House of Commons Hansard #61 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was english.

Topics

Notional Input CreditOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, how ironic that the finance minister would be talking about the Reform Party flat tax and how it affects wealthy people. It is a great irony.

For the third day in a row I want to ask the minister about the notional input credit on used goods. Let us look at cars. In Ontario there are 9,000 used car dealers. The removal of the notional input credit will mean that all those people who can afford only to buy used cars will have to pay a lot more. Maybe members across the way cannot relate to that but there are many people like that.

Why is the minister sucking hundreds of millions of dollars from low and middle income Canadians and putting many people out of work in all the used good sectors?

Notional Input CreditOral Question Period

3 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, as with everything else, the member has it exactly wrong. Under the previous regime when someone traded their car in they were taxed on the full price. Now as a result of this change they are taxed only on the differential. This is a major benefit to the consumer.

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

3 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Recently, at the end of last month, the Manitoba government gave the go ahead to Louisiana-Pacific in the Duck Mountains.

Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House if he intends to live up to a commitment made by a previous minister of the environment and use whatever federal powers at his disposal through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and in other ways to institute a federal review of that decision before anything further happens in that area?

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

3 p.m.

York West Ontario

Liberal

Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question as well as for his concern in relation to the environment in Manitoba.

The ministry of the environment for the province of Manitoba has issued a licence based on a number of terms and conditions. My officials are currently engaged in reviewing those terms and conditions as they relate to the protection of the environment. Once a full evaluation has been done, the government will be making its pronouncements.

PagesOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I would like to take a minute to have our pages come around the Chair.

Colleagues, as many of you know, this year's group of pages will be leaving us to pursue other goals and aspirations.

These pages are living examples of the great promise of our Canadian youth. I wish to thank these young men and women who have served us so well during the 35th Parliament, on behalf of all of you.

As members we hope all the pages have benefited from their experience here and that someday some of them, one of their number, might return to serve their country again.

They have put a great deal of energy into trying to make our lives easier and learning the ropes in Parliament as well as learning more about their country, while at the same time continuing full time university studies in first year.

Our pages are very special to us. They help us in doing our daily work. At the beginning, when they came to us, I addressed them as my pages and I surely would claim any and all of them. However, in effect they are not only my pages as your Speaker, they are your pages as members of Parliament in a very broad sense because these young men and women have served our country through us in

the House of Commons and in that sense they are pages for Canada. In your name, I want to thank them.

PagesOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government what is on the agenda for the remaining days of this session.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Saint-Léonard Québec

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall consider Bill C-45 respecting eligibility for parole. The business for the next week will be arranged through the usual channel of discussions, which is how the House has been working very well in the past weeks. I appreciate and thank my colleagues.

The business next week will also include the bill I just mentioned as well as two other bills the Minister of Justice is discussing with the members of the opposition.

We hope to make some progress with the list of bills I had submitted to this House and to the House leaders of the opposition parties. That list comprises bills C-36, C-34, C-38, C-29, C-30, C-4, C-37, C-39 and C-40.

We are also awaiting with keen anticipation a message from the Senate that will require further action by the House.

Next Thursday has already been designated an allotted day.

The Late Stephen NearyOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Our next order of business is a tribute to one of our former colleagues, a member of Parliament in Newfoundland, Mr. Steve Neary. I invite the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Late Stephen NearyOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Fred Mifflin LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak this afternoon by way of a tribute to a friend and colleague. Death claimed Steve Neary last Friday. His passing should not go unnoticed by the House.

Steve was first and foremost a son of Bell Island, a very famous iron mining community in Conception Bay. Bell Island and her people were always a part of him. They have always been a very proud and hard working people. The beliefs and the causes for which he fought so hard and so passionately were instilled in him there in Bell Island and he was always true to them.

Bell Island was also a strong labour town and Steve became involved in the union movement as a young man. He rose to be president of the Newfoundland Federation of Labour. He first sought public office in the 1959 general election as a candidate for the labour party, the Newfoundland Democratic Party as it was then called.

Steve was both a big L and a small l liberal. It was as a Liberal that he was elected to the Newfoundland House of Assembly in 1962 as the member for Bell Island. I know hon. members would appreciate he was a member until he retired in 1985, winning re-election six times.

He served in the cabinet of Premier Joey Smallwood from 1968 to 1972 and as the leader of the opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador from 1982 to 1984

Steve was a parliamentarian in the very best sense of the word. He loved the institution and he thrived on it. The whims of fortune decreed that most of his time was spent in opposition. Nevertheless, he mastered the political arts and became a formidable force in the House and throughout the province.

He fought for the cause of the common man, the average person, the little man, in the phrase often on his lips. He was fearless in debate and firm in his convictions. He was fiercely proud of his Newfoundland heritage and equally proud to be a Canadian.

Steve's mastery of the legislative process was legendary. If I may be permitted, one of his most memorable moments came in 1975 or 1976 during a budget debate in the House of Assembly. My good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's, was the opposition's designated spokesman and as such had the right to respond to the rather lengthy speech of the government finance minister and the corresponding right to speak for an unlimited time.

Steve realized, however, the rules gave him the right as the first opposition member to be recognized by the Speaker rather than to the particular member designated by the leader of the opposition. He was quick to his feet and when the finance minister finally finished the speech he too had unlimited time. Steve caught the Speaker's eye and was duly recognized and began his speech.

Members can imagine the chagrin of those who wanted another member to speak first and at length. Their emotion grew stronger for every one of the six sitting days Steve continued this debate.

Steve was a highly esteemed person and held a highly esteemed place in the hearts of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He was a friend to everybody no matter what their circumstances or their calling. He stood and fought for any person who sought his help. Fair treatment to all was his common cry.

Steve Neary was a remarkable man. He made an outstanding contribution to his province and to his country. I was proud to be his friend, a pride I share with thousands upon thousands of my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is fitting that we in this House mark his passing and honour him for his life and his work. We are all the better because of him.

I am sure the House will join me and other members in conveying our message of deep sympathy to his wife Mary and their immediate family Andrea, Stephanie, Monique and Pierre, their sons-in-law Aubrey and David, as well as all of Steve's many relatives and friends.

The Late Stephen NearyOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

René Laurin Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I would like to express our sincere condolences to the family of Mr. Stephen Neary, who passed away a few days ago.

Mr. Neary began in union circles and was first elected to the Newfoundland Legislative Assembly in 1962 as the member for Bell Island. From 1969 to 1972 he was Minister of Social Services and led the Liberal Party of Newfoundland from 1982 until he retired from political life in 1985.

As fellow parliamentarians, we know how demanding political life is and how much commitment and generosity it requires. It is therefore important to call attention to the 23 years in which Mr. Stephen Neary gave unselfishly of himself during his political career.

His family and friends have every reason to be proud of him and all that he has done for his fellow citizens.

On behalf of the official opposition, our most sincere sympathies to the bereaved family.

The Late Stephen NearyOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Lethbridge Alberta

Reform

Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada, as the House leader I would like to extend my condolences and sympathy today to Stephen Neary's family, his wife Mary and their children.

We certainly understand why a person such as Steven who made such a major contribution, not only to his province but to his friends, neighbours and his community, should be honoured today in this assembly.

I have spoken with other people about Stephen's contribution, beyond what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has indicated to us today. Stephen was a person who worked with the people at the grassroots level, in the community, in their homes, the coffee shops and businesses. He understood what they wanted to do with their lives and in building their local communities and Newfoundland as well.

That is part of our democratic process which is maintained by the integrity of people such as Stephen Neary.

On behalf of my colleagues, I pay tribute to him and thank he and his family for making a public contribution to Canada. We honour his memory.

The Late Stephen NearyOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, I thank my fine friend from Joliette for his sentiments on our friend Steve Neary. I would say Steve Neary and he are similar sorts.

Yes, Steve Neary died in his sleep Friday morning, two weeks short of 71. At least that is what his birth certificate would indicate. But he was much younger, probably 25 or 30, if we judge by the steel trap which was his mind.

As a fighter, Steve was an eternal terrible two. He knew what he wanted and he was single-minded in going after it, and he got it.

That he made the transition so tranquilly from this world to the Parliament of heaven will seem, to some, to be at odds with how he lived. To many, including me before I knew him, Steve's life was a tornado, a turbulent affair. There never seemed to be a time when he was not at odds with someone. Always, there was a battle to be won, a cause to be championed, a case to be argued. And argue he did, and fight and scratch.

Newfoundland is so much the better for his having fought, our people the richer and the institution of Parliament and public debate so much the healthier because of Steve.

But Steve had another side which few saw because he hid it so well. The centrepiece of Steve's life was not turmoil, but purpose. As a result, Steve was actually very much at peace with the world. He always knew what he wanted for himself and he got it. What he wanted for his family, he got it. What he wanted for his people, he got it. He loved to call his people, the "the ragged-arsed artillery".

His family was his pride and joy. If you knew Mary, Pierre and the girls, Andrea, Stephanie and Monique, you would know why. His wife Mary was his pit stop. She kept him on the ground and she recharged his batteries. If you were too big for your boots, Steve could fix that in ten seconds. It takes Mary about five seconds.

Steve knew what he did not like and the top of that list of dislikes were people who took themselves too seriously. Equally, Steve knew precisely what he liked and topping that list was loyalty. He practised what he preached.

During Joey Smallwood's retirement years, when he was abandoned by every ungrateful wretch that he had plucked from anonymity during his premiership, it was Steve who stood by him and carried the torch.

When I first went into politics provincially, Steve was one of my mentors. His straight talk and his uncanny ability to get right to the heart of an issue with lightning speed and humour made me an early convert to his brand of politics.

After his retirement from politics, he came here and did me the honour of being on my staff for two years in 1989 and 1990. What two marvellous years they were. It was a marvellous doctoral degree for me sitting at his feet and having him around.

It is Thursday, six full days since Steve's promotion to that other place. If heaven was not unionized, it is now. If heaven did not have an opposition, it has one now. The word was out, heaven needed an ombudsman. We sent Steve.

I sat with Steve two weeks ago outside his home. He did not reminisce and drool and paw about past glories. He was too busy talking about what had to be done, wrongs to be righted, causes to be fought. The fire was still in his belly.

That is the legacy Steve leaves us. That is why Steve did not simply pass from the scene. Oh, no. He has only taken his seat in that other parliament for which we are all running. Yes, we have lost a friend. We have gained so much from that friend that we will continue to benefit from it for many years to come.

My sympathies to each member of his family, all of whom he is very proud. There is not only Mary, the girls and Pierre, but also the extended family, the grandchild, the brothers, the sisters and the nieces and nephews.

The Late Stephen NearyOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Hickey Liberal St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I too want to pay tribute to a close family friend, Stephen Neary, who passed away on May 31. He leaves to mourn his wife and his four children.

I was first introduced to him by my father, Mr. Joe Ashley. I knew Mr. Neary through most of his political career. I am extremely saddened to see him go.

Steve was active in politics for more than 20 years on both the political and federal scene. Mr. Neary spent a great deal of his career working with the past premier, Mr. Joey Smallwood.

He was first elected to the Newfoundland House of Assembly in 1962 to represent Bell Island. In 1988, Steve attempted to break into federal politics by running in a riding that I now represent, St. John's East.

Good hearted and outspoken, he was always a champion of the poor and downtrodden. He aggressively represented his constituents of St. John's East and Bell Island. Never one to back down from a fight, he worked tirelessly to ensure their views were well known in the political legislature. He accomplished a great deal for his constituents right to the end of his day.

Bell Islanders knew he was always available to champion their causes. Mr. Neary will leave a great void on the Newfoundland political landscape as well as here in the House of Commons.

He worked very hard for his constituents and he has great friends in the Mr. Simmons and Mr. Mifflin. It is indeed a sad occasion to have to say goodbye to such a man. He will be missed by his family and friends.

The Late Stephen NearyOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Len Hopkins Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Steve Neary today because I used to have constituents from time to time come to talk to me about him. Many Newfoundlanders were members of the Canadian forces. They would end up in Petawawa and retire there. They all knew Steve Neary.

Lois and I want to extend our very sincere condolences to his wife Mary, to Andrea, Stephanie, Monique and Pierre. It is a big parting moment for them, but I can say that, from having known Steve for a long time, he was a great Canadian. He was a great Newfoundlander and he was very proud of his wife and family.

He was a gut cause guy. This has come out in the words of other people today: to spend 23 years in the legislature of his province of Newfoundland, to be in the cabinet of Joey Smallwood, but most of all to remain dedicated and loyal to his leader, to his party and to his cause. That is what real public service is all about.

He was a great orator, which has been alluded to today. We have had a few other great orators who have come to this place from Newfoundland over the years. I have seen them come and go and they have made a great contribution to Canada.

As I think of Steve Neary's life today, he was outstanding for the labour movement. It has been pointed out that he was a fighter for the underdog. He had his cause. I always called him the gut cause guy. The more gut cause people we can get in Canadian politics and in our provincial legislatures, the better off our legislatures, our provinces and our Canada will be.

I want to say how privileged I feel to have known Steve Neary, how proud I am of his public life. Canada needs such hardworking and dedicated people in public life. We can well look to Steve Neary for our example.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this motion. It gives us an opportunity to dispel once again the myths that have been put forward by the separatist politicians, not I might add by the people of Quebec.

The motion by the member for Québec-Est reads:

That the House encourage the federal government to acknowledge the urgency of the situation of francophones in minority situations in Canada, and take the exceptional steps required in order to counter their assimilation and allow their development.

I was on a debate with the member for Québec-Est who put this motion forward. That debate was televised this past weekend. After the cameras went off our debate continued and was quite heated. I said to the member for Québec-Est: "If Quebec separates, the French speaking people in the rest of Canada are very concerned that they will disappear. By virtue of separation the people you will affect the most are your French speaking brothers and sisters outside of Quebec because their language and culture may truly disappear".

He shrugged his shoulders and said: "Who cares?" The member who put this motion forward said: "Who cares what happens to the people who speak French outside of Quebec." That shows the selfishness of this individual and as far as I am concerned he has absolutely no credibility whatsoever in putting this motion forward because it is completely and utterly hypocritical.

In his speech the member for Québec-Est said: "English people hate French Canadians". Let us take a look at the facts. Let us show what the rest of Canada thinks about Quebec. Let us show the tolerance and accommodation that the people outside of Quebec have shown to the people of Quebec for decades.

In 24 of the last 26 years, our prime ministers have been from Quebec. The Supreme Court has three reserved seats for people from Quebec. In my province of British Columbia the French speaking population, la francophonie, represents 1.5 per cent of the population. Yet what percentage of jobs do they get? They occupy two and a half per cent of the federal jobs in British Columbia.

Ottawa has sent to Quebec at least $2.6 billion more than what it has taken in from Quebec every single year for the last 30 years. Quebec has received over $160 billion more than what it has given to Ottawa. These facts are never acknowledged by the separatist politicians. They close their minds to them. They do not acknowledge the favourable position Quebec has received in Confederation.

Let us talk about the referendum. Let us talk about the attitude the rest of Canada has toward Quebec. Tens of thousands of people descended on Montreal to extend their love, their compassion and their strong desire to keep Quebec in Canada as an equal. If that is how the rest of Canada deals with Quebec I would profess that is not hate, that is love. That is what the rest of Canada feels about Quebec. If the member for Québec-Est believes otherwise, I would suggest it is that member who has hate in his heart, not the rest of Canada.

We talk about the French. The Bloc members have often labelled the Reform Party as being anti-French. I suggest that the Bloc members look at their Internet site. The Reform Party has more French services on its Internet site than the government or the Bloc. Is that hating French? Is that not promoting French? Is that not trying to build bridges of understanding and tolerance between Quebecers and the rest of Canada? If that is abuse, then sign me up.

Let us counter the member's argument about assimilation of la francophonie outside of Quebec. Let us look at the efforts of Canadians outside of Quebec to try to preserve and ensure that the French culture survives not only inside but also outside Quebec. There are many issues.

Official bilingualism is a concept we do not agree with. We believe that regional bilingualism would be more effective. The official bilingualism policies are disagreed with by the majority of people outside of Quebec and interestingly enough by the majority of people in Quebec. It is not what Quebecers want.

The government claims it is costing $600 million per year to preserve official bilingualism but the facts are much different. It costs about $4 billion, money which is taken away from hospitals in Quebec, from health care in the rest of Canada, from welfare, from unemployment insurance, from pensions. That is where that money should go. Preferably we would like to use the money to get our debt and deficit down to ensure that Canadians are employed in the future. It costs $4 billion for official bilingualism.

There is $2.7 billion which goes into government services such as translation. Canadians would be appalled to know that it costs the taxpayer 27 cents per word to translate every single document, not on the basis of need but on the basis of official bilingualism which has been rejected by the people of Quebec as well as people in the rest of Canada.

Let us talk about government jobs. In British Columbia, as I said before, the francophonie represent 1.5 per cent of the population

yet they receive 2.5 per cent of the jobs. They represent 35 per cent of the population and receive 38 per cent of federal jobs in Ontario.

Let us look at what happens in Quebec. Let us see how Quebecers, the separatist politicians in the provincial government, feel about preserving minority rights in Quebec. Anglophones represent 13 per cent of the population in Quebec and what percentage do they receive in terms of jobs in the provincial government? One per cent. Thirteen percent of the population in Quebec receives one per cent of the jobs. That is discrimination against the anglophone population in Quebec. That shows how the separatist leadership in Quebec cares about minority rights.

In Quebec the anglophones represent 15 per cent of the population yet they only receive 5 per cent of federal jobs. Why? Again it is favouritism.

These are facts which have come right out of a Treasury Board report. It states that the government must be very concerned about the minority rights of English speaking people in Quebec because repeated actions by separatist politicians, the Parti Quebecois and its current leader, have done everything in their power to trample on the rights of minorities. They make them unwelcome in Quebec. They want them to leave so they can have a yes vote in the next referendum. Those are the facts.

Why is there such a thing as a language policy in Quebec? I will ask this question of my hon. friends from the Bloc Quebecois, and some of them are my friends. Why do they have language police in Quebec who go around making sure that only French is being spoken and not English? The purpose of language is to communicate. The purpose of communication is to understand each other in order to live together in peace and harmony and in an environment of tolerance and understanding.

When we interfere and squash the ability of people to communicate with each other, we separate populations and breed intolerance and misunderstanding. It allows myths to start and it polarizes communities. When I was in Montreal a month ago I found that was happening unfortunately. It was very sad to see that the yes and no communities were polarizing and separating from each other. In doing so, myths are building in both of those communities. It is engendering hate, intolerance and I fear, violence. This can be averted if the federal government puts forward a constructive plan based on listening to the concerns of the people inside and outside Quebec.

If Bill 101 was put forward in Ontario, Newfoundland or British Columbia, we would hear the words bigot and intolerant screamed all across the country. We would never do that in British Columbia because we recognize that kind of legislation prevents people from communicating with each other. However, the rest of Canada has turned a blind eye to a lousy piece of legislation, Bill 101 in Quebec which is only being used to separate populations and make the non-French speaking people unwelcome in Quebec.

What was done after the referendum? Hospitals were closed in the allophone communities in Quebec. Mr. Landry also blamed the immigrants on the failure of a yes vote in Quebec. That is absolutely racist. The people within Quebec, the allophone and anglophone populations, voiced their displeasure but chose to stay in Quebec to build a stronger province and a stronger country. They deserve a great deal of credit for their courage in standing up for their rights in the province.

The financial adviser to the premier of Quebec told Mr. Bouchard that if there was a yes vote the financial penalties paid by the people in Quebec would be horrendous. What happened to those facts? They were deliberately buried and that individual was muzzled. That does not serve the people of Quebec at all. In fact, it is hiding the truth from them. Those individuals ought to be ashamed of themselves.

It is true that French Canadians were discriminated against in the past. Historically the church, their own politicians and the English speaking minority industrial complex served to discriminate against French speaking people in Quebec. They tried to keep them down. They discriminated against them, their language and their culture. There is no denying that. They should be ashamed of themselves because that kind of intolerance has no place in this country.

However, for the past 30 years the strength of the French people in Quebec has increased dramatically. Policies have been put forward by successive governments to ensure that discrimination against them does not occur. These are good policies. It is good to fight against discrimination on this level. We must not create a situation where one group is elevated above another. We must create a situation where all people are treated equally, where all people have the right to enjoy their culture and speak their language free from interference.

The situation now and the zeal to pursue separation has nothing to do with the holy grail of developing and preserving the French culture in North America. It simply has to do with power. The premier of Quebec has one goal and one goal only. It is not to carve a better deal for Quebec and French Canadians in the federation called Canada, it is to create a separate country called Quebec where he can be the president. That is what he is pursuing. Let there be no doubt about it.

That is why any efforts by the Prime Minister to offer distinct society or veto powers to Quebec will fall on deaf ears. Preserving the French culture is not the primary goal of the BQ and PQ; separation is and they are not interested in negotiating with the federal government. The Prime Minister has to work with all members of Parliament to create understanding and tolerance

between groups in Quebec and the rest of Canada and to dispel the myths that have been created over so many decades.

When I speak with members of the Bloc Quebecois it is interesting trying to understand where it is they are coming from. It is interesting to hear the myths they subscribe to. Those myths need to be torn apart. If they believe them, then other people in Quebec believe them. The people who live in Chicoutimi, in northern Quebec, in east Montreal and in the small towns of Quebec are getting a very distorted view of the world.

The propaganda getting to the people is not changing. It will not be changed in this House. It will not be changed by the separatist leaning media in Quebec. The only way to dispel those myths that have been supported for so many decades in Quebec is for members of the House and the Prime Minister to go into Quebec and meet directly with the people.

The Prime Minister must also have a plan. It is increasingly disturbing that in spite of the last referendum the Prime Minister has demonstrated that the government does not have a plan on the national unity issue. There is no plan for a renewed federalism. There is no plan to strengthen the powers of the government and the provinces in areas where they can both do their jobs better. The Prime Minister has not democratized the system. He has also failed to tell the people of Quebec what the terms and consequences of secession will be.

Many separatists in Quebec are under the delusion that they are going to engage in some kind of Maastricht treaty situation such as in Europe and that it will somehow give them more autonomy than they have now. The cold, hard fact is that the Maastricht treaty, if that is what they want to pursue, will give an independent Quebec less power than it has now. Quebec will not accept any fiscal and monetary policies dictated by Ottawa but that is what will happen if there is a separate Quebec and a Maastricht treaty situation is pursued.

It is sad that our country has come to this point. Many people in British Columbia and Quebec are fed up with the national unity issue.

Efforts by such people as the member for Québec-Est with his hateful, spiteful, intolerant comments such as English Canadians hate French Canadians only seek to polarize communities. I know that is what he is trying to do. He is trying to polarise communities. He is trying to get us mad because in getting us mad he is hoping the rest of Canada will say to Quebec "get lost", but that will not happen.

Canadians are a tolerant and understanding people who want Canada to stay together for the betterment of all Canadians, French Canadians and Canadians outside of Quebec. They want the country to stay together because they believe in their hearts that a united Canada provides a stronger, better, safer future for all people in the country.

Some time ago I spoke to a French Canadian separatist who said to me she did not understand. She thought she would have more in common with the people of France than with Canadians outside of Quebec, but that was simply not true. She has a greater kinship with people in Canada than with any other person in any other country. I think it is wise for our fellow Canadians and the Bloc Quebecois to understand that.

Bloc members should look in their hearts to see if the course they are pursuing will truly be better for the people they profess to represent and whether it will truly make their people stronger. Put themselves in our shoes and try to understand that the rest of Canada has for decades continued to tolerate situations which if they occurred in other parts of Canada the people of Quebec would find intolerant.

Whether we are speaking of bill 101 or situations such as the Jewish food importers prevented from selling their product because they were only labelled in English, if those situations occurred outside Quebec they would rightly scream intolerance.

I urge the government to look at the Reform 20-20 principle. We have laid the terms down of a new and stronger federalism for all Canadians and have stated the cold hard facts about the terms of secession. I encourage it to do that before it is too late. If we do not, the country will surely fracture. The Canada we know and see today will not be the Canada we will have tomorrow.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC

Madam Speaker, I would just like to say that English Canada is misinformed, and especially the hon. member, in thinking that there is a French language police in Quebec. There is no language police. We have the Office de la langue française to protect French.

What English Canada must understand is that the situations of anglophones and francophones are not comparable. We francophones live in an anglophone continent, we need protection, we have to look after ourselves or we will quickly disappear. This is why the Government of Quebec set up the Office de la langue française and appointed a large number of people to give the French language its due.

We also know that immigrants coming to Quebec tend, and probably legitimately so, to learn English when they arrive on an English continent, because Canada's embassies abroad tell them that Canada is an English country. Often they do not say there are francophones in Canada.

They come here and then, and I understand them, learning one language is difficult enough, learning two is even harder. So they choose a language, because according to the rules of the federal government, immigrants choose themselves the language they think they will most easily master. Obviously, immigrants choose the English language because they think: "I am on a continent where people speak English, therefore I choose the English language".

In Quebec, we are stuck once again with federal rules that prevent us from promoting French. If we were to say that the only language you can learn in Quebec is French, when the federal government pays for language training in Quebec, it should only pay for French class. But immigrants are the ones who choose which language they think is the best to help them succeed. So we will do what it takes to make sure that there are still francophones in Quebec.

In spite of all our efforts, we realize that in Montreal-West, for instance, immigrants speak English mostly. In spite of all our efforts, we cannot even manage to maintain the level of French nor get people to speak French.

This is why I am telling the member he has a very bad grasp of things. What he just said does not help to understand Quebec's reality. Members from the west and Ontario should come and see the situation in Quebec before criticizing it, and giving speeches that have nothing in common with reality. They are the ones who are making matters worse. This is what I wanted to say in response to his speech.

I suggest that he study history a little bit better and not make such speeches. He said our speeches are bad, but he should understand better what the needs of Quebec are, and try to understand why Quebecers need the Office de la langue française to protect the French language in Quebec.

This is not the subject of our debate today, we are talking about francophones outside Quebec, but since he mentioned it, I wanted to set the record straight. It is important to give speeches reflecting Quebec's reality so that English Canada, mainly people in the west, really understand the situation of Quebecers. I caution him about that and I ask him from now on to give speeches that are a truer reflection of reality.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Reform

Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I would like to commiserate with him on a couple of facts.

We understand completely the fear French speaking people have in their culture and language being diluted in a sea of English speaking people in North America.

I find it hard to imagine that the hon. member feels the rest of Canada has been somehow against French speaking people or has somehow prevented the province of Quebec or the people of Quebec from living their culture and their language.

We in the Reform Party have continued to put forward to give culture and language to all provinces, including Quebec. Today Quebec has the right to preserve and deal with its own French culture and French language.

The responsibility for maintaining French language and French culture in Quebec is entirely the responsibility of the province of Quebec. Whether it lives or dies is its responsibility and not that of any other province.

Nonetheless, this government and previous governments have poured billions of dollars trying to further help the province of Quebec and the French speaking populations in Quebec preserve their language and culture.

I find it passing strange that no other culture in this country, which is made up of so many, not the Italians, not the Scottish, not the East Indians, not the people from Africa, has asked for protection to preserve its culture and language. What do those cultures do? They come to Canada and say to themselves "we will take it upon ourselves to preserve our culture and language and teach the rest of Canada and Canadians about our cultures, our languages to enrich us all". That is what they have done.

They have made this country stronger by doing that. It makes no sense to me why this member feels his people have been somehow hard done by when in my speech I gave illustration after illustration after fact that shows the French culture and French language have taken a preferential place within Canada. Their culture and language have received preferential treatment for decades. If anybody should feel hard done by it is the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada by and large does not because of the tolerance and understanding it has shown to the people of Quebec.

I would be happy to speak to that member or any other member in the Bloc Quebecois, as I know my colleagues would, to understand them better in the hope they too will try to understand us better.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, I simply wanted to tell the member who just spoke that he is giving a strange view of history when he says that Italians, West Indians and all ethnic groups that came to this country are independent, develop their own culture and do not ask anything from the state.

I must remind him that the situation of the French people is very different. The French people occupied the region where you are now living, sir. They were there 200 years before your ancestors. The French were there and you dislodged them. This situation cannot be compared to that of a West Indian who arrived here last week, decided to form a group with other people from his country and friends and to live according to his own culture with those who share that culture. You are altering history shamelessly, dear colleague. Such an attitude is inappropriate for a member of this House. You should go back to your history books.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Reform

Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Madam Speaker, as I illustrated in my speech, I acknowledge that in times past the English industrial complex abused the majority French speaking people in Quebec, as did the church and their own politicians.

Out of that has come, unfortunately, an inferiority complex among some French Canadians, a second class citizen complex, which is unfortunate and sad. The French Canadian people are not second class citizens even though they believe they are in the eyes of others.

French Canadians are as beloved and respected in Canada as any other group and they are equals in Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the few minutes I have to indicate how totally I disagree with this motion by the hon. member for Québec-Est. The mmotion reads as follows: "That the House encourage the federal government to acknowledge the urgency of the situation of francophones in minority situations in Canada, and take the exceptional steps required in order to counter their assimilation and allow their development".

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

An hon. member

You cannot be against that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Yes, I can be against that. I will say why and I hope my colleagues opposite will understand. I also hope Canadians will see the political motives behind this type of motion and will see once again that what we have before us is, on the one hand, an show of opportunism on the part of the Bloc Quebecois and, on the other hand, a show of arrogance on their part. They always claim to know what French speaking Canadians outside Quebec want. They want a divorce and, at the same time, they want to be the spokepersons for the spouse they intend to divorce. That is the Bloc Quebecois' attitude toward all of us who live outside Quebec. That is what we are seeing.

We heard the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata say in the past that francophones outside Quebec had vanished. "The francophones-poof", she said.

We were told to mind our own business as francophones outside Quebec when we wanted to keep the critical mass of francophones in the country. We were told all kinds of things, we were scorned, and separatists still continue to do so. It is this same scornful attitude we are seeing today in the House, as shown in the motion of the member for Québec-Est, unfortunately supported by some of his colleagues.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

You are exaggerating.