Ronald J. Duhamel

[Petitions, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have petitions with over 250 signatures from Manitobans who support the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

These signatures include people from all age groups who firmly believe that discrimination on any basis should not and cannot be tolerated.

[Literacy, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the ABC Canada Literacy Foundation and Canada Post on their very creative fundraising initiative. On September 9, 1996 Canada Post issued the semi-postal stamp in support of literacy.

The new stamp will cost 50 cents. For each stamp sold, five cents will go to funding literacy efforts. ABC Canada will look after the distribution of collected funds among the various literacy groups.

We must remember that reading is considered a challenge for approximately 42 per cent of all Canadians. In fact 16 per cent have difficulties with daily tasks such as reading menus and signs. We need to work together to try and expand the reading world of these Canadians. This initiative is certainly a step in the right direction.

I urge you to support this initiative and encourage others to do the same.

This initiative will have a very positive impact on all Canadians. Once again I salute ABC Canada and Canada Post.

[Broadcasting Act, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this item would ban negative option billing by cable companies. I want to explore with my colleagues the positive and supposed negative features of this bill.

The bottom line, which I think all of us will agree, is that we do not want negative option billing if it is to inconvenience or treat Canadians unfavourably. We want to protect the Canadian consumer.

However, we should not do this at any cost. Therefore our job as parliamentarians is to look at the pluses and, if there are any negatives, to correct those so that we can go forward in our protection of the Canadian consumer.

I want to give a bit of background. On January 1, 1995 cable companies across the country began offering 7.5 million subscribers seven new Canadian owned specialty channels.

The controversy arises from the fact that cable subscribers are automatically billed for the service unless they cancel it. This practice is called negative option billing.

The public reacted strongly when new services were introduced in January 1995. There were almost 9,000 complaints filed with the CRTC in three weeks. By comparison, the CRTC had received only 1,300 letters about cable service in all of 1993.

At my office, we could feel how angry people were.

We were inundated with calls and letters from constituents opposed to the policy. It was seen as an unacceptable exploitation of the Canadian consumer.

Judging from their reaction in January 1995, Canadians clearly do not want negative option subscribing imposed on them.

This bill reflects the desire of Canadians not to have this kind of episode repeated. Currently negative option billing is allowed on discretionary cable services not regulated by the CRTC. However, I am told the CRTC could do that if it wished.

If passed, this bill would require the CRTC to regulate and monitor the practice of negative option subscribing.

It would require agreement by consumers to take on a new service before having it added to the channels they receive.

Consumers would be getting the services they want to receive.

Members may be interested to know that both the Consumer Association of Canada and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre have urged MPs to support the prohibition of this practice. This bill would respect that governments have long recognized that consumers should not pay for unsolicited goods.

It is also interesting to note that while 92 per cent of Canadian cable subscribers receive extended basic service, more than the absolute minimum, in 1993, 66 per cent believed they were seeing the lowest price for basic service.

People might ask two questions:

Why deal with this now? Should we get involved at all?

Should the federal government be dealing with this issue?

Why deal with this issue now? Some people have pointed out that the CRTC recently considered applications for 40 some channels.

The CRTC continues to support negative option billing despite the public's clearly expressed opposition to this practice. Canadians absolutely must be provided with an alternative they find acceptable.

Negative option billing is unfair since it places the onus on consumers to somehow cancel the new service before it shows up on their bill. Unless they know to ask not to get the expanded services all customers, including new ones, will get speciality channels and forced into higher cable bills.

That being so, we should also be asking ourselves this question:

Should the federal government be dealing with this issue? We should also consider whether this is in the federal government's sphere. Normally issues of commerce and consumer protection are a provincial affair. Some provinces have already banned negative option billing.

But broadcasting comes under federal jurisdiction. If negative option billing is used by a cable company in a province where this practice is banned under provincial legislation, chances are it will get away with it.

There is therefore a need for federal leadership in this domain. The provinces may not be able to act to prevent the abuse of negative option billing in cable. Given this possible escape route we need to look at it extremely carefully.

I have drawn conclusions that I wish to share with my hon. colleagues. First, here is an opportunity for us parliamentarians to put an end to the abusive practice of negative option billing for new services. A number of the points that were raised seem to indicate that the bill may not have been adequately responsive, which means it is now up to us to make it so by introducing a new bill or simply by amending this one. Canadians are clearly opposed to this practice.

The CRTC, by continuing to endorse negative option billing, has shown itself, it would seem to me, to be out of touch with a number of Canadians. This practice is so unpopular that it can actually harm new undertakings. It is evidently clear that we need to do something.

Clearly, the time has come to put an end to negative option billing for new cable services. However, is this bill the proper way to do so? I am told that, unfortunately, this legislation could prevent the addition of new services such as the RDI and Newsworld networks, as well as French language services. Obviously, such was not the hon. member's intention. Should this be the case, something would have to be done to correct the situation.

Would this bill restrict Canada's ability to guarantee a Canadian content and the availability of French language programs outside Quebec? If so, this was certainly not the hon. member's intention and, again, something would have to be done to correct the situation. Through this bill, the hon. member would like to make sure that all Canadians are treated fairly. But is this the case? If not, let us make a change.

Competition will be more fierce when Canadians start receiving directly in their homes services provided through satellites. Will

they be offered new programming options by telephone and broadcasting without cable? My dear colleagues, when we legislate to protect the rights of Canadians, we must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Does this bill violate the principle whereby we must protect Canadian content as the cornerstone of basic Canadian programming? I am asking the question. So, even if I strongly support the principle underlying the hon. member's bill, I want to stress the importance of integrating the points raised by my colleagues, and of trying to ensure that we do not, in any way, impede progress in these areas and that we do not hurt anyone concerned.

So, if this bill does indeed protect consumers as wished by some, then it is up to us to go ahead with it. On the other hand, if it protects consumers while also blocking progress and initiatives in a manner that is unacceptable to us as parliamentarians, then we have two options: we can either set it aside and come up with another bill that will correct these problems, or we can simply propose amendments to make it acceptable to the House of Commons.

In conclusion, we all want to protect Canadian consumers, but it is up to us to find the way to do it.

[Aboriginal Day, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, from June 21 to July 1 Canadians will be able to celebrate the diversity and richness of our nation. June 21 is the first ever national aboriginal day. It is a day for Canadians to celebrate Canada's first peoples, to recognize their many different cultures and to reflect on their contributions to Canada.

On June 24, French Canadians all over the continent will celebrate their culture and their language, as they have been doing since the 19th century. Let all Canadians take part in the activities and celebrate Saint-Jean Baptiste Day.

This celebration of our nation culminates on July 1, Canada Day, a day which allows us to take pride in our heritage, history, diversity and richness as a nation.

The celebrations going on from June 21 to July 1 will be an opportunity to rediscover and share our treasures, to appreciate more who we were, who we are and what the future holds for us. Let us celebrate together.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

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

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

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

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

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

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.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

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.

[High School Graduates, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of parliamentarians, I would like to congratulate all those graduating from high school across Canada.

Congratulations to all our high school students.

Whatever their future, whether they continue their studies or head into the labour market, we wish them every success.

Graduation normally means parties, and we want to alert young people to be careful. Driving to and from parties can be dangerous. Sometimes it is difficult to avoid drinking. If possible, it should be avoided. If that cannot be done there is a program called Safegrad, managed almost totally by students.

Safegrad is almost entirely managed by students and aims to reduce the risks of accident by ensuring that alcohol consumption does not become a threat to safety.

To all graduates,

-on behalf of all those who love you a lot-

Be careful.

[Petitions, June 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present three petitions from constituents of my riding bearing approximately 75 signatures.

The petitioners express their opposition to Bill C-33, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.