Jean-Paul Marchand

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, June 17th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is with great interest and a strong sense of duty that I rise today to speak to Bill C-34, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act.

I am happy to see that the purpose of this bill is to combine four existing acts to make it easier to market agricultural products. These acts are: the Advance Payments for Crops Act, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act, and the Agricultural Products Board Act.

Bill C-34 also includes the cash flow enhancement program. If my party, the Bloc Quebecois, generally supports the objectives of Bill C-34, it is because this bill is essentially consistent with farmers' demands and seems more in keeping with Quebec's values and agricultural development model.

There is, however, a major inconsistency in how payments are charged to the budget. Clauses 25 and 30 are financial in nature. Through these two clauses, the government hopes to pay farmers under the advance payments program and the price pooling program.

We learned that, under the advance payments program, farmers would receive $40 million a year over three years, for a total of $120 million. What hurts the most is that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will take the money to be spent on the marketing program out of the budget earmarked for income protection.

This transfer, this misappropriation of funds from the budget will reduce the amounts available to protect farmers' income. Unfortunately, by taking this action, the federal government will once again reduce Quebec's share even further.

Whether you like it or not, Quebec's share of the funds allocated to income protection programs for farmers is already lower to what that province is in a position to demand and obtain, given the relative weight of agriculture in the "belle province".

History seems to be repeating itself: Quebec is always more heavily penalized at the end of the day.

The resource envelope for income protection programs at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for fiscal year 1997-98 is $600 million, that is $250 million or 30 per cent less than the $850 million allocated before the budget came down. If the federal government goes ahead with this misappropriation of public funds, by dipping into funds allocated to income protection programs, in three years, the shortfall in this envelope will be $120 million.

To put it clearly and briefly, it is indecent to use part of the funds allocated to farming income protection to finance the advance payments program, which, must I remind the hon. members, is essentially an agricultural marketing program.

What link, if any, could there be between the advance payments program and the income protection program? None.

Let us be clear about something. When the Minister of Finance, the hon. Paul Martin, tables his budget, does he do so with the intention of deceiving the taxpayers in Quebec and Canada? Should the budget not reflect what was planned? That is what logic-others would say common sense-dictates anyway.

Instead, following this government's reasoning, are we to understand that the figures provided mean nothing, since they no longer apply to what they were originally supposed to apply? This is terrible. I am dismayed.

If the federal government, through the appropriate department, uses funds intended for the income protection program to finance the advance payments program, which is an agricultural marketing program, why should amendments not be made now to change this?

First, a real political will is required to change the situation and make sure that the funds taken for the advance payments program come directly from the budget earmarked for agricultural products marketing programs.

The government should allocate more money for marketing programs and it should stop cutting and diverting funds from one envelope to the other. This is a simple but vital solution.

It would ensure that, in the future, Quebec farmers would enjoy better income protection. An amount of $120 million could also be subtracted from the budget for income protection. However, this would recreate the current situation, in that less money would be available to concerned Quebec farmers, in a proportion more unfair than for the other nine Canadian provinces. Others will also suggest the government should allocate new money for agricultural products marketing programs, along with a transfer of money from the budget for the income protection programs.

This would be a partially acceptable solution. These are the reasons why the Bloc Quebecois is asking the federal government to make the necessary changes. It must correct the situation and ensure a fair treatment to Quebec farmers.

Simply put, the government is being asked to take the money for the advanced payments program from the budget allocated for the income protection programs. As you know, this is a major irritant for Quebec farmers.

Moreover, given the new eligibility rules, Bill C-34 would exclude any form of collective Indeed, one of the eligibility requirements for producers must be rejected, especially the one that lets producers decide when they will sell their products, because the products subject to a pooling system would then be excluded. VEGCO Inc., from the province of Quebec, is among those that would be hard hit by such a measure.

Finally, I agree with the federal government using the taxpayers' money to efficiently streamline its programs, provided that all farmers get the same benefits and meet the same requirements. However, there is something very wrong with the way the money is allocated and if the government of the current Prime Minister can get away with it, it will further reduce Quebec's share of the income protection programs.

I think it is important to stand up for Quebec farmers and to point out that the government is trying to stifle the people and not only in agriculture. Quebec is losing money because the federal government is withdrawing its support from several programs and we wonder what is going on not only in agriculture, but in other areas as well, like shipping, the Tokamak project and other initiatives in Quebec from which the government is withdrawing its financial assistance and support.

We have the feeling the federal government is withdrawing more and more money from its projects and facilities in the province of Quebec. Why? I wonder if the government does not have a plan B for the economy, where it would put pressure on all economic sectors.

However, I feel better knowing that farmers, at least in the beautiful province of Quebec, are very well organized with UPA and are increasingly better able to develop and defend their marketing system, not only in North America, but also in Europe and throughout the world.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I did make comments in my speech regarding the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and I wish to correct or clarify these comments.

Of course the member was elected by francophones living in Ontario. Still, the issue is very serious, considering that several schools will close, including Saint-François-d'Assise and Champlain high schools. Sainte-Anne school would also have closed, had it not been for the Bloc Quebecois.

The assimilation rate in Ottawa-Carleton is 36 per cent. If the hon. member does not feel very concerned by the closing of schools because school boards will look after the issue, fine. But the fact is that the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, the ACFO, raised the alarm. I could quote from a large number of press reports. The issue is very serious and has reached a critical point. The association asked for money from the federal government, but the latter reduced its funding by half. The member for Ottawa-Vanier actually went and told the ACFO that it would have to make do with the reduced funding.

So, the member was elected by Franco-Ontarians, but when an issue concerns them he does not look after their interests but after those of his government and tries to hide the reality and downplay the urgency of the problem. Moreover, the member claims that he is not attacking Quebec, but wants the Quebec Referendum Act amended, as if it was any of his business. As a Franco-Ontarian member of Parliament, he should at least take action to help his fellow Franco-Ontarians survive.

Again, Statistics Canada tells us the assimilation rate has increased since 1971, going from 38 per cent that year, up to 43 per cent now. The situation is urgent because the federal government does not do its job, and that includes Liberal members elected by francophones in Ontario and elsewhere. We tabled this motion because neither the government nor its elected French speaking members do anything, and we do not want to see francophone communities disappear. It is in Quebec's best interests to ensure that French speaking communities outside its territory are as strong as possible, and also in the interests of the whole French speaking community.

If the Liberals cannot do their job, the Bloc is there to try to make them aware of how critical the situation is.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Calgary Centre to be respectful and probably one of the more progressive MPs in the Reform Party but he does not necessarily represent the opinion generally expressed within the Reform Party. Certainly I can well believe he is sincere in his remarks.

However his remarks indicate clearly that he lacks a certain understanding of the history of Canada, in particular when he speaks about the Hungarian language and asking why do we not have an official language policy for Hungarian in Canada. It is not that I am against Hungarian. I would love to speak Hungarian. I would love to speak many languages.

The fact is initially francophones were at the foundation of this country. Again, it comes back in the messages that are sent out from the Reform Party and the Liberal Party which are always attacking Quebec as though Quebec were responsible for the assimilation of francophones outside Quebec.

Quebec is still part of Canada and the assimilation of francophones is increasing. It is increasing more and more rapidly. We cannot blame Quebec for the fact that English speaking provinces do not respect their commitments to francophones. Also, I would humbly submit to the member for Calgary Centre that the English community in Quebec is well respected. They have all their rights, educational, hospital, social services. They are extremely well treated in spite of disagreements in terms of details.

For example, the member mentioned that it was Mr. Trudeau who brought about the B and B commission. No, it was Mr. Pearson who brought about the commission which recommended a series of measures to help bring back the rights that had been denied francophones, particularly in Alberta, which had denied those rights since 1905. It took a long time before Alberta recognized the right of francophones to their own schools. It happened only last year. There are 14 schools in Alberta where they teach in French. The member did not mention that, but it is important, it is a great gain. But it was forced on Alberta.

Alberta resisted in spite of two Supreme Court decisions and the charter of human rights, article 23, which demanded Alberta respect the rights of francophones. Alberta resisted until the last minute and the federal government had to pay Alberta to provide schools and administer the school system in Alberta. So Alberta is far from being an example.

I do not think that the people in the west could teach a lesson to Quebec on how to represent its minority. However, the problem is that Alberta and other provinces still do not provide a sufficient guarantee or services to its French minority.

Finally, the policy of the Reform Party obviously, in spite of goodwill, reduces it to a territorial administration. It would obviously reduce even further the powers that French language communities will have in order to survive. Clearly, according to history, Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and B.C. do not want to have any French in their provinces.

If the provinces are given the right to administer minority language services, my God, it is going to be absolutely, zilch, zero.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the minister's speech. Of course, she used many fine words, such as "reiterate the government's commitments", but we all know very well that if the minister really examined the situation of francophone minorities, she would realize that, in fact, things are not getting better, they are getting worse. Indeed, this is what the associations themselves are constantly saying.

I have two brief questions to ask her as the acting minister of Canadian Heritage. Here is the first one. The hon. minister will recall that the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for coordinating and implementing Part VII of the Official Languages Act. In Part VII of the act, section 42 provides that the heritage department is responsible for coordinating and ensuring the implementation of Part VII. Why has Part VII not been implemented yet, two years after the Prime Minister himself, at the Acadian Convention in August 1994, formally committed his government and his caucus to ensure it would be done?

I would like to point out to the minister that in a recently released report, the Commissioner of Official Languages says, in black and white, that nothing or close to nothing has been done regarding the implementation and enforcement of Part VII.

My second question is as follows. The minister spoke beautifully about her government's commitments, ensuring financial independence, cooperation, alleluia. But, at the same time, her department is cutting its financial assistance to francophone communities. I am sure the minister did not have the courage to go to the last ACFO convention, in Ontario, the ACFO being in the process of negotiating with the Department of Canadian Heritage to obtain the funding it needs to survive, while the department is making all kinds of cuts. There is a lot of moaning and groaning from francophone communities.

In Saskatchewan, it has already happened. The government has cut almost 50 per cent of its financial assistance to the various associations. There is a constant effort on the part of the government to reduce to the lowest level possible the funding granted to francophone association, at a time when the situation is critical.

I will quote a letter about the cuts made in Saskatchewan. The letter is addressed to the prime minister and comes from a twelve-year-old elementary school student, Marisa Gendron-Nadeau, from Saskatchewan. She writes very well, I might add, even if she is only twelve. I will not read the whole letter, but here is what it said: "As for the documentation I am supposed to receive from Heritage Canada, I am afraid it will not be very informative since I already know that Franco-Saskatchewanians will receive 37 per cent less over the next three years, which means a 45 per cent cut for provincial associations and a 10 per cent cut for community associations".

Later on, she adds: "Personally, I sell tickets that give people a chance to win prizes. The proceeds from the sale of these tickets would help pay for this year's trip for the eighth-graders in our school", which is a French school.

She goes on to say: "Each time people ask me which school I attend and I tell them that I attend the French Canadian school, they call me a frog and slap the door in my face. That is the kind of attitude that anglophones have towards us. It is unfortunate that these people close their door to us, but it is downright unacceptable that the people who have the duty to help us-namely Heritage Canada-have chosen to do the same."

She said in closing: "Dear Mr. Prime Minister, at the beginning of our correspondence-she had sent other letters previously-I encouraged you to win the elections and to become prime minister of this country. Today I wonder whether I was right or wrong."

Can the minister tell me now, in spite of her wonderful speech, why her department, which is directly responsible for the application of Part VII, has done almost nothing and is even cutting funding to francophone associations at a time when the situation is critical?

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I actually said that, but it is certainly not the member who cares. It is certainly not the government that cares.

I am the one who put forth this motion today and I am the one speaking in defence of francophones outside Quebec. Francophones know I am doing that.

Who cares? At least I care because I know the situation of francophones. It is certainly not the Reform Party that cares. It is certainly not the government or the minister who cares. What has the government done to redress the injustices toward francophones? The situation generally has worsened.

I am not trying to create a discourse on hatred or intolerance or discrimination. I am stating historical facts. I do not hate anglophones. I speak English and I deal with respect with anglophones because anglophones are like francophones, people who have to be respected, but the history of Canada has a place. The history of Canada, with respect to the French, is undeniably proof of a long term, well established and heavyweight discrimination against the French. In some circles it is profound hatred.

I want to denounce that. I want it to change. I want the government to react.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I have nothing but praise for the fact that 350,000 young anglophones are learning French. I think this is a very good thing and I have nothing negative to say about it, but this does not help the situation of francophones outside Quebec. Francophone communities, for their part, are being assimilated, and that is the problem.

The hon. member accuses us of being mere colonials, but in fact, he too is acolonial, just like the minister who is about to speak, perhaps. The arguments used always try to convey the idea that Quebecers are all wet, that they misunderstand history. As if Quebec were always responsible for its own problems and those of Canada.

It is obvious that the hon. member, like his francophone colleagues, rarely speaks to the issue of francophones outside Quebec. They always want to point the finger at Quebec, as if Quebec were responsible, as if Quebec did not respect the rights of its minority, whereas it is English Canada that does not do so. It is obvious that English Canada does not respect the rights of francophone minorities, starting with the federal government right here in Ottawa, which no longer has or seems to have the will to respect minority rights, which has an impact on all the other provinces.

So there is no significant progress, no concrete progress. Minorities get a few goodies here and there, but there is no real progress. That is why the communities themselves, in Ontario, Saskatchewan and elsewhere, are raising the alarm, saying that it is urgent for the federal government to react.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to address the House on this issue which is very close to my heart. First of all, I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to the associations promoting the rights of francophone minorities in Canada, particularly the Ontario ACFO and the Fédération canadienne des communautés francophones et acadienne, for their courage in fighting for the rights of francophone minorities in Canada.

I know it takes a lot of courage and perseverance. I know that from experience since I come from Penetanguishene, a community near Toronto where we had to fight hard to obtain our own schools. I have seen the discrimination against francophones on the part of anglophones; I experienced it and I witnessed it. I have seen not only the fight that francophones had to put up to get their own schools, in Ontario and other regions, but also the problems that such a situation can cause in families, the dissensions, the assimilation of some people, the francophones who, once assimilated, fight other francophones and the damage all that can cause. I know what the results of assimilation can be.

Unfortunately, I also know that the government often exploits this situation. Francophones are accused of being the source of all the trouble in Canada. The francophone minority, even Quebec as a whole, are blamed for Canada's troubles, when in fact the trouble has its source in the hatred anglophones feel toward francophones, in the discrimination they have subjected that minority to throughout Canadian history.

I do not think anglophones know their history well enough. They did not take the time to read the history which was biased. Today we speak of francophones as being the black sheep of Confederation, of being responsible for the problems of the country when anglophones have created the problem because they have a history of discriminating against the francophones. That is the root of the problem in Canada.

I remind the House that Quebec existed two centuries before an anglophone even set foot in this country which later became Canada. Quebec was here two centuries before Canada was born.

It was a civilized place to live and was conquered in 1760. From that day on there was a manifest and clear attempt to assimilate the French. Anyone who reads the history of Quebec and later of Canada will understand that there was a manifest intent to politically dominate and to economically exploit the French, to impoverish and assimilate them. This went on for almost a century until a point of grave difficulty was reached in Quebec when people were so impoverished and so politically dominated that it created a rebellion in 1837.

Many francophones then left Quebec for Ontario and western Canada. This is one reason there are large francophone speaking communities in the rest of Canada. They could no longer survive in Quebec because it was under a political domination and economic exploitation by an English minority that made it so difficult for them.

Then there is the report by Lord Durham in 1840 which was a manifest document, clearly indicating that the English will was to assimilate the French. Anyone who reads Lord Durham's report cannot deny that he brought the discussion to another level. He spoke of it in terms of racism, a battle of two races.

English Canadians recognize Lord Durham as a person who brought a kind of parliamentary democracy to Canada. If one looks at it from the francophone point of view, one sees a racist, a person who hated the French and who used all the means at his disposal to assimilate the French.

And so it continued until Confederation in 1867, which was probably the crowning of this effort on the part of Lord Durham. It did not really change the political context in Quebec under which francophones lived. Quite the contrary. It was the accomplishment of the attempt by Lord Durham to assimilate the French.

George Brown, the founder of the Globe which later became the Globe and Mail in Toronto, was very anti-French. He wrote his wife shortly after Confederation indicating that the English had finally been victorious; they had drowned the French. The aim of Confederation was to drown the French in a new country and they

had succeeded because in Confederation there were three English voices against one. Before that it was one on one. Today it is ten on one.

The attempt to assimilate the French then had a political purpose and it has continued to today. It has never altered. This discrimination, this hatred against the French is manifest, it is written all over the walls in this country. I can give you three examples of this.

The public service in Ottawa functions in English to a large extent. It is 85 per cent English. The public service in Ottawa, which represented this country that was said to be bilingual after Confederation, never recognized French. Everything functioned in English. Canada did not have a word of French on any stamp until 1926. Canada did not have a word of French on any dollar bill until 1936. The federal government did not put out a single government cheque with a word in French on it until 1956. This country was an English country and it was the intent of the anglophones to assimilate the French and discriminate against them.

In Ontario, as in other provinces, all the rights that supposedly were guaranteed by the Constitution, all the rights that had been negotiated in the Confederation debates by John A. Macdonald and others, after Confederation were abolished from Newfoundland to B.C. There were no exceptions. Only in Quebec, anglophones' rights were respected and still are today.

In 1871 New Brunswick abolished French rights and French schools. In 1870 Manitoba abolished French schools and French language. In 1905 Saskatchewan and Alberta abolished French schools and French teaching. In 1912 Ontario abolished French schools and French language. In some provinces of this country there is anti-French legislation that has lasted over a century.

In Ontario, my native province, which is the heart of this country, there has been legislation on the books against the teaching of French and a recognition of French rights for over 50 years. In 1912 règlement 17 was one among many laws passed by the Ontario government to abolish the French language.

In the 1960s Quebec suddenly awoke to this discrimination, political domination and economic exploitation that had been exercised for two centuries against Quebec. Quebecers woke up and said enough is enough. It was the quiet revolution. The anglophones realized that francophones were not sheep or sheepish and that they wanted their rights respected.

Then the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, the B and B commission, was put together which verified the facts. Anyone who reads those documents will recognize the inequity and injustice in this country, the discrimination against the French. There was a royal commission and that is why we have the language laws of 1969. It was to redress these wrongs and injustices toward the French. That is why these laws were passed. It was to put back balance, give justice to the francophones who represented at one time almost a third of the population, today maybe a quarter of the population of this country.

They have rights guaranteed by the Constitution that were never recognized in the provinces out west. It was only recently, two years ago, that we started to provide a school or two here and there, but their rights were never recognized. They are still not recognized in British Columbia, Ontario, Newfoundland and New Brunswick.

In 1969 the first law was passed on official languages. It was updated in 1988 with all kinds of additions. Today if we look at the situation of francophones living outside of Quebec, we notice that the situation has not improved tremendously. Some concessions have been made. I can vouch for Ontario and how the francophone community has fought tooth and nail for every school it won. It was hard because the assimilation rate in Ontario is something like 40 per cent today.

The Constitution of Canada grants francophones the right to administer their own school systems. However, this right is denied in Ontario. It is denied in British Columbia. It is denied in Newfoundland. In spite of the fact that these rights were laid down in the Constitution of Canada, guaranteed by the charter of rights in 1982, reaffirmed by two Supreme Court decisions granting francophones the right to administer their own schools, this right still has not been granted 25 years after the official language law of 1969, 15 years after the charter of rights and eight years after both Supreme Court decisions.

It is discrimination against the francophones on the part of the English population. That is the problem. The problem is not that Quebec does not respect its English minority. Give or take the problems here and there that might erupt, that is normal. The injustice of this country is toward the French minority which today, after all these laws and these attempts to address the wrongs toward a minority, still has not been established.

I mentioned the rate of assimilation. Over the last 20 years since the adoption of the law of 1969, the assimilation of francophones has increased by 40 per cent. The laws that have been passed and the attempts by the government to redress these wrongs have not worked. The francophone population is still being assimilated. Not only are francophones still being assimilated as they were 25 years ago but they are being assimilated at a faster rate. They still do not have access to their schools. Even in those provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan that finally granted some schools to francophones, it is only one in twenty francophones in Alberta who have

access to French schools. It is normal that the assimilation rate should be so high.

Why is it that in the public service right here in Ottawa functions 85 per cent in English? This is confirmed by the Commissioner of Official Languages. His recent report indicated, according to his survey, that 85 per cent of all meetings that occur in the federal public service in Ottawa are in English. Francophones complain of the fact that the functioning of the public service in the federal system is English. Only about 10 per cent of written documents are in French. The public service in Ottawa still functions in English.

Look at Ottawa. This is the capital of the country of Canada which says that it is bilingual. But anyone, even a blind person, can see clearly that Ottawa, the official bilingual capital of a bilingual country is an English town.

Even the francophone community that existed in Ottawa is being assimilated at a rate of 36 per cent. The rate of assimilation is so great that perhaps the next generation will be much weaker, especially if they do not have access to schools, health services or social services. Francophones have nothing with respect to that except minor concessions and exceptions. That to me confirms the fact that the discriminatory will exercised in Canada, which started many years ago, still continues today in other forms.

"We do not want francophones in this country. We do not like francophones in this country. Francophones are the problem in this country. They are the black sheep and they are giving us all kinds of problems". The problem is that the anglophones wanted to assimilate the French and they are terribly frustrated because the French are still here and still strong.

It is surprising, when we speak of the francophone communities, in spite of all the discriminatory laws, injustices and hatred they have known, that they are still surviving, they are still vital and strong. At the same time, there is a terrible urgency that the government should act. But the government is not acting.

What the government is doing is making promises. Two years ago, in August 1994, when the Prime Minister went to New Brunswick, he took advantage of a great event in French Acadia and promised that finally part VII of the language laws would be applied in this country. This he did with great pomp and circumstance. What do members think happened to that promise? We know the Prime Minister is not too strong when it comes to keeping his promises, but this is another one that fell by the wayside. Nothing has been done. The report of the Commissioner of Official Languages confirms in black and white that nothing has been done.

There is an urgency in this country to provide the health, the resources and the co-operation to ensure that francophone communities can breath and have faith in their future but the federal government does little or nothing, if anything at all.

Of course the speeches that will be coming from the Liberal members will say that everything is fine and great. They will say progress is being made and everything is going well. I heard the President of the Treasury Board two days ago saying: "My goodness, we have made great accomplishments and extraordinary achievements in this country in terms of bilingualism and the French language in the public service and everywhere else. Things are just great". That is what we are going to hear from the Liberals and the Reform Party but we will not speak about them.

The Liberals will speak to us about the fact that everything is great which is part of the problem. The government does not even want to recognize that there is a problem. If it does not want to recognize that there is a serious problem then there is never a solution.

The reason why this government does not want to recognize that there is a problem is that the anglophone communities in this country do not want to hear anything about francophones. They are tired hearing about francophones. The Prime Minister knows very well that he does not have any political advantage in trying to help the French minorities that are in difficulty in English Canada.

The majority of the population of English Canada still has that discriminatory anti-French feeling. I know because it is prevalent all over Ontario particularly. It is knee-high and it smells, this discrimination in English Canada. Therefore, the Prime Minister does not want to fluster or frustrate the English majority who have this anti-French feeling.

Furthermore, the government does not want to spend a cent because if the Prime Minister took a single dollar more to help the francophone communities living outside Quebec, my God, it would be horrible what would happen in this country. We would have the Reform Party hitting the Prime Minister and the Liberals would have difficulty enduring the Prime Minister. So the Prime Minister does zero, he does nothing. He has abandoned the francophone communities. He has abandoned even the MPs who have been elected in some ridings, Vanier for example.

There is an MP who has resigned his responsibility toward the francophone community. He was elected in Ontario to defend franco-Ontarians. The AGFO organization is now trying to deal with the federal government because it considered it had received so little for so many years. It considers this year to be critical. If the situation does not change, if the situation does not alter in terms of finances and program, franco-Ontarians will lose many of their organizations, they will lose many of the few services they have right now.

They are in a very critical situation and the francophone MPs of Ontario do not even speak up for them. Quite the contrary. They go to the organizations and say: "The status quo is fine. Everything is great. The government is doing everything it can. The Prime Minister has made a lot of promises. Don't rock the boat. We don't want anyone to be upset. Everything is fine".

The francophone MPs who were elected in the Liberal government who normally are supposed to be defending francophone rights are not defending francophone rights at all. They are not defending the schools that are disappearing or the services that are disappearing. They use the typical Liberal tactic which is to attack Quebec and say: "Gee whiz, Quebec is really maltreating the English. The English are really poorly treated. After all, they might not be able to have bilingual signs and blah, blah, blah, fundamental rights". And still the English community in this country, when we compare, is extremely well treated in Quebec compared with the francophone communities outside Quebec.

Assimilation, the will of domination, exploitation, discrimination and hatred by the English of the French continues today. I know a lot of anglophones personally. I know a lot of them are not anti-French. They have open minds, but they are part of the minority as well.

[The Member For Ottawa-Vanier, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, given that, in Ontario, the rate of assimilation of francophones is in excess of 36 per cent and that francophones are still not allowed to run their own schools, given that Conservative Premier Harris is blithely chopping Franco-Ontarian organizations and that English is in fact the language of work in the public service in Ottawa, I would have thought that the primary duty of any Franco-Ontarian MP would be to look after the interests of his own constituents. But that is not what is happening.

I may be naive but I think the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is forgetting his primary duty to launch a crusade against the Quebec referendum act.

In other words, instead of opposing cuts imposed on Franco-Ontarians by his own government, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier prefers to crusade against Quebec's election laws, which are among the most democratic in the world.

[Canadian Unity, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, CJMF-Quebec's listening audience awarded the Bolo prize to the heritage minister for her generous distribution of Canadian flags to the people of Quebec.

In fact, last week, the minister, who was having trouble unloading the Maple Leaf in Quebec, agreed to send 20,000 flags to a single individual for distribution in day care centres, and 6,000 to decorate the shores of the St. Lawrence, from Trois-Rivières to Gaspé.

With Canada in the midst of a major crisis, the federal government prefers to bury its problems under tons of Maple Leaves, thus squandering over $7 billion of taxpayers' money on propaganda.

And at the same time, the federal government is cutting $7 million in funding to the tokamak project in Varennes, thus jeopardizing hundreds of jobs and important economic spinoffs for Quebec.

What Quebec wants, and what Quebecers need, are not flags and kites, but jobs and development.

[Minister Of Human Resources Development, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we were all shocked last week by the comments made by the Minister of Human Resources Development concerning the political options open to those who choose to come to this country.

It seems there is a price to pay in return for Canada's hospitality. That price is political conformity. Immigrants must espouse the majority viewpoint. Their democratic rights, guaranteed by the charter of rights and freedoms, do not include the right to choose a sovereignist party.

The outrage provoked by these comments was shared by many federalists in Quebec and I am convinced by all English Canadians who respect fair play and democratic values. But where was the outrage by the Liberal Party in Ottawa? The Prime Minister endorsed the comments of his minister and the press in English Canada was silent on the matter.

I urge all English Canadians concerned about the future of their democracy to take this matter seriously and to call for a public retraction and an apology by the Minister of Human Resources Development.