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.

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

[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.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to participate in the debate. I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages and member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to a motion calling on the government to take action that is at odds with the scope and purpose of existing federal legislation.

I would like to focus my comments on the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code and how they are predicated upon an obvious misunderstanding of the Canada Labour Code and its intent, or, in practical terms, what can and cannot be done under the Canada Labour Code.

I would point out that these amendments were put forward previously under private member's Bill C-482, which asks that “any federal work, undertaking or business carrying on activities in Quebec [be] subject to the requirements of the Charter of the French Language”.

What is the purpose of the Canada Labour Code? It comprises three parts. Part 1 deals with labour relations; part 2 addresses occupational heath and safety and part 3 concerns labour standards. Let us take a more detailed look at that last part.

It would certainly be a first in labour law history if such a measure were adopted by the House. The Bloc Québécois motion, that is. Indeed, to my knowledge, no labour code, not even at the provincial level, covers language rights. Not even the Quebec Labour Code refers to language. Like the Canada Labour Code, it deals exclusively with labour issues.

I want to be unequivocal here to leave no room for confusion: the Canada Labour Code deals exclusively with labour issues. Language is not its business. The federal government has other, more appropriate laws in place to address questions of language.

When it comes to the Canada Labour Code, the proposed changes are therefore completely inappropriate given the purpose of this legislation. For this reason, we cannot condone the measures being put forward by our well-intentioned but misguided colleagues today.

What can the Canada Labour Code do? I think we should spend a few minutes reviewing what the code can do for employers and workers in federally-regulated industries such as the banking, communications and rail, sea, air and interprovincial transportation sectors. All these sectors are federally regulated. The Canada Labour Code is a critical piece of legislation with an important mandate.

The code is applied equally and consistently within all provinces and territories of Canada—including Quebec—to all the businesses I mentioned earlier operating under federal jurisdiction. The Canada Labour Code serves and protects workers in Nova Scotia and British Columbia in exactly the same way that it serves and protects workers in Quebec. Similarly, each province and territory has its own labour legislation to support both employers and employees who fall under their particular jurisdiction.

In Quebec, the Canada Labour Code protects the rights of more than 180,000 Canadian workers. Across Canada, almost 10% of Canadian workers—or 1.3 million people—are protected by the code under our federal jurisdiction.

What does the Canada Labour Code do? It defines employer and employee rights and obligations related to industrial relations, workplace health and safety, and minimum employment standards. All of these ensure that Canadians benefit from safe, healthy, fair and productive conditions of employment.

Proactive relationships between managers and employers foster positive workplace environments and, ultimately, benefit the bottom line of any business. This benefits both employees and employers. When working conditions are healthy because they are good, employees are happier, pleased to do their work and more productive. For the employer, there are fewer disputes and interruptions in work, which is more beneficial.

Part I of the Canada Labour Code defines good workplace relations and helps parties resolve collective bargaining and other industrial disputes. It is a key piece of legislation in defining unfair labour practices, as well as the grounds for arbitration and resolution.

Let us now talk about workplace health and safety, or Part II of the Canada Labour Code. All Canadians have the right to remain safe and healthy while on the job. Workplace health and safety is becoming more and more of an issue. It is a serious matter. An employer must take the appropriate measures to ensure that working conditions are safe or risk receiving formal legal complaints. The employer knows that he or she must take measures to guarantee a safe working environment for the employee.

Part II provides guidance intended to prevent accidents, injuries and work-related illnesses by describing the measures employers and employees can take and regulating safety standards to minimize occupational health and safety risks.

Let us now look at Part III of the Canada Labour Code. Federal government officials, business leaders and unions have long relied on Part III of the code to negotiate fair and equitable employment standards for federally regulated employees in Canada. These standards define the minimum wage, which the Bloc Québécois mentioned earlier. Minimum wage varies from one province to the next. Not wanting to put pressure on the provinces, the federal government instead has tried to be respectful of them, and federally regulated employees who work in a province will receive the same minimum wage as established by that province or territory.

So, these standards define minimum wage, for example, overtime pay, hours of work, holidays, vacations, parental leave, layoff procedures and severance pay. This is all set out in Part III of the Canada Labour Code. It protects worker rights by informing employers of their obligation to provide at least the minimum acceptable standard in these areas by monitoring compliance.

What do we mean by compliance? All of us want good laws for the workplace. But our laws are only effective if they are respected by employers and by the public. It is not good when a law is not respected. Thus, our laws are only effective if the public complies with them and they are backed by enforcement.

Our government's approach to the enforcement of labour laws emphasizes internal responsibility and labour-management collaboration. These are the best tools we have in the modern world for achieving the results we want. To this end, we are investing in education, which presupposes the sharing of best practices. We also provide dispute resolution expertise, and conduct audits and inspections targeted to high-risk workplaces and companies.

I would like to point out that the Canada Labour Code, and the regulations and guidelines that support it, are a model of best practices for all countries around the world as they develop their own labour legislation. For example, through our labour cooperation agreements with countries in the Americas such as Chile, Costa Rica and Peru, we are providing technical assistance based on almost 60 years of experience with the Code to foster cooperation on labour issues and assist governments in legislating the protection of workers' rights.

To conclude, we should be proud of Canada's international reputation with respect to the Canada Labour Code, its legislation and its efforts to promote in other countries the best possible protection of workers' rights.

This issue falls outside the scope of the Canada Labour Code. Moreover, we know that people speak English in Quebec and they also have the right to receive services in the language of their choice.

Furthermore, when an employer conducts business abroad or in other provinces, it may very well be that employees have to speak English to meet the requirements of our country, which recognizes two languages: English and French.

We are presently dealing with the Canada Labour Code and we therefore deem the Bloc Québécois motion to be inappropriate.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member for Joliette mentioned Bill C-482. This Bloc bill would amend the Canada Labour Code to make sure that companies doing business in Quebec, which are already subject to the federal act, would also be subject to the Quebec's Charter of the French Language. However, section 34 of Part V of the Official Languages Act states 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.

What does the member for Joliette have to say in response to the concerns expressed by the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Graham Fraser, who said that this bill could threaten English-speaking minority rights, particularly in the area of service delivery?

Bill C-482

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by nearly 400 people from Quebec City calling on the Government of Canada to pass Bill C-482, which requires the federal government to comply with the Charter of the French Language within the province of Quebec, and therefore to amend the Official Languages Act and include a provision in the Canada Labour Code requiring federally regulated companies to comply with Bill 101 in Quebec and make French the language of work. This bill was introduced by the Bloc Québécois.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, the most recent figures on the language of work in Quebec are worrisome. In the Montreal area, more than 25% of workers work in English. This situation could be different if the Canada Labour Code had been amended to allow the application of Bill 101 on language of work to federal institutions in Quebec. This measure would affect roughly 240,000 Quebec workers.

Will the government give real meaning to recognizing Quebec as a nation and support the Bloc Québécois' Bill C-482?

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

Mr. Speaker, we do have something very positive to contribute: Bill C-482. The minister could accept the truth of the Bloc Québécois' reasoning and support our bill, which would improve the language of work situation in Quebec by protecting the interests of Quebeckers—their language—and by requiring the Canadian government to comply with Bill 101 when applying the Canada Labour Code to the Quebec nation.

Bill C-482

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition containing approximately 100 signatures in support of the Bloc Québécois' Bill C-482. As we all know, this bill aims to ensure that the federal government respects Bill 101 in Quebec.

What is noteworthy about the signatures I gathered compared to those gathered by my hon. colleague is that they are the signatures of unionized employees from across Quebec. They strongly insist that the Canada Labour Code include a provision requiring federally regulated companies to comply with Bill 101, since that is not at all the case at this time.

Official Languages

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition here today containing 869 signatures. These Quebeckers support Bill C-482 and are calling on the federal government to actively respect the Quebec nation and Bill 101.

Bill C-482

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition with 420 signatures. These Quebeckers support Bill C-482 and are calling on the federal government to take tangible action showing that it respects the Quebec nation and Bill 101.

Official Languages

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today a petition signed by 367 citizens from Quebec who support Bill C-482, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

These petitioners demand that the federal governement actively respect the Quebec nation and Bill 101.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for centuries, our people have been standing up for French. We have resisted every direct or indirect attempt at assimilation imposed by the British Empire and then by Canada. We have succeeded in turning around a situation where francophones were put in situation of political, economic and social inferiority.

We turned around a situation where new arrivals in Quebec became English speaking Canadians. Quebeckers from every generation have fought for Bill 101.

Today, with Bill C-482, we are reaching out to the federal government and asking it to recognize that its institutions in Quebec must respect the Charter of the French Language above all official language legislation. The Quebec nation exists; it is a francophone nation in North America. That is who we are and who we want to continue to be.