Bill S-3 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French)

[Marcel Fallu]

The obligation to take positive measures was introduced into part VII of the Official Languages Act in 2005, through Bill S‑3.

I won't repeat everything that stakeholders have argued before this committee, but let's just say that over the years, a number of criticisms have been made about implementation. The jurisprudence has also evolved. The latest decision on this issue is the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling in the case between the FFCB and ESDC.

The wording “measures that it considers appropriate” found in Bill C‑13 and the current wording used in subsection 41(2) of the act have the same meaning, although the words are slightly different. In essence, it is still a binding obligation on federal institutions.

As Ms. Boyer mentioned, adding the word “necessary” could introduce a bit of a filter. That is probably not what was intended, but we think that this language could create a ceiling, or a requirement to demonstrate why something is necessary. In contrast, the language found in the current act and the language found in Bill C‑13 gives federal institutions the flexibility to decide the best means.

[Mark Power, Lawyer, Power Law, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for this invitation to discuss with you a subject about which I am passionate, but which is also important for Canada as a whole: the status of the official languages and the future of our communities.

In the few minutes I have, I thought it would be useful to provide a brief historical overview to get us all on the same page and fully understand what is happening today, both in the Senate and the House of Commons, in terms of the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

You have in your hands a small document. I see that even Ms. Boucher has it.

First of all, we must not forget that, when Canada was created in 1867, the status of French was almost not protected. At the time, the talk was about the status of English in the National Assembly, the status of French here in the federal Parliament, in legislation, or in spoken form. Beyond that, there was nothing. Basically, things got off to a bad start. Our forefathers had been promised that French and English would be the two official languages in all areas of activity, but the Constitution did not reflect that promise. It led to an extremely difficult period, which caused French Canada to wake up, especially in Quebec, but not in that province alone.

At tab 3 of the document, you will find a passage, in French, from Graham Fraser's book entitled Sorry, I Don't Speak French. It is followed by the passage in English. On pages 41 and 42 of the French passage, you will find a quite incredible historical account of when the Social Créditistes from Quebec arrived in Ottawa. When they arrived, they decried the English-only menu in the Parliamentary restaurant, the VIA Rail announcements at the Ottawa station, and so on.

French Canadians, especially Quebec francophones, were so successful in their complaints about the state of affairs that it led to the creation of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission in the 1960s. It produced its first report in 1965 and a real legislative movement. That is why we are talking to each other today. The real legislative movement, of course, was the first Official Languages Act, introduced in 1968 and passed in 1969.

To remind you of the significant path that Canada has taken in a few generations, I invite you to take a look at the document at tab 1. You can read it on the plane, the train, or before you go to sleep. This is the statement by the Prime Minister at the time, the father of Justin Trudeau, explaining what Canada was trying to do when it introduced that first Official Languages Act.

This was not about partisanship. Mr. Trudeau's speech was advocating for decolonization. He said how much French Canadians have suffered. The speech was well received by all parties in the House. It led to the first Official Languages Act, passed in 1969. You will find it at tab 4.

The good news is that the status of French took a big leap forward, and English was also protected. That had never been the case previously. The bad news is that no implementation mechanism worthy of the name had been included. The implementation had to be done in bits and pieces. Each federal institution was responsible for looking after its own needs. As you can imagine, when a minister was interested, things went well, otherwise, they did not.

Then, in 1982, we had the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That allowed the status of French especially, but also English in Quebec, to take another big leap forward. A minimum level of education in English was required.

In the 1970s, your predecessors in Parliament, both in the House of Commons and the Senate, began to deplore the inadequacies of the first Official Languages Act. This led to all kinds of interesting debates. I am not talking about the Meech Lake accord, or the one in Charlottetown, but about the Official Languages Act. Those debates culminated in the act that you know so well and in which you are experts. Since then, it has been concluded that it has to be modernized through and through. I am guessing that one of the questions is to determine how to achieve that. You will find the legislative text at tab 5.

Some more fascinating bedside reading can be found at tab 2. It is a speech by Ray Hnatyshyn, who was the member of Parliament for Saskatoon West at the time, at second reading of a bill, followed by a speech by Jean-Robert Gauthier, speaking for the Liberals, once more underlining the lack of partisanship in the issue. Everyone was in full agreement on the need to review the Official Languages Act from top to bottom. That is what your predecessors did in 1988 and it is what must be done now, quick like a bunny, as our mothers might say.

What does the 1988 act do? I want to highlight three things that we see as important for your work.

The first is that the implementation mechanism has to be completely rethought. In 1969, the implementation of the act was vague. In 1988, almost all the responsibility was placed in the hands of the Treasury Board. Why the Treasury Board? Because it is a central agency that is able, as you know, to give other federal institutions their marching orders.

That was a conscious decision, and it received the support of all parties in the House of Commons. The objective was to correct the errors in the first act and to equip ourselves with the ways to proceed if we really wanted to get things done.

That is reflected in Part VIII of the Official Languages Act. It starts at section 46 and is entitled “Responsibilities and Duties of Treasury Board in Relation to the Official Languages of Canada”. That is clear.

The second thing to stress with the 1988 act is, of course, Part VII, which encourages federal institutions to take measures to foster and enhance the development of French and English everywhere in Canada. These are the famous sections 41, 42 and 43.

I have the impression that we are going to be talking about this after my opening statement, but I want to remind you that Part VII of the act only dates from 1988. When it was passed in 1988, it could not be challenged. In other words, in 1988, no one could go to Federal Court to demand that it be implemented. In addition, Part VII was the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Today, we would say Canadian Heritage. It is one of the only parts of the act that is not the responsibility of Treasury Board. At the time, some people criticized the fact that it probably was not going to work. I am sure you see where I am going with this.

In the Senate, in March 1988, Senator De Bané spoke to Lucien Bouchard, who was Secretary of State at the time and was steering the new Official Languages Act through the federal Parliament. What did Senator De Bané say? Let me read you a passage. Unfortunately, this is not in the document you have. However, I am sure you will agree that it is fascinating:

Second, Mr. Minister, I would like to go back to the section 42 that you alluded to. Let me tell you that, personally, I am very pessimistic about the impact that the Secretary of State will be able to have with a diluted section that reads as follows…

He then read the text of Part VII.

As you know, only two or three organizations in the federal government truly have power of coordination: Treasury Board, the Department of Finance and the Privy Council. I predict, Minister, that section 42 will never give you the authority to tell recalcitrant ministers that, under section 42, they are required to take such and such an action in a certain part of the country in order to help you achieve the objectives of the act. As it stands now, Minister, all that provision will do is cause you frustration. Why did Gérard Pelletier, your predecessor as Secretary of State, transfer to the Treasury Board his responsibilities for upholding bilingualism in the public service? It is not because—and allow me to speak freely—he too has a very close relationship with the Prime Minister. No, it is because the Secretary of State's legislation gave him no coercive power over recalcitrant departments. That is why Gérard Pelletier himself asked, at a certain point, for it to be transferred to the Treasury Board which, by law, must approve the budgets of departments and can impose requirements on them. By so doing, he hoped that he would be able to secure the agreement of those recalcitrant departments, by the back door if necessary. If you think that section 42 as worded will give you those powers, I predict that it will become a major source of frustration for you. Sections like that do not give departments the power to make other departments do work if they do not want to do as you direct.

Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, Senator De Bané was quite right. Between 1988 and 2005, for French Canadians and anglophones in Quebec, the implementation of Part VII was a tale of major frustration. Part VII did not work.

That is what led Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier to amend Part VII in 2005. On that occasion, Senator Gauthier received support from all parties, first in the Senate and then in the House. His bill, which received royal assent, is found at tab 7. In official language communities, it is known as Bill S-3.

What does the bill do? It makes Part VII open to challenge. In other words, it makes it possible to go to Federal Court. Now, what Senator Gauthier, or any of your predecessors in Parliament, did not do—I don’t think any member here was there in 1988—was transfer responsibility for Part VII to the Treasury Board.

This may seem strange to you, coming from a lawyer, but Senator Gauthier, instead of choosing an administrative route, chose a legal route, and the result was a disaster. But I say that with the greatest respect and the greatest admiration for the person who previously represented the constituency of Ottawa-Vanier. He made a mistake, everyone made a mistake. Everyone underestimated the rigidity of federal institutions.

Why do I say that? Because, last May, the Federal Court said that Part VII means nothing. So Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier's amendment had no result. Essentially, the act as a whole is ailing.

At tab 8, you will find some passages from Justice Gascon’s decision. The case, entitled Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v. Canada (Employment and Social Development, essentially, but not exclusively, dealt with the interpretation of Part VII.

I feel it will be useful for your work to read paragraph 213. You will find it at tab 8. It may hurt to read it, but sometimes it is important to understand the problem. Towards the end of paragraph 213 of the decision, Justice Gascon says:

Clearly, the text of the Act reveals that the expression “positive measures” does not mean the same thing as these other types of measures. It clearly does not have the same attributes of comprehensiveness, necessity, precision or sufficiency found elsewhere in the OLA.

Part VII does not say what we wanted it to say.

Let me quote one last passage. This is paragraph 216, and this is where it really hurts. The paragraph begins:

In short, section 41 does not impose specific and particular duties on federal institutions. The language used in subsection 41(2) is devoid of all specificity.

In my world, what do we do when things do not go well before a judge? We file an appeal, which is what is happening here. We will see what the position of the Government of Canada will be on appeal. In my world, winning is what really counts. What does winning look like? Going before parliamentarians and asking for the act to be appropriately amended.

That brings us back to the topic at hand: what to do with legislation that is clearly inadequate? As we see it, the time has come to rewrite the act completely, as your predecessors did in 1988. The time has come to take the act, section by section, and to ask ourselves whether it still makes sense in 2018 or 2019. Sometimes, the answer may be yes. If not, the provisions of the act will have to be improved.

Part VII is not the only one that must be rethought. We must also consider the major changes that have taken place in Canada over the course of time.

Let me invite you to look at tab 10. The wonderful map you will find there is such stuff as dreams are made on. It tells us that French can survive outside Quebec.

None of those schools outside Quebec existed in 1982. Some of them, in Nova Scotia, were established through the efforts of the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. It is a fact that our communities are doing better than ever. But the Official Languages Act of 1988 does not reflect the impact of school administration. School boards are not major players. Very recently, the proposal has been made, through Ms. Joly and Mr. Brison, to amend the federal government's Official Languages Regulations to recognize the existence of a school as a sign of a community's vitality. However, that is all. We have to rethink the act in light of the fact that French Canada is doing much better than in the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s.

Ideas are coming from all sorts of sources. There are good ideas and ideas that are less good. Let me invite you to take a look at tab 6. There you will find a list as long as your arm, in French and English, of all kinds of bills that tried in vain to amend the Official Languages Act before 2015, that is, before the last federal election. You have ideas of your own. You and the senators hear all kinds of witnesses proposing ideas for reform that are basically good.

In conclusion, in our professional capacity as lawyers, we have four recommendations for you.

First, more power must be given to the Treasury Board. In the 1988 act, everything attributed to the Treasury Board as a central agency was optional. In 1988, it was anticipated that the central agency could act. Instead, we should demand that one central agency be responsible for the official languages.

Second, official languages communities must be given a right to participate and a right to be consulted before major governmental decisions are made. Of course, I am not talking about a right of veto; I am not that naive. The idea is to make sure that official languages communities, language communities in general, can participate in public debates before major decisions are made, just because it is in their interest. We do it for indigenous peoples and rightly so. We should also be able to do it for French-speaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians.

Third, there must be an appropriate accountability framework. By that, I mean an administrative tribunal that can hear and deal with disputes or problems with the implementation of the act. But the role and responsibilities of Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages must also be rethought. They go hand-in-hand. Some things are going well but some things are going very badly.

Fourth and last, the rest of the act must be rethought. The obligations that should be in the act must be rethought. The rights that should be granted in the act must be rethought. The list is very long. I know that some witnesses have already begun to draw up that list. You have your own ideas. The message is that this federal act needs to be rethought and passed once more, and the sooner the better.

Thank you for your attention.

Opposition Motion--Long form census

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the debate today because I had a wonderful opportunity all day yesterday and half the day today to be a spectator at a presentation that was being held not far from here in one of the two courts in the Supreme Court of Canada building, the Federal Court of Canada. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne was there to present its application to have the government's decision announced in August overturned and to request an order to make the census form that the government is proposing to send out next year mandatory and not voluntary.

I will mainly focus on the official languages aspect of this unfortunate decision by the government to drop the long form census—as it is proposing to do—which was mandatory, and to make it voluntary, although sent to more people. The people from Statistics Canada have testified by affidavit. I could provide the hon. member opposite with a quote from the testimony of these people who, without reservation, have said that information obtained by Statistics Canada, government agencies and all those using such a survey, would be less valid and reliable than information obtained through a mandatory census form.

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne is focusing mainly on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act, part VII, subsections 41(1) and 41(2) in particular. Some colleagues in the House will recall that it was in 2005 that we made the last changes to this section of the act that I will now read in order to give everyone some context in this debate.

Subsection 41(1) of the Official Languages Act states that:

The Government of Canada is committed to (a) enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and (b) fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

Subsection 41(2), entitled, “Duty of federal institutions”, reads:

Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation of the commitments under subsection (1). For greater certainty, this implementation shall be carried out while respecting the jurisdiction and powers of the provinces.

I mentioned that these amendments were passed in 2005, when we were in power. I was the minister responsible. And I must say to my colleagues across the way that they supported these amendments. Also, I thought that they had understood the meaning of what they had approved at that time.

I would like to make a few comments about the intent of the lawmaker at that time. The commissioner of official languages at that time, Dyane Adam, made a wonderful comparison that I would like to share. The lawmaker's main intention was to create an obligation for all agencies and departments in the Government of Canada.

I would like to remind the members that this section was added to the Official Languages Act in 1988 under the Mulroney government. But it was mainly seen as a wish and not an obligation. It was not binding. In 2005, as a result of Bill S-3, which was introduced by my predecessor in the House, Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, we jointly amended the Official Languages Act to create this obligation and make it binding on all agencies and departments. I want to highlight that this law, which was implemented within a year, applies to all departments and agencies.

At that time, Ms. Adam made a comparison to help people understand the new obligation that had been created. It was an obligation to act positively because we were dealing with positive measures. She compared it to a trip to the doctor. If someone goes to the doctor, the doctor is obligated to act and must, therefore, make a diagnosis. And that combines the government's obligation to undertake consultations and to obtain the most accurate information possible. With this diagnosis, the doctor can then prescribe something—medication, an operation or something else. There is an obligation to act. There is no guarantee of results, but there is an obligation to act on the diagnosis.

With the adoption of this section of the act, Government of Canada departments and agencies now have the obligation to act based on consultation, that is, based on information which, it is hoped, is as accurate as possible. Hence the responsibility of one agency in particular, Statistics Canada, to do what it must to obtain accurate information. This was part of the basis for the application of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne to the court. I am anxious to see the court's decision. It seems that the decision may come fairly quickly given the circumstances. I will be watching. I understand the sub judice convention. I spoke about the facts and did not venture into interpretation. I will leave that to the courts, and that is as it should be.

I was listening to the presentation by the government's lawyers this morning. They argued that because there are no regulations there is no obligation with respect to the census. That argument is somewhat disturbing because we must not forget the legal hierarchy where the Constitution is at the top, followed by laws, and after the laws, there may be regulations, and after regulations, there may be guidelines for application. Just because there are no regulations does not mean that the law is null and void and that the responsibilities of the agencies and the government with respect to the law are diminished. That seems to be the gist of what they were arguing this morning. I look forward to the court's decision and eventually, if there is an appeal, the final decision. In fact, it may be appropriate at that time for lawmakers to adjust the act by regulation or amendments so that the intention is not misunderstood.

I would also like to say that the government's decision is unfortunate because if it is not reversed, it would affect everything that has been done since the last census, the post-census studies. This point is worth our consideration. A post-census study does not just have to do with official languages, but that is certainly one important aspect. For example, not too long ago, I went to visit my friends in the Eastern Townships. They were nice; they gave me a study, in both languages, on the anglophone community in the Eastern Townships.

It is “Profile of the English-speaking Community in the Eastern Townships”, second edition. They were quite proud to give me this document, because it is a document that gives a very precise profile of their communities and their membership. It would be rather disastrous if we could not produce this kind of document and profile anymore, which would be a consequence of not having the mandatory long form census.

I have tried to understand the government's intention here, and all I can conclude—and we all agree, at least those who bothered to try to understand—that as soon as a census becomes optional, the wealthy will be less inclined to fill it out in full, and so will the poor and the most vulnerable. So we will have a less-than-complete portrait of society and its inequalities. The only thing I can figure is that by abolishing this mandatory census the government is trying to camouflage, conceal or hide all of the inequalities in our society. Then it would feel less pressure to create programs to eliminate these inequalities, or at least to reduce them. I find that deplorable.

Now it is very clear that the government is not presenting us with a hidden agenda. Their agenda is clear, and Canadians have to deal with it.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

With respect to the changes made to Part VII of the Official Languages Act and as concerns Bill S-3, which was adopted four years ago... At that time, I was committee chair. We were very hopeful. We thought that that was something positive, that we would be going beyond mere obligations and would be working on the vitality of the official languages. However, I don't get the impression measures were taken in that direction. I haven't seen any directives from the departments.

Shouldn't more and more be done to integrate the changes made to Part VII of the Act?

Official languages

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Gatineau for his comments on the court challenges program.

And I would be remiss if I did not thank Mr. Michaud and Mr. Doucet in New Brunswick for the volunteer work they have done for the Acadians. They fought a battery of government lawyers. I tip my hat to them. Thank you on behalf of the Acadians and all the francophones and minorities in the country.

Bill S-3, which was passed by Parliament, was Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier's cause. He fought for it for years and presented the bill in the House of Commons three times. The bill was rejected the first two times, but the third time it passed. I remember that because, at the time, I had a lot of discussions with Conservative MPs, who were then in opposition, to find out whether they were going to support the bill. In the end, they did support it and they said they were proud to do so.

I would like the hon. member for Gatineau to give me his opinion on the following text:

This enactment amends the Official Languages Act to enhance the enforceability of the Government of Canada's obligations under Part VII of the Act.

Part VII of the Act is now enforceable. What does “enforceable” mean? I would like the hon. member's opinion on that. Part VII of the Official Languages Act clearly states, in section 43(2):

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate to ensure public consultation in the development of policies and review of programs relating to the advancement and the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society.

Bill S-3 was intended to protect and enhance the law.

In its defence, the government clearly said that Bill S-3 did not change anything and that the court should not get involved in the government's decisions. That is outrageous and unacceptable. The government does not even respect the very legislation that was passed in this Parliament. The Conservatives, who were in opposition at the time, voted for a bill, but said that the bill did not mean anything. I would like the opinion of the hon. member for Gatineau on this.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand to speak to the second report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages which deals with the Court Challenges Program.

The first recommendation of the report is the following:

That the government clearly explain to Canadians its reasons for cancelling the Court Challenges Program.

The second recommendation is as follows:

That the Government of Canada re-establish the Court Challenges Program under the terms of the contribution agreement that was in effect before its cancellation was announced on September 25, 2006.

We must ask ourselves a few questions: What is the court challenges program? How can it be explained? Why is it important for minority communities across Canada, whether they be francophone as in some regions or anglophone as in Quebec?

For example, according to section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the rights and privileges of confessional schools are protected. Section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, states that French and English can both be used in the Manitoba legislative assembly and in the publication of acts adopted by that assembly. All that relates to language rights.

Sections 16 and 22 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Constitution Act, 1982 establish French and English as the two official languages of Canada and New Brunswick. These sections address issues related to parliamentary proceedings, publication of statutes and records, courts and tribunals, and communication with the public.

Section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Constitution Act, 1982 establishes minority language education rights, including the right of linguistic minorities to manage their schools.

Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Constitution Act, 1982 protects the freedom of expression—eligible cases defined by the program mandate.

Section 15 protects equality rights, equal benefit of the law without discrimination.

Section 28 protects the equality of men and women.

Section 2 protects fundamental freedoms; section 27, multiculturalism—eligible cases defined by the program mandate.

I wanted to review the legislation, because it is important. We all know that Canada has legislation that governs our two official languages, French and English or English and French.

We have had legislation for years, but nothing concrete was done. Consider the Official Languages Act. In part VII, section 41 of the Official Languages Act states:

41(1) The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

Subsection 41(2) states:

41(2) Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation of the commitments under subsection (1). For greater certainty, this implementation shall be carried out while respecting the jurisdiction and powers of the provinces.

Let us look at what happened and why a report has been tabled in the House of Commons. In 2007, parliamentarians from all political parties toured the country on the issue of official languages. The Standing Committee on Official Languages has been in existence for 25 years. Never before had the political parties agreed to have the committee travel across the country to talk to Canadians and Quebeckers about what they thought of the Official Languages Act, how the government complied with the act or whether there were any needs that the parliamentarians could lay before Parliament.

I had the honour to chair the Standing Committee on Official Languages that made the national tour. We left from St. John's, Newfoundland, and travelled to Moncton, where we met with individuals and organization representatives from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. We went on to Sherbrooke, Quebec. We visited Bishop's University, an English-language university in Quebec. We did not want to go just to Montreal, McGill and English-language communities. We wanted to go to Sherbrooke to visit smaller anglophone minority communities in Quebec. We travelled to Toronto, Sudbury, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina and Vancouver. We toured the country and met people from every province.

When we did this tour, even though we were talking about official languages, the federal government had already decided to abolish the court challenges program, which provided individuals and organizations with funding to go to court when they felt the act and their language rights had been violated. They could seek a judgment from the Federal Court of Canada or a provincial court.

Members of all the political parties were on this national tour. At every meeting we held, people talked about the court challenges program. Everywhere we went, as soon as we began the meeting and gave the first witness a chance to speak, the court challenges program came up. For minorities in Canada, it was the tool that enabled them to go to court when they felt their rights had been violated. The court challenges program is very important to Canadians. It gives individuals the opportunity to defend their rights in federal court and other courts.

In New Brunswick, for example, the court challenges program made it possible for citizens to go to court. They won and obtained their schools. The same thing happened in Prince Edward Island. In New Brunswick, Ms. Paulin, from the Tracadie-Sheila area, was pulled over by the RCMP in Fredericton and wanted to be spoken to in French; however, the RCMP refused. The case went to court and the expenses were paid by the court challenges program. In this example, the RCMP and the Province of New Brunswick decided to provide service in both languages as a result of an out-of-court settlement. Without this program, francophones in New Brunswick would never have obtained this right, even though we have the Official Languages Act. The RCMP, a federal police force, did not want to provide service in both official languages. Furthermore, this happened in New Brunswick, a province officially recognized as bilingual by the Constitution.

A decision was handed down. In cases such as that of Ms. Paulin, how can you expect an individual to take the Government of Canada, or a provincial government, to the Federal Court and win the case? This will never happen and these cases will never form part of our jurisprudence.

The Conservative federal government has said that there should not be court challenges because the provinces have legal aid. For goodness sake! Legal aid was definitely not intended for language cases. No one can ask legal aid lawyers to defend such cases.

A report was presented to the minister in December. Furthermore, another report was presented in May of last year on court challenges. However, the government response provided by the Minister of Official Languages says absolutely nothing about court challenges. She completely ignored them.

We are coming to a sad realization today. As I said, we toured Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, British Columbia and Ontario. In Sudbury, we were told in no uncertain terms that there would not be no Collège Boréal in Sudbury, Timmins and Kapuskasing or French-speaking institutions in Ontario today if it were not for the court challenges program. Also, Mrs. Lalonde made it clear to us that what made the difference in allowing Montfort Hospital to win its case recently was the $70,000 received by the foundation under the court challenges program. They were short by that amount to be able to continue litigation.

It is important to recall that the ministers involved at the provincial level, in Ontario, at the time are the same ones who are now sitting at the federal level. The former Minister of Finance of Ontario is now the Minister of Finance here, in the House, in the Conservative government. When he was in the Harris government, he wanted to shut down Montfort, the only teaching hospital in Ontario where training could be provided in French, among other things. He wanted to shut it down. Then, the government took away from us this instrument for justice.

The government contended that this was a program for the Liberals and that lawyers were riding the money train. I know that is not true of those lawyers who worked on cases in New Brunswick. Incidentally, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada was in court Monday morning in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on an issue involving the court challenges program. The lawyers who worked on behalf of the organization, lawyers like Michel Doucet, did not even charge the organization one red cent. It is not true that lawyers work on that case to make money. These lawyers are volunteering their time to the cause of bilingualism in Canada. It is shameful that they are treated the way they are.

I would go even further. What did the government, the Conservative minister responsible for the cuts tell Parliament at the time? He said that the government would not pay for people to hire lawyers to fight the government, that it would not pay for that.

Who pays for the government's lawyers though? The taxpayers do. When an ordinary citizen goes before the court to seek justice, is the government prepared not to fight through its lawyers and let the court settle the case? No, it sends its lawyers whose fees are paid by the taxpayers.

A case like the one that was heard on Monday and Tuesday in Fredericton, regarding the Court Challenges Program, can cost between $25,000 and $30,000 just for legal fees. The government and its lawyers came to court. They started by asking the court to agree with them. The government wants to be right.

In addition, the government wants the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada to pay the legal fees if the federation loses its case. If the judge finds in favour of the government, the government wants the federation to pay the legal fees.

The big government, with its billions of dollars of surplus, is telling ordinary people that if they lose their case, they will have to pay the legal fees. Not only that but, in its claim, the government is telling judges that they cannot dictate how it should spend money. Imagine that. The government is saying that the judges cannot dictate how it should spend its money. The government is also saying that, although an official languages act exists, it can be broken. If the government breaks that law, citizens are not allowed to go to court, and judges are not allowed find in favour of them.

What about all the cases that have been won? What about all the cases regarding schools, for example? What about the Montfort Hospital case, which was won?

The government is saying that the court does not have the right to tell the government how to spend public funds. It is simple. The government even says this in its application. This is its defence:

Generally speaking, it is not the courts' job to tell the government how to spend public funds. It is the political officials' job, and the voters will judge their actions.

Too bad for the minority. The Conservative government is telling the minority that if it wants to fight the government, it will have to use its own money and it will have to pay costs if it loses its case, because this government does not even want to pay court costs or its own expenses.

What is more, the government is telling the judges that they have no business ruling on the case, because it is not up to them to tell the government how to spend its money.

The government is insulting the minority. The minority, francophones, individuals, anglophones in Montreal: these are not the big oil companies in Alberta. When big companies with tons of money take us to court, then maybe we can tell them that they will have to pay our costs because they took us to court. But we cannot ask regular people to pay $30,000 in costs if they lose their case. Not only does the government not want to pay by way of the court challenges program, but if people have the nerve to stand up and defend their rights, they will have to pay.

And the Conservatives say they support francophone Canada? They say they support bilingualism in Canada and will respect it? I have a hard time believing that. I have a hard time believing that because of what they did yesterday and the day before in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

New Brunswickers were forced to go to court to fight for rights they are already guaranteed under Canada's Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act.

They even went further. Just imagine. A bill was passed here a few years ago and, at the time, the Conservatives supported it. Yesterday, in its arguments on Bill S-3, which makes the Official Languages Act binding, the government said that this legislation had not changed anything. Just imagine. The government told the New Brunswick justice that Bill S-3 had not changed anything, and that the court should not get involved in the decisions made by the government.

The way minorities in Canada are treated is pathetic. That said, I am pleased that this bill was introduced. Let us hope that the government will open its eyes on this issue. It should regret that, in the budget that it just tabled in the House, there is not even a penny for minorities in Canada, or for official languages. The government says that it will look at this issue later on. This means that such is the situation for official languages in Canada, and that the issue will be looked at later on.

They had two years to implement an action plan to help official language minorities in Canada, that is anglophones in Quebec and francophones in the rest of Canada. However, through its decisions, the government is ignoring the official languages of this country and is refusing to respect them.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

If you take a step back, I would like to know whether you think there have been changes in government since Bill S-3 was adopted. Have communities or people expressed their concerns to you that things might not really be changing?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I will focus on my new responsibilities as the official opposition's heritage and official languages critic.

I will share my time with the member for Mississauga—Erindale.

I believe that the Conservative government should offer a coherent vision of cultural life in Canada, a vision that does not neglect our cultural industries, our artistic institutions, our museums, our artists or our public broadcaster.

The Conservatives did not do that. In the throne speech there was mention of finally acting on copyright, but there were no details as to content or timing. Legislation had been promised before June 2006 on this matter and then before Christmas 2006. Now, 18 months later, we may get this legislation.

When the minister spoke yesterday, many were hoping to hear a few details on that and her thoughts on a number of other important dossiers in the matters of heritage. Yesterday there was not a word. There was not a word about our public broadcaster, not a word about reassuring Canadians as to whether or not the Reform dissenting opinion of the Lincoln report in 2003 still holds, which would have privatized CBC. There was not a word from the minister on that.

There was not a word about a museums policy. There was not a word about the museums assistance program. The Canadian Museums Association had been given a commitment that a policy would be forthcoming before Christmas 2006. Christmas came and went and it did not get that policy. Yesterday there was not a word.

The Prime Minister announced that the Government of Canada would finance the operational costs of the new human rights museum in Winnipeg, which is fine, but there is still a question mark as to whether or not the $22 million will be coming from an existing envelope or whether the envelope overall will be increased. My information is that it is from the existing envelope, therefore choking off the existing museums, so much so that they have to do fundraising, as has been reported, to make acquisitions. There was not a word about all of this.

There was also not a word about increasing the museums assistance program. In the last election the Conservatives promised to actually increase the funding to small museums across the country. Lo and behold, what they did instead was the opposite. They reduced the museums assistance program. There was not a word about that.

There was not a word about the exhibition transportation services for museums and galleries, which is very useful to the smaller galleries and museums. This will expire at the end of March 2008. There was not a word about that.

There was not a word about the portrait gallery. Many people have been asking about that. What is the policy framework within which the government will be making the decision as to where the portrait gallery should be located?

There was not a word about the television fund. Will it ever be A-based? Will it be indexed? What about funding for Telefilm and the National Film Board? Will they be increased? Will they be indexed? There was not a word.

There was not a word about festivals. There was not a word about where the minister is vis-à-vis the CRTC and Canadian content and foreign ownership restrictions.

Right now we have a situation where the government has, by executive fiat, which comes from the industry department and not from the heritage department, directed the CRTC essentially to let market forces dominate. Is the minister's silence consent as to this direction for Canadian cultural industries, Canadian television and film content? If it is, perhaps she should have said so yesterday.

Canada's cultural and artistic communities have not been given enough information. They do not know what to expect from the Conservative government. This is not unlike what happened when the federal government copied the Liberal Party's promise during the last election campaign to double funding for the Council for the Arts. As it turns out, that is not at all what the government has done.

The minister talked exclusively about official languages earlier, and that is fine, but she could have mentioned her other portfolio: Canadian Heritage.

With respect to official languages, she congratulated herself on having signed service and education agreements with all of the provinces. I should hope so, because by the time the government came to power, those agreements had already been negotiated and confirmed. All she had to do was sign them. The Conservatives can go ahead and take all the credit, but they really should give credit where credit is due.

The minister said that she met with the ministers responsible for la Francophonie a month ago. However, she failed to mention that these very ministers issued a press release demanding that the federal government renew the action plan that was introduced by its predecessor in 2003.

Let us talk about this plan. This begs a fundamental question: does the Conservative government intend to renew the plan? It found all manner of ways to avoid this word, avoid this specific commitment. What the linguistic minority communities across the country are asking for, and what the ministers responsible for la Francophonie across the country asked for, is that the action plan be renewed. In the Speech from the Throne, there is not a single occurrence of the word “renewal”. The government has chosen its words carefully.

The minister wanted to focus on the issue of official languages; we were hoping she would, because it is not clear. Would the plan be renewed for one year, two years, five years? It is not clear. How much money would be allocated? Not a word. Are we talking about broadening this action plan? A promise was made after many consultations with the communities. It was a matter of broadening the plan to incorporate programs for young people, women, seniors, culture and international issues. Not a word.

She did not talk about the setbacks we have had under her government either; the cancellation of the court challenges program, for example. As for the Official Languages Secretariat, which was a branch of the Privy Council, the government decided to transfer it to Canadian Heritage, when we know full well that a secretariat located in a central agency has a lot more influence and a greater ability to take action.

Were it not for the existence of this secretariat at the Privy Council when I was minister responsible for official languages, we would not have succeeded in getting language clauses in the early childhood agreements with every province. What did this government do? It relieved the Privy Council of its role in official languages and gave that role to Canadian Heritage. The communities are having a hard time getting their bearings. The minister could have said a few words about this, but she chose not to say a word.

As for the new round of budget cuts just starting, which her department is subject to, would the action plan for official languages be protected from these cuts this time? Not a word.

As for the Department of National Defence in this struggle to promote linguistic duality, and we totally agree that it is the role of the Government of Canada to ensure that the Official Languages Act is respected across the country, there is not a word. National Defence has given up and there is not a word on this from the government.

Nor was anything said about one of the Prime Minister's first actions when he came to power, informing us that he intended to cancel all early childhood agreements—the very agreements that had been negotiated and that communities were celebrating from one end of the country to the other. It is a major setback for these communities. The minister did not say one word about this.

There is not one word about the fact that, after they were elected, the Conservatives decided that the Commissioner of Official Languages, an officer of this House, would no longer report to the Prime Minister but would report to another minister. Previous governments had indicated the importance they attributed to the issue of linguistic duality and the official languages. They said that, in terms of the government, the Commissioner of Official Languages reported to the Prime Minister. In terms of his mandate, he obviously reports to the House of Commons, as he should.

However, even more disturbing, there is not a word about Bill S-3. When in opposition, his government supported the bill, which dealt with the last amendments to the Official Languages Act made in November 2005, when everyone was celebrating.

Where are the plans that were to come out of the application of Bill S-3? Where is the regulatory framework? Where are the consultations that will result in the regulations? Where is the cabinet committee on official languages, the ad hoc committee that has not met, as far as I know, for 18 months? What is the minister doing about these matters?

All I can do, as did the Commissioner for Official Languages in his first report, is criticize the Prime Minister and his government for not having backed up these lovely words with concrete action.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 16, I asked the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages how embarrassed she was to learn that the Commissioner of Official Languages was criticizing the abolition of the court challenges program. This program helped keep the Montfort Hospital going in Vanier, here in the Ottawa area. It also helped groups such as francophones in Alberta and Saskatchewan and Acadians fight for their own schools.

We know that the government did not decide to abolish the court challenges program to achieve economies of scale. It was for purely ideological reasons, but in the process, the government has violated the rights to equality of women, homosexuals, first nations, immigrants and official language minorities in Quebec and the rest of Canada. In fact, a number of minority groups have been hurt by the abolition of this program.

And what about the federal government's decision to eliminate the requirement that senior military officers be bilingual? What about the federal government's appointment of a unilingual anglophone as ombudsman for victims of crime? What about the appointment of a chair of the National Capital Commission in Ottawa who does not speak a word of French in a so-called bilingual region?

My question was: why has the government repeatedly attacked official language rights and equal respect for French and English? However, the examples I gave were mainly about French.

We also know that on October 17, 2006, the current Prime Minister said that the court challenges program was no longer useful because his government intended to respect the Constitution. That adds insult to injury because by abolishing the court challenges program, the current government is respecting neither the Official Languages Act nor the famous Bill S-3, which strengthened the Official Languages Act. The government voted in favour of the bill, but is not respecting it. Part VII stipulates that the government must take action to ensure respect for official languages.

The Prime Minister's statements are contradictory. Moreover, the federal government cannot guarantee that provincial governments, school boards, school divisions, municipalities and other bodies will respect the Constitution. That is why the court challenges program must remain in place.

Just today, the Quebec Community Groups Network itself told us that it believes that by eliminating this program, the government is failing to respect the act. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, said this in committee, as did the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. The Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick said it before the Standing Committee on Official Languages today. Gisèle Lalonde, who led the fight to keep the Montfort hospital, emphasized this point. Guy Matte, who chaired the court challenges program, was not even consulted about the effectiveness of the program.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak during the late show this evening about the court challenges program.

On September 26, 2006, almost a year ago, the Conservative government abolished the court challenges program, which provided minorities with the means to defend their rights in court. When we say “defend their rights” we must not forget that it is extremely expensive to go to court, so it was a way to help minorities.

Let us remember the facts about the court challenges program. Initially, this program was introduced by the Liberal government. After Brian Mulroney's Conservative government was elected, the program was cancelled, only to be reinstated by Jean Chrétien's government several years later. Then this program was once again abolished. By whom? It just so happens that it was by another Conservative government, in September 2006.

There are some myths to debunk. The court challenges program is very useful, as I mentioned earlier. In terms of official languages, it helped francophones outside Quebec. We must look further than that. This program also helps anglophones in Quebec, religious minorities, the disabled, women and all other minorities. I say “women” despite the fact that women in Canada are not a minority, but a majority. But this is still the reality. This was what the court challenges program was for.

We can see the benefits of this program for all minorities across Canada. Under the court challenges program, several groups were able to defend their language rights with respect to their schools or hospitals, or to obtain French-language services. This has allowed many communities and many families to obtain services in French. This has also helped many young people in various communities, often rural ones, to receive services in French. Previously, it was difficult to obtain them because governments—federal and provincial—did not take the issue seriously and decided that they would not provide services to the minority, even though this is a right in our country. The court challenges program was definitely a useful tool and should definitely be reinstated.

We have the example of French-language schools in the regions and ensuring that services are offered in both official languages. There is also the example of Montfort hospital, located in Ottawa, which would not have survived had the court challenges program not been available, as is the case today. The reality is that people need such a program to assert their rights. It is not so much about respect for the law as it is about asserting one's rights.

The Conservative government has trampled people's rights. In addition, it is contravening the Official Languages Act. As you know, since Bill S-3 was passed in the 38th Parliament, the Official Languages Act has been amended. As it stands, the government must take positive action to ensure that official languages communities have the requisite tools to advance the cause of the French language in their community. By positive, we mean making progress. By eliminating the court challenges program, the Conservative government—

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in this adjournment debate because of a question I raised on May 15, 2007.

I had asked the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages some questions following certain events and decisions taken by the government. The questions had to do with the text panels filled with errors in French at Vimy, the appointment of a unilingual English ombudsman for victims of crime, and the elimination of compulsory bilingualism for the senior ranks of the army. On those issues, we wanted to know what the Prime Minister or the minister had to say to the Commissioner of Official Languages regarding the way the Conservative government is trampling the rights of linguistic minorities. The situation is not getting any better in that regard, especially considering the court challenges program.

Today in the Standing Committee on Official Languages we had the pleasure of receiving the Commissioner of Official Languages. He told us that the Conservative government is absolutely not obeying former Bill S-3, which was passed during the last Parliament and implemented things and gave more teeth to the Official Languages Act, to section 7 among other things. Eliminating the court challenges program is another breach of the act.

The Prime Minister tells us that he wants to eliminate this program because his government will respect the Canadian Constitution and we will therefore no longer need the court challenges program. The Commissioner of Official Languages made it quite clear that we do indeed need this type of program. Furthermore, Mr. Matte, the chair of the court challenges program, and Gisèle Lalonde, who advocated for the Montfort Hospital thanks to this program, illustrated the need for this program.

The federal government cannot force a province, a school board or any agency in society that does not recognize or respect the Canadian Constitution. In Canada, some citizens have to pressure the government through the court in order to have their rights respected and the government shows up with a whole host of lawyers. These agencies do not have the money they need to deal with the expertise before them. The court challenges program is so very necessary.

In light of this situation, I want to know what my Conservative colleagues have to say to the Commissioner of Official Languages about their non-respect for the application of the Official Languages Act, with respect to the examples I have just given.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to raise a few points. Mr. Matte, you have just talked about Bill S-3. I was on the same committee during the last Parliament when we debated the bill. We wanted to do everything we could to get it adopted because we knew that if an election was called, it would die on the order paper, and francophone communities and minority communities would pay the price.

It is strange to see the government members of the committee on the other side of the table who have already voted to implement the positive measures contained in Bill S-3, but when it comes to implementing those measures... Everyone remembers the official languages commissioner talking about "window dressing". The fact remains that no real and concrete measures have been implemented. It basically all comes down to a big fat zero. Back home, we would say that it was "diddly squat", which is even less than zero. That's basically what we have with the present government in Ottawa.

I would like to have a clarification on the issue of costs, because I don't think it's been made clear enough. Some people think that the program costs billions of dollars. You said that the overall budget of the Court Challenges Program was approximately $2.8 million. What part of that amount goes to language rights? We're not talking about millions of dollars, are we?

[Guy Matte]

I believe that the words Mr. Godin has spoken and the way he expressed himself reflect the opinions of a vast number of Canadians about the Court Challenges Program.

We are extremely concerned by the elimination of this program, which has reduced the right to equality of francophones, linguistic minorities and Quebec's anglophones. However, the same Parliament, the same group which had adopted Bill S-3, said that not only would it participate in the development and the growth of official language communities, but that it would also adopt positive measures to ensure their development.

I really don't see how the elimination of the Court Challenges Program represents a positive measure.

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, Bloc members would have been better to support Bill S-3 in the fall of 2005. I believe it is through this action that they could have shown French-speaking communities outside Quebec that they were willing to support them. Now, the member refers to claims dating back to 1993--

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to everything my colleague had to say, and I would like to ask her one very specific question.

Under section 43 of the Official Languages Act, the Province of Quebec is excluded from the application of that Act. How, then, can you justify the right to court challenges for Quebec's anglophone minority, given that we are completely excluded from the application of the Official Languages Act? How can this program help minorities in Quebec when they are excluded from the Official Languages Act under the notwithstanding clause and section 43?

There is one other thing I would like to know. Your party voted against Bill S-3—against the promotion of French in the other provinces. Perhaps the court challenges program can help with social matters, but what can it do to help us linguistically? What good is it?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that, unlike the political party to which the hon. member for Gatineau belongs, we and the other members of this House voted in favour of Bill S-3 on official languages. Accordingly, the Bloc is in no position to be lecturing us. We will work to ensure that linguistic duality is just as strong in the Canadian armed forces as it is in other federal institutions.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that, unlike the political party to which the hon. member for Gatineau belongs, we and the other members on this side of the House voted to support Bill S-3, regarding official languages. As a result, we will not be taking any lessons from the Bloc Québécois. We are going to work to ensure that linguistic duality is just as strong in the Canadian armed forces as it is in other federal institutions.

[Marc Arnal, Dean, St-Jean Campus, University of Alberta]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

I would like to start by expressing our moral and spiritual support to your colleague Daniel Petit, who is absent today, in light of the trying times he is currently going through. His daughter-in-law works with us and his son used to be a student at the campus. We share a certain emotional bond with him.

Yesterday, I received a call from my friend Jean Watters, who you met in Vancouver. He told me that you had asked many questions about the participation of francophones in the Olympic Games to be held in Vancouver. I am the President of the Canadian Foundation for Cross-Cultural Dialogue, which is responsible for ensuring francophone content at the Games. I would be pleased, together with our Director General, Guy Matte, to come meet with you in Ottawa and talk more specifically about the Olympic Games, if you wish. I would also like to indicate that the Governor General, Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, is the honorary president of this foundation, which few people have heard about, but which is very active. This is sort of an invisible organization.

I will now talk to you as a Franco-Manitoban living in Alberta. I am very pleased to welcome you to one of the most dynamic francophone areas in Canada. You have heard from witnesses about the vitality of communities. In my view, vitality depends on a number of factors. Interesting and promising studies are currently being done in Acadia, particularly by Rodrigue Landry and his research centre. They deal with such issues as institutional completeness and its impact on vitality. Some of our researchers are taking part in those studies.

Furthermore, I think that service delivery models need to be re-examined. Who has not had the experience of going up to a counter at federal office where a sign indicates that services are in both English and French and being told by the person behind the sign that he or she did not speak French? That should warrant a jail term. That completely undermines all the efforts made by the Government of Canada. And yet, we see that happening every day. That is unacceptable.

With regard to the legal and regulatory framework, I think that there has been constant progress since 1969, with the latest provisions enacted under Bill S-3, I think. There has also been an evolution in thinking. I will get back to that later.

The thought patterning in society at large and in minority communities is the last but not the least factor. We become what we perceive ourselves to be, and that is especially true in the case of our minority groups. At the St-Jean Campus, to come back to the issue of institutional completeness, 650 students are receiving their education in French. You are perhaps not aware that the University of Alberta is one of the five largest universities in Canada. I believe it was ranked 37^th in the world by Newsweek. It is a renowned institution. Our students, some 70% of whom are immersion program graduates, are native English speakers. Our challenge is to turn these students, who are linguistic bilinguals, into complete bilinguals within two or four years, depending on their programs of study. In other words, they are asked to acquire French and English as both individual and common languages.

The process is a long and difficult one, but we will achieve our ends in large part thanks to the support we receive from the Government of Canada through bilateral agreements.

Some people, including the husband of the former Governor General, advocated the idea of “sowing” French-language courses in all Canadian post-secondary institutions. That is very noble and advisable, but it should not be done at the expense of institutions that are equipped to lead students who are theoretically bilingual to become functional bilinguals. I am not sure that this has been thought out in the Department of Canadian Heritage, and elsewhere. I would like to point out that a community college is being established in Alberta. We are expecting to receive the authorization from the university and the province very shortly.

Finally, I would like to say a few words about Bill S-3. This is a wonderful bill, and I commend Parliament for having passed it. My wife, who is a public servant, told me however

that they get lectured at all the time about what it means, but nothing changes.

According to her, departments do not have strong enough accountability mechanisms to ensure that the bill's provisions can be turned into concrete measures, whether in the public service or society at large. Over 50 % of Albertans support official languages. Imagine: we are talking about approximately 59 % of Albertans.

So what are we waiting for to implement a vision and proclaim the importance of our linguistic duality, which I continue to call Canada's common languages? We have to promote linguistic duality as something that unites our country, one of the cornerstones on which today's Canadian citizenship and civic spirit have been established.

I could talk to you for days, but I will stop here.

Criminal Code

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin today by talking a bit about the theory of criminal justice and how we get tough on crime, which is the slogan often used by those across the way.

We cannot get tough on crime without being smart on crime and that means not just descending into slogans, such as “getting tough on crime”, “war on crime” and “three strikes you're out”. We know where that rhetoric comes from and we know that it is based on false analysis. It is based on ideology and sloganism, not on criminological research, social research or demographics which all gives serious concern to knee-jerk, superficial stoking of the fears in society about a situation that may not exist. That is done for purposes that are ideological and polemical and they carry a real danger of being self-fulfilling.

I would like to take a few minutes to speak about how being tough on crime means being smart on crime first.

Let us just take the 12 bills dealing with criminal justice that are before this House and the one that is before the other place. The official opposition has offered this week to cooperate and fast track eight out of the eleven of those bills, and I will speak to the other two in a moment, but that is in no way doing anything but making this place work with sensible dialogue and debate over how to, without holding up any of these bills, ensure they are not more dangerous than what we are to believe they are to protect us against.

We have offered to fast track Bill C-9, the conditional sentencing bill. It has had serious debate and an appropriate amendment was moved by opposition parties so it can now go ahead. We will give it all the speed it needs.

We will fast track Bill C-18, the DNA identification act; Bill C-19, street racing; Bill C-23, criminal procedure improvements; and Bill C-26, payday loans. I would pause to say that five out of the six bills that I have just mentioned were actually initiated under the previous Liberal government. They will go forward with our support and with sensible amendments where necessary. We will fast track two other bills.

We opposed the judicial salaries bill because we opposed the suggestion by the government that it disregard the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission which recommended appropriate increases for judges' salaries over the last four year period. While we opposed that, we allowed it to pass on division so there would be no slowing up of that process.

The 13th bill is Bill S-3, the military sex offender act, which is now before the other place. We will be supporting that bill and are willing to fast track it in every way we can.

In the context of discussing the dangerous offender legislation, it is important to underline the cooperation that is going on in the House to identify what is important, to carry on work that was done by the previous government and to get some of these things moved ahead.

However, Bill C-27 is of a different order. The dangerous offender legislation before us has some major flaws that I will speak about but I would first say that we need a reality check. Let us take a reality check first on the criminal conviction statistics in Canada which have been steadily coming down over the last 10 to 15 years. That is what the research tells us. The demographics themselves in society are leading through analysis to that decline in the crime rate. While we may raise the fears of the public to justify simplistic solutions through sloganeering and superficial claims to put fear in the hearts of Canadians, the crime rate comes down.

Let us take another reality check on the situation in the U.S. where these slogans come from and much of this legislation seems to be patterned after. The United States has the highest crime rates and incarceration rates. It also has the most dangerous communities and the most expensive criminal justice system.

If we are to follow any model in the world when we amend our criminal justice statutes, we certainly do not want to follow the so-called war on crime in the United States.

Let me pause to mention that the state of California spends more on criminal justice and corrections than it spends on education. That should be very edifying to all of us.

Let me give another example about the folly of pretending that just by putting people in jail on very restrictive terms without any adjustment for the context of a particular case can be more dangerous for society. Most convicted people, dangerous or not, will get out. We have the Bernardos and some of the most horrid criminals in our country's history who will be behind bars, blessedly, forever, but most criminals will get out.

Let us think of those people who go into a prison situation, which members opposite would like to see everyone go into. It is a bit of an irony to consider that prison life, if that is what we can call it, prison for life, is the place in society which should be the most protected but is in fact the place where one is most likely to be assaulted, raped, infected and injected, and these people will come out.

Therefore, we need to take particular care for the correctional services, the proper services within them and who we put behind bars and for how long.

Let me speak about the fact that 25% of the prison population in this country is made up of aboriginal people. This is a stunning statistic of despair. Can this be the result of a fair criminal justice system or is this a result of despair in aboriginal communities? Is it part of the despair of our prevention system and our criminal justice system of preventative crime? Is it a matter of racism in society? What is happening?

These are the underpinning questions that we must be asking ourselves in the House as we respond to the reality of the criminal justice system. This is 1% of the population and 25% of the prison population.

Let us ensure that when people do come out of prison, if they are going to be spending time there, that they have been rehabilitated and they are safe to society because the vast majority will come out.

We will not ensure that the context of the situation is properly taken into account in peculiar circumstances unless police officers, prosecutors, judges, correctional officers and parole officers have the discretion to identify where the dangers are and where someone may have a better response to a criminal justice sanction than simply putting someone in jail for an indefinite period.

Turning to Bill C-27, the dangerous offender legislation, the member opposite has mentioned that there is dangerous offender legislation on the books now and it is operating. It operates as a companion with long term offender legislation which can kick in. Prosecutors have the discretion to bring forward at sentencing applications before a judge for a long term offender or a dangerous offender designation. That works. It has been covered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Lyons and Johnson cases in 1997 and 2002. It has been found to be constitutionally appropriate. I would suggest that it is working because it allows for all the proper discretions to be exercised.

The problem with what is being suggested in Bill C-27, and it has been referred to by numerous members of the House, is the reverse onus provision at sentencing after a third conviction of a certain type of very serious crime.

We have heard some people say that this offends the presumption of innocence, which is an historical criminal law principle in our legal system. However, the trouble is not with the presumption of innocence, which is subsection 11(d) of the charter. The question is about the reverse onus of the burden. This is not a conviction matter. It is not a presumption of innocence because the person has already been convicted for the third time.

What we are talking about is whether fundamental justice, in reversing the onus on such an extraordinary punishment, can meet the tests under section 7 of the charter for fundamental justice. There is strong authority that this simply cannot be done. This does not meet the tests of fundamental justice. It involves, for instance, the convicted person proving a negative into the future. Yes, it is on the balance of probabilities and, yes, as the member opposite said, there is judicial discretion to determine whether that onus is met or not, but there is still a reverse onus and, in many cases, it is an impossible burden to attempt to prove a negative into the future.

It is also a problem because it offends section 7 as being against the principles of fundamental justice and it is a problem under section 1 as to whether this is a justifiable limit on the rights under the charter. Is it a substantive need? Is it a rational connection? Is there minimal impairment? I would say that under all those cases this reverse onus does not meet the test. This is highly constitutionally suspect. Why, when we have a provision that is working well, would we want to throw ourselves into very likely years of constitutional charter litigation when we have charter compliant provisions now for dangerous and long term offenders?

We also have a problem that this will not be enforceable. This is ultra vires of the federal government to tell the provincial governments, which are responsible for the administration of criminal justice, who they should prosecute and what sentences they should ask for. That simply cannot be supported in our constitutional division of powers and, therefore, it is inappropriate for the government to put this forward.

There are also dangerous unintended consequences that could come to the fore here. We have long delays in our criminal justice system today. A report in the paper last week showed that in the province of Ontario 100,000 charges have gone beyond the nine months before they actually go to trial. This is bouncing very perilously close up against the Supreme Court of Canada Askov decision where all members will remember with regret that 30,000 criminal cases were dismissed because it took too long for people to get to trial.

If people are facing this so-called simplistic, superficial three strikes and they are out law, which has been so disastrously unsuccessful and dangerous in the United States, they will insist on going to trial more often. There will be less guilty pleas which will cause further delays in the courts and perhaps more cases will be thrown out because of charter violations.

The one side of it is that there will be more trials, longer delays and more costs to the prison system. I have not even begun to talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs that will be required to build the prisons that will hold these long term offenders.

Costs will be going up, delays will be longer and cases will be thrown out for charter violations because of delay. The other dynamic that may happen and where prosecutors, with long dockets and not wanting to have further delays in trials, may charge people with lesser offences than would otherwise justify a conviction for a more serious case that may give them a longer prison term, or the convicted person may plea bargain to a lesser offence.

Both of those dynamics are more likely to put dangerous people on the streets and put in danger the men and women the member opposite was just speaking about. We have to be very careful when we tinker with these laws, especially if we are doing it superficially and against the evidence of criminologists and social scientists as to what is effective and what is not.

Let us turn for a moment to what being tough on crime by being smart on crime really means. It means a national crime prevention strategy, such as the one the previous government put into place across this country over a period of 13 years, funded in a very targeted way, to help kids have things to do after school. If I may indulge myself in a short phrase, it is about shooting hoops, not drugs. There are sports programs across this country in the evening and even far into the night where kids who otherwise would have been getting in trouble are involved in healthy activity.

We have to watch for issues of poverty and cultural exclusion.

We have to look at the issue of legal aid, which is in underfunded disrepair across this country, thus involving people in perhaps building up criminal records when they should have been having trials and pleading not guilty. They are pleading guilty because they cannot defend themselves in the courts without assistance.

We have to look at issues of homelessness. We have to look at issues of mental illness. The Kirby-Keon Senate report was an extraordinary statement of sound thinking about how to deal with those with mental illnesses, who unfortunately fall into the ranks of the homeless as well as the ranks of the criminal justice system, which is the worst place for them to be. We have to rethink this and meet our social contract around the concept of deinstitutionalization, whereby governments emptied the mental hospitals but then did not provide services in the community to support people.

We have to look at drug courts. They are operating in Toronto and Vancouver and in numerous American states. That is one example of where the American criminal justice system has actually been a stunning success at diverting people out of the criminal system if they will go into detox and treatment.

We have to look at issues of harm reduction. Drugs, addiction and substance abuse are great parts of the despair that leads people into the criminal justice system. Harm reduction, of course, involves needle exchanges and safe injection sites, which the government has failed to guarantee would be extended in Vancouver, when it has been an example for literally the world to consider the effectiveness of harm reduction in that situation, to help motivate people into detox.

We need shelters for them. We need transitional housing. We need skills training. We need affordable housing. We need jobs. In fact, the social enterprise initiatives of the last Liberal government, which were ready to go across this country, certainly in my province of British Columbia, were cancelled by the current government in its last budget. Those are the things that can assist people to not fall into crime and into despair, which leads them to become dangerous for other members of society.

What are we going to do instead? We are going to dismantle the gun registry. It is amazing that any thought could be given to that at this stage after the tragedy at Dawson College in Montreal.

We have a Prime Minister who will not go to an international AIDS conference in Toronto. We have a Prime Minister who did not go to a world conference on harm reduction in Vancouver last April.

We are simply looking in the wrong direction. We have to be tough on crime, I agree with all members opposite, but we are going to be tough on crime by being smart on crime and not by being simply superficial and using slogans.

Canadian Heritage

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone undoubtedly knows, I represent a Manitoba riding. When the province of Manitoba was created, francophones and anglophones were essentially equal in numbers, although francophones were the majority at one time. That did not last very long. Anglophones soon surpassed them in numbers and eventually suppressed the rights of the minority for 80 years. As the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst no doubt knows, Georges Forest took matters into his hands and fought all the way to the Supreme Court. He did so with his own money and suffered tremendously as a result.

So, I am astonished that the Prime Minister would rise in this House and say that the court challenges program was a waste of money, that it only went to pay legal fees to Liberal lawyers. I find that entirely unacceptable.

Here is my question for my hon. colleague. Last year, when the Standing Committee on Official Languages voted in favour of Bill S-3, was that a political decision or not? Indeed, how can one vote in favour of Bill S-3, which essentially gives francophones the right to defend their constitutional rights, only to later take away the main tool that allows them to do exactly that? This is my question for the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

If it is not right, then we should live with a dictatorial government. Let us not forget that the ministers and members of this government cannot even talk to the press. Is that the kind of Canada we want?

I can give examples of the contribution that the court challenges program has made to minorities, and the support they have drawn from it. In New Brunswick, an attempt was made to move the food inspectors from Shippagan to Moncton, in the Dieppe and Shediac regions, and the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick, thanks to money from the court challenges program of Canada, brought a court challenge and won its case. This decision was then brought before the Supreme Court by the Liberal government of the time, which contested the decision of the Federal Court of New Brunswick. At least the municipalities had some tools at the time to defend the minority communities.

Did they think that one person, an individual on his own, the Shippagan food inspector on his own, Mr. Gauvin and his colleagues, would have had the money to appeal to the Supreme Court? No.

That is what the Conservative government wants. It wants to lay down laws, it does not want citizens to defend themselves; it is depriving citizens of the right to bring a court action against the government. It is setting itself up as a saint, it believes it is perfect, it thinks it is establishing good laws which citizens must respect.

If that were the case, the government should not have to be afraid of investing in court challenges, for it would win in court. However it is shameful to remove the democratic tool that allows citizens to defend themselves in Federal Court, in the Supreme Court of Canada and in the provincial courts. The Conservatives should be ashamed. I do not know how they can sleep at night.

Let us consider the RCMP in New Brunswick, which was not providing service in both languages. Once again, New Brunswick organizations, through the SANB, received money from the court challenges program to go to court, and they won. At the time, the Liberals in power decided to contest this decision up to the Supreme Court. At least the organizations had the money to keep defending themselves.

If citizens and organizations cannot receive money through the court challenges program, to be fair the government should not have the right to take taxpayers’ money to fight citizens in court. That would be a bit more fair. Yet the government takes in money through taxes—whether citizens like it or not, taxes are deducted from their pay—and uses it to fight an individual in court. At the same time, it says it will not give the community the chance to benefit from this money in order to reach a happy medium, a balance of power. It is undemocratic to deprive citizens of such a tool.

The government machine is too big for the individual. That is what the Conservatives want, an American system where the individual feels all alone in life and has to manage all alone without any help.

In my opinion, the same is true of the status of women. The reason that women have made it to where they are today is because funding has been granted to create groups so that women are able to show what they can do and are recognized even here in Parliament.

Equality between men and women must also be recognized. Equality was not achieved as a result of the wishes of a single person who stood up one fine day and said that he or she wanted equality between the sexes so that women would be respected and government would support this. There were battles fought and there are organizations that worked hard to achieve that objective.

As for literacy, we are told that we do not want to spend money on older people, we want to fund young people instead. So we are being told that when we get to be 40 years old we are no longer citizens, we are no longer human beings? What kind of attitude is that, Mr. Speaker? The attitude that the Conservatives are taking today toward these people and these organizations is disgraceful. They are going to realize that there are people working in these organizations and that those people talk to one another. At this moment, those people are protesting and a big wave will be hitting Ottawa, telling them that they are not right and they do not deserve to be leading this country. They have taken things away from us that are fundamental to our country.

If you can imagine, two days before the literacy cuts the wife of the Prime Minister of Canada took part in a march for literacy, all the while her husband, right here in the House of Commons, was cutting the funding for literacy training. I hope that she will talk to him this evening and tell him that what he has done and what the Conservative government has done is not right.

We know people who worked at the same company until they were 40 or 50 years old and who always worked at the same job. With all the cuts going on in industry today, we have to help the workers and equip them with the skills they need so that they can find new jobs. And yet the Conservatives are telling us that there will be budget cuts for the organizations that do this, cutting the fat, they say.

So someone will have to go to the library in Bathurst by himself or herself to pick up a book. That person will go home and study independently, with no help from anyone, no teacher, no local organization. The same will be true in Timmins, Ontario, or in Regina, Saskatchewan, or in Edmonton, Alberta. People in Alberta love it when people from our hometowns work on their oil wells. What these cuts mean is that we will not give the people in our hometowns a hand so that they can learn to read and write. These are people who started working when they were very young and never had a chance to go to school. Are we going to let all these people fall by the wayside?

You know, Mr. Speaker, I did not come to the House of Commons yesterday. How many times have we heard it said in committee that we have to do something for minorities? And then came the question of how much it is going to cost us.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages has never travelled across the country to visit minority communities. Who has objected to that? Always the Conservatives. Do not tell me that it is not true, because it is true.

Last year, I was forced to make a proposal to the effect that if the Standing Committee on Official Languages did not travel, none of the committees would travel. If we can send 12 people across the country to see where seals live, we can send the Standing Committee on Official Languages to anglophone and francophone communities to find out what people need.

The Prime Minister had said that we should perhaps look at the system in Belgium, and he suggested that Quebec look after the francophones and the rest of Canada look after the anglophones. I was born in New Brunswick, on the Acadian Peninsula, and I am Canadian.

I want to obtain services in both official languages, like any English- or French-speaking Canadian. Anglophones should be able to obtain service in their mother tongue where they live.

Someone has said that no one was asking all the anglophones to learn French and all the francophones to learn English. People were asking the government to offer service in both official languages. It is not hard.

It was sad when Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier had to introduce Bill S-3 three times. The bill amended section 41 of part VII to make the obligations therein enforceable rather than declaratory. It applied to federal institutions, and the Bloc Québécois voted against the bill on the grounds that the government had no right to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. However, at issue were areas of federal jurisdiction.

I am sorry, but we cannot rely on Quebec alone to defend francophones outside Quebec. Quebec showed in that instance that it had not defended them. This is a federal law that applies to federal institutions.

In committee I said to the Conservatives that I would have liked them to vote against Bill S-3 and then come and say to us that they support francophones. But even though I told them to vote against the bill they voted in favour. Now they think that, since they voted in favour of this bill, they can take away our right to appear in the various courts. That is what they did. They took our tools away from us.

Take the example of the Montfort Hospital, here in Ottawa. It was not just because someone was sick and bedridden at the hospital that they won that case. It was because organizations got together to fight for it. They used money from the court challenges program. That is when the case was won, thanks to the support and desire to help.

The government is a big machine and can become a dictatorship. It has the army on its side, the police on its side, it has everyone on its side in order to enforce the law. But in our democracy citizens get a chance to attend court. They are entitled to go to court and obtain judgment. Is the government right or not?

I will give some other examples. Take the example of electoral boundaries. In my riding this has caused some problems. They wanted to send some of the francophones from Acadie—Bathurst to Miramichi, where 70% of the constituents are anglophone. Thanks to a court decision, that did not happen. In the history of Canada, that was the first time a boundary was changed by the court. The association of municipalities managed to do that with money from the court challenges program. Without that money, which boat would we have missed, what direction would we have taken?

Here is another example. This morning at the Standing Committee on Official Languages we tried to pass a motion recommending that the government give back the money to the court challenges program. The only party that voted against this was the Conservative Party.

This is unbelievable and unacceptable! Let us hope that it will change and that Canadians recognize it.

We have a beautiful country. But we must not deceive ourselves—it is not just about francophones and anglophones; it is about power. That is the problem. It is dangerous to give too much power to a government. It is dangerous not to challenge its decisions, its interpretations or the directions it takes.

To say that Liberal lawyers make a lot of money from that is wrong, completely wrong. How much work has Michel Doucet, a professor at the University of Moncton, done for us? How much responsibility has he taken on to defend francophones and minorities, without charging them anything?

It was only for the court costs. How many hours of volunteer work did Michel Doucet of the Université de Moncton give freely? Thank you, Michel for what you have done on behalf of these communities.

Today the Conservatives want to do away with that but we are not going to sit here in our seats without speaking out. We are going to fight for this. We will not accept that here in our country we cannot defend ourselves after laws have been passed, laws that are badly interpreted and not respected.

They are not compelled to misinterpret legislation. If they do not respect it, if they do not do anything, the law and the courts give us the tools to force the government to do something. The fact of having services is just as significant for anglophone minorities in those places where francophones form a majority. It is not asking too much to be able to speak with your doctor in the language of your choice when you are sick. If you are having your appendix removed, it is to be hoped that the doctors will not remove your spleen. We must have access to these services. This morning at the Standing Committee on Official Languages we talked about the importance of ensuring that patients can receive services in the language of their choice in our hospitals. It is not too much to ask.

As I have said, we are not asking that all anglophones become francophones, nor that all francophones should become anglophones. We are asking that services be provided, that the Official Languages Act of our country be respected, and if it is not respected, we want the tools to go before the courts, before judges appointed by the government. We want to ask for the opinion of the court. That is democracy. What would it be without access to the courts?

We are sending out soldiers to fight in Afghanistan to promote democracy, and in our own country we are abolishing it. It is a disgrace. In our own country we are cutting funding for the status of women but we are going into Afghanistan because we want Afghan women to have rights. We cut funding in Canada. Is that not hypocrisy?

It is an insult, as the member for Québec properly described it earlier. We went to Romania for the summit of la Francophonie. How could the Prime Minister stand up and say that he supports the Francophonie? At the same time he was cutting all the existing powers that enable minority communities in Canada to live the Francophonie.

The wife of the Prime Minister of Canada took part in a walk in support of people with literacy problems. Two days later, her husband cut off funding for literacy. Where does that leave us?

The communities are hurting. We are getting phone calls about that. We are meeting people back home. Anyone who has not contacted Conservative MPs yet should know that there are toll-free numbers they can use. They can phone them; those numbers are at their disposal. If people are happy with all that is happening and want an American-style system, let them rejoice because it is on the way, well on the way. Once it is done, they will wonder why.

I know that the Conservatives will insist that they are not like that, that they invested money everywhere. The fact is that they are individualistic.Take what they did with child care. To keep the public quiet, they announced they would be providing a $1,200 benefit. But there is still no child care system. The American style is making its way into Canada. Whatever people say, this is a Bush-league style of work.

If Canada were problem-free, there would be no need for the Francophonie and official languages department and its minister. Besides, that portfolio was not even given to a person who speaks both official languages. That is adding insult to injury. When the time came to appoint a parliamentary secretary, it took the government three months to appoint one. This shows how important official languages are to this government.

Nevertheless, this is our country, and we have to show one another respect; anglophones and francophones have to show each other respect. We are all human beings. We are just passing through on earth and we should be able to get along. There are countries where people speak five or six languages and they respect one another much more than we do here, in this country. In some countries, the battles are apparently about religion or race; here, they are about language.

We should set all of that aside and work together toward making our country a better place to live, one of the greatest in the world.

Official Languages

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the court challenges program allowed francophone and anglophone communities to assume their proper place, which is rightfully theirs, within Canada.

How does the Prime Minister plan to implement Bill S-3, which obliges the federal government and its agencies to comply with the Official Languages Act and allow minority communities to bring legal action against the government when violations occur, to ensure that their rights are protected?

Government Programs

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government made cuts without any debate, without any consultation.

More than 12 programs essential to the development of francophone and Acadian communities will be seriously affected, including programs for literacy and court challenges.

This is quite a shock for all minority communities.

What about Bill S-3, which was supported by the Conservatives at the time and aimed to strengthen the government's obligation to respect and promote the Official Languages Act?

And what about the 29 unresolved complaints?

The Conservative government has placed minority communities at the bottom of its agenda.

The NDP and the organizations affected by these cuts demand explanations and immediate action to re-establish funding for the survival of these programs and our francophone communities.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in other words, they do not give a damn about minorities.

Last November, the ultra-Conservatives voted in favour of Bill S-3. It enabled communities to go to the courts if the government failed to meet its obligations.

Yesterday, however, in doing away with the court challenges program, the Conservative extremists deprived communities of the means to defend themselves and have their rights upheld. The Conservatives are taking away with one hand what they give with the other.

Why did they cut this program? Is it because they think they are above the law or is it just because they simply do not give a damn about the various communities?