Debates of June 13th, 1996

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, I have nothing but praise for the fact that 350,000 young anglophones are learning French. I think this is a very good thing and I have nothing negative to say about it, but this does not help the situation of francophones outside Quebec. Francophone communities, for their part, are being assimilated, and that is the problem.

The hon. member accuses us of being mere colonials, but in fact, he too is acolonial, just like the minister who is about to speak, perhaps. The arguments used always try to convey the idea that Quebecers are all wet, that they misunderstand history. As if Quebec were always responsible for its own problems and those of Canada.

It is obvious that the hon. member, like his francophone colleagues, rarely speaks to the issue of francophones outside Quebec. They always want to point the finger at Quebec, as if Quebec were responsible, as if Quebec did not respect the rights of its minority, whereas it is English Canada that does not do so. It is obvious that English Canada does not respect the rights of francophone minorities, starting with the federal government right here in Ottawa, which no longer has or seems to have the will to respect minority rights, which has an impact on all the other provinces.

So there is no significant progress, no concrete progress. Minorities get a few goodies here and there, but there is no real progress. That is why the communities themselves, in Ontario, Saskatchewan and elsewhere, are raising the alarm, saying that it is urgent for the federal government to react.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I like French Canadians.

I find the hon. member's intervention quite intriguing. He is trying to polarize Canadians with comments such as English Canadians hate French Canadians. Comments like that are engendered to further the separatist cause, not to develop peace, understanding and tolerance between groups. Its primary reason is to engender hate, intolerance and misunderstanding between these groups.

I debated with this member on television a week and a half ago. I asked the hon. member that if Quebec separates, what will happen to the French speaking people outside of Quebec. The response of the member, who raised this motion, was a shrug of the shoulders: "Who cares?" This from the member who professes to fight for the rights of French speaking people outside of Quebec and who brought forth this motion.

I ask the hon. member why he said that. What is his explanation for that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I actually said that, but it is certainly not the member who cares. It is certainly not the government that cares.

I am the one who put forth this motion today and I am the one speaking in defence of francophones outside Quebec. Francophones know I am doing that.

Who cares? At least I care because I know the situation of francophones. It is certainly not the Reform Party that cares. It is certainly not the government or the minister who cares. What has the government done to redress the injustices toward francophones? The situation generally has worsened.

I am not trying to create a discourse on hatred or intolerance or discrimination. I am stating historical facts. I do not hate anglophones. I speak English and I deal with respect with anglophones because anglophones are like francophones, people who have to be respected, but the history of Canada has a place. The history of Canada, with respect to the French, is undeniably proof of a long term, well established and heavyweight discrimination against the French. In some circles it is profound hatred.

I want to denounce that. I want it to change. I want the government to react.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Unfortunately, the time allocated has expired. Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to extend this fascinating period of questions and comments?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to reiterate the Canadian government's commitment to francophone communities in minority situations in Canada.

This world of ours is redefining itself. Never has there been such an great need to look at the linguistic minorities issue. In this vast redefinition effort, Canada is a fine example of a success story, and I stress "success".

Unlike most countries, Canada was built on its two founding peoples. Ever since the first European explorers set foot on the American continent, linguistic duality has been a central feature of our collective identity. This duality dating back to the beginnings of this country has also enriched our country. Canada's official languages policy partakes of this vision, which, while being rooted in our past also propels us toward the future.

This policy was developed to promote the development of the two major official language communities across the country. Its main objective is to give francophones outside Quebec tools to ensure their development in terms of language and culture as well as in all economic sectors.

The official languages policy has always adapted to new realities. It started by recognizing Canada's official language minorities. Then, it encouraged them to find ways to assert their uniqueness within the community. Today, it seeks to promote their autonomy in every sphere of activity and to prompt them to look to the future and take their place on the world scene.

This policy remains an undeniably effective tool as we approach the turn of the century. Official language communities in a minority situation must join in with the rest of our society to meet the challenges of our times.

On this occasion, I would like to reflect on the key components of this policy, a proven policy that has been instrumental in making our country as successful as it is. There was a need, first of all, to recognize the fundamental role of the two official language communities of Canada. Enacting the Official Languages Act in 1969 laid the foundations of this recognition. This act unequivocally recognized in law the right of anglophones and francophones in minority situations to develop like all other Canadians.

Moreover, it gave the French and English languages equal status and equal rights in Parliament, before the courts and in federal institutions. Boosted by this recognition, linguistic minorities, especially French-speaking communities, have been able to put all their energy, imagination and resources into creating organizations which would allow them to voice their concerns throughout the country. First of all, those official languages minorities had to

ensure that the majority was aware of their presence and heard what they had to say.

Through its official languages policy, which gave concrete expression to the text of the law, the Government of Canada supported the collective effort by funding the new organizations directly. This strong political commitment of the government, combined with the inexhaustible vitality of the communities, for they played a role as well, led to the emergence of a solid network for promoting their interests and strengthening their communities in all aspects of life in society.

There are many tangible manifestations of this support. Everywhere outside Quebec where French is the language of communication and solidarity, school-community centres have opened their doors. New radio stations started to broadcast, newspapers reflected the reality of the minority environment, theatre companies sprang up, mutual aid associations were created and cooperatives went into operation. Thus, by implementing its official languages policies and programs, the federal government set off an unprecedented period of growth, and changed for good the vision that Canadians have of their country.

Second, in order to continue to promote the growth of the French fact outside Quebec, many years of negligence in education had to be compensated at all costs. This is why, in 1982, the Liberal government then in office guaranteed the rights of linguistic minorities to education in their own language in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The recognition, in section 23, of the right to an education in French for all francophones in the country is an historic fact of the highest significance. In addition to protecting the vital character of an education in French, this section confirms the right of francophones to manage their schools, as confirmed in 1990 by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Mahé case.

Given its mandate under the Official Languages Act, the Government of Canada decided to take the initiative and to help reluctant provinces fulfil their commitments. Among other things, it passed a series of special measures to make school management a reality everywhere in the country. The facts speak for themselves. In most provinces and territories, French speaking minorities now manage their own schools. The Government of Canada does its utmost, within the limits of its powers, to promote this reality in all regions of the country.

In October 1994, this government reinstated the court challenges program, an initiative which earned it the praise of the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, who said, and I quote: "On behalf of the francophone and Acadian communities, one must rejoice in the reinstatement of the court challenges program, the abolition of which they had condemned. It is thanks to this program that the right to be educated in French in Canada was recognized". The program provides francophones with the means to go to the courts to protect the right to manage their schools. The Government of Canada will continue to support these communities on the political, financial and legal fronts, to ensure this right is respected in every province and in the two territories.

Communities must now strengthen these rights and look after their development in every leading sector of human activity, particularly the economy and the communication and technology sectors.

At the World Acadian Congress held in August 1994, the Government of Canada announced an initiative that will allow francophone communities to play fully their role in the society of tomorrow. Pursuant to section 42 of the Official Languages Act, federal institutions and bodies have from now on the responsibility to financially and technically support the development of minority official language communities within the scope of their respective mandates, which means that these communities can now rely on new partners in each of the key sectors of their development.

For example, various concrete projects show the results such an initiative can have. In Alberta, for instance, the Western Economic Diversification Agency and the Department of Canadian Heritage both helped in the establishment of the Cité francophone in Edmonton.

In New Brunswick, the Law Faculty and the Electrical Engineering Department of the University of Moncton enjoyed the support of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Human Resources Development. In Manitoba, a heritage centre will soon come into being thanks to the co-operation of the Western Economic Diversification Agency, and the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Human Resources Development.

Francophones in Regina and Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, also had the support of these three partners for the construction of a school and community centre. In Nova Scotia, francophones in Petit-de-Grat, Cape Breton, have set up a combination school-community-business centre with the support of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Canadian heritage and development of human resources departments.

Obviously, these are but a few examples, but my own department is not the only one that does and should promote official languages in Canada. Linguistic duality is a matter of partnership. The Department of Canadian Heritage is also looking for a better co-operation with provincial and territorial governments.

With each one of these governments, the department tries to promote issues under provincial jurisdiction that have a direct impact on the future of official language communities in minority situations.

Moreover, the Government of Canada has given more leeway to official language communities despite the economic situation. We wanted these communities to set their own priorities and channel the resources provided to them into areas they consider a priority.

We are convinced that people themselves are most able to determine their needs and their future. That is why we have brought in a unique type of co-operation that involves direct agreements with the communities and gives them a greater financial independence. Both these measures are the logical and unescapable consequence of the Canadian government's vision of linguistic duality. They help official language communities in a minority situation contribute to the prosperity and success of Canada.

Also, because of the globalization of the economy, having two languages is a major asset, especially at a time when geo-political boundaries are becoming blurred. Our francophone and anglophone communities give us access to two of the greatest cultures of the world and their cultural vitality lets us assert our originality within the community of the world.

For instance, the Canadian francophonie, which is centred in the province of Quebec but spreads all over our country, has long been maintaining close ties with the international francophonie, that includes 47 member states.

The Francophonie is getting stronger and stronger and becoming a vibrant and invigorating force, a true culture and idea medium. To be part of it is to join a partnership of more than 160 million people scattered over five continents.

To be able to use two languages spoken throughout the world also represents a clear economic advantage at a time of market globalization. No less than 25 countries have French as one of their official languages, and 33 countries have English. That is why our official language policy promotes, through its programs, the learning of the second official language and makes Canadians more aware of the economic and cultural benefits several languages can provide.

Moreover, many Canadians want to have the opportunity to learn their second official language. An Environics poll showed that three out of four Canadians want their children to learn and master both official languages. Some three million young Canadians take regular second language courses or take part in immersion programs.

Communication, globalization and change are the new watchwords. Because of new technological and scientific developments, we are thrust into a complex and changing world. The information superhighway which will soon link all the countries in the world gives us only an inkling of the dimensions the information-based society will take worldwide.

We must have access to this electronic highway and it is all the more urgent for the Francophonie since it will need to find an original way to emphasize its distinctiveness and to carve itself a place in this otherwise unilingual and monolithic electronic universe.

Nowadays, the Francophonie is undoubtedly an integral part of the Canadian society and a major asset for this country. This is the reason why the official language policy remains, after 25 years, a good means to realize our vision of a free and forward-looking country.

Partnership and accountability are the key words of our policy. I unhesitatingly agree with these tools that will allow us to take up the challenges of today and tomorrow. Co-operation between various levels of government and their agencies, linguistic minorities, their representatives and the majority should be automatic. It must become second nature. I would even go as far as to wish that the private sector be even more committed to the promotion of the French factor in Canada. Businesses have much to give and to gain in this area, particularly if they want to establish business relations with francophones here and overseas.

Thus, partnership is a key to success and should guide us in the future. It is then important to diversify the funding sources of a policy that can no longer be only the concern of the government. For such a partnership to work, all stakeholders must also contribute their ideas, their creative abilities and their strengths.

Communities in particular must get what they need to be self-sufficient and find within themselves the means to realize their ideals. We will take measures to promote greater responsibility and freedom of action. It is with the absolute confidence that we have the instruments necessary to succeed collectively that I envision for Canada a future which reflects its geography, one that is rich, diversified and inexhaustible.

I think we have every reason to be proud of our Official Languages Act. Incidently, initiatives taken towards the French communities outside Quebec were praised by a former Secretary of State of the federal government, Mr. Lucien Bouchard.

In 1988, he declared that these initiatives were made possible by the enactment of the Official Languages Act, in 1969, by a Liberal government. He also said and I quote: "-their success was astonishing, as reflected in the access that Francophones outside Quebec have to education in their language and by the enrolment in immersion courses. Their implementation, as he then concluded, represents in every way a model of federal-provincial cooperation."

In this case, I can only agree with what Mr. Bouchard said at that time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the minister's speech. Of course, she used many fine words, such as "reiterate the government's commitments", but we all know very well that if the minister really examined the situation of francophone minorities, she would realize that, in fact, things are not getting better, they are getting worse. Indeed, this is what the associations themselves are constantly saying.

I have two brief questions to ask her as the acting minister of Canadian Heritage. Here is the first one. The hon. minister will recall that the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for coordinating and implementing Part VII of the Official Languages Act. In Part VII of the act, section 42 provides that the heritage department is responsible for coordinating and ensuring the implementation of Part VII. Why has Part VII not been implemented yet, two years after the Prime Minister himself, at the Acadian Convention in August 1994, formally committed his government and his caucus to ensure it would be done?

I would like to point out to the minister that in a recently released report, the Commissioner of Official Languages says, in black and white, that nothing or close to nothing has been done regarding the implementation and enforcement of Part VII.

My second question is as follows. The minister spoke beautifully about her government's commitments, ensuring financial independence, cooperation, alleluia. But, at the same time, her department is cutting its financial assistance to francophone communities. I am sure the minister did not have the courage to go to the last ACFO convention, in Ontario, the ACFO being in the process of negotiating with the Department of Canadian Heritage to obtain the funding it needs to survive, while the department is making all kinds of cuts. There is a lot of moaning and groaning from francophone communities.

In Saskatchewan, it has already happened. The government has cut almost 50 per cent of its financial assistance to the various associations. There is a constant effort on the part of the government to reduce to the lowest level possible the funding granted to francophone association, at a time when the situation is critical.

I will quote a letter about the cuts made in Saskatchewan. The letter is addressed to the prime minister and comes from a twelve-year-old elementary school student, Marisa Gendron-Nadeau, from Saskatchewan. She writes very well, I might add, even if she is only twelve. I will not read the whole letter, but here is what it said: "As for the documentation I am supposed to receive from Heritage Canada, I am afraid it will not be very informative since I already know that Franco-Saskatchewanians will receive 37 per cent less over the next three years, which means a 45 per cent cut for provincial associations and a 10 per cent cut for community associations".

Later on, she adds: "Personally, I sell tickets that give people a chance to win prizes. The proceeds from the sale of these tickets would help pay for this year's trip for the eighth-graders in our school", which is a French school.

She goes on to say: "Each time people ask me which school I attend and I tell them that I attend the French Canadian school, they call me a frog and slap the door in my face. That is the kind of attitude that anglophones have towards us. It is unfortunate that these people close their door to us, but it is downright unacceptable that the people who have the duty to help us-namely Heritage Canada-have chosen to do the same."

She said in closing: "Dear Mr. Prime Minister, at the beginning of our correspondence-she had sent other letters previously-I encouraged you to win the elections and to become prime minister of this country. Today I wonder whether I was right or wrong."

Can the minister tell me now, in spite of her wonderful speech, why her department, which is directly responsible for the application of Part VII, has done almost nothing and is even cutting funding to francophone associations at a time when the situation is critical?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Saint-Henri—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the fist question by the hon. member for Québec-Est, I think he ought to at least have the courage to acknowledge that this government, through its Prime Minister, did indeed commit in 1994 to the implementation of section 41 of the Official Languages Act.

At that time, I would say it was somewhat of a novelty for government to require various sectors, various departments, to be concerned with the development of minority communities in the country. Of course, we are just beginning that undertaking and most definitely we have asked each department to provide an action plan on the implementation of section 41. The Commissioner of Official Languages has just reported on this. At least he had the honesty to describe the action plans very clearly as first generation.

For the first time, departments and agencies were required to draw up action plans concerning the development of minorities in Canada. The initiative must, I believe, at least be acknowledged, although I fully agree that the plans are not perfect, and not up to the expectations of the francophone communities. There is, however, action under way and the wish of the government is being translated into action which will improve from one year to the next. Moreover, the report of the Commissioner of Official Language will help us to improve the departments' action plans for next year.

Although the hon. member for Québec-Est does not have the honesty to do so, the action taken by this government must be acknowledged. The same thing goes for the support to official language minority groups throughout the country. Every time I hear the hon. member for Québec-Est in this House, he is going on about the end of the world, the assimilation of Canada's francophones. He makes it sound like we are headed for a national catastrophe or something.

I realize that the potential for indignation among the Bloc Quebecois members is very great, very easily set off, but still reality must not be denied. Has there been progress in this country in the past 25 years, since the Official Languages Act was adopted? Has there been a change for the better in the situation of the communities? Yes.

Is the situation perfect? No. I am the first to admit that. We must, however, acknowledge that we are in a situation of change, that there has been a marked improvement, and that this government is still committed to supporting the minority communities across the country.

When I hear it said that I did not have the courage to attend the ACFO convention, I would just like to remind the hon. member for Québec-Est that, on this side of the House at least, we work as a team, and a government team member did attend, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. He spoke at the ACFO convention, reiterating the government's desire to sign an agreement with the franco-Ontarian community. What is more, that community has requested a meeting, which will take place tomorrow with the parliamentary secretary for Canadian Heritage. Once again, let us have all the facts before we jump to conclusions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the minister.

Hahamovitch Kosher Imports of Quebec was being investigated by the l'Office de la langue française in Quebec for abrogating French language laws.

The French language police in Quebec have dropped those charges, yet this government through the Minister of Justice is continuing to pursue charges against this group, this religious group importing religious foods from overseas.

I ask the minister why her government is continuing to pursue charges against the Hahamovitch kosher food company when l'Office de la langue Française has dropped its charges.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Saint-Henri—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that, in this country, there is legislation that must be respected in this area, and a certain degree of flexibility is always required. There are always interpretations of legislation. I can, however, assure the Reform Party member that I shall be raising this question with the Minister responsible for this within the government.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this issue. Since the Reform Party policies on bilingualism have been misinterpreted, misrepresented and misunderstood, it gives me an opportunity to put them back in their proper perspective.

I will comment on the speech given by the Bloc member for Québec-Est. It is regrettable that it was one of the most insightful, racist speeches I have ever hear. He tried to encourage other people across the country to show their anger and frustration. He used the word hate and said anglophones hate Quebecers or that anglophones hate francophones. I do not know under what authority, according to what knowledge, he can make that statement.

I know the majority of Quebecers do not share his view with respect to hatred, even if some are separatists. I know the majority of Quebecers in two referendums voted to stay in the country. It is a shame and a sham that the Bloc continues to want to push its personal separatist cause to break up the country.

He also discredited himself in three ways. He failed to give proof of his motion, which states in part that the government fails to recognize the urgency. It does. It has a lot of audits. It has made mistakes with the Official Languages Act and it is not perfect. However, the member never proved the urgency he talked about.

His motion also says they should take exceptional measures to counter their assimilation and allow for growth. There has been a lot of movement toward respecting francophones who live outside Quebec and working with them. I have evidence in my speech which shows that.

The member also described himself by only complaining. That is all he did, complain, complain, complain. He offered no solutions to solve the problem. This gentleman does not wish to stay in Canada. This gentleman has no interest in promoting anglophone-francophone relationships and bilingualism across the country.

There is proof of that. The final discredit was when he was on television with my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, my colleague asked him what would happen if Quebec separated to all those francophones who live outside Quebec. He shrugged his shoulders and said: "Who cares?" That is shameful. What duplicity. It reminds me of the finance minister and the Prime Minister. They are duplicitous too.

His speech strictly tried to create a myth to push the Bloc agenda. The agenda should be what can the Bloc members of Quebec do to make things better for Quebec. What can the Bloc

members do to make this a better country to live in? Together we can grow and nurture much better than if we divide and separate. The consequences are as severe for the rest of Canada as they are for Quebecers in Canada. They know it.

They hid the Le Hir reports; 10 or 15 reports were hidden. Parizeau showed he cared only about a small select group, a few people. He made bigoted and racist comments when he lost the referendum, and now Bouchard will have another referendum. When will it end?

He talks about democracy. They had two democratic elections. Twice they lost. They want to do it a third time? What happens if they get yes with 50 per cent plus one? That means immediate break up, right? They will not have another referendum then, will they? Bloc members are shaking their heads, "no, we won't". No is never, but yes is forever, and yes just once.

That is hypocritical. It is undemocratic. Quebecers should wake up and realize these separatists are hurting them. There are francophones and anglophones in Quebec who do not like what they are doing. The majority do not like what they are doing. They should stand up to them. That is the only way we will put this to rest.

I have complained that he has not shown the urgency. All he has done is make accusations. If he could have focused on how to better spend the billion dollars a year we spend on bilingualism to encourage bilingualism, even in Quebec, it would have been a much more productive speech.

This motion would be much more productive if we talked about how we could promote bilingualism. That is the problem. It has 63 per cent to 65 per cent of Canadians complaining about how official bilingualism is not working in this country. Even Quebecers are in the 60 percentile that complain about how this is not working. If that is where the gentleman from Québec-Est is coming from, to that degree I agree with him. I agree official bilingualism is not working. The way to do it is to stop having it misinterpreted.

The question is how to promote bilingualism. His lack of attention to the word bilingualism to his own province is what is lacking in his speech. What about the ethnics who come into that province? Yes, they have to learn French first. Yes, they should learn French first. Yes, they must be made to learn French. That is a provincial jurisdiction and a provincial right.

What about those anglophones born in Quebec who remain anglophones, 800,000 of them? Do they not have any rights? Will they all be kicked out?

Let us look at the facts. The government spends over a billion dollars a year and has done so for about 30 years, since Trudeau started this; $30 billion or more spent on bilingualism. Do we have value for our money? No. Sixty-three per cent of Canadians, including Quebecers, say no.

The official languages commissioner sends confusing messages. The person who is supposed to ensure this is being enforced right does not know what he is talking about. Let me give an example of that.

In 1994, I was on the Standing Committee on Official Languages where I met Mr. Goldbloom. The first thing he said was Reform's policy is not very good for Quebecers. He said if we went to Montreal we would certainly hear that the English speaking community, which is vibrant and has moved a great deal in the direction of bilingualism, is still very much committed to its life in English. This is for the Bloc members. Those people in Montreal still want the right to have English.

I was able to point out our policies. I indicated our party's position is that we are not anti-French, as some of the media likes to accuse us. The principle of supplying bilingual services in federal institutions should be where numbers warrant, where there is significant demand. This is the one supported by the Reform Party.

The question became, both for myself and the commissioner, how to define the minority community, the size, how big it should be to qualify for bilingual services?

Mr. Goldbloom said: "A province, I respectfully submit, is too large. The unity of this country matters to me. Unity means we are talking about a unit. That unit is not a province, it is the country. In the country there are 7 million people who speak French. It is not the small number of people that is the issue. It is the whole country and it is the history of linguistic duality".

There are two messages there, how to incorporate and include services in two languages to satisfy the 7 million French speaking people and that there should be services required to serve the balance of Canadians who, I presume, would be English speaking.

He says the unit of a province is too large but that the country is the right size. That is a confusing message. I think everybody is going away from what the original B and B commission indicated.

The B and B report, which Trudeau commissioned and which he based on his bilingualism and biculturalism policy, was to have a system for all individuals located in the country to have the right to communicate and receive services from government in their preferred official language.

This has been interpreted as where sufficient numbers and significant demand warrant. This has been reinterpreted by the Official Languages Act that we must force all Canadians to learn two languages. We object to having an Official Languages Act that enforces bilingualism. People react to this, especially when one province will not teach in the second official language. This offends and upsets people. It is what is making this issue so controversial.

We should go back to the original B and B report and significant numbers, sufficient demand. We could end the official enforcement of two official languages and that money, whether it is a $500 million or $1 billion, would be better spent encouraging and promoting bilingualism. To speak a second language is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

We do know Canada's history, unlike what the member for Québec-Est said. We all recognize that this is a country of two primary languages, French and English. To promote and encourage Canadians to learn a second language is positive, not negative. It is similar to Europe.

I speak Hungarian. I am a first generation immigrant. There is no official Hungarian language policy in Canada. I go into my little pockets and pools where I can speak Hungarian to Hungarians. I never spoke one word of Hungarian for 10 years.

I have learned to speak quite well in Hungarian. I have forgotten some but not all of it. I am saying to Quebecers and separatists that their argument that if they do not speak French every day all day they will forget their language and if they do not force people in Quebec to learn only French they will lose they language, is not right. I am living proof it is not right. I guarantee that if every francophone in Quebec never spoke a word of French for 10 years, they would still remember how to speak French. I submit that very humbly. They may forget a little bit. The argument that if they do not speak French all the time and do not have it up there first and foremost they will lose their language is wrong.

How did we get here? We got here through the B and B report and through a confusion and misinterpretation of Trudeau's intention for a just society. It is unfortunate that has happened because although I do not respect the games the separatists are playing, I respect their right to fight for what they want and what they believe in.

By the same token, I would hope that they would give me that same respect and I could speak against them in such a way that shows them I really want to be their friend. I really want them to fight for Quebec the way Reformers are fighting for B.C., Ontario and Alberta. They should force the federal government. Le problème c'est Ottawa, as our leader said. That is the problem and that is where we should focus.

We can fix the Official Languages Act. We can move to encouraging and promoting bilingualism. There is nothing wrong with learning English or French no matter what one's first language is, even if it is Hungarian. This is the way to solve the problem.

I have to go back to a couple of other facts mentioned by the member for Quebec Est to give credence to his contention that there is an urgency and a lack of respect for francophones. That is simply untrue, totally and blatantly untrue. I respect francophones. I stand here and defy anyone to say that I do not respect francophones. I respect all Canadians.

For instance, the member said that there were only one or two French schools in my province. Let me tell the hon. member what the deal is. In Alberta 163 schools offered French immersion in 1994-95. That represents 27,717 students. The member asked: "So what if there is French immersion? What does that do for the francophones who live there?" What it does is when those people whose first language is English learn French and become bilingual, then the francophone has just found 27,717 new friends. That is what it does. That is what builds a country. That is what will unite us. It is what brings us together.

On top of those 163 schools, 21 schools offer francophone programs for francophones living in Alberta. Programs just for francophones last year represented services for 2,765 francophone students. They can even have their own French boards if they want.

I would like to share with the hon. member for Québec-Est that for the first time there is a French only school in Calgary Centre. That is in Alberta, where 23 Reformers have come from to this House of Commons and are labelled as anti-French, a province which has done nothing but promote bilingualism.

Those are examples of promoting and encouraging bilingualism. People I know, lawyers, doctors and accountants send their kids willingly to French immersion schools because they know the advantage of it. The member should be doing the same thing for francophones. He should be encouraging francophones to learn English as well, instead of being so paranoid about his own language which he will never ever forget how to speak and I know that.

The Reform Party has done a poor job of representing its bilingualism policy. We come across as anti-French. We come across as anti-Quebec. What I am hoping to do today is to put on the record quite clearly and unequivocally that we are pro Quebec, we are pro French, we are pro bilingualism. In fact we are pro Canada.

We want this country to stay together. We want this country to show its ethnic backgrounds and diversity. Yes we agree that the

way the government is doing it is not the right way. Yes we agree it is easy for the member for Québec-Est to stand up and get the government ticked off and get more separatist support, but that is not the way to reach his ultimate objectives.

Look what is happening in the city of Montreal. After two referendums and 25 years of trying to separate, it is has not worked. Why not just forget it? Montreal has dwindled to half of what it was 25 years ago.

In 1969 I went to the University of Ottawa and bilingualism was prevalent then. Sometime in the late sixties the separatist movement started. A student union started it. I was there and saw the birth of separatism, of that movement and that thought.

The difference in Ottawa was maybe 25 per cent or 30 per cent of people were bilingual. Now I do not need a statistic. I do not need a map. I do not need anything. I am here 25 years later and I get the impression that 75 per cent of people in Ottawa are bilingual. Everywhere I go they can speak two languages. Whether they greet you in English or French, you go into the other language and you just do not know. You are not safe to say anything in another language assuming that the other person does not understand because they do.

This is evidence that bilingualism has worked. Ottawa is an example of it. In the House of Commons there are 1,400 employees under the control and purview of the board which the Speaker looks after. For 69 per cent of those employees, French is their first language. That is great and good. It shows that it works. It shows that things are being done positively within the system.

I want to explain what the Reform Party means when we say that we would replace the Official Languages Act. We do not like the Official Languages Act and we say a lot of the money being spent is a waste. Let us spend it better. We would replace the Official Languages Act with a territorial bilingualism act. It has its credibility and concept from the original Laurendeau-Dunton report, the B and B report. It goes back to that principle to recognize language minority rights. It is a compromise between the two extremes.

Under this model, language rights and minority language services would be extended only to those minorities large enough to survive over the long term. Smaller minorities would not receive full rights on the basis that the burden imposed on the majority population which must foot the tax bill for minority language government services outweighs the benefits being received by the minority. This model has been successfully employed in Finland for dealing with its Swedish speaking minority.

If practised in Canada, this model would extend full minority language rights to the large francophone communities in eastern and northeastern Ontario and to the Acadians of New Brunswick as well as to the anglophone community of west end Montreal. The rest of the country for all intents and purposes would not be required to offer the services in two languages. By doing this we then spend some advertising dollars on promoting and encouraging the learning of a second language.

When I went to high school in Arnprior, Ontario I was taught a second language. It was French. I learned English at home and French in school but I did not see the need for it. Times have changed. This is the nineties. There is a need for a second language. There is a need for people to expand their minds. People do not have to learn a second language and if they speak just one language they should not be ashamed or embarrassed.

There are places in Quebec where they are forced to do things in English where there is no need. Some areas are so francophone it is ridiculous to impose English signs and English services. They do not need it, they do not want it and they should not have to do it. The same exists outside of Quebec in a lot of areas.

If we want to achieve a balance, territorial bilingualism might go a long way toward solving that problem. I am not saying it would solve all of the problems because someone or something always gets in the way. They are politicians, bureaucrats and government.

We as politicians should clearly enunciate the objectives of what we want and then follow it up. The mistake Trudeau made is he enunciated a good objective and he supported the Laurendeau-Dunton report. That is all he wanted. He wanted to encourage, promote and set in place some services that would make francophones who left Quebec feel comfortable living outside of Quebec. That is what he wanted. However other people came along, for example the bureaucrats, and interpreted it differently and started imposing rules. For example, I think it is silly to have language police in a province. That is such a waste of money, but it is just my personal opinion.

What else can I say in the minute that is left for me.

[An hon. member]

Why don't you sit down?

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

I do not want to sit down until my time is up. I have every right to speak for 20 minutes just like the member for Québec-Est. I know he is champing at the bit to get at me on a question.

In 1995 the commissioner of official languages received 15 complaints regarding the Internet which dealt with the unavailability of various information in French. When will the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal government catch up with the Reform Party which has more French services on the Internet site than both the Bloc and the Liberals? How is that for promoting bilingualism? How is that for offering services in two languages? How is that for showing

that the Reform Party does care about Quebec, that the Reform Party wants Quebec?

We need good Quebecers to run for the Reform Party to show that we can make a difference here representing the province of Quebec the proper way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Calgary Centre to be respectful and probably one of the more progressive MPs in the Reform Party but he does not necessarily represent the opinion generally expressed within the Reform Party. Certainly I can well believe he is sincere in his remarks.

However his remarks indicate clearly that he lacks a certain understanding of the history of Canada, in particular when he speaks about the Hungarian language and asking why do we not have an official language policy for Hungarian in Canada. It is not that I am against Hungarian. I would love to speak Hungarian. I would love to speak many languages.

The fact is initially francophones were at the foundation of this country. Again, it comes back in the messages that are sent out from the Reform Party and the Liberal Party which are always attacking Quebec as though Quebec were responsible for the assimilation of francophones outside Quebec.

Quebec is still part of Canada and the assimilation of francophones is increasing. It is increasing more and more rapidly. We cannot blame Quebec for the fact that English speaking provinces do not respect their commitments to francophones. Also, I would humbly submit to the member for Calgary Centre that the English community in Quebec is well respected. They have all their rights, educational, hospital, social services. They are extremely well treated in spite of disagreements in terms of details.

For example, the member mentioned that it was Mr. Trudeau who brought about the B and B commission. No, it was Mr. Pearson who brought about the commission which recommended a series of measures to help bring back the rights that had been denied francophones, particularly in Alberta, which had denied those rights since 1905. It took a long time before Alberta recognized the right of francophones to their own schools. It happened only last year. There are 14 schools in Alberta where they teach in French. The member did not mention that, but it is important, it is a great gain. But it was forced on Alberta.

Alberta resisted in spite of two Supreme Court decisions and the charter of human rights, article 23, which demanded Alberta respect the rights of francophones. Alberta resisted until the last minute and the federal government had to pay Alberta to provide schools and administer the school system in Alberta. So Alberta is far from being an example.

I do not think that the people in the west could teach a lesson to Quebec on how to represent its minority. However, the problem is that Alberta and other provinces still do not provide a sufficient guarantee or services to its French minority.

Finally, the policy of the Reform Party obviously, in spite of goodwill, reduces it to a territorial administration. It would obviously reduce even further the powers that French language communities will have in order to survive. Clearly, according to history, Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and B.C. do not want to have any French in their provinces.

If the provinces are given the right to administer minority language services, my God, it is going to be absolutely, zilch, zero.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I never said that we need a Hungarian language policy. I am saying that we do not need the Hungarian language policy. Hungarians will continue to retain their language and culture, despite the fact that we do not have a policy here in Canada.

My point is that it is not necessary to be so over protective of a language to the degree that it will be lost and forgotten. There are examples that it will never happen.

I never blamed Quebec for the mess we are in concerning bilingualism. I never once in my speech blamed Quebec. I blamed the federal government, prime ministers and the second tier, the bureaucrats who were hired to implement those policies.

I thank the member for the correction as to who initiated the Laurendeau-Dunton report, the B and B Commission, Mr. Pearson. He was a fine gentleman.

In terms of the Bloc's policy, I talked about territorial bilingualism and he indicated that it would not work. Here is the Bloc Quebecois policy. It calls for full and generous language rights to be extended to francophones living outside of Quebec and very few rights to be extended to anglophones living inside Quebec.

Where is the principle of equality there? That is avoiding it. "The logic of this asymmetry is that French is in danger of extinction in Canada". It is in danger of extinction in Canada? Seven million people speak that language and somebody says that it is in danger of extinction. That defies logic. It goes on: "It can only survive on an equal footing with English if it receives preferential, legal treatment".

Let us say that it was in danger of extinction and we felt that we had to do some extra work to ensure the language survived. What offends anglophones is that the separatists in their own province-not all Quebecers because the majority are not like this-will not give the equal treatment to anglophones living in that province. They tramp on their rights. That is what is wrong with the separatists and the Bloc view of bilingualism.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party member has raised a number of points, and I find very interesting his claim that the francophone community can survive without the necessary support or assistance of the Canadian government. I think the hon. member is mistaken.

It must not be forgotten that francophones represent only one per cent of the total population of North America, if Mexico is included. Clearly, it is therefore to our advantage to make sure that we have good ties with and, of course, the unconditional support of the anglophone and bilingual provinces of the country.

There was also a reference to the case of Alberta, which, to some extent, resisted the efforts of the federal government in a procedure back in the eighties. Admittedly the whole thing had the support of the Quebec government at the time.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on this territorial responsibility. He spoke to us about the Reformers' almost electoral promise to encourage and promote the French fact and, in particular, bilingualism, throughout the country. How could they encourage French throughout the country when they are prepared to support a policy of territorial management?

He proudly told us about the existence of 163 schools, or educational establishments, offering French immersion courses. He also boasted-and I am very glad to hear it this morning-that there are over 27,000 anglophone school children in French immersion in Alberta this year.

How does he think they could maintain or increase the number of these French immersion schools if they followed his political logic? How could a government headed by the leader of the third party guarantee us the presence of French in that province and, of course, in the other anglophone provinces? I would certainly like to hear his comments on this subject.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. It is a very good question. It is a very important question.

The Reform Party recognizes and realizes that French is a fact in this country. So is English. French is the minority language because fewer people speak French.

We are not against supporting bilingualism. When I was making the point about compulsory enforcement and about not spending a lot of money to encourage people to learn a language, I was trying to show that the separatists use an extreme argument. They go overboard in trying to retain their argument. There needs to be a compromise between the two.

It against that point that I was stating the fact that if someone did not speak the language for a number of years, they could still speak that language. The culture of a province and a region is important. There are many cultures across this country.

The member asked how we would encourage or protect French minority language rights outside Quebec. First, all provinces have jurisdiction over language and culture. It should be the same for Quebec as it is for Alberta and for every other province. Within that right, the provinces can encourage the people to speak the language of its choice and to insist on education first in the language of that choice.

The way to ensure that French is protected in Alberta, for instance, is to recognize where the pockets, the pools, the significant numbers and sufficient demand exist to ensure that those people, through legislation, get the services they require. That is protected by law. It is enforced by law.

However, to encourage more Albertans, more Edmontonians, Calgarians, people from Red Deer, from Lethbridge, from wherever they are to speak French, one has to sell and promote the advantages of a second language. It has to be shown what are the advantages for Albertans to learn French. A lot of good contracts from Europe in the technological field are going to Quebecers and Quebecers only because they speak French and supply the drawings and the technical information in French.

If Calgarians and Edmontonians or Albertans in general were to take the time to become proficient in that second language it would improve their opportunities to market themselves. It would improve their ability to make deals in the global economy. The world is shrinking. It will become a Europe. Therefore, the protection of a second language, be it English in Quebec or French in Ontario, will become more prevalent. The way to do it is not to force people to do it but to encourage, to promote, to show the advantages of it.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the minutes to come I will give troubling facts regarding assimilation of French speaking Canadians outside Quebec. I remind the House that today's debate is on francophones living mainly outside Quebec. The opposition motion we are debating on this supply day recognizes the urgency of the situation of francophones outside Quebec.

As evidence of this fact, here are some very eloquent figures which show the seriousness of the assimilation problem of francophones in minority situations. Over the last 20 years in Canada, the assimilation rate of francophones increased from 27 per cent in 1971 to 35.9 per cent in 1991. This means that more than 35 per

cent of francophones outside Quebec now speak English at home and this trend is becoming more marked every year.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois encourages the federal and provincial governments to acknowledge the urgency of the situation and even more, to take the exceptional steps required in order to counter the assimilation of francophones everywhere in Canada and allow their development by appropriate measures.

It is very unfortunate that the federal government, and especially Liberals who have been the most keen promoters and defenders of bilinguism and multiculturalism in Canada, persist in denying the real presence of francophones outside Quebec despite the numerous reports of the Commissioner of Official languages and francophone advocacy groups.

This situation is all the more incomprehensible since minorities outside Quebec have traditionally voted for the Liberals. It is high time we dropped the rhetoric and the lip service. The federal government must act and not just make empty speeches. It must promote effective legislation to save the francophone and Acadian communities in the throes of death from assimilation.

In reality, the government is not meeting its statutory commitments toward francophones in Canada. The proof is in a memorandum issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages on February 22, which indicates that, after investigation, the office noted significant gaps in the training of federal officials and in existing training and management systems in terms of the provisions of part VII of the Official Languages Act of 1988. Section 41 of part VII of the act provides that the government is committed to "enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development". It is also committed to "fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society".

In the light of the latest statistics from Statistics Canada-and this is what is important-supported by the latest reports of the Office the Commissioner of Official Languages, it is as if the federal government had forgotten the meaning of "francophone" in the act. It is, however, clear. The federal government has both the obligation and the responsibility to ensure French linguistic minority communities receive fair treatment in keeping with its status of official language in Canada.

I am going to read an extract of the February 1996 report of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which clearly proves the government's inaction, despite its obligation to act. You will see on page 32, and I quote: "It is not surprising, therefore, that in a random sample of more than 550 senior executives, when they were asked to say what initiatives their institution could undertake to implement Part VII of the OLA, the two must common responses were "no idea" (23 per cent) and "nothing needed" (20 per cent), and that almost none suggested any measures directly intended to enhance the vitality and support the development of minority official language communities". They were not interested.

That is saying something. A majority of representatives in the main federal departments and agencies in charge of programs for francophones do not even understand the French speaking community's needs. There is more: in the same report, on page 31, under the first heading, in answer to a question, it says, and I quote: "-except for senior executives who are members of one of these communities or for rare individuals who had developed extensive knowledge on their own initiative, the baseline of knowledge about minority community characteristics and needs is extremely low".

Where is the problem? Under these conditions, are the intentions of the federal government realistic? That is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking the federal and provincial governments to take the exceptional steps required to counter assimilation of French communities outside Quebec and encourage their development.

Here are other figures more closely related this time to governments of provinces having an English majority and who still resist the demand of francophones for real education services in French, thereby contravening the Canadian constitution.

Take the case of Ontario for instance. Over 20 years, the assimilation ratio among francophones increased to 38.2 per cent from 27 per cent. Now, Franco-Ontarians who still speak French at home are only 3.2 per cent of population. They are declining in number. That is what we are saying. Now that is assimilation. This situation is particularly tragic as Ontario is, as you know, the province where more than half the francophone community outside Quebec lives. It is therefore the most important in terms of numbers.

In Alberta, the assimilation rate is 66.9 per cent. In Saskatchewan, its neighbour, it is even higher, 69.6 per cent. In Manitoba, the rate is 52.1 per cent. The statistics I quote come from documents prepared by Statistics Canada, I did not make them up. British Columbia, where the assimilation rate of francophones is the highest, is the most obvious case. It is the province furthest from the francophone nucleus, and it is therefore where the rate is the highest: 75.2 per cent.

This means in fact that 75.2 per cent of the population in that province whose mother tongue was French no longer speak French at home and have turned directly to English. For a francophone, those numbers are not at all heartening. You will agree with me that this is the statistical reflection of a sad reality.

With assimilation rates going from 38.2 per cent in Ontario to 75.2 per cent in British Columbia, francophone communities are fading away.

Only Acadia is still holding its own, and I want to acknowledge the courage and determination of the Acadian people. But, will it last? That is the question. As a francophone and a francophile, I sincerely hope so.

Behind those statistics are intense, heartbreaking human dramas often full of despair: those of francophones who believed in this country, in its bilingualism policy and in the promises made by its leaders.

The French speaking Fathers of Confederation rapidly lost their illusions. They believed that new provinces joining Canada would be bilingual. We know what happened. Provincial legislatures abolished and denied francophones all their rights.

Despite the legislation and Supreme Court decisions francophones are still without schools, health services, government services and cultural services in their language, French. It is the same story almost everywhere in Canada. Put down, betrayed by the people who did not keep their promises, those French speaking Canadians feel wounded but yet, they continue to fight, refusing to admit that, maybe, they have lost the battle. They have all my admiration. They have all the admiration of the Bloc Quebecois.

As a general rule, the Canadian government refuses to talk about the assimilation of francophones outside Quebec and even refuses outright to recognize it. I listened to the minister who just gave a very nice and politically correct speech, but that was the icing on the cake. We should look further than that but that is exactly what the government refuses to do.

In this regard, the annual reports by the Commissioner of Official Languages constitute a marvel of hypocrisy. But the best example of that kind of attitude is given by the current Prime Minister. His statements on language issues go back to the implementation of Bill 101 in Quebec. It is at that time that the Prime Minister started to get interested in Acadian and French speaking minorities.

On one hand, at the time, in the late 1970s, the Prime Minister prevented the decentralization towards Quebec of the federal public service because he felt the Quebec government of the time could not guarantee that displaced federal civil servants could send their children to English schools.

I refer hon. members to page 5602 of Hansard , dated May 13, 1977. This is the Prime Minister speaking:

I have told the Quebec government that if they cannot give the anglophone civil servants who would have to settle in Quebec the guarantee that their children could attend English schools, we will not be able to decentralize in this province.

On the other hand, in 1982, the current Prime Minister conspired with English provinces, during the night of the long knives, to force Quebec to accept the Canada clause with regard to the language of instruction.

Another quote from the October 23, 1981 Hansard , page 12115, says this. Again, it is the Prime Minister speaking:

We want to make sure that Canadians who speak English and move to Quebec have the right to go to English schools. In return, we want to have the constitutional right, for the first time in the history of Canada, for francophones in the nine other provinces to have their schools.

Both times, of course, this advocate of the Quebec English minority did not forget to assure Acadian and French speaking minorities that they would have the same rights.

However, the Prime Minister unconditionally accepted to transfer francophone soldiers to Kingston although he knew perfectly well that Kingston's track record in French was so atrocious that everyone knew that francophones would have to live in English there.

It is only thanks to the Bloc's relentless attacks here, in this House, that the situation of francophone soldiers in Kingston has improved slightly. As you will recall we also came to the rescue of the people who wanted a French school in Kingston. It is thanks to the Bloc Quebecois that things started to happen. We put pressure on the government and it took action. Public opinion played a part too.

It is as if the Prime Minister were only interested in French speaking Canadians to the extent that there is an English minority in Quebec.

He repeated it in this House, saying that in the event of a yes vote, francophones will be the losers because the federal government will not support them. I was present when he said that. They are being held hostage here. The federal language policy is based on the following logic: we must make people believe francophones have the same privileges so that the anglophone minority will not lose any of its own privileges. The fact that the Prime Minister acquieseces to the frantic pace of assimilation of francophones all over Canada clearly shows that this is one of the reasons for the tragic decline of the Acadian and francophone minorities.

Most of these people had to sacrifice their own francophone community and their advancement within the federal government because career moves can only be made with the support of the majority, that is the anglophones.

It is clear that the federal government and its leader pay lip service to the equality of French and English under the law; they certainly do not take any tangible action to change the status quo.

Equality of the two languages is a fiction. Out of the 1,242 complaints examined by the Commissioner of Official Languages in 1992, 81.8 per cent came, as per usual, from francophones.

In some regions of Canada, the commissioner himself admits that the situation is hopeless. He said: "Where there were fewer complaints (from the West, for example) this can be attributed in part to the frustration felt by clients- at the lack of progress on the part of various institutions". This quote comes from the 1994 annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Therefore, the assimilation rate is on the rise; we must stress that point for our colleagues from the other parties. We are not making this up. Statistics Canada reports that assimilation of francophones is increasing in Canada. So assimilation is gaining ground and the government, particularly some public servants, do not seem to care.

The situation is critical and it is our duty to remedy it because assimilation will continue to destroy our communities. The statistical profile of francophone and Acadian communities shows without a doubt the seriousness of the situation in these communities.

We have the right to ask others to respect the necessary conditions so that our language and our communities are a viable identification pole.

Before I conclude, I would like, here in the House, to congratulate the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada for its perseverance, and I urge it to continue the struggle to preserve its language and its culture.

Finally, will the federal government have the wisdom to really seek the advancement of francophone and Acadian communities, which will involve talking about schools, because that is where it all begins, and about real services in communities where there are francophones. The situation is critical, and the government must act quickly and efficiently to counter the assimilation of francophones everywhere in Canada outside Quebec.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add the voice of British Columbia to this debate. I am neither a francophone nor an anglophone. I am originally from Italy; this makes me a member of the multicultural, ethnic community. But I speak both official languages, as well as Italian.

I must say that British Columbia is a young province, just turning 125 years old this year. I must also say that it differs from other provinces, as someone pointed out, in that it is a community of communities, some of which are much larger than the francophone community.

Still, I would like to make a few comments. I will comment on this. For instance, when I travelled to Montreal before the referendum, I was told: "What are you doing here? This is not your country". But it was my country, too.

I would also like to say that, during the referendum campaign, my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois showed little interest for communities outside Quebec. Indeed, I was one of the first to raise the matter of francophone minorities outside Quebec during the referendum campaign, because their party was just not interested. I think that now they are trying to show to Canada that they care, but I have never seen their party show any interest in the matter before.

On the subject of assimilation, I would like to say that, naturally, in British Columbia, there is some assimilation taking place because we have so many different communities, but we also have 60,000 francophones across the province, who form a very vibrant and very active community.

I just spoke to them. I spoke to the Fédération de la francophonie last week. I worked with the francophone community in British Columbia for 20 years and I must say that it is one of the most organized communities, and has a very good rapport with the federal government. Yet, again, my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois were nowhere to be seen when the time came to sign an agreement with the government. I was there though. I was there to help, along with other Liberal members, and I have worked long and hard for this agreement to be signed. Now there is a very good agreement in place. And francophones are pleased. Just the other night, their report was tabled.

I might add that, yes, we are not always happy with what happened in the past, but what can I say? This is a young country. My country of origin, Italy, is a much older country than Canada, but just the same, Italy has a past we are not always too proud of. We have to work together. I do not think that separating or getting out of Canada will make a difference. I think we must work together to maintain two main languages in Canada-as well as minority languages-two languages that are very popular around the world, especially the French language.

This is just a comment I wanted to make. It was important for me to make this comment because I have not heard any other speakers from British Columbia and I think I know British Columbia and its francophone community pretty well.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made by my colleague across the way. I think her remarks were totally fair. Today's debate is not about Quebec sovereignty, but about francophones outside Quebec. May

I remind you that, in 1994, the Bloc Quebecois developed a policy to help francophone communities outside Quebec as well as the Acadian community.

In 1994, under the leadership of the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, we set out a policy to help francophones outside Quebec in case Quebec achieved sovereignty, which did not happen. The Quebec government also formulated a policy to help these people. May I remind you that the red book, which is still being promoted by our Liberal colleagues across the way, makes no mention of what will be done about these communities.

In my speech, I talked about cold statistics. The hon. member spoke with her heart, but I prefer to quote statistics that show us beyond any doubt what is happening in this country. Statistics Canada's figures paint an alarming picture. The assimilation rate is now so high that, in one or two generations, there will be no francophones left outside Quebec, only small organized groups. These are Statistics Canada's own figures.

The other day, I went to a reception given by the Speaker of this House, where we welcomed a great man, the RCMP commissioner, who was just back from Haiti. This man is a francophone. I will not give his name. He married an anglophone woman-love will find a way-and they have three great children in their 20s, one of who is a nurse and another one of whom has a teaching job abroad.

I met these people. They were very nice, except that, with a francophone father and an anglophone mother, none of the three children speak a word of French. This did not keep me from appreciating and even liking them, because they were good kids, but they are indeed assimilated. That is what I want to say today. This is the risk we face.

We are moving toward an irreversible trend. The members who come from elsewhere can understand this. I go out in Ottawa all the time, I go to restaurants, and there are not many francophones. There are fewer and fewer of them. I met a lady who works for the government and who has children. She speaks French, but her children did not learn it. That is what is happening.

Today, we want to describe the situation to the government so that necessary measures will be taken. Members across the way also mentioned immersion classes. As we all know, any Canadian who dreams about his child becoming Prime Minister enrols that child in immersion classes.

Nowadays, it is better to be bilingual if one wants to hold public office and to become Prime Minister. I do not question the validity of immersion classes, I do not condemn them, but it is the anglophones that make use of them. This is not like providing services to francophones in their own environment.

My assistant in Ottawa is a francophone from northern Ontario. He often tells me that his parents wanted him to study in French and how hard they had to fight for this, back then. You certainly know, Mr. Speaker, how parents in this situation had to fight to preserve their French language and culture.

I do not wish to sound petty, but we all know that some members in the House are first generation Canadians. Our country welcomes immigrants, and so does Quebec. But we have a tradition. If the Constitution stipulates that French is one of the two official languages, that francophones have rights, it is about time the government assumed its responsibilities, made the necessary decisions and to made sure that the law is enforced.

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

Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the hon. member have more to do with the anecdotal than with facts. Statistics are mentioned and I find this very interesting. I do not accept everything the government says, including Statistics Canada.

I would like to talk about the birth rate. As you know, the birth rate of francophones living outside Quebec, and even of those living in Quebec, is lower than the natural replacement rate. This is something which Statistics Canada cannot explain, but which must be taken into account.

Moreover, no mention is made of the increase in Canada's population over the last 50 years. As we know, the population increased tremendously because of the massive immigration movement to Canada, which is known the world over as a good host country. In fact, this is why people came here and helped build the prosperous nation that we know. Canada's population has doubled over the last 50 years, but not the number of francophones living outside Quebec. These are the facts.

I realize that the proportion of francophones in Ontario is now smaller, but their actual number has remained stable. I find it regrettable that anecdotal information is being used and that, in this debate, we are told that a francophone married and anglophone and that their children are assimilated.

Let me tell you about my own situation. I would say that 95 per cent of my work is done in French and that 90 per cent of my speeches are in French. My wife's mother tongue is Spanish, and it is true that, at home, we speak English together. However, this does not mean that my children are not francophones.

In spite of what Statistics Canada may say, it does not necessarily mean that I am assimilated. Based on Statistics Canada's criteria, the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is

assimilated because his family speaks English. But this does not tell the whole story.

My father, Alban Gagnon, and his mother, an Irish woman named Jones, spoke English together. However, my father worked to improve his skills and became bilingual. In fact, French was spoken in the family. My father works exclusively in French.

The same is true in the case of my great-grandfather. His story is even more interesting. He dared marry a Protestant, a Scot. You cannot imagine how strongly the clergy protested at the time. However, these people not only preserved their language, they managed to promote it and to learn a second one. This is more than anecdotal information. It shows that couples with French and English speaking partners can actually help its members improve their linguistic skills and their knowledge of both official languages.

Let us not forget that 30 per cent of Canadians are now bilingual. This means 10 million people out of a population of 30 million. This is very interesting.

I also note, while acknowledging the point made by the Bloc Quebecois, that French immersion programs for anglophones are a tremendous success. I will end on this note. I hope more English speaking Canadians will consider French immersion, as many have done over the last 15 years.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member told us about his origins. As we can see, he comes out of a true melting pot. What you see is what you get, is it not? He did not want us to talk about that, but he is the one who did.

Now, data from Statistic Canada tell us that the assimilation rate has gone up from 27 per cent in 1971 to 35.9 per cent in 1991, and this in spite of the hon. member's rhetoric; this is undeniable. We simply point out, without wanting to squabble, that there is a problem. Right now, the Liberals are in power, and as long as people in Canada vote for the Liberals, they are the ones we have to talk to and they are the ones who must take measures to deal with the situation.

Thus, the trend toward assimilation seems to be irreversible. Does the government have any solution to settle this problem? If it has no solution, we, in Quebec, have our own. The ball is now in the government's court. So, does the government have any solution? That is the question that we are asking ourselves today.

We could surely trade anecdotes but, in our everyday life, we meet people. Assimilation of francophones to English is much more frequent than assimilation of anglophones. Why? The hon. member will understand that, since he is, as you know, a young man with good sense.

He will understand that we live in North America, where there are many anglophones. It is quite simple, we live in a sea of anglophones. Canadians always say that having two languages, French and English, is the specific characteristic of Canada. How nice. They should ensure that this will continue to be true a little longer. That is what we are asking for. That is what the francophones are fighting for.

As I look on the opposite side, I see a francophone member from another province. He might not say so in the House because he a member of the Liberal Party, but he would tell you privately that both he and his parents have to fight every day to get quality services. That is what the government has to look at now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the discussion on this motion, which I will read out carefully, because I do not want us to lose sight of what it is all about.

Here it is: "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". In a way, this is an excellent motion, because assimilation is indeed a problem. The struggle never ends. In a changing society, a constant vigilance is required.

One of the main things we should be doing today is asking why things are the way they are and looking for solutions. What is it we should do to counter and stop assimilation and better support minorities in their development?

The same message lies behind all the speeches of members opposite, simply that if they separate and are left to their own devices, there would be some kind of magic solution. We all know there is no magic solution. I certainly hope that before the end of the day, before the end of this discussion, political parties opposite will come up with concrete, specific, sensible and thoughtful solutions.

I am not suggesting that the federal government has that magic solution, but I do say and emphasize that the government is committed, and that this commitment is getting stronger. The solution we now have is the best solution for francophones outside Quebec.

At this point, I want to stop and reflect some more on Manitoba as it was at the start. Take, for instance, what we have in Manitoba. We have the Société franco-manitobaine, a special interest group. Yes, we have to fight, we always had to-and we do it rather well, you know-and we will continue to fight. But my hon. friends opposite also have to fight, do they not, to try to find their own place in the sun? We all have to fight. Canada must fight to carve itself a place in this world of ours, in its relations with the United States and Europe. It is a battle we all have to fight when we look at

the society we live in and the people we represent. Francophones outside Quebec are no different.

This Société franco-manitobaine has been promoting the rights of francophones for a long time. It does a good job of it. Only recently, after a very fierce battle, did Manitoba get a French school board, where we manage our own schools. I must tell you, this is a huge step forward. I hope other provinces, like Newfoundland for example, which we have been discussing, will do the same. I sincerely hope that in all the provinces and in all the territories where francophones live and have French schools, something that we see in Canada-they will have the opportunity to elect their own representatives and to manage their own schools.

In Manitoba, we have the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, a university-based community college offering education and upgrading programs in French. We have a university attended by students not only from throughout Canada, but from around the world. This is the only French language community and university college in western Canada. It has been doing some remarkable work, because it is still there after many years and is renowned in Canada and abroad.

We also have a youth council that sees to our young citizens, their needs, their education and their recreational activities. We also have CKXL, a community radio station that helps us to talk to, understand and help each other. And then there is the Cercle Molière, the oldest French theatre company in Canada.

We have a French Chamber of commerce. We have organizations like Réseau and Plurielle, which fight for the needs and rights of women. We have, for example, the Fédération des comités de parents. We have the Association des juristes, and so on.

We have a major infrastructure, which sure helps us meet our needs. All these organizations have received, at one time or another, some financial assistance from the federal government. But they help themselves. They did not survive only with the help of the federal, provincial or municipal governments. They contribute not only their talents, energies and creative abilities, but also their money.

Now I will tell you about a very promising federal initiative. As we already heard this morning, some hon. members vied with each other in predicting the end of French communities outside Quebec, backing this up with alarming figures on their assimilation. True, there is a problem, but is it as serious as they say? Are they exaggerating for some reason? Maybe to send another message? It is up to the people to decide after hearing the speeches.

And yet, these communities are vibrant and, with the help of the federal and other levels of government, they are giving themselves the means to remain that way.

One of these means is the school-community centre. The first of these centres, the St. Anne centre, was opened in 1978 in Fredericton, New Brunswick. Since then, others have opened their in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and I like to think that there may be one soon in Manitoba. This is a project I am working on and hope to realize. I am working on yet another project in the Yukon and hope that centre will open in the near future. Each and every one of these centres benefited from the assistance of the federal government. Without federal assistance, I am not sure they would now be a reality.

School-community centres have many advantages. They give French speaking citizens a school in a separate building. They also allow for a more homogenous education and daily French language immersion for the students.

French language education is one of the greatest values of francophone minority communities and the best means of ensuring their survival. It reflects the community's beliefs, hopes and labours. It is a route taken by the francophone minority communities to enhance their identity and to pass along their language and culture. A close relationship between the community and the school is essential in order to support the work being done by the school.

Since culture is defined as the beliefs, behaviours and values of the community, the community centre is a natural partner for French schools and minority settings.

The school-community centre also allows the community to gather together, hence ensuring a better cohesion of organizations and one of the best consultation process regarding its needs. It also helps coordinate activities and create a community spirit.

It combines and creates more activities in French for adults and children. The experience of existing centres shows that there has been an improvement in community life and the use of French. It is not surprising, therefore, that many French communities have chosen the school-community centre as anchor point and that the federal government has chosen to support these initiatives.

The hon. member who moved this motion seems to consider concrete signs of the vitality of communities as unimportant. The centre Sainte-Anne in La Grand'Terre, Newfoundland, the carrefour de l'Isle Saint-Jean in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island,

the carrefour du Grand-Havre in Halifax-Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, the centre Sainte-Anne in Fredericton, the centre Samuel-Champlain in Saint John, the carrefour Beausoleil in Newcastle, New Brunswick, the Kingston centre, the Beauséjour school-community centre in Plamondon, the Calgary school-community centre, the Fort McMurray school-community centre.

And, I hope, if I make this speech again in a few months, why not the Manitoba school-community centre in Saint-Vital and, maybe, another one in the Yukon? Most of these centres were created in the last ten years.

They are further examples showing that the federal government did not twiddle its thumbs and that French communities are better equipped then ever before to meet their needs and view the future with optimism.

The school-community centre is an important tool for the development of French language minorities. By regrouping under one roof the French school and different services and organizations, it creates an homogeneous French-language environment that promotes exchanges and cultural vitality. The school-community centre is a small scale reproduction of a complete society. It is a French centre for living whose influence extends well beyond the immediate area it serves. It is a meeting place, a source of pride and inspiration. It compensates for the isolation and the scattering of the French language population.

The vitality of a community depends on more than the sheer numbers of its members. The French speaking minorities show their dynamism in all fields and the activities which take place in community centres are a perfect illustration of that fact. With the play groups for preschoolers, the fitness classes for senior citizens, libraries, video libraries and cultural and sports activities of all kinds, community centres support and promote the development of French language and culture.

During a recent seminar on official language teaching, the director of the Carrefour du Grand-Havre, in Nova Scotia, presented very interesting data. For example, in the six years since the opening of the school-community centre in 1991, school attendance almost doubled. It must be stressed that the same is true of all school-community centres.

The opening of such a centre has always been followed by an increase, sometimes a significant increase, in the number of registrations in French schools. The Carrefour serves a cosmopolitan clientele coming from diversified school systems. Francization programs were created for kindergarten and grade one students and many community projects were initiated, like services for preschoolers, access to the school library for the French community, a videotape library, summer camps and sports, cultural, social and religious activities.

I have chosen to use a more concrete example to illustrate the vitality of francophone communities outside Quebec. School community centres are proliferating at an increasingly rapid rate. One wonders then why some speak of the disappearance of the very communities that they are labelling as dynamic, the newly emerging energies, the coming together of different generations toward a common goal. These are but a few of the examples of the achievements in which francophone minority communities can take pride.

I would like to share a few things with my colleagues because I think one of our obligations is to try to be well-informed. And, when dealing with certain issues, we should try to stay away from politics so that it does not prevent us from finding a solution to the problem.

I have here a list of about sixty or maybe eighty francophone organizations in Manitoba that receive financial assistance from the federal government to help them meet specific objectives. Whether they work in the field of theatre, music, radio, education or training, they all receive assistance from the federal government. They probably receive further assistance, up to a certain amount, from other levels of government. It must not be forgotten that francophones outside Quebec have contributed, as I said earlier, not only with their talent, their dedication, their creativity, their commitment, but also with their money, to meeting their own objectives.

What saddens me somewhat when dealing with such a motion is the fact that it is indeed an important motion in itself. Yes, there has been a certain degree of assimilation and, yes, there is still work to be done. But are the members opposite really trying to identify the problems and to find solutions to stop this assimilation process and to help the francophone community to flourish? Is that what they are doing? Or are they mainly trying to demonstrate that the federal system does not work? I am sorry, but the federal system works just fine.

Could it work better? It certainly could. Should it work better? Yes, it should. Will the members opposite help us or will they just try to destroy what has been done? When I heard my colleague say that his party had a policy concerning francophones outside Quebec since 1994, I could not help but notice that this was only two years ago. So where were they before that? Were they on our side or on the other side? Were they there to help us find sensible solutions to our problems or were they there to play politics?

In closing, I would like to think that this debate will not only help us identify the problems, but that it will also help us find solutions that will allow us to meet the great challenges that lie ahead.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago I had the pleasure of travelling through the western provinces with my father, who had a folk group known as Omer Dumas and his minstrel singers.

I visited villages with names like Saint-Jean-Baptiste, Saint-Pierre-Joli, Otterburne and Saint-Claude. There was Prud'homme, Plamondon and Bonnyville, the home of the Campagne family that has formed the group known as Hart Rouge. There was Beaumont, in Alberta. There was also St. Boniface, which unfortunately no longer exists. St-Boniface, which was the centre of life in Manitoba, has been merged with Winnipeg.

In those days, we had the pleasure of meeting the parish priests, since the shows my father put on always took place in parish halls and often in churches. He did not just tour in the west; he took his show all through Quebec and New Brunswick too.

Parents we met said great efforts were made to preserve the French language in the west, but the big problem was that more and more the children would use English in speaking to each other.

My question to the member for St. Boniface, whose French is excellent by the way, is the following: What language do 20-year olds, the children of francophone parents, use?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which I greatly appreciate. Fifty years ago, the struggle was much harder than now. Things have evolved. True, 50 years ago, people did not always look favourably on French education or culture. Some people offered little if any support.

There has been a change, however. Not only in Manitoba, I believe, but elsewhere as well. That is debatable, but when I look around today, I see young parents, whether francophone or not, with an openmindedness that would have been hard to imagine in the past. I say this without any desire to make any political hay from it.

I will give an example, and will also answer your very specific question, dear colleague. When we see anglophone parents enrolling their sons or daughters in immersion, whether they have in mind that their child could become prime minister or a minister, or what have you, it is because they believe it offers an advantage, either a career advantage or an opportunity to develop a broader mind.

I worked in that field for a number of years, and I was always impressed by the answers parents gave. I do not think they all believed their son or daughter would end up prime minister or a minister. They were doing it for other reasons. To broaden their child's horizons, to enable him or her to be able to speak to people in Manitoba, Quebec, or elsewhere, in French.

According to a fundamental belief being able to speak more than one language gives a person a special quality and increases his or her possibility of contributing to society. These are all valid reasons. I can now see an open-mindedness that was not there before. and I believe this trend is increasing, at least I hope it is.

As regards small communities, I will say this. They still are in large majority. You are absolutely right in saying that St. Boniface was amalgamated. But as the hon. member knows, St. Boniface still exists. I am the member for the federal riding of St. Boniface and I am proud to be. One of my colleagues, Neil Gaudry, is a francophone and member for the provincial riding of St. Boniface. When we meet in that part of the city, we do not call it Winnipeg but St. Boniface. They wanted to amalgamate those two cities, but St. Boniface still exists and it always will.

What language do young people in their twenties speak? I believe a large majority of them speak both languages. I have three daughters. The youngest, who is 16-years old, speaks French and is now finishing grade 10 in a French school. I was one of the lucky ones to be married to a francophone woman who speaks French as well as I do. She learned it as an adult and is member of francophone committees. For example, she is chairwoman of the administration board of the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface. She got that job because of her competence and her commitment to French language and culture. She has that job because francophones want her there.

Some only look at the dark side of things, but I believe there is also a bright side and a lot of sunshine that some people do not want to see. Let us acknowledge the positive things that were done and the improvements that could and should be brought about. This is what we must do today.