Jean-Paul Marchand

[An Act To Revoke The Conviction Of Louis David Riel, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Louis Riel question is a very emotional one for me. As I listened to the speech by the hon. member for the Reform Party, I wondered whether he really knows his history, because the judgment made against Louis Riel in 1885 was clearly unjust.

Louis Riel was led before a jury of six anglophones and tried by an anglophone judge in Regina, as Donald Smith drove the last spike for the transcontinental railway. In that same year, French was banned in Manitoba. Louis Riel was, in fact, the victim of a miscarriage of justice that reflected the attitude to francophones at the time. People in Quebec knew that Louis Riel's cause was just and that by the last battle of Batoche, Riel was no longer a sane man.

He was a victim of his own cause, just though it was, and Quebecers and francophones across the country were outraged by the decision made by a jury of six anglophones, negating the rights of Louis Riel. Despite the uproar this caused in Quebec, even John A. Macdonald, the Prime Minister of Canada at the time, said:

"All the dogs in Quebec can bark, but Louis Riel shall hang".

John A. Macdonald said that. It was a way to punish the French fact in the west, although the rights of francophones were supposedly guaranteed. I may also point out to my dear colleagues from

western Canada that subsequently the rights of francophones in Manitoba were abolished for one hundred years.

The conviction of Louis Riel was unjust, unacceptable and unpardonable. If people want to reconcile Canada with its francophones, let them adopt, fairly and squarely, a formula to absolve or pardon Louis Riel.

[Francophones Outside Quebec, October 8th, 1996]

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

In an article published last weekend, the minister wrote that the number of francophones outside Quebec has increased by 50,000 since 1971. What she failed to mention is that 90,000 francophones stopped using French during the same period. In other words, their assimilation continues.

Why is the minister trying the hide the fact that a total of 340,000 out of the 1 million francophones outside Quebec have become anglicized and that the assimilation rate is growing?

[The Francophonie, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister expect to have great credibility within the Francophonie, when one of his last acts before his ministerial appointment was to get rid of one of his colleagues who wanted to cast some light on the use of French in the national capital?

[The Francophonie, October 7th, 1996]

From now on, his new responsibilities will lead him to encourage close links with Quebec in order to enhance the Francophonie on the international level.

I am therefore asking the minister what sort of relationship he expects to develop with the Government of Quebec when he, the new minister of Francophonie, is involved in organizing a rock concert in defence of those who have violated Quebec law?

[The Francophonie, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell became the Minister responsible for Francophonie and International Co-operation, and I offer him my congratulations.

[Official Languages, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government will not give francophones in the rest of Canada the same services as anglophones in Quebec. How can the President of the Treasury Board be a party to such discrimination, being a francophone himself?

[Official Languages, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the report on official languages in the public service, tabled this morning by the President of the Treasury Board, once again confirms that the federal government applies a double standard in its official languages policy.

My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In Quebec, 54 per cent of the positions in the federal public service are bilingual, to serve an anglophone minority that represents 10 per cent of the population. Why are francophones in Ontario and New Brunswick not entitled to the same quality of service in their language?

[The Department Of Human Resource Development, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the quality of the French language used at Human Resources Development Canada's National Job Bank site on the Internet is poor, to say the least. Mistakes are attributable mainly to bad, literal translation.

Clearly, the St. Thomas CEC in Toronto, given the job of updating this Internet site, uses an automated translation program instead of hiring an experienced translator to do the job. Let me give you two examples that speak for themselves. In a job offer for a translation position-how ironic-"log house" became "maison de bûche". Another gem, while the correct expression is "connaissance de l'informatique requise", the text reads "avoir ordinateur opération d'aptitudes".

Whatever happened to the genius of the French language? Such mistakes are a disgrace and show an obvious lack of respect for francophones across the country.

[Broadcasting Act, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the Heritage Canada critic say we are against Bill C-216, because it certainly is a very bad bill.

This bill is more or less like the proverbial sledgehammer. It is an attempt to camouflage a problem that may clear up by itself. Of course, it is all because of a rather notorious case in Vancouver, where the Rogers company found a way to make subscribers opt for channels they had already paid for by using the negative billing option.

In fact, this caused such an uproar that the cable companies were smart enough to realize that this was perhaps not the way to treat their customers. There was such an uproar in Vancouver, and even in Toronto and across the rest of English Canada, that the cable companies will watch their step from now on.

And not only because of that but also because the government will probably introduce a bill on competition in the cable industry. And we can expect satellite cable or satellite television to put even more pressure on the cable companies.

This is just to say that the problem does exist to some extent and that one company, a major one, took undue advantage of the situation. However, it is not unlikely the problem will solve itself, without the government having to go to the extreme of using a sledgehammer.

In fact, there are several reasons why we should object to this bill. First of all, it infringes on provincial jurisdiction over business relations. It is common knowledge that in Quebec, for instance, legislation has already been passed and agreements in this area already exist with companies in Quebec.

This is already a bad bill because it interferes in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Without going into details, as it could get boring, from the wording and tabling of the bill it is clear that the hon. member does not know anything about the cable television industry as the bill is totally inconsistent with the way this industry operates. This is why the industry itself is opposed to it.

But the main raison why we in the Bloc oppose this bill is that it prevents new specialty and other channels from being introduced without the prior approval of a majority of area subscribers. In other words, every time a cable distributor wants to offer a new channel to its subscribers, it must first get the approval of the majority.

Of course, as the former Minister of Canadian Heritage knows, this is almost impossible in practice and, worse yet, it puts all French-language channels in Canada at a disadvantage once again.

This bill will surely impede the development of the French-language television industry in Canada. For example, if this bill were now in force, chances are that TVA would not even be available in Hull.

In any case, it has been proven that RDI, a specialty channel I love, which keeps viewers up to date on Canadian and foreign politics, is available to only 40 per cent of French-speaking Canadians. Only 40 per cent of Canadian francophones have access to RDI. Yet, despite all the government promises that this channel would be made available to all francophones in Manitoba and elsewhere, such is not the case.

This bill would rob francophones outside Quebec of any hope of ever getting access to RDI or other French-language channels.

This bill has several problems, but the main one is that it shows a poor understanding of Canada and does not respect the current reality by advocating the principle that, even in the cable television industry, the majority of subscribers must approve the channels or services provided to the minority.

Again, this is significant. It shows the great difference between English Canada and Quebec. At least, this is another example of misunderstanding and the fact they forget that there is not only a French-speaking province-Quebec-, but also other francophone communities throughout Canada. It is as though they did not even exist.

Furthermore, Quebec has already passed a bill in this regard. The Government of Quebec has already struck an agreement. It is unfortunate therefore that this bill is even being considered. We are wasting our time, although I am happy to see that the hon. critic on Canadian heritage opposes this bill. I hope that the hon. member

for Ottawa-Vanier will do the same since, as a Franco-Ontarian himself, he has suggested that this bill be amended, although his amendment would not send the bill to the trash can, which is where it should go.

[Farm Debt Mediation Act, June 17th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like right off to say hello to a friend of in North Bay, Ontario, named Jean Tanguay. He is perhaps watching, and I wanted not only to indicate his presence, but also to tell him that I cannot right now talk about francophone issues or the problems faced by francophones in Ontario, but am rising to speak to an agricultural issue, Bill C-38.

It is in fact the Farm Debt Mediation Act. I am delighted to see that the Farm Debt Review Act is being spruced up. As you will recall, this act was passed in 1986, ten years ago, when an exceptionally high number of farm families were forced to give up farming, because they could not meet their debt obligations.

Debt review offices were set up in each province at the time. The aim of Bill C-38 is to facilitate mediation between insolvent farmers and their creditors. It is also to amend the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. Bill C-38 repeals and replaces the Farm Debt Review Act and provides initially for a review of the financial situation of an insolvent farmer and subsequently for financial arrangements with creditors, hence the importance of mediation, and, as appropriate, the suspension of the creditors' right to take proceedings against a farmer in serious difficulties.

Bill C-38 also provides for the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act to apply in the case of contravention.

My party, the Bloc Quebecois, supports the objectives of Bill C-38 in general terms. It is not a controversial bill. It appears to respond satisfactorily to the concerns of farmers, with the exception of financial institutions.

This bill is the result of extensive consultations involving all stakeholders, which showed that despite the need to maintain the stay of proceedings clause and to keep on helping through mediation, changes could be made to improve efficiency and lower costs.

When we look closely at the proposed bill, we find that farmers in financial trouble will no longer qualify. They used to under section 20 of the Farm Debt Review Act.

Now, the way I see it, there will be only two categories of farmers who will qualify. First, commercial farmers, second, insolvent farmers, that is farmers who can no longer meet their obligations when they come due or those whose property, if sold, is not sufficient to pay off all their debts.

Bill C-38, as it now stands, tightens up eligibility criteria. Under those conditions, we must wonder what would happen to farmers in financial trouble. Would they have to wait to be insolvent to qualify for help? I will point out that this is a rather strange kind of medicine. Personally I would choose to help farmers put their financial house in order before they become insolvent. Even though it might be a little late to act, better late than never. We must act while there is still time. This is the reason why I am asking the government to do something so that farmers in trouble might also get some respect from the government.

We are told that the new service will be less costly and cumbersome. However, this is one of the particular aspects of Bill C-38 which bother me. Another one is the entrenchment of mediation in the legislation. Under the Farm Debt Review Act, there was a certain amount of mediation, of course. However, with Bill C-38, mediation will be an integral part of the legislation and will ensure a fair process since the mediator will be the mediator. In other words, the mediator will not be in a position to give advice either to the farmer or to his creditors. His title says so. He must remain a mediator.

Another aspect of this bill which bothers me is the power of the minister to designate administrators, as it is stated in clause 4(a). Let me explain. Bill C-38 abolishes regional offices created by order in council since services will now be rendered by regional administrators responsible for the enforcement of the Farm Debt Mediation Act. These administrators will be appointed according to the Public Service Employment Act.

What bothers me is that the minister will have the power to designate individuals who are not public servants under the terms of the Public Service Employment Act if these persons meet the requirements set by the minister. Are we to understand that some of these regional administrators will be appointed in accordance with criteria determined by the minister? If such is the case, I believe we should debate that point. If the minister can designate administra-

tors in accordance with criteria different from those set out in the Public Service Employment Act, how can we be sure the present minister, or an eventual successor, will not use that clause for partisan purposes?

As far as the choice of mediators is concerned, we just learned that they will be chosen through a bidding process and that a large pool of mediators will be established. There again, we can legitimately question the process for the choice of one or all mediators. Given the actions of this government in several instances, we have every reason to ask if there will be patronage involved. This government is clearly too prone to patronage. At one point, there even was a Tory member and minister, the member for Joliette, the Hon. Roch LaSalle, who said that patronage was a normal part of politics.

This has been shown to be true in many instances. It is not only the case with Pearson airport, but also with Expressvu and others. This government indulges in a lot of patronage, particularly in the contracting out of public works. There is a lot of patronage there, and I daresay I would not want it to extend to agriculture, which is such an important sector for the future of many people. I believe the government, through its minister, must convince and reassure us that this will not happen.

Furthermore, we should pay attention to the standards to be applied to the salary of both regional administrators and mediators. On another level, the program administrator will be able to designate an expert to do the financial assessment or an expert to develop options to be considered in the course of the mediation.

Once again, what are the criteria for the selection of these experts? We are told the government could leave it up to the farmer, by giving him the resources necessary, to hire of the expert or the financial counsellor of his choice. What are the criteria or the requirements? You know, when we say "could", this does not necessarily mean it is an inalienable right.

Moreover, there are the twenty or so members who will at some point sit on the appeal committee. Once again, they would be appointed by the minister. We are told they would come from the farming community as much as possible. Again, this is perhaps only lip service, without any serious guarantee, I believe.