Roger Pomerleau

[World Championships, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday in Nagano, Japan, Jean-Luc Brassard took the world moguls title in freestyle skiing. The silver medal went to Stéphane Rochon. A few hours later, Nicolas Fontaine won the gold in aerials.

The names of Jean-Luc Brassard, Stéphane Rochon and Nicolas Fontaine will now stand alongside those of Gaétan Boucher, Josée Chouinard, Isabelle Brasseur, Sylvie Bernier, Myriam Bédard, Sylvie Fréchette, Annie Pelletier, Gilles and Jacques Villeneuve, Bruni Surin and many others, who are eloquent testimony to the fact that Quebecers can compete with anyone in the world and win.

Bravo Jean-Luc. Bravo Stéphane. Bravo Nicolas.

[Pearson Airport, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we realize that all this may cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, without ever getting at the truth of the matter, as in other cases now being pursued.

Why will the minister not admit that his government preferred to make some political hay out of attacking the Conservatives in this petty way instead of getting down to the bottom of all this and ordering a public inquiry, something the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding for more than three years? Is the present government afraid that a public inquiry would reveal cases of patronage among Liberals as well as Conservatives?

[Pearson Airport, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.

The present Prime Minister, in referring to the privatization of Pearson airport during the last election campaign, said that the promoters would, and I quote, "initiate projects that would be worth up to $200 million annually". However, lawyers for the federal government are now in court to try and prove that the profits of private promoters at Pearson were in no way excessive, but their experts claim that the promoters could have lost as much as $180 million.

Are we to conclude from the government's defence in the Pearson saga that Ottawa cancelled an agreement that would have been profitable for Canadian taxpayers and for travellers, and all this simply to support the partisan commitments of the Prime Minister?

[Excise Tax Act, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-70. I say this for the benefit of our viewers, this bill is a collection of amendments to the GST.

The group of motions we are dealing with contains among other things amendments aimed at harmonizing the GST with the sales tax in three maritime provinces. The amendments brought forward by the Bloc with regard to those motions are basically aimed at withdrawing any legislation on harmonization and compensation. There are several reasons for this.

This bill is flawed, based exclusively on political and electoral considerations, since everything suggests that we are about to have an election. It is poorly drafted and flawed.

What is more, in order to convince the three maritime provinces, which did not expect it, the federal government had to promise political compensation of close to one billion dollars, while it has

systematically refused to pay Quebec the two billion dollars it lost by harmonizing its provincial sales tax with the GST in 1991.

Quebec is often pictured as the black sheep or the spoilsport of the system. We have here the best example of this. Quebec was the first province to support harmonization with the federal tax and now they are going to make the province pay for that.

My colleagues will further develop each and every point I have raised,to put them in their proper perspective. They have already begun. Several have already spoken and they will be followed by others. For my part, I would like to underscore the fact that this bill is first and foremost a symbol.

It is a symbol that makes three things very clear. First, it shows the present government's lack of transparency. Second, it points to the fact that, in the Canadian Confederation, Quebec constantly ends up on the losing side, economically speaking. I should use the term "federation", because Canada stopped being a confederation long ago. In fact, Quebec does not receive its fair share of spinoffs from its investments in Canada, amounting to 25 per cent of Canada's revenues. Third, this bill also shows that any member from Quebec elected in Ottawa as a Liberal or a Conservative always ends up taking Ottawa's side against Quebec.

The government's lack of transparency has been plain to see throughout its mandate, during this legislature, since 1993. This bill is in keeping with this lack of transparency. It is the last chapter before the election, it is the icing on the cake.

Some recent events are clear indications of the government's lack of transparency. I will try to go fast, but there are many of them. There is the tainted blood issue. While the Prime Minister claims to want the entire situation brought to light-that is what he says all the time-he refuses to initiate the process of giving Mr. Justice Krever access to the documents that would allow him to get at the truth. This morning, we learned that the RCMP was looking for related documents that are said to have disappeared. Where is the transparency?

There is also the Somalia inquiry. While promising once again to get at the truth, the Prime Minister has refused the extension requested by the inquiry and its chairman. We know for a fact that, if this commission needs a extension, it is only because the Canadian army hid documents. Months were lost tracking them down.

The Airbus affair was another example of lack of transparency. The previous Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, was pronounced guilty in advance, almost under criminal charges. We know full well that this is contrary to Canadian law and yet nobody is responsible.

Etymologically the word responsible refers to the person who is able to provide a response. When we ask questions in the House, we never get any response, which means that nobody is responsible. Somebody else is, the system is or some other thing. There is not one minister who is responsible.

Here are a few blatant examples of broken promises and lack of transparency on the part of the government: it promised to tear up the free trade agreement, and yet it signed it; it promised to deprivatize the Pearson airport, but the issue has not been settled yet and has been handled in such a way that it might cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

Remember the commitment to Quebec during the referendum to recognize the concept of distinct society and give Quebec its veto back? Another broken promise. Every Quebecer remembers it. Remember the promise to create jobs, jobs, jobs?

In his last budget, not the forthcoming one, the one he tabled before, the finance minister told us: "The government's role is not to create jobs, we are going to create the right environment for corporations to create jobs". When we look at major corporations posting record breaking profits, starting with the banks, we see that they are all laying off people.

One has to wonder who in Canada is creating jobs these days, but not why 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed. "Jobs, jobs, jobs", another broken promise. And now the ultimate one, the one that tops them all, the one we are dealing with today. They were going to scrap the GST. Instead they are talking about changing the GST harmonization standards.

This promise was heard on every radio and TV station, and the Prime Minister told us on May 2, 1994: "We hate this tax, we will do away with it". The hated tax did not disappear, so they are trying to hide it. The finance minister apologized, saying that they should not have made such a promise. The Deputy Prime Minister resigned, and the Prime Minister still insists he never said anything of the kind.

I am sure you have read the Toronto newspapers; they were hard enough on the Prime Minister. I will not repeat in the House what the journalists wrote because it would be unparliamentary. It is easy to see there is no transparency there.

Secondly, as this bill shows clearly, Quebec is always the loser within the Canadian Confederation because it never receives its fair share. Since we have been here, we have held numerous debates in the House to explain how Quebec never gets its share of structuring expenditures, of job creating expenditures. We have often given the example of research and development as an area where Quebec gets nothing, where it never gets its share of expenditures.

This GST case is just one more example. The maritimes will receive a billion dollars for the harmonization whereas Quebec got absolutely nothing for harmonizing its QST with the GST. What does this mean? Since Quebecers make up one quarter of Canada's revenues, it means that the federal government is taking $250

million away from Quebecers to send it to the maritimes while Quebec is receiving nothing at all.

We all know what the people over there will do with that money. Mr. McKenna for one is raiding Quebec to attract Quebec businesses. We are paying people for them to come here and compete with us. That is the kind of system we live in. The GST situation shows that clearly.

Finally, the third point this bill proves is that a liberal member from Quebec, when he is in Ottawa, will always take Ottawa's side against Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, your are telling me I have only one minute left, so I will try to conclude swiftly. Where are the Quebec members when the government refuses to pay Quebec and takes $250 million from Quebecers to send it to the maritimes, with nothing in return? Liberal members from Quebec are saying nothing and are nowhere to be seen.

Where were the Liberal members from Quebec when the government seized from the unemployment insurance fund $5 billion that collectively belonged to the workers? Mum was the word. They were nowhere to be seen. Where were the Liberal members from Quebec when family trusts moved to the United States without paying some $500 million in taxes? They were nowhere to be seen and did not say a word.

To conclude, Quebecers now know, thanks to this bill, that is no use sending a René Lévesque to Quebec City and a Pierre Trudeau to Ottawa, a Lucien Bouchard to Quebec City and a little guy from Shawinigan to Ottawa. Quebecers now know that Canada is not, as the Deputy Prime Minister was saying, a tower of Babel that works. It is a tower of Pisa, a tower that leans to one side: Ottawa.

[U.S. Report On Human Rights, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in a report on human rights recently released by the U.S. State Department, Quebec received high marks for respecting the rights of its minorities.

According to Washington, since the 1995 referendum, the Quebec government has clearly been striving to curb political tensions while reaffirming the important role played by the anglophone minority in Quebec society. Such statements sound infinitely more realistic and reasonable than the wild imaginings conveyed by federalist spokespersons these past few months.

Let us hope that, for once, our colleagues opposite will be able to set their fear-driven politicking aside and read this major U.S. report carefully. They will probably realize that their hysteria of the past few months has doing nothing to further the debate and has simply clouded their vision. Perhaps if they came to their senses, we could finally have constructive talks and eventually establish a new partnership between our two peoples.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat taken aback by my colleague's question, because I think he does not make the distinction between the number of people speaking a language and what assimilation means. Even if, overnight, there were five million more people speaking French in Canada, this would have no impact on assimilation.

Being assimilated means starting out with one mother tongue, losing it on the way, and ending up adopting the other language as the language spoken at home. That is what assimilation means. In Canada, right now, data from Statistics Canada prove that, for the last 20 years, this process, that started with Lord Durham, is still going on and is on the rise.

I will be pleased to send the official data from Statistics Canada throughout my riding to satisfy my hon. colleague.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it will not be easy to speak no more than 10 minutes on this subject. Naturally, I am rising to support the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Québec-Est, who has given, in my opinion, a historical speech tracing the history of the whole French language issue in Canada from Lord Durham or, indeed, the conquest to this day.

We sometimes look back at our history, not to wallow in it, but because the source of current problems can often be found a long way back in time. Anyway, judging from Statistics' Canada figures, on which I will come back later, the policy put in place under Lord Durham to assimilate francophones seems to still be in operation today, like it or not.

The motion before us is designed to make the government aware of how urgent the situation is. Allow me to read out loud for the benefit of those watching us. It reads as follows: "The Bloc Quebecois moves that the federal government and the provinces 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".

In the circumstances, I find it somewhat deplorable that francophone members from outside Quebec have the gall of telling us how everything is hunky-dory in their regions, when we know full well, as we will demonstrate throughout the day, that the French language is in peril in every province of Canada.

As you know, under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, anglophone and francophone minorities of every province of Canada are guaranteed the right to have their own schools and, where numbers warrant, the right to manage these schools. The federal government and the English-speaking provinces contend that the rights of francophone minorities are protected under section 23. Unfortunately, it is apparently harder to enforce this section than to recognize it. This reminds me of the GST. It is easy to say the tax will be scrapped, but it is a different matter to take action.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that francophone minorities had the right to govern their own schools in their respective provinces but, once again, the English-speaking provinces have always tried to dissociate themselves from the conclusions reached by the Supreme Court. As we speak, at least seven parents associations have turned to the courts to enforce the rights conferred to them under section 23 of the Canadian charter of rights. These cases are before the courts in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, and the list goes on.

This means that, even if the Constitution supposedly grants us certain rights, we must fight in court to have them recognized. This is the beginning of a long process that is not leading anywhere; while this process goes on for many years, the assimilation of francophones continues.

It must be noted-and this is deplorable-that the rights of francophone communities outside Quebec are not respected, only tolerated. These are fictitious rights. Francophones are told they have these rights, but when the time comes to enforce them, they must wage long, drawn-out battles, often in vain or for meagre results in the end.

Demographic projections show that the rate of assimilation of francophones in Canada is increasing, especially in the western provinces, probably because they are further away from us. I would like to quote other figures which may be challenged, but which come from Statistics Canada.

They are taken from publication No. 92-733, for 1974 data, and publication No. 94-319, printed and released in 1993 by Statistics Canada. The comparison is made in Table 5.

The table deals with the net anglicization rate of francophones aged 35 to 44, who are members of a French speaking minority outside Quebec. It establishes a comparison between 1971 and 1991 for all the provinces. The term anglicization refers to a very specific phenomenon. It refers to people who now use English, but who have a different mother tongue. This is assimilation. It means someone who is a francophone by birth and who, for all sorts of reasons, now uses another language at home.

A member of my family lives in Portland, Oregon. This is in the United States, of course, but it illustrates the phenomenon even better. Both parents are francophones and their children were born in the U.S. The children married Americans, as one would expect, and when family reunions are held, which is fairly regular, everything takes place in English. The principle is simple: the majority rules. It is only normal.

We are told that this is how assimilation may occur, but that we have two official languages in Canada and that the necessary measures will be taken to prevent it from happening. However, the reality is that these measures do not mean anything and do not lead anywhere.

Let me go back to the document from Statistics Canada. In 1971, Newfoundland had a rate of assimilation of 35 per cent; it was 65 per cent in 1991, 20 years later. In 1971, Prince Edward Island's rate was 50 per cent; it reached 55 per cent in 1991. Nova Scotia's rate was 42 per cent in 1971, and 51 per cent in 1991. We can see that the rate of assimilation has gone up in 20 years, despite all the measures that are supposed to have been implemented.

New Brunswick's rate was 12 per cent, and it is the only case where there has been a slight drop, to 11 per cent. Things are looking up, so to speak. I was in Acadia last year and it is true that there is a strong feeling of attachment to things Acadian that can be felt everywhere you go. There are Acadian flags flying on all the farms and houses, and it is a sight to see. We can probably thank New Brunswick's legislation for slowing down the rate of assimilation in at least one province.

In Ontario, the rate of assimilation was 38 per cent in 1971; it was 43 per cent 20 years later. In Manitoba, the rate was 45 per cent in 1971 and 63 per cent in 1991. In Saskatchewan, the rate was 60 per cent in 1971; it was 79 per cent in 1991. In Alberta, the rate was 64 per cent in 1971; in 1991, it was 74 per cent. In British Columbia, the rate in 1971 was 77 per cent; in 1991 it was 76 per cent.

These are the figures published by Statistics Canada. I will give only one example. I prepared a little report on four or five western provinces but, given how little time I have, I think I will stick to British Columbia, a wonderful province I visited on many occasions. It is the only province where I did not live, but which I visited.

The B.C. legislature is far from complying with section 23 of the Canadian charter. After several years of negotiations with francophone parents, no progress has been made. The provincial government has still not amended its school legislation. The only

concession to parents was to pass a regulation that will take effect July 1 and create a school authority without any power.

This does not amount to much: there is no taxation power, no capital budget. Although the law, the regulation, is said to give these people a prerogative, there is no way to enforce it. In the final analysis, what the parents gained is simply the right to supervise school management.

As we know-and this is something that has been condemned by some people and that will be condemned by others today-the basic principle that can be applied in the case of the minorities the government says it wants to protect is that they must be given the basic tools they need to survive by being able to complete their education in their own language. This is what they claim they want to do, but it is not happening.

The Association des parents francophones de Colombie-Britannique and some other francophone organizations deplore the fact that the school authority created by regulation is in violation of section 23 of the charter, as there is no way to manage this school authority.

In addition, as we know, a regulation is not a law and is much easier to amend. This parents association also condemns the fact that the jurisdiction of the school authority extends to only 18 of the 75 provincial school boards, all of which are concentrated in Greater Vancouver and Victoria. No school authority was granted outside those two areas.

We can therefore expect another great legal battle-as we often see in that province-that will surely go all the way to the Supreme Court in Ottawa, since the Association des parents francophones de la Colombie-Britannique revived its claim for full implementation of section 23 of the charter. People from almost everywhere in Canada, from every province, are challenging this clause because it is not being enforced.

If this debate goes all the way to the Supreme Court, it would mean another six or seven years of legal wrangling so that these people can enjoy rights that are normally and theoretically guaranteed by the charter and the Constitution but which they must fight to obtain.

This parent association fights to get the minimum. A spokesperson for the association, who in fact wrote to the Prime Minister in 1994 to make sure francophone claims would be taken into account, Mrs. Galibois Barss, explains very well what motivates them to lead this fight: "-the government is not fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities. The measure does not even meet the minimal requirements to ensure the smooth operation of a French speaking school system". The same claim is made almost everywhere, in all the provinces.

Considering it may take six to seven years for a case to be heard by the Supreme Court, we can definitely conclude that section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not provide an automatic guarantee that the rights of francophones living outside Quebec will be protected. Given that statistics show an already high assimilation rate that will continue to increase, we ask the government to take note of the situation and to realize the urgency of the situation.

[Gulf Canada Resources Limited, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the president of Gulf Canada Resources Ltd., J.P. Bryan, said he wanted to send separatists on a boat back to France or confine them to a North American Bantustan.

Mr. Bryan is acting like a Rhodesian full of scorn for Quebecers. Before hiring this U.S. born executive, Gulf Canada should have made sure he had some basic notions of history, manners and democracy.

What is even more troubling is the fact that, instead of condemning such an outburst, 700 executives of the Canadian oil industry applauded. Where have understanding and respect for democracy and freedom of expression gone? Where I come from, we call this intolerance and provocation.

Officials of the company in Quebec ought to condemn Mr. Bryan's antidemocratic and profoundly unacceptable remarks.

[Research And Development, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Natural Resources has indicated time and again that 25 per cent of her department's research and development budget goes to Quebec.

The time has come to set the record straight. When the minister says that 25 per cent of the funds are spent in Quebec, she is distorting reality by not including in Ontario's share the funds allocated to the national capital region, when in fact a large portion of this region is located in Ontario and 60 per cent of her department's expenditures in research and development are made in that region alone.

The fact of the matter is that, in 1995-96, only 14.9 per cent of Natural Resources Canada's research and development budget, or $7.8 million out of an overall budget of $52 million, went to Quebec.

And the big picture is not any brighter. According to Statistics Canada, between 1971 and 1991, only 18.6 per cent of the federal government's research and development funding went to Quebec, as compared to 50 per cent for Ontario.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for presenting this analysis. It seems to me that throughout the debate we may have been over-using the term "privatization" and there is an essential difference between "privatization" and "commercialization". We ought to have used "commercialization", because that is what is involved here, and I thank my colleague for making this clarification.