Eugène Bellemare

[Points Of Order, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to respond to the Reform Party's House leader, the one who had just thrown four sheets to the wind.

[Supply, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are going to vote on a motion that is very divisive for Canada, that is very negative, in fact. The mover of the motion is not present. Can we-

[Supply, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Reform Party member made a slip of the tongue when he referred to the Simpson Sears catalogue, because I am convinced that Alberta is living with its times and that Albertans know that, for at least 20 years now, it has only been Sears.

I also want to illustrate another mistake made by the member, who just found out, talking to someone from Alberta, about the difficulties Canadians can experience when they contact federal offices. He said that the person could not get a document in English because the French version had not yet been published.

I apologize to him, but the federal government often experiences problems. Particularly in the last eight years. The federal government's policy is to publish in both official languages in order to serve all Canadians. If he knows someone in his region who worked for the federal government and who had a document in English only, then that person also had a French version, because both are always published at the same time. Documents are only distributed once they have been prepared in both languages, so that people who request a copy can get it either in English or in French.

The hon. member forgot to mention the case of the francophone waiting in line at the manpower office. When his turn finally came after a close to two-hour wait-and I am relating situations which I witnessed or which were reported to me-the francophone was told: Sorry, I do not speak French but we do have a bilingual person working here and would you go back to the end of the line, which means another wait of 45 minutes or more, so that maybe that particular officer will be available when your turn comes again.

Yes, it is hard to serve people in both languages, but what we are trying to do in Canada is create an atmosphere that makes us proud to be Canadians, that makes us feel good to be Canadians. It is because of attitudes such as yours that many Quebecers got fed up and sent us grumblers like Bloc Quebecois members.

[Supply, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the Reform Party takes great objection to my comment about ethnic cleansing. I remind him that the member for St. Albert, a Reform Party member, is the one who brought up that topic a while ago when he said that the problems around this world are ethnic in origin. He made references to activities across the ocean that are occurring right now.

If the problems are of ethnic origin, if he and his party want to create a Quebec français and an English Canada, is that not the member's definition of ethnic cleansing? If it is not, what exactly is it?

As far as paying to go to school, is the member suggesting that only those who can afford an education have a right to that education?

They give us an example that there is a school closing here and there and a hospital closing somewhere. It is certainly not Klein's fault. Whose fault is it? Is it the fault of minority language?

Are the school closings in Alberta and B.C. caused by the province of Quebec, caused by Saskatchewan, caused by everyone but them? No, it is always a question of over spending.

What they would like to do to this country is take the key and lock it and every time they come up with whatever topic, helping the poor, assisting the minority groups, respecting official languages, respecting their country, all they want to do is shut down this country, shut down the government and go back home. That is all they want to do.

[Supply, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I did not accuse Reform Party members of being bigots.

It was a thought and perhaps my tongue projected my feeling. I truly feel that because of the manner in which they act. One always judges someone according to his acts. I really feel that.

Because it is unparliamentary I will withdraw this French word "bigot" because they find it extremely offensive. I am not sure if it is because it is a French word or the definition or that they are uncomfortable with the definition.

[Supply, April 18th, 1994]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not have my hearing aid on.

[Supply, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I find the comments made by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and House leader for the Reform Party to be insensitive. He gave us statistics and said that in his riding, unlike mine, there are very few francophones. Is the member trying to tell Canada

French is not wanted in Kindersley-Lloydminster, or if you are French, we do not care about you and do not dare ask a question en français, especially to your federal government since that is where the services are. I wonder if that is really his attitude, his attitude of caring for Canada, his attitude of wanting to provide for minorities.

I find his attitude similar to those of all the other Reform Party members who spoke earlier. He asked me: "Does he understand the feelings of the people?". Does he really understand what prejudice means? It is one thing to practise it, but it is another to receive it.

I will tell a little story. I remember getting my first job in this city as a student. I got to work as a summer student, 16 years of age, and I had forgotten my lunch. I lived downtown. I wanted to call my mom because I knew she would take the bus and deliver the lunch. I asked permission of the secretary of the office if I could call my mother. She said yes.

I called my mom and I said to her: "Mom do not bring my lunch. I forgot it. It is my fault. I will go and get it. I have my bike. Do not worry". At that very moment the superintendent of that division of the federal government grabbed me by the arm and said: "Young fellow, if I hear you speaking in French once more in this office you will be fired".

I wonder if your party is really thinking of what you are saying. I wonder if your party is really thinking of what you are telling French Canadians. I think all of you are a bunch of bigots.

[Supply, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it may be difficult for Reform Party members who can function in English every day to imagine how French Canadians who do not always have the opportunity to do so in French feel.

In Canada, it is hard to imagine that our children, whether they are French or English-speaking, cannot receive an education in their mother tongue, or have no choice but to participate in socio-cultural activities, or rely on essential services and vocational training, in a language which is not their own. Yet, for more than 1.6 million Canadians, which includes francophones outside Quebec as well as English-speaking Quebecers, being able to use their mother tongue is something they cannot always take for granted.

The French and English languages are integral parts of the Canadian identity. Language is a vital component of what it means to be a Canadian, and has been since the very beginning. The fact is that close to 99 per cent of Canada's residents speak either French or English. However, close to two million Canadians live in provinces and territories where their mother tongue is the minority language. This linguistic duality is therefore a basic social reality in our country, and Canadians are proud of

that reality which distinguishes us from other nations such as the United States.

This is why francophone communities, of which I am a member, want their children to be able to preserve their language in a primarily English-speaking environment. This is also why anglophones in Quebec are concerned by their decreasing numbers and the need to preserve their social, cultural and educational institutions.

There are real concerns in the daily lives of many Canadians who are members of linguistic minorities. This is the reason why the federal government works with community groups to support their efforts to turn things around and to help them take charge of the development and future of their communities.

It would be hard to imagine promoting the use of English and French across Canada without strongly supporting their every day use in a community context.

It is through education that the federal government has mostly contributed to the development of the minority communities while respecting the fact that matters concerning education are under provincial jurisdiction.

When Canada adopted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 it took a stand in favour of the rights of minorities, including linguistic rights. Section 23 of the charter guarantees minority official language communities not only the right to education in their language but also the right to manage their own institutions.

These rights have been clarified by two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Mahé decision and the reference on education rights of Manitoba in March 1993.

As citizens of Canada we must respect those rights. That is why the federal, provincial and territorial governments are co-operating to provide opportunities for English speaking Canadians in Quebec and French speaking Canadians outside Quebec to be educated in their own language and for all Canadians to learn English or French as a second official language.

Moreover, the federal government recently extended the scope of its action to support minority language education.

Indeed, the government adopted special measures to help some provinces set up structures which will allow a minority to manage its schools, as provided by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and facilitate access, for francophones outside Quebec, to post-secondary education in French.

This support will help provide young people who belong to linguistic minorities and who are tomorrow's adults an equal opportunity to participate actively in our country's development and prosperity.

In my province, for example, these special measures by the federal government allowed for the setting up of a network comprising three French-language colleges, including the Cité collégiale, here in Ottawa, which is already a resounding success.

The Franco-Ontarian community has been working relentlessly for years to ensure the creation of colleges in certain regions and the success of the Cité collégiale confirms the real need for such institutions.

The importance of minority language education to minority language communities is obvious. As the B and B commission pointed out, the absence of adequate education prevented these minority communities from contributing fully to Canadian society. Only now are we beginning to reverse the impact of these previous deficiencies.

I belong to the French speaking minority community and I am proud of my origins. Like me, almost 978,000 people living outside Quebec have French as a mother tongue. Furthermore, some 665,000 persons living in Quebec have English as their mother tongue. This is an important segment of the Canadian population. In fact these minority communities are more numerous than the population of several provinces.

Our official language minority communities are spread out across the country. As a fourth generation Franco-Ontarian, I am proud to state that half a million francophones live in Ontario alone. The Acadians form one-third of the population of New Brunswick, Canada's only officially bilingual province. The largest provincial minority of all is the English speaking community in Quebec.

Numerous or not, concentrated or scattered, those communities are important contributors to Canadian society.

The motion before us proposes territorial bilingualism, which is described by Reform Party members as territorial unilingualism, as a new linguistic arrangement in Canada. The Reform Party proposes a form of ethnic cleansing. This territorial solution, which exists in some European countries, may seem attractive at first glance. However, on closer examination, we see that it does not reflect the regional and demographic realities of Canada.

For example, unlike Switzerland and Belgium, where linguistic groups live in well-defined areas, the two Canadian linguistic communities are present right across the country.

Canada has a real interest in ensuring that official language minorities participate fully in the social and economic life of our society.

The Liberal Party has contributed more than any other party in the House toward building a united Canada, a country united in its cultural and linguistic diversity. We will continue to work toward that goal. Our vision of our country is one wherein all francophones and anglophones are first class Canadian citizens regardless of where they live in Canada.

Canada has been thriving thanks to the co-operation displayed by the two major linguistic families, and it will continue to thrive in unity and prosperity, as long as we will be wise enough to protect what unites us and courageous enough to eliminate what could divide us.

[Supply, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to comment on this motion. I have met the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan and I have always found him to be a reasonable person, that is until today.

Today, I find the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan to be far from reasonable. I feel great disdain for someone who seems to want to destroy our country, or distort its long history.

As a fourth generation Franco-Ontarian and as a member of a minority, I find the Reform member's comments abhorrent. To him, language is a financial question, or at least that is what he claims. He seems to be suggesting that majority groups should trample on minorities. He speaks of the French language in Quebec and of the English language everywhere else.

What can francophones outside Quebec aspire to? How can they live in our country, a country that Mr. Ringma, or his parents, probably adopted some time ago? How can they live here? How should I respond to a Reform member's surreptitious attack on my language, considering that the Bellemare family has been in this country since the 17th or 18th century and that my ancestors fought first for France, and later for Great Britain, and defended Canadian institutions of British origin? French-speaking Canadians fought in both world wars. They fought against the United States to protect their country. We want to be a part of Canada, but the Reform member feels that we are not entitled to belong, unless we agree to be assimilated and become, as in my case, an anglophone.

The hon. member spoke of generosity. Does he really understand the meaning of the word? Does he really know what he is talking about when he speaks of education within and outside Quebec? Does he truly understand this country? He compares Canada to Switzerland and Belgium. Again, does he really understand our country?

Since I will be speaking on this issue a little later, I will conclude by saying that the Reform member should not have worn a dark suit to address this House today, but rather a white sheet.

[Canadian National Railways, April 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak on Motion M-194, presented by the member for Roberval. The motion asks the government to call on Canadian National Railways to sell the Chapais line for a nominal sum and to ensure that CN maintains the neighbouring CRAN subdivision.

Concerning the first part of the motion, let me first give a brief summary of the present situation of the Chapais subdivision and to explain how it got that way.

Parliament delegated to the National Transportation Agency the powers necessary to enforce the provisions of the National Transportation Act, 1987, on the abandonment of rail lines.

In 1987 CN asked the Agency for the authorization to abandon a 90-mile section of the Chapais subdivision, between Franquet and Chapais, because it was losing money on it.

After reviewing the case presented by CN and the testimony gathered at public hearings held in 1989 across northern Quebec, the Agency agreed that the line was not cost-efficient but that there was a reasonable probability of it becoming so in the foreseeable future and that its operation should be maintained in the public interest.

Consequently, on January 31, 1990, the Agency rendered a decision ordering CN to keep operating the line.

As provided for in the law, three years later, the agency reviewed CN's application for abandonment and ruled that, with the exception of a six-mile section, the line was not profitable and there was no reason to believe it could eventually turn a profit.

On July 12, 1993, the agency ordered CN to continue operating the six-mile section between Franquet and a site near Grevet and allowed CN to stop operating the 91-mile Grevet-Chapais section as of August 12, 1993.

I must stress that, in the last five years, the line was only used in November 1992 to transport Hydro-Quebec transformers.

We must realize that the operation of this line costs CN over $600,000 in annual losses. Since the NTA order requires CN to keep the line in service, CN receives compensation for its losses from the federal government, or rather from taxpayers. So the Chapais subdivision is operational but does not handle any traffic.

It is quite understandable that local communities, fearing the impact losing the line would have on their economic development, lobbied the former government, which issued an order delaying abandonment until May 31, 1994. The purpose of this nine-month delay was to allow interested parties to review various options to maintain the line.

CN is ready to sell the line. However, nothing is happening and CN should be allowed to go ahead. But the matter is not necessarily closed. Once the abandonment order is in effect, CN can sell its right of way and facilities without any kind of federal regulatory approval, which it cannot do at the present time. Currently any interested buyer can negotiate a selling price for the line with CN.

Which brings us to a very interesting aspect of this motion, the expression "nominal sum". As a commercial Crown corporation, CN received from Parliament the mandate to operate like a business in order to remain viable. I fear that a business cannot

remain viable if it sells land and salvageable steel rails for what is commonly called a "nominal sum." Too often, we associate the concept of "nominal sum" with the amount of $1, instead of at least considering net salvage value which can amount to millions of dollars.

It is therefore not necessary for the government to authorize CN to sell the Chapais subdivision. CN is ready to sell the line at a price equivalent to the value of the land and the net salvage value of the track facilities. It has all the necessary authority for this.

Madam Speaker, if I may, I will briefly talk about the second part of the motion, that is to obtain a guarantee that CN will maintain the neighbouring CRAN subdivision, and make sure that it is integrated in such way as to promote mining and logging in the region.

Maybe I should apologize, but I do not understand the meaning of the word "integration" in this context, and neither do the officials of Transport Canada. The CRAN subdivision is a side track to and from transfer points to lines with much heavier traffic. In order to be operated properly and safely, the track and the related infrastructure must be properly integrated.

As for the maintenance of the CRAN subdivision, CN is seeing to it. CN also uses this track for rail traffic within the region. Railway activities and maintenance work done by CN in the CRAN subdivision are regulated by the government and supervised by railway safety inspectors designated by the minister.

In conclusion, I want to insist on the fact that existing statutory provisions and policies allow for the purchase of the CN's Chapais subdivision. CN wants to sell the line. As for the CRAN subdivision, it is operated by CN according to operation and maintenance standards approved by the federal government under the Railway Safety Act.

For all these reasons, I cannot support the motion.