House of Commons Hansard #52 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was language.

Topics

Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1 p.m.

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, here is what I have to say in response to my colleague's question. When it comes to spending taxpayers' money, we are committed to improving the lives of people, and we are doing so in a tangible and thoughtful way.

Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow the line of questioning that came up earlier in regard to the question of whether we have moved along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms represents one of the most important aspects of Canadian culture. It is a defining fact of our society. We have had it in place for a fair number of years. The complexity of the decisions around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is getting more difficult. The need for court rulings on many aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is probably in some ways moving from more simplistic forms of challenges to more complex forms.

Would this not suggest that we need to put dollars toward this type of activity and that we need to support Canadian citizens in their search for rights and freedoms just as we support citizens in other countries in the world in their search for rights and freedoms?

Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1 p.m.

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, our government has played a leadership role. It has invested a lot of money in minority communities. We will continue to do so. We are working on the second action plan and, as soon as it is available, the public will be able to see what we are really doing for minority communities.

Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary well. We discussed this issue together on a few occasions. I know her to be very caring. She is a francophone, and she lives in a francophone region.

I have a hard time understanding, and I wonder if she could provide an explanation. After hearing many francophone associations outside Quebec say they want the program, to help them defend themselves and preserve their language in anglophone provinces, can she explain to us—as a caring person—why she and her government are totally insensitive to the situation of francophones outside Quebec?

Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry that, when we form a government, we make decisions, and we make thoughtful decisions.

The Bloc Québécois has never made decisions, and it never will. Bloc members can say whatever they want, they can tell anything to anyone, because they cannot even dream about forming the government.

Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Malpeque should know that there is one minute left for both the question and the answer.

Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that the parliamentary secretary is absolutely right about and that is the government's record, which she said is better than others, but it is sad that where it is better is in being a record of destruction on policies and programs that matter to people.

I do not know whether she was listening earlier when I talked about how the government is trying to destroy rural Canada through the loss of individual mail delivery, through destroying the Canadian Wheat Board, through undermining the Canadian Grain Commission, and by default on hogs and beef. The government is destroying our international reputation--

Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. parliamentary secretary has 20 seconds to respond.

Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, we will not take any lessons from the Liberals.

Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:05 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate, especially coming on the heels of a speech filled with nonsense, as some of my colleagues said earlier. In my opinion, this shows that this government has very little interest in protecting minorities. It is as if giving groups that represent francophone minorities the financial and other resources to pursue court challenges were something Canada should not do.

It is rather sad to hear the parliamentary secretary say that her government is making reasoned decisions. The September 2006 decision to abolish the court challenges program was not a reasoned decision; it was an ill-advised decision. As a result of that decision, francophone minority communities will have fewer resources to defend projects that they consider important to their growth and development. Francophones account for barely 2% of the population of North America, and this government refuses to understand that because of their minority status, francophone minorities must fight constantly for recognition not only in this Parliament, but also in the courts.

When I see this government abolish a program and say that this is a reasoned decision and that it must carefully assess the purpose and objective of the program when taxpayers' money is involved, I ask myself a number of questions. What sort of savings did the government realize? How much money did the government save by abolishing this program? Only $5 million or $6 million. In fact, the government saved a mere $5 million or $6 million by abolishing this program.

Yet since 1970, the Government of Canada has given $66 billion in tax benefits to the oil industry, in addition to tax incentives to develop the oil sands. According to the government, it made a socially reasoned decision to help those who are harming our environment and destroying our country's social fabric. Yet the government considers it unacceptable and ill-advised to grant a mere $6 million so that francophone communities can fight and go to court on an equal footing.

This is a clear indication of how the government wants to deal with minorities, whether they be aboriginals, francophones, or even organizations that promote women or the status of women. This government quite simply decided unilaterally to abolish a program, the court challenges program, that benefited many organizations.

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada did not just sit back, because it knew that the money cut by the federal government was essential to the survival of francophone and Acadian communities. On October 25, 2006, it decided to file an official request with the Federal Court to void the decision to eliminate the court challenges program. These legal proceedings before the Federal Court were supported by a number of federations, movements and organizations.

They included the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, the Commission nationale des parents francophones and the Quebec Community Groups Network.

Someone in a minority situation in an environment that is 98% anglophone needs to have tools available to defend their rights. It is not about encroaching on others; it is about ensuring that future generations will be able to continue speaking French in Canada, that there will be no language losses over the years and that the children of francophones and Acadians will be able to pass on their linguistic heritage to their children and grandchildren.

Is that not worth $5 or $6 million to the federal government? It seems to be saying it needs this $5 or $6 million to balance the budget, and if it cannot balance the budget, it must cut the court challenges program and take resources away from francophones. Meanwhile, there is a $10.6 billion surplus. Meanwhile, it continues to give financial incentives to the oil industry.

This government's decision was neither budgetary nor financial; it was ideological. The government refuses to help people, to ensure that part of the Canadian population, made up of both official languages in principle, can pass on its culture and knowledge from one generation to the next.

Those generations will no longer be able to defend themselves on a level playing field. They will be able to do so with limited means that deserve a defence. The federal government decided to cut those funds.

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada believes that when it discontinued funding for the court challenges program, the federal government did not sufficiently consider the impact this decision would have on the development and growth of French language minority communities or its commitments to linguistic minorities under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act.

The federal government has obligations in that respect. Both nationally and internationally, it boasts about how it governs a country made up of two recognized official languages that supports francophone communities.

We believe that linguistic diversity is one of Canada's greatest strengths, and the government likes to brag about this on the international scene.

I have been a member of this Parliament for 10 years and have been a part of many Canadian delegations abroad. Every time, the minister responsible liked to boast about coming from a country with two official languages. Whether Liberal or Conservative, one government after the other boasts about our two official languages. However, when the time comes to protect these communities, we no longer have the financial means to allow these people to mount a defence before the courts in a way that recognizes the historical contribution of the Acadians and other francophone communities to the building of Canada.

Is that the legacy that the Conservative Party wants to leave for francophone communities? Is that the kind of image?

The next time I join a Canadian delegation and I see a minister from this Conservative government bragging about coming from a country with two official languages, I will denounce him and remind him that the situation for francophones in Canada is precarious, that they are in a minority and are at constant risk of being assimilated. I will remind him that this government was unable to find $6 million to give francophone communities the means to defend themselves, while the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act guarantee those rights for francophones.

The government claimed it abolished the program because it was not effective. When it decided to eliminate the program, the government said that the program was not cost effective.That was the parliamentary secretary's argument earlier. She clearly told us that the government had the duty to ensure that taxpayers' money was being used properly. The government felt this program was not cost effective.

Since when does a program to defend the rights of minorities have to be cost effective? Since when do economics apply when it comes to helping francophone communities? A program is not a business. It is a budget and sometimes it is not cost-effective. However, the benefit to the communities from being able to rely on a full defence, is worth its weight in gold. It may not be money and profits, as the government would have us believe when it talks about the cost effectiveness of the program, but it contributes to the development and survival of francophone communities in Canada. The federal government has instead decided to abandon francophones and French-speaking Canadians and to cut funding to those communities.

On the contrary, this program was useful for the linguistic communities. This program enhanced linguistic development in the provinces. The elimination of the court challenges program delivered a serious blow to Canadians’ ability to defend their language rights. Those are not my words. That was not a statement by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. It was a statement made by the Commissioner of Official Languages, who said that the elimination of the court challenges program delivered a serious blow to Canadians’ ability to defend their language rights.

I would add that Mr. Fraser found that the commission's inquiry into the matter showed that the government did not take into account the impact on official language communities before deciding. There was no impact assessment, even though one is usually conducted when assessing Natural Resources Canada programs and other departmental programs. When the Conservatives came to power a few years ago, Treasury Board was ordered to assess all federal government programs from Transport Canada to Natural Resources Canada to Environment Canada. Impact assessments were conducted, but things changed when the time came to assess the impact of eliminating the court challenges program.

The Commissioner of Official Languages was clear: eliminating the program was a major blow to francophone communities. His inquiry clearly showed that the government did not assess or take into account the impact on official language communities.

As I said earlier,on October 25, 2006, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada brought the case before the Federal Court on October, acting on behalf of francophone communities and citizens in Canada who took things one step further. They decided to complain to the commissioner. They felt that their rights had been violated. They submitted over 999 complaints to the commissioner's office, including 117 complaints concerning the court challenges program specifically. These communities did not just appeal the government's decision before the Federal Court; they also decided to submit a formal complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages—a complaint that we believe is justified and justifiable.

Funding provided by a number of groups was an effective way to advance the human rights agenda in Canada in two areas, one of which was protecting the rights of francophones. Many of the cases funded by the program resulted in important language rights precedents in Canadian constitutional law. They made a significant contribution to official language minority rights in Canada.

I will mention a few cases: Doucet-Boudreau, Montfort Hospital, and Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island, which led to the establishment of quality schools equivalent to most existing ones. This ruling is applied in a good number of provinces and territories: Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories. If not for this program, schools equal in quality to the majority of educational institutions probably would not have been built in many provinces.

The impact on French language minority groups of abolishing the court challenges program is catastrophic. In recent months, certain groups—particularly historically disadvantaged groups—as well as French language minority groups appeared before the standing committee to discuss the disappearance of the court challenges program. They talked about the benefits of this program in recent years.

I urge the government to acknowledge the recommendation to clearly explain to Canadians the reasons for abolishing the court challenges program. Based on the explanations provided by the parliamentary secretary for the region of Quebec a few minutes ago, we now find that the reasons are far from clear, far from acceptable.

Was it abolished in the name of good management and cost-effectiveness? Are these the government's reasons? Would we abolish a program that protects the rights of francophone communities because it is not profitable? On this side of the House we find that unacceptable.

Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to say that the court challenges program was created in 1978. It is very important to say that the program was created at a time when language rights and their impact on national unity were the subject of intense public debate in Canada. The 1969 Official Languages Act, Quebec's 1977 Charter of the French Language, and a number of important language-related court cases were other elements that contributed to bringing language rights to the forefront of political debates across Canada.

It is very important to point out that the purpose of the program is to clarify certain constitutional provisions concerning equality and language rights.

It is incredibly important to remember why the program was originally created some 30 years ago. It established a foundation of case law to clarify not only linguistic rights, but other rights guaranteed under the Charter of Right and Freedoms. Here we are 30 years later and there is a strong argument to be made that the law in fact has been clarified. The law is a living organism and will continue to evolve, but the substantive base in case law has been established, defining these rights. That is an incredibly important thing to remember.

Would the member opposite acknowledge that there is an argument to be made for this, and that there was good reason, in that sense, to move with the cancellation of the program?

Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has one minute to respond.

Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I disagree. The government's arguments are neither justified nor justifiable.

Francophone communities and francophones in North America make up just 2% of the population on this continent. We have to recognize that if these minorities want to survive, if they want to pass down their linguistic heritage and baggage to succeeding generations, they need the means to do so. That applies to the Official Languages Act, which protects francophones, and it applies to the legal means that we have to make available to francophones so they can defend themselves properly.

The government's explanations are therefore unacceptable.

Official LanguagesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Accordingly, debate on the motion is deferred until a future sitting. When we return to the second report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie will have six minutes left in his question and comment period.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

On the Order: Private Members' Business October 16, 2007--Mr. Gaudet (Montcalm)--Second reading and reference to the Standing committee on industry, science and technology of bill C-454, An Act to amend the competition act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Montcalm is not present to move the order as announced in today's notice paper. Accordingly, the bill will be dropped to bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 1:31 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 25 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:31 p.m.)