Eugène Bellemare

[Contracting Out, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government operations committee of which I am a vice-chairman has been reviewing contracting out practices for over six months.

The previous government's bias toward wholesale contracting for services within the public service has led to little accountability as to numbers or quality of the shadow public service. The committee continues to be frustrated by the lack of data and costing.

The $5.2 billion for contracting services in 1993 is but a guestimate and could well be twice this amount. It is my belief that the government should restrain this practice so that public service employees not lose their jobs while the shadow public service continues to grow and prosper out of control.

[Child Poverty, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the third annual gala for child poverty will take place in the capital tomorrow.

This successful event benefits needy children in the Ottawa-Carleton region. It is sponsored by the Fund for the New Generation, a group of active young people who represent all parties in the House as well as the public, private and university sectors. These young people strongly believe in grassroots community support.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank local merchants, retailers and national sponsors, such as Sun Life, Ryder Travel and Merck Frosst. Additional support is also provided by the Museum of Nature, the Ottawa Sun, KOOL-FM and the Hill Times .

Honorary chairs are Mayor Holtzman and the Speaker of the House of Commons. They have made the event possible, but they cannot do it alone. I call on members and citizens in the Ottawa-Hull area to go to the Museum of Nature tomorrow night at eight o'clock.

[Quebec Sovereignty, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the spokespersons for the sovereignty commissions are increasingly confusing Quebecers.

Mrs. Monique Vézina, chair of the seniors' commission, stated in Hull last Thursday that the federal government would continue to pay pension benefits to federal public servants after Quebec's independence.

That statement contradicts what the question and answers manual for perfect sovereignists says. On page 23 of the separatist booklet it says that the Quebec government, not the federal government, will clearly promise to acknowledge the vested rights of federal employees from Quebec, including their accumulated rights to a pension.

Today, federal public servants from the Quebec side of the Outaouais region are left wondering whether the many contradictory promises they have been made will ultimately be worth anything.

It is the duty of the PQ and the Bloc to tell federal public servants from Quebec the truth.

[Federal Public Servants, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, federal public servants are the government's most precious resource; they implement its programs, deliver its services and apply its regulations.

If there are to be program cuts or service cuts of any kind in the coming budget I ask that the government privatize or contract out these activities and give first crack to those public servants affected. I also ask that the government change the Superannuation Act to permit those affected from age 50 and on to be able to take voluntary early retirement without penalty.

Let there be no public servant penalized because of public service renewal.

[Public Service, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.

It was disappointing to find out that the Public Service Alliance of Canada has refused the government's buyout package for downsizing.

Could the minister reassure public servants that the government remains committed to fair treatment of its employees and will continue to try to reach an agreement with unions and to minimize any job losses as a result of downsizing?

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, you are right, I will address my remarks to you, but I will refer to the hon. member. I know that to the hon. member, who probably does not understand French and certainly does not speak it, the word "madam" may sound very negative and even derogatory. I wanted to pay her a compliment, but she does not want me to. Perhaps she is not a lady. I do not know, but I do know that she is an elected member.

So from now on I will refer to her as the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, who is against bilingualism and against francophones outside Quebec. Bilingualism is for those who want to serve the country. Bilingualism is for those who want to serve the people of their country. Bilingualism is for those who want to do business with other countries, English speaking countries and French-speaking countries alike.

There are about one billion anglophones and francophones around the globe. One billion. People who become bilingual are an asset to Canada, but dear lady-excuse me, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast-is not interested in principles or in Canadian history. I am sure that she does not spend her evenings reading about Jacques Cartier, Champlain or Montcalm. She thinks that Canadian history started when she was born and that regulations should always be based on financial considerations. She does not give a hoot about anglophone minorities in Quebec and francophone minorities outside Quebec. I find her remarks totally deplorable and un-Canadian.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this reminder. I can assure you that it is rather difficult to keep your cool when your language rights are violated, when you are told that you will no longer be allowed to speak your language, except in the stables or in the privacy of your own home, in the shed or while mowing the lawn. From now on, I would not be allowed to speak French in my province of Ontario that is so dear to me or to request certain services in French when travelling to Calgary. I regret to say that the hon. member is far from kind.

Her third suggestion deals with "recognition of bilingualism in key federal institutions, such as the Parliament of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada". She and her colleagues from the Reform Party, whom I have observed, especially on the official languages committee, do not understand the first thing about the Official Languages Act, nor do they understand what bilingualism is about.

They do not understand what bilingualism is about. They confuse official languages and bilingualism. They are under the impression that laws are made here to force anglophones to speak French for example. That is not it. The hon. member, on the other hand, would like to force me to become, if possible, unilingual and speak English only. There is nothing wrong with being a unilingual English speaking member of Parliament, but personally, as a franco Ontarian, I would rather be francophone,

franco Ontarian and bilingual, and have respect for English Canadians as well as French Canadians.

Bilingualism, dear lady, is for people who put themselves at the service of others.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised and even disappointed to hear the motions presented by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, who calls herself a Canadian first but, at the first opportunity, is not averse to lashing out at French Canadian minorities.

Bill C-53, an Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other Acts, says in clause 4( g ), which the hon. member for Calgary Southeast would like to redraft in her image, that the Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to see ``the advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French and the enhancement and development of English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada''.

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast proposes that lines 23 to 27 be replaced with the following: " (g) the promotion of language policies centred: (i) on freedom of speech''. I wonder whether the hon. member for Calgary Southeast realizes what she is saying. Freedom of speech is not about the language you speak but the ideas you want to share with others. She does not even understand the principle of the freedom of speech to which people are entitled in Canada.

Second, she recommends the following: "on recognition of the French language in Quebec and the English language in the other provinces". This is horrifying, coming from a person who calls herself a Canadian but would like to see only Quebec as French speaking and the other provinces, and I say the other provinces and not the rest of Canada, as English-speaking.

As a French speaking member from Ontario, a fourth generation franco Ontarian, I say to the hon. member, through the Chair, that her proposals are an affront and an insult. As a French Canadian and a francophone, do I not have the right to speak my own language and receive services in that language? You would take away these rights. It is utterly despicable to want to take away those rights, and to tell anglophones in Quebec: From now on, you will have to speak French if you want services or whatever.

I would ask the hon. member's colleague to repeat what he just said. Was that a racist comment, sir? Would you repeat what you said?

[Rogers Cable, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Recently, it came to our attention that Rogers Cable television will no longer provide its suscribers with access to three French language channels.

What is the government's position on access to French language programming for all Canadians?

[Petitions, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition, which was circulated by Mrs. Rita Curley and others, calls for Parliament to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.