitted that the
government was trying to get that kind of settlement in the Airbus
case.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us if, in the Airbus case, the main
objective of the government is to settle out of court and if the
department's counsels have made a proposal to that end?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question of whether litigation
should be settled is a matter for lawyers. As I said yesterday, I think
in civil litigation the interests of the parties are always best
protected, best served, by settling rather than by litigating issues.
There is no settlement imminent in this case that I am aware of.
There is no concrete proposal on the table that I am aware of. If the
parties through their solicitors have communication, so much the
better. We will always be mindful of the public interest in whatever
settlement discussions take place.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
a feeling that the department's counsels heard the minister say that
a settlement out of court was the best solution. I do not think they
are deaf.
Would the minister not agree that his own poor judgment put the
government in a very bad legal situation, that will cost a lot of
money to the Canadian taxpayers and undermine the credibility of
the whole government?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that this
litigation was commenced by the plaintiff, not by us. As to what it
will cost the taxpayer, the hon. member ought to wait and see how
the case turns out.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
airbus scandal continues to take flight. Although it is clear there
have been gross errors of judgment, errors of commission and
omission, the minister continues to confuse the people of Canada
by denying all responsibility and says he is taking no part, no play
in this comedy of errors.
Now the Liberals are talking about a payoff to keep Mr.
Mulroney quiet and taxpayers are on the hook for millions.
If the minister is not responsible for this Keystone cop routine,
who will he blame? Is it the RCMP, the reporters? Who is he
blaming?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the matter
is in litigation. The questions I was asking had to do with the
prospect of settlement.
As I said, there is no settlement imminent, no concrete proposal
for settlement. There is no issue at present of spending any
taxpayer money. I said earlier we should wait and see how this
litigation turns out.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday on the news even the Prime Minister mentioned he would
be open to the idea of settling this out of court. He did not mention
numbers, but I suppose he would agree even if it costs millions of
dollars.
I think Canadian taxpayers are upset. The Minister is acting like
Monte Hall: ``Brian Mulroney, let's make a deal''. I think that is
unacceptable. Why did the minister and his department not get the
facts straight before he risked millions of taxpayer dollars?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not have his
facts straight. I said no such thing. Negotiations and litigation for
the settlement of cases are for lawyers and should be left to the
lawyers acting for the parties.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
Airbus investigation, regardless of who is to blame, has been
bungled right from the word go. The screw-up has cost Canadians
and it will cost, starting with this payoff to Mr. Mulroney, millions
of dollars. What is more disturbing is that no one on that side of the
House will take any responsibility for anything that has happened
to date.
Will the minister take ministerial responsibility for the crash
landing of this Airbus investigation? If he wants to know what to
do, there are two seats in the front, two on the side and two in the
back.
(1430)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take responsibility for the
Department of Justice. From the outset the Department of Justice
has acted in an appropriate fashion.
As to the litigation, if there is any settlement to be discussed it
will be discussed between the lawyers for the parties, the people
who should be undertaking that work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
3820
Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was asked
about the Charlottetown style model of federal-provincial relations
that the government is putting forward and he said, and I quote:
``The Government of Quebec has certain responsibilities. It has
a hard time assuming them all the time, and we are offering
government assistance to ensure that this responsibility is carried
out as well as possible.''
Are we to understand that the minister believes the provinces are
unable to manage the programs from which they want the federal
government to withdraw and that that is why the government wants
to remain in charge, set the standards and keep the money, simply
letting the provinces carry out the orders? That is indeed the way he
sees it.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the provinces of Canada are limited to carrying out
the orders, what about the German L«nders, the Swiss cantons, the
American states, the Australian states, all federated entities that
dream about the powers the Canadian provinces have?
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as a learned constitutional expert, the minister also said
yesterday and I quote: ``The Government of Canada has the
responsibility of ensuring that these moneys are administered
responsibly.''
The minister talks about co-operation, but at the same time he
questions the provinces' ability to administer the moneys
responsibly. Does that mean that the federal government will
continue to act as a big brother to the provinces it considers
incompetent and totally irresponsible?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if, for once, just for once, the official opposition
members were to look at the problems we have not through their
glasses which make them see plots everywhere, but with the best
interests of Canadians in mind, they would have to agree that we
have a wonderful federation that gives us the best standard of living
in the world and that we can work together to improve it even
further. You only have to believe in this federation of ours.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Mr.
Klein has said he will not participate in secret discussions on the
Constitution and he would walk out of a first ministers conference
that did that.
Premier Clark said he will not participate and yesterday premier
Bouchard repeated he will not participate in constitutional
discussions at the first ministers conference.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs make a
commitment that at the FMC any discussions of the Constitution
will either be public and open or the agenda item will be
withdrawn?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I repeat to the hon. member that the sole aspect of the
Constitution that will be discussed is to fulfil article 49 and it is to
discuss the process by which we will have an open discussion
among Canadians about the amending formula.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister admitted to the House yesterday that this condition
has already been satisfied at least three times. That still does not
answer why we are discussing it at all.
Can the minister make two other commitments, if he is so
committed to public consultation, to describe to us the public
consultation which has taken place leading up to this first ministers
conference and will he commit, as the Liberal Party did in 1992,
that no constitutional change will be made unless it is submitted to
a national referendum?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this meeting is certainly not to discuss
the Constitution except for the specific matter of section 49.
(1435 )
The hon. member mentioned Premier Klein. I quote Premier
Klein. He said the agenda of this conference is a good one, that we
finally have some meat and potato items on the agenda that affect
social policy reform, labour training and governmental
harmonization and environmental assessment. It deals with overlap
and duplication which exists in a lot of inspection and security
services. We are actually addressing some of the issues that go
right to the heart of the problem of the rebalancing of federal
powers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Yesterday, in response to a question by the member for Ber-thier-Montcalm, the minister stated, with reference to federal
3821
responsibilities in the area of manpower and provincial ones in the
area of education, as follows:
-the provinces are responsible for education, which is rather closely related
to occupational training. It is, therefore, all these constitutional responsibilities
which the Government of Canada, in conjunction with the provinces, will be
better assuming, thank to the reform proposed by the minister.
Can the Minister explain this statement, which suggests that the
federal government has not really given up interfering in education,
through national standards in particular?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in all other federations, federal spending power is
exercised without limitation. The division of powers is,
substantially, legislative. Where spending power is concerned, in
the U.S., the federal government spends money in the various
sectors.
Here in Canada we shall go further than all other federations. For
the first time in the history of this country, except for constitutional
negotiations and acts, the Government of Canada has committed to
a more harmonious federation in which the federal spending power
will be directed in such as way as to allow us to work in
conjunction with the provinces.
This, then, is the Canada the hon. member wants to break up.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I gather
from that, that all you have to do is believe. Believe, when all of the
premiers of Quebec, since 1960 at least, have tried to ensure
Quebec of the means for development. We are not speaking of
other federations, we are speaking of the people of Quebec in
Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Lalonde: And it is precisely because they have had no
response that we want to get out.
Can the minister guarantee that the federal government will
respect Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction in the area of education,
that it will not in any way use the amounts allocated to it for this to
impose national standards?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada respects the Constitution
of Canada and the official opposition wants to tear up the
Constitution of Canada. That is the truth of it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice
minister is aware that if Bill C-45 does not go through before the
summer recess, Clifford Olson can appeal for early release directly
to a jury rather than having to jump through the additional hoop of
applying to a superior court judge.
I ask the minister why he waited until there were only eight
sitting days left before the summer recess to introduce this flawed,
half measure of a bill. Why did he not introduce it months ago,
providing the House with ample opportunity to deal with it at all
stages before the summer recess?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have just concluded a long and
very important consultation process, speaking with victims groups,
crown attorneys, judges, defence lawyers, police and others in
relation to section 745. The bill is now before the House. I invite
the hon. member and his colleagues to support it so we can put it in
place and have it available in the law at the earliest possible date.
(1440)
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
knows that his officials have been in touch with me and other
members of our caucus. Every overture that has been made has
been met with a clear statement that although we oppose the bill we
are not interested in delaying its passage.
Bill C-45 contains a royal recommendation which allows for the
expenditure of additional funds for section 745 appeals for early
release by first degree murderers. I ask the justice minister, what
are the additional expenditures? How much more will his
modifications to section 745 cost the Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the royal recommendation is there
because there will be additional incarceration costs since fewer
people will be released. That is where the extra money is being
spent. That is the answer. The hon. member and his colleagues in
the Reform Party would repeal section 745 altogether. That would
cost even more money.
I am gratified to hear the hon. member say that he and his
colleagues in the Reform Party will not stand in the way of speedy
adoption of the bill. This bill is going to strengthen criminal law
and improve section 745. I look forward to the day when it is law.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
With the Quebec government's announcement in May of a
change in the rules for awarding student loans, the minister said
that he intended to examine the scope of Quebec's decision. The
3822
federal government contributes only $98 million of the $472
million in the Quebec program or 20 per cent.
With its 20 per cent contribution to the Quebec loans and
bursaries program, would the minister confirm the government's
intention to push Quebec to change its policies?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are neither intending nor in a
position to force any province to change its policy on student loans.
However, I think that the vast majority of young people, in
Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, would like the opportunity to
study in the institution of their choice. This has been an honourable
tradition in Canada for a very long time.
The only thing I can say to him is I have suggested and continue
to hope that, in Quebec as elsewhere in Canada, men and women
wanting to pursue their studies may do so with as much freedom as
possible.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, as with
the proposed partnership in the area of manpower, will the minister
acknowledge that his government is simply meddling further in
areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. The hon.
member's question about student loans has nothing to do with
meddling. We respect Quebec's jurisdiction.
However, we suggest, discreetly I hope, that it is for the good of
young people-just like people in this House who have studied
outside their province-be they young New Brunswickers studying
in Quebec or young Quebecers coming here to study in French at
the University of Ottawa, or Albertans heading to McGill in
Montreal. This is a longstanding practice.
I think, on the whole, that young people in Quebec and elsewhere
in Canada want to be able to continue their studies in their home
province, in their country or abroad. This freedom and this
flexibility are what strengthens young people and Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The Government of China is demanding the expulsion of all
Vietnamese in refugee camps before Hong Kong is transferred to
China in 1997.
[Translation]
Since several of these people have relatives in Canada, will the
minister take the necessary measures to speed up the processing of
the applications made by these Vietnamese so as to reunite them
with their families?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note at the outset that these
people are not bona fide refugees. As things stand now, all these
cases have been examined by the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees and the Hong Kong government. As
you very well know, in 1989, several countries made a commitment
to act on a global action plan for Vietnamese living in camps. We
welcomed in Canada our share of these cases that were considered
to be refugees.
(1445)
As for the others, there was an international agreement providing
that these people could go back to Vietnam and the Office of the
High Commissioner assures us that it will control the return of
these people to Vietnam. By the way, a high proportion of these
people are already back in Vietnam.
That being said, I assure the hon. member for Saint-Denis that all
the applications made in Vietnam by people who want to come to
Canada to reunite with their families will be met with our usual
open-minded approach to such cases.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since Prime
Minister Juppé left Ottawa, he has stabbed this government in the
back. He has insulted over 50 per cent of Quebecers and most of the
rest of Canada. This man is a guest of the Canadian people and we
are paying the bill for his trip. The Canadian taxpayers deserve an
apology. This House deserves an apology.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is he willing to stand up
for the Canadian people by demanding an apology from Prime
Minister Juppé?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has made a whole series of allegations
but has not provided the basis upon which he is suggesting
apologies be made.
When the Prime Minister was here, he made it very clear that
relations with Canada are proceeding well. There are no irritants.
He has no interest in interfering in the internal affairs of this
country.
Time was spent talking about how we can increase investment,
how we can increase jobs, how we can increase cultural relations
3823
and how we can work together in a series of matters dealing with
disarmament and international affairs.
It seems to me to be a little ridiculous to be asking for an apology
when someone comes to our country and wants to substantiate and
expand relations with our country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: Look at the Bloc. The Bloc members are
applauding.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious
where the support comes from for what the Prime Minister has
done.
What would it be like if our Prime Minister went to France and
started talking about how great the Basque separatists were? That is
exactly what happened. The Prime Minister of France did one thing
in Ottawa and another thing in Quebec City. What he did in Quebec
City has insulted Canadians. It stomped on our pride in our country
and did nothing for unity. What is the Prime Minister going to do
about this?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the only comments I read recently about Basque
separatism were made by the hon. member for Red Deer.
Fortunately we are blessed in this country with having a Prime
Minister whose prudence and good judgment are well known. He
would never say anything quite as stupid as the member for Red
Deer said.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
We learned this morning in Le Devoir that the Department of
Foreign Affairs would reduce by almost 60 per cent its assistance to
cultural organizations for their international tours.
How can the foreign affairs minister explain the decision of his
department to cut by almost 60 per cent its assistance with regard to
the exportation of Canadian cultural products?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that we support culture as a
basic element of Canada's foreign policy. However, we do have to
make cuts to stay within our budget, and these cuts affect all
activities within my department.
(1450)
At the same time, I would like to find new approaches with
regard to culture. We invited the private sector to form a
partnership with us. Recently, there was a huge Canadian
celebration in Sao Paulo that was paid for entirely by the private
sector. This celebration, the purpose of which was to show the
strength and excellence of Canadian culture, cost $2 million.
Several groups were involved, including some from Quebec.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, according to the same source, namely Le Devoir, Quebec
companies are more affected than others by the minister's cuts.
Does the minister realize that, by making these cuts, he is
compromising the very existence of several cultural groups that are
known worldwide and that, in the short term, it will be difficult for
him to show Canadian culture outside the country?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me set this straight. The purpose of the involvement of
the Department of Foreign Affairs in culture is not to provide basic
subsidies to groups, it is to promote Canadian culture abroad. We
do it in a variety of ways. We provide support for groups to travel.
We provide money for exhibitions in which we can demonstrate the
good quality of our cultural products.
We are now developing new ways to bring the private sector in to
work as partners with us. A good example is that this fall we are
opening a new Canadian cultural centre in Paris. It will provide a
permanent exhibition and display area using the latest multimedia
and video techniques. It will give Canadian cultural groups a broad
audience.
That is the way we promote culture. That is why we are trying to
find the most innovative ways working with the private sector and
the cultural groups. The judgment cannot be made based simply
upon the number of grants given to groups. It is what is done to
promote the entire field of culture abroad.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, rural municipalities in Saskatchewan receive a one time
payment of 22.5 times previous years taxation revenues for any
additions to treaty lands. This is to compensate for tax revenue
losses and provision of municipal services upon creation of these
Indian reserves.
The rural municipalities are being offered only five times for
specific land claims, a loss of tens of millions of dollars to the
municipalities. My question for the minister of Indian affairs is
why?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just prior to the last
government's demise, the minister sent to some a letter which had
to be cancelled saying that the ministry would go 20 times taxes. If
expanded across the country, this would cost approximately an
extra $50 million. If the hon. member is prepared to put an
3824
amendment to our next budget asking for an additional $50 million,
I am sure we would support it.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, these land claims are supposed to be a cost borne by all
Canadians, not by rural municipalities in Saskatchewan.
The minister is offloading federal responsibility on to the
municipalities. They had a previously negotiated agreement. The
minister has usurped that agreement and is now threatening to
create tax exempt reserve lands over the objections of the rural
municipalities unless they agree to this unfair five times formula.
Why is the minister bullying the municipalities? Why is he
offloading federal responsibility on to their backs?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are trying in Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Alberta to go back and deal fairly with treaties
because there were wrong counts. This is the party that said we
should deal fairly with the aboriginal people and we have done that.
The remaining issue is the tax issue.
The Reform Party which says that we have to be fiscally prudent
is saying to the government that it wants an extra $50 million. This
cannot be done just in Saskatchewan. It has to be done in downtown
Vancouver and in Halifax as well. If the Reform Party is saying
that, then rather than hiding behind this rhetoric, when we are
doing the budget next year, stand up and say so.
* * *
(1455)
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
The Reform Party at its convention last weekend proposed a flat
tax, although it is clear that many of them did not understand what
it meant. The Reform Party thought that taxing the middle class
and giving to the rich would be a fresh start for Canadians.
Can the minister comment on this policy of Robin Hood in
reverse, taxing the lower income workers while giving to the rich,
and what is he doing to bring more fairness into the income tax
system?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is asking me to comment on the tax policy of the
Reform Party. I am afraid he is asking me to comment on the
indecipherable but I will attempt to make some sense of what
appeared at the Reform convention to be a great deal of incoherent
and inconsistent meandering around the subject.
The flat tax has been with us for a long time. In fact a number of
Liberal Party members have examined this issue in considerable
depth. At the same time-
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): This is out of order.
Some hon. members: Order.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): I must say, Mr. Speaker, they
are in particularly good voice.
Some hon. members: Order.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I judged the question to be a valid
question in the sense that it does deal with the minister's
responsibility of taxation.
Mr. Abbott: A Reform policy?
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): He should cross the floor.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask all members to please listen to the
answer. I give the floor to the hon. Minister of Finance.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, I was attempting
to explain the Reform Party's tax policy. The difficulty the rest of
the country has in understanding it is that the type of debate we
have just heard is what happened at their convention.
The flat tax has been around for a long time. The Liberal Party
looked at it. Some of our members were pioneers in it. A number of
Republican Party candidates in the United States have dealt with it.
They have consistently run into the same problems in that it is very
difficult to come up with a flat tax which does not benefit the rich at
the expense of the poor, or it is difficult to come up with one that
does not have so many exemptions and such a great deal of
complexity that it vitiates its very purpose.
The fact is that-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Taking the whole world by surprise, the public ministry of
Vietnam has decided to bring Tran Trieu Quan before an appeal
court at a hearing to be held on June 17. Meanwhile, Mr. Quan
continues to be shackled every day from 3 p.m. until the following
morning.
Given the rather timid reaction by Canada to the treatment being
afforded Mr. Quan, can the minister at least make a commitment
3825
that the Canadian consul in Hô Chi Minh will attend Mr. Quan's
hearing, in order to ensure that the rights of this Canadian citizen
are respected?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the comment by the hon. member is not accurate. When
our consul in Vietnam visited Mr. Quan and discovered that
manacles had been placed on his legs, we immediately issued a
very strong protest to the minister of foreign affairs and directly to
the Vietnamese officials. We have taken a very strong stand against
that.
The fact that the appeal is about to be held is a useful sign. We
have been waiting for the appeal to be held. We have been able to
exercise pressures by making a number of visits and a number of
representations. The appeal in the case is proceeding which is the
outcome we have been trying to achieve.
(1500 )
We will certainly provide all the support, legal assistance and
presence we can to Mr. Quan during in this period and assure he has
the full support of the Canadian government in terms of giving him
the kind of presence required.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how
ironic that the finance minister would be talking about the Reform
Party flat tax and how it affects wealthy people. It is a great irony.
For the third day in a row I want to ask the minister about the
notional input credit on used goods. Let us look at cars. In Ontario
there are 9,000 used car dealers. The removal of the notional input
credit will mean that all those people who can afford only to buy
used cars will have to pay a lot more. Maybe members across the
way cannot relate to that but there are many people like that.
Why is the minister sucking hundreds of millions of dollars from
low and middle income Canadians and putting many people out of
work in all the used good sectors?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
with everything else, the member has it exactly wrong. Under the
previous regime when someone traded their car in they were taxed
on the full price. Now as a result of this change they are taxed only
on the differential. This is a major benefit to the consumer.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. Recently, at the
end of last month, the Manitoba government gave the go ahead to
Louisiana-Pacific in the Duck Mountains.
Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House if he
intends to live up to a commitment made by a previous minister of
the environment and use whatever federal powers at his disposal
through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and in other
ways to institute a federal review of that decision before anything
further happens in that area?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question as well as for his
concern in relation to the environment in Manitoba.
The ministry of the environment for the province of Manitoba
has issued a licence based on a number of terms and conditions. My
officials are currently engaged in reviewing those terms and
conditions as they relate to the protection of the environment. Once
a full evaluation has been done, the government will be making its
pronouncements.
* * *
The Speaker: I would like to take a minute to have our pages
come around the Chair.
Colleagues, as many of you know, this year's group of pages will
be leaving us to pursue other goals and aspirations.
[Translation]
These pages are living examples of the great promise of our
Canadian youth. I wish to thank these young men and women who
have served us so well during the 35th Parliament, on behalf of all
of you.
[English]
As members we hope all the pages have benefited from their
experience here and that someday some of them, one of their
number, might return to serve their country again.
(1505)
[Translation]
They have put a great deal of energy into trying to make our lives
easier and learning the ropes in Parliament as well as learning more
about their country, while at the same time continuing full time
university studies in first year.
[English]
Our pages are very special to us. They help us in doing our daily
work. At the beginning, when they came to us, I addressed them as
my pages and I surely would claim any and all of them. However,
in effect they are not only my pages as your Speaker, they are your
pages as members of Parliament in a very broad sense because
these young men and women have served our country through us in
3826
the House of Commons and in that sense they are pages for Canada.
In your name, I want to thank them.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the government what is on the agenda
for the remaining days of this session.
[English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we shall consider Bill C-45 respecting
eligibility for parole. The business for the next week will be
arranged through the usual channel of discussions, which is how
the House has been working very well in the past weeks. I
appreciate and thank my colleagues.
The business next week will also include the bill I just
mentioned as well as two other bills the Minister of Justice is
discussing with the members of the opposition.
[Translation]
We hope to make some progress with the list of bills I had
submitted to this House and to the House leaders of the opposition
parties. That list comprises bills C-36, C-34, C-38, C-29, C-30,
C-4, C-37, C-39 and C-40.
[English]
We are also awaiting with keen anticipation a message from the
Senate that will require further action by the House.
Next Thursday has already been designated an allotted day.
* * *
The Speaker: Our next order of business is a tribute to one of
our former colleagues, a member of Parliament in Newfoundland,
Mr. Steve Neary. I invite the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak this afternoon by way of a tribute to a
friend and colleague. Death claimed Steve Neary last Friday. His
passing should not go unnoticed by the House.
Steve was first and foremost a son of Bell Island, a very famous
iron mining community in Conception Bay. Bell Island and her
people were always a part of him. They have always been a very
proud and hard working people. The beliefs and the causes for
which he fought so hard and so passionately were instilled in him
there in Bell Island and he was always true to them.
Bell Island was also a strong labour town and Steve became
involved in the union movement as a young man. He rose to be
president of the Newfoundland Federation of Labour. He first
sought public office in the 1959 general election as a candidate for
the labour party, the Newfoundland Democratic Party as it was then
called.
(1510)
Steve was both a big L and a small l liberal. It was as a Liberal
that he was elected to the Newfoundland House of Assembly in
1962 as the member for Bell Island. I know hon. members would
appreciate he was a member until he retired in 1985, winning
re-election six times.
He served in the cabinet of Premier Joey Smallwood from 1968
to 1972 and as the leader of the opposition in Newfoundland and
Labrador from 1982 to 1984
Steve was a parliamentarian in the very best sense of the word.
He loved the institution and he thrived on it. The whims of fortune
decreed that most of his time was spent in opposition.
Nevertheless, he mastered the political arts and became a
formidable force in the House and throughout the province.
He fought for the cause of the common man, the average person,
the little man, in the phrase often on his lips. He was fearless in
debate and firm in his convictions. He was fiercely proud of his
Newfoundland heritage and equally proud to be a Canadian.
Steve's mastery of the legislative process was legendary. If I
may be permitted, one of his most memorable moments came in
1975 or 1976 during a budget debate in the House of Assembly. My
good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Burin-St.
George's, was the opposition's designated spokesman and as such
had the right to respond to the rather lengthy speech of the
government finance minister and the corresponding right to speak
for an unlimited time.
Steve realized, however, the rules gave him the right as the first
opposition member to be recognized by the Speaker rather than to
the particular member designated by the leader of the opposition.
He was quick to his feet and when the finance minister finally
finished the speech he too had unlimited time. Steve caught the
Speaker's eye and was duly recognized and began his speech.
Members can imagine the chagrin of those who wanted another
member to speak first and at length. Their emotion grew stronger
for every one of the six sitting days Steve continued this debate.
Steve was a highly esteemed person and held a highly esteemed
place in the hearts of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He
was a friend to everybody no matter what their circumstances or
their calling. He stood and fought for any person who sought his
help. Fair treatment to all was his common cry.
3827
Steve Neary was a remarkable man. He made an outstanding
contribution to his province and to his country. I was proud to be
his friend, a pride I share with thousands upon thousands of my
fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is fitting that we in
this House mark his passing and honour him for his life and his
work. We are all the better because of him.
I am sure the House will join me and other members in
conveying our message of deep sympathy to his wife Mary and
their immediate family Andrea, Stephanie, Monique and Pierre,
their sons-in-law Aubrey and David, as well as all of Steve's many
relatives and friends.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
official opposition, I would like to express our sincere condolences
to the family of Mr. Stephen Neary, who passed away a few days
ago.
Mr. Neary began in union circles and was first elected to the
Newfoundland Legislative Assembly in 1962 as the member for
Bell Island. From 1969 to 1972 he was Minister of Social Services
and led the Liberal Party of Newfoundland from 1982 until he
retired from political life in 1985.
As fellow parliamentarians, we know how demanding political
life is and how much commitment and generosity it requires. It is
therefore important to call attention to the 23 years in which Mr.
Stephen Neary gave unselfishly of himself during his political
career.
His family and friends have every reason to be proud of him and
all that he has done for his fellow citizens.
On behalf of the official opposition, our most sincere sympathies
to the bereaved family.
(1515 )
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the Reform Party of Canada, as the House leader I would like to
extend my condolences and sympathy today to Stephen Neary's
family, his wife Mary and their children.
We certainly understand why a person such as Steven who made
such a major contribution, not only to his province but to his
friends, neighbours and his community, should be honoured today
in this assembly.
I have spoken with other people about Stephen's contribution,
beyond what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has indicated to
us today. Stephen was a person who worked with the people at the
grassroots level, in the community, in their homes, the coffee shops
and businesses. He understood what they wanted to do with their
lives and in building their local communities and Newfoundland
as well.
That is part of our democratic process which is maintained by
the integrity of people such as Stephen Neary.
On behalf of my colleagues, I pay tribute to him and thank he
and his family for making a public contribution to Canada. We
honour his memory.
[Translation]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my fine friend from Joliette for his sentiments on
our friend Steve Neary. I would say Steve Neary and he are similar
sorts.
[English]
Yes, Steve Neary died in his sleep Friday morning, two weeks
short of 71. At least that is what his birth certificate would indicate.
But he was much younger, probably 25 or 30, if we judge by the
steel trap which was his mind.
As a fighter, Steve was an eternal terrible two. He knew what he
wanted and he was single-minded in going after it, and he got it.
That he made the transition so tranquilly from this world to the
Parliament of heaven will seem, to some, to be at odds with how he
lived. To many, including me before I knew him, Steve's life was a
tornado, a turbulent affair. There never seemed to be a time when
he was not at odds with someone. Always, there was a battle to be
won, a cause to be championed, a case to be argued. And argue he
did, and fight and scratch.
Newfoundland is so much the better for his having fought, our
people the richer and the institution of Parliament and public
debate so much the healthier because of Steve.
But Steve had another side which few saw because he hid it so
well. The centrepiece of Steve's life was not turmoil, but purpose.
As a result, Steve was actually very much at peace with the world.
He always knew what he wanted for himself and he got it. What he
wanted for his family, he got it. What he wanted for his people, he
got it. He loved to call his people, the ``the ragged-arsed artillery''.
His family was his pride and joy. If you knew Mary, Pierre and
the girls, Andrea, Stephanie and Monique, you would know why.
His wife Mary was his pit stop. She kept him on the ground and she
recharged his batteries. If you were too big for your boots, Steve
could fix that in ten seconds. It takes Mary about five seconds.
Steve knew what he did not like and the top of that list of dislikes
were people who took themselves too seriously. Equally, Steve
knew precisely what he liked and topping that list was loyalty. He
practised what he preached.
3828
During Joey Smallwood's retirement years, when he was
abandoned by every ungrateful wretch that he had plucked from
anonymity during his premiership, it was Steve who stood by him
and carried the torch.
(1520 )
When I first went into politics provincially, Steve was one of my
mentors. His straight talk and his uncanny ability to get right to the
heart of an issue with lightning speed and humour made me an
early convert to his brand of politics.
After his retirement from politics, he came here and did me the
honour of being on my staff for two years in 1989 and 1990. What
two marvellous years they were. It was a marvellous doctoral
degree for me sitting at his feet and having him around.
It is Thursday, six full days since Steve's promotion to that other
place. If heaven was not unionized, it is now. If heaven did not have
an opposition, it has one now. The word was out, heaven needed an
ombudsman. We sent Steve.
I sat with Steve two weeks ago outside his home. He did not
reminisce and drool and paw about past glories. He was too busy
talking about what had to be done, wrongs to be righted, causes to
be fought. The fire was still in his belly.
That is the legacy Steve leaves us. That is why Steve did not
simply pass from the scene. Oh, no. He has only taken his seat in
that other parliament for which we are all running. Yes, we have
lost a friend. We have gained so much from that friend that we will
continue to benefit from it for many years to come.
My sympathies to each member of his family, all of whom he is
very proud. There is not only Mary, the girls and Pierre, but also the
extended family, the grandchild, the brothers, the sisters and the
nieces and nephews.
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too
want to pay tribute to a close family friend, Stephen Neary, who
passed away on May 31. He leaves to mourn his wife and his four
children.
I was first introduced to him by my father, Mr. Joe Ashley. I
knew Mr. Neary through most of his political career. I am
extremely saddened to see him go.
Steve was active in politics for more than 20 years on both the
political and federal scene. Mr. Neary spent a great deal of his
career working with the past premier, Mr. Joey Smallwood.
He was first elected to the Newfoundland House of Assembly in
1962 to represent Bell Island. In 1988, Steve attempted to break
into federal politics by running in a riding that I now represent, St.
John's East.
Good hearted and outspoken, he was always a champion of the
poor and downtrodden. He aggressively represented his
constituents of St. John's East and Bell Island. Never one to back
down from a fight, he worked tirelessly to ensure their views were
well known in the political legislature. He accomplished a great
deal for his constituents right to the end of his day.
Bell Islanders knew he was always available to champion their
causes. Mr. Neary will leave a great void on the Newfoundland
political landscape as well as here in the House of Commons.
He worked very hard for his constituents and he has great friends
in the Mr. Simmons and Mr. Mifflin. It is indeed a sad occasion to
have to say goodbye to such a man. He will be missed by his family
and friends.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Steve Neary today
because I used to have constituents from time to time come to talk
to me about him. Many Newfoundlanders were members of the
Canadian forces. They would end up in Petawawa and retire there.
They all knew Steve Neary.
Lois and I want to extend our very sincere condolences to his
wife Mary, to Andrea, Stephanie, Monique and Pierre. It is a big
parting moment for them, but I can say that, from having known
Steve for a long time, he was a great Canadian. He was a great
Newfoundlander and he was very proud of his wife and family.
(1525 )
He was a gut cause guy. This has come out in the words of other
people today: to spend 23 years in the legislature of his province of
Newfoundland, to be in the cabinet of Joey Smallwood, but most of
all to remain dedicated and loyal to his leader, to his party and to
his cause. That is what real public service is all about.
He was a great orator, which has been alluded to today. We have
had a few other great orators who have come to this place from
Newfoundland over the years. I have seen them come and go and
they have made a great contribution to Canada.
As I think of Steve Neary's life today, he was outstanding for the
labour movement. It has been pointed out that he was a fighter for
the underdog. He had his cause. I always called him the gut cause
guy. The more gut cause people we can get in Canadian politics and
in our provincial legislatures, the better off our legislatures, our
provinces and our Canada will be.
I want to say how privileged I feel to have known Steve Neary,
how proud I am of his public life. Canada needs such hardworking
and dedicated people in public life. We can well look to Steve
Neary for our example.
>
3829
3829
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this motion. It gives us an
opportunity to dispel once again the myths that have been put
forward by the separatist politicians, not I might add by the people
of Quebec.
The motion by the member for Québec-Est reads:
That the House encourage the federal government to acknowledge the
urgency of the situation of francophones in minority situations in Canada, and
take the exceptional steps required in order to counter their assimilation and
allow their development.
I was on a debate with the member for Québec-Est who put this
motion forward. That debate was televised this past weekend. After
the cameras went off our debate continued and was quite heated. I
said to the member for Québec-Est: ``If Quebec separates, the
French speaking people in the rest of Canada are very concerned
that they will disappear. By virtue of separation the people you will
affect the most are your French speaking brothers and sisters
outside of Quebec because their language and culture may truly
disappear''.
He shrugged his shoulders and said: ``Who cares?'' The member
who put this motion forward said: ``Who cares what happens to the
people who speak French outside of Quebec.'' That shows the
selfishness of this individual and as far as I am concerned he has
absolutely no credibility whatsoever in putting this motion forward
because it is completely and utterly hypocritical.
In his speech the member for Québec-Est said: ``English people
hate French Canadians''. Let us take a look at the facts. Let us show
what the rest of Canada thinks about Quebec. Let us show the
tolerance and accommodation that the people outside of Quebec
have shown to the people of Quebec for decades.
In 24 of the last 26 years, our prime ministers have been from
Quebec. The Supreme Court has three reserved seats for people
from Quebec. In my province of British Columbia the French
speaking population, la francophonie, represents 1.5 per cent of the
population. Yet what percentage of jobs do they get? They occupy
two and a half per cent of the federal jobs in British Columbia.
Ottawa has sent to Quebec at least $2.6 billion more than what it
has taken in from Quebec every single year for the last 30 years.
Quebec has received over $160 billion more than what it has given
to Ottawa. These facts are never acknowledged by the separatist
politicians. They close their minds to them. They do not
acknowledge the favourable position Quebec has received in
Confederation.
(1530)
Let us talk about the referendum. Let us talk about the attitude
the rest of Canada has toward Quebec. Tens of thousands of people
descended on Montreal to extend their love, their compassion and
their strong desire to keep Quebec in Canada as an equal. If that is
how the rest of Canada deals with Quebec I would profess that is
not hate, that is love. That is what the rest of Canada feels about
Quebec. If the member for Québec-Est believes otherwise, I would
suggest it is that member who has hate in his heart, not the rest of
Canada.
We talk about the French. The Bloc members have often labelled
the Reform Party as being anti-French. I suggest that the Bloc
members look at their Internet site. The Reform Party has more
French services on its Internet site than the government or the Bloc.
Is that hating French? Is that not promoting French? Is that not
trying to build bridges of understanding and tolerance between
Quebecers and the rest of Canada? If that is abuse, then sign me up.
Let us counter the member's argument about assimilation of la
francophonie outside of Quebec. Let us look at the efforts of
Canadians outside of Quebec to try to preserve and ensure that the
French culture survives not only inside but also outside Quebec.
There are many issues.
Official bilingualism is a concept we do not agree with. We
believe that regional bilingualism would be more effective. The
official bilingualism policies are disagreed with by the majority of
people outside of Quebec and interestingly enough by the majority
of people in Quebec. It is not what Quebecers want.
The government claims it is costing $600 million per year to
preserve official bilingualism but the facts are much different. It
costs about $4 billion, money which is taken away from hospitals
in Quebec, from health care in the rest of Canada, from welfare,
from unemployment insurance, from pensions. That is where that
money should go. Preferably we would like to use the money to get
our debt and deficit down to ensure that Canadians are employed in
the future. It costs $4 billion for official bilingualism.
There is $2.7 billion which goes into government services such
as translation. Canadians would be appalled to know that it costs
the taxpayer 27 cents per word to translate every single document,
not on the basis of need but on the basis of official bilingualism
which has been rejected by the people of Quebec as well as people
in the rest of Canada.
Let us talk about government jobs. In British Columbia, as I said
before, the francophonie represent 1.5 per cent of the population
3830
yet they receive 2.5 per cent of the jobs. They represent 35 per cent
of the population and receive 38 per cent of federal jobs in Ontario.
Let us look at what happens in Quebec. Let us see how
Quebecers, the separatist politicians in the provincial government,
feel about preserving minority rights in Quebec. Anglophones
represent 13 per cent of the population in Quebec and what
percentage do they receive in terms of jobs in the provincial
government? One per cent. Thirteen percent of the population in
Quebec receives one per cent of the jobs. That is discrimination
against the anglophone population in Quebec. That shows how the
separatist leadership in Quebec cares about minority rights.
In Quebec the anglophones represent 15 per cent of the
population yet they only receive 5 per cent of federal jobs. Why?
Again it is favouritism.
(1535 )
These are facts which have come right out of a Treasury Board
report. It states that the government must be very concerned about
the minority rights of English speaking people in Quebec because
repeated actions by separatist politicians, the Parti Quebecois and
its current leader, have done everything in their power to trample
on the rights of minorities. They make them unwelcome in Quebec.
They want them to leave so they can have a yes vote in the next
referendum. Those are the facts.
Why is there such a thing as a language policy in Quebec? I will
ask this question of my hon. friends from the Bloc Quebecois, and
some of them are my friends. Why do they have language police in
Quebec who go around making sure that only French is being
spoken and not English? The purpose of language is to
communicate. The purpose of communication is to understand
each other in order to live together in peace and harmony and in an
environment of tolerance and understanding.
When we interfere and squash the ability of people to
communicate with each other, we separate populations and breed
intolerance and misunderstanding. It allows myths to start and it
polarizes communities. When I was in Montreal a month ago I
found that was happening unfortunately. It was very sad to see that
the yes and no communities were polarizing and separating from
each other. In doing so, myths are building in both of those
communities. It is engendering hate, intolerance and I fear,
violence. This can be averted if the federal government puts
forward a constructive plan based on listening to the concerns of
the people inside and outside Quebec.
If Bill 101 was put forward in Ontario, Newfoundland or British
Columbia, we would hear the words bigot and intolerant screamed
all across the country. We would never do that in British Columbia
because we recognize that kind of legislation prevents people from
communicating with each other. However, the rest of Canada has
turned a blind eye to a lousy piece of legislation, Bill 101 in
Quebec which is only being used to separate populations and make
the non-French speaking people unwelcome in Quebec.
What was done after the referendum? Hospitals were closed in
the allophone communities in Quebec. Mr. Landry also blamed the
immigrants on the failure of a yes vote in Quebec. That is
absolutely racist. The people within Quebec, the allophone and
anglophone populations, voiced their displeasure but chose to stay
in Quebec to build a stronger province and a stronger country. They
deserve a great deal of credit for their courage in standing up for
their rights in the province.
The financial adviser to the premier of Quebec told Mr.
Bouchard that if there was a yes vote the financial penalties paid by
the people in Quebec would be horrendous. What happened to
those facts? They were deliberately buried and that individual was
muzzled. That does not serve the people of Quebec at all. In fact, it
is hiding the truth from them. Those individuals ought to be
ashamed of themselves.
It is true that French Canadians were discriminated against in the
past. Historically the church, their own politicians and the English
speaking minority industrial complex served to discriminate
against French speaking people in Quebec. They tried to keep them
down. They discriminated against them, their language and their
culture. There is no denying that. They should be ashamed of
themselves because that kind of intolerance has no place in this
country.
However, for the past 30 years the strength of the French people
in Quebec has increased dramatically. Policies have been put
forward by successive governments to ensure that discrimination
against them does not occur. These are good policies. It is good to
fight against discrimination on this level. We must not create a
situation where one group is elevated above another. We must
create a situation where all people are treated equally, where all
people have the right to enjoy their culture and speak their
language free from interference.
(1540)
The situation now and the zeal to pursue separation has nothing
to do with the holy grail of developing and preserving the French
culture in North America. It simply has to do with power. The
premier of Quebec has one goal and one goal only. It is not to carve
a better deal for Quebec and French Canadians in the federation
called Canada, it is to create a separate country called Quebec
where he can be the president. That is what he is pursuing. Let there
be no doubt about it.
That is why any efforts by the Prime Minister to offer distinct
society or veto powers to Quebec will fall on deaf ears. Preserving
the French culture is not the primary goal of the BQ and PQ;
separation is and they are not interested in negotiating with the
federal government. The Prime Minister has to work with all
members of Parliament to create understanding and tolerance
3831
between groups in Quebec and the rest of Canada and to dispel the
myths that have been created over so many decades.
When I speak with members of the Bloc Quebecois it is
interesting trying to understand where it is they are coming from. It
is interesting to hear the myths they subscribe to. Those myths need
to be torn apart. If they believe them, then other people in Quebec
believe them. The people who live in Chicoutimi, in northern
Quebec, in east Montreal and in the small towns of Quebec are
getting a very distorted view of the world.
The propaganda getting to the people is not changing. It will not
be changed in this House. It will not be changed by the separatist
leaning media in Quebec. The only way to dispel those myths that
have been supported for so many decades in Quebec is for
members of the House and the Prime Minister to go into Quebec
and meet directly with the people.
The Prime Minister must also have a plan. It is increasingly
disturbing that in spite of the last referendum the Prime Minister
has demonstrated that the government does not have a plan on the
national unity issue. There is no plan for a renewed federalism.
There is no plan to strengthen the powers of the government and
the provinces in areas where they can both do their jobs better. The
Prime Minister has not democratized the system. He has also failed
to tell the people of Quebec what the terms and consequences of
secession will be.
Many separatists in Quebec are under the delusion that they are
going to engage in some kind of Maastricht treaty situation such as
in Europe and that it will somehow give them more autonomy than
they have now. The cold, hard fact is that the Maastricht treaty, if
that is what they want to pursue, will give an independent Quebec
less power than it has now. Quebec will not accept any fiscal and
monetary policies dictated by Ottawa but that is what will happen if
there is a separate Quebec and a Maastricht treaty situation is
pursued.
It is sad that our country has come to this point. Many people in
British Columbia and Quebec are fed up with the national unity
issue.
(1545)
Efforts by such people as the member for Québec-Est with his
hateful, spiteful, intolerant comments such as English Canadians
hate French Canadians only seek to polarize communities. I know
that is what he is trying to do. He is trying to polarise communities.
He is trying to get us mad because in getting us mad he is hoping
the rest of Canada will say to Quebec ``get lost'', but that will
not happen.
Canadians are a tolerant and understanding people who want
Canada to stay together for the betterment of all Canadians, French
Canadians and Canadians outside of Quebec. They want the
country to stay together because they believe in their hearts that a
united Canada provides a stronger, better, safer future for all people
in the country.
Some time ago I spoke to a French Canadian separatist who said
to me she did not understand. She thought she would have more in
common with the people of France than with Canadians outside of
Quebec, but that was simply not true. She has a greater kinship with
people in Canada than with any other person in any other country. I
think it is wise for our fellow Canadians and the Bloc Quebecois to
understand that.
Bloc members should look in their hearts to see if the course
they are pursuing will truly be better for the people they profess to
represent and whether it will truly make their people stronger. Put
themselves in our shoes and try to understand that the rest of
Canada has for decades continued to tolerate situations which if
they occurred in other parts of Canada the people of Quebec would
find intolerant.
Whether we are speaking of bill 101 or situations such as the
Jewish food importers prevented from selling their product because
they were only labelled in English, if those situations occurred
outside Quebec they would rightly scream intolerance.
I urge the government to look at the Reform 20-20 principle. We
have laid the terms down of a new and stronger federalism for all
Canadians and have stated the cold hard facts about the terms of
secession. I encourage it to do that before it is too late. If we do not,
the country will surely fracture. The Canada we know and see
today will not be the Canada we will have tomorrow.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
just like to say that English Canada is misinformed, and especially
the hon. member, in thinking that there is a French language police
in Quebec. There is no language police. We have the Office de la
langue française to protect French.
What English Canada must understand is that the situations of
anglophones and francophones are not comparable. We
francophones live in an anglophone continent, we need protection,
we have to look after ourselves or we will quickly disappear. This
is why the Government of Quebec set up the Office de la langue
française and appointed a large number of people to give the
French language its due.
3832
We also know that immigrants coming to Quebec tend, and
probably legitimately so, to learn English when they arrive on an
English continent, because Canada's embassies abroad tell them
that Canada is an English country. Often they do not say there are
francophones in Canada.
They come here and then, and I understand them, learning one
language is difficult enough, learning two is even harder. So they
choose a language, because according to the rules of the federal
government, immigrants choose themselves the language they
think they will most easily master. Obviously, immigrants choose
the English language because they think: ``I am on a continent
where people speak English, therefore I choose the English
language''.
In Quebec, we are stuck once again with federal rules that
prevent us from promoting French. If we were to say that the only
language you can learn in Quebec is French, when the federal
government pays for language training in Quebec, it should only
pay for French class. But immigrants are the ones who choose
which language they think is the best to help them succeed. So we
will do what it takes to make sure that there are still francophones
in Quebec.
(1550)
In spite of all our efforts, we realize that in Montreal-West, for
instance, immigrants speak English mostly. In spite of all our
efforts, we cannot even manage to maintain the level of French nor
get people to speak French.
This is why I am telling the member he has a very bad grasp of
things. What he just said does not help to understand Quebec's
reality. Members from the west and Ontario should come and see
the situation in Quebec before criticizing it, and giving speeches
that have nothing in common with reality. They are the ones who
are making matters worse. This is what I wanted to say in response
to his speech.
I suggest that he study history a little bit better and not make
such speeches. He said our speeches are bad, but he should
understand better what the needs of Quebec are, and try to
understand why Quebecers need the Office de la langue française to
protect the French language in Quebec.
This is not the subject of our debate today, we are talking about
francophones outside Quebec, but since he mentioned it, I wanted
to set the record straight. It is important to give speeches reflecting
Quebec's reality so that English Canada, mainly people in the west,
really understand the situation of Quebecers. I caution him about
that and I ask him from now on to give speeches that are a truer
reflection of reality.
[English]
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his comments. I would like to
commiserate with him on a couple of facts.
We understand completely the fear French speaking people have
in their culture and language being diluted in a sea of English
speaking people in North America.
I find it hard to imagine that the hon. member feels the rest of
Canada has been somehow against French speaking people or has
somehow prevented the province of Quebec or the people of
Quebec from living their culture and their language.
We in the Reform Party have continued to put forward to give
culture and language to all provinces, including Quebec. Today
Quebec has the right to preserve and deal with its own French
culture and French language.
The responsibility for maintaining French language and French
culture in Quebec is entirely the responsibility of the province of
Quebec. Whether it lives or dies is its responsibility and not that of
any other province.
Nonetheless, this government and previous governments have
poured billions of dollars trying to further help the province of
Quebec and the French speaking populations in Quebec preserve
their language and culture.
I find it passing strange that no other culture in this country,
which is made up of so many, not the Italians, not the Scottish, not
the East Indians, not the people from Africa, has asked for
protection to preserve its culture and language. What do those
cultures do? They come to Canada and say to themselves ``we will
take it upon ourselves to preserve our culture and language and
teach the rest of Canada and Canadians about our cultures, our
languages to enrich us all''. That is what they have done.
They have made this country stronger by doing that. It makes no
sense to me why this member feels his people have been somehow
hard done by when in my speech I gave illustration after illustration
after fact that shows the French culture and French language have
taken a preferential place within Canada. Their culture and
language have received preferential treatment for decades. If
anybody should feel hard done by it is the rest of Canada. The rest
of Canada by and large does not because of the tolerance and
understanding it has shown to the people of Quebec.
(1555)
I would be happy to speak to that member or any other member
in the Bloc Quebecois, as I know my colleagues would, to
understand them better in the hope they too will try to understand
us better.
3833
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I simply
wanted to tell the member who just spoke that he is giving a strange
view of history when he says that Italians, West Indians and all
ethnic groups that came to this country are independent, develop
their own culture and do not ask anything from the state.
I must remind him that the situation of the French people is very
different. The French people occupied the region where you are
now living, sir. They were there 200 years before your ancestors.
The French were there and you dislodged them. This situation
cannot be compared to that of a West Indian who arrived here last
week, decided to form a group with other people from his country
and friends and to live according to his own culture with those who
share that culture. You are altering history shamelessly, dear
colleague. Such an attitude is inappropriate for a member of this
House. You should go back to your history books.
[English]
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker, as I
illustrated in my speech, I acknowledge that in times past the
English industrial complex abused the majority French speaking
people in Quebec, as did the church and their own politicians.
Out of that has come, unfortunately, an inferiority complex
among some French Canadians, a second class citizen complex,
which is unfortunate and sad. The French Canadian people are not
second class citizens even though they believe they are in the eyes
of others.
French Canadians are as beloved and respected in Canada as any
other group and they are equals in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to take the few minutes I have to
indicate how totally I disagree with this motion by the hon.
member for Québec-Est. The mmotion reads as follows: ``That the
House encourage the federal government to acknowledge the
urgency of the situation of francophones in minority situations in
Canada, and take the exceptional steps required in order to counter
their assimilation and allow their development''.
An hon. member: You cannot be against that.
Mr. Boudria: Yes, I can be against that. I will say why and I
hope my colleagues opposite will understand. I also hope
Canadians will see the political motives behind this type of motion
and will see once again that what we have before us is, on the one
hand, an show of opportunism on the part of the Bloc Quebecois
and, on the other hand, a show of arrogance on their part. They
always claim to know what French speaking Canadians outside
Quebec want. They want a divorce and, at the same time, they want
to be the spokepersons for the spouse they intend to divorce. That is
the Bloc Quebecois' attitude toward all of us who live outside
Quebec. That is what we are seeing.
We heard the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata say in
the past that francophones outside Quebec had vanished. ``The
francophones-poof'', she said.
(1600)
We were told to mind our own business as francophones outside
Quebec when we wanted to keep the critical mass of francophones
in the country. We were told all kinds of things, we were scorned,
and separatists still continue to do so. It is this same scornful
attitude we are seeing today in the House, as shown in the motion
of the member for Québec-Est, unfortunately supported by some of
his colleagues.
Mr. Dubé: You are exaggerating.
Mr. Boudria: No, Madam Speaker, I am not exaggerating. We,
francophones outside Quebec, know the separatists and their
agenda. Madam Speaker, you probably remember better than I do
the day-
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Boudria: I know the hon. member for Québec-Est
unsuccessfully ran for the office of mayor of Penetanguishene. I
know that. It has just been brought to my attention. That is true. I
remember it well, but that is not what we are discussing today.
Mr. Dubé: We remember.
Mr. Boudria: I was not going to bring it up, but the hon.
member opposite has just reminded me that the hon. member for
Québec-Est comes from Ontario, and he must know what he is
talking about. Yes, I, too, remember that he was ran for the office of
mayor of Penetanguishene and was defeated.
But now I want to get back to the comments I made earlier. The
House may remember what was said about the Fédération des
communautés francophones et acadienne. It was said that they had
been bought off, that francophones outside Quebec sold out in
return for federal grants. That is what the Bloc Quebecois said, and
we remember.
What happened on the eve of the referendum? The hon. member
for Rimouski-Témiscouata was burned in effigy at the Cité
collégiale here in Ottawa. That is what was done and what people
think of the arrogant attitude exhibited by some of the people
across the way and of the policies they represent. This was done by
francophone students; that is what these people think of the hon.
members opposite.
The current premier of Quebec, the former leader of the Bloc
Quebecois, says that when he was Leader of the Opposition, he had
a policy concerning francophones outside Quebec. As you may
remember, he visited the Acadian community and told them that he
was going to build schools for them, until he was told to go back
home, because Acadians had been there long before he came onto
the scene and would be there long after he was gone. He was not
kicked out but, when he announced his policy, they came right out
and told him to go back home.
3834
Again, we remember the Bloc's arrogance, its scorn for
francophones outside Quebec, and its claims that it always knows
what is best for us.
The Bloc now maintains that Quebec is French, while the rest of
Canada is totally or almost totally English. In his question to the
previous speaker, the hon. member for Longueuil referred to
English Canada. Others talk about English Canada. Another
expression of contempt came from this member who stated that
francophone communities were becoming extinct, when in fact the
number of francophones outside Quebec is growing every year in
Canada. He knows, but he does not care. He continues to show
contempt, as he did just now and will again, because this is the way
the Bloc thinks and acts toward us. But we will not stand for that.
These comments are not true and should not be made. The fact
remains that he keeps making that kind of comment. Coming back
to francophones outside Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois is depicting
Quebec as unilingual francophone or almost, and the rest of Canada
as unilingual anglophone. I can see my colleague from
Argenteuil-Papineau behind the hon. member opposite. He knows
that, when he hears two people speaking English in a shopping
center in Hawkesbury, in my riding, chances are they are his
constituents, because in the immediate area, the English speaking
population lives in Quebec while the French speaking population
lives in Ontario.
That is the way things are in our area. He knows as well as I do
that the people living in Lost River or Harrington for instance are
more likely to be anglophones. On the other hand, people living in
Hawkesbury, Alfred, Saint-Isidore, Saint-Eugène or
Sainte-Rose-de-Prescott are more likely to be francophones. That
is how it is in our area.
(1605)
In my riding, hundreds and even thousands of people only speak
French. They did not arrive from Chicoutimi or France yesterday.
They are my constituents and they have been living in Ontario for
generations.
Let me tell you about my family. Next year, my son will marry a
young French unilingual woman from Ontario who may be part of
the tenth generation of her Franco-Ontarian family, which is
perfectly fine. This young woman did all her elementary, secondary
and post-secondary studies in Ontario. My son has a Master of Arts
in History and a Bachelor of Education. He never attended an
English language school. He works here, in Parliament, for an
English speaking member. This is the Canadian reality.
Why claim this reality does not exist? Why do members opposite
tell us that francophones outside Quebec have disappeared, or are
disappearing, when the figures show otherwise? Why do they say
that? This is what they are saying and we are fed up with this kind
of contempt.
I want to tell you about a speech made by someone whom I
consider to be a distinguished speaker, Daniel Poliquin. His article
appeared in Cité Libre and dealt with the martyr's complex. Mr.
Poliquin said that some separatists always have to rely on the
element of pity. As he said, they tell themselves that they are to be
pitied, therefore they exist, and therefore they are the only one that
exists, and deserve reparation. Such is the mentality of the
members opposite. This is how they act and talk.
But there is a risk. Not only does this attitude hurt relations
between the peoples of Canada, it is also harmful to francophones
living outside Quebec. Let me explain. My constituents and other
francophones outside Quebec, whether they live in your province,
Madam Speaker, or mine, sometimes have grievances having to do
with the fact that they are a minority. To what degree do they feel
constrained in their ability to air such grievances?
They know that if they state their grievances, members opposite
will exploit the situation, as they did a few days ago when a French
language school board announced its intention to close a French
language school in Ottawa, because it no longer needed that school.
The member for Québec-Est made a big thing of the whole issue, to
use acceptable parliamentary language.
There are 60 French schools in Ottawa and a French language
school board managing these schools found that, because of a
population redistribution, schools had to be moved. This finding
was exploited by a Bloc member. To what extent does that hurt the
freedom of expression of members of the francophone community?
They are concerned they will be exploited by the members
opposite. That is wrong.
We are being exploited by the Bloc and by other separatists who
are not representative of the majority's position neither in Quebec
nor elsewhere. That is not true, that is not the Canadian reality.
[English]
I have something to say about the people who claim the official
bilingualism policy is some sort of a failure. I disagree with them. I
normally agree with a lot of things the hon. member for
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca says in the House, but not with the
proposition that bilingualism is a failure. I will probably get two or
three letters tomorrow from irate people claiming it is a failure
because something did not go their way at one point or another, but
that is not the issue.
(1610 )
The issue is we have been able together as francophones and
anglophones, coupled with all other Canadians, to make this into
3835
what is the greatest country in the world according the United
Nations. We must have done something right.
Yes, maybe it costs 25 cents a word to translate government
documents so that I am able to read them in my language and so
that my unilingual daughter-in-law can read in her language, so the
hon. member can also, so that all others can read those documents
with equal force in either language. Notwithstanding that cost of 25
cents a word, we are still the best place in the world in which to
live. I say to the hon. member across that is not so bad. That is not a
sign of failure.
The hon. member says a policy of territorial unilingualism is the
correct approach for Canada. I have enormous respect for his
views, but not on this subject. I suspect they are not his views. That
is the policy of his party. Knowing him to the limited degree that I
do, those could not be his personal views on this subject because
they are so hopelessly wrong. I can associate them with of some of
his colleagues, though.
As Canadians we must recognize we have been able to do great
things together. We are one of the most productive nations in the
world. In terms of the human development index, we have the best
conditions of life of any nation in the world. As linguistic groups
we have been able to get along very well.
Whenever we do not it makes headlines but when we do get
along well it does not. How many times has it made headlines in
the House that the hon. member for Simcoe North, a francophone,
was elected in a constituency which is 95 per cent English? How
many times has that been said? None because it does not make
headlines.
How many times has it occurred in the country when the people
of a majority francophone area have elected an anglophone to
Parliament? It does not make headlines. Those things are also true.
Things being as they are, sometimes regrettably, coverage is given
to those things which are contentious. Harmony by definition is not
contentious, but it is there and we should recognize it as Canadians.
We should recognize that when we do not get along, it does not
mean we never do. It is quite the opposite.
[Translation]
In a few days from now, we will celebrate in this country the
feast of French Canadians, Saint John the Baptist's Day.
Mr. Lebel: Of Quebecers.
Mr. Boudria: The member opposite just tried to correct me. He
says that it is the feast of Quebecers. Yes, in part, it is true that June
24 is the feast of Quebecers.
But it is not exclusively the feast of Quebecers and even less
exclusively the feast of the separatists, although some of them say
so. It is the feast of French Canadians. I am sure that the member
opposite-knowing his history-is well aware of that.
In my riding, every year, we celebrate Saint John the Baptist's
Day, as you probably do in your riding, Madam Speaker. In our
area, this decision is considered to be highly important. Every year,
each village approaches the county council, or the regional county
municipality as it is called in Quebec, with a proposal to organize
festivities surrounding Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. The issue of which
municipality is chosen each year is settled by a government
decision. That choice has become an annual government decision.
The council has to decide which municipality will have the honour
of organizing these festivities for us, French speaking Canadians in
Ontario.
I would like to know if that issue is discussed in the ridings
represented by members of the Bloc Quebecois. They probably do
not brag about it. This is how things are done in my riding.
(1615)
This year, for example, the village of Alfred, which was given
this honour, will be celebrating the 125th anniversary of the parish
on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. By the way, the village of Alfred,
located in my riding, is 99 per cent francophone. We will celebrate
Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day elsewhere in the years to come.
The byelection in Hamilton East is just four days away, and I
hope Ms. Copps-soon to be called the hon. member-will be
chosen by her constituents-I wish her the best-to represent them
in the House of Commons. She is the one who told the House not so
long ago that Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day was the official holiday of
all French speaking Canadians and that Canadians of other
linguistic groups should join the francophones, wherever they are,
to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and honour the francophones
of our country. Some members opposite laughed at that proposal;
they scorned it.
On June 23-the Sunday before Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day when
we will celebrate in my region, in Alfred-I hope Ms. Copps will
have been elected and will be my guest, if her constituents have
chosen her, and I hope she, an anglophone from Ontario, will join
me in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, in Alfred, to celebrate with
the francophones from my area Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, the
official holiday of French speaking Canadians, as it was known
originally and as it is still known where I come from.
In my region, anglophones celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day
alongside francophones, because it is an expression of national
unity. The Franco-Ontarian flag and the Canadian flag fly side by
side, evidence of the contribution made by French speaking
Canadians and of the wish of all Canadians to join with
francophones to celebrate this great country, Canada.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have been
listening to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
who is a good friend of mine, but I really have a hard time
3836
understanding how he can suggest that the Bloc Quebecois despises
francophones, when in fact it is trying to defend them.
Let me remind him that the one who showed the most contempt
for francophones is one of his former leaders, Pierre Elliott
Trudeau. In my view, this man is the one who had the most
contempt for the French speaking community in Canada. Why do I
say that? Because, with his multiculturalism policy, he has tried to
trivialize francophones. He put them on the same level as all
newcomers. That is the policy that has been the most scornful of
francophones ever, and it was put forward by the hon. member's
former leader, Mr. Trudeau.
When you put on the same footing the francophones in Canada
and a small Montreal Italian community-for whom I have a great
deal of respect-you are showing contempt for one of the founding
peoples in Canada. Concerning the problem with promoting French
in Canada, we should perhaps pause and as ourselves if this has not
been one of the main reasons why French has been losing ground,
as confirmed by Statistics Canada. Multiculturalism has been the
most scornful policy for the francophones in Canada.
Canada is now said to be multicultural. It is no longer a country
with two nations and two peoples. This is the doing of his former
leader, Mr. Trudeau.
Two weeks ago, I attended a meeting of the Standing Committee
on Official Languages. Ministers make nice speeches. The Prime
Minister issues nice statements saying that French has to be
protected in Canada, that it is useful, etc. Nice speeches, and nice
statements. But if we stop and think about the resources the federal
government puts into the promotion of French in Canada, it is quite
another story.
(1620)
I will not name names but there are even some deputy ministers
who find that francophones are rather a nuisance in Canada. When
a deputy minister responsible for the promotion and
implementation of the Official languages Act thinks that way, we
have a problem.
What I am saying is that the rhetoric and declarations of love are
there, but when the time comes to give ourselves the means to
protect and promote the French language in Canada, nothing
happens. That is what representatives of the Association des
francophones hors-Québec told the official languages committee
not more than two weeks ago.
When the time comes to give ourselves the means to protect and
promote French in Canada, then there is a total blank. The minister
should at least have the decency to fire a deputy minister who does
not abide by the rules. In many cases, the ministers themselves are
hand in glove with the deputy ministers who are supposed to
enforce laws and regulations.
When it comes to the French language, rhetoric and love
declarations are there, but not the means. It is quite obvious. The
very people whose job it is to promote French have said so.
While the Bloc Quebecois is sincere in saying that francophones
outside Quebec must be protected, it is a shame that this
degenerates into a political debate and that we are scorned for
wanting to promote and safeguard the Francophonie in North
America. I would go as far as to say that we want to save not only
the Canadian Francophonie but the North American Francophonie.
Because we are surrounded by an English speaking society, we
must give ourselves the tools we need to protect French in North
America.
In Canada, nothing is really done to protect francophones outside
Quebec and this is what we are saying to the government. We are
asking it to stop its rhetoric and to start giving francophones the
tools to survive in Canada.
This is what I wanted to say to the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, whom I respect a lot, by the way. I
have known him since 1984; we have been here, together, for 12
years. We went to Paris and we spoke French. I know his wife. He
is a good friend. But the member has to be careful when he uses
words like ``scorn''. Maybe he should look at the situation within
his own ranks.
The most influential and scornful man I have known and who did
much harm to the promotion and the safeguard of French in Canada
is his former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think the members opposite are
applauding a little too soon. I think if they examined this with more
objectivity, they would recognize-as I do and, I hope, as all
Canadians also do-that Pierre Elliott Trudeau did a lot for
francophones across the country and that he was one of the greatest
prime ministers of the history of Canada, if not the greatest.
Yes, Mr. Trudeau struck a serious blow to the separatists, and
maybe that enrages the member opposite because Mr. Trudeau did
a very good job as Prime Minister, and that offends certain
members across the way. They would have preferred that he failed.
They would have preferred a weaker Prime Minister, but that is not
what they had. They had great men like Mr. Trudeau and the
present Prime Minister and other very good prime ministers,
especially from the Liberal Party.
As we all know, Mr. Trudeau became a member of Parliament at
the time the Laurendeau-Dunton report was made public. He was
the Minister of Justice. He was responsible for the introduction of
3837
an official languages act. Once more, this enrages the separatists
because Mr. Trudeau was too successful in this regard, it destroys
the separatist agenda. Mr. Trudeau later recognized the
contribution of the multicultural community. I acknowledge it and
am delighted by it.
The member opposite claims the multiculturalism policy is
identical to the official languages policy. I am sorry, but since the
member has been here for a long time, he should know that that is
totally false.
(1625)
What official status does the multiculturalism policy have in this
House or elsewhere in the federal institutions? None, and that is a
well known fact, but nonetheless, the ethnic communities deserve
to be promoted. I think that the hon. members from the Bloc and
their friends in Quebec City should be very cautious when they talk
like that about ethnic communities. I remember some statements
on ethnic groups made by Mr. Landry, Mr. Parizeau and others. But
we will not get into that.
Mr. Trudeau also worked very hard for the recognition of
linguistic minority groups. We know that it is thanks to his
government that groups like the French Canadian associations of
my own province, the Acadian federations and others received
public funds to ensure the development of French language
minority groups. I am happy that the hon. member for Longueuil
reminded me of the excellent work done by Mr. Trudeau. That
allows me to speak about it in this House. Maybe that was not what
the hon. member intended when he mentioned Mr. Trudeau's name,
but the fact is that it allowed me to thank him publicly for his
excellent work.
An hon. member: Do not forget patriation.
Mr. Boudria: The hon. member also mentioned the patriation of
the Constitution, thanks to which we now have section 23 in the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Once again, I thank the
hon. member for reminding me of other elements of the excellent
policy of Mr. Trudeau.
Mr. Dubé: You need more help. There was also the War
Measures Act.
Mr. Boudria: The hon. members across the way are welcome to
continue their heckling, as they allow me to praise all the good
Liberal policies in language and many other areas.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is the
following: the hon. member for Shefford-employment centres.
[English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): A
point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you would find unanimous
consent for the following motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of private members' hour today on Motion M-166 in
the name of the member for St. Albert, that a recorded vote on that motion be
deemed to have been requested and that the said recorded vote, notwithstanding
our Standing Orders, be deferred until next Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I just
heard what the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, a
francophone, had to say, and I can tell you that it would be less
painful to swallow razor blades than to hear his remarks. He is a
token francophone who has spent all his life in the wings of power,
who has been taking advantage of the system, who has been eating
tasty little dishes prepared by the Governor General's chef for the
past 15 years.
However, in return, since any privilege requires something in
return, he has to reassure his people, restrain them, make them
admit that their situation is enviable after all. We have always
had French Canadians of this calibre since Étienne Brûlé, and
we still do.
In 1742-43, La Vérendrye and his two sons left to explore
western Canada. The expedition split at the Great Lakes head. They
scattered over a territory ranging from west of the Appalachians to
the Rockies and from the Mississippi to the far north.
(1630)
These few Frenchmen are the ancestors of what became the
Metis people of North America. They are the ancestors of Louis
Riel, Ovide Mercredi, Chief Fontaine and possibly several
members of this House, including the Secretary of State for
Training and Youth and the member for St. Boniface.
Between 1880 and 1910, about 2 million Quebecers, facing an
unbearable financial situation, decided to leave Quebec for New
England. The number of their descendants is estimated at about 10
million today. Let us try to imagine what Quebec would be with a
population of 17 million.
3838
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Eastern
Europe were given lands and what they needed to start a farm in
the Prairies and in western Canada. Each time the official
opposition has raised language issues in this House, the
government has asked its francophones from outside Quebec to
do its dirty work. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
has just given us the best example of that.
When we refer to these historical facts, these token francophones
tell us that it is in the past. True. However, how can we rectify a
situation if we are not allowed to refer to history? Did the Governor
General himself not say last week in this House that those who
choose to ignore the past risk repeating their mistakes?
This morning, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration gave
us a list of various programs designed to help francophones outside
Quebec. As if money rules everything. With her money, the
minister thinks she can strike a balance, break the phenomenon of
assimilation.
That is not where the problem is. Assimilation will stop when
francophones have understood their origins are as noble as the
anglophones', that there is no shame in being of French origin. The
government should, in translating its good faith into action,
promote the notion of pride, somewhat as it does when it pours
millions of dollars of public money into promoting national unity.
In part VII of the Official Languages Act, the federal
government of the day made a commitment to enhance the vitality
of the English and French linguistic minorities in Canada. What
has it done in this regard. Zilch. Subsidies and injections of funds
will not advance the cause of French in Canada; it will take a
resurgence of pride in one's French origins.
Let us start by putting a stop to changing place names to erase all
trace of the French presence in North America, and one that came
before the English presence. Why not give the Peace River its old
name of rivière de la Paix and the Red River, its original name of
rivière Rouge? If I asked the members of the Reform Party and
perhaps three quarters of the members of the party in power where
the rivière Rouge got its name, they would not be able to tell me.
How many names like Grand Portage, lac Lacroix, rivière à la
Pluie, lac à la Pluie, portage du Rat, île de l'Élan still exist in
western Canada?
The problem with the francophones outside Quebec is that most
of them have lost respect for their language. A combination of
disdain, derision and intolerance have made many francophones
feel second class or inferior because of their French heritage. Many
francophones outside Quebec suffer from the victim syndrome.
Psychologists agree that women and children who have been
sexually assaulted end up feeling guilty for something or some
failing and turning the aggression they suffered on themselves.
(1635)
The only Reform member of French origin is the only one of his
party to have never, in close to three years, even tried to say a word
in French.
The member for St. Boniface speaks French and a very good
French at that, but he reserves this language for instances when he
is called upon to do a number on his colleagues from the Bloc
Quebecois.
This phenomenon also exists inside Quebec, it is not particular
to the rest of Canada. A francophone called Leduc, in my riding,
who used Canadian flags in huge amounts, told me during a
discussion we had in my office: ``All my life I have been ashamed
of being a francophone. It hindered me in every endeavour. I was
passed over because I was a francophone. Wolfe should
have''-and he was quite adamant-``kicked all them damned
Frenchies off Cape Diamond in 1760, and there would be no more
French in Canada''. This is what he said in my office, in front of a
witness.
A resident of St. Boniface told me something similar last
summer, as I was meditating on Louis Riel's grave during a stay in
that town. He was French speaking and derived tremendous
benefits from the fact, from what he told me. He could go to Ottawa
two or three times a year, all expenses paid. He had fun. I incurred
the wrath of somebody who was really feeling second rate inside.
If the government wants to maintain French as a common
language, it must take vigorous means to revive in the minds of
French Canadians the pride it tried for so long to extinguish. This is
really the meaning that must be given to Section 41, Part VII, of the
Official Languages Act.
Contrary to what the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
has suggested, members of the Bloc Quebecois have no political
advantage in proposing the motion introduced today. No Bloc
candidate is running for elections outside Quebec, not even in the
riding of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. What we
want to do is stop francophones outside Quebec from being
anglicized, slowly but surely.
The survival of francophones in Quebec, like the survival of
anglophones outside of Quebec, is contingent upon measures that
will be taken in order to protect them, or at least to protect
themselves. This is the true meaning of the motion of the Bloc,
introduced by my friend, the member for Québec-Est. We will not
let ourselves be pushed, we will not let ourselves be told stupidities
like those I heard earlier, in the name of what, nobody knows, but
inspired, we believe, by the possibility of profit, of privileges.
I see the member for Vancouver Quadra. I would be surprised to
hear him disagree, if I were to tell him what the word
``utilitarianism'' means. It is a theory developed by the British
monarchy as a means to maintain itself in its colonies. ``The King
can do no
3839
wrong'', do you remember that, my hon. frind from Vancouver
Quadra?
``The King can do no wrong'', in other words, the King can do as
he pleases. Everything was allowed, including turning a man into a
woman, almost. The member for Vancouver Quadra agrees with
me. According to this utilitarianism principle, colonies were set up,
privileges were created and people became what were called
``white niggers of America''. There was always a foreman,
someone who dominated the others. This has been the case in South
Africa, in India, everywhere, here too.
Privileges were granted in order to maintain their presence. I am
sure I will be asked a question on that. I will conclude my
explanations in my answer.
(1640)
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, can I put a
question to the member for Chambly? He certainly remembers the
friendly agreement between Premier Lesage and Premier Robarts
of Ontario, who was a constitutional adviser at the time. That
agreement was respectful of the territoriality principle and it was
carried out by all of Mr. Lesage's successors. It stated that the
protection of the minorities' rights within each province should be
entrusted to the province.
In this sense, I think we should admit that Prime Minister
Trudeau, who maybe deserves a bit more recognition on the part of
members across the way, and whom we should trust as we used to,
had that same attitude concerning Bill 22, the censorial bill,
preventing disputes before the Supreme Court of Canada, except in
some rare instances.
Does the member agree that today, this principle of territoriality
must make way for the principle of nationality or personality-how
should I say-under the common law or otherwise? We must
recognize the undercurrent we find today in linguistic and cultural
policies. Maybe things have to be different now.
Mr. Lebel: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver
Quadra who is trying to drag me into the constitutional quagmire of
1964.
I can tell you that the territoriality of Quebecers stops at their
present borders. One of the consequences of the quiet revolution
was, for instance, that French Canadians, francophones who saw
themselves first as French Canadians, dropped this expression
nearly overnight, to identify themselves with their territory, thus
becoming Quebecers.
We let English Canadians, who wanted it and were more
numerous, have the term Canadian, For the second time in 200
years or so, we retreated into our territory. This is the reason why
today we call ourselves Canadians.
We even let you have our national anthem, which was first
written in French. You never sing the second and third verses, you
would look too silly. You sing the first one because it is neutral
enough and applies to everybody. If you ever sang the other verses,
you would change the national anthem post haste.
But when it comes to territoriality, as the member for Vancouver
Quadra said-I have a lot of respect for him; in those days, he was
quite a distinguished advisor on such matters, including to Quebec
premiers; I have nothing against him, he understands a lot of
things.
If only all the anglophones in Canada and in the present
government could understand as much as he does, we would not
have as many problems and we might even be able to reach some
kind of partnership agreement without too much trouble.
Unfortunately, their frustrations and the blinkers they have on both
sides of their heads prevent them from seeing the way. They can
only see the ruts in front of them.
In closing, I come back to the notion of utilitarianism. The
British government maintained its presence in the colonies by
granting privileges. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra
knows, it was not allowed to take legal action against an
anglophone in Quebec after the conquest, in 1760. It was not
possible to take a case to court. A francophone could not bring
legal action against an anglophone.
In 1808, Ezékiel Hart, a Jew, was elected to the Quebec
Legislative Assembly as the member for Trois-Rivières. They
forbade him to take his seat, in 1808. This came straight from
London. It is his son who defended the Patriotes in 1837. There
were anglophone patriots, but there were also francophone patriots.
Few people wonder today how it came about that two brothers,
the Nelsons, anglophones, fought with many others alongside the
Patriotes in 1837.
(1645)
They wanted a responsible government, something the British
Crown denied them because of its utilitarianism. Amusingly, they
got a vertically striped flag almost identical to the ones of the
Italian or French republics.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
tempted to use the rich historic seam that my colleague is
exploiting, but I will bring the House back to the consideration of
the actual grievances of francophones, those we have become used
to calling francophones outside Quebec and Acadians, their actual
grievances towards this federation.
However, by way of introduction, I will point out how the history
of the ``Canayens'', who became French Canadians-before a
group of them became Quebecers-is one of being torn between
the will to survive and the daily heroism that is impossible and that
explains assimilation when it takes place rapidly, and this heart-
3840
breaking will to achieve full development and finally have their
own country.
Telling the history of Canadians in North America is extremely
fascinating, although this history is sometimes tragic. This
afternoon, I will talk about a tragic part of it.
I would like to point out that, for francophones living in minority
situations, the inability to benefit from manpower training or
manpower adjustment measures in their own language is a not
inconsiderable assimilation factor. I did say ``inability''.
The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du
Canada and the Conseil canadien de la coopération formed a
committee on this issue of manpower adjustment measures. The
mandate of this committee was to establish a master plan in favour
of the development of francophone and acadian communities,
while considering their specificity.
In its report, this committee assessed the situation of
francophones everywhere in Canada and came to various
conclusions that are very interesting for the purpose of our
discussion today. First-and this is the committee's
conclusion-there is no unique situation, but many different
situations among the problems facing francophones in various
environments-we are still talking about francophones living in
minority situations; if the weakness of francophones was evident in
the past through their absence from large businesses with more
than 500 employees, we have to admit today that their presence in
job creating small businesses may be considered, if not as an asset,
at least as the end of this weakness; francophones living in
urbanized areas have a higher education and make a better living,
but their assimilation rate is higher than among those who live
outside urban areas, in environments where the economy is more
resource-oriented.
I take this opportunity to point out that, in this case, the finding
of assimilation is not made by Bloc members for allegedly perverse
reasons, but by this same committee, which, being aware of the
stakes, wants to find out what conditions are needed so that
francophones who live in minority situations can stop assimilating
at this accelerated pace and live decently in French.
(1650)
The committee noted that francophones are less educated, and
that is big problem in a knowledge-based economy. According to
the report, there has been some improvement in the past few years,
but the level of schooling of francophones remains substantially
lower than that of anglophones across the country. In several
francophone areas, more than 30 per cent of the population is
illiterate, and this rate is closer to 50 per cent in depressed areas.
The committee noted that more francophones than anglophones
have seasonal jobs. It noted that, from 1977 to 1992, the income
gap between anglophones and francophones across Canada
increased from 9.9 per cent to 14 per cent, in spite of the fact it
actually went down from 8.2 per cent to 1.9 per cent in Quebec.
This goes to show how substantial the increase was outside
Quebec. The evil separatists are not the ones saying this. This is the
assessment the joint committee on francophones outside Quebec
made of this situation, as stubborn and cruel as the facts may be.
These facts clearly seem to indicate that specific measures to
help francophone Canadians in a minority situation are required
and urgently required. Let us tell it as it is: to date, their uniqueness
in the particular area of manpower training and adjustment has not
been recognized by the federal government.
We will recall that, in December, the Commissioner of Official
Languages investigated the professional training services offered
by the Government of Ontario and reported as follows: ``Our
investigation has determined that, because of the limited character
of the offer and the delays in getting in French courses, Canada
employment centres often refer francophones for English courses.
It has confirmed the existence of a qualitative and quantitative
difference between the training provided in French and the training
provided in English''.
In fact, according to the report, based on the money spent on
manpower training in Ontario between 1991 and 1993, $80 million,
or nearly 5 per cent of the total amount, should have gone to
francophones. As for Acadians, they should have received $50
million. And I quote: ``All Franco-Ontarian stakeholders from the
labour community unanimously agree that they did not have access
to one-tenth of these resources and that the provinces did not
respect either the letter or the spirit of these agreements. Federal
resources were simply diverted from their main target, keeping
francophone and Acadian communities beyond the reach of key
Canadian labour development strategies and taking away their
manoeuvring room in assuming control over their own economic
development.''
The committee also identified what it sees as the concepts and
key principles underlying these proposals regarding, among other
things, labour and the denial of rights, which played a large part in
the chronic undereducation of community members and forced
them to play catch-up, a situation the committee finds alarming.
The illiteracy rates recorded in these communities are unacceptable
in an industrialized country like Canada.
Job training is a basic right. It is essential that the francophone
and Acadian communities have control over their own economic
space. Other essential elements are an active supply of services in
French in order to create a demand, a network of francophone
clusters, the support of existing forces and full enforcement of the
Official Languages Act. Those are the findings in the report of the
committee consisting of the Fédération canadienne des commu-
3841
nautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Conseil
canadien de la coopération.
(1655)
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with these findings and will support
the demands made by this committee. If the Bloc Quebecois
supports these demands, it is because it seems obvious that words
and goodwill are not enough. Contrary to what the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said today, it is not enough to believe in
it.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I guess it
is always annoying to find a bilingual member from a province
where-according to the Bloc Quebecois-French is not spoken.
As you can see, I am not a francophone, but I am a francophile. It
is not by chance or by accident that some members of my
generation can express themselves in both official languages.
Unfortunately, I arrived here a bit late because I was held up by
my work in committee. I would like to ask the hon. member how
she can claim to help francophone minorities outside Quebec,
considering the Bloc Quebecois' proposal, ideology and
philosophy is to separate Quebec from these minorities? What kind
of leadership does she think the Bloc can give to protect French
language minorities outside Quebec, if its goal is to leave Canada?
Mrs. Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as the person responsible for
this issue, I had the privilege of representing the Parti Quebecois on
several occasions before Acadian or francophone communities
outside Quebec. I was often asked that question and I would always
give two answers.
First, for young francophones who are part of a minority, it
would be an extremely interesting and stimulating example to see a
French language country developing and thriving. It is very hard
for these young people to preserve their language, as witnessed by
the fact that they tend to use it less, and who can blame them,
considering how hard it is to do so? Certainly not me.
The second answer is that a sovereign Quebec will be in a good
position to sign reciprocity agreements, to make it easier for
francophones interested in studying in Quebec, etc. For example,
we should not underestimate the effect of the support given to New
Brunswick by France and Belgium.
Indeed, if you ask these communities, you will find out that it is
not negligible. As for us, given that the North American
francophonie will import us, if you will, and that we will also be an
important model for francophones and francophiles across North
America, we think we will do an even better job at fulfilling our
role.
(1700)
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, our francophone communities in Canada have,
over the past 25 years, acquired a maturity and an assurance that
our colleagues in the opposition do not seem to suspect. They want
and they can take into their hands their own future and, to do that,
they have a new tool, the Canada-communities agreements, which
are proof of continued direct support by the Canadian government.
The needs of official language minority communities, like those
of any other groups of Canadians, are increasing, whereas the
resources of the Department of Canadian Heritage, like those of
every other department, are decreasing. The challenge is to fill the
gap between needs and resources.
In 1994-95, the Department of Canadian Heritage dealt head on
with this challenge, which was all the bigger because the
department could not have disregarded 25 years of close
co-operation to impose some procedures to communities.
As it realized that it could not and should not stop its action, the
department undertook to redefine its direct support to official
language communities while trying to find with them new ways to
operate in order to be more efficient than ever.
The exercise was launched with the release, in May 1994, of a
discussion paper dealing with a redefinition of the relations
between the department and its client groups to enhance confidence
in the future. This was essentially meant to redefine the relations
between the department and the official language communities on a
basis that reflects the maturity acquired over the years. The
department established a new partnership that would preserve the
major contributions of the past and would allow the communities to
continue to grow. All that in spite of the fact that the public funding
could not keep increasing as it did in the past.
Keeping in mind its constitutional and legislative commitments
and its obligations in other such areas as, for example,
interdepartmental joint action, the department proposed to the
communities various possible solutions that could lead to new
co-operation and funding mechanisms taking into account the ever
decreasing resources.
Consultations were held with communities in all the provinces
and territories and with national French language organizations. A
lot of people took part in these consultations, including many
community organizations.
Some points in particular were raised. For instance,
organizations recognized the need to act very soon considering the
new budget realities; communities said they were ready to explore
a new partnership with the Department of Canadian Heritage as
well as to consult more and set real priorities; they expressed
consider-
3842
able interest for mechanisms based on an enhanced managing role
for the communities; the organizations recognized that to apply the
same budget cuts everywhere would not be efficient and that we
needed a better approach; they thought this was a necessary and
useful process only if we found mechanisms to meet the new
development needs of the communities.
These francophone minorities have shown great maturity and a
deep sense of responsibility. Instead of feeling sorry for
themselves, as my hon. colleagues opposite would have hoped for
it seems, they worked with the Department of Canadian Heritage to
develop the terms of a new co-operative approach, the
Canada-community agreements.
(1705)
These agreements help to better take into consideration the
different needs of the official language minorities from various
provinces and various areas. These differences do have an impact
on the ways to ensure the development and growth of the
communities.
Increased co-operation will help the communities to develop a
vision based on their needs and to reach a consensus over their
priorities in terms of development. The Department of Canadian
Heritage subsidies will be allocated in accordance with this vision.
The department can thus ensure that its support goes towards
issues viewed as priorities by the communities themselves, while at
the same time involving the communities in the realization of
projects and the attainment of results. By turning to those who have
the greatest and most genuine stake in the matter, the department
achieves better results.
There is no doubt that the results thus obtained, whether in the
fields of culture, communications, the economy, education, or
whatever, make it possible for our francophone communities
outside Quebec not just to survive, but to affirm their vitality
throughout the country. Thanks to their schools, their artists, their
business people and their institutions, they are increasingly
recognized as ``value added'' for their province or territory, where,
furthermore, they are making quite a name for themselves.
Our government will therefore be supporting the francophone
economic forum to be held in Beauce this fall, which will showcase
their energy and desire to excel in the economic field, by creating
exchanges and sharing their experiences with francophones
throughout the country. Taking charge of their own destiny and
taking it one step further are another sign of their vitality.
The Department of Canadian Heritage also recognizes that the
consolidation of the communities' long term development requires
that efforts be made to increase their independence from
government funding by promoting the development of their
capacity to themselves fund any measures they wish to take.
The efforts of the Department of Canadian Heritage will
therefore not stop with the signing of the Canada-communities
agreements. Our government remains strongly committed to
providing to official language minority communities the support
and the tools they need to continue to develop and flourish.
By devising a new way of managing their relationship, official
language minority communities and the Department of Canadian
Heritage have one more tool at their disposal to fill the gap between
their respective expectations and resources.
Needless to say, the success of this initiative largely depends on
the spirit of co-operation that has driven the two parties concerned
for a quarter of a century now.
In my province of New Brunswick, the federal government's
commitment has allowed the Acadian community to develop and
flourish at exceptional levels. The federal government supports our
cultural groups, our museums, our universities, our community
associations, our school-community centres, and so on.
Therefore, it is very disappointing to see that members opposite
continue to ignore such determination and such goodwill and to be
blind to the increasingly vigorous presence of francophone
communities outside Quebec.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to listen to my colleague, my
neighbour from across the bay. I should explain to the public, and
particularly to the hon. members in the House, that right across
from my riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, across
Chaleur Bay on the south shore, you find the distinguished
gentleman who is among us today.
(1710)
I should point out that there are very close links between the
Gaspé peninsula, the Magdalen Islands, and of course the Acadian
people who are rather well represented here in the House. There are
Acadians to be found not only in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, all
the maritimes, but also in the province of Quebec and elsewhere in
Canada.
I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary describe some of
the changes that have taken place in his province. The words of
some of the opposition members have revealed their ignorance of
the existence of a vibrant community, one that is working hard to
improve its future. I feel that they have a most promising future,
moreover.
I can tell you that a great deal is being accomplished in New
Brunswick in connection with multimedia and the information
3843
highway. I must admit there are even some Quebec government
ministers who are envious of what the francophone community of
New Brunswick has accomplished. Unfortunately for us, although
their programs have been working very well, I feel, for a quarter of
a century now, we have not been able to adapt them.
I have been listening to the hon. member for Mercier, who was
telling us that an independent sovereign Quebec will put in place a
program to assist francophone communities, since it has a Quebec
model. I would point out that the hon. member for Mercier served
as a minister in the Parti Quebecois government during the 1980s.
And you know that the PQ model, then and now, is openness to
the cultural communities. In other words, the percentage of
allophone and anglophone public servants, which has been 1 per
cent for the past ten years, is to be brought to close to 5 per cent,
which is a proportion equivalent to the allophone and anglophone
population in Quebec.
Unfortunately, hardly 2 per cent of the Quebec public service are
anglophones and allophones. I do not believe that the model
proposed by the hon. member for Mercier could be applied to the
whole francophone population of Canada. I believe we should look
at the successes of New Brunswick which has come a long way in
the past 25 years.
I had the opportunity to discuss this with former Premier
Robichaud who sits in the other place. I respect his work and I
admire the efforts made by the Government of New Brunswick to
enhance the image and role of the Acadian community in this
province. In my opinion, this is the model to follow.
We must not forget that the Gaspé Peninsula and northern New
Brunswick have fairly close ties. I believe that the exchanges
between families and fishermen now extend to business.
Increasingly, we see joint ventures with several well-known figures
of the business world in northern New Brunswick.
I believe several developments occurred in recent years. I do not
want to use up all the time I have, but I would ask the member to
explain to us the changes he has witnessed since his childhood. I
would ask him to describe what has happened and what it still
going on in New Brunswick.
(1715)
I think we might apply this model not only in Quebec but
throughout Canada. This is why I look forward to the speech by the
parliamentary secretary.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I am sorry, but
the five minute question and comment period following the hon.
member's speech has expired.
Resuming debate with the hon. member for
Argenteuil-Papineau.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Madam
Speaker, listening to the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I thought he would continue
right to the end of the debate.
Ottawa is the capital of Canada, and yet the rate of assimilation
of francophones there is 30 per cent. I think we have to stop
denying the problem and take some action to stop the
disappearance of francophones outside Quebec.
Before I give you the figures on the assimilation of francophones
in Ottawa-Carleton and Vanier, it is important to give you a brief
background on Canada's capital and its founding.
The city is located on the Ottawa River, on the eastern side of the
border between Ontario and Quebec, some 160 kilometres from
Montreal. I believe the word Ottawa comes from the name of a
tribe and means perhaps ``do business''. In 1827, the town, already
of some size, was known as Bytown and the City of Hull was
known as Wrightstown.
On the last day of 1857, officials in the colonial office
announced that the city of Ottawa would be the national capital.
Construction of the Parliament buildings began in 1859 and was
completed in 1866. The city became the capital of the new
Dominion in 1867.
In 1949, the federal government was the principal employer. For
some 30 years, the federal public service grew by leaps and bounds.
Until quite recently, government services were concentrated
essentially in Ottawa, which became a tourist centre making
tourism today its second largest industry. Annually, Ottawa
welcomes some 2.5 million visitors.
Generally speaking, the Protestant and English community
settled in Upper Town while the Catholic and French community
settled in Lower Town. It went the same way for religious
establishments, that is churches, schools, hospitals, as well as for
ethnic groups and even political organizations.
Ottawa, at the end of the 19th century, became the centre of
Catholic and Protestant Orangemen activism. Being the
Franco-Ontarian capital, it was at the very heart of the language
conflict. In 1927, the secret order of Jacques Cartier, to counter the
Orangemen's influence and promote advancement of francophones
in the civil service, was founded.
3844
There was a time when francophones could stay inside their
community in Lower Town, since they had their own French
schools, cultural life and economy.
Today, the assimilation rate is the following: the proportion of
French speaking residents in Ottawa-Carleton dropped to 16 per
cent in 1991, compared with 19 per cent in 1981. In Vanier, a town
with a French majority, French speaking residents went down to 52
per cent in 1991 from 63 per cent in 1981. Now, only 47 per cent of
Vanier residents still speak French at home. In Lower Town, the
francophone stronghold, 60 per cent of residents described French
as their mother language in 1981, but there were only 40 per cent of
them in 1991.
The fact that the community was decreasing this way led to the
closure of five schools: Guigues, Duhamel, Routhier, Brébeuf and
Bolton. Sainte-Anne's school had a one year reprieve thanks to the
support of my colleague for Québec-Est. In the whole of Ottawa,
the proportion of people having French as their mother language
dropped from 19 to 16 per cent, while those who still speak French
at home account for only 11 per cent.
(1720)
Ottawa is Canada's capital. This city should reflect the linguistic
duality. Given the fact that English is the official working
language, the federal government becomes an assimilation agent
for francophones and has a direct impact on the assimilation of the
francophone communities of Ottawa-Carleton-Vanier.
In a press conference given on October 17, 1995, my colleague,
the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata who was the critic of the
official opposition for Canadian heritage at that time, criticized the
governments of the anglophone provinces and the federal
government.
She accused them of enforcing linguistic policies that did
nothing to slow down the assimilation of francophones outside
Quebec and have led to the erosion of Quebec's cultural specificity.
She concluded by reaffirming the support of the Bloc Quebecois
for the francophone and Acadian communities. She also mentioned
that her party had made specific commitments with respect to them
and approved the proposal of the Partenaires pour la souveraineté
advocating the creation of a commission, whose mandate it is to
investigate and make recommendations concerning the promotion
of rights, as well as the preservation of the culture of francophone
and Acadian communities in Canada, and that of the anglophone
community in Quebec.
The federal government has the gall to describe Ottawa as a
bilingual city based on the size of its francophone population. In
1968, the Canadian government passed the Official Languages Act.
The City of Ottawa only became bilingual in 1970.
Even if the Ontario government claimed to offer more and more
services in French during the ensuing years, Franco-Ontarians
always found them insufficient.
In 1976, a movement called ``C'est le temps'' came into being.
Hundreds of motorists in Ottawa refused to renew their licence
plates because the forms were only in English. Twenty-seven
francophones spent a few hours behind bars for refusing to pay a
fine. The government finally came out with bilingual forms.
In 1986, Ontario passed Bill 8 dealing with services in French.
This Act grants francophones an important right. They can receive
from the provincial government services in French in the Ottawa
region and in 21 other French-speaking regions in Ontario.
I want to congratulate all the francophones outside Quebec who
have been fighting for their culture. I admire the tenacity and
courage with which they are trying to slow down the ever
increasing threat of assimilation.
Unfortunately, reality is different. In spite of the continuous fight
put up by francophones in Ottawa and elsewhere, Ottawa, the
nation's capital, is far from bilingual. Journalist Michel Vastel
wrote an article for L'Actualité entitled ``The capital, bilingual?
Only the walls speak French there''.
He described, among other things, the situation of the movie
industry in Ottawa, saying that in Vanier, a small francophone
municipality of 18,000 people living in the very heart of the
capital, there were eight theatres of the Cineplex Odeon chain and
they all presented movies in English most of the time. In
Gloucester, where one third of the population is French speaking,
Famous Players made a commitment to present French movies in
order to obtain its licence, but in its six theatres, movies are in
English all the time.
Madam Speaker, since you are saying I must conclude, I will just
say that clearly the national capital is not bilingual, in spite of what
members of the federal government and the Reform Party claim.
The Bloc Quebecois wants to counter the growing assimilation of
Acadians and francophones outside Quebec. The motion by my
colleague, the member for Québec-Est, depicts reality as it is and
must be agreed to.
(1725)
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker, once
again I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. member
who is from a party who wants to divide the country, a party with a
philosophy, an ideology. I am neutral in this debate because, even
though I sit on the government side, I remain a pure product of
Canadian bilingualism.
The hon. members from the Bloc Quebecois do not like the fact
that some French speaking people become English speaking people
and vice versa. The hon. member quotes statistics and tries to show
that the fate of francophones outside Quebec is very serious. I must
say this question to the hon. member: If you did separate from
Canada, you would be backing off and you would abandon the
francophones outside Quebec like me. I find a bit disgraceful for
you to claim to be there to protect and defend the interests of the
3845
francophones outside Quebec when your agenda goes totally in the
opposite direction. So, I ask this of the hon. member: When will
you finally change your policy, whose result would be to leave the
francophones outside Quebec to fend for themselves, into one that
would help them?
Mr. Dumas: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer the
member's question, especially since I lived in Montreal in the years
1935-1940. I lived in the western part of Montreal, where it was
impossible then to be served in French.
If Quebec does not achieve sovereignty, it may very well meet
with the same fate as Louisiana did. I am sorry that minorities are
in difficulty. But the fate that awaits minorities outside Quebec is
the same fate that awaits Quebec.
I think premier Lévesque, at one time, talked about a reciprocal
agreement if Quebec ever became independent, saying that if the
rest of Canada protected francophone minorities, Quebec would do
the same for the anglophone minority. That is why I do not think
Quebec sovereignty will jeopardize minorities in the rest of
Canada.
Mr. McTeague: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have
another chance to speak. Although the member spoke of things that
took place in the thirties, the members across the way and I are
members for the nineties. It would be very dangerous to have a
form of blackmail. To my way of thinking, making threats about
not protecting anglophones in Quebec if the same protection is not
given to francophones outside Quebec really illustrates the crazy
thinking of the Bloc Quebecois.
I would like to ask a question somewhat different from the first
one I put. It is simply this: Given that, in the Toronto area, more
and more people can be seen speaking French to each other, and
given that the political, and perhaps even the economic, pendulum
is in the process of swinging the other way in that same area, and
that it is now the in thing to speak two languages, does the member
not recognize the importance of French, not just in Quebec, but
elsewhere in the country?
Mr. Dumas: Madam Speaker, I will simply say to the member
that the reason I spoke about the period from 1930 to 1940 was
because the situation seems to be going back to what it was during
those years. This is because of the many immigrants arriving in
Montreal, who usually tend to adopt the English language and
culture. I think that is how I could answer him, given that you are
telling me my time is up.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 5.30
p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the
motion have expired.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
3845
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from May 17, 1996, consideration of the
motion: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
introduce amendments to the Financial Administration Act
requiring all departments and agencies to table in the House of
Commons a specific response to the auditor general's report on
their activities, including time frames within which corrective
action will be taken regarding any shortcomings or failures of
administration identified by the auditor general; and such reports
should be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
and any other relevant standing committees.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion tabled
by the hon. member for St. Albert. We know he has been a member
of the public accounts committee since the opening of the 35th
Parliament. In fact, he is the only member of the committee who
has been there since the start.
The hon. member for St. Albert has then had the opportunity to
see how the public accounts committee works and how the
different chapters of the annual report and the periodic reports of
the auditor general are examined. In tabling this motion, the
member for St. Albert seeks to maximize the impact of the report
of the auditor general in terms of accountability.
Since becoming the chair of the public accounts committee, last
March, I have seen how this committee has an important role to
play, since it has to ensure public funds are well spent. To achieve
this goal, the committee can rely on the excellent work done by the
Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels, through his reporting
to Parliament on the management of public finances.
To that effect, I would like to remind the House that the public
accounts committee is currently in a deadlock, because the Liberal
majority refuses to examine the two cases that were criticized by
the auditor general in his May 7 report, that is, the two family trusts
that were able to transfer $2 billion tax free. I want to reiterate that
I fully support the Auditor General of Canada, unlike the hon.
member for Willowdale, who chairs the finance committee, and
who mocked and ridiculed the evidence recently given in all
honesty by the auditor.
That is the role of the committee. The committee must try to find
solutions to improve the management of government finances. It is
responsible for warning Parliament either by holding hearings or
by tabling reports in the House when taxpayers' dollars are not
spent in the most effective and efficient way possible.
3846
I can say that the committee takes this role very seriously. In a
little over two years, the committee, chaired by a member of the
official opposition, has tabled close to 20 reports in this House. It
has held meetings on a wide variety of topics, ranging from
assistance programs for seniors to the Office of the Superintendent
of Financial Institutions.
The committee recently dealt with the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency. The auditor general recommended, among
other things, that the agency make its program objectives clearer
and easier to measure. Since the answers I got during the meeting
were rather vague, I asked the agency's president, Norman Spector,
to send us a list of the concrete actions he intends to take in
response to the points raised during the meeting.
If the committee is not satisfied with the response, it can
summon witnesses to appear again. The auditor said he would, as
usual, follow up on this matter in two years. I asked him if our
request was inconsistent with his work and his answer was: ``This
can only help by speeding things along''.
In essence, this request made by the committee is identical to the
motion put forward by the hon. member for St. Albert. Some
members will immediately see overlap in there. The fact is that, as
hard as the committee tries to fully review the auditor general's
report, not all chapters are reviewed. Take the 1994 report for
example. Only half of the chapters were reviewed by the
committee.
(1735)
Less than 25 per cent of the chapters in the 1995 report were
reviewed. I do not wish to give the impression that the departments
act on the auditor general's recommendations only when the public
accounts committee holds hearings on the subject. I am simply
suggesting that, if departments were to table detailed reports,
including time frames and action plans, the departments could then
be asked by the committee to account on the basis of these
interesting reports. They would also be useful in the follow-up
audits the auditor general conducts two years after a chapter's
publication.
During the first hour of debate on this motion, the Liberal
member for Bruce-Grey said that each department or agency has
the opportunity to respond to the comments made by the auditor
general and that a response accompanies the report. It is true.
However, the responses vary, both in terms of quantity and quality.
In several cases, the department will say it agrees with the auditor's
recommendations and that it will make efforts to implement them.
However, little is said about how and when this will be done.
A compulsory response, with a specific time frame to implement
necessary measures, would encourage the department to take a
more serious look at the auditor general's recommendations and to
take concrete action. This should not be an undue burden for
departments that already provide satisfactory responses. As for the
others, it could be argued that the additional resources required
would be more than made up for by the savings that would result
from a more in-depth review of the auditor general's
recommendations.
Finally, in recent years, it has been the practice to write to the
departments that did not appear before the committee and to ask
them precisely what the motion of the hon. member for St. Albert
proposes. Again, some members might say: ``Why this motion,
since the committee already does that work?'' There are two
reasons. First, there could be some years when the committee
would not be in a position to send letters, for example because of an
election, or because of an lengthy adjournment of the House.
Second, technically speaking, the committee cannot force the
departments to follow up on its request, even though most of them
do.
For all these reasons, I would ask my colleagues of all parties in
the House to support the motion of the hon. member for St. Albert.
I can assure you that these responses to the auditor general's reports
will improve accountability, help the auditor general carry out his
duties, and compensate for the fact that the public accounts
committee does not have time to examine all of the chapters in the
auditor general's report.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
happy to have this opportunity to take part today in the debate on
Motion M-166 put forward by the hon. member for St. Albert. The
hon. member has much experience in this area, having sat on the
Standing Committee of Public Accounts for several years. The
motion would call for amendments to the Financial Administration
Act.
Departments and agencies would be required to table in the
House action plans including specific time frames in response to
the recommendations of the auditor general.
[English]
On the surface there appears to be some merit to the proposal.
We are all interested in doing whatever we can to improve the level
of affordable service to all Canadians. All members of the House
want to see weaknesses corrected and problems addressed,
however, there are several issues that must be perforce discussed.
As members are aware, one of the main tasks of the public
accounts committee is to review on behalf on Parliament the
reports of the auditor general. This is done by examining in detail
with departmental and auditor general officials the issues and
recommendations raised.
At that point, the committee, based on its hearings, submits
reports outlining its conclusions and recommendations to
Parliament. The government is expected to table within 150 days
formal responses to the committee's recommendations. As quite
often happens, the public accounts committee asks the auditor
general to do further follow up work on the responses provided by
the government. The committee wants to know just how far
departments and agencies have gone in meeting the original
recommen-
3847
dations. If it is judged the progress is unsatisfactory the committee
can hold further hearings.
(1740 )
This process is an important part of the accountability process
between government and Parliament. I must admit that in the past it
has worked well.
[Translation]
Successive governments have taken the reports of the auditor
general seriously. A review of the supplementary activities on
which the auditor general reports every year in his annual report
shows that departments and agencies have, on the whole, reacted
positively to the auditor general's recommendations.
Will the amendments suggested in Motion M-166 add any value
to this accountability process?
Will the departments and agencies improve their performance by
settling the problems raised by the auditor general? Or would it be
simply introducing an additional, and often useless, stage in a
process that is already working well?
[English]
We must also consider what impact this proposal may have on
the workload of the auditor general. In recent years there have been
important changes to the Auditor General Act, significantly
impacting on his office.
In 1994, as a result of a private member's bill, this act was
amended to allow the auditor general to report to the House more
frequently. It was a fairly substantial change. In previous years he
was limited to reporting, except in emergency situations, only once
a year.
[Translation]
The auditor general is now authorized to publish, in addition to
his annual report, up to three other reports each year. In 1995, he
tabled three reports in the House. I suppose he will take a similar
approach in 1996.
[English]
Because of this change, the House now receives information
from the auditor general in a much more timely fashion. The public
accounts committee is able to examine problems as soon as they
are identified and departments and agencies are able to respond
more quickly with the necessary corrective action.
In December 1995 the Auditor General Act was again amended.
A new position was created within the Office of the Auditor
General entitled the Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development. Substantial new responsibilities relating
to environmental issues were given, obviously, to this new
position.
As a result, the auditor general must now report to Parliament on
the degree to which departments are meeting the goals and targets
set out in their approved sustainable development strategies. These
strategies must be tabled in the House by individual ministers
beginning in 1997. This will be a tremendous task.
These amendments will provide real challenges for the auditor
general as he seeks to effectively allocate his resources to his many
responsibilities.
The motion before us today may well lead to even more demands
on the auditor general, not only from a public accounts committee
point of view but also from other committees.
[Translation]
I must ask again whether this additional work will be of great
value or whether it will simply prevent the auditor general from
exercising his other responsibilities. Canadians want the auditor
general to use his meagre resources as efficiently as possible, like
all the other government agencies.
Some said this motion will increase the transparency of
government and improve the accountability of the government to
Parliament. Again, this is an objective that we find admirable, on
the whole.
I would like to take a few minutes, however, to remind the
members of the many other important sources of information and
of analysis already at their disposal. We often forget, in debates
such as this one, that the auditor general is not the only source of
information on government operations.
[English]
The sources of information are in addition to those provided by
the auditor general. They provide us with the substantial tools by
which the government is held accountable for all of its actions. The
findings of the auditor general are important but they are only a
part of the story. We need much more to truly understand and hold
this government and all governments to account.
First, other parliamentary officers and organizations table
important reports in this House. These include those from the
Commissioner of Official Languages and the Offices of the
Information and Privacy Commissioners.
[Translation]
Second, many reports are submitted to us by departments,
organizations and crown corporations. These report concern their
activities, their achievements and their plans. I would mention,
among others, the annual reports, the economic outlook and part III
of the Estimates.
3848
(1745)
The government has undertaken many initiatives to improve the
quality of its tools.
Third, the reports prepared within the departments by internal
program evaluation and audit groups. These reports, which can
provide good explanations on matters hon. members are concerned
with, are not well known.
[English]
A major step in promoting the use of these reports was taken in
November 1995 when the President of the Treasury Board tabled in
the House the first annual report on strengthening government
review.
This report provided detailed listings of the many important
reviews undertaken by government departments. These reports are
available to parliamentarians.
It is important when assessing the success of government
operations that we consider all of the information available to us.
We must not spend too much of our time focusing on one source,
the auditor general.
There is no doubt the government has demonstrated its
seriousness about following up on issues raised by the auditor
general. The record speaks for itself. I was pleased to note that in
February 1996 the Minister of Finance included as an annex the
government response to the auditor general's report. The annex
addressed the government's actions on selected important issues
raised by the auditor general.
I refer to the minister's address to the comments raised by the
auditor general in the 1995 report on the need for better
information about the public debt. The minister provided an update
on the actions taken and the results achieved to date.
[Translation]
To conclude, let me reiterate how much the government's
accountability to Parliament means to me and how important a role
the auditor general and his reports play in this process. However, as
I said, this debate cannot come to an end before we examine all
these issues.
[English]
Taxpayers want their government to be effective and affordable.
To help achieve this goal we must always look at what works and
what does not. We must put our time and energies into those areas
where improvements can be made.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I commend both previous speakers for recognizing the
word accountability. It is really what this is all about.
That there is a function of auditor general suggests there is a
need to occasionally review what has happened. I think we need to
know how the money is spent, was it spent in the manner indicated
in the budget and did people get value for their money. These are
exactly the kinds of questions an auditor general is supposed to
address.
The auditor general's report identifies areas where changes
should be made, and the departments so affected are expected to
respond. That in effect is the thrust of this motion.
However, it goes beyond the auditor general. Both previous
speakers indicated the auditor general would be saddled with all of
the responsibility. I draw the attention of the House to the last part
of the motion: ``Such reports should be referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts and any other relevant standing
committees''. That becomes very critical in this regard.
There are standing committees on industry, agriculture and
health, et cetera. These are the committees that really have a
working knowledge of what happens in the department and what
the auditor general is referring to when the auditor says something
out to be changed.
Each of those department should respond in three major areas:
yes, the recommendations are useful; no, the recommendations are
impractical, do not work and therefore will not be implemented; or
the recommendations will be implemented in part and state the
timeframe in which it will take place and provide a detailed plan of
exactly what is to be done.
I will address this from two perspectives. I will use the science
and technology experience and I will to refer briefly to the regional
economic development programs.
(1750)
First is science and technology. In this area the auditor general
made some rather interesting observations. He suggests there was a
lot of money spent. We agree. It was some $6 billion in 1995. Who
is spending that money? It is the granting councils like NSERC,
SSHRC and several others and scientific departments and agencies.
How are they spending it? They are spending it to some degree
through government labs. There are 150 of these. I will not take
time to read them all.
There are the Agri-food Diversification Research Centre in
Borden, Manitoba; the Air Traffic Services Research and
Experimentation in Gloucester, Ontario; the Canadian Centre for
Geomatics in Sherbrooke; the Centre for Information Technology
Innovation in Laval; Chalk River Laboratories in Chalk River; the
Defence Research Establishment; the Lacombe Research Centre in
Lacombe; the Lethbridge Research Centre in Lethbridge; the NRC
Centre for Surface Transportation Technology in Ottawa; the
Pacific Geoscience Centre in Sydney, British Columbia; the Sum-
3849
merland Research Centre in Summerland, British Columbia; the
West Coast Vancouver Laboratory in West Vancouver, British
Columbia; the Winnipeg Research Centre in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
There are 150 of those labs. They are not the ones involved in
NSERC situation. What we recognize is there is great variance on
the kinds of labs just going through the labs I have given.
We need to look at some of the categories of labs. It is a little
easier to do if we follow by provinces. In Newfoundland there is
the St. John's Research Centre. I do not have a clue what that centre
is all about but on the left hand side of my document it suggests it is
in agriculture. That is fine.
There are natural resources, for example the Canadian Forestry
Services in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are a number in
agriculture.
It is interesting that a lot of the agricultural labs would not be
recognized as agricultural labs because they are identified by the
name of the place where they are centred. It goes on through the
various centres. These are the labs that do the various work and in
which the research is done.
Ontario has 13 different labs that deal with environment. There
are the Canadian Wildlife Service, the water and wetlands branch;
Atmospheric Environment Service, Ontario region; Environmental
Conservation Service; the National Water Research Institute; the
National Laboratory for Environmental Testing; the Waste Water
Technology Centre; Dry Deposition Research Centre; King Radar
Research Facility; the Centre for Atmospheric Research
Experiments; Atmospheric Environment Service, Downsview; the
Environmental Technology Centre, and so on. The list goes on.
The purpose of reading these lists is to show the auditor's
observation of the subject of science and technology in Canada and
how research dollars were being spent is accurate or at least not
surprising when we go through that list.
He said science and technology go beyond contributing to
economic growth; they contribute to our quality of life. I think we
all agree this is so. He shows that the government has demonstrated
that it obviously believes science is a major contributor to our
economic well-being and to our standard of living. It spends 11 per
cent of its annual budget in this area.
However, when it comes to answering the question about value
for money spent or whether the money is being spent in those areas
that are strategic to advancing Canada's international
competitiveness, he concludes: ``The present allocation of funds
among various fields of science and technology is more incidental
than the result of a well formulated strategy''. That is not much of a
commendation for spending $6 billion.
(1755)
The auditor general then goes on to suggest there ought to be a
framework. He suggests four questions: what are the greatest needs
and opportunities; where must the government be involved and
why; where should and could the government be involved and why;
what should and could the government's involvements be.
The Department of Industry began to answer these questions. It
produced a booklet earlier this year ``Science and Technology for
the New Century''. It was promised to the House 12 months earlier.
It was delayed one year and then another year. Following that
document came another document ``Highlights of Department S &
T Action Plans in Response to Science and Technology for the New
Century''. The motivation for that came from the auditor's
statement saying the allocation of funds was more incidental that
the result of strategy.
What are these action plans? The action plans resulted in a
further booklet ``A Framework for the Human Resources
Management of the Federal Science and Technology Community
Science and Technology for the New Century''. There are five
projects in that framework: training and development, rewards and
recognition, workforce and mobility, classification compression,
and recruitment and rejuvenation.
Not a single one of those task forces in those five areas has
anything whatsoever to do with science and technology but with
personnel, its reclassification and how to look after the people who
are to be involved in the research department.
Where is the science strategy for Canada in all of this? There is
not one. That was the thrust of the auditor general's concern. If we
do not come to grips with these kinds of things we will lose the
competitive advantage we want.
I have had time to deal with one illustration of how significant
the auditor general's observations are and how they can direct a
whole department to what it ought to do so that the people can get
the places identified where the money ought to be spent and then
spent in an efficient manner so they can say that money was well
spent.
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the motion put
forward by the hon. member for St. Albert and to continue the
debate on this issue.
By now, in this third hour of debate, we all know the essence of
the motion which calls for an amendment to the Financial
Administration Act. The pursuit of good governance and
accountability is crucial for government reform. We all agree.
Where we disagree is on how this will be carried out. In light of
this I will take a few minutes to remind the House of certain
3850
elements of our current system, specifically the accountability loop
and program review, and to re-emphasize their importance.
The accountability loop is strong and should not be tinkered
with. Let me explain why I think voting yea to this motion would
result essentially in a duplication of services already provided. As I
remind the House how the accountability system works, I am sure
members will agree that the level of reporting and follow-up on the
auditor general's report is quite extensive.
The auditor general's main purpose is to cast a watchful eye on
how money is collected from Canadians and how it is spent. In
carrying out this role the auditor general submits reports several
times a year tabled in the House. The accountability system begins
with these reports.
Even before the reports are tabled in the House departments and
agencies are provided with the opportunity within the reports to
state publicly their response and intended follow-up actions to the
auditor general's recommendations.
Since 1994, in addition to his main report the auditor general has
the authorization to publish up to three more reports each year. For
example, in 1995 the auditor general tabled three reports in the
House of Commons. Most likely he will present as many this year.
(1800 )
The second key element in the accountability loop is question
period. This provides the opportunity for members to question
ministers about what they intend to do about concerns raised by the
auditor general and about the operations of government. Question
period often proves to be an important forum for challenging the
government on points raised in the auditor general's report.
Third, the auditor general follows up on the actions of the
affected departments and agencies every two years. I am positive,
as all members of the House must be, that the auditor general and
his office are extremely diligent in carrying out their duties. It is
obvious from the last two hours of debate on this motion that we all
agree the auditor general provides an invaluable service that is
highly respected and legitimate.
Although the auditor general is not a civil servant, he does report
to this House. This independence from the bureaucracy gives him
the freedom to criticize and to form independent assessments of
how things are working. Thus, his follow-up recommendations are
key to the accountability process.
The government is highly motivated to respond to the concerns
raised in each of the reports; we can be sure of that. For the most
part, departments and agencies will address, and quickly, the issues
raised by the auditor general in his report.
The fourth element of the accountability chain is the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts. The hon. member for St. Albert
can attest to the fact that this is an influential and involved body.
This committee contains each and every department and agency
mentioned in each report tabled by the auditor general. That is
rigorously followed up. The committee asks them to report on their
progress and on the recommendations mentioned in the report. The
public accounts committee has been known to ask for detailed work
plans on the status of various activities in addition to project
updates provided every six months.
The last key element of the accountability system again falls
under the public accounts committee. It also issues frequent reports
on government activity to which the government must respond.
I want to emphasize that the public accounts committee is
actually contributing actively. It is doing something. It is not just
reporting. It is quite a different approach from what is proposed in
this motion which focuses more on reporting and controlling and
less on doing.
It seems that these five key elements of the accountability
system combine together to provide a careful chain with explicit
steps in keeping our government accountable and we all want our
government to be kept accountable. Not only is there a formal
external review process led by the auditor general and the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts, but there also exists an internal
review process which is alive and effective.
Moreover the internal review process for the government is
continually being improved. This internal review function consists
of internal audits, program evaluations and manager led reviews.
This strengthened internal review process has led to the
improvements in programs and policies that are based not only on
recommendations from program managers but also from clients
and other internal review groups.
Members may recall a progress report entitled ``Getting
Government Right'', tabled in the House of Commons on March 7
of this year. It discussed another form of program review. The
program review exercise is an ongoing initiative of this
government to examine all federal programs and activities. It is
seen as the most important review work since the early 1950s. It
differs from previous review exercises in that each department and
agency conducted a review of all its programs and activities based
on a set of guidelines. It was by no means a small effort. These
guidelines took the form of a series of questions or tests which
were led by experts in each area. There were six tests in all.
(1805)
The first test, the public interest test, asked: Does the program
area or activity continue to serve a public interest? The second test,
the role of government test, asked: Is there a legitimate and
necessary role for government in this program area or activity? The
third test, the federalism test, asked: Is the current role of the
federal government appropriate, or is the program a candidate for
realignment with the provinces? The fourth test, the partnership
3851
test, asked: What activities or programs should or could be
transferred in whole or in part to the private or voluntary sector?
The fifth test, the efficiency test, asked: If the program or activity
continues, could this efficiency be improved? Finally the sixth test,
the affordability test, asked: Is the resultant package of programs
and activities affordable within the fiscal constraint? If not, what
program or activities should be abandoned?
These are crucial questions. They are being asked internally
within departments. Getting the right programs and services
delivered the right way for the right cost is the basis of this
initiative. So far the program review has resulted in an end to some
programs, the transfer of others to a different service delivery
method and a greater efficiency in those that remain within the
federal responsibility.
This is a continuous process that is being carried out in phases.
As a result of the program review in 1996-97, there is expected to
be a drop in costs of close to $5 billion compared with the last
fiscal year. I think it shows just how much the government cares
about taxpayers' dollars.
Madam Speaker, my time is almost gone and you can see I have
a full speech here to keep on going. It is important to remember
who we are and what our role is. As representatives for Canadians,
we must weigh the costs against perceived benefits and
consequences on all issues, especially during this time of fiscal
restraint.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I have the
honour to inform the House that a message has been received from
the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-8,
an Act respecting Queen's University at Kingston, to which the
concurrence of this House is desired.
This bill is deemed to have been read the first time and will be
read the second time at the next sitting of the House.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There are three
minutes left for debate.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, in three minutes I would like to address some of the
comments made by the previous speakers.
Reference was made that this motion actually may create more
work for the auditor general. I do not read that into the motion. I am
reading from that motion that the committee is saying it cannot
address all the issues the auditor general is raising and therefore
some of these issues are getting lost.
Mention was made in relation to accountability. We are talking
about one of the basic management principles which is that in any
management program there is an evaluation of what is done. A plan
is put together and implemented and the results are evaluated. It is
my understanding that the evaluation of those results is the role of
the auditor general.
To get to the outcome part of it, one needs to have the mandate,
the responsibility and also the authority to carry it out, to make the
plans and implement them. The accountability component has a big
play in the evaluation of that. To say that the auditor general is now
reporting three times versus one time is not necessarily a method of
establishing accountability. It is certainly enhancing the process to
achieve accountability because the reports are more frequent, but
we still have to address those reports and try to improve what the
management process has been, if improvement is necessary.
(1810)
Reference was made that there are alternative resources for
information to the auditor general. My reading of this motion does
not find that a problem. What it is asking for is that the department
or program which is being evaluated by the auditor general make a
response and if they are taking action based on alternative
resources that would be a response that would come forward. That
in itself could be looked at or be evaluated for accountability
purposes.
Another comment-
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 6.11
p.m., the period allowed for the debate has expired. Pursuant to the
order made earlier, the motion is deemed to have been put to the
House and the recorded division on the motion is deemed to have
been deferred to Tuesday, June 18, 1996, at 5.30 p.m.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
3852
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division
on the motions stands deferred until Tuesday, June 18, 1996, at
5.30 p.m.
Is there unanimous consent to proceed to the adjournment
debate?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3852
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, during
question period, Friday May 31, I asked a question of the Minister
of Human Resources Development concerning the difference
between the decisions to restructure the services of the Granby
Employment Centre and the Cowansville centre.
Unfortunately, when I reread the transcript of the debates to
check on his answer, I was struck by something: he never gave a
clear and precise answer to my question. Instead, the Minister of
Human Resources Development settled for making vague allusions
to the difficulty of restructuring his department, while at the same
time indicating that he and his employees were always prepared to
provide me with the information requested.
As far as the Granby centre is concerned, no one, not the minister
nor his staff, have deigned to provide me with the justification of
the decision on the Granby Employment Centre as compared to the
Cowansville one. No valid explanation, no specific criterion, has
ever been provided to me to justify such a decision between these
two neighbouring centres, apart from political affiliation.
In my opinion, the Granby employment centre has undergone an
unjustified cutback in services and in staff, compared to the cuts
made at the Cowansville employment centre, because from now on
the Granby centre will have the same number of employees as
Cowansville, although it serves twice the population.
I will repeat my question, then, because the minister has stated
on several occasions that the purpose of restructuring is to improve
services, and to do so on an equitable basis.
Can the minister indicate to us clearly the logic on which his
decision is based to allocate the same number of employees to the
two centres, whereas the Granby centre serves twice as large a
population as Cowansville does?
I would like the minister to answer my question, because despite
all the correspondence between him, his department and myself,
including a dozen official letters, two meetings with senior
officials, a petition bearing over 6,300 names, many press releases,
newspaper articles, resolutions by municipalities in my riding and
telephone calls, I see no reason for an unfair decision to be made in
the case of the people of Shefford and the Granby employment
centre.
I will repeat my question a third time so the minister may grasp
its meaning. What is the reason for the decision to assign the same
number of employees to the employment centres in Granby and in
Cowansville, when the former serves twice as many people as the
latter?
I am not the only one wanting a response from the minister,
because the case of the employment centre in Granby is a matter of
consensus.
This centre is vital to the development of the Granby region. The
Granby chamber of commerce, the Société de développement
économique régional de Granby-Bromont, the Haute-Yamaska
RCM, the City of Granby, the unions and more than 80
organizations all agree that this decision is unjustified and unfair.
Decisions can be changed. This would not be the first time. The
people of Shefford want an answer.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
member has been told a number of times what is going on. It is
3853
obvious to all of us that Human Resources Canada is consolidating
and centralizing the administration and processing functions.
When that is done, it stands to reason that service in certain areas
will be reduced and employees will be moved from one place to
another. That is how the administrative savings being sought will
be achieved.
It is no different in this member's riding than it is in mine. In my
riding of Kenora-Rainy River we went through the same thing,
but we seem to understand it a lot better.
The key is that when the numbers of employees are reduced, we
must make sure that their function in the administrative process
continues to have front line service. We continue to say that the
intent of improving the system is to maintain the front line service
for communities so that service will adequately respond to the
needs of individuals.
This is a two year process. Once it is in place, the hon. member
will see that the front line employees will still be available to look
after the needs of individuals. With the kiosks and mail service
centres restructured, he will see that it will work as well in his
riding as it does in mine. It is fortunate for us that our ridings are
similar. Once he gets a chance to see the service in action, he
willknow that the minister's answer to him in the House of
Commons was correct. This is an administrative improvement, not
a chance to reduce service.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion to
adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. The House
stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
(The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.)