Jean H. Leroux

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member from the Reform Party had to say and, while he was speaking, I was thinking how lucky Quebec voters are to have members of the Bloc Quebecois representing them here in this House. How lucky they are and how lucky we in the Bloc are to be able to come to this House to defend Quebec's interests and share our views with members of the other parties. Our views are often different from theirs because we are linguistically and culturally different.

In 1968, the Government of Quebec was led by Daniel Johnson Senior. There is a big difference between the father and the son. I can tell you that the father was a great premier. So the then Premier of Quebec, Daniel Johnson, abolished the legislative assembly, which was equivalent to the federal Senate. Believe it or not, Quebec has continued to function since then. We realized that we did not need two Houses in Quebec. If this works for every province, why would it not work for the central government? This would resolve an enduring situation that has been deteriorating for a long time. We have talked about reforming the Senate for a long time. We now see that it is impossible to reform because we cannot agree on anything.

The Reform Party favours an elected Senate. It would not be so bad, at least, if senators were elected. But what is the advantage of having two Houses of Parliament?

We are a middle power with a population of 27 or 28 million. Every Canadian province has its own government. There are governments in all 10 provinces and in the territories. We have a central government, municipal governments and school boards. Why not do away with the Senate?

In my school days, we were told that the Senate was a Canadian creation modelled on the House of Lords. It was decided at the time to copy the British parliamentary system. The title of lord is hereditary. In the Canadian system, it was decided to appoint senators. It may have been a good thing at the time, not knowing how educated the members of the Lower House would be, to have slightly more educated people sitting for a longer period in the Upper House. But what good is it today?

One thing matters: those who represent the people must be elected. This prompts me to ask this question: Would Canada not do better with just one House instead of reforming a Senate that is beyond reform?

There was talk about reform in 1970 and again in 1975 and 1978. When I was in school, we kept hearing about all these plans to reform the Senate, but no agreement was ever reached. As a result, the Senate remains the same and carries on.

I think that not to abolish the Senate at this time is to show lack of respect for Canadian voters, who work hard to send people to represent them in this place. These representatives work hard, very hard. We all know how expensive it is to run a Parliament. The Senate alone costs $43 million per year at the lowest estimate and $65 million, when everything is taken into account. What a saving this would be: $65 million. With this money, we could afford to build one or two hospitals per year in Canada, and these would be much more useful than a Senate.

Nowadays money must be invested where it will be profitable. A Senate is not a profitable investment. All a Senate does is give the Prime Minister in office an excuse to appoint his friends, to reward those who have served the party well. So, instead of wasting our time stubbornly insisting on reforming an archaic institution, why not just abolish the Senate?

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to what our Liberal colleague over there had to

say on this subject. I find it curious that this evening we are discussing the money to be allocated to the Senate, yet this hon. member refuses, not surprisingly, to speak of the Senate.

It is in the culture of the two old parties in Canada, the Liberals and the Conservatives, to hope that one day, if they are really good and have worked hard-and we know what that means if a person is in a large national political body, that they have served their party well-they can hope to fulfil their dream of finishing out their days in the Senate.

What does that involve? Finishing out one's days in the Senate means that one has all the benefits. Let me explain some of those benefits to you. I have had the opportunity of travelling in Canada and elsewhere with a joint committee. A joint committee is a committee made up of MPs and senators. I have seen how that works here in Canada.

First of all, senators have the title of "honourable", becoming honourable when they are appointed, and thus a rung above the members of the House of Commons. Travelling with them, I have heard a Canadian colonel on one occasion announce "senators first". People who have not been elected, who were appointed by the Prime Minister, who are there until the age of 75. They can be 35 when they are appointed, or 40, and will sit as senators until they reach 75.. And whom do they represent? No one.

Last summer, I was in England at a symposium where 25 nations were represented. You know, when we speak of Canada while abroad, we describe ourselves as a great country, an ultrademocratic country, the most democratic in the world. When we tell people that we have a second House, made up of unelected members who are there to the age of 75, they are amazed. They just do not understand. Appointed? For what reason? For various reasons.

The Liberal caucus, which meets weekly, is made up of MPs and senators. When they are preparing fund raising campaigns for this party, who are the ones with the time and the contacts for rounding up all the money this party needs to operate? The senators primarily. They have nothing else to do, so they become the bagmen for the two old parties.

This is a vicious circle. You will note that the Liberals are talking about all manner of things this evening except the Senate, because in their heart of hearts they hope, one day, to be appointed to it, if their leader so decides. Imagine the advantage of not having to run in elections. No longer any need to be present in the riding. Imagine all the advantages of being in the Senate.

We in the Bloc Quebecois say, and I think my colleague has said it clearly: "No taxation without representation". As long as the Bloc Quebecois remains in Ottawa, we are entitled to our opinions. What we are calling for is abolition, pure and simple. Why? Because we cannot agree. We have not for 35 years.

When I was a student at the University of Ottawa and the Senate was being discussed, there was a chapter this long in our book on the Canadian Senate. I remember that the Senate was described as a kind of British hybrid in Canada. Why was it called a senate? Because we are in North America, and there is a senate in the United States.

You know, when we are travelling we find that no one knows the Senate is appointed. People just do not know. And that is the question I would like to ask my colleague.

We are still in a federal system, with two levels of government. To lighten the federal structure, not to mention the tax burden on Canadians and Quebecers, would now not be the time to abolish the Senate?

[Department Of National Defence, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been telling us for months that he cannot say anything in this House.

How can the Prime Minister keep in his cabinet a minister who will stop at nothing to hold back information in order to protect the man he himself appointed to the position of Chief of the Defence Staff?

[Department Of National Defence, September 16th, 1996]

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

The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence are telling us today that they have nothing to hide about the ongoing crisis in the Canadian armed forces. They are now trying to hide the truth by requesting an injunction aimed at muzzling the Information Commissioner in order to prevent him from releasing a damning report on the issue of access to information.

How can the Prime Minister trust a minister who is involved in an action aimed at muzzling by all possible means those who criticize the way our armed forces are managed?

[Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day Celebration, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on June 20, 1976, a spectacular Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebration was held on Mount Royal. Gilles Vigneault sang for the first time a tune that epitomizes the sensitivity of the Quebec soul: "Gens du pays, c'est votre tour de vous laisser parler d'amour." In Quebec, this song has since become a central part of every public rally and political

demonstration. It talks about building a country, returning to our roots, and about the primacy of the notion of freedom.

It was in 1977 that Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day became Quebec's national holiday. How far we have come in 20 years. The people of Quebec have come of age and are preparing for their long-awaited country to become reality.

To all the men and women of Quebec, I wish a happy national holiday.

[Financial Administration Act, June 13th, 1996]

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.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

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.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

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

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.

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.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Employment Centres, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in an article published in the May 28 issue of the newspaper La Voix de l'est , the member for Brome-Missisquoi said, in reference to the unemployment insurance reform, that the number of employees who will remain at the Cowansville employment centre was determined by taking into account the size of the area served, as opposed to the size of the population, which is the usual criterion.

Why is it that, with a population twice that of the Cowansville region, the employment centre in Granby will have proportionally only half the number of employees to serve its taxpayers?

I would like the Minister of Human Resources Development to explain to the people in the riding of Shefford how he determined the number of employees remaining at the Cowansville employment centre, compared to that of Granby.

I would like the minister to explain to the people in the riding of Shefford why he violated the principles of fairness toward taxpayers by sacrificing the Granby employment centre for the one in Cowansville. Is it because the member for Brome-Missisquoi happens to be a Liberal like him?