Debates of April 18th, 1994

Supply

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, personally I am disappointed by the hon. member's speech, and I am sure Canadians must be surprised at the position and views of the Bloc Quebecois on official languages.

I have a question. The other day, the hon. member, who is the heritage critic, asked and I quote:

"When will they," meaning the provinces, "start treating French Canadians as well as the English are treated in Quebec".

Her leader, commenting on the same subject, said and I quote:

"The Quebec government did not do enough, even the Péquistes did not do enough. The federal government certainly did more than Quebec. I am ready to admit that".

Mr. Speaker, my question is, why do Bloc members not speak the same language?

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

I think we do, Mr. Speaker, but I did not think that was the point of this debate. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage asked this question, because I am disappointed as well.

What I find particularly disappointing is the position taken by the Liberal Party-I do not know whether I am supposed to say that here-by the government, I should say. It is the same thing. What I find disappointing is that the minister arranged for two planted questions, and trick questions at that, one from the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria and one from another member who talked about Saskatoon today, in which they praised the government for not making any cuts.

Francophone communities are in dire straits, and the minister was very sympathetic to the needs of francophone communities. Budgets have been cut. Last year, there was a 10-per-cent cut in funding for these associations. They expected another 10-per-cent cut this year, and they got another 5 per cent on top of that. In some cases, some associations will cease to exist or they will have to lay off several staff members.

When we no longer have associations to defend our rights, it means being left without any protection whatsoever. That is what is so disappointing. Our position is clear. We respect the francophone community. We want to work as partners when Quebec becomes a sovereign nation, and we will do everything to try and defend that community as long as we are part of Canada. However, we cannot give them the 5 per cent the government refuses to give them and which they need so badly. That is the truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for St. Boniface. Unfortunately in the 10 minutes I will have and the 10 minutes he will have, we will not have enough time to respond to all of the arguments that have been put forward in this debate, especially some which I believe are false and misleading.

The hon. member from Nanaimo of the Reform Party proposes three things in his motion. First he proposes to amend the Official Languages Act to provide territorial language rights. Generally speaking it would mean there would only be one official language in Quebec, which would be French and one official language in the rest of Canada which would be English.

While he did not accept that extreme expression of the territorial principle, some members in his party in speaking to the debate have supported it. The Reform Party has not been completely together on this one. He said that bilingual services should apply in the east and north of Ontario, in the northeastern part of New Brunswick and west of Montreal. He gave those as examples. When I questioned him on it, he said he was not hard and fast on the examples but at least it gave us an idea of the territorial bilingualism he had in mind. As I pointed out in the question which I put to him, it would leave out the anglophones in the eastern townships, the anglophones in the Gaspé and the anglophones in the Outaouais region. It would leave out the francophones of Manitoba that have had historic rights in that province. It would leave out the francophones in Nova Scotia, the Acadians.

What we are talking about is how wide or how narrow is interpreted the expression "when numbers warrant". It would seem that the hon. member from the Reform Party would interpret it widely so it would be very difficult for many minority communities to qualify. He would interpret it in a way that would leave out, to a greater extent than we do, minority language communities.

We oppose the first proposition in his resolution because we believe that the one million francophones outside Quebec, as citizens of Canada, have rights and those rights should be protected. The approximately 800,000 anglophones in Quebec have the same rights, to be protected under the federal Official Languages Act and policy.

The second point in his resolution is to provide for English and French in the Parliament of Canada and the institutions relating to the Parliament of Canada and to the Federal Court. That is the law and the policy right now. I do not know how that part of his resolution would change anything. I may be incorrect. He did not spend much time speaking to that part of his resolution.

The third part of his resolution asks that we refrain from spending on those aspects of language which come under provincial jurisdiction. He did not speak to that part of his resolution either but if we were to adopt that policy, it would mean cutting assistance to the provinces for minority language education and second language education, including immersion. That would be a bad thing.

The money the federal government provides to the provinces for second language education, including immersion, and for minority language education is a good thing. It is done for the national unity of the country because many of the provinces could not afford to give adequate minority language education.

The hon. member from Nanaimo asked that we keep an open mind. I came to this debate with an open mind but I must say in listening to the speeches, as a party the policy has been unclear and ambiguous. I am not saying all of them. I listened to them all. I was here for the entire debate. They gave different versions. In fact some of them proposed things that were contrary to the resolution. Some of the proposals they spoke of were truly retrograde, a step backward in protecting the language rights of Canadians, including minority language rights.

He said in his opening remarks that the act was not working well, therefore it had to be changed. He said in many cases it was divisive and too expensive. He suggested that commissioners of official languages had supported that criticism.

That is not correct. It is true that from time to time, and the reports of the official languages commissioner will attest to that, they are critical of the administration for not following the provisions of the act or where there have been mistakes or errors. That is the role of the Commissioner of Official Lan-

guages, to point out where the administration has failed to live up to the principles in the act.

No commissioner that I know of has criticized the principles and the general policy of the act. As a matter of fact, all commissioners agree that without the act things would be much worse with respect to our language minorities.

As to whether it is working well or not working well, these are relative concepts. In fact, there are now 162,000 francophones outside Quebec in 700 French primary schools. There are 23,000 francophones outside Quebec in 45 colleges and universities. Four million Canadians, or 16 per cent of the population, speak both official languages.

The second criticism he made is that it is too expensive. Again, I do not know of any Commissioner of Official Languages who criticized the entire policy as being too expensive. The present commissioner criticized the bonus program and suggested we get rid of it but he has not said that the policy is too expensive in a global sense.

Commissioners have criticized specifics within the policy and asked that they be corrected, but not that the entire policy be cancelled or cut back.

With respect to expense, in fact it only costs 20 cents out of every $100 that the federal government spends on programs. That comes to three cents per day per Canadian. In response to the member of the Reform Party, it will not keep many hospitals open that are closing in his constituency. The cost for official language policy is a very small percentage of our entire budget.

Finally, he says it is divisive. Again I do not know of any Commissioner of Official Languages who says that the principles of the act are divisive. It is divisive in the sense that some people will not accept the principles in the Official Languages Act. It is their democratic right to oppose it and we hear that today. I do not think the reason, the cause of the divisiveness, is the principles in the act. It is just that some people will not recognize the rights of linguistic minorities.

The polls that I have looked at-I do not want to spend too much time, but they are on the record-indicate that from 60 to 75 per cent of Canadians support the policies in the Official Languages Act.

The purpose of the Official Languages Act is to provide legally enforceable language rights and language justice for the two official language communities in Canada, that is the one million francophones outside of Quebec and the approximately 800,000 anglophones in Quebec. It is also to serve the interests of the six million francophones in Canada, including those in Quebec because they are a minority in the entire country.

It is a law that is based principally or inspired by a need for tolerance, understanding and generosity. I am pleased that our government is going to bring back the court challenges program because it is no use having rights in law if you cannot enforce them in the courts.

There is no obligation to become bilingual under the Official Languages Act but I heard members of the Reform Party once again saying today that French is being thrust down their throats. No language is being thrust down the throat of the consumer of services. It is true that if you are going to provide those services some people have to speak French and some people have to speak English in order to provide the services but generally speaking that is in the institution.

By the way, 70 per cent of all federal government positions are unilingual either English or French. Only 30 per cent of the positions are bilingual.

I thought I had until 5.15. I wrote down the time. How much time do I have left?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Zero.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

I have zero time on such an important subject.

Unfortunately we do not have the time to debate this important matter in the way it should be debated. I have many points I would still like to make. I will have to come back on another day.

Please put the motion before the House again so we can all get at it once more.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member say that the Reform Party has been saying this is being thrust down people's throats. No, it has been thrust on to the backs of the taxpayers at the sacrifice of hospitalization in this country. We have to prioritize. This is all we are saying on this side of the House.

How can I tell people in my constituency that they have to wait for months for hospitalization and for operations and still fund official bilingualism from the pockets of the taxpayers? They do not understand it. It is not a priority out there. We do not have the numbers.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course health care is important. I do not have the figures here today as to how much at both the federal and provincial levels we are spending on health care, but it is probably not enough. However, to suggest that you can save hospitals with the little bits of money that we are spending on our bilingual program at the federal level is to mislead Canadians. It plays to the minds and hearts of bigots when you do that.

I am not saying that the member is one, but when you suggest that you can save the health care system with the budget that we have for official languages that is distorting the situation.

I will give examples. They could be given in English Canada as well. An elderly anglophone who is close to me went to a hospital, in this case in Quebec but it could happen to a francophone outside Quebec, for health care and could not communicate with the nurses or the doctors in that hospital because nobody could speak English. I know there are many examples on the other side where francophones go to hospitals and they cannot get service in French and they are trying to describe their ailments, which is not easy even if you have a doctor or nurse who speaks your own language.

Therefore, to suggest that it is either one or the other, it is health care or official languages policies or services, is to mislead Canadians. Both are necessary on a basis of justice and social policy. I suggest that you will never save one hospital or one major health care program in this country with the little bitsy budget that we have for official languages.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a couple of points made by the hon. member. One part of the problem is the costs of official languages. The problem is that we do not know what those costs are.

Now we are told $601 million per year. We are told three cents on every $100. Frankly, I have received correspondence from the Department of National Defence specifically telling me: "Here is our figure of cost of this thing but we cannot tell all because of Treasury Board rules and regulations".

It is our perception that much of the cost of official languages is hidden somewhere or other. We would really like to unearth it. Perhaps that is the procedure that we can follow in the standing joint committee.

The other point that I would like to address which was made by the hon. member concerns the overall. What is it that we are trying to do here in examining the Official Languages Act? He was taking territorialism as an example and using the example that I was giving and saying that it did not go far enough. I agree. Let us take St. Boniface, Gravelbourg and Maillardville outside of New Westminster as places where it does merit it. Surely what we should be doing is studying the thing and not just rejecting it out of hand and saying the act is good, most people agree with it, therefore let us not look at it.

Please, let us go at it step by step and examine things that come up with a policy that works for all of us.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on his first point, with respect to the true costs, I would agree with him. If the present costs that are put forward by the government are not the complete costs then let us have the complete costs. I do not think it serves the debate well to have varying versions of the costs.

I do not know whether these costs are the full costs or not but we will have a chance in the committee to tie officials down on that. I think all the costs should be put on the table and then we can judge. I am sure, however, that in comparison to other programs they are still very small as a percentage base compared to health care, social services and so on.

His next point was with respect to what should be the exact definition of where the people demand the services. I was on the official languages committee in 1968-69 for the first act. We spent almost a year on it. I was on the committee in 1988 for the second version and we went through at great length the points that are being raised by the member: How narrow or how wide should the definition be in covering minority language communities? Should you cover Gravelbourg or not cover Gravelbourg? Should you just cover large areas like the east and north of Ontario and leave out, let us say, the Acadian community in Nova Scotia? We went through that for months and months in 1988.

The hon. member and myself are both on the official languages committee and we will have a chance to go through it again. That does not strike to the heart of the legislation, to the principles. Here we are debating how wide or how narrow, that concept of which populations should be served and where, how big that should be before we give the services. We will have a chance to go at that.

It comes also to a question of justice. Take the eastern townships as an example. There is a majority of francophones in the eastern townships now but the first Europeans to come to that part of Quebec were anglophones who fled from the United States to towns like Cowansville, Knowlton and Frelighsburg. I have lived there. I lived in Sherbrooke. They built a university there and they built colleges; Stanstead, Bishop's, Compton Hall and so on. Now it is mostly French speaking. Are we to leave these people out altogether with these long historic rights? That is a very important question.

We studied it before and we will study it again.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, as a francophone member from Western Canada, I am pleased and honoured to speak on this motion.

Our policy, that is the policy in force at the present time, is to ensure that our country is one in which all Canadians, francophone and anglophone, can feel at home, regardless of where they choose to live.

I had planned to speak exclusively about French language education governance.

Having heard some comments, I cannot help but address not only the government's French language schools and post-secondary opportunities in French but the proposal being made today.

Many people will know that the key to growth for minority language communities is quality education. The government has assisted in the management of minority language schools. The charter recognizes this right. The management of schools, that is its realization, has required much effort. It is still not complete, but for those where it is not complete the federal government is available to render some assistance.

The point I would like to make is that if you are going to develop the French language or English language community you need quality education. You cannot have the highest quality education unless it is the people themselves who govern, who manage, and that is a basic issue that we need to understand.

We also need to understand that without the help of the federal government this would never, never have happened.

Look at the language rights accomplishments of provinces throughout the years, whatever the political stripe. It has never been terribly generous. Quite to the contrary. They have done as little as possible in spite of judgment after judgment to do it to the contrary. That is where the federal government has that important right. It has an important responsibility to the people of Canada.

Where do you think immersion schools would be today if it had not been for the federal government's involvement? Where do you think the management of schools would be? Where do you think post-secondary opportunities in French would be if the federal government had not been willing to assist in their financing?

Without the federal government we would have accomplished a great deal less.

I would like to quote from a document that I read recently. I think it will be extremely useful since it expresses what I have been saying. I quote: "The establishment and expansion of centres of excellence for francophone communities outside Quebec was made possible thanks to the assistance of the federal government". For example, the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface in Manitoba has become the finest French-language post-secondary institution in Western Canada. Each year, the international centre for French common law at the Université de Moncton in New Brunswick welcomes several dozen interns from a number of francophone countries. Its reputation now extends beyond Canada's borders.

We are richer for those particular institutions at a time when countries' boundaries are no longer nearly as important as they were, at a time when we talk about globalization, when we reach out and we talk to other countries not only about economic development but other types of development.

It would seem to me that our minority communities, indeed all language communities, are a tremendous asset to this country.

I want to talk about the proposal. I will not dwell too heavily upon some of the points that have been made, but what is territorial bilingualism. I fear territorialism. We have territorialism in the former Yugoslavia, I fear.

It is a little tent here for someone with a little tent here for someone else. We put the tribes into those tents and sometimes they decide not to talk to each other.

Is territorial bilingualism really not French for Quebec and English for the rest of Canada? Is that not a nice way of saying it? Is it not a recognition that if that were to happen that over time those small fragile communities, very often with very few people, would disappear?

What is demonstrable local public demand? What percentage is it? Who is that makes the request?

There is a French language school in St.-Lazare, Manitoba, which is several hundred kilometres away from Winnipeg. Is there a demonstrable local public demand there? What is it exactly?

We talk about the costs. What I resent most is there is a suspicion that the costs are much more than the $601 million that has been mentioned. Rather than wait for the proof they prey on the prejudice of people who think that. Rather than say let us find out in committee, oh, no, that is not good enough.

This is why I deplore this particular proposal. It is insidious. It is malicious. I think it is intellectually dishonest. It is preying on the prejudices of people.

It is saying to the crowd "What do you want? We are prepared to give it to you because we want to keep your support. We want to keep your support".

Why give languages back to the provinces? Why? They know the records of most provinces. They know that provinces have not been generous. They know that over time the provinces would reduce those particular language rights and that is the

intellectual dishonesty. They know that and they are trying to put forward that position without owning up to it.

To suggest as was suggested before that the budget attributed to official languages would keep hospitals open is the height of irresponsibility. I said irresponsibility. There are other words that could have been used.

As I indicated before it is the old tribalism back at work. We have our tribe. You can have your tribe. Within each of those tribes, and we have seen that, there are some members who are more valued than others.

We are having a debate about official languages. What will be the next target? Multiculturalism? Aboriginal self-government? Obviously there are people out there who are concerned. I share those concerns and I am quite prepared to talk about them but let us be honest about it.

I do not deny, I have never denied, and I have written professionally about this topic, that the Official Languages Act costs money. I have said it. I have outlined the costs and I will continue to say it. But you have to look at it in perspective. You have to stop pretending that for the deficit and the debt and the hospitals there is a miracle cure. I am tired of hearing that kind of nonsense and I think a lot of others are tired of hearing that kind of nonsense as well.

If the Reform Party of Canada is truly interested in official languages why would it not look at what we have and try to build upon it as opposed to destroying it? It is among the first who would blame the Bloc for wanting to separate and destroy a country. I have asked the Bloc: Why not stay with us and help us build a better country? I say to the Reform Party rather than destroy the official languages, rather than perpetuate the myths that are out there which are frightening people, why not join in a debate that is intellectually honest?

Why would you not say that if the federal government does not continue to be involved that those small communities will disappear? Those small communities are fragile. Have you ever lived in one of those small communities? Do you know how difficult it is for someone to retain that language? Do you know how long they fought to do it? Do you know what price they had to pay? I doubt it because if you did-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member knows very well he is to put his remarks to the Chair. The reason we do not want members saying "you" is to avoid emotions getting too high. Will the member please do that.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the hon. members who brought forward this motion had lived in minority language situations as many people have had to do, if they had had that experience they would not have brought forward this motion.

I ask them, through you Mr. Speaker, to put away their prejudices and look at how we can improve it. Of course it can be improved. There is not a program in government that cannot be improved. Of course money can be saved. There is not one program in government that cannot be improved in terms of more efficient use of funds.

That should be the focus of the debate. The debate should consider what kind of Canada do we want. What kind of investments are we willing to make in our minority language communities? How are we going to make sure we make the investments that are sufficient not only to sustain them but to permit them to grow?

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I have one final comment. Like my colleague who preceded me, I would have liked to have a little more time. I would simply ask my hon. colleagues to try and be constructive, rather than destructive.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I will address the comment of whether any of us had lived in minority situations. I was a kid in Vancouver and I was one of those foreigners and heard: "His parents are foreigners. What is a name like Ringma anyway? That is funny sort of foreign name to me". I have lived it probably more than others in this House.

I heard the last speaker talk about intellectual dishonesty. I want to say I heard some intellectual dishonesty coming out from there saying why would we not build on the official languages policy rather than destroy it. It is precisely what we are trying to do. We are saying to amend the Official Languages Act, not chuck it out. We are saying to amend it and build on what is good in it.

I heard talk about intellectual dishonesty. If we are talking about bilingualism now, what will be next? Multiculturalism? Native rights? Do we not have a right, an obligation in this House to talk about these matters without emotions coming to the fore and people saying: "You cannot talk about that". This is nonsense. That is what Parliament is for. I will stand on my rights to talk about all of these subjects. It is my duty, how much it may hurt.

Finally, demonstrable local public demand is the phrase that was picked out of the motion. I agree it is a difficult one. It equates to what is in the act today, where numbers warrant. That is an area we should go at together. We should specify whether it is 5,000 or 10 per cent or 2 per cent of the population and under what circumstances. Let us put it out. Let us not just deny it.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to make certain that my colleague who just spoke does not misrepresent what I said. I at no time said that we should not be talking about these topics. I said we should be talking about them in an intellectually honest way. I object so much to the suggestion that the costs are such that hospitals are closing and people are suffering as a result of that. That is the intellectual dishonesty to which I refer.

When we talk about territorial bilingualism and demonstrable numbers there is a significant difference in what the critic and some other members of his party are saying. They have to decide whether or not they are talking about the same terms in the same way. I have heard significant differences in the speeches today. I will try to do a standing order statement on those differences just to point them out in case some people think I am exaggerating.

The member suggests I am saying we cannot talk about this. Of course I did not say that. I said we need to build. I suggest that what is being proposed today is destroying and not building. The provinces will not protect minority language rights. Looking at their record, it has not happened over time. That is what would happen.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a subject that I care deeply about. The rights of francophones outside Quebec are very much affected by the Official Languages Act and this law-

Official bilingualism in Canada is a complete failure. There is no doubt about the fact that it is a complete failure. The Reform Party talks about costs in dollars and cents but does not refer to the human costs of the failure of official bilingualism in Canada.

There are some MPs who talk about rights, especially anglophones in Quebec talk about their fundamental rights. If there is a community in Canada that has never had their rights respected, it is the francophones outside Quebec. Their rights were denied in spite of guarantees in the Constitution. Those rights were abolished illegally by every single province in Canada, every single one, right after Confederation. It was just Quebec that respected its English speaking minority. Every other province in Canada, every single province abolished French language rights in those provinces.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The answer must be brief; time is already up.

The parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand very well that there has been a huge loss for Canada, the whole country, because minority communities like francophones outside Quebec were neglected for years. Because of this neglect, it took extra effort to help them rebuild their infrastructure.

I know that it is not much use making comparisons because we all have our prejudices; I prefer my solution, you prefer yours and so on. Nevertheless, when dealing with such a sensitive subject as this, I would like us to consider people first and what can be done to help them keep the language they had since birth, whether it was French, English or some other language. For me, a Canadian very strongly aware of his roots, I most certainly want all Canadians, not only francophones or anglophones, to be able to keep their language and culture and at the same time to work and join with others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will dive right into my speech without commenting on some of the things that have gone on.

In his report to the Prime Minister of England a century ago, Lord Durham's characterization of Canada was profound and enduring. He described English and French Canada as two nations warring within the bosom of a single state. We cannot hide the unfortunate reality that there have always been varying levels of tension between the two groups.

Because of their numbers the English have in times past enjoyed the lion's share of political power within Canada. We find an example in the federal civil service which employed very few francophones in proportion to their share of the population. Federal services were almost unavailable in French, which was clearly unjust. In Ottawa, the nation's capital and an hour and a half from four million francophones, many services were simply unavailable in both official languages.

For nearly a century there was very little overt reaction but Quebec underwent a fundamental transformation after the second world war. After it had served there so nobly like a sleeping giant, Quebec shook itself awake and it defined itself as Confederation's underprivileged partner. Its intellectual elite began to pursue redress with a vengeance in a quiet revolution.

The Canadian way is the way of compromise. Some see this as a political weakness. That can be true, but in general the way of compromise is the way of peace and reconciliation. Rwanda is a nation without compromise. The democratization of South Africa we hope will be an example of noble compromise.

The Liberal government saw that compromise was necessary in order to keep Quebec within Confederation. Under Pearson

the federal government began to right the old wrongs in part by providing services in French and hiring more francophones.

It also passed an act of Parliament in 1969. The Official Languages Act was designed to quell calls for Quebec's independence. Its architect was Pierre Trudeau and his purpose was to satisfy other Quebec intellectuals by making federal services bilingual across Canada. The notion that some federal employees might not want to become bilingual did not appeal to Mr. Trudeau. The fact that there might be no demand for it in certain regions did not concern him. The cost of this venture went unestimated.

Twenty-five years later what do we find? Has the purpose of the act been fulfilled? Is Quebec satisfied? With the expenditure of over $600 million a year is Quebec now more comfortable within Confederation? I should say not. Quebec is closer than ever before to separation and the Bloc Quebecois is calling the act a failure.

On April 12 the Commissioner for Official Languages tabled a report that describes in detail not how civil servants across this land have embraced bilingualism, not how services are now adequate in both languages, not how the administration of the policy has been cost effective, no. The commissioner reported a litany of bilingual woe across Canada.

Many offices designated as bilingual can hardly deliver the service. Offices that have virtually no demand are hounded by the commissioner's language police to display bilingual signage. Imagine a Canada employment centre in Saskatoon being rebuked by the commissioner for putting up an ad for a job that was not translated perfectly. This rebuke came in response to one complaint and this is in Saskatoon. The commissioner forced the letter of the law upon an unwilling office.

Let me talk about a small post office in my constituency in the community of Sardis, B.C. The Official Languages Act says that where there is a significant demand for two languages, the service shall be provided by the Government of Canada. There is no definition of the word significant in the act although it does define a bilingual district as an area where 10 per cent of the population speaks the minority language.

To transfer the meaning of the word significant to my constituency, it would require a population of at least 8,000 people with French as their mother tongue to require services in French. After the last census the government determined there was a significant number of francophones who needed bilingual services in the tiny Sardis post office.

What does the word significant mean to the government? One point seven per cent of the population identifies their mother tongue as French. That is 1.7 per cent. Far fewer actually speak the language. That is their mother tongue. To top it off there was not one request in the post office for service in French, not one ever. Yet bilingual service must be provided. This is just one example of a silly policy that becomes horrendously expensive when it is repeated in different ways thousands of times across Canada.

It is no wonder bilingualism costs $660 million every year. That is only the official figure. Add in the administrative inefficiencies, enforcement, lost opportunities and the opportunity costs and the real world figure is much higher.

A comprehensive study done by Scott Reid says it seems reasonable to set this overhead cost at approximately 5 per cent of all public service staffing costs or $951 million per year.

Donald Savoie, a noted Canadian scholar, hikes the figure to 20 per cent.

Is this incredible cost necessary to hold Canada together? Are French and English bound only by the glue of this frustrating, burdensome regulation, inefficiency and waste? Why maintain a charade of bilingualism when after trying and spending for 25 years people still do not want it?

If the loss of the Official Languages Act would cause Quebec to separate then the act must be one of the main pillars on which this country rests. We managed for a century without such an act. Is bilingualism really the substance of Canadian unity? I do not believe it.

Canada is much greater than that. Canada possesses the only cords strong enough to bind a nation together. They are not the shackles of language law, they are historic ties, unity within diversity, the bonds of shared sacrifice, shared elements of culture, shared hopes and values, bandaged where necessary with generosity and good will.

Petty arguments over language cannot sever the fundamental oneness felt between all Canadians. Like a storm on the ocean, there may be tumult above but beneath the waves the deep waters lie undisturbed.

I am grieved that the Bloc Quebecois, along with other intellectuals, has created such a storm in Quebec. Even though the problems of inequity are largely resolved, the media and the politicians have for 20 years repeated their perception that vast inequities still persist. They have trumpeted this concept and held out false promises to persuade people to pursue them in their folly.

What will be the result of their actions? Every Canadian of every group will suffer, chief among them the people of Quebec.

I question the attitude of the Bloc when I hear of its support for unilingualism in Quebec, asserting at the same time that even if Quebec separates the federal government should force bilingualism on English Canada. This is not the spirit of the tolerance and generosity that has helped make Canada one of the

best places in the world to live. This is the kind of political ambition that breeds mistrust and anger.

The Commissioner of Official Languages expressed a great principle at the beginning of his report when he quoted Montesquieu: "Nothing is just merely because it forms part of the law; rather, it should be law because it is just".

The commissioner said that the form of law must reflect the substance of justice. The law simply reflects an underlying reality. I agree fully with that concept. Where there is significant demand, as our motion states, it is only just that bilingual services reflect that demand. The Official Languages Act is an attempt to change Canadian reality, to shape a different Canada, to create a new reality by forcing bilingualism coast to coast on what is frequently an unwilling population. It is expensive, it is intrusive and it is unnecessary.

The Reform Party does not oppose bilingualism. All Canadians would profit by learning another language if they would like to. Reformers are not unkind or insensitive to the rights of minorities. The Official Languages Act is not the act that makes us kind or sensitive. It is my desire and the desire of Reformers to make law reflecting underlying reality by giving jurisdiction over language to the provinces and using federal powers to protect all minorities from linguistic injustices.

We live in a changing Canada. Millions of new Canadians today were born neither French nor English. They too deserve to become part of the Canadian language equation.

The Reform Party of Canada wants to effect a new Canadian compromise, to reach out to French Canadians to cement and rebuild our great national home, not on the artificial, unstable basis of language or ethnicity but on the sure foundation of mutual respect, understanding and equality for all races, cultures and languages; on the desire for peace and prosperity rather than on power, anger or unrest.

To this new vision of Canada we pledge ourselves today and I invite all members to join with us in this grand adventure.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have endured the debates all afternoon, but now, I know that my time is short, but I will try to speak calmly.

The Official Languages Act was a late attempt to right serious historic wrongs, and to answer the question forthwith, Mr. Speaker, before it is overlooked, as a young francophone from Ontario used to say: "What you call Quebec's French unilingualism, we would really like to have as Ontario's bilingualism."

Come and see the reality of rights. Come and see the reality of rights in schools, in social services, in hospitals for English-speaking people and in the debates within the Parti Quebecois to preserve these rights. And I would like it if, in Canada, they had the same debates to preserve rights when Quebec is gone. Because I will tell you one thing: a debate such as the one here today will not give anyone in Quebec the desire to stay in this country.

There is an historic dimension missing. Perhaps I should apologize for the fact that my ancestors arrived around 1647. I must apologize for that. Their name was Tremblay and others came later. I must apologize for what they built at the time. They were Canadians, real ones, the first "Canadians".

They were all over the continent you know, they also explored the West, but we do not have time for a history lesson. After the conquest, "Canadians" were mostly confined to the territory of Quebec, but over the years, they maintained the desire to go all over Canada.

I would like to mention one fact. In 1928, headlines in Le Devoir stated that Montrealers were worried because francophones, instead of going West where there were some good lands, were emigrating to the United States. For a hundred years, 10,000 French-Canadians a year went to the United States-there were large families in those days-but why did they not go West? Because in 1928, it would cost $48 to have a family come over from Liverpool, but $928 for the same family, that is ten children-as was common in those days-and two parents, to cover the same distance but from East to West.

We must realize that "Canadians" tried desperately to make a place for themselves, their schools and their own religion in this country but they were kept from doing so. Mr. Trudeau tried, although belatedly, to remedy the situation, yet he knew full well that in Quebec things had already started to move and that the measures he was implementing were no more than a paper barricade.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was not really a question at the end of that but I certainly caught the gist of the member's comments. I can try and understand historically some of the frustrations, not being from Quebec.

Overall the French culture and the French language have done very well within the Canadian context. The people the member mentioned who went south into the United States were not able to hang on to their culture and their language by and large and they have lost that and have become assimilated.

As I mentioned earlier, there were wrongs in the past. To take note of them and try to rectify them where we can is obviously what Canadians have tried to do. A further mistake would be to

try and redress past wrongs in a way that exacerbates another problem somewhere else.

Our motion is to try and get at the nub of the issue which is where numbers warrant and where there is significant need for the French language outside of Quebec then those services should be provided; likewise in Quebec where there is significant demand for the English language.

I will use my own province as an example. French barely makes the top ten languages in British Columbia. Chinese is by far the second most frequently used language. In my own riding people who are either unilingually German or use German as their mother tongue outnumber French-speaking people perhaps 200 to 1.

Where there are numbers and where we can justify it and where we can financially afford it, for that reason, because we want to provide it, I say let us provide it. We cannot have a Canada wide policy to try to redress some wrongs from the early part of this century. It is not practical. I do not think we can afford it. I do not think it redresses those wrongs and makes people feel better. If it did we would have unanimity. As it is we have people who are actually driven apart by the act.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time has expired for questions and comments. The member was dividing his time with the hon. member for Calgary North.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have discussed at some length the problems we have had in Canada with the policy of official bilingualism and I would now like to take a look at how the policy has worked in the public service.

The recent annual report by the Commissioner of Official Languages echoed Lester Pearson, as annual reports have done practically since the inception of official bilingualism, with the following words: "The Official Languages Act requires federal institutions to ensure that English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians have equal opportunities for employment and advancement within their ranks".

This is a high minded and noble goal, one that all of us in this House can agree with. It is hard, however, to reconcile this ideal with a statement made by the hon. minister of defence, for example, on February 25: "We are putting on notice anglophones who want to be generals or chiefs of staff that they have to be totally and absolutely bilingual". This is in Hansard at page 1855.

He later commented: "Anglophones have more to be worried about than francophones because of the tougher bilingual requirements for senior officers".

It seems pretty clear and obvious from these completely opposed statements that the ideal and the reality of official bilingualism are two different things.

I do not believe for one moment that the hon. minister of defence favours French-speaking Canadians over English-speaking Canadians, but I think the minister is faced with the problem of having to defend an inherently flawed system.

There is good reason for the fact that of the 3,000 communications received by the ombudsman under the Official Languages Act over half were complaints of one sort or another.

To put it very simply, the current implementation of official bilingualism does not work. It does not work for anglophones and it does not work for francophones.

The term bilingual describes a person who is equally proficient in both official languages. By this definition there are very few Canadians who can claim to be fluently bilingual and yet we persist, after 27 years of failure, to believe that this policy will somehow be made to work if only we wish harder and spend more money.

By way of example let me draw your attention to many of the members on both sides of this House, myself included, who would not be eligible for employment in virtually all the senior positions in the public sector today because our command of the other official language is less than functional.

It is ironic that although many of us in this House are not bilingual we expect anyone who wants to advance in the public sector to be fluent in both languages.

The reality is that the great majority of Canadians are not bilingual and those who claim to be often are not.

The second problem is that the designation of bilingual postings is increasing, often doing so when there is no real need for bilingual services, as my hon. colleague has just indicated.

One example of the unnecessary designation of public service posts as bilingual was uncovered by the Ottawa Citizen in 1991. In that case there were eight positions designated as bilingual. It turns out that the eight employees were asked to use their bilingual capabilities just once in the past two years and that was when an English-speaking caller had a wrong number and the employees were able to direct him to the right one.

The example I have just given is one of scores which show that many public service positions are unnecessarily designated as bilingual.

There is an alternative to the present implementation of official bilingualism which will not only allow public servants to speak in the language of their choice, but will also eliminate language based discrimination.

In 1977 in response to the problem of de facto discrimination against francophones, the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism recommended that the public service be reorganized into two parallel hierarchies of unilingual work units. French would become the language of about 25 per cent of those work units and English would be the language of the rest.

It is important to keep in mind that this would not be a quota system because anglophones could try to win jobs in the French language work unit and vice versa. However, in each case workers would be allowed and required to communicate with fellow employees in the language of the work unit.

The big picture within the public service as a whole would be that employees could choose whether or not they wanted to make the substantial financial investment required to learn the other official language. Either way there would be a place for them to work in the language of their choice. Not only would the choice have been left to the employee, but the enormous cost of government sponsored language training would have been saved.

This proposal has been tested in the private sector and has been very successful in bilingual companies. Most positions can be filled by unilingual speakers of one language or another and only a few bridge positions need to be filled with bilingual employees. Had this model been adopted when it was recommended 27 years ago full equality between the languages would have been achieved by now and there would be no meaningful discrimination against speakers of either official language.

However, Trudeau chose to adopt another model in which every individual position was designated as to the official language skills it required. Francophones and anglophones would be expected to work in close proximity throughout the public service which means that many posts, including all posts beyond the most junior level would involve regular communication between speakers of two languages.

In this situation two unfortunate results were inevitable. First, the traditionally dominant language, English, would continue to dominate. This is why virtually all public service meetings continue to this day to be held in English. Second, there would be a huge need for bilingual people to occupy all supervisory positions since the rules now proclaimed that each person must be supervised in the language of his or her choice.

It is in the wildfire spread of bilingually designated posts that the real tragedy has occurred. On the one hand the system helped to boost the number of francophones employed by Ottawa. This is because two-thirds of the designated bilingual posts in the public service are occupied by francophones. On the other hand between 60 and 70 per cent of francophones in Canada do not speak English. For this majority the chances of finding employment in the public service have been reduced by the system of designating individual posts as bilingual.

In fact between 1974 when the policy was introduced and 1992, the number of positions in the federal civil service open to persons capable of speaking only French dropped from 34,000 to 25,000. This is a drop of 26 per cent. Even more staggering is the impact in Quebec itself where over half of all the jobs in the federal public service are open only to persons who speak English as well as French.

If the majority of francophones face discrimination the situation among anglophones is even worse. Nearly 90 per cent of Canadian English speakers are incapable of speaking fluent French. This means that most English Canadians are ineligible to rise above the junior public service or above the rank of major in the armed forces. The result of this situation is dramatic.

In a 1990 survey by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada over one-third of anglophone respondents stated that the policy of designating individual posts had negatively affected their advancement opportunities in the past. Over half of the respondents stated they believed the policy would hurt their promotion opportunities in the future. Nearly 42 per cent stated that on at least one occasion in the past they had not even bothered to apply for a post solely because of the restrictive language requirements.

In other words, because they structured their reform so poorly, the federal government managed to actually increase the level of discrimination faced by the average francophone and simultaneously introduced discrimination against the average anglophone. Canada is probably unique in having managed to systematically discriminate against both its major language groups at the same time by means of the same policy.

The way out of this mess is to toss aside the present system and to finally adopt the system of French and English language units proposed by the B and B commission 27 years ago. New Brunswick has recently adopted elements of this model for its provincial language service. It seems to be a success. That would be our territorial bilingualism policy within the public service. We believe it is time for Ottawa to follow this example.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate all afternoon. I would like to say most respectfully that the members of the Reform Party have been intellectually dishonest in this debate.

The member from Calgary said, or implied at least, just a few moments ago that because very few Canadians are bilingual that represents failure of the bilingualism policy of this country. Nothing could be farther from the truth because there was never any intention of the Official Languages Act of 1969 to cause all Canadians to become bilingual.

Similarly and earlier the member for Fraser Valley East said that he was not against bilingualism. He said that he was in favour of Canadians picking up a second language. Again it is not the intention of the Official Languages Act to cause Canadians to become bilingual. It is the intention of the government to provide bilingual service to the founding language groups in this country.

It offends me that the members would use-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the member have a question? There are two other members who wish to ask questions or make comments too.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask a question by framing it this way. Earlier it was said that the Reform Party would like to see priorities set and spending cuts with respect to cutting back the provisions of the Official Languages Act. I would ask this: What would be a greater priority than the federal government providing French language service to the four million unilingual French speaking residents of Quebec and also service in English to the millions of English speaking-