Debates of June 13th, 1996

Supply

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some things members from the Bloc Quebecois should understand. The purpose of language is communication. It is not to be used as a political knife to wreak havoc among communities and separate one community from another. Language should not be used as a political tool to destroy a country and divide people who are otherwise tolerant, understanding and who truly care about each other and want to live together.

I would like to ask the hon. member about a few facts from his party and the Treasury Board. In Quebec anglophones represent 15 per cent of the population but receive only 5 per cent of the jobs. Treasury Board has said this is a deplorable situation and must be rectified to provide a balance. For years the anglophone population in Quebec has been trampled on under the guise of official bilingualism. The reality is the anglophone population has its rights, and its ability to communicate is being destroyed.

I ask the hon. member what he will do to rectify the situation of English speaking people representing 15 per cent of the population in Quebec but receiving only 5 per cent of the jobs in the federal government. Those are his own statistics.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and I am delighted it has been raised. I have always believed that in Canada we need to have fair representation for women, visible minorities, aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, francophones and anglophones.

I have said publicly and I continue to say that if there is the spread my colleague has mentioned it needs to be corrected. I have not seen the statistics. I have talked with my colleagues in the Bloc. Some indicated an openness to that possibility.

We have to recognize as well that I do not run the province of Quebec and do not aspire to do so. I will continue to make statements such as the ones I have made in a positive way to encourage them not only to have fair representation among women, visible minorities, people with disabilities, but anglophones and francophones. That is what the essence of government is, to make sure people are fairly represented.

I am part of the government and I am proud to be part of the government. Obviously the statistics with respect to federal government operations are much closer in line if one looks at the federal public service, if one looks at the military, if one looks at the RCMP, if one looks at other organizations. The statistics reflect quite accurately the make-up of both French and English speaking Canadians throughout Canada.

We have noticed some difficulties elsewhere in terms of fair representation among visible minorities and people with disabilities and we are trying to correct those.

I do not want to be paternalistic about this and I do not want to seek a conflict unless that conflict were to bring about a positive resolution. At the federal level we have made some significant gains in terms of fair representation particularly with respect to English and French. We still need to make further gains with regard to other groups and we are in the process of doing that. We have done it rather well.

With respect to other provinces, I hope we look at the province of Quebec to see whether there is a fair distribution of jobs in the public service between English and French speaking peoples, and that we do so in other provinces. We would look at every province to see whether there is fair representation, English and French speaking. Then perhaps we could put that on the table and have a good debate about what is right, what is fair, what is just.

I would like to go beyond language distribution, although I think that is an important issue, to look at representation from the perspective of women, visible minorities, aboriginals, people with disabilities. I give my total commitment to that kind of exercise in a totally non-partisan way. If we want the best society on this planet we need to do things like that with conviction and take the politics out of it.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to tell my colleague for Saint-Boniface that I will not talk to him about the lack of French newspapers in Saint-Boniface, because I know he does not like that. However, when he was asking where things were before 1994 because no policy had been established, I would remind him that the elections were held in October 1993, near the end of the year.

I remind him as well that, early in 1994, we developed a policy. If he were to read the red book from beginning to end, I would like him to tell me just where the Liberal Party's policy on francophones is to be found, because there is no reference anywhere. Given that the Liberal Party has existed a bit longer than the Bloc Quebecois, perhaps the member could tell me the Liberals' policy on francophones outside Quebec? The Bloc Quebecois has such a policy, I would remind you.

In terms of statistics, on the question he was asked about the language young people speak in Manitoba, I would ask him if he disagrees totally with Statistics Canada, and, if so, he can change their statistics because it could be done in the name of democracy. However, the figures say that, in 1971, 4 per cent of Manitobans spoke French, whereas today the figure is only 2.3 per cent. Do we abolish Statistics Canada or acknowledge its statistics?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to abolish Statistics Canada. I think other questions need to be asked. Could it be that the English speaking population has grown significantly? One should ask questions. We are not here simply to juggle figures. Is there a reduction? I said earlier that there had been assimilation and that there were problems. And I wondered why we could not find solutions together.

The member said I did not want to talk about newspapers. There is the newspaper La Liberté . It is a fine paper and has won awards across Canada. I am very surprised that my colleague did not mention it. I think he should read it, if he has not yet, because it would help educate him. He would understand the francophone community outside Quebec and the francophone community in Manitoba much better than he does now.

He must not forget that we have newspapers. Are there as many as in Quebec? I doubt it. You probably have some 6 million French speakers, maybe a little more; in Manitoba, we have only some 50,000. The figures are a bit different, you realize.

As far as people not speaking French is concerned, I tell you what I see. My daughter has a group of young friends. When I see them, I speak to them in French. They answer me in French. From time to time, and even quite often, I hear English. That is quite normal. In our home, it is perfectly natural to speak both French and English. Sometimes the parents think they are speaking too much English, no doubt the reverse is true. Statistics Canada knows what it is doing, and I applaud it. We certainly have to give this issue more thought.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to start with, since the House is soon going to adjourn for the summer and given what the Reform member who spoke earlier said I wish to officially invite him to come and visit my riding in Quebec during the summer vacation, so he can see for himself that anglophones in Quebec do not have such a tragic life, that the nasty separatists are not waiting for them at each street corner, and that their life is not in danger. So that he can change his perception of Quebec people whom he sees as oppressors, I invite him to come and visit us.

I will also recall, for the information of the Reform Party, the motion which is debated today. The Bloc Quebecois moved: "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".

My colleague, the member for St. Boniface, said earlier that there is indeed an assimilation process. From what he said, what else can we conclude-and I am going to give the House figures to prove it-but that francophones outside Quebec are going through difficult times? We are asking the federal government, and therefore the Liberal Party, to take measures to help them improve their situation.

That is why I have a hard time understanding why we are accused of being nasty separatists, of wanting to tear down everything, and so on. We will talk about that when time comes.

Let us set the record straight. Today, we are debating a motion in which the Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to recognize and affirm that francophones outside Quebec are in a difficult situation and that we must join forces to help them. If the fact that such a declaration comes from a democratically elected majority party in Quebec does not please some members, even certain French speaking Liberals like the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, it is just too bad. It is too bad if he does not want to recognize there is a problem and if he resents the fact Quebecers of another affiliation say it is so.

We are asking if francophones outside Quebec have a problem. The answer is yes. Should federal and provincial governments get together to help these communities instead of cutting their budgets? I think the answer is yes again. That is what we are debating.

If Liberals and Reformers want to keep on accusing us of being separatists, we have news for them because, as long as we are here, we will be separatists. If we want to talk about the Prince Edward Island bridge or Pacific salmon and they object to our topic because we are separatists, we have a problem. We were democratically elected by the Quebec people.

Today's topic is not Quebec sovereignty but francophones outside Quebec who are having a hard time according to statistics. It must be absolutely clear that we are not talking against French communities outside Quebec. Basically we want to help them.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Since when?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I am asked "since when".

Even though this is not the time for questions and comments, I will answer this question by asking one: To what did the Liberal Party commit itself in the red book in order to defend francophones outside Quebec? And if not a line can be found on this subject, I will myself ask the following question: Since when has it been defending them?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

We have always been defending them.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell be decent enough and courteous enough to observe the rules of the House and listen to his colleagues' speeches? If not, may I ask him, through you, to show that much courtesy?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Terrebonne.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since 1982, when the Constitution was patriated, section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees French-speaking and English-speaking minorities the right to their own school and to manage them as well, wherever numbers warrant it. This is the problem.

In Canada, there are 260,000 francophones-theses numbers are not coming from mean separatists-and only 160,000 have access to education in French. But there still is a 100,000 gap. The common denominator for all francophone communities is that none of them have the right to collect their own school taxes. Therefore,

they are all dependant on English school boards or the provinces, which usually do not recognize the particular needs of francophone communities, leaving them without enough resources to manage their schools.

I am told that this is not so. This compels me to mention a few facts. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada. However, it does not respect section 23 of the charter since, on March 1, it abolished the French and English school board to replace it with advisory parents'committees. From now on, all the school structures are under the direct authority of the education ministry, in other words public servants. This reform is deemed unconstitutional by parents, who have applied for financial support under the Court Challenge Program. When their application is approved, they will be able to embark on preliminary research and ask for legal advice to confirm that this reform is indeed unconstitutional.

I am told that is not the case, Mr. Speaker. The Fédération des parents francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador has been waging a 10-year fight for the right to manage their own schools. In 1988-89, this federation filed its first lawsuit against the Province of Newfoundland to obtain the right to manage their own schools under section 23.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not informing you earlier. I am dividing my time into two ten-minute periods so that one of my colleagues could speak.

The Fédération des parents francophones issued a press release, and I quote: "This right is conferred to them under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the province still refuses to implement it. The province's francophones are therefore asking the federal government to intervene on their behalf when the proposed amendment is tabled". I should point out that there are no Bloc MPs in Newfoundland and I understand that the premier there is a Liberal.

This situation is totally unacceptable to Michel Cayouette, the president of the Fédération des parents francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. There is an inconsistency in all this. On the one hand, clause 23 of the charter requires the provinces to recognize minority language educational rights and, on the other hand, Parliament is about to adopt a major constitutional amendment affecting the way these schools are managed.

So we have two provinces, other than Quebec and Ontario, which do not comply with that clause. Furthermore, eight out of ten provinces, all English-speaking, are finding legal, administrative, financial and other ways to contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by not providing the educational services provided for in section 23. As a result, only one in two eligible children in Ontario, one in five in Manitoba, and one in sixty in Saskatchewan, goes to French school. There is more undereducation among francophones outside Quebec than among anglophones.

In 1994, 45.2 per cent of anglophones had graduated from high school compared to 37.4 per cent of francophones. And, as we know, education is the future.

I have just been talking about education, but for these children education is their future, knowing in which language they will grow up and eventually be working.

I am going to answer a question put to me by my colleague for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso who wanted to know if it could be proven that the French fact had been strengthened or not throughout Canada.

In 1951, 40 years ago, outside Quebec, in the other Canadian provinces, 7.3 per cent of the population spoke French. And 40 years later, despite the Official Languages Act, only 4.8 per cent of the population speaks French, a drop of nearly 50 per cent.

What about the mother tongue spoken at home? In Canada, 20 years ago, 25.7 per cent of the population spoke French at home, this has now dropped by 2,4 per cent throughout all provinces, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia. Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, this proportion has dropped sharply from 1.7 per cent to 0.7 per cent over 20 years.

Statistics Canada does not give any indication that the French fact has been strengthened in any province over the past 20 or 40 years.

If the Liberal Party of Canada and the Reform Party agree with these statistics, then the situation is urgent. If they do not agree, they are turning a blind eye and are putting their heads in the sand when they wrongly accuse the separatists.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this debate brought us to do some research and correct the Bloc Quebecois on some points. I think it is very interesting that this Party is now concerned by the situation of francophones outside Quebec. It was not the case before.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

You just realized that?

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Yes, the Bloc Quebecois just recently realized that; for twenty years now, for a long time, we have been asking separatists to pay attention to Canadian francophones outside Quebec.

However, as we all know, the reply of the Quebec government was that, last year, it closed its office in Edmonton; it just abandoned that francophone community in Western Canada. I find that very unfortunate.

But they still quote data so I will take this opportunity to quote some data of my own which I find very interesting. They mentioned today the percentage of Canadians who can speak French.

Over the last ten years, that percentage has increased. I am speaking here about Canadians outside Quebec, excluding Quebec. The proportion has gone from 9.4 per cent to 10.5 per cent in ten years.

This is very interesting. We heard about immersion classes and I would like to hear what the Bloc Quebecois has to say on these facts I am making public here today. As concerns the proportion of Canadians who can speak French, we can see for example that, in my age group, 25 to 34, 8.2 per cent of the people can speak French. However, the most interesting data are those pertaining to the next generation, young people 15 to 19; in that age group, 16.7 per cent can speak both official languages and particularly French in this case. That is, between these two age groups, the percentage of young Canadians who speak French has actually doubled.

Another very interesting fact, and that is the one I prefer, of course, with the mass arrival of new Canadians who came to enrich the country, we find, as told you, in the population newly arrived in Canada, that 22.8 per cent of young people aged between 15 and 19 also speak French.

So, compared to those in my generation, the number of people who are able to speak French has almost tripled. I find that is very interesting and that we must still encourage the government to promote bilingualism and, of course, ensure the prominence of French in Quebec, but also ensure that French is more widespread throughout the country.

I would really like to hear the Bloc Quebecois has to say about the data I have just given.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that they were all over the map, but I will not, and will instead try to bring my colleague back on track.

He was surprised to hear the Bloc Quebecois speaking about francophones outside Quebec. My answer is that he will perhaps have an opportunity to speak shortly, and while the others have the floor, he can look in the red book where the Liberal party tells us what it is going to do for francophones outside Quebec. We will no doubt be treated to the great insights of the writers of the red book and the wonderful French of the quotation, which my colleague, the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, can be counted on to read us in a few minutes when he has found it.

To help him out, I will tell him that his neighbour, the member for Ottawa-Vanier, would rather collect money to oppose legislation that has been prepared and presented by a democratically elected national assembly in Quebec, than defend francophones, who will see their assistance cut in Ontario. We will not get into the economics of it, because they are already having such a terrible time with numbers.

I would just like to point out to my colleague that when he says that 16.2 per cent of young people between this age and that speak one of the two official languages, that does not mean they are speaking French, because one of the two official languages could be either French or English. In other words, 16.2 per cent of young people speak one of the two official languages, which probably means French or English. One could therefore interpret this to mean that 16.2 per cent, or a proportion, of these people speak French and English.

I am answering his questions with other questions, because clarification is required. If his statistics also come from the federal government, there is a problem, and we could have a debate, because Statistics Canada, in its catalogue No. 96-313F on languages in Canada, says that 29 per cent of people spoke French in 1951, while the percentage was 24 in 1991. Mathematics is not my strong suit, but 29 take away 24 leaves 5 per cent fewer people speaking French. This means that the number of people speaking French in Canada can certainly not have increased by a third. I could be wrong. The numbers come from Statistics Canada. In line with my earlier suggestion, if the Liberal government is not happy with the data provided by Statistics Canada, it can either replace its chief statistician or abolish it altogether.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will not be easy to speak no more than 10 minutes on this subject. Naturally, I am rising to support the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Québec-Est, who has given, in my opinion, a historical speech tracing the history of the whole French language issue in Canada from Lord Durham or, indeed, the conquest to this day.

We sometimes look back at our history, not to wallow in it, but because the source of current problems can often be found a long way back in time. Anyway, judging from Statistics' Canada figures, on which I will come back later, the policy put in place under Lord Durham to assimilate francophones seems to still be in operation today, like it or not.

The motion before us is designed to make the government aware of how urgent the situation is. Allow me to read out loud for the benefit of those watching us. It reads as follows: "The Bloc Quebecois moves that the federal government and the provinces 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".

In the circumstances, I find it somewhat deplorable that francophone members from outside Quebec have the gall of telling us how everything is hunky-dory in their regions, when we know full well, as we will demonstrate throughout the day, that the French language is in peril in every province of Canada.

As you know, under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, anglophone and francophone minorities of every province of Canada are guaranteed the right to have their own schools and, where numbers warrant, the right to manage these schools. The federal government and the English-speaking provinces contend that the rights of francophone minorities are protected under section 23. Unfortunately, it is apparently harder to enforce this section than to recognize it. This reminds me of the GST. It is easy to say the tax will be scrapped, but it is a different matter to take action.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that francophone minorities had the right to govern their own schools in their respective provinces but, once again, the English-speaking provinces have always tried to dissociate themselves from the conclusions reached by the Supreme Court. As we speak, at least seven parents associations have turned to the courts to enforce the rights conferred to them under section 23 of the Canadian charter of rights. These cases are before the courts in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, and the list goes on.

This means that, even if the Constitution supposedly grants us certain rights, we must fight in court to have them recognized. This is the beginning of a long process that is not leading anywhere; while this process goes on for many years, the assimilation of francophones continues.

It must be noted-and this is deplorable-that the rights of francophone communities outside Quebec are not respected, only tolerated. These are fictitious rights. Francophones are told they have these rights, but when the time comes to enforce them, they must wage long, drawn-out battles, often in vain or for meagre results in the end.

Demographic projections show that the rate of assimilation of francophones in Canada is increasing, especially in the western provinces, probably because they are further away from us. I would like to quote other figures which may be challenged, but which come from Statistics Canada.

They are taken from publication No. 92-733, for 1974 data, and publication No. 94-319, printed and released in 1993 by Statistics Canada. The comparison is made in Table 5.

The table deals with the net anglicization rate of francophones aged 35 to 44, who are members of a French speaking minority outside Quebec. It establishes a comparison between 1971 and 1991 for all the provinces. The term anglicization refers to a very specific phenomenon. It refers to people who now use English, but who have a different mother tongue. This is assimilation. It means someone who is a francophone by birth and who, for all sorts of reasons, now uses another language at home.

A member of my family lives in Portland, Oregon. This is in the United States, of course, but it illustrates the phenomenon even better. Both parents are francophones and their children were born in the U.S. The children married Americans, as one would expect, and when family reunions are held, which is fairly regular, everything takes place in English. The principle is simple: the majority rules. It is only normal.

We are told that this is how assimilation may occur, but that we have two official languages in Canada and that the necessary measures will be taken to prevent it from happening. However, the reality is that these measures do not mean anything and do not lead anywhere.

Let me go back to the document from Statistics Canada. In 1971, Newfoundland had a rate of assimilation of 35 per cent; it was 65 per cent in 1991, 20 years later. In 1971, Prince Edward Island's rate was 50 per cent; it reached 55 per cent in 1991. Nova Scotia's rate was 42 per cent in 1971, and 51 per cent in 1991. We can see that the rate of assimilation has gone up in 20 years, despite all the measures that are supposed to have been implemented.

New Brunswick's rate was 12 per cent, and it is the only case where there has been a slight drop, to 11 per cent. Things are looking up, so to speak. I was in Acadia last year and it is true that there is a strong feeling of attachment to things Acadian that can be felt everywhere you go. There are Acadian flags flying on all the farms and houses, and it is a sight to see. We can probably thank New Brunswick's legislation for slowing down the rate of assimilation in at least one province.

In Ontario, the rate of assimilation was 38 per cent in 1971; it was 43 per cent 20 years later. In Manitoba, the rate was 45 per cent in 1971 and 63 per cent in 1991. In Saskatchewan, the rate was 60 per cent in 1971; it was 79 per cent in 1991. In Alberta, the rate was 64 per cent in 1971; in 1991, it was 74 per cent. In British Columbia, the rate in 1971 was 77 per cent; in 1991 it was 76 per cent.

These are the figures published by Statistics Canada. I will give only one example. I prepared a little report on four or five western provinces but, given how little time I have, I think I will stick to British Columbia, a wonderful province I visited on many occasions. It is the only province where I did not live, but which I visited.

The B.C. legislature is far from complying with section 23 of the Canadian charter. After several years of negotiations with francophone parents, no progress has been made. The provincial government has still not amended its school legislation. The only

concession to parents was to pass a regulation that will take effect July 1 and create a school authority without any power.

This does not amount to much: there is no taxation power, no capital budget. Although the law, the regulation, is said to give these people a prerogative, there is no way to enforce it. In the final analysis, what the parents gained is simply the right to supervise school management.

As we know-and this is something that has been condemned by some people and that will be condemned by others today-the basic principle that can be applied in the case of the minorities the government says it wants to protect is that they must be given the basic tools they need to survive by being able to complete their education in their own language. This is what they claim they want to do, but it is not happening.

The Association des parents francophones de Colombie-Britannique and some other francophone organizations deplore the fact that the school authority created by regulation is in violation of section 23 of the charter, as there is no way to manage this school authority.

In addition, as we know, a regulation is not a law and is much easier to amend. This parents association also condemns the fact that the jurisdiction of the school authority extends to only 18 of the 75 provincial school boards, all of which are concentrated in Greater Vancouver and Victoria. No school authority was granted outside those two areas.

We can therefore expect another great legal battle-as we often see in that province-that will surely go all the way to the Supreme Court in Ottawa, since the Association des parents francophones de la Colombie-Britannique revived its claim for full implementation of section 23 of the charter. People from almost everywhere in Canada, from every province, are challenging this clause because it is not being enforced.

If this debate goes all the way to the Supreme Court, it would mean another six or seven years of legal wrangling so that these people can enjoy rights that are normally and theoretically guaranteed by the charter and the Constitution but which they must fight to obtain.

This parent association fights to get the minimum. A spokesperson for the association, who in fact wrote to the Prime Minister in 1994 to make sure francophone claims would be taken into account, Mrs. Galibois Barss, explains very well what motivates them to lead this fight: "-the government is not fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities. The measure does not even meet the minimal requirements to ensure the smooth operation of a French speaking school system". The same claim is made almost everywhere, in all the provinces.

Considering it may take six to seven years for a case to be heard by the Supreme Court, we can definitely conclude that section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not provide an automatic guarantee that the rights of francophones living outside Quebec will be protected. Given that statistics show an already high assimilation rate that will continue to increase, we ask the government to take note of the situation and to realize the urgency of the situation.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I must object to the way the Bloc Quebecois manipulates data from Statistics Canada. It is well-known that there are data on language, culture and values in our country, as we move into the 21st century. They are published by a government agency. We can see, for instance, that only 5.7 per cent of Canadians aged 65 and over living outside Quebec speak French. By contrast, the percentage of young people between 15 and 19 who speak French fluently is 500 times greater, at 22.8 per cent.

I will ask permission to table these statistics with the Clerk of the House, in order to show their importance and make sure the opposition parties and, of course, all the hon. members are aware of them.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to table his document?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this shows how truth holds no interest for the Bloc Quebecois. Unfortunately, figures were quoted today. They reflected the interpretation and the perception of the Bloc Quebecois of democracy in Quebec compared to democracy in the rest of the world. It is deplorable to see the Bloc Quebecois refusing to accept the reality of the figures that I have here.

Having said that, I regret that the Bloc Quebecois did not establish a consistent policy on francophones outside Quebec. Where we the separatist forces, a few years ago, when francophones outside Quebec asked for their support on several issues? Unfortunately, they did not get an enthusiastic response.

I know we are pressed for time, but I urge our listeners to examine carefully and understand the data from Statistics Canada. We know very well that the number of francophones outside Quebec has gone up by 50,000 between 1971 and 1991. This fact has been confirmed by Statistics Canada, an agency the Bloc is fond of quoting.

Time flies, but let me say that if we were to examine the data on and the level of success of Canadian bilingualism, which we owe to Pierre Elliott Trudeau, I could tell you this: If we stay the course, like we say in my riding, I am convinced the percentage of young Canadians who use French outside Quebec will increase from 22.6

per cent to 50 per cent in the next 20 to 30 years. It augurs well for the future of the French language, and the future of Canada.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat taken aback by my colleague's question, because I think he does not make the distinction between the number of people speaking a language and what assimilation means. Even if, overnight, there were five million more people speaking French in Canada, this would have no impact on assimilation.

Being assimilated means starting out with one mother tongue, losing it on the way, and ending up adopting the other language as the language spoken at home. That is what assimilation means. In Canada, right now, data from Statistics Canada prove that, for the last 20 years, this process, that started with Lord Durham, is still going on and is on the rise.

I will be pleased to send the official data from Statistics Canada throughout my riding to satisfy my hon. colleague.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some sadness that I rise today and people will know why when I am finished talking.

First of all, in response to the opening remarks made by the member for Québec-Est, I would like to confirm that, yes indeed, francophones in Canada are faced with several problems. They are being assimilated, and I share some of his concerns.

Finally, it is true that our past, our more distant past as a country, has been less than glorious when it comes to francophones. However, I dissociate myself from his remarks and statements regarding our more recent past.

We totally disagree with what the member said about the past 30 or 40 years. But I will not repeat what the Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, who accurately described the role played by the government during that time and the impact of some of its policies, had to say.

Before going any further, however, I would like to respond to two personal attacks from the member. First, he accused me of abandoning francophones. Frankly, I find this comment somewhat out of line, and I am compelled to go on a bit and tell the member that maybe he should do his homework. He is not the one who demonstrated to get a French high school, which we did get in Ontario, before there even was a charter of rights and freedoms. He is not the one who had to travel 40 miles morning and night to go to this school. He is not the one, I am not the one either. But my mother did all this. She was one of the four individuals who invoked the charter to be given the right to manage our own schools in Ontario. I just wanted to let the hon. member know what my roots are.

The member accused me of abandoning francophones. I assume he is talking about the closure of a school in Lower Town. The member forgot to mention that it is an elected French school board, managing its own resources, that was dealing with this issue. But he did not mention that. He did not say that, in the end, the school was not closed, because it suits his purpose not to say so.

The member accuses me of having chastised my French speaking colleagues from Ontario at the ACFO meeting, but he was not there, even if it was his job to do so as critic. He claimed he had not been invited. I am sorry to hear that, but I imagine he was invited to Sainte-Anne school. No, he was not. It simply suited him to criticize a colleague, to make political hay at the expense of others. I must stand up in my own defence, on that point.

Second, the member says that French speaking members from Quebec adopt an attitude typical of the Liberal Party, that they attack Quebec all the time. I dare the member for Québec-Est to quote one case where I attacked Quebec. Really when making such extravagant statements, one should be able to back them up.

I would like to tell the House a story, not mine but one that was written by Antonine Maillet, that great lady, author of Pélagie la Charrette , for which she won the Goncourt prize. It is the story of two frogs who accidentally fell into a milk jar. Mrs. Maillet tells the story much better than I can, because she is an extraordinary storyteller. But this is how it goes roughly: both frogs swam and move around but one weakened because it was not as determined as the other frog. At one point, it could no longer hold on, and it sank and drowned.

The other frog kept on and on, swimming all night long and when the farmer looked in the milk jar the following morning, lo and behold, he found one dead frog and one frog sitting on a block of butter. As I said, I do not have the style and eloquence of Antonine Maillet but the story is interesting just the same.

I dare say I am not the frog that gave up. I am not the frog that went to seek refuge elsewhere. I am not the frog that bragged about supporting the francophone community in Ontario, and then abandoned it to use it for his own political ends. That is not my style.

The member prefers to hold out the spectre of assimilation and doom us to extinction within one generation, if I understood him correctly. Let us examine the real situation. To that end, I will quote from four sources. The first one is known by the member, because I have quoted it before. It comes from a brief that was submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resource Development by the Cité collégiale, a French college in my riding. The statement was made this year. This is important, to know which government is being referred to.

I will quote a passage from it: "We are aware of the efforts made by the federal government, over the past 30 years in particular, to stop assimilation, which was so insidious and destructive that it threatened the survival of a whole civilization. The party which nowforms the government has been, in this sense, at the forefront of progress, often adopting unpopular but historic measures without which we have to wonder where we would be today as francophones and as Canadians".

The second one comes from Jacques Michaud, the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. It is dated April 2, 1996, and is quoted in the editorial page of Le Devoir . I quote: ``There are several ways to measure the vitality of a people or a nation that is in a minority situation on a continent it shares with a majority from another language, another culture. The most simplistic one is probably to make a comparison with the majority. The most daring one is certainly to emphasize the willingness of a people to live and to develop in its own language and culture. However, this latter requires more than a simple minicalculator to draw all the conclusions. Gains achieved in recent years, not in absolute numbers, but in rights acquired by the francophone community outside Quebec, as well as its determination to take matters in its own hands, are the side of its vitality that is hidden by statistics''.

Let me read a third one that comes once again from Le Devoir . It seems this newspaper is highly thought of. It is from Ms. Bissonnette. She talks about the visit she made in some francophone areas in Canada. She talks about two people who are very closely associated with the theatre in St. Boniface. I quote: ``The Mahés are everything but bitter. They understand that Quebecers, as I have been repeatedly told in St. Boniface, only know the statistics on the assimilation of francophones outside Quebec and have trouble realizing that the French culture in that province, with its unpredictable directions, is stronger today than it was yesterday. This is no mystery. More comes out of less. It is simply a passion that fires up and connects where it wants to''.

My last quote is also from Lise Bissonnette, an editorialist at Le Devoir . Her May 3, 1996 article reads as follows: ``In the Commons, the Bloc Quebecois erupted with the most hackneyed of sovereignist arguments. According to its mouthpieces, there can be no progress when the assimilation rate of francophone minorities continues to rise in English Canada. The Bloc forgets that its own policy toward the Canadian Francophonie prevents any statement on its eventual demise. And it has a rather simplistic conception of progress. True, figures are alarming, but cultural vitality also counts. Anyone who knows anything about francophone communities in the other provinces cannot deny that they are stronger and less folkloric today than they were yesterday. The sovereignists, who are always so quick to take offence anytime an outsider has something negative to say about Quebec, are treating others as they hate being treated themselves, again, as a result of ignorance''.

I think it has become rather obvious that, if we look only at the statistics, we can convince anyone of anything. This is what brings me to question the motive behind today's Bloc resolution, which refers to the urgency to act. They are trying to achieve their goal by trying to sow the seeds of hatred, by painting everything in black, by fabricating, inventing and trying to pit francophones against anglophones.

The urgency may lie elsewhere. There may indeed be an urgency, but it may lie elsewhere. Perhaps this urgency is better explained by the fact that the members of this House who support a certain option-call it sovereignty, independence, separation or whatever-may be getting a feeling or urgency from how fast their best arguments are slipping through their fingers.

Let us say we managed to divide, as demanded by the consensus in Quebec, responsibilities and powers in the area of manpower for instance-and, with an ounce of good will, I think it should be possible-then, they would be losing one of their best pieces of ammunition and it has them concerned because it would play havoc with their plans to become sovereign.

In Canada, the French language is in peril. That is what this is about here today. This is the big argument on which dreams of sovereignty, independence, or whatever, were built. In the past 30 years however, the trend in this country has not been what they had hoped for. The trend has been for the bone and sinew of the Canadian francophonie to regain strength, as one of my colleagues pointed out earlier. He said so himself. That is a threat in itself for those who dare hope for this francophonie to die, just to prove they are right to want to become sovereign.

This explains in part where this sense of urgency is coming from. You know, there is also a fair chance that, in the months to come, some provinces at least will start giving the language of instruction and the right to manage one's educational institutions the kind of recognition they have been rightly demanding. Premier Tobin made a statement on this subject. We hope he will deliver the merchandise. We are confident Ontario will follow suit and that the federal government, through its own programs, will continue to support communities claiming this right and demanding that it be recognized by the provinces. In short, the sovereignists realizing that their best arguments in support of sovereignty is slipping through their fingers and getting worried may well explain this sense of urgency they are feeling. Personally, I am not worried at all.

Let us give our Bloc colleagues a word of advice just the same. Bitterness and hate do not help in building a country. If they ever manage to build a country, although I doubt they would succeed, let us hope they will not build it on hate and bitterness. I could not help but feel hurt this morning, when I heard three Bloc members refer to Sir Wilfrid Laurier as a sell-out. To call Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one of the first prime ministers of this country a sell-out is to show incredible narrow-mindedness and a glaring lack of intellectual rigour. In the face of such inability to have an open mind, the only thing I feel is great sadness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did make comments in my speech regarding the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and I wish to correct or clarify these comments.

Of course the member was elected by francophones living in Ontario. Still, the issue is very serious, considering that several schools will close, including Saint-François-d'Assise and Champlain high schools. Sainte-Anne school would also have closed, had it not been for the Bloc Quebecois.

The assimilation rate in Ottawa-Carleton is 36 per cent. If the hon. member does not feel very concerned by the closing of schools because school boards will look after the issue, fine. But the fact is that the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, the ACFO, raised the alarm. I could quote from a large number of press reports. The issue is very serious and has reached a critical point. The association asked for money from the federal government, but the latter reduced its funding by half. The member for Ottawa-Vanier actually went and told the ACFO that it would have to make do with the reduced funding.

So, the member was elected by Franco-Ontarians, but when an issue concerns them he does not look after their interests but after those of his government and tries to hide the reality and downplay the urgency of the problem. Moreover, the member claims that he is not attacking Quebec, but wants the Quebec Referendum Act amended, as if it was any of his business. As a Franco-Ontarian member of Parliament, he should at least take action to help his fellow Franco-Ontarians survive.

Again, Statistics Canada tells us the assimilation rate has increased since 1971, going from 38 per cent that year, up to 43 per cent now. The situation is urgent because the federal government does not do its job, and that includes Liberal members elected by francophones in Ontario and elsewhere. We tabled this motion because neither the government nor its elected French speaking members do anything, and we do not want to see francophone communities disappear. It is in Quebec's best interests to ensure that French speaking communities outside its territory are as strong as possible, and also in the interests of the whole French speaking community.

If the Liberals cannot do their job, the Bloc is there to try to make them aware of how critical the situation is.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to a specific case and his facts are wrong. He says the federal government is about to cut by 50 per cent a grant to the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario. We will show him the results of the ongoing negotiations so he can change his tune.

All I want to say is that I do not feel like a person who has abandoned francophones in Ontario. It is quite the opposite. Anyway, it is not for me to make that judgment, but for the people of Ottawa-Vanier. They will be the ones who will decide if I have abandoned the francophones in my riding. If they do not think so, they might want to re-elect me, and I will be glad to discuss this issue again at that time with the member for Québec-Est.