Eugène Bellemare

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 18th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-316, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (oaths or solemn affirmation).

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

This bill would require a federal member of Parliament to take an oath of allegiance to Canada and the Constitution in addition to the present oath to the Queen.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House for my first speech after undergoing open-heart surgery. I hope to go on for at least 10 minutes.

I have great concerns about this bill, which would amend the Constitution at the request of the Newfoundland government, which held a referendum on the issue of educational rights and how the school system in that province should work. I have serious concerns about th impact on minorities, be they Catholics,

francophones or Quebec anglophones, or even on other religions such as the Jewish faith.

We are also talking about separation and process, but I will go back to separation. Since the beginning of the debate, Bloc members have been making a lot of noise with their hands and feet, saying this is what democratic process is all about. We are quite familiar with the Bloc Quebecois' platform.

Let us talk about the referendum process. In 1949, Newfoundland wanted to join Canada and struck an agreement whereby religious denominations had the right to manage their own schools. That is why the people of Newfoundland voted in favour of joining Confederation.

Now, nearly 50 years later, the federal Parliament is being asked to amend the Constitution to accommodate Newfoundland. I see a problem in that only 52 per cent of all the people in Newfoundland voted in the referendum that was held in that province late last summer. Yes, 54 per cent voted in favour of the question asked in the referendum, that is to say, 25 per cent of all the people in Newfoundland were in favour of the question asked in the referendum.

What does this referendum tell us? If we look at the question, as an English language newspaper said: "This was a loaded question". A member of the third opposition party also told me: "This was a fuzzy question". An article in the Toronto Star says this:

"Newfoundlanders were asked whether or not they supported reform of the denominational educational system, and this was won by a narrow margin".

Obviously, when people are asked if this, that or the other should be changed, they always want us to go ahead and constantly make adjustments to suit the demands and meet the needs of the people.

I find the question rather suspicious. It is not clear, not distinct, as my colleagues opposite would say. Are we in favour of reforming the school system? Of course. School systems keep being changed, always for the better. But in this case, it would not be for the better. In this case, the purpose of the change would be to reduce, if not to abolish, but mainly to reduce the involvement of minorities in the management of their school system.

Just recently, someone told me: "Are you not in favour of public school boards, Mr. Bellemare?" I replied that I was of course in favour of public systems. As a teacher, I was involved with Ottawa public school boards for 30 years. So, I do believe in the system. My own children attended high school in the public system after attending elementary school in the Catholic system.

I do believe in both systems. I believe in several educational systems. What matters is the choice that parents and children make.

As regards the specific question I was asked about the establishment of public school boards, as I said before, I just recently learned that a public school system already exists in Newfoundland. It is referred to under the designation of integrated schools. They do not use the same terminology as we do in Ontario. We say public system, they say integrated system. I am now apprised of the fact that 56 per cent of schools in Newfoundland are in fact integrated schools, while 37 per cent are Roman Catholic and 7 per cent Pentecostal.

What is the point in amending the Constitution to establish integrated schools, or public schools, if such schools already exist? I would like Newfoundland, the Government of Newfoundland to tell me why public hearings were never held to give Newfoundlanders the opportunity to make representations. Why were the stakeholders not invited to appear before parliamentary committees to make presentations? Why was the bill in question introduced during the summer, when Newfoundlanders are at the cottage, at work or out fishing, and voted on at the end of the summer?

As could be expected, public participation was low. A small majority voted in favour of the referendum bill. Bloc members are thrilled, they who have been telling us for a while now how they will be voting. They will vote in favour, not out of concern for minorities, given that they could not care less about minorities. Bloc members do not care about francophones living outside Quebec. They do not care about the anglophone minority in their own province, and I say province, not country.

The Bloc tells us, and I quote: "When 52, 51 or 54 per cent of Quebecers decide in a democratic referendum held according to the rules adopted by Quebec's national assembly to become sovereign, we hope that the Canadian Parliament will show the same generous and democratic disposition toward Quebec as it is now showing toward Newfoundland".

Of course Bloc members support this bill. Another Bloc member said: "In other words, the Government of Newfoundland had its political decision confirmed through a referendum, and this is sacred for the Bloc Quebecois".

Of course the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the amendments affecting minorities in Newfoundland. As for Reform Party members, most of them will be in favour of respecting the result of the referendum, because reformers believe in referenda. Their member for Nanaimo-Cowichan even recently asked that a referendum be held to abolish bilingualism in Canada. Fortunately, the Canadian government and the House voted against the proposal.

In Ontario, at the beginning of the century, regulation 17 abolished the teaching of French in the province. For decades, Franco-Ontarians had to fight tooth and nail to build schools and to teach in French, in spite of the Ontario law. Regulation 17 was finally and, quietly, abolished in the thirties.

I say there is a danger that, in supporting or proposing a constitutional change to accommodate the Government of Newfoundland, the federal government may violate minority rights.

There are risks for minorities living outside Quebec, such as francophones in Ontario and elsewhere. There are risks in certain western provinces, where some rednecks are totally anti-French and would be happy to see us assimilated and disappear from the Canadian map. This really concerns me and this is why I will vote against this bill.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I must compliment the hon. member for St. Boniface on his excellent speech. I agree with what he said. I share his concerns about this amendment to the Constitution of Canada.

I would like to put a question to the member for St. Boniface, who, like me, has a great deal of experience in education. In fact, I gathered from his speech that the hon. member was once Deputy Minister of Education of his province. This means that whatever he may say on this subject is very important and that he speaks from experience. It is clear from what the hon. member said that some people have real concerns about this and that we should think twice before voting for the motion.

I am concerned about French speaking minorities. I wonder why French-Canadians cannot run their schools in their own language in Newfoundland. The hon. member said other alternatives could be considered. In light of his experience, I would be curious to know what he has in mind.

Instead of taking the major step of asking the Parliament of Canada to approve this amendment, what intermediate step could the Government of Newfoundland have taken before asking us to amend the Constitution?

He raised another point that caused me some concern, and I would like him to clarify this for me. He mentioned that people in Ontario were interested in something similar in order to make changes to the education system in Ontario. As a French speaking catholic, both minority groups in Ontario, I wonder if he could elaborate on this.

[Health Care, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be back in the House of Commons. I wish to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the House and my constituents for their kind words of encouragement following my open heart surgery.

I also wish to thank Dr. Keon and his team at the Ottawa University cardiology center for the great care I received.

I assure you that I greatly appreciate Canada's health system and I am proud to serve in a government that does such a fine job of preserving it.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members from the Reform Party. Without speaking disparagingly of them, some of my remarks may be directed at their party.

"Reform's hard line hinders unity of effort" was the headline in the Toronto Star of December 10, 1995. The article stated:

But Confederation from the start treated provinces unequally, to accommodate their special needs.

Protestants in Quebec, for example, have the constitutional right to their own school boards, as do Catholics in Ontario. That doesn't apply elsewhere-For 25 years, Canada has been trying to find ways to give constitutional expression to Quebec's special identity-But Manning's visceral opposition to Parliament making any special gesture to Quebec is dangerous and divisive. It lends credence to the separatist argument that the rest of the country really doesn't care. And that gives the separatists more ammunition, at the very time when Chrétien is trying to take it away from them.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 11th, 1995]

The hon. member for the Bloc said: "Put it in the Constitution". As usual, they will not listen and they did not understand when I said that according to the Constitution Act, we are to discuss these issues in 1997. This was the action taken by the federal government in response to the commitment made by the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign to meet the needs and demands of all Canadians.

Every day I receive correspondence from my French and English constituents, étant donné que mon comté est bilingue, who although they may have different ideas on how to deal with Quebec the majority recognize the different culture of their Quebec neighbours and recognize the need for change.

The turnout for the unity rally which I attended was a clear indication of the overwhelming support from all Canadians, les Québécois inclus, for a united Canada that includes Quebec.

Why recognize the francophones in Quebec as being a distinct society and not the anglophones? We could recognize the anglophones, but why? What would be the point? The anglophone culture is not in danger of disappearing, I know something about that. The anglophones are not being targeted by the factors threatening the francophone culture in Canada with its demise.

Although Canada's anglophone culture is distinct from American culture, it will always be supported by it. The media and the telecommunications industry will provide an environment that will sustain the anglophone culture. On the other hand, there is no such support for the francophone culture.

When we travel across the country we see the obvious differences from region to region. Nowhere is the difference more obvious than when one travels to Quebec. The difference in that province is accentuated by culture and by language.

Even members of the Reform Party will agree privately, but in the House, for obvious reasons, they oppose it.

There is no denying the distinction of Quebec. That fact is that Quebecers are different from the rest of Canadians. They have always been different.

The country was founded by two very distinct peoples, the French and the English. The idea of a distinct society began with General Murray. Very few Canadians appear to know their Canadian history. Wolfe beat Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham. The British won that war. The territory we now know as Canada was British.

Very few people seem to know that when Montcalm died on the battlefield he was replaced by General Murray who knew the practice of military procedures, that when invading a country we should recognize immediately the laws and the distinction of the people of the country we invade. It was practical. The practice was to recognize their laws, their culture, their religion and their language.

Like the Reform Party there were in the British mercantile society those who thought that Murray was going too far. They brought General Murray back to England for a court martial. Very few people would know that General Murray won his court martial, and the British government in 1774 recognized the duality of Canada and distinct society by proclaiming the Quebec Act.

I highly recommend to Reformers and Bloc members that they study their Canadian history. Canada is what it is because of its different and distinct cultures. If we allow these cultures to be eliminated, we will no longer be Canada, if fact, we will be quite close to being American.

No doubt it is the francophone community especially that sets us apart from our American neighbours. I do not want to become American; I want to remain Canadian. Being a fourth generation Franco-Ontarian, I have the advantage of being able to converse in both official languages everyday. Although I am not a Quebecer, I know I am different from my unilingual neighbours, both English and French.

Reform frightens everybody, including western anglophones, by arguing that recognizing Quebec as a distinct society gives that province additional powers that anglophones and the other provinces do not have. I challenge them to tell us what these powers are.

Finally, the reason why the Prime Minister offered to give a veto to all five regions of Canada is to ensure that every province has a say in amending the Constitution.

Quebec, Ontario, the maritimes, the prairies and British Columbia will share the right to veto any proposed constitutional amendment that they feel would not be to the benefit of the residents of a particular part of the country and to all Canadians.

The Liberal government believes that all Canadians should have a say in the future of the country and the regional veto will afford them that luxury. The introduction of a regional veto will assure equal representation across Canada. Each region will have equal power in these matters; no more, no less.

Recognition as a distinct society does not give Quebecers additional powers or take any power away from anglophones and the other provinces. It gives Quebecers what they deserve: an essential tool not only to ensure their survival but also to develop their culture.

A distinct society does not mean a better or more advanced society. The French-language dictionary Le Petit Larousse defines the word distinct'' asclearly perceived; clear, well-defined, different; unmistakable''.

I hear a lot of noise coming from Reform members on the other side of the House. These people who claim that they want to learn French, who have suddenly discovered the province of Quebec and act as tourists, have finally realized that it is different. They tell us as much in the halls, but here, for political reasons and for their own reasons, which I find deplorable, they are opposed to recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes the word distinct as not identical, separate, individual, different or unlike. Those members of the Reform Party who have visited Quebec will know they are different in kind, not quality.

Recognizing Quebec as a distinct society is not a reward for francophones or a form of punishment against anglophones. On the contrary, it is essential to the survival of Canada-repeat, to the survival of Canada-as we know it today. We must recognize Quebec as a distinct society for the benefit of all Canadians and not only for Quebecers.

We as the federal government have a duty to ensure that Canadians enjoy the best quality of life possible.

Every morning, we can see the negative impact our infighting about constitutional issues has on our economy.

The hon. members of the Reform Party should take note that we should act now to give Canadians, not only Quebecers, a better chance to develop as a nation. Only by recognizing our differences will we be able to make any headway and only by recognizing them here, in this House, can we lead the way.

It is high time that we give Canadians the tools they need to see the difference and make their country a better place. Recognizing Quebec as a distinct society and the regional veto are exactly the sort of tools we need.

I refer to an article in the Toronto Star of December 10.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to this bill. Hon. members will soon be asked to vote on measures introduced by the Prime Minister of Canada which recognize Quebec's distinct society and offer Canada's regions, in other words, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, the Prairies and the Atlantic regions, a veto on constitutional amendments.

This is a bill of Parliament. It is not a discussion on the Constitution, as members of both opposition parties are claiming. I may remind them that the date set for discussions on the Constitution is 1997, according to the Constitution Act.

Bloc members are of course against our bill, which means the government must be right and must be on the right track. Separatist members kept telling us and all Quebecers and all Canadians during the referendum campaign that they wanted was to be recognized as a distinct society, that they wanted veto powers, so we took them at their word, and we came to the House and told them: "We listened to what all Quebecers had to say, and we will now recognize distinct society as a principle in the Parliament of Canada and we also recognize that Quebec has a veto like the four other regions of this country".

[National Capital, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

As the minister is aware, Canada's national capital region is currently struggling under the negative economic impact of government downsizing.

Will the minister tell us why it was important to support the highway 416 project? What else is the government doing or proposing to do to help the economic development of the national capital region?

[Public Service, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board and is about the public service.

Reports indicate that the early retirement and early departure incentive programs have been so favourably received by public servants as to cause a larger expenditure than expected.

Will the President of the Treasury Board assure the public servants and the Canadian public that the government does not intend to lay off employees or cut services to compensate for the overspending under these programs?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 10th, 1995]

I editorialized a bit; he is a separatist. I do not know if separatist is synonymous with no-good, but many in this country would say that the separatists are no good as a group but not necessarily as individuals.

Do you think for a minute that I will answer questions from Bloc members, from people who have led the province of Quebec in all kinds of directions, into a muddle, who drafted a referendum question that got everyone confused? Thirty per cent of those who voted yes thought they were voting for some kind of association and not for separation.

Bloc members, Quebec separatists and PQ members manipulated referendum scrutineers, telling them to reject ballots marked with an X that was too dark or not dark enough. There is an appalling number-this is unprecedented in Canadian history-except perhaps when Maurice Duplessis was in power. Maurice Duplessis may have come back as a Bloc member. During the referendum, these blockheads blocked some people's access to the polling stations.

If they did not like someone's face, colour or language, they stopped and harassed them to prevent them from voting. Then, after those Canadians living in Quebec managed to cast their votes, they would check to see if their X was a little crooked. Those with shaking hands were unfortunate because their votes did not count. I have never seen something as outrageous as the counting of the votes on the night of the referendum.

If you think I will answer quotes from a separatist-First of all, I would question the accuracy of his quotes and, second, I will not waste my time answering Bloc members.