Debates of April 18th, 1994

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time is up for questions and comments.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our motion today deals with facts.

The fact is that the Official Languages Act is a total failure. It is divisive. It is so overwhelmingly expensive it would even be impractical in a booming economy with an overflowing treasury, neither of which we currently enjoy.

One of the most curious aspects of the act is that no one asked for it. Quebec did not ask for it. Most certainly neither did the rest of Canada.

Quebec wanted the French language in its own province and we agree with that. It wanted access in French to key federal institutions such as Parliament and the Supreme Court and we agree with that. It expects federal services in French. We agree with that where there is sufficient demand to warrant cost effective provision of that service.

Given that the majority of the people in Quebec are not concerned about it and even a larger majority of Canadians in the rest of Canada are not in favour of continuing with it, why are we spending so much money to maintain a program that does not work, that we cannot afford and that no one wants?

One theory generally follows the concept of Newton's first law of physics that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force. In other words, the status quo reigns supreme.

In actual fact, given that the program is in fact flourishing it appears many are operating under their own special agendas without concern for the fact that the time for this program to end has long since past.

I would like to focus today on one particular aspect of the bilingual implementation program. The area I am personally concerned about is the introduction of bilingual services to the air traffic control system. These implementation programs are horrendously expensive and at times compromise the safety of the Canadian traveller.

Air traffic control primarily uses two types of services: tower control, which controls the movement of traffic on and in the immediate proximity to the airport; and radar control, which controls aircraft flying by use of aircraft instruments within a defined area of airspace.

The Official Languages Act imposes a duty on all federal institutions to ensure that the public can obtain all services

available from federal offices or facilities within the national capital region in either official language.

In keeping with that, Ottawa tower became fully bilingual 16 hours a day as of June 1990 and 24 hours a day as of March 1991. The cost of this was and still is outrageous. The staffing of Ottawa tower calls for 17 controllers but at present there are only 9 controllers available for duty. Part of the problem is that all positions are designated as bilingual imperative. This means a controller must be fully bilingual to even apply for the position.

I for one have no problem with the concept of providing bilingual service where demand is sufficient to warrant cost effective language services. I already mentioned this at the beginning of my talk. Just how much demand constitutes sufficient is a questionable point and well worth examining here.

Before I begin to discuss the need in the tower I would like to add that the full bilingual service is in place at Ottawa tower. It is now in the process of being implemented in Ottawa terminal.

Let us look at how one might determine what demands are and how much service is needed to satisfy those demands, if in fact they are in need of being satisfied.

Simulations were run on equipment then located at the research and development department in Hull. Operating from a single bilingual position, traffic that included 30 per cent French speaking pilots was handled acceptably. This establishes a rate at which we can then look at staffing plans if it can be determined that the demand exists. What of the demand? Controllers at Ottawa tower record each contact requesting service in French. The optimum amount of requests they receive is 2 per cent, one-fifteenth of the amount that has been demonstrated can be handled safely from a single position.

A little side note on that 2 per cent figure, these figures include Air Canada pilots who can obviously speak and operate in English. It includes an airline whose next stop after Ottawa is Boston. It includes pilots from Transport Canada who fly all over this country.

I suggest there is no justification at all for bilingual air traffic control services in the Ottawa area. If there is, it should only be in that single position originally envisioned which could demonstrably control not only that amount of traffic but a tremendous and unexpected amount of growth in the future.

The cost of this bilingual service is just one of the concerns of this program, but it certainly is a significant one. At present the combined cost of the overstaffing needed to implement the bilingual program in Ottawa terminal plus a shortage of three bilingual controllers from the tower who are now on training for the terminal to staff the new bilingual positions is almost $1 million per year. There are English speaking tower controllers in Ottawa who can relieve this cost but they are not allowed to control in the tower because they do not speak French. These costs are only the tip of the iceberg.

At the beginning I also mentioned the concern about safety. The source of this concern is the way the English speaking controllers are being dealt with during this highly questionable implementation of bilingual services. Incumbent rights are being ignored. Original implementation plans are being scrapped. Controllers' futures are up in the air, no pun intended.

I fly a lot, as do most of the members in this House. I would not want to have open heart surgery from a doctor whose face I had just slapped the night before. Why then are we doing the same thing to the people whose hands we place our lives in every time we take to the skies?

This is but one small example of the problem caused by the Official Languages Act. However it is a very important example of the extent to which this is getting out of hand.

The time to end the problem is now. It is time that we became the external force that will put an end to the motion of a program that has never worked in the interests of anyone.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, for a moment I did not know where I was, until the member had concluded his remarks.

I want to correct the record. This capital city has already declared itself bilingual. In excess of 30 per cent of the people in this city speak both official languages. There are over 1.1 million people who live in the national capital region and use the international airport. I would say that over 55 per cent of those people speak French and English.

Is the hon. member trying to tell me that if I were a francophone living on the Quebec side and I used the international airport that I should not be entitled to speak to somebody in French?

On the other side there is a correction to the hon. member's comments. The Ottawa international airport not only serves other municipalities across Canada and the United States but it also serves some places in Europe. It is an international airport.

It is our intention to enhance the bilingual services at the Ottawa international airport. My hope is that we will reach a point where every airport in Canada will have the same flexibility and the same kind of services that are now provided at the Ottawa international airport.

I was not born a French or English Canadian. I came to this country a few years ago. I look at it as an enrichment and an honour for me to be able to speak French, English, Arabic and a little bit of Italian. I am working on my Chinese.

If anything we should be moving toward trilingualism in Canada and not just bilingualism. The whole world is moving toward not just one or two but three languages. The hon. member should travel to Europe to see that. In Europe the vast majority of people speak at least two languages.

Is the hon. member suggesting we should deny the majority of the people who live in the national capital region the right to services in French as well as the right of other people in the national capital region to services in English?

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

After that counter speech I am not quite sure where to begin.

First, does the hon. member who posed that convoluted question think that 55 per cent of the French speaking people who live in the national capital region go up to the cockpit while they are on some flight, use the radio and handle the aircraft control procedures for the pilot?

The two per cent is documented. It is the optimum figure in terms of the French language used in the national capital region.

I would love to compare passports with the hon. member. I suggest that I travel at least as much as he does and probably quite a bit more. English is the international language of aviation.

I have no problem with the idea of using French in Quebec because that is the language there. I would even go along with providing the service here. However, we are going so far beyond the amount necessary to provide the service to those who require it that it is absolutely ridiculous.

When the member talks of implementing this right across Canada it is no wonder the budget is so totally out of control.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out there is some inconsistency in what the hon. member has said. He started out by saying that one of the problems with the official languages legislation is that it is divisive. I suggest that if there is a divisive element in this it is the putting forward of some of these bizarre notions as fact.

Twice categorically the member said that nobody in this country wants this. I do, so he is wrong. A lot of people do. Come visit New Brunswick and see how many people are lined up to get into immersion and programs like that. The suggestion that it is a failure disregards reality. Reality has it that in 25 short years in the context of the history of a country that large numbers of people are becoming conversant in a second language who would not have that opportunity outside of the official languages policy.

The suggestion has been made repeatedly that somehow this legislation forces people to become bilingual when in fact it has exactly the reverse effect of allowing people not to become bilingual and get services from their government.

If you speak French in Saskatchewan you do not have to be able to speak English to get services from your government. If you speak French in Fredericton, New Brunswick, you do not have to be able to speak English to get services from the government. That is what is provided, not the requirement to become bilingual but the opportunity not to be.

Finally, I would suggest that the cost argument that is put and is put often is very divisive in this debate. Consider the numbers of people who are being served by the provisions in this legislation relative to cost. I think of my province of New Brunswick and the numbers of people who get service. There are 250,000 Acadians who are being served by the federal government in their first language. Much of it is enhanced by this legislation. The cost relative to the numbers of people is not excessive at all. It is a divisive argument. It is an unfounded argument and I would ask the member to respond.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member does not like my use of the word divisive but found many uses for it himself.

Yes I said that no one wants it and the member challenged that. I suppose he is right. There is absolutely nothing I can think of where there is absolute unanimity all across the line.

I would point out to the member that the last survey I saw suggested that 63 per cent of all those surveyed in Quebec did not agree with the national bilingual program and there was a higher percentage than that in the rest of Canada.

The hon. member suggest that because many people take French language training that they are in favour of this. I have taken Spanish and I have taken Portuguese and I am not in favour of Canada implementing bilingualism in Spanish and Portuguese either. Therefore, his argument does not hold much water.

With regard to the fact that no one is forced to take bilingual training because of the provisions of the bilingual service, tell that to the controllers at the Ottawa terminal.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Carleton-Gloucester.

I am glad to speak on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board in this debate-

-and to be able to express the point of view of the Government of Canada, the government of all Canadians, on the motion by the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan on official languages in federal institutions.

First I would like to express some amazement with respect to the position taken by the hon. member on this motion, an amazement that I am sure is shared by many members of this House and many Canadians.

The motion seems to display a perhaps deliberate misunderstanding of the very purpose and spirit of the Official Languages Act and its regulations. It seems to be challenging the very make-up of Canada's approach to language rights and, indeed, one of the founding principles of this nation.

The main purpose of the Official Languages Act, to make it clear to members opposite, is to guarantee the equality of status of French and English Canadians in the use of the two official languages in federal institutions.

The act rests on the principle of institutional bilingualism, the principle that federal institutions must be able to serve Canadians and to communicate with them in the official language of the choice of the citizen. In fact, the act forces neither English speaking Canadians to speak French nor French speaking Canadians to speak English. Rather it is offices of federal institutions that must be bilingual in localities where demand is sufficient for services to be in both official languages.

These are important distinctions for anyone wanting to address the issue of official languages in this country and specifically the Official Languages Act.

Institutional bilingualism does not mean that all employees of federal institutions must be bilingual, but that federal institutions are responsible for bilingualism. It is up to them to take all necessary measures to ensure that, wherever required by law, members of the public can be served and receive the information they need in the official language of their choice.

Institutional bilingualism means as well that Canadians of both linguistic communities may obtain employment and have a career in the federal public service in the official language of their choice. They may do so while remaining unilingual if that is their choice.

These are the principles that underlie the official languages program in federal institutions. These principles are simple and fair. They are a reflection of the rights conferred upon Canadians by our constitution. They lie at the very heart of our identity and our cultural heritage. They embody the very essence of Canadian linguistic duality, one of the fundamental characteristics of this country.

These principles guarantee Canadians, whether English or French speaking, the right to receive federal services and information in the language of their choice.

These principles give federal employees the right to work in the official language of their choice, in circumstances and regions specified in the legislation. They also give Canadians of both linguistic communities equal opportunities for employment and promotion in federal institutions.

These basic principles are an integral part of the laws of this country. And federal institutions must see to it that Canadians can exercise these rights.

The official languages regulations on communicating with and providing services to the public enforce specific provisions of the Official Languages Act.

These regulations define the circumstances in which federal institutions must serve the public in both official languages. It may be because there is sufficient demand for their services or because of the very nature of the services provided.

The official languages program is the instrument through which federal institutions implement the official languages legislation.

In short, these are the basic principles underlying this program. I would now like to explain why, in my opinion, these principles are valid.

In my view the Canadian approach to language rights has two fundamental characteristics. It is both reasonable and just. It is reasonable because it gives Canadians the right to receive federal services in the language of their choice but, at the same time, limits the scope of these rights notably by defining significant demand. It is just because it gives Canadians open and easy access to the services of their government in both official languages enabling the vast majority of Canadians to receive services in the official language of their choice.

What is also remarkable about the Canadian approach is the sense of fairness and balance. In fact, that is why there is not one and only one definition of significant demand for services.

The variations that the regulations in the legislation allow may be based on the importance of the service to be provided, for instance, where health and security are involved. Obviously, any Canadian has to be able to understand the service they are being provided and to communicate.

When it is a matter of such issues as transportation in which any Canadian may be involved at any time, of course they have to be entitled to the services of their government in the official language of their choice.

I want to conclude very briefly by saying that we could have taken a different approach and as some would have it, we could have applied a simple rule that is based purely on mathematics. We chose not to do that. We chose to do it based on need and importance of the service.

We have decided to remain true to the principle of fairness, to rules that make it possible to meet the needs I mentioned earlier and the legislation was intended to meet. That is simply for Canadians to have accesses to the services provided by their country's institutions.

We want Canadians to be able to work together in the official language of their choice in the same institutions within bilingual regions as provided for in the act. The government has made a commitment to the equitable participation of Canadians of both linguistic communities in federal institutions. It is committed to ensuring that federal institutions reflect the presence of English speaking and French speaking Canadians, taking into account their mandate and their locations.

The Canadian approach whether it deals with service to the public, language of work, or equitable participation reflects the choices made since the beginning of the history of this country. I remember a time in this city when if one was a francophone one was unlikely to get hired by one's own government and if one did get hired one certainly did not get promoted. As one who believes in equity in employment, I would not tolerate that situation again in my community or in my country.

I also want to refer to the phrase territorial bilingualism. In my view we have had far too much of territoriality in this country in recent years. We have had far too much of pitting one person against another, of looking at every public policy issue from a selfish point of view. It is time to start realizing that our different communities have to work together toward common goals and common purposes. That is what makes Canada unique, a country respectful of our differences and proud of what we have in common.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing the hon. member's comments. I have a couple of questions for her.

First, I would like a response to the fact that in a community in my constituency, Kindersley, members who receive cable television are not able to understand much of the proceedings because they do not get services in the language that they all understand but in the language of the floor.

If one is bilingual that is well and good. However the members in my riding who receive this do not even know what the Official Opposition is saying. In fact, we are not even getting service in our part of the country that we can understand.

The other thing is that for environmental consideration I have suggested and I expect others have as well that considerable savings could be made if we provided publications in language of choice rather than having every publication bilingual where one receives both languages. This uses twice the paper and it is twice the cost to put these documents together.

I know most Canadians would prefer these documents in one language or the other because they only use one. I would like to have the hon. member's response in the way of environmental and fiscal responsibility as to providing services in the language that is required, not in both languages.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my first comment is that we could save an awful lot of money if we simply closed down the Government of Canada and ceased completely to provide services to Canadians.

We could save an awful lot of money if we ceased having a national postal service, if we ceased having a national transportation system. However, certain prices go with the very nature of the country, its diversity and its size, and as a famous Canadian said before me, I for one pay those prices gladly.

Naturally we are always interested in ways of reducing the cost of implementing any government program or policy. In fact the cost of providing official languages has dropped significantly in the last couple of years. I would be pleased to give consideration to the comments of the hon. member and to discuss them with the minister.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it may be difficult for Reform Party members who can function in English every day to imagine how French Canadians who do not always have the opportunity to do so in French feel.

In Canada, it is hard to imagine that our children, whether they are French or English-speaking, cannot receive an education in their mother tongue, or have no choice but to participate in socio-cultural activities, or rely on essential services and vocational training, in a language which is not their own. Yet, for more than 1.6 million Canadians, which includes francophones outside Quebec as well as English-speaking Quebecers, being able to use their mother tongue is something they cannot always take for granted.

The French and English languages are integral parts of the Canadian identity. Language is a vital component of what it means to be a Canadian, and has been since the very beginning. The fact is that close to 99 per cent of Canada's residents speak either French or English. However, close to two million Canadians live in provinces and territories where their mother tongue is the minority language. This linguistic duality is therefore a basic social reality in our country, and Canadians are proud of

that reality which distinguishes us from other nations such as the United States.

This is why francophone communities, of which I am a member, want their children to be able to preserve their language in a primarily English-speaking environment. This is also why anglophones in Quebec are concerned by their decreasing numbers and the need to preserve their social, cultural and educational institutions.

There are real concerns in the daily lives of many Canadians who are members of linguistic minorities. This is the reason why the federal government works with community groups to support their efforts to turn things around and to help them take charge of the development and future of their communities.

It would be hard to imagine promoting the use of English and French across Canada without strongly supporting their every day use in a community context.

It is through education that the federal government has mostly contributed to the development of the minority communities while respecting the fact that matters concerning education are under provincial jurisdiction.

When Canada adopted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 it took a stand in favour of the rights of minorities, including linguistic rights. Section 23 of the charter guarantees minority official language communities not only the right to education in their language but also the right to manage their own institutions.

These rights have been clarified by two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Mahé decision and the reference on education rights of Manitoba in March 1993.

As citizens of Canada we must respect those rights. That is why the federal, provincial and territorial governments are co-operating to provide opportunities for English speaking Canadians in Quebec and French speaking Canadians outside Quebec to be educated in their own language and for all Canadians to learn English or French as a second official language.

Moreover, the federal government recently extended the scope of its action to support minority language education.

Indeed, the government adopted special measures to help some provinces set up structures which will allow a minority to manage its schools, as provided by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and facilitate access, for francophones outside Quebec, to post-secondary education in French.

This support will help provide young people who belong to linguistic minorities and who are tomorrow's adults an equal opportunity to participate actively in our country's development and prosperity.

In my province, for example, these special measures by the federal government allowed for the setting up of a network comprising three French-language colleges, including the Cité collégiale, here in Ottawa, which is already a resounding success.

The Franco-Ontarian community has been working relentlessly for years to ensure the creation of colleges in certain regions and the success of the Cité collégiale confirms the real need for such institutions.

The importance of minority language education to minority language communities is obvious. As the B and B commission pointed out, the absence of adequate education prevented these minority communities from contributing fully to Canadian society. Only now are we beginning to reverse the impact of these previous deficiencies.

I belong to the French speaking minority community and I am proud of my origins. Like me, almost 978,000 people living outside Quebec have French as a mother tongue. Furthermore, some 665,000 persons living in Quebec have English as their mother tongue. This is an important segment of the Canadian population. In fact these minority communities are more numerous than the population of several provinces.

Our official language minority communities are spread out across the country. As a fourth generation Franco-Ontarian, I am proud to state that half a million francophones live in Ontario alone. The Acadians form one-third of the population of New Brunswick, Canada's only officially bilingual province. The largest provincial minority of all is the English speaking community in Quebec.

Numerous or not, concentrated or scattered, those communities are important contributors to Canadian society.

The motion before us proposes territorial bilingualism, which is described by Reform Party members as territorial unilingualism, as a new linguistic arrangement in Canada. The Reform Party proposes a form of ethnic cleansing. This territorial solution, which exists in some European countries, may seem attractive at first glance. However, on closer examination, we see that it does not reflect the regional and demographic realities of Canada.

For example, unlike Switzerland and Belgium, where linguistic groups live in well-defined areas, the two Canadian linguistic communities are present right across the country.

Canada has a real interest in ensuring that official language minorities participate fully in the social and economic life of our society.

The Liberal Party has contributed more than any other party in the House toward building a united Canada, a country united in its cultural and linguistic diversity. We will continue to work toward that goal. Our vision of our country is one wherein all francophones and anglophones are first class Canadian citizens regardless of where they live in Canada.

Canada has been thriving thanks to the co-operation displayed by the two major linguistic families, and it will continue to thrive in unity and prosperity, as long as we will be wise enough to protect what unites us and courageous enough to eliminate what could divide us.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester. It is good to hear that he has settled down, at least I sense that his speech came from his heart.

I would just like to present a few statistics from the 1991 census for the member and ask for a response to a question.

My riding is quite different from his riding. Perhaps in his riding official bilingualism, as we practise it and it is legislated, fits. However, Kindersley-Lloydminster has a population of 63,871 people. English is spoken by 61,325 and French by 35. Then there are some non-official languages, such as Chinese, 130; Spanish, 40; German, the largest after English 1,130.

Another interesting statistic is English only: English as the only spoken language 61,645; French as the only language is zero according to this census.

I want to turn back a few pages to another riding in the province of Quebec, the riding of Saint-Maurice, which is represented by the Prime Minister. There are some very interesting statistics: the total population is 75,185; English is the home language if 555 residents; French 73,370. There are very few non-official languages, 10 Spanish, 60 German and a few others. Those able to communicate only in English is 45 people; those able to communicate in French only is 61,405 people.

Carleton-Gloucester is not actually representative of all of Canada. In Kindersley-Lloydminster because of lack of funding, school are being closed, education services are being restricted. Several hospitals in my constituency have been closed for lack of funds.

I wonder if the hon. member understands the feelings of people who see services that are very important to them close down partly because of services provided to people of which there is not one person in my constituency. No one in my constituency relies on services in one of the official languages. To the north of me are the native people who were here before the anglophones and francophones but they have no official status whatsoever.

It all seems very unfair and just does not seem relevant to a Canada which is about to go into the 21st century. That is why we need to move forward. I would like to see the minister get in step with that and prepare Canada for the next century, not looking back to the 19th century.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find the comments made by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and House leader for the Reform Party to be insensitive. He gave us statistics and said that in his riding, unlike mine, there are very few francophones. Is the member trying to tell Canada

French is not wanted in Kindersley-Lloydminster, or if you are French, we do not care about you and do not dare ask a question en français, especially to your federal government since that is where the services are. I wonder if that is really his attitude, his attitude of caring for Canada, his attitude of wanting to provide for minorities.

I find his attitude similar to those of all the other Reform Party members who spoke earlier. He asked me: "Does he understand the feelings of the people?". Does he really understand what prejudice means? It is one thing to practise it, but it is another to receive it.

I will tell a little story. I remember getting my first job in this city as a student. I got to work as a summer student, 16 years of age, and I had forgotten my lunch. I lived downtown. I wanted to call my mom because I knew she would take the bus and deliver the lunch. I asked permission of the secretary of the office if I could call my mother. She said yes.

I called my mom and I said to her: "Mom do not bring my lunch. I forgot it. It is my fault. I will go and get it. I have my bike. Do not worry". At that very moment the superintendent of that division of the federal government grabbed me by the arm and said: "Young fellow, if I hear you speaking in French once more in this office you will be fired".

I wonder if your party is really thinking of what you are saying. I wonder if your party is really thinking of what you are telling French Canadians. I think all of you are a bunch of bigots.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Having heard the story that the member just recounted, I wonder if he was carried away in the heat of the moment and if he would not agree to withdraw that word as being one that does not help the atmosphere of the House.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not have my hearing aid on.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I repeat what I said. I appreciate the story just related by the hon. member, but I wonder if he is prepared to withdraw the word "bigot"?

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not accuse Reform Party members of being bigots.

It was a thought and perhaps my tongue projected my feeling. I truly feel that because of the manner in which they act. One always judges someone according to his acts. I really feel that.

Because it is unparliamentary I will withdraw this French word "bigot" because they find it extremely offensive. I am not sure if it is because it is a French word or the definition or that they are uncomfortable with the definition.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would like to thank the hon. member for withdrawing that word.

[Hugh Hanrahan, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my anger in regard to the term ethnic cleansing in terms of linguistic ethnic cleansing used by the hon. member.

I have been accused because I am a Reformer of supporting such atrociousness. We do not support that. I would like to go on the record as being an Albertan who has a daughter in grade eight. She has been in French immersion since day one of her education. We are proud as a family that this is an opportunity that she has as a Canadian.

I would also point out that it costs the taxpayer of Alberta an extra $450 per student to be educated in French. I believe that extra amount should be paid by the individual who is receiving the benefit, the student involved or the parents.

I would like to ask the hon. member for his comments on that situation.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the Reform Party takes great objection to my comment about ethnic cleansing. I remind him that the member for St. Albert, a Reform Party member, is the one who brought up that topic a while ago when he said that the problems around this world are ethnic in origin. He made references to activities across the ocean that are occurring right now.

If the problems are of ethnic origin, if he and his party want to create a Quebec français and an English Canada, is that not the member's definition of ethnic cleansing? If it is not, what exactly is it?

As far as paying to go to school, is the member suggesting that only those who can afford an education have a right to that education?

They give us an example that there is a school closing here and there and a hospital closing somewhere. It is certainly not Klein's fault. Whose fault is it? Is it the fault of minority language?

Are the school closings in Alberta and B.C. caused by the province of Quebec, caused by Saskatchewan, caused by everyone but them? No, it is always a question of over spending.

What they would like to do to this country is take the key and lock it and every time they come up with whatever topic, helping the poor, assisting the minority groups, respecting official languages, respecting their country, all they want to do is shut down this country, shut down the government and go back home. That is all they want to do.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would be very grateful if we could avoid using terms such as were used by both speakers just now. As you know, a word to be unparliamentary has to be disruptive. The word used by the hon. member did not seem to be disruptive with the Reform Party members but I would ask members, particularly given what is going on in the rest of the world, if we might try to avoid words which are so loaded with emotion and strong feelings that they do nothing to create good will and what I think Canadians would want us to do in this House.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

I would just like to ask a question of the member. I guess we do not all realize that we are all trying to arrive at a better solution for Canada. I guess that is not accepted and I do not know what I can do to put the concerns of the hon. member to rest on some of these things.

Just as an example of a policy gone too far, I have an electrician in my riding who tried to get a copy from Employment Canada of the major contractors and locations of the major projects in British Columbia. This document is available and was submitted to the employment office in British Columbia. It is a catalogue, something like a Simpsons-Sears catalogue, and it is a significant document with hundreds and hundreds of locations, jobs and so on.

When he found out about this he went to the employment office and asked if he could have a copy of that so he could get on with his job search. He has been out of work for several months. He was told, although the document was brandished across the desk, that until it was translated into both official languages he

was not allowed to have it so that he could get on with his job search.

He sits, as I speak, at home waiting for the translation. It will take several weeks, in which case he sits there, and he has been on my doorstep as well, asking why can he not get that when in my riding I think there are 40 unilingual French people.

I realize we can provide the service to them but for the 70,000 people, a good number of whom are looking for jobs, they want to have access to that document.

It seems that it is a good idea sometimes, a good concept, but it is pushed so far, pushed to such an extreme that this person sits on the unemployment roles waiting for access to this document.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Reform Party member made a slip of the tongue when he referred to the Simpson Sears catalogue, because I am convinced that Alberta is living with its times and that Albertans know that, for at least 20 years now, it has only been Sears.

I also want to illustrate another mistake made by the member, who just found out, talking to someone from Alberta, about the difficulties Canadians can experience when they contact federal offices. He said that the person could not get a document in English because the French version had not yet been published.

I apologize to him, but the federal government often experiences problems. Particularly in the last eight years. The federal government's policy is to publish in both official languages in order to serve all Canadians. If he knows someone in his region who worked for the federal government and who had a document in English only, then that person also had a French version, because both are always published at the same time. Documents are only distributed once they have been prepared in both languages, so that people who request a copy can get it either in English or in French.

The hon. member forgot to mention the case of the francophone waiting in line at the manpower office. When his turn finally came after a close to two-hour wait-and I am relating situations which I witnessed or which were reported to me-the francophone was told: Sorry, I do not speak French but we do have a bilingual person working here and would you go back to the end of the line, which means another wait of 45 minutes or more, so that maybe that particular officer will be available when your turn comes again.

Yes, it is hard to serve people in both languages, but what we are trying to do in Canada is create an atmosphere that makes us proud to be Canadians, that makes us feel good to be Canadians. It is because of attitudes such as yours that many Quebecers got fed up and sent us grumblers like Bloc Quebecois members.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was faced with two choices. Either I refrained from saying anything at all, or I spoke from the heart. I have chosen the latter course of action.

What I have heard since the start of this debate convinces me more than ever that Quebec is doing the right thing. It is clear that Quebec has made the right choice to embark on its march to independence.

I realize that the junior member from thirty-five kilometres away will try to cut in, but since I have listened carefully almost all day to the speeches of the other members, I would ask them to extend the same courtesy to me and to refrain from commenting while I am speaking. I will be happy to field questions and comments later.

Canada's official languages are guaranteed under the Constitution. Education rights are also guaranteed under the Constitution. That is all well and good, but what about our francophone minorities outside Quebec? They are having trouble getting schools-

Mr. Speaker, would it possible for you to ask that members refrain from making comments while I have the floor?

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the members opposite could be quiet for a few minutes, other members could also be heard.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

I recently completed a trip across Canada. I visited all of the provincial capitals, with the exception of Charlottetown. I met with francophone minorities outside Quebec. I heard some amazing stories.

A resident of British Columbia was told that there were no bilingual stenographers in all of Canada, whereas there are at least 17 bilingual court stenographers in Montreal alone. A person was asked if he would agree to a preliminary hearing in English and was promised that the transcripts would be translated into French afterward. That person was later told that the $20,000 cost of translating the transcripts was too high. When the time came for that person to go to trial, he was told that since his preliminary hearing had been in English, then surely he was also capable of understanding trial proceedings conducted in English.

In my office, I got a lot of information and press clippings intended to show me how well French is doing outside Quebec. I picked up only four before leaving my office this morning.

In Ontario, for the school census, they are unfortunately unable to correct the form, which says that the photocopiers

cannot print on both sides. That is the reason which the ministry gave to Ontario's francophones.

In 1994, a key year for Franco-Ontarians, the Auditor General of that province criticized the Ministry of Education for not providing francophones with good services and he says that the services given to francophones are inferior. Our friend from Carleton-Gloucester is quoted here: "Deploring the lack of bilingual judges, six-year wait for civil cases in Ontario, backlog of 1400 trials".

The gem is Mr. Vastel's article, where it mentions that someone is looking for "sewers, preferably bilingual". Let me explain. In Kingston, the city where they want to relocate the military college because it is bilingual, the Employment Centre has an advertisement for a "sewer"; let me spell it out in case I do not pronounce it correctly, so that there is no ambiguity. It should be translated in French as "couseur" or "couseuse", but the advertisement says "égout"-quite a different sewer!

Another situation. I just heard someone from Saskatoon ask the Minister of Heritage a question. There is an advertisement in the Saskatoon Employment Centre for a "cook for menu in family style restaurant", which was translated "faire cuire de menus dans famille coiffée de restaurant". Those are a few gems.

To get back to something more serious, although we need to laugh a little, we will talk about bonuses. I admit that bilingualism is costly. We talked about bilingualism bonuses, for example. Do you know that such bonuses have existed since 1888? In 1888, bilingualism bonuses were established. They were $50 for any francophone civil servant who could take English dictation or for any anglophone civil servant who could take French dictation. So Canada has always wanted to recognize bilingualism with a bonus. In reality, in constant dollars, $800 is not much compared to the $50 offered in 1888 just for writing a dictation. Now they are given a bonus to be operational, so that they can respond and give service. I do not think that $800 is a lot.

If you want to make cuts in bilingualism, I do not think that is the place to do it. Training is where the cuts should be made. If you need to be bilingual for a position, you should be bilingual before you are hired and not have someone take courses and more courses and still more courses, which is very expensive. Why take a public servant from his office and send him for three months of immersion somewhere, the Château Frontenac, perhaps, for the Christmas holidays, or maybe Toronto, if he is French-speaking.

I find it inconceivable that, 25 years after the passage of the Official Languages Act, we continue to send unilingual public servants on language training at public expense. If bilingualism is a condition of employment, then they should be bilingual at the time they are hired. I am not talking about refresher or upgrading courses, which are relatively inexpensive. But to pay for the basic language training of unilingual civil servants is too expensive. We could easily save close to $96 million a year, if you count the training costs plus the program administration costs. That is no paltry amount.

I would like to call imagination into play. In a draft article which was sent to me, Professor Bouvier calls it the ignorance bonus versus the bilingualism bonus. The latter, the bonus paid to those bilingual civil servants who fulfil their duties satisfactorily, should remain. As for the other one, the ignorance bonus, we could do away with it.

According to an article published in The Ottawa Citizen , the report just produced by Mr. Goldbloom must be seen as conveying a double message, both a judgment and a warning. Why a warning? Year after year, we are reminded in that report about all that is going well and all that is going wrong in Canada. Let us face it, it is not a bed of roses for francophones outside Quebec.

When you think about ways of preserving your language, it is important to know that you can get served in your own language. I can remember back in my youth, when we went out shopping. We could safely go to Dupuis Frères knowing that we would be served in French. But beyond Saint-Laurent Street, you were sure to have to ask to be served in French because it was not automatic; they would answer you in English. We had to besiege Sainte-Catherine Street to get the restaurants to translate their menus. Is it through these little day-to-day battles that Quebec was able to assert its French and French-speaking colour more and more.

I listened carefully to the hon. member for Nanaimo who spoke first, I think, on behalf of the Reform Party, as he enumerated all the milestones, but I could not help but notice that he had major memory blanks. He systematically failed to mention any legislation passed in Quebec that favoured anglophones. He only talked about those that anglophones had trouble with, like Bill 101 and Bill 178 on signs for example. When I travelled in Canada, I saw unilingual signs everywhere except in airports.

I drove to Calgary to visit the Dinosaur Museum-the real ones- and along the way I encountered no road sign that bore anything beside directions in English, not even international symbols. The same thing last week in Newfoundland, I saw nothing but English all over the place. So, when they come and tell us that there were trials and cases were taken all the way to the United Nations because poor little English Canadians were treated badly in Quebec, give me a break. People should come and see for themselves that it is possible to live both in French and in English in Quebec. In fact, it is the only place where it is

possible. It is not possible to live in both official languages anywhere in Canada except in Quebec.

I am talking about entire provinces. Of course, in Northern Ontario there are towns that are 100 per cent French-speaking. That is true, there are some in Northern Ontario.

There are towns in New Brunswick where people can live in French even when surrounded by English. But there are others in the Prairies, in Western Canada, in the Maritimes, and if their numbers do not warrant it, they may obtain nothing. We read in the newspapers about what happened in Kingston; they may be up to 4,999, but there is still one missing; I may move there to bring that number to 5,000 so they can receive services in French.

What seems extremely important to me is to stop dreaming and realize that Canada is an English-speaking country. When one lives abroad-I lived in Portugal for ten months and whenever I said e esto Canadense, everyone would speak to me in English. Nobody thought that I could be francophone. And as I spoke French, they said, "Ah, there is some French there."

In every embassy except in Paris, we are addressed in English. Let us stop putting our heads in the sand. Canada is an English-speaking country. Why did the Trudeau government pass a law in 1969? To stop the rise of nationalism in Quebec. That is why Mr. Trudeau drafted his law in 1969. That was the only reason.

Section 23 of the 1982 Constitution Act protects the rights of French-speaking communities outside Quebec, with respect to their schools in particular, but even Supreme Court decisions were not enough to put this in practice. Mrs. Landry, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, had to give $112 million to the provinces, and I agree with our friends from the Reform Party that it costs the federal government a lot of money because the provinces do not assume their responsibilities. The provinces do not respect the Constitution and the federal government's only recourse is to give them $112 million so that they can respect their minority populations.

I think it is extremely important to realize something else. Among the many symbols we are very proud of in this country is the national anthem we still have in common, namely O Canada, which was first performed on June 24, 1980, and officially proclaimed as our national anthem on July 1, 1980. The music was composed by Calixa Lavallée and the lyrics were written by Mr. Routhier. I remember very well the debate that took place in this House, and it would be quite informative for the members who did not have the opportunity to follow that debate. I remember how difficult it was to draft the English version and even today I meet anglophones who are surprised to see that we changed the lyrics of their national anthem. It is time to set the record straight. Canada comes from Quebec. That is where Canada got its start, just like the national anthem. It should be pointed out that when each province joined the Canadian community, the majority was French-speaking. If francophones' rights had been respected from the start, we might not be where we are today.

Before I sit down, I want to remind members of one last thing, namely that belonging to a country has its price. Here, Canada decided to be bilingual. Those who find it too expensive can move to the United States. It is cheaper to live in the United States. But there is a price to pay for living in a bilingual country. It seems extremely important to me, and Quebecers are also aware that, costly as it is to be Canadian, it may be a little more expensive to be a Quebecer, but at least we will have all the tools we need to grow the way we want.