Mr. Speaker, it is with some sadness that I rise today and people will know why when I am finished talking.
First of all, in response to the opening remarks made by the member for Québec-Est, I would like to confirm that, yes indeed, francophones in Canada are faced with several problems. They are being assimilated, and I share some of his concerns.
Finally, it is true that our past, our more distant past as a country, has been less than glorious when it comes to francophones. However, I dissociate myself from his remarks and statements regarding our more recent past.
We totally disagree with what the member said about the past 30 or 40 years. But I will not repeat what the Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, who accurately described the role played by the government during that time and the impact of some of its policies, had to say.
Before going any further, however, I would like to respond to two personal attacks from the member. First, he accused me of abandoning francophones. Frankly, I find this comment somewhat out of line, and I am compelled to go on a bit and tell the member that maybe he should do his homework. He is not the one who demonstrated to get a French high school, which we did get in Ontario, before there even was a charter of rights and freedoms. He is not the one who had to travel 40 miles morning and night to go to this school. He is not the one, I am not the one either. But my mother did all this. She was one of the four individuals who invoked the charter to be given the right to manage our own schools in Ontario. I just wanted to let the hon. member know what my roots are.
The member accused me of abandoning francophones. I assume he is talking about the closure of a school in Lower Town. The member forgot to mention that it is an elected French school board, managing its own resources, that was dealing with this issue. But he did not mention that. He did not say that, in the end, the school was not closed, because it suits his purpose not to say so.
The member accuses me of having chastised my French speaking colleagues from Ontario at the ACFO meeting, but he was not there, even if it was his job to do so as critic. He claimed he had not been invited. I am sorry to hear that, but I imagine he was invited to Sainte-Anne school. No, he was not. It simply suited him to criticize a colleague, to make political hay at the expense of others. I must stand up in my own defence, on that point.
Second, the member says that French speaking members from Quebec adopt an attitude typical of the Liberal Party, that they attack Quebec all the time. I dare the member for Québec-Est to quote one case where I attacked Quebec. Really when making such extravagant statements, one should be able to back them up.
I would like to tell the House a story, not mine but one that was written by Antonine Maillet, that great lady, author of Pélagie la Charrette , for which she won the Goncourt prize. It is the story of two frogs who accidentally fell into a milk jar. Mrs. Maillet tells the story much better than I can, because she is an extraordinary storyteller. But this is how it goes roughly: both frogs swam and move around but one weakened because it was not as determined as the other frog. At one point, it could no longer hold on, and it sank and drowned.
The other frog kept on and on, swimming all night long and when the farmer looked in the milk jar the following morning, lo and behold, he found one dead frog and one frog sitting on a block of butter. As I said, I do not have the style and eloquence of Antonine Maillet but the story is interesting just the same.
I dare say I am not the frog that gave up. I am not the frog that went to seek refuge elsewhere. I am not the frog that bragged about supporting the francophone community in Ontario, and then abandoned it to use it for his own political ends. That is not my style.
The member prefers to hold out the spectre of assimilation and doom us to extinction within one generation, if I understood him correctly. Let us examine the real situation. To that end, I will quote from four sources. The first one is known by the member, because I have quoted it before. It comes from a brief that was submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resource Development by the Cité collégiale, a French college in my riding. The statement was made this year. This is important, to know which government is being referred to.
I will quote a passage from it: "We are aware of the efforts made by the federal government, over the past 30 years in particular, to stop assimilation, which was so insidious and destructive that it threatened the survival of a whole civilization. The party which nowforms the government has been, in this sense, at the forefront of progress, often adopting unpopular but historic measures without which we have to wonder where we would be today as francophones and as Canadians".
The second one comes from Jacques Michaud, the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. It is dated April 2, 1996, and is quoted in the editorial page of Le Devoir . I quote: ``There are several ways to measure the vitality of a people or a nation that is in a minority situation on a continent it shares with a majority from another language, another culture. The most simplistic one is probably to make a comparison with the majority. The most daring one is certainly to emphasize the willingness of a people to live and to develop in its own language and culture. However, this latter requires more than a simple minicalculator to draw all the conclusions. Gains achieved in recent years, not in absolute numbers, but in rights acquired by the francophone community outside Quebec, as well as its determination to take matters in its own hands, are the side of its vitality that is hidden by statistics''.
Let me read a third one that comes once again from Le Devoir . It seems this newspaper is highly thought of. It is from Ms. Bissonnette. She talks about the visit she made in some francophone areas in Canada. She talks about two people who are very closely associated with the theatre in St. Boniface. I quote: ``The Mahés are everything but bitter. They understand that Quebecers, as I have been repeatedly told in St. Boniface, only know the statistics on the assimilation of francophones outside Quebec and have trouble realizing that the French culture in that province, with its unpredictable directions, is stronger today than it was yesterday. This is no mystery. More comes out of less. It is simply a passion that fires up and connects where it wants to''.
My last quote is also from Lise Bissonnette, an editorialist at Le Devoir . Her May 3, 1996 article reads as follows: ``In the Commons, the Bloc Quebecois erupted with the most hackneyed of sovereignist arguments. According to its mouthpieces, there can be no progress when the assimilation rate of francophone minorities continues to rise in English Canada. The Bloc forgets that its own policy toward the Canadian Francophonie prevents any statement on its eventual demise. And it has a rather simplistic conception of progress. True, figures are alarming, but cultural vitality also counts. Anyone who knows anything about francophone communities in the other provinces cannot deny that they are stronger and less folkloric today than they were yesterday. The sovereignists, who are always so quick to take offence anytime an outsider has something negative to say about Quebec, are treating others as they hate being treated themselves, again, as a result of ignorance''.
I think it has become rather obvious that, if we look only at the statistics, we can convince anyone of anything. This is what brings me to question the motive behind today's Bloc resolution, which refers to the urgency to act. They are trying to achieve their goal by trying to sow the seeds of hatred, by painting everything in black, by fabricating, inventing and trying to pit francophones against anglophones.
The urgency may lie elsewhere. There may indeed be an urgency, but it may lie elsewhere. Perhaps this urgency is better explained by the fact that the members of this House who support a certain option-call it sovereignty, independence, separation or whatever-may be getting a feeling or urgency from how fast their best arguments are slipping through their fingers.
Let us say we managed to divide, as demanded by the consensus in Quebec, responsibilities and powers in the area of manpower for instance-and, with an ounce of good will, I think it should be possible-then, they would be losing one of their best pieces of ammunition and it has them concerned because it would play havoc with their plans to become sovereign.
In Canada, the French language is in peril. That is what this is about here today. This is the big argument on which dreams of sovereignty, independence, or whatever, were built. In the past 30 years however, the trend in this country has not been what they had hoped for. The trend has been for the bone and sinew of the Canadian francophonie to regain strength, as one of my colleagues pointed out earlier. He said so himself. That is a threat in itself for those who dare hope for this francophonie to die, just to prove they are right to want to become sovereign.
This explains in part where this sense of urgency is coming from. You know, there is also a fair chance that, in the months to come, some provinces at least will start giving the language of instruction and the right to manage one's educational institutions the kind of recognition they have been rightly demanding. Premier Tobin made a statement on this subject. We hope he will deliver the merchandise. We are confident Ontario will follow suit and that the federal government, through its own programs, will continue to support communities claiming this right and demanding that it be recognized by the provinces. In short, the sovereignists realizing that their best arguments in support of sovereignty is slipping through their fingers and getting worried may well explain this sense of urgency they are feeling. Personally, I am not worried at all.
Let us give our Bloc colleagues a word of advice just the same. Bitterness and hate do not help in building a country. If they ever manage to build a country, although I doubt they would succeed, let us hope they will not build it on hate and bitterness. I could not help but feel hurt this morning, when I heard three Bloc members refer to Sir Wilfrid Laurier as a sell-out. To call Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one of the first prime ministers of this country a sell-out is to show incredible narrow-mindedness and a glaring lack of intellectual rigour. In the face of such inability to have an open mind, the only thing I feel is great sadness.
