Lost his last election, in 1997, with 36% of the vote.
Communications Security Establishment October 24th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the government claims that no illegal spying is going on. But we do not know who is running the CSE, to whom it is accountable, what kind of a budget it gets or the nature of the agreements it enters into with foreign intelligence agencies.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister give the people of Quebec the assurance that the upcoming referendum debate will not be conducted under the aura of espionnage, as was the case previously?
Election Act October 19th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the government of Quebec has announced its intention to amend the Quebec Election Act to save time and money by eliminating steps that are not necessary and cost the taxpayers a great deal of money.
Ottawa could bring the federal deficit down and save tens of millions of dollars if it applied measures along the lines of those announced by the Quebec government. The federal government should consider seriously a real election law reform.
The government must eliminate influence peddling as well as financial backer pressure in the case of traditional federal parties. As my hon. colleague from Richelieu said, the government of Canada should revise all outdated electoral practices and review party financing so as to allow only individuals to contribute to the coffers of federal political parties.
Foreign Affairs October 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister has not answered the question and I ask him: Does he not think that it is necessary to set the record straight with the Japanese and can he tell us exactly what he intends to do?
Foreign Affairs October 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
On September 27, in a totally inaccurate statement to the Japanese Association for Canadian Studies in Sapporo, an employee of the Canadian embassy in Japan, Patricia Bader-Johnson, denigrated Hydro-Québec by saying that the Quebec Crown corporation was fuelling racial tensions between Natives and other Quebecers. Without checking things out, this employee attributed to Hydro-Québec a dubious advertisement that originated in fact from an oil heating company.
Is the Minister of Foreign Affairs aware of this and does he admit that it is totally unacceptable for one of his employees abroad to denigrate in this way a Quebec Crown corporation such as Hydro-Québec?
Canadian Heritage October 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I will respond to my hon. colleague simply by quoting figures to show him that the tree always falls on the same side here in Canada. Of the 13,000 so-called bilingual positions in the armed forces, 6,000 are held mainly by bilingual francophones, while the other 7,000 are held by anglophones for lack of bilingual candidates. Yet they decided to close the military college in Saint-Jean where anglophones could have been trained in French, where they could have taken immersion classes and gone outside the military community to experience a little Quebec culture and practice their French. But no, they will be taught French in Kingston where there is no immersion, where they will stay in an English-speaking environment and try to learn French as best they can.
That is an example of this government's bad decisions. The tree always falls on the side of the majority. If we look at what is happening in Canada, it is very difficult for a majority to understand a minority. However, since Quebecers are a minority in Canada, we understand well the problems of the anglophone minority in Quebec and we have given anglophones their own institutions. I challenge anyone in this House to find better anywhere else in Canada.
Canadian Heritage October 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.
In the same way that Quebecers treat their minorities well, I believe that in a separate Canada Canadians will treat their minorities well. It will be both sides treating their minorities well. That is important for the future of our maybe two countries. I do not think there is a problem.
Canadian Heritage October 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for her comments. I simply quoted figures in my speech. When you hear about the assimilation process taking place in Canada and see figures, real figures, like the ones I quoted, I think there can be no doubt. We are all entitled to our opinions and to think that things are actually better around us, but in the light of objective figures-those I quoted were from Statistics Canada if I am not mistaken-I would say it is undeniable.
As the minister said, she is, of course, bilingual. As far as I am concerned, I used to teach English as a second language before I was elected to this House. I must tell you that I have a great deal of respect for the English language, and the English culture in general. My thinking regarding Quebec changed progressively; it was not a choice made overnight.
When I was younger, I did not belong to a sovereignist political party; I was a federalist. Then, in 1980, I voted yes in the referendum, and this was the proudest day of my life. I am very proud of having voted yes. Since then, I have matured. I think that is the right thing to do. I would like francophones outside Quebec to be provided better protection. I would like them to have rights.
During Statements by members under Standing Order 31 today, I rose to point out that, in Northern Ontario today, francophones are having problems getting recognized. I do not know where the hon. minister is from or what newspapers she reads, but this is a fact and I think it is important to point it out. Canada as a country will continue to exist; I have no doubt about that.
I remember reading a book that said that birds migrate to the south and that Canada was a fictitious country because it stretched from East to West while the normal axis was North-South. I think it must be true.
When Canada was an English colony, the English had lost the whole southern part and they wanted to protect the North; that is how a fictitious country with two founding peoples was born. Of course, many other cultures came and joined them and they must be respected.
People tend to think that minorities are poorly protected in Quebec. I would like to tell you that the English courses given in our schools in Quebec are improving. Our English-speaking fellow citizens have good facilities, like hospitals in Montreal, schools, three universities in Quebec territory. No other province does as much for its minority, except possibly the national capital, with the University of Ottawa and Saint Paul University. Except for that, there is nothing. I think that it is important to say so.
I want to tell you that I want Quebec to be a sovereign country. Yes, Quebec and Canada should have good relations; we should learn to live together side by side in harmony and trade with each other. As you know, one side cannot do it alone. We in the Bloc Quebecois are in this debate and we will win.
Canadian Heritage October 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my views on Bill C-53, An Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts. The Department of Communications, the Department of the Secretary of State and the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship were abolished following the government reorganization announced on June 25 and November 4, 1993. This exercise resulted in the creation of a new portfolio, the Department of Canadian Heritage.
For the first time, all federal agencies in the cultural sector, including the Canada Council, CBC, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, the national museums and parks of Canada, the National Archives and many others, are part of a single superdepartment.
I want to quote an important provision regarding a field which comes under the minister's jurisdiction. Clause 4(g), on page 2, states that the Minister of Canadian Heritage must promote "the advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French and the enhancement and development of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada".
That clause provides a good description of the federal government's objective to promote a Canadian cultural identity primarily based on the main features of a bilingual and multicultural Canada. However, no reference is made to Quebec as a society, nor to its cultural and linguistic specificity.
Once again, Ottawa denies the distinct cultural reality of Quebec by attempting to dilute its French status and culture in a supposedly bilingual and multicultural Canadian cultural identity. The creation of that department is in compliance with the defunct Charlottetown Accord, which proposed an artificial and false recognition of the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction over culture.
Never in the past, much less now, did the federal government consider withdrawing from the cultural sector despite Quebec's demands for the transfer of cultural jurisdiction and related budgets from Ottawa. The establishment of this new department is proof positive of this: the federal government is turning a deaf ear to Quebec's demands concerning language, education and, most of all, culture.
The federal government will continue to use its spending power to play a role in Quebec without any regard to the priorities and demands of the Quebec government in matters of language, education, and culture. How many more times will we
have to fight for Quebec's interests and demands? Why is the federal government ignoring Quebec's jurisdiction over culture and language?
My colleagues on this side of the House received a clear mandate to stand for the interests of Quebecers. Quebec's demands concerning cultural and linguistic jurisdiction are part of that mandate, and I will fight for them with conviction and determination.
I would like to quote what the late member for Brome-Missisquoi, Gaston Péloquin, was forever repeating to us and trying to convey to his constituents. It is a true depiction of the Canadian situation.
"The fundamental difference between the two solitudes is that Canada is a country looking for a people, and Quebec is a people looking for a country". The fact that my federalist friends refuse to talk about sovereignty does not mean it will not happen. Quebecers will be deciding for themselves, and the other nine provinces will have to accept that decision out of respect for justice and democracy.
The federal government keeps encroaching on exclusive Quebec jurisdictions. It can offer no guarantee about language, education and culture.
The Canadian Heritage Department is a typical example of this kind of interference in an area of jurisdiction claimed by Quebec. Essentially, the policies and priorities of the department, which were designed without consulting Quebec, are more in line with the prospect of an hypothetical country-wide cultural identity which seeks the outright assimilation, sooner or later, of the French language and the Quebec culture. I believe that is the real objective of the federal government.
The notion of cultural identity is what brings people together in a society. This notion helps to build and establish on a permanent basis the institutions that constitute a given society. What this government must understand is that the notion of cultural identity cannot be commanded or imposed in a democratic system or regime.
Thus the federal government cannot make an abstraction of the French culture and language that give distinct identity to Quebec society. The fact is that Canada is constituted by two nation states. Canada is not composed of a unique culture as the federal government would like us to believe.
These are the facts and the Minister of Canadian Heritage will have to deal with them.
History clearly demonstrates this. The federal government has always been trying to ignore the cultural identity of francophones, and its bilingualism policy is the proof. Bilingualism in Canada is a myth, a beautiful dream, a policy that has never really worked. We must say it: the bilingualism policy has proven to be a real failure.
The fact is that francophones cannot live and get an education in French everywhere in Canada. We have the example of Franco-Ontarians. Their history is marked by struggles, by legal battles and, indeed, a resistance to assimilation. And we have the most recent example of Longlac, in northern Ontario, where the francophone community is unable to get services.
A second example are the francophone and Acadian communities in the rest of Canada. In a submission to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages in the House of Commons in May, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes sounded the alarm, sending out a cry of distress and demanding that the federal government emerge from its indifference.
I quote the federation: "The emergency situation in which members of our communities are living is unacceptable. The assimilation rate, which is increasing from one census to another, and the social and economic situation, which is deteriorating, do not seem to worry the government overly-"
On a five-year period, the assimilation rate has increased by 4.5 per cent in the overall francophone regions outside Quebec. That is a fact. If we do not act immediately, assimilation will continue on its irreversible course, whatever people think and say here.
A third example: the closure of the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. This decision is, I believe, the worst the federal government has taken in a decade.
How can the federal government justify the closure of the only French-speaking military college in the country and continue to promote its bilingualism policy? How will the federal government be able to ensure progress towards equality of status and use of the French language in the armed forces without a single French-speaking institution in this country?
According to reports the Kingston military college is not at all ready to accommodate French-speaking servicemen and to offer them the necessary training.
Those are the facts. This is the reality. The federal government denies francophones an equal status.
To continue on the same subject, I would like to give the House some statistics. Out of 13,000 so-called bilingual positions in the armed forces, only 6,000 are held by individuals sufficiently fluent in French and in English. The other 7,000 so-called bilingual positions are held by individuals who speak only English.
This again shows that the bilingualism policy has failed in Canada.
Here is another figure. The great majority, 85 per cent, of the 63,870 designated bilingual positions across the country are along the Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec axis.
As a consequence, the budget cuts that would lead to the elimination of the annual bilingualism bonus advocated by the Commissioner of Official Languages would affect mainly francophones working in the federal public service. It would mean approximately $43 million in lost wages for francophone bilingual employees working in the federal public office.
Such is the initiative to promote a cultural identity based on bilingualism as a main characteristic of Canada from coast to coast.
Ottawa's lack of global vision considerably hinders the development and prosperity of francophone communities throughout the country.
When answering a question from the opposition about this claim, the Minister of Canadian Heritage admitted that presently, his government had no global policy for the promotion of the development and prosperity of the French fact.
The attacks the current Liberal government carries out in reaction to the Bloc Quebecois's demands simply seek to blind us to the failures of its policies to promote French in the English-speaking provinces.
Those who suggest the status quo should know that, for a lot of francophones outside Quebec, in the long term, that means assimilation.
How can we deny that the fundamental difference between Quebec and Canada is precisely rooted in the fact that English Canada is unable to recognize the existence of French-speaking Quebecers as a nation?
Quebec's aspirations to develop as both a distinct nation and a full member of the Canadian federation were always repressed. Today, Quebec has chosen to develop within its own political infrastructures, as would a truly sovereign country.
Quebec's sovereignty is not a goal per se, it is rather the means to achieve the coherent development of our potential. It is the most appropriate means we have to make efficient use of our resources.
As long as it is in Ottawa the Bloc Quebecois will keep on denouncing the federal institutions' indifference regarding Quebec and French language, education and culture.
I was sent here to shake up the political inertia of the federal government and to bring to the attention of the House of Commons the concerns of francophone communities wherever they may be in Canada.
The federal government must correct all its deficiencies in order to better answer the aspirations of francophone communities.
Quebecers have used most of their political energy over the last three decades to build a political structure that will allow them to develop as a people. It must be understood that if something binds Quebecers together it is their refusal of the status quo.
Quebec's political and economic context has changed radically over the last fifteen years. Those changes explain the strong comeback of the sovereignist movement in Quebec after the referendum defeat in 1980, the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord.
Since the days of Jean Lesage, all the federalist premiers have struggled hard to provide the Quebec State with the decision-making powers which it needed to exercise a real control over our collective destiny.
The vast majority of Quebec federalists refuse the system in its present form. What made them different from sovereignists for a long time is that they hoped that the system could be modified, especially by transferring powers from Ottawa to Quebec and recognizing the distinct nature of the Quebec people.
For their part, sovereignists had come to the conclusion that Quebecers could never fully develop as a nation within the federal framework the structures of which were frozen in time.
After 30 years of fruitless efforts and countless attempts to change the federal system, even federalists in Quebec have to face reality: the failure of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords have put an end to any hope for a renewed federalism.
Today, Quebecers, both federalists and sovereignists alike, can be sure of one thing regarding the status quo: they can either take it or leave it. Everyone will have to make this choice. Nevertheless, when it comes to the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage, we cannot have just one cultural policy since we have two distinct cultures.
As such, the policy of the Department of Canadian Heritage cannot be developed and applied uniformly across the country. Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois will make sure that the various measures taken by the federal government are in tune with the general direction of Quebec's cultural policy.
The Bloc Quebecois will demand that Quebec get its fair share of federal funding through the main cultural institutions such as museums, the National Film Board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The Bloc Quebecois will also make sure that cuts in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's budget will not be made
at the expense of its French network and, therefore, of Quebec artists.
The Bloc Quebecois will also ensure that the Quebec cultural community receives its fair share of grants from federal agencies such as the Canada Council and Telefilm Canada and from the resource envelopes of the program.
Such is the mandate I received from Shefford constituents and I intend to be worthy of their trust.
Francophone Rights October 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, first in Kingston and now in Longlac, in northern Ontario, francophones are being denied their rights as taxpayers and French speaking citizens.
The English majority trustees on the school board just blocked the construction of a combined French school and community centre. Francophones in Longlac have been demanding this high school for six years now. According to the daily newspaper Le Droit , and I quote: The ill will of anglophones in Longlac towards their French speaking fellow citizens is blinding them''. The chairman of the French section of the school board is equally blunt:This is an anti-French vote''.
Mr. Speaker, this is what one might call pulling a Kingston, and yet this government touts the success of its bilingualism policy.
Supply September 29th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I would have a question for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. I listened carefully to his speech and I must tell you that it sounded to me like he had a lot of good to say about the previous administration. To listen to him, I wonder why he did not run for the Conservative Party in the last elections if everything was going so well.
Considering that we have a democratic system and that nothing is more sacred than democracy in this country, in Canada and Quebec, does he not agree that it would be interesting from time to time to have a commission, whether royal or not-I say royal commission because that is how they are called in Canada
-to have a high-level commission investigate, especially when officials of the SIRC appearing before a sub-committee refuse to answer certain questions?
They did not answer all the questions. Would it not be time to have a commission investigate and shed light on this so that the people of Canada know exactly what is happening?