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-