Bill C-482 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment requires the Government of Canada to undertake not to obstruct the application of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec.

Official Languages Act

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

Mr. Speaker, several of our government members have already had a chance to voice their opposition to Bill C-482. The only possible conclusion is that this is a bill intended to solve a non-existent problem. The 2006 census shows that French is doing well as the language of work in Quebec.

The census has been collecting data on the language of work since 2001, and the 2006 census shows that 99.2% of Quebec francophones use French most often or regularly at work. This figure speaks for itself. It is very hard, therefore, to claim that English poses a serious threat in Quebec and the federal government is responsible. The facts show that this is simply not the case.

Some 94.3% of all Quebec workers use French, with varying frequency. In addition, between 2001 and 2006, the percentage of immigrants who said they use French most often at work, either alone or together with another language, increased from 63% to 65%. There was also an increase in the proportion of anglophones who use French at work most often or regularly. I also want to remind the House that 69% of Quebec anglophones are bilingual now, in comparison with 63% just ten years ago. Under the circumstances, we really do not see the point of Bill C-482.

If we look at the results of the 2006 census on mother tongue and the language spoken at home, it becomes apparent that certain people have a tendency to draw hasty conclusions about major trends in our society, which in themselves do not pose a threat to the French language. It is true that many immigrants speak their language of origin in the home in order to pass it on to their children. Nevertheless, most of these people work in French and frequently use it in public. In addition, their children attend French-language schools and will eventually find it easy to migrate to this language.

Some concerns were raised last December and January about data on how easy it is for unilingual English staff to get hired in Quebec businesses. Everyone who is familiar with the statistics knows that this was not a serious study and it was undertaken mostly just to stir up trouble without really improving our understanding of the linguistic situation.

We also need to know that the situation in Montreal is not evolving in a vacuum. Every day some 270,000 people from the northern and southern suburbs of Montreal, most of them francophones, cross the bridges to go and work on the island. Nine out of ten of them use French at work: 73% most often and another 16% regularly. Under the circumstances, there is no reason to fear the worst, especially as the data show that the use of French in Montreal has remained stable.

In Canada as a whole, because of immigration, we see the same linguistic diversification and reduction in the proportion of people with English as a mother tongue. Given the importance of English in the world, it is hardly surprising that this is a consequence of our very necessary immigration.

The second good reason to oppose this bill is just as important, since is has to do with a truly Canadian value: the equality of status of English and French, and the commitment of the federal government to enhance the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada. Our government cannot emphasize enough the principle that both official languages are equal.

With this bill, the Bloc is implying that the federal government is a threat to the French fact in Canada, when nothing could be further from the truth. Yet again, the Bloc proposes a backward-looking vision, where the knowledge of one language is necessarily a threat to another.

Through its official language policies, the government encourages not only francophone minorities, but also all Canadians, to learn French. That is why we now have a record number of Canadians who are able to speak both official languages.

The government supports the French fact throughout Canada and particularly supports francophone minority communities. There are more than one million francophones in our own country. This opens the door to the international Francophonie.

This year, the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City, some important international Francophonie events will be held. Quebec City will host the next Sommet de la Francophonie from October 17 to 19, 2008. It is no coincidence that francophone heads of state and government are turning to Canada to hold their discussions. Canada is a beacon of support for the dissemination and promotion of the French language.

Canada is proud to be a partner in the celebrations, which highlight an important chapter of our history. We want the 400th anniversary of Quebec City to be a celebration all Canadians will remember. It is a great opportunity to celebrate the event, the francophone presence in the Americas, and the vitality of the French fact.

The two official languages of Canada are also languages with high standing internationally, let us not forget. French, which is one of the ten most commonly spoken languages in the world, ranks second for the number of countries where it is spoken, and in influence. Like English, French can be found on every continent, and it has official language status in 29 nations.

The Prime Minister has often said it, and I quote him without hesitation: we share a long-term vision of a Canada where linguistic duality is an asset both for individuals and for institutions across Canada.

The future depends on learning the second language, and even other languages, in a global economy and a spirit of openness to the world. Languages are the key that enables us to understand and appreciate other cultures.

The Canadian language framework that has been developed in recent decades originates in and is based on the principles and provisions found in our Constitution. Canadians today still say that these values are widely shared, and we will make sure that future generations have an opportunity to enjoy the benefits of bilingualism, one of Canada’s fundamental characteristics.

Our language industries are helping to position Canada on the international stage and they will continue to thrive in the years to come thanks to the cutting-edge research that is being done and will continue to energize this entire sector of the economy and thereby Canada as a whole. I would like to take this opportunity to note that Canada continues to be a world leader when it comes to translation and other activities of that nature. We are also a model for many countries in the management of linguistic duality.

In conclusion, we are determined to continue working to help the official language communities flourish, in a spirit of open federalism and in a way that respects the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories. Our approach to developing a new strategy is therefore aided by our continuing dialogue with the provinces and territories, and in particular by the work done by the Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie.

The provincial and territorial governments are the ones that can take direct action on issues of crucial importance to the vitality of official languages communities throughout Canada, and our government looks forward to working with them to promote Canada’s linguistic duality.

In recent years, the Government of Canada has developed a number of policies on official languages, and our government is working actively on the next phase of the action plan, in order to take into account social and demographic changes in Canada. We want to offer Canadians the support that is best suited to their needs. We want to help them preserve their linguistic and cultural heritage and reap the full benefits of that heritage and pass it on to future generations.

Our government will continue to build on existing accomplishments so that Canadians can benefit from all the advantages our country has to offer because of the unique cultural wealth our two official languages represent in North America.

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-482, an act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

International Worker's Day

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is May 1, International Workers' Day, and I would like to point out that there are two categories of workers in Quebec.

Workers in the first category work in French in an environment that respects Bill 101. Workers in the second category are subject to the Canada Labour Code and their employers do not respect the Charter of the French Language. They work in ports, airports, telecommunications companies, interprovincial transportation, railway transportation, banks, etc. There are more than 200,000 of these workers in Quebec.

All too often, they must work in both official languages, or even solely in English. They receive documents in English and get called into meetings held in English when at least one of their colleagues is a unilingual anglophone.

Yet Quebec is a nation. Parliament recognized this. The member for Drummond introduced Bill C-482 to amend the Canada Labour Code to apply the Charter of the French Language to businesses under federal jurisdiction, so that the workers of Quebec can work in French.

Bill 101 and the Canada Labour Code

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Labour was talking nonsense about the objectives of Bill C-482. Here is how he interpreted those objectives: “—wants the federal government to interfere in a provincial jurisdiction by applying Bill 101 across Canada.” Yet all the Bloc is asking for is an amendment to the Canada Labour Code, which comes under federal jurisdiction, so that Bill 101 applies to all workers in Quebec.

Has the minister at least read this bill, yes or no?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-482 calls for Bill 101 to apply to the 240,000 workers in Quebec governed by the Canada Labour Code. If recognizing Quebec as a nation means anything, then its culture and language have to be protected.

Can the Minister of Labour and member for Jonquière—Alma tell us what his policy is for Quebec: French as the language of work or bilingualism?

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

moved that Bill C-505, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am very pleased to introduce Bill C-505, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec) today. Before explaining the implications of this bill, I would like to read the amendment that this bill seeks to make to the preamble of the act. This amendment is in the text of Bill C-505.

AND WHEREAS Quebeckers form a nation and must therefore possess all the tools needed to define their identity and protect their common values, particularly as regards the protection of the French language, the separation of church and state, and gender equality;

We believe that this preamble must be used to interpret the following amendment:

Section 3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The Government of Canada’s multiculturalism policy does not apply in Quebec.

This is what is being brought forward in this House by the Bloc Québécois. As I have mentioned a few times, this bill is part of a series of proposals made by the Bloc Québécois. During last Tuesday's opposition day, we urged the government to take concrete action to give effect to the recognition of the Quebec nation. In addition, my colleague from Drummond tabled Bill C-482 to make French the language of work for employees of firms under federal jurisdiction.

Our caucus is working on other bills to provide some substance with respect to recognition of the Quebec nation, as the member for Jonquière—Alma was saying. More specifically, the bill we are presently debating would require the federal government to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

As I was saying, this bill recommends that action be taken because everyone now recognizes, at least in theory, the national character of Quebec. Now that we have recognized the nation of Quebec, we must take concrete action accordingly. Bill C-505 does just that by allowing Quebec to apply, in its territory, within its nation, its own model of integration for new arrivals and to be exempted from the Canadian model, or Canadian multiculturalism, which is derived from British multiculturalism.

I would like to point out that the Quebec nation is a reality that has been recognized in Quebec for a very long time, by the federalists as well as the Quebec sovereigntists. It is a reality for which there is consensus. We did not have to wait for it to be recognized by this House of Commons for it to be a reality that was felt, lived and recognized by Quebeckers. On October 30, 2003, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion:

That the National Assembly reaffirm that the people of Quebec form a nation.

I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that the motion does not say that Quebeckers form a nation if the rest of Canada remains as is. We are not subject to the constitutional forms that the Canadian nation might decide to adopt. Nor does the motion say that Quebec is a nation if it opts for sovereignty. This motion says that Quebeckers form a nation. Period.

Under the terms of the motion that was adopted by this House, the same attitude should guide parliamentarians here. It is no coincidence that the National Assembly of Quebec specified, in the motion I read earlier, that is was reaffirming that the people of Quebec form a nation. For at least 40 years now, if not 50, the premiers of Quebec, regardless of political stripe, have reaffirmed that the people of Quebec form a nation.

I will go ahead and quote Jean Lesage, who said in November 1963:

Quebec did not defend provincial autonomy simply for the principle of it, but because, for Quebec, autonomy was the specific condition not for its survival, which is assured, but for its affirmation as a people [and a nation].

That was in 1963.

I could also talk about Daniel Johnson Sr., who also said a number of times that Quebeckers form a nation. According to him, if Quebec were unable to find equality within Canada, then it had the choice of opting for national independence.

René Lévesque said in June 1980, that “Canada is composed of two equal nations; Quebec is the home and the heart of one of those nations and, as it possesses all the attributes of a distinct national community, it has an inalienable right to self-determination... [This right to control its own national destiny] is the most fundamental right that Quebec society has”. That was in June 1980.

I could also talk about Jacques Parizeau and Robert Bourassa, but I want to close on one last quote from October 1999, by Lucien Bouchard, who sat in this House, as hon. members know. He said, “The Quebec people adhere to the democratic concept of a nation characterized by its language, French, and a diverse culture, and which is broadly open to international immigration—”. We have here undeniable proof that Quebeckers form a nation and that this has been a consensus in Quebec for an extremely long time.

As mentioned in the last quote from Lucien Bouchard, taken from the time when he was at the helm in Quebec, the Quebec nation is open to international immigration but not to the kind of integration practised in Canada, which is to say, multiculturalism. This point arises among all those who criticize Canadian multiculturalism and commend the Quebec model, because there really is a Quebec model.

There is nothing new, therefore, in Bill C-505 regarding Quebec. The model already exists. It is slowly taking hold, despite the confusion sown by the existence of this other multicultural model. The Government of Quebec just announced last week some more investments to further its method of integrating immigrants. It is a model that could be called interculturalism. This method of integrating newcomers requires everyone, whether already in Quebec or just arriving, to respect the shared values of Quebec society as a whole. These include secular public institutions and the equality of men and women. The Quebec model also requires all citizens to have a knowledge of French, which is the common public language.

This is a very important point because if we do not have a common public language, it is impossible to have a democratic debate and the kind of public discussions that enable a society to progress. It only creates cacophony. This is done with the utmost respect for the anglophone national minority in Quebec, whose institutions have been protected for a great many years.

People will say, of course, that there are two official languages in Canada. But that is the problem. In Quebec, there is only one official language and that is French. In actual fact, of course, we know that there is really only one public language in Canada too and that is English. This problem sows confusion in Quebec, though, and hinders the francization of immigrants.

The requirement that all Quebeckers respect our common values and learn the common language of French, at least to some extent, in order to take part in the public debate is offset by our recognition of cultural pluralism. Cultural pluralism refers to the contributions made by everyone all over Quebec to help enrich our common culture. This Quebec model can be found in other countries as well and has become a source of inspiration for them.

The idea of Canadian multiculturalism is the exact opposite. It rejects all notions of common values and culture. In fact, the idea of multiculturalism promotes a society of multiple solitudes. Each newcomer, each immigrant keeps his or her language, culture and customs and is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Quebec, I would remind you, we have the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Instead of using Quebec's model and promoting one culture, one language and certain common values in public life, it promotes the coexistence of multiple cultures. This idea of multiculturalism has always been rejected by Quebec. I will come back to that.

To demonstrate that multiculturalism is as I have just said, allow me to quote a document from Citizenship and Immigration Canada titled “A Newcomer’s Introduction to Canada”. It is a general reference for newcomers that is available on the department's website. I am reading from page 31:

Canada is populated by people who have come from every part of the world. Through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the government encourages Canadians to take pride in their language, religion and heritage and to keep their customs and traditions, as long as they don’t break Canadian laws.

This quotation from Citizenship and Immigration Canada is the best illustration of multiculturalism and of what is rejected by Quebec.

I would also like to say there is some uneasiness within the Canadian nation concerning multiculturalism. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a letter written by Carol Dunn, published in today's National Post on page A17, in which she says that her 16-year-old son, who attends a Toronto high school, is often asked where he is from. He has learned to answer, “Scotland and England”, because when he says he is “Canadian”, he is told there is no such thing. I draw the House's attention to this letter because it is an excellent illustration of the problem that exists even for the Canadian nation in its chosen model of integration for newcomers.

As I said, in Quebec's case, this model of multiculturalism has been rejected, especially since that model trivializes Quebec's position within Canada and refutes the existence of the Quebec nation because we would all be additional ethnic groups—French-Canadian ethnic groups or Quebeckers of French origin, depending on the definitions that people, or federalists, wish to give the notion, being one ethnic group among the others. Federalists, like sovereignists in Quebec, have long rejected multiculturalism as a model for integration.

Already in 1971, Robert Bourassa, a Liberal premier and federalist, wrote to Pierre Elliott Trudeau that “that notion [of multiculturalism] hardly seems compatible with Quebec's reality”.

Quebec's model of interculturalism, on the other hand, overcomes immigrants' feeling of isolation. The notions of multiculturalism tend to isolate newcomers in their culture and customs. These two conflicting models exist in the same place. And even though sovereignty is the only way to clear up this confusion, it seems to me that Bill C-505 would recognize, not only the level of integration in Quebec, but also the fact that the Quebec nation is capable of drafting its own laws on applying an integration model for newcomers.

The confusion caused by the conflict between Canadian multiculturalism and Quebec interculturalism sends a message that is very difficult for immigrants to understand. Unfortunately, I will not have time to quote an excerpt from the brief the Conseil des relations interculturelles du Québec presented to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, which clearly shows that these two integration models confuse newcomers and make it very hard for them to understand the message of the Quebec nation.

Canadian multiculturalism promotes Canada's two official languages, French and English, while Quebec interculturalism promotes French as the common public language and the language of communication. Quebec has already developed tools to protect and promote French in Quebec. Although nothing is perfect and there is still a great deal of work to be done, the application of interculturalism in Quebec has enabled French to make progress, while multiculturalism is a constant barrier that sets French back. French is and must remain the common language of the Quebec nation, with all due respect for Quebec's aboriginal peoples and anglophone minority.

Even though only full sovereignty for Quebec can promote and protect the French language, Bill C-505 will lessen the influence of multiculturalism in Quebec and the negative effects I mentioned that are leading to the anglicization of many newcomers to Quebec.

In conclusion, if we recognize Quebec as a nation, we must walk the talk and take real steps to give effect to that recognition. The bill that I am introducing today and that I would like to see adopted by this House is one more step in that direction.

Opposition motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French Language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the first hour of debate on Bill C-482, a bill to amend the Official Languages Act to force the federal government to recognize the importance of Bill 101 in Quebec, as well as private enterprises under the federal jurisdiction with respect to French as the language of work, the NDP was not really sure of the direction it wanted to take. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst said that they would vote in favour of the bill just so they could study it in committee.

I would like to ask the hon. member what he wishes to accomplish by doing so. Is the member aware of the implications that the passage of such a bill would have on the province of Quebec, not to mention the whole country? Did the hon. member not listen to the arguments brought forward by the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party that undeniably demonstrated the negative effect such a bill would have if passed?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak today on the motion introduced by the Bloc Québécois on opposition day.

This motion was introduced pursuant to the federal Parliament’s recognition of the Quebec nation. It is apparent now that the Conservative government has been trying, since it voted in favour of recognizing their nation, to persuade Quebeckers that it has given them a little more than they used to have in terms of rights, regulations and jurisprudence.

The Conservative government admitted that Quebec constitutes a nation. We already knew that Quebec was a nation thanks to its language and culture but we know now that this government has no intention of adapting to this new reality and showing some respect for the Quebec nation.

We, the Bloc members of Parliament, represent the nation of Quebec. We believe that the Conservative government has a political and even a moral obligation now to translate this recognition into deeds and facts. If the government votes for this motion today, there would be deeds and facts to recognize the language, culture and diversity of Quebec.

The motion we have brought forward today asks the federal government to recognize and incorporate into its legislation and programs one of the basic characteristics of our nation. I am speaking obviously about the future of the French language.

We all know that French is essential to the identity of the Quebec nation. We demanded recognition as a nation because we have this language, culture, heritage and history, which have been part of us for a very long time.

On the political level, our National Assembly adopted the Charter of the French Language in 1977 in recognition of Quebeckers’ desire to ensure its quality and vigour.

We decided collectively as a nation to make French the language of state and the legal language, as well as the normal, customary language of instruction, communications, commerce, business and, of course, work.

Thirty years after the Charter of the French Language was adopted, it is obvious that it was a turning point in the affirmation of the identity of the Quebec nation.

When we speak now of the Quebec nation, there is a consensus in Quebec that Quebeckers have formed a nation for many years. On October 30, 2003, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion reaffirming that the people of Quebec form a nation. It was not for nothing that the Quebec National Assembly specified that it was reasserting the existence of a Quebec nation. The resolution was actually just repeating what all Quebec governments had been saying for decades.

It was not until November 2006 that the federal Parliament recognized the obvious fact that Quebeckers form a nation. It recognized this fact, but without giving it any substance.

I would still like to congratulate our NDP colleagues who support our motion today and who, like us, are trying to put a little more flesh onto the concept that was adopted in this House. However, we cannot recognize the Quebec nation without at the same time recognizing that it has an identity, and that it has values, interests and rights. Like all nations, our nation has the right to control its own development. It has the right to internal self-determination, which implies that the House of Commons, in recognizing the Québécois as a nation, recognized they have the right to control their social, economic and cultural development.

As I said at the start of my remarks, our nation has its own identity, which implies that the federal government recognizes, particularly in its laws and practices that French is the language of Quebec and that its culture is different from the rest of Canada.

As the motion states, the federal government must now move from words to deeds. In the motion tabled today in this House, the Bloc Québécois calls on the federal government to recognize and comply with the Charter of the French Language, especially in regard to the language of work in enterprises under federal jurisdiction.

At present, there are two systems in our nation. There are companies where the workers are under the official languages regulations—the language of Canada—and other companies where the workers are under the jurisdiction of Charter of the French Language. Those are two systems in the same nation. We want to see a single way of operating and only one language used in all Quebec companies. That is simple when you are a nation.

The federal government must truly recognize the Quebec nation—not simply in words. Conservative members boast about having recognized Quebec as a nation. I asked a Conservative member what concepts of nationhood they recognized, and what new rights, regulatory powers and privileges have they granted to this nation. Nothing. No answer. They take Quebeckers for idiots. They just tell them that they form a nation; but they are given no new rights. Quebeckers are not fooled.

If Parliament recognizes the Quebec nation, if the Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats recognize the nation, they cannot logically be opposed to the principle of Bill C-482, which would require the federal government to recognize the Charter of the French Language in Quebec. That would enable it to extend its application to federally regulated businesses. Moving from words to deeds does not just entail the example appearing in the wording of the motion, that is to say the application of the Charter of the French Language to employees under federal jurisdiction. It also means recognizing that multiculturalism is a barrier to the model for integrating newcomers in Quebec society, and that there is another Quebec culture that has not yet been recognized by the Canadian government.

Quebec is not a bilingual society. It is false to say that we are opposed to anglophones. I heard some remarks by Conservative Party members. They said that we were going to war against the anglophone minority that built Quebec. That is not true. We simply want to affirm Quebec's majority language, which is French.

Unlike the Canadian model, Quebec relies on interculturalism as its integration model. In other words, unlike the Canadian approach, which is to value diversity, the Quebec approach is one that is based on the learning and recognition of the French language, the official language and language common to the citizenry and on the adherence to a set of fundamental values that constitute the historic nature of Quebec.

I will close my remarks by reminding the members of this House that the point of this motion is that we must now move from words to deeds in order to solidify the recognition of the Quebec nation. Like my Bloc Québécois colleagues, like many Quebeckers, I remain convinced that the best way for the Quebec nation to take complete charge of its political, economic, social and cultural development is sovereignty for Quebec. However, the addition of this element to that nation here, in the House of Commons, is a plus and means more powers for Quebec. That is why it is important for us.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the member has not understood the Bloc’s Bill C-482, so I will remind him about it. The bill will require that the federal government recognize the Charter of the French language within Quebec—not China—and will allow it to apply the Charter to enterprises under federal jurisdiction.

I would like the member to tell me what I should tell my fellow Quebeckers when they decide to take an Air Canada plane and go from Montreal to Toronto or Montreal to Vancouver. There are no French language newspapers and they do not even have services in French. When they board, they do not hear “Bienvenue à bord”, they hear “Welcome aboard”. These Air Canada employees are subject to federal regulation and they are in Quebec.

We want to be served in French by employees to whom the Canada Labour Code applies. I would like him to answer that.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my speaking time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

Thank you for allowing me these few minutes to address the House on this important matter. Although I cannot support the motion before us today, I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize our government's commitment to promoting the use of French, not only in Quebec and not only in the workplace, but also in the community across the country.

First, I want to reassure my hon. colleagues that the Government of Canada recognizes the unique role of French in Canada and the importance of Quebec's Charter of the French Language. It is through language that we preserve our collective memory, that we express our pride in our identity and that we share our dreams for the future. For Quebeckers, French helps to define them and constitutes the basis of their culture.

That said, we hope that the Government of Quebec and our esteemed colleagues in this House also respect this government's broad mandate and Canadian jurisdictions and Canadian citizens. We hope they understand that Canadian laws have an impact from sea to sea and well beyond the geographic borders of the Province of Quebec.

Let us not forget that Canada is, first of all, a bilingual country. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly provides that English and French are the official languages of Canada and enjoy the same status.

They also have the same rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of Parliament and of the Government of Canada. The role of the Government of Canada and of federal language legislation is to promote the use of English and French in Canada through federal and provincial linguistic frameworks suited to the needs and realities of Canada's linguistic communities, including French-language communities in Canada.

Consequently, our charter of rights and our laws already encourage the use of French in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. Contrary to what the opposition critic suggests, they do not limit, prevent or undermine the use of French in Canada, and especially not in Quebec. Quite the contrary.

I now want to draw your attention to the issue of language in the workplace and, more specifically, in federally-regulated workplaces in Quebec. The purpose of the recent private member's Bill C-482 is to amend the Canada Labour Code to require any federal work, undertaking, business or area of federal activity in Quebec to be subject to the conditions of the Charter of the French Language. In fact, I cannot understand how we could subordinate a federal act to a provincial act, regardless of the province or issue in question.

Nor do I want to dwell any further on legal technicalities. I prefer to put the emphasis on facts from the publication of statistics from the 2006 census conducted by Statistics Canada on language, mobility and migration. More than one in four Canadians speak French at work. Nearly 95% of Quebeckers speak French at work, which represents a slight increase from 2001.

We have also learned from other sources that French is the principal language used in federally-regulated workplaces in Quebec. No federal or provincial statute will alter those facts.

Contrary to accusations by one of the opposition parties, which have been relayed through the media in recent months, we have no evidence that there are any barriers to the use of French in federally-regulated Quebec businesses.

I am very well aware that out of the thousands of complaints filed with the Quebec complaints office, the vast majority do not relate to language of work.

There is no evidence that there are any barriers to using French in federally regulated workplaces in Quebec. Once again, the Bloc has cried wolf on this issue, but Canadians will not let the wool be pulled over their eyes. They have understood clearly that the Bloc no longer serves any purpose in Ottawa and the only reason it is raising the hue and cry is to justify its presence here.

Although the Canada Labour Code does not and should not address the question of language of work, federally regulated employers in Quebec are nonetheless committed to preserving, promoting and protecting the language rights and cultural rights of francophone employees and the communities to which they belong.

By choosing to become responsible citizens and active participants in those communities and in the province of Quebec, those employers have also chosen to abide by and accept the use of French in their operations. Federally regulated employers are well aware of the importance of French in Quebec and of the Charter of the French Language. Federally regulated businesses in Quebec also understand that the language of work is dictated by the reality of that place of work.

The vast majority of their customers in Quebec speak French. The vast majority of their workers therefore necessarily speak French. Speaking French is thus a sound business practice that improves their efficiency. Refusing to allow French to be used in a workplace in Quebec would quite simply be suicide.

I think I can easily persuade my honourable colleagues that French is in fact the most commonly spoken language in workplaces in Quebec, whether they are subject to provincial or federal regulation. The amendments to the Canada Labour Code proposed in Bill C-482 are therefore completely pointless and cannot be supported by this government.

There are occasions, however, when workers in Quebec have to speak English in order to do their jobs, and even the Charter of the French Language recognizes those exceptions to the language laws. Businesses that operate in Quebec have to look beyond provincial borders in order to sell their products, purchase cutting edge technology, develop their networks and take advantage of new markets. Federally regulated businesses cut across provincial and international boundaries by their very nature.

For many federal employers, their activities must not and cannot be circumscribed within a single province. Their profit margin depends on their ability to provide services and sell products beyond the provincial borders, whether their business is transportation, telecommunications or international finance.

It would be both unreasonable and harmful to require these companies and their employees to limit their ability to do business in English or in any other language in the world, outside Quebec. When the Canadian banking industry expands in Latin America and the Caribbeans, for example, Spanish becomes a valuable asset. When supply chains in the world extend all the way to China, it becomes all the more urgent that Canadians learn Chinese.

In other words, the language of work should also depend on trade requirements, without excluding French as the main language, but making it a needed complement. The pre-eminence of French in Quebec would certainly not be jeopardized by the occasional use of other languages, including English, during a day’s work.

Companies all over the world are rapidly becoming multilingual and not unilingual. They are more open to foreign markets, foreign technologies, foreign investment and even foreign languages as they try to win new markets in the world economy.

To conclude, I fear that legislation on the use of one language at the expense of other languages would only slow down economic growth in Quebec. Multinational companies would certainly turn to economies that promote competitive advantages instead of restricting them.

If that is the way the Bloc Quebecois intends to stand up for Quebec, I can understand why many of its members are leaving and others are wondering if they still serve a purpose here, in Ottawa.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Bloc Québécois presented a motion that reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, following the recognition of the Quebec nation by this House, the government should move from words to deeds and propose measures to solidify that recognition, including compliance with the language of labour relations of Quebec’s Charter of the French language regarding [workers of] enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec.

When the Conservative government made the decision to formally recognize the Quebec nation, it led the House of Commons to readily recognize that nation's attributes, including its language, culture and integration model.

If the federal government would truly recognize the Quebec nation, and not just in words, it would respect the language of that nation and it would support Bill C-482, which was presented by the Bloc Québécois to amend the Canada Labour Code, and which is currently going through the parliamentary process.

According to the most recent data released by the Office québécois de la langue française on the language used in the workplace, one quarter of the population on the island of Montreal works in English. Among anglophones, it is three quarters of the labour force.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages keeps refusing to answer a very simple question: When will she finally recognize that French is being threatened in Quebec and ensure that her government stops contributing to this decline?

It is clear that the Conservative government used the recognition of the Quebec nation to try to win Quebeckers' confidence. Once that recognition was a done deed, that was good enough for the government, and that recognition did not change anything.

However, the government can and must act. It can do so either by supporting Bill C-482, or by supporting our motion. In the first instance, it would have to comply with Bill 101 when implementing the Canada Labour Code in Quebec, in order to improve the situation regarding the language of work in Quebec. In the second instance, it would have to propose measures to give concrete expression to this recognition.

In reply to each of the Bloc Québécois' questions, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages indicated that her government promotes bilingualism in Canada and not just French in Quebec. In reality, she encourages bilingualism in Quebec and thus weakens the French language. This explanation alone supports the fact that only the Bloc Québécois defends Quebec's values and interests in Ottawa.

We are asking that the federal government recognize and respect the Charter of the French Language in Quebec primarily with respect to the language of work in businesses that fall under federal jurisdiction, that it exempt Quebec from its multiculturalism policy and that it delegate to Quebec responsibility for regulating broadcasting and telecommunications.

Anyone who looks at the mandate of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages will read the following:

[It] works to protect language rights by overseeing the application of the Official Languages Act by the federal government. It also promotes Canada’s official languages and respect for linguistic duality, which is a fundamental part of our national identity.

There are two important aspects: protecting language rights and promoting the official languages.

According to data from the last census released in December 2007, it seems that the French language has lost ground throughout Canada, including Quebec, even though a greater number of immigrants than before speak French at home. What is the government doing about this? Even though the number of people with French as their mother tongue rose between 2001 and 2006, their relative weight declined and these individuals only represent 22.1% of the population, Statistics Canada revealed.

The same is true for the number of francophones, which, between 2001 and 2006, decreased by 5,000. With regard to the population that uses French most often at home, their numbers decreased by 8,000.

Given those statistics, the government must indicate how it plans to fulfill its responsibility to ensure the maintenance and development of official language minority communities. How can the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages fulfill its mission, which includes taking all necessary steps to achieve the three main objectives of the Official Languages Act, including the equality of French and English in Canadian society?

Anyone who visits the commissioner's website can read this and might even be surprised to learn that the current Official Languages Act:

guarantees services in English and in French where required by the Act;

guarantees federal employees the right to work in the official language of their choice in certain regions;

enhances the vitality of English-speaking and French-speaking minority communities and advances the status of English and French in Canadian society.

The situation in Quebec is changing: for the first time since 1976, the number of anglophones in Quebec is on the rise. In 2006, the anglophone population stood at 607,000, up 16,000 from 591,000 in 2001. The rate of growth between 2001 and 2006 was 2.7%, higher than the rate for the francophone population.

First of all, to avoid any ambiguity, it is essential to make it clear in the Official Languages Act that French is the official language of Quebec. We believe it is important to amend the preamble to state that the federal government recognizes French as the official language of Quebec and the common language in Quebec.

That was the statement made in 1974 in section 1 of the statute that would make French the official language of Quebec. That legislation required public utilities and professions to use French to communicate with the public and the government; French was the language of routine communication in government; employees of companies had to be able to communicate with one another and with their superiors in French in the course of carrying out their duties; French had to be used everywhere in business, particularly in business management, company names, public signage, collective agreements and consumer contracts.

Next came the Charter of the French Language, also known as Bill 101, the purpose of which was to make French the language of the government and the law, the language of work, education, communications, trade and business. Quebec governments enforced the legislation in a spirit of fairness and openness, with respect for the institutions of the Quebec English-speaking community and ethnic minorities, whose invaluable contribution to the development of Quebec we recognize.

Recognition of the Charter of the French Language in no way diminishes the rights and privileges of Quebec’s anglophone minority set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

No matter how the issue is viewed, it is clear that Quebeckers are a nation. Is Canada willing to recognize that fact unconditionally? Is the federal government willing to translate words into deeds and propose measures affirming recognition of the Quebec nation and its language and culture?

Each vote will give us a clear idea of the government’s true intentions.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reread the Bloc Québécois' opposition day motion.

—following the recognition of the Quebec nation by this House, the government should move from words to deeds and propose measures to solidify that recognition, including compliance with the language of labour relations of Quebec’s Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec.

In this regard, I would like to respond to the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, who is gloating that everything is going so well and that 94% of Quebeckers speak French at work. If this is the case, it should be included in the act. If this reflects the real situation, they should put it in writing, support the Bloc Québécois' motion and formalize this ideal situation that exists in Lévis—Bellechasse.

The fact remains that Quebeckers are a nation. By recognizing this, the House of Commons automatically recognized its attributes, in particular its language, its culture, its model of integration and its Civil Code, but we will talk about it later. French is the official language of Quebec, except for the federal government, which recognizes two official languages. However, the federal government does not expressly recognize Quebec's culture. Whenever the federal government comes to Quebec to promote bilingualism, particularly in Montreal, it weakens French. Whenever French is supported in Quebec, it helps francophones outside Quebec.

However, the federal government imposes an integration model. It imposes multiculturalism, which runs counter to the Quebec integration model of interculturalism.

The Bloc Québécois recommends, therefore, that the federal government recognize and comply with the Charter of the French Language in Quebec, specifically with regard to enterprises under federal jurisdiction, that it exempt Quebec from its multicultural policy and that it grant Quebec regulatory power over radio broadcasting and telecommunications.

This would be a start in a genuine recognition of the Quebec nation. In fact, although the Conservative party prides itself on its openness towards Quebec, it has done absolutely nothing for the people of Quebec, except for recognizing the nation, which was, let us recall, a Bloc Québécois initiative.

It was the Bloc Québécois that, on an opposition day like today, introduced a motion that called for the recognition of Quebec as a nation. This government, that really just intended to obstruct and deceive us, used a shameful political tactic and applauded itself as it said that it was going to recognize Quebec as a nation, but within a united Canada. We will see later that Quebec was already a nation before Canada even existed.

As I have just mentioned, a little more than a year ago, on Monday, November 27, 2006, the House of Commons agreed to the following motion by 265 votes to 16:

That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.

This was, as it still is, a great victory for the Bloc, but it was above all a victory for all the people of Quebec. To be recognized as a nation is no small matter, and it comes with privileges and rights. But on these, the government is silent.

Even so, it was still the first time that Canada recognized our existence as a national community. It is the first country to do so and we hope that it will not be the last.

Applied to persons, the term nation refers to a “group of people, generally fairly large, distinguished by its awareness of its unity and a desire to live together” according to the definition in the Robert dictionary. In short, “nation” is the community to which we belong, the group with which we identify, and within which we debate and decide how our society is to be organized.

And because a nation is the special place where political decisions can be made, recognizing a nation means recognizing a political entity with legitimate political rights and aspirations.

By recognizing the Quebec nation, the House of Commons recognized the right of Quebeckers to control the social, economic and cultural development of Quebec themselves. By stating that the Quebec nation is composed of all residents of Quebec, regardless of their origin or mother tongue or the region where they live, the federal government recognized that the Quebec nation has a clear geographic base, made up of all of the territory of Quebec. In so doing, Canada declared that calls for partition are illegitimate.

In short, recognition of the Quebec nation also means recognition of the legitimacy of Quebec’s repeated demands that Quebeckers have the powers and resources that are needed in order to develop their own society. To date, unfortunately, Canada has not yet acted on that recognition, and continues to behave as if it was composed of a single nation. Here again, we can see this Conservative government’s lack of openness to Quebec and to Quebeckers. As we shall soon see, this government’s openness to Quebeckers is a myth; it is an urban legend. Recognition of a nation must in fact be more than symbolic.

Nations have rights, and they have one right in particular, the right to self-determination, the right to decide the course of their own development. Quebec can choose the course of its own development by becoming sovereign. We know that this is the first choice of the Bloc Québécois. Just as it can choose to try to get the powers and resources it needs in order to achieve that by working to renew federalism. That is not our choice. But both options are legitimate, and we recognize that.

While waiting for Quebec to be sovereign, the Bloc Québécois works to promote the sovereignty of Quebec every day. The Bloc works to defend the interests of the Quebec nation. Even without recognition by Canada, the Quebec nation continues to exist, to pay its taxes, to have interests that are unique to it and that are often very different from Canada’s. The Bloc continues to defend the interests and promote the values of the Quebec nation. If Quebeckers form a nation, it is not up to Canadians to decide how they plan to organize their society.

Because Quebec is the homeland of the Quebec nation, it must have the resources to control its own development. To that end, the Bloc Québécois plans to work to resolve a number of priority issues, including the fiscal imbalance, because that has still not been resolved. Because the Government of Quebec is our national government, it must resolve this problem. As long as it persists, Quebec does not have the resources to implement the choices of Quebeckers, and what Quebec does depends on the goodwill of Canada.

Culture and communications are two other priority issues for the Bloc Québécois. Because Quebeckers form a nation, telecommunications and broadcasting must be under Quebec’s jurisdiction. As well, because the Quebec nation exists, Ottawa must recognize Quebec’s culture and identity in its cultural policies and legislation.

Quebec's standing on the international scene is a third priority issue for the Bloc Québécois. Because Quebeckers form a nation, they must be able to express themselves on the international scene in their jurisdictions. Quebec is fully sovereign in the jurisdictions the Constitution gives it. It must be able to fully exercise its powers in those jurisdictions, including in international relations.

What is a nation? The word “nation” can refer to two different things. When applied to a state or territory, the word “nation” can mean “country”. That is the meaning of the word in United Nations, an organization of which Quebec cannot unfortunately be a member yet because it is not sovereign. So, if the motion said “Quebec is a nation”, some people could say that that means that Quebec is a country. But that is not what the motion says. It asks the House to recognize that “the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.”

When the word “nation” is applied to people, it does not mean “country”. According to the Larousse dictionary, it designates a “large human community which, most of the time, lives on a common territory and has historic, linguistic and cultural unity and the desire to live together”. That is the meaning of today's motion.

In Quebec, there is a long-time consensus that Quebeckers form a nation. On October 30, 2003, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion: “That the National Assembly reaffirm that the people of Quebec form a nation”. The motion does not say that Quebeckers form a nation if Canada remains what it is or if Quebec opts for sovereignty. It simply says that the people of Quebec form a nation. There was a reason why the National Assembly chose to reaffirm the existence of a Quebec nation.

This resolution repeated what all the Quebec governments have been saying for decades. I will quote a few, including Maurice Duplessis, the leader of the Union Nationale party, who said “The Canadian confederation is a treaty of union between two nations”. He said that in April 1946, not yesterday.

Jean Lesage, a Liberal, said:

Quebec did not defend provincial autonomy simply for the principle of it, but because, for Quebec, autonomy was the specific condition not for its survival, which is assured, but for its affirmation as a people and a nation.

Jean Lesage, a good Liberal and former premier of Quebec, said that in November 1963.

Daniel Johnson Sr., another unionist, said:

The Constitution should not have as its sole purpose to federate territories, but also to associate in equality two linguistic and cultural communities, two founding peoples, two societies, two nations.

I could also quote René Lévesque:

Canada is composed of two equal nations; Quebec is the home and the heart of one of those nations and, as it possesses all the attributes of a distinct national community, it has an inalienable right to self-determination...This right to control its own national destiny is the most fundamental right that Quebec society has.

That was in June 1980.

Jacques Parizeau, a good PQ premier, said:

To date, Canada's basic law has failed to recognize Quebeckers as a nation, a people or even a distinct society. That is a sad commentary.

Lucien Bouchard was once a Conservative, but he finally opened his eyes and realized that the Quebec nation deserved better than the Conservative Party. In October 1999, he said:

Quebec is the only majority francophone society on the North American continent with a well-defined land base and political institutions which it controls. The Quebec people have all the classic attributes of a nation... The Quebec people adhere to the democratic concept of a nation characterized by its language, French, and a diverse culture, and which is broadly open to international immigration.

The Bloc Québécois' Bill C-482 is extremely important. We know that it was introduced in this House by the hon. member for Drummond. The bill calls on the federal government—because it was obvious that the federal government did not have the will to do so—to recognize the Charter of the French Language within Quebec and extend its application to businesses under federal jurisdiction and—as we will see later—more specifically under the Canada Labour Code.

To avoid any ambiguity, it is essential to state specifically in the Official Languages Act that French is Quebec's official language. It must be done because this Conservative government is promoting bilingualism in Quebec. And Quebec being totally surrounded by a sea of anglophones and being constantly bombarded by the anglophone culture through television, radio and the Internet, when bilingualism is being promoted in a nation like Quebec and in a city like Montreal, the French language loses ground, particularly in Montreal. The situation is probably not as critical in Lévis—Bellechasse, but in Montreal the French language is certainly losing ground: 25% of Montrealers work in English.

This amendment is not purely symbolic. It states, to a certain extent, the intent of the legislator. In this regard, the Barreau du Québec said this:

Jurisprudence, also, seems to consistently demonstrate that the preamble is always important, though the circumstances in a matter, such as the clarity of the provision, justifies setting aside any indications of intent that may be found in the preamble.

It then becomes an insurance policy provided that the body of the act is also amended. The Official Languages Act essentially applies to the Government of Canada and its institutions, and as mentioned earlier, under section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is impossible to amend any provisions dealing with institutionalized bilingualism within the federal government without amending the Constitution.

However, two parts of the act can be amended, namely part VII, which deals with the advancement of English and French in Canadian society, and part X, which deals in part with the mandate of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

The amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois will require a commitment by the federal government not to interfere with the objectives of the Charter of the French Language. It is important to remind members that the recognition of the Charter of the French Language does not in any way diminish the rights and privileges of the anglophone minority in Quebec under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These amendments are strictly limited to the power of the federal government to interfere with language policy in Quebec.

The specific mention of a provincial legislation in a federal statute is allowed, and it is even common. This is called a statutory reference. It means that the government recognizes the provisions made by another Canadian legislature. For example, the Canada Labour Code includes a statutory reference about minimum wage that says the provinces are to set the hourly minimum wage. This is section 178 of the Canada Labour Code. The bill contains an amendment dealing with that.

Almost 10% of the labour force in Quebec is under the Canada Labour Code. These workers are under federal jurisdiction and are employed by companies that do not comply with Bill 101. A federal piece of legislation is needed in order to have them comply. In this regard, two or three industries are usually mentioned, but I will give a more extensive listing.

The Canada Labour Code applies to: works or undertakings connecting a province with another province or country, such as railways, bus operations, trucking, pipelines, ferries, tunnels, bridges, canals, telephone and cable systems; all extra-provincial shipping and services connected with such shipping, such as longshoring; air transport, aircraft and airports; radio and television broadcasting—all our radio and television stations in Quebec; banks; defined operations of specific works that have been declared by Parliament to be for the general advantage of Canada or of two or more provinces, such as flour, feed and seed cleaning mills, feed warehouses, grain elevators and uranium mining and processing; and Federal Crown corporations where they are engaged in works or undertakings that fall within section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or where they are an agency of the Crown, for example the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority.

Here are examples of the number of employees in some of the enterprises coming under the Canada Labour Code. Bell Canada, which is under federal jurisdiction, had 17,241 employees in 2006. In the financial sector, the Royal Bank has 7,600 and the National Bank of Canada has 10,299. In the interprovincial transportation sector, Air Canada has 7,657.

It is estimated that there are approximately 200,000 Quebeckers working in an environment that does not comply with Bill 101 in Quebec, that is a little less than 10% of Quebec workers. The amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois adds to Part 1 of the Canada Labour Code a provision that stipulates that “any federal work, undertaking or business carrying on activities in Quebec is subject to the requirements of the Charter of the French Language”. That provision responds to the demand made in the Larose report of 2001. I refer to Gérald Larose, then and still president of the Conseil de la souveraineté.

I can give a very good example of this Conservative government's lack of respect for the Quebec nation. It occurred last year right after the recognition of the Quebec nation. That motion was, I repeat, adopted in this House in November 2006. Within a week or two of that date, the Minister of Labour tabled Bill C-55 in this House.

This bill, which was a reworking of the bankruptcy legislation, contained a clause that ran counter to the Quebec Civil Code and made certain RRSPs seizable. What this Conservative government wanted was to see bankrupt small investors lose the money they had put aside over the years to certain major finance companies I shall not name here. Major credit card companies. That is what this government wanted to do, which runs counter to one of the things that differentiates the Quebec nation, its civil code. This runs counter to the values of the Quebec nation. This is not the approach we take to working people. We respect what they have put aside over the years.

Finally, after six months, the Bloc Québécois managed to get that legislation amended. Not a single Conservative member of this House spoke up for the investors of Quebec.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, I am here to say that the New Democratic Party of Canada will vote in favour of the motion proposed today. I want to take this opportunity to try to inform my Conservative colleague. He said earlier that his government has done more than any other government to ensure that the true nature of bilingualism is respected and reflected in Canada. I want to tell him that he should take a close look at what my colleague for Acadie—Bathurst just talked about, the court challenges program.

Had it not been for this program established under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we would have never had cases such as the case brought forward by what was called at the time the ACFO, the French Canadian association of Ontario. That case allowed the Supreme Court to determine the extent of certain obligations. People supposedly had the right to instruction in linguistic minority schools, which meant the ability to exercise some control. But it was not that clear in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These rights needed to be brought to life, otherwise these nice theories would have had no effect in the real world.

The same thing happened in Manitoba, your native province, Mr. Speaker. Let us not forget that, in 1890, Manitoba passed a law to deny francophones the right to have laws written in their language. The Supreme Court reinstated that right in June 1985. I know all about that since I was in charge of reviewing the French language version of the laws of Manitoba. For two years and a half, I had the great pleasure to work regularly in Winnipeg and I became well-acquainted with the Franco-Manitoban community. I still have many friends in this vibrant community.

Today, in the official languages committee, we heard witnesses from the Northwest Territories and from Saskatchewan. In that regard, I would like to quote the translation of a popular sentence since translations found here are sometimes better than original versions.

In English we sometimes say that one has to be able to walk the talk. The French version that has been dreamed up here in Canada is even better than the original English one.

The French expression is “Il faut que les bottines suivent les babines.” The Conservatives just pay lip service. They are prepared to say that they recognize the Quebec nation, but the first measure they proposed sought to proportionally reduce Quebec representation here and to eliminate access of francophones outside Quebec to the court challenges program, which enables them to establish and recognize their rights.

When the Prime Minister received the first annual report from Graham Fraser, the current Commissioner of Official Languages, he was shocked. His defence was simplistic. We know that our Prime Minister is rather grouchy, but it was surprising to see him launch an all-out attack. He defended himself by saying that he began his press conferences in French. That is fine and symbolically important but that will not build a school in Saskatchewan or allow a person from Manitoba to work in his own language and to prosper, to use his language and make it a living language. Their gestures continue to be symbolic; they recognize the nation but do not take action to make it a reality.

It is an entirely different story on the Liberal side. My colleague mentioned Justin Trudeau. This is astounding. He recently said that those who are not bilingual are lazy. It is outrageous to say to people who live anywhere in Quebec that if they have never learned English it is because they are lazy. What Mr. Trudeau should realize is that he is privileged, as I am. My mother was francophone and my father was anglophone and so I learned both languages. I was fortunate and so was he. He does not acknowledge that it is a question of luck or that he is privileged, since he finds it unusual that others are not like him. That is indicative of his attitude.

Yesterday, we learned that the Liberals have appointed Gerard Kennedy. To find out a little more about him, I suggest you read a very good article by Joey Slinger in today's Toronto Star. Gerard Kennedy was one of the Liberal leadership hopefuls. Yesterday, the current leader appointed him the critic for intergovernmental affairs.

What message did that send? Easy: the party does not recognize the Quebec nation. That was the message he sent. Today, the Liberals will show us what they think of the French language in Quebec. People are paying very close attention to this, and they are worried. Many years ago, from 1980 to 1983, I had the opportunity to work for the Conseil de la langue française, and I also worked for Alliance Québec. As I said earlier, I was responsible for legislation in Manitoba, and as commissioner for Quebec's language of instruction appeals commission, I drafted the agreement following the Supreme Court ruling that allowed Quebec to maintain its French character and permitted unilingual French billboards. That means I understand both sides and know how to work toward solutions.

What the Liberals demonstrated earlier was astonishing. The Liberals believe that it would be sacrilegious to recognize Quebec or the importance of allowing the French language to reach its full potential within the only Canadian province that has a francophone majority. That goes against everything they have been saying for the last 40 years. Why? Because the Liberal Party of Canada is known for its tendency to say that it can be trusted to keep Quebeckers in their place. It should come as no surprise that of the 75 seats in Quebec, the Liberals can count theirs on two hands.

Just before Easter, the Conservative government, acting on a whim, got involved in the securities issue, which was none of its business, and tried to bring in some nonsense about federal control that would tie the hands of the provinces , including Quebec. That issue is an important one for Quebec, and Quebec's National Assembly unanimously passed a motion about it.

I noticed with great interest that the French-speaking Liberal members from Quebec were not here for that vote. I am anxious to see what the member for Bourassa, former Liberal critic for national defence and now critic for official languages, will do this afternoon.

Today's vote on the motion only says that there is a bill proposal on the table and that we already voted to have it considered. We want some statistics, we want to hear experts and know what the situation is. We cannot simply say today that we do not even want to talk about it.

However, that is exactly the message the Liberal Party of Canada is sending. But that suits it well. Indeed, that party does not want to discuss it. That party is showing its true colours.

In order for people to understand, this is about Bill C-482, which seeks to ensure workers' rights. Once a job becomes an interprovincial undertaking and subject to federal law, the boss can ask the employee to have a knowledge of a language other than French in Quebec. We should look at that, bring in experts and find out the real effect it would have on the critical mass and strength of the French language in Quebec. It is a subject of concern for all Canadians and it certainly is a concern for us in the NDP.

It would be a contradiction to say we want to have Bill C-482 studied in committee and have those experts in and find out the real lay of the land and then turn around and vote against this motion. Today we in the NDP are sending a clear signal that we want that debate to take place. We want to hear those experts. We want to find out what this is about and come to a final decision with regard to the disposition of Bill C-482.

We will not get there with the attitude of the federal Liberals. The true signal the leader of the Liberal Party gave us was when he named Gerard Kennedy responsible for intergovernmental relations.

I personally had a debate with Gerard Kennedy. He proclaims to anyone who is willing to listen that Quebec is not a nation. That is Gerard Kennedy's position. Not long before Christmas, Justin Trudeau said that Quebec was not a nation. Not only they are both official candidates for the Liberal Party but Mr. Kennedy has just been named to a very important position even though he has not been elected yet.

There comes a time when one must go beyond symbols. There comes a time when we must abandon 40-year-old strategies that aim to divide Canadians by saying that the Liberal Party's trademark is the capacity to unite. That is untrue. We can see today that this is false. That party tries to divide us.

We believe that a strong Quebec with a well protected and dynamic French language adds a lot to Canada. That is why we are not afraid to say that we want to study Bill C-482. And we do not want to send a message to the contrary by voting against the motion. Today, we will stand up and vote for the motion by the Bloc.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to the opposition motion from the Bloc Québécois relating to the Charter of the French Language. Even though it has been read often since 10 o'clock this morning, this motion put forward by the hon. member for Joliette is very important and deserves to be read once more:

That, in the opinion of the House, following the recognition of the Quebec nation by this House, the government should move from words to deeds and propose measures to solidify that recognition, including compliance with the language of labour relations of Quebec’s Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec.

I believe it is clear that this motion refers to enterprises and not to services provided by the federal government. There is a big difference.

Let us talk about the language of work. As we know, Bill 101, through the Charter of the French Language, gives francophone Quebeckers the opportunity to work in their mother tongue.

I should mention that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Outremont.

This motion is similar to Bill C-482. The NDP made its position clear regarding Bill C-482. It has supported the bill from the beginning. The role of Parliament is to move bills forward. However, we cannot do so blindly. To the extent possible, we must be able to study a bill. If we want to change Canadian legislation, we must first study it. Parliament includes not only the House of Commons but also as the parliamentary committees, which are made up of members from all parties. These committees have an opportunity to invite Canadians to participate in the study of bills, in order to determine whether the bills are sensible. This also gives us the opportunity to study each bill.

A motion in the House of Commons does not mean that it is binding. It suggests to the government that it should move in that direction. What does the Bloc Québécois want? It is calling on the Conservative government to move forward in a way that is respectful of the Charter of the French Language, commonly known as Bill 101 in Quebec, which governs the language of work, which is French.

I can understand what is happening in Quebec. It is a question of leaving the Bloc Québécois alone to look after its own political affairs. I respect that. However, when it comes to the significance of the motion itself, we must put politics aside and focus on that significance. I prefer to make my own interpretation of the motion, rather than dwelling on the squabbles that have existed for the past 40 years, since the days of Trudeau, Chrétien and company, and everyone who has always argued with Quebec. Instead of that, I simply want to focus on determining the importance of the motion.

Based on this motion, it seems to me that Quebec workers themselves do not understand why, when their company is under provincial jurisdiction, they can speak their language, French, but when their company is under federal jurisdiction, they cannot use the law to speak the language of their choice. For example, employees of Radio-Nord in Quebec do not understand why they cannot express themselves exclusively in French—they simply cannot—although, if they were employed by a company under provincial jurisdiction, governed by Bill 101, they would be allowed do so.

For our part, in the NDP, we checked with the labour movement in Quebec. They share our opinion. The labour movement supports an examination of Bill C-482 by the House of Commons. While the Conservatives try to say they are a federalist party and that they should lead the country; the provinces do exist and we should respect them. Certainly, we must respect the will of the provinces and discuss what is happening there.

I would never have believed it was possible in the history of Canada but last week, in New Brunswick, 350 anglophones assembled in the street in front of the Legislative Assembly in Fredericton to demand that their children be allowed to learn French staring in grade 1. That began a new chapter in the history of our country. We must be open to that. It is a page of our history.

People now understand that we can speak both official languages in this country. I do not think the Bloc Québécois motion means that they do not want English in Quebec any more. That is a false debate; that is the argument of Justin Trudeau and that whole group. What is happening now is about federalist quarrels. That is what divided our country. Now, we recognize what is going on in our country.

I was saddened to see the reaction of the premier of New Brunswick, Shawn Graham—I am criticizing him for it this morning, here in the House of Commons—towards the English-speaking people who want their children to learn French, the second official language. He put obstacles in their way by refusing that. He said they would learn it in grade 5, at the age of 11. Who is he to dictate to people what is good for their children? Who is he to do that?

It is very sad that, despite the direction that Canada’s two founding communities are taking, with our first nations partners, and are finally now able to work together—the new generations are all working together—there are still government representatives who want to throw obstacles in the way.

The goal of this motion, which we want to support—the NDP will, in fact, support it—is that the Québécois people, the heart of North America's francophones, should be able to work in French if a company under federal jurisdiction opens for business in Quebec. People do not want the big boss to compel them to speak English if they want a job. That has happened too often.

We have to be open to that. In adopting the Sherbrooke Declaration, the NDP showed that it was going to start studying what else it could do after recognizing Quebec as a nation. We cannot just recognize Quebec as a nation without anything at all changing in the life of Quebeckers. Otherwise, we would just be the same kind of stubborn mules as Trudeau and Chrétien. This attitude really has to change. We have to stop trying to make Canadians think that if we do this, it is the end of federalism, the end of Canada.

The fact that the member for Acadie—Bathurst learned English did not make him lose his French. People who lose their mother tongue only do so because they want to. There is so much we can do today, reading and all the other things we can do, that we would never lose our mother tongue if we loved it. That is one of the things that cannot be lost. No one can persuade me of that.

What is dangerous, though, is when nothing is done to give people an opportunity to learn the language of their ancestors. That is what happened out west, where francophones had to fight to get their own schools because they could not send their children to francophone schools and their children were becoming anglophones. That is what happened.

I do not think, though, that there are anglophones in Quebec who lose their mother tongue. Quite to the contrary, they keep their mother tongue and learn French as well. That is great and they are to be congratulated, but the same thing has to happen elsewhere. It was the same story in Prince Edward Island.

That is why it is too bad that the federal government eliminated the court challenges program to prevent French-speaking Canadian minorities from getting what they need to preserve their mother tongue. This is the kind of thing people mean when they say federalism does not work. The government prevents communities all over the country from preserving their language. It actually does things to ensure that they lose it.

We should be more open-minded, therefore, and we are going to support the Bloc motion for all these reasons. It is not because they are separatists or this or that but because it makes sense to support it. We can then take a good look at Bill C-482, study it, decide whether some amendments are necessary and propose them so that everyone can be in favour of this bill.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before us today we have the following motion from the Bloc Québécois, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, following the recognition of the Quebec nation by this House, the government should move from words to deeds and propose measures to solidify that recognition, including compliance with the language of labour relations of Quebec's Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec.

This motion seeks to perpetuate old fears that the French language is under constant threat and that previous efforts of Canadian governments to promote French both inside and outside Quebec have been to no avail.

The Bloc Québécois has always defended Quebec's jurisdictions. But this motion would impose provincial law on enterprises under federal jurisdiction. It holds falsely that the French language in Quebec is in a disastrous decline. In fact, the 2006 census, and the report of the Office québécois de la langue française published on March 5, 2008, paint a different picture. Specifically, the use of French in the workplace has increased if we compare it with census statistics from 2001.

It is also important to realize that the changes proposed by the Bloc could in fact threaten the rights of the anglophone minority in Quebec.

The Bloc would like to ghettoize French and isolate Quebec linguistically by disregarding the situation in the other provinces. A bilingual Canada benefits every province and every linguistic minority. In many provinces and in the territories, bilingualism rates are going up, showing the vitality of minority linguistic communities. Furthermore, a recent survey that can be found in the Lord report shows that a large majority of Canadians believe that bilingualism is a factor that defines our country.

As was just mentioned, Parliament passed the motion recognizing Quebec as a nation on November 27, 2006. Since that historic vote, the Bloc has been trying to force the government into implementing policies that would bring the nation of Quebec closer to the Bloc's dream. This motion is just the Bloc's latest attempt along those lines. By forcing enterprises under federal jurisdiction to conform to Quebec's Charter of the French Language, the motion in fact gives Quebec provincial laws precedence over federal laws, and, from the Bloc's point of view, gives additional recognition to Quebec's status as a nation.

The Bloc Québécois has also introduced legislation along the same lines, Bill C-482. The Bloc bill would amend the Canada Labour Code so that federally regulated companies doing business in Quebec would be subject to Quebec's Charter of the French language. The Bloc Québécois is trying to impose the Charter of the French Language, Bill 101, on federally regulated companies by filling what it calls a “regulatory gap”. In fact, section 24 of part V of the Official Languages Act stipulates that:

English and French are the languages of work in all federal institutions, and officers and employees of all federal institutions have the right to use either official language in accordance with this Part.

The Bloc contends that this act does not refer to companies under federal jurisdiction, but to “federal institutions”, which would allow the Bloc to impose the provisions of the charter on companies under federal jurisdiction.

The bill reveals the hypocrisy of the Bloc Québécois on this issue, because it impinges on existing federal laws. Moreover, the Bloc Québécois has not explained the economic and structural consequences its bill would have on federally regulated companies or on Quebec, which enforces the language law.

The Bloc has also not explained how the anglophone minority would be protected. Even Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has said that Bill C-482 could threaten anglophone minority rights, especially when it comes to service delivery.

The Bloc's motion strikes at the very heart of bilingualism, which is a Canadian value.

What this motion is saying is that French must be promoted in Quebec without regard for the linguistic minorities outside the province. It is important to note that, according to Statistics Canada, the proportion of Canadians whose mother tongue is French increased by 1.6% between 2001 and 2006. In addition, during the same period, the proportion of anglophones who know French rose from 9% to 9.4%. The proportion of allophones who know French rose from 11.8% to 12.1% during the same period.

In Quebec in 2006, nearly seven out of 10 anglophones, 68.9%, said they knew French and English, compared to 66.1% in 2001. It is also important to note that the bilingualism rate increased in eight of the twelve provinces and territories, but not in Quebec, from 1996 to 2006.

To support the position that bilingualism is at the core of Canadian values, I want to mention that bilingualism has also become more popular since 2003. Indeed, it has increased from 56% in 2003, to 72% in 2006, among Canadians. One of the main arguments of the Bloc Québécois is that French as the language of work is being threatened, and that applying the charter to a larger number of businesses would improve the situation. However, the 2006 census conducted by Statistics Canada shows just the opposite. In 2001, 63% of immigrants spoke French in their workplace, compared to 65% in 2006. As well, 60% of allophone immigrants were using French in 2001, compared to 63% in 2006.

Moreover, in the retail sector, which is a provincial jurisdiction, the use of English in the workplace has increased by 1%, which seems to indicate that even provincial laws on language do not yield the anticipated results.

The action plan for official languages developed by the leader of the official opposition and the Liberal government in 2003, with a budget of $810 million, is at the core of the Liberal initiative to promote official languages. This plan seeks to help linguistic minorities across the country, including the anglophone minority in Quebec.

In a speech delivered in June 2007 at the summit of francophone and Acadian communities, our leader pledged to continue to implement the Liberal plan, to pursue the efforts made, and to restore the court challenges program, which is so important for minorities, while also doubling its budget.

The Bloc Québécois is trying to find a way to catch the Conservative government off guard, regarding its recognition of the Quebec nation. The Bloc was literally caught with its pants down by the Conservative government when, in an attempt to embarrass the new government by challenging it to prove that it was sincere about open federalism, it presented yet again a motion to recognize the Quebec nation. When the minority Conservative government used the Bloc's initiative and managed to get the House to pass a motion recognizing the Quebec nation within a united Canada, the Bloc was caught off guard, and questions about its relevancy began to be voiced again.

In conclusion, this motion is an intrusion into federal jurisdictions. The Bloc Québécois keeps condemning federal intrusions into provincial jurisdictions, looking shocked every time. It is presenting this motion for just one purpose, which is to try to show that it has a reason to exist.