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.

Canada Labour Code

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Yes, Madam Speaker, I meant the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. Thank you very much.

The purpose of this bill has the consensus of the National Assembly of Quebec. Every living premier and every union is calling for the Charter of the French Language to apply to federally regulated businesses. It is the express and unanimous demand of Quebec.

In this debate, I will explain the changes the bill will make. I will provide some current examples of the French fact in Quebec and I will take the liberty of debunking some popular myths.

The bill we are debating today is nothing new. This is the fourth time the Bloc Québécois has introduced such a bill since 2007. When it passes, I hope, it will ensure that the Charter of the French Language is applied to federally regulated businesses operating in Quebec.

In 2007, the former member for Drummond, Pauline Picard, introduced Bill C-482. In 2009, the former member for Joliette, Pierre Paquette, introduced Bill C-307. Lastly, in 2011, the former member for Ahuntsic, Maria Mourani, introduced Bill C-320. Even the NDP has proposed similar legislation, including a bill in 2009 that was introduced by Thomas Mulcair but never debated, and another in 2012, introduced by Robert Aubin, which imposed bilingualism and included the possibility of an exemption for certain businesses by means of government decisions. This last bill may have nothing to do with the Charter of the French Language, but I wanted to stress the efforts made at the time.

Bill C-254 amends the Canada Labour Code to clarify that any federal work, undertaking or business operating in Quebec is subject to the requirements of the Charter of the French Language. It is important to mention that, right now, approximately 33% of these businesses apply the charter voluntarily. However, that means that 67% do not. Tens of thousands of employees in Quebec do not even have access to workplace communications in their first language.

Also, as long as businesses are not legally required to apply the Charter of the French Language, any change in management or managerial vision can mean a decrease in the number of businesses that apply it voluntarily.

Bill C-254 amends the preamble to the Official Languages Act to recognize that French is the official language of Quebec and the common language in Quebec. Here the legislator is clarifying its will and its expectations of the authorities that apply the act.

Bill C-254 also adds to the Official Languages Act a formal undertaking on the part of the federal government not to obstruct the application of the Charter of the French Language. This is a legislative reference, a legal and constitutional measure already applied in various areas, in particular the federal minimum wage, which is set on the basis of the provincial minimum wages. This undertaking not to obstruct the application of the Charter is essential to make federally regulated businesses understand that compliance with the Charter of the French Language is no longer optional in Quebec.

Bill C-254 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to clarify that the name of a corporation that carries on business in Quebec must meet the requirements of the Charter of the French Language. There is nothing outrageous about that. Many international companies register in the language of the country in which they are doing business. Quebec will simply join the ranks of these countries.

In recent months, we have all heard talk about protecting the French language from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Official Languages, as well as from members of every party. I have also seen many of my colleagues making efforts to learn French, and I would like to thank them for that. After all, learning a new language is never easy at any age.

In November 2020, the Prime Minister said, “we recognize that, in order for Canada to be bilingual, Quebec must first and foremost be francophone. That is why we support Bill 101 in what it does for Quebec”.

He says the Liberals support Bill 101, but to translate those words into action, they would have to allow it to be modernized and applied as is to all institutions and businesses in Quebec. His statement highlights a trend I have noticed. Until now, a bilingual Canada has mainly meant francophones and allophones learning English and anglophones speaking English. The rate of bilingualism in Quebec is around 44%. It is the highest rate in Canada, which bears out my observation.

The members of the House may think I am exaggerating, and that is their right. I will, however, share a few examples from everyday life. Forty-four per cent of federal public servants are reluctant to speak French because they feel uncomfortable. They think that it might upset their anglophone colleagues or hurt their chances of promotion.

Even today, in both private and professional life, if there is just one anglophone at a meeting, that meeting will take place in English, regardless of the number of francophones present. There is a word for this, and that word is hegemony.

In recent months, I have seen members roll their eyes when another member rises on a point of order because there was a problem with interpretation into French. However, I have never seen members roll their eyes when another member rises on a point of order because there is a problem with interpretation into English. Do not get me wrong, I am not playing the victim. I am simply describing situations that some of my colleagues may not have noticed. I am just pointing out something that may appear trivial but that is a reality experienced at various levels in many different settings by francophones, both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

Incidentally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the translators and interpreters for their amazing work and excellent service.

I am going to ask my colleagues to use their imagination. I want them to imagine that they are going to attend a meeting in their riding. If 10 anglophones and one francophone attend this meeting, which language will they speak? Chances are it will be English.

However, in Quebec, when 10 francophones and one anglophone attend a meeting, English will be spoken most of the time even if most of the people attending are French. Why is that? I am not going to speculate as to why my fellow Quebeckers automatically react in this way. It may be out of courtesy or the remnants of a not-so-distant era where workers were told to speak English if they wanted to keep their jobs. I am thinking of the infamous and very nasty phrase, “speak white”, which we unfortunately still hear today. I recently read the following on social media: You lost the war. Deal with it. Assimilate. That is a daily occurrence, sadly.

Recognition of the importance of promoting the use of French must come from all sides, including citizens, businesses and also all levels of government.

I now want to dispel certain very persistent myths. A few years ago, we heard it on the streets and now we are reading it on social media. According to the first myth, by introducing this bill, the Bloc Québécois wants to eliminate English culture in Quebec outright because it hates anglophones.

Anglophone culture is not under threat, neither in Quebec nor elsewhere in Canada or America. In fact, it is omnipresent; no efforts need be made to access it. Communicating in French in the workplace will never prevent anglophones from speaking English.

Wanting to protect the French language does not imply hating English. I would like to make an analogy, although a somewhat poor one. Suppose I like lynxes because I find them beautiful. Lynxes are iconic animals of our extraordinary boreal forest, but there are not many of them. In the boreal forest, there are also caribou and moose. If I like lynxes, does that mean I hate caribou and moose and that I wish they would disappear? No. The same goes for my language. I love it, but that does not mean that I want all other languages to disappear from the world.

I will paraphrase the words of Pierre Bourgault. Fighting to protect the French language means fighting to protect all languages from the hegemony of a single one, whichever one it may be.

The second persistent myth is that applying the Charter of the French Language will cause Quebec to turn inward, that it will no longer be able to communicate with the rest of the world and that its economy will collapse.

To demonstrate the irrationality of this myth, did speaking Russian, Spanish, Mandarin, Portuguese or any other language cause those countries to turn inward and cause their economies to collapse? Of course not. In trade relations and at international summits, companies and politicians manage to get by, particularly thanks to interpreters, who do an excellent job.

The third myth is that the Bloc Québécois is being selfish and not standing in solidarity with Franco-Canadians and Acadians by demanding that the Charter of the French Language apply to businesses located in Quebec. On the contrary, promoting the French language in Quebec will encourage francophones across Canada to not be afraid to assert their own rights.

The fourth and final myth, at least for today, is that the bill is unconstitutional because Quebec cannot impose French as the official language given that Canada is bilingual.

In fact, the only officially bilingual province is New Brunswick. Quebec is francophone, and all the others are anglophone. The bill is constitutional, and it respects and promotes constitutional standards pertaining to languages. It does not violate the division of powers in our federation. On the contrary, it seeks to take advantage of one of Quebec's assets, its unique status as a francophone province, and benefits will undoubtedly accrue to other Franco-Canadian and Acadian communities.

In a nutshell, Bill C-254 will ensure consistency of word and deed in Quebec and across Canada. The bill officially recognizes the incalculable value of the French language, so it encourages people to feel at ease speaking French. This bill will support interpersonal and intercultural exchange by sending a clear message that Canada endorses the application of the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated businesses. It delivers on statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Official Languages in recent months.

This bill will encourage Quebeckers of all ages, regardless of how many generations their families have lived in Quebec, to feel confident about using Quebec's common language, French, at work.

I would like to leave my colleagues with this thought. When we love someone, we take special care of that person. We build them up, help them through tough times, congratulate them when things go well and celebrate their successes. The same applies to the French language. Taking care of it is like loving someone. French is who we are. It is our culture. Let us take care of it.

Official Languages Act

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

Madam Speaker, the NDP has previously supported a bill similar to Bill C-307. It was Bill C-482. It came before this House and was voted on. The NDP supported it at second reading to have it sent to committee for study, because it was a very significant bill.

The present bill has been introduced by the member for Joliette, who said that, in the opinion of the House, further to its recognition of the Quebec nation, the government should now act and propose measures to give form to this recognition, such as having the Charter of the French Language apply to businesses under federal jurisdiction within Quebec, as concerns language of work.

I was listening to my Liberal colleague, who seems afraid of what will happen to francophones in the rest of the country if this sort of thing were passed in Quebec. I remember the member for Papineau saying that, if people did not learn both languages, it was because they were lazy. In New Brunswick, for example, we have two school boards, one English and one French. I recall the member for Papineau saying in Saint John on a visit to New Brunswick that there should be a single, bilingual school board. We know what that produced—a real setback for the French language.

I would like this bill to be studied in committee to hear the experts and hear whether anglophones in a minority situation in Quebec feel threatened. I have a hard time imagining any danger to anglophones in Quebec, given that McGill and other anglophone universities are located there. They are important universities. There is Bishop's University in Sherbrooke and others. They provide good services.

It is still sad that a bill has to be introduced to protect the French language in this country. I am trying to imagine a French company setting up in an anglophone region. All the employees should speak French and the collective agreement should be in French. I cannot imagine that happening. And yet, back home, in L'Anse-Bleue, for example, an anglophone company refused to provide a collective agreement in French. None of the employees in L'Anse-Bleue could understand it.

And what does this bill say? It says that francophones in Quebec will have the right to speak their mother tongue at their workplace and to have services under federal jurisdiction in French. This is not about government services, because services provided directly by federal departments must be in both official languages. Nevertheless, they say that employees within federal departments are entitled to use their mother tongue.

Again this week, at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we were wondering how many deputy ministers, at the federal level, do not speak French. There are some. Does the same problem exist on the other side? How many deputy ministers do not speak English? With all the respect I have for anglophones, they do not have this problem, because all deputy ministers speak English, but not all speak French.

With regard to the Olympic Games to be held in Vancouver, we have just discovered that the advertising being done by the British Columbia tourism agency in other countries, such as China and Mexico, to welcome them to the Olympic Games, is being done in English but not in French. We spoke about that again this morning.

In spite of this, the federal government says that it respects both languages, that it has given a lot of money, through Canadian Heritage and Sport Canada, and so on. But we still have to fight to make sure that French, one of the two official languages, of one of the two founding peoples of this country, is respected.

I do not mean that the Bloc has fought to have the nation recognized, that they succeeded, and now they want a little more, but in my opinion the word “nation” does not mean very much. We ourselves are an Acadian nation, but what difference does that make? It does not make a hill of beans difference!

I recall that at the time the Queen was asked to apologize and acknowledge the wrongs done to the Acadians. The Liberal government of the day denied us that and fought to make sure that the British Crown did not acknowledge the wrongs done to the Acadians. What we were asking for was legitimate. The British Crown had apologized in a number of countries for the wrongs that had been done, but we Acadians, we could not ask for an apology.

In New Brunswick, we have learned to work together and we have had our French school boards and our English school boards. And in spite of that, people have worked together and it did not create just unilingual francophones or anglophones. I think that New Brunswick has become more bilingual because of that, and because of our mutual respect.

Last year, on the question of francophone immersion classes in the schools, the Liberal provincial government of Shawn Graham did not want children to start learning French before grade five, in the only officially bilingual province in Canada. I would never have believed that I would see 350 anglophones in the streets of Fredericton fighting to have their children learn French from a very young age, when they first start school.

The two communities have grown closer. I think we can see the difference between how it was before and the direction we are taking today.

For example, at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the organization Parents for French has appeared several times to say that the government should give the provinces more money to help establish more immersion schools so that our children can learn both languages.

Now people are saying they want to learn both languages. This bill does not frighten me so far. It is a beginning. Voting to have it referred to committee would show our ability to talk to each other and to study the bill. It saddens me to hear the Liberals say they will vote against it. We can get some Quebec anglophones and francophones to come in to talk about it, we can chat with them and perhaps come up with some amendments to the bill.

The member for Joliette had even suggested some amendments to the bill. Let us look at the situation as a whole, rather than jump on the Bloc members about its dealing with a nation, and calling them a bunch of separatists. I know that is not what the hon. member said. But people would say that is the perception people have when it comes from the Bloc Québécois. And that is not what it is.

There is one province within North America that is the flower of the francophone culture. As for us, we are the francophones from the rest of Canada and we must protect the language and culture. This is important. We have now made some progress and anglophones see us now, not as a threat, but as full members of society able to work in our own language.

In some countries, there are five or six languages spoken with no problem whatsoever. If, however, we feel that we have to introduce a bill because in Quebec, a province with a francophone majority, francophones are being required to speak English in the workplace because the employer is English, it shows that not much progress has been made.

We need to look at how adjustments can be made. I have problems with Canada Post, for example. There is a problem within the francophonie itself, at the moment. When a person applies for a job with Canada Post, he has to do a test that comes from Quebec. But we Acadians—and it is not that we cannot understand each other—have a different language and a different accent. So I have been told by people working at Canada Post—

Official Languages

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in November 2007, the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-482 to amend the Official Languages Act and the Canada Labour Code. The amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois would have forced the federal government to recognize the primacy of Bill 101 in Quebec and required private companies under federal jurisdiction to respect French as the language of work. This would have allowed the workers of such businesses to work in French in Quebec.

Quebeckers form a nation; this House has recognized that fact. It is time to put those words into action. So that all workers in Quebec may work in French, the Bloc Québécois will introduce another bill to ensure that the Charter of the French Language applies to all businesses in Quebec, including those under federal jurisdiction.

Charter of the French Language

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-482 was introduced in the House and defeated, but I am still receiving petitions signed by hundreds of people demanding that Bill 101, which makes French the official language of the Quebec nation, be respected by the federal government in Quebec.

I have the honour to present two such petitions.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start off by saying that the Bloc Québécois, like the official opposition, and like—I believe—the NDP, will opposed the motion by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to extend the sitting hours, for a number of reasons.

First, it is important to remember—and this was mentioned by the House leader of the official opposition—that the government and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons have been completely unwilling to negotiate and cooperate. Usually, when Parliament is running smoothly, the leaders meet and agree on some priorities, some items and some ways of getting them done. But since the start of this session, or at least since September, House leaders' meetings on Tuesday afternoons have simply been meetings where we hear about a legislative agenda, which, within hours after we leave the meeting, is completely changed.

That is not how we move forward. Now the government can see that its way of doing things does not produce results. In fact, I think that this is what the government wanted in recent weeks, to prevent Parliament, the House of Commons and the various committees from working efficiently and effectively.

As I was saying, usually such motions are born out of cooperation, and are negotiated in good faith between the government and the opposition parties. But we were simply told that today a motion would be moved to extend the sitting hours, but with no information forthcoming about what the government's priorities would be through the end of this session, until June 20.

This was a very cavalier way to treat the opposition parties. And today, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Conservative government are reaping the consequences of their haughty attitude. As the saying goes, he who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind. That is exactly what has happened to the Conservatives after many weeks of acting in bad faith and failing to cooperate with the opposition parties.

In this case, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons—and earlier I mentioned his arrogance, which, to me, has reached its peak today with the way the motion was moved—gave us no indication as to his government's priorities from now until the end of the session, despite the fact that he was pointedly questioned about that matter. What we did receive was a grocery list with no order, no priorities. As the leader of the official opposition said earlier, when everything is a priority, it means that nothing is.

That is the current situation: they gave us a list of bills which, in fact, included almost all of the bills on the order paper. Not only were things not prioritized, but in addition, as I mentioned before, it showed a disregard for the opposition parties. There is a price to pay for that today—we do not see why the government needs to extend the sitting hours.

Not only was the grocery list not realistic, but also it showed that the government has absolutely no priorities set. The list includes almost all of the bills, but week after week, despite what was said during the leaders' meetings, the order of business changed. If the order of business changes at the drop of a hat, with no rhyme or reason, it means that the government does not really have priorities.

I am thinking about Bill C-50, a bill to implement the budget, which we waited on for a long time. The government is surprised that we are coming up to the end of the session and that it will be adopted in the coming hours. However, we have to remember that between the budget speech and the introduction of Bill C-50, many weeks passed that could have been spent working on the bill.

As I mentioned, the list presented to us is unrealistic. It shows the arrogance of this government, and furthermore, the order of the bills on the list is constantly changing. We feel this is a clear demonstration of this government's lack of priority.

In light of that, we can reach only one conclusion: if the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform cannot present us with his government's legislative priorities as we near the end of this session, in effect, it means that his government has no legislative priorities. It has no long-term vision. Its management is short sighted, very short sighted indeed. I would even say it is managing from one day to the next. From my perspective, this can mean only one thing: it has no legislative agenda. When we have before us bills dealing with only minor issues, this is what that means.

Proof of this lack of legislative agenda is easy to see, considering the current state of this government's agenda. An abnormally small number of bills for this time of year are currently before the House at the report stage and at third reading. Usually, if the government had planned, if it had been working in good faith and had cooperated with the opposition parties, in these last two weeks remaining before the summer recess, we should have been completing the work on any number of bills.

Overall, as we speak there are just five government bills that are ready to be debated at these stages, in other words, report stage or third reading stage. Among those, we note that Bill C-7, which is now at third reading stage, reached report stage during the first session of the 39th Parliament, in other words in June 2007. It has been brought back to us a year later. And that is a priority? What happened between June 2007 and June 2008 to prevent Bill C-7 from getting through third reading stage? In my opinion, we should indeed finish the work on Bill C-7, but this truly illustrates the government's lack of planning and organization.

As far as Bill C-5 is concerned, it was reported on by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources on December 12, 2007, and voted on at report stage on May 6, 2008. Again, a great deal of time, nearly six months, went by between the tabling of the report and the vote at this stage, which was held on May 6, 2008, while the report was tabled on December 12, 2007.

Finally, Bills C-29 and C-16 were both reported on by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs roughly six months ago.

All these delays of six months to a year force us to conclude that these bills are not legislative priorities to this government.

It would be great to finish the work on these four or five bills, but let us admit that we could have finished it much sooner.

This lack of legislative priority was even more apparent before question period when the House was debating second reading of Bill C-51 on food and drugs. Next on the agenda is second reading of Bill C-53 on auto theft.

If these five bills were a priority, we would finish the work. But no, what we are being presented with are bills that are only at second reading stage. This only delays further the report stage or third reading of the bills I have already mentioned. If we were serious about this, we would finish the work on bills at third reading and then move on to bills that are at second reading.

Furthermore, if its legislative agenda has moved forward at a snail's pace, the government is responsible for that and has only itself to blame, since it paralyzed the work of important committees, including the justice committee and the procedure and House affairs committee, to which several bills had been referred. And then they dare make some sort of bogus Conservative moral claim, saying that we are refusing to extend sitting hours because we do not want to work. For months and months now, opposition members, especially the Bloc Québécois, have been trying to work in committee, but the government, for partisan reasons, in order to avoid talking about the Conservative Party's problems, has been obstructing committee work.

Earlier, the NDP whip spoke about take note debates.

Once again, it is not the opposition that is refusing to work on issues that are important to Canadians and Quebeckers. Rather, it is the government that refuses to allow take note debates, because of partisan obstinacy. In that regard, we clearly see that the argument presented by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform is mere tautology or a false argument. In fact, it was the Conservative Party, the Conservative government, that slowed down the work of the House and obstructed the work of several committees.

Not only is the government incapable of planning, vision, cooperation and good faith, but furthermore, its legislative agenda is very meagre and does not in any way warrant extending the sitting hours. In addition, the Bloc Québécois sees many of the bills that are now at the bottom of the list as problematic, but if we extend the sitting hours, we will end up having to examine them.

Take Bill C-14, for example, which would permit the privatization of certain Canada Post activities. Do they really think that sitting hours will be extended to hasten debate on a bill that threatens jobs and the quality of a public service as essential as that provided by the Canada Post Corporation? That demonstrates just how detrimental the Conservatives' right-wing ideology is, not just to public services but to the economy. Everyone knows very well—there are a large number of very convincing examples globally—that privatizing postal services leads to significant price increases for consumers and a deterioration in service, particularly in rural areas.

I will give another example, that of Bill C-24, which would abolish the long gun registry even though police forces want to keep it. Once again, we have an utter contradiction. Although the government boasts of an agenda that will increase security, they are dismantling a preventtive tool welcomed by all stakeholders. They are indirectly contributing to an increase in the crime rate.

These are two examples of matters that are not in step with the government's message. It is quite clear that we are not interested in extending sitting hours to move more quickly to a debate on Bill C-24.

I must also mention bills concerning democratic reform—or pseudo-reform. In my opinion, they are the best example of the hypocrisy of this government, which introduces bills and then, in the end, makes proposals that run counter to the interests of Quebec in particular.

Take Bill C-20, for example, on the consultation of voters with respect to the pool of candidates from which the Prime Minister should choose senators. Almost all the constitutional experts who appeared before the committee currently studying Bill C-20 said that the bill would do indirectly what cannot be done directly. We know that the basic characteristics of the Senate cannot be changed without the agreement of the provinces or, at the very least, without following the rule of the majority for constitutional amendments, which requires approval by seven provinces representing 50% of the population.

Since the government knows very well that it cannot move forward with its Senate reforms, it introduced a bill that would change the essential characteristics of the Senate, something prohibited by the Constitution, on the basis of some technicalities.

It is interesting to note that even a constitutional expert who told the committee that he did not think the way the government had manipulated the bill was unconstitutional admitted that the bill would indirectly allow the government to do what it could not do directly.

They are playing with the most important democratic institutions.

A country's Constitution—and we want Quebec to have its own Constitution soon—is the fundamental text. We currently have a government, a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Government in the House of Commons who are manipulating this fundamental text— the Canadian Constitution—in favour of reforms that would satisfy their supporters in western Canada.

We do not want to rush this bill through the House by extending the sitting hours. It is the same thing for Bill C-19, which, I remind members, limits a Senator's tenure to eight years.

These two bills, Bill C-19 and Bill C-20, in their previous form, meaning before the session was prorogued in the summer of 2007, were unanimously denounced by the Quebec National Assembly, which asked that they be withdrawn. It is rather ironic that the federal government recognized the Quebec nation and then decided to introduce two bills that were denounced by the Quebec National Assembly.

I must say that the two opposition parties are opposed to Bill C-20, albeit for different reasons. Thus, I do not think it would be in the best interests of the House to rush these bills through, since we are far from reaching a consensus on them.

I have one last example, that is, Bill C-22, which aims to change the make-up of the House of Commons. If passed, it would increase the number of members in Ontario and in western Canada, which would reduce the political weight of the 75 members from Quebec, since their representation in this House would drop from 24.4% to 22.7%. It is not that we are against changing the distribution of seats based on the changing demographics of the various regions of Canada. We would like to ensure, however, that the Quebec nation, which was recognized by the House of Commons, has a voice that is strong enough to be heard.

The way things are going today, it is clear that in 10, 15 or 20 years, Quebec will no longer be able to make its voice heard in this House. We therefore believe we must guarantee the Quebec nation a percentage of the members in this House. We propose that it be 25%. If people want more members in Ontario and in the west, that is not a problem. We will simply have to increase the number of members from Quebec to maintain a proportion of 25%. There are a number of possible solutions to this.

Once again, I would like to point out that we introduced a whole series of bills to formalize the recognition of the Quebec nation, including Bill C-482, sponsored by my colleague from Drummond. That bill sought to apply the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated organizations working in Quebec. That was for organizations working in Quebec, of course. At no time did we seek to control what happens elsewhere in Canada. The bill would have given employees of federally regulated organizations the same rights as all employees in Quebec, that is, the right to work in French.

Unfortunately, the bill was defeated, but we will try again. Once again, the fact that Bill C-482 was defeated does not mean we are about to throw in the towel and let Bills C-22, C-19, and C-20 pass just like that. As I said earlier, we will certainly not make things easy for the government by rushing debate on these bills here.

And now to my fourth point. I started out talking about the government's lack of cooperation, vision and planning, not to mention its bad faith. Next, I talked about its poor excuse for a legislative agenda. Then I talked about the fact that we find certain bills extremely problematic. We will certainly not be giving the government carte blanche to bring those bills back here in a big hurry before the end of the session on June 20. Our fourth reason is the government's hypocrisy, in a general sense.

This has been apparent in many ways, such as the government's attitude to certain bills. I would like to mention some of them, such as Bill C-20. I cannot help but mention Bills C-50 and C-10 as well.

Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill, makes changes to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's powers, but that is not what the debate is about. Bill C-10, which introduces elements that allow the Conservative government—

Bill 101

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member just explained, Bill C-482 did not receive the government's support. That being said, our government will work within its jurisdiction and protect both official languages in Canada.

Furthermore, as a Quebecker, I refuse to accept the Bloc member's flag-waving tactics, presenting himself as the only one defending the rights of francophones in Quebec.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of people including many artists demonstrated in Montreal yesterday for the strengthening of Bill 101. The Bloc Québécois has introduced Bill C-482, which attempts to do just that, for example, by amending the Official Languages Act in order to have the federal government recognize that French is Quebec's only official language. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against this bill.

With Quebec's national holiday just a few days away, will the Conservatives finally put their words into action and promise to support this initiative?

Official Languages Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-482 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from May 13 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.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have introduced Bill C-482. I would also like to thank my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her remarks, in which she really explained the bill. I am a little disappointed to see that my colleagues on the opposition side and my colleague who has just spoken have not sufficiently understood Bill C-482. In fact, it does not take away anything. It only amends the Official Languages Act so that businesses respect the spirit of the charter dealing with the language of signage and the language of work in related legislation on businesses. I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, my colleague from Joliette and my colleague from Gatineau, who travelled all across Quebec to explain Bill C-482, what it would change and what it would modify. I can say that it takes away absolutely nothing from the privileges of minorities within Quebec.

It is essential to specify in the Official Languages Act that French is the official language of Quebec. I would like the members who spoke on this bill could really recognize that French is the official language of Quebec. That is why it seems significant to us to amend the preamble to the act to state that the federal government recognizes French as the official language of Quebec and the common language of Quebec.

This bill would amend two parts of the Official Languages Act: Part VII, which deals with the advancement of English and French in Canadian society, and Part IX, which deals primarily with the mandate of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Recognition of the Charter of the French Language in no way diminishes the rights and privileges of the Quebec anglophone minority that are set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I emphasize that point. These amendments strictly limit the power of the federal government to intervene in Quebec's language policy.

Let us talk about a concept. The concept of nationhood is to recognize a nation. It also means recognizing its identity, its language, its culture, its history and its institutions. For the Conservatives, the concept of the Quebec nation is an empty shell. The Conservative game is nothing but a manoeuvre intended to trivialize the Quebec nation.

Logic requires that the identity of Quebec be recognized; in the North American context, that the predominance of French in Quebec be recognized; that Bill 101 adopted by the National Assembly be recognized and respected since a statutory reference is possible. We have used an example on many occasions, the example of minimum wage legislation. The reality is that the Conservatives do not have the courage to move from words to action. The Quebec nation in a united Canada is just window dressing.

The leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has already publicly committed himself to the need to defend and protect the French fact in Quebec. Speaking of Bill 101, he said in 1997 it was, and I quote, “The opposite of a racist law.” He even told the Canadian Press that Bill 101 was a great Canadian law. In that context, I invite honourable members and, in particular, all members from Quebec, to support this bill.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join the debate today on Bill C-482. I must say at the outset that I have a great deal of respect for the member for Drummond, but I profoundly disagree with her on this bill. The bill is extremely dangerous from the point of view of a francophone from outside Quebec. It would give precedence to the French language in federal institutions in Quebec. I can only imagine the repercussions in the other provinces.

First, there is the whole issue that the federal government must respect the Constitution. I will not go into the details of that subject because my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier has very clearly spelled out the matter of constitutional principles. However, I do not understand how anyone could introduce a bill here, in this House, that goes against the Constitution of Canada. I want to look at practical reasons.

The Official Languages Act that was adopted in 1969 has protected and continues to protect our country’s two official languages. The act puts both official languages of our country on an equal footing. I will be the first to admit that there are many challenges to overcome. In a country as large and diverse as Canada, where there is a strong concentration of francophones in one province and where we encourage and celebrate multiculturalism—which is another factor that adds to the complications in an officially bilingual country—it has never been easy to find a balance in all of the issues related to official languages.

Nevertheless, we have made enormous progress. The Official Languages Act was essential to the growth of our minority francophone communities. The member for Drummond said that the use of French is declining in Quebec and everywhere in Canada.

However, we must talk about positive changes. In Manitoba, for example, there 45,000 people of francophone descent, but in principle, 110,000 people speak French. These people completed French immersion or second language courses. In British Columbia, parents, especially from immigrant communities, stand on the sidewalk all evening to register their children in immersion courses. This is really an interesting and significant phenomenon.

Significant changes are occurring in terms of respect for the two official languages. Let us take, for example, the group Canadian Parents for French, which last year or the year before celebrated its 25th anniversary in Manitoba. It is an exceedingly positive group for francophones right across the country.

In this age of globalization, people are realizing that knowing two or three languages is becoming the norm, not the exception. The hon. member will recall a study we did together on democratic reform. We visited England, Scotland and Germany, where she had an interpreter with her. In fact most of those we met spoke two, three or four languages and offered to speak French. That is today's reality.

I do not understand the strategy of turning inward and trying to stick to a single language. It makes no sense in today's world.

I do understand that we want to protect our language. We live in this great anglophone sea that is North America. However, today's youth must not be held back. The teaching of both official languages must be encouraged as must their use in the workplace. Our young people must be given every opportunity.

I have never understood why there has not been greater cooperation between Quebec and francophones outside Quebec. There are 6 million francophones in Quebec, but there are 2.6 million francophones in Canada's other provinces. Once again, in this great North American sea of 330 million people, it seems to me we would do well to work together—cooperatively—more closely and to join forces. But no, it is just not done to acknowledge that there are francophones living outside la Belle Province or that immersion programs are working extremely well. It would not be politically sound for a separatist party to admit that its distant cousins were managing quite well and that there were vibrant communities to be found in Saint-Boniface, Manitoba, Vancouver, Regina, New Brunswick and even Alberta.

What was really heartbreaking was the Bloc's vote against Bill S-3, a bill that was vital for minority francophone communities. I can say for a fact that not all the Bloc members supported the decision by the leader of the Bloc.

The Bloc Québécois members who sat on the Standing Committee on Official Languages were torn by this decision. They knew that Bill S-3 was essential to the survival and development of francophone communities outside Quebec. Despite this, it was decided that they should vote against Bill S-3. How can that be good for the Canadian francophone community?

The other day, one of the Bloc members said that Quebec is a francophone nation. That disappoints me. How does a statement like that make the anglophones in his riding feel? That member does not necessarily represent everyone. That bothers me greatly. Anglophones and allophones also have the right to a representative that takes their interests to heart.

Things are changing. For example, in Manitoba, Premier Doer just created the Agence nationale et internationale du Manitoba. It is a francophone Manitoba Trade. We understand the added value of francophones in our province. It is the exact opposite of what is happening in the world and in all of the other Canadian provinces. In Quebec, they want to withdraw into themselves. I do not understand this senseless ideology.

As I said earlier, Canadian Parents for French is the most vocal group in terms of early immersion in New Brunswick. This group is essential for francophone communities.

Instead of seeing this withdrawal, I would rather see the Bloc Québécois work with us to restore the court challenges program and to put into place a new official languages action plan. It would be constructive and would advance French throughout Canada, including in Quebec.

In my opinion, the bill introduced by the member for Drummond would have the opposite effect, and I cannot support a bill that could harm our language. We have all worked too hard to preserve it.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, several members of our government have already had a chance to express their opposition to Bill C-482. We can conclude only one thing: this bill purports to solve a problem that simply does not exist. The 2006 census data show that French as a language of work in Quebec is doing well.

Since 2001, the census has collected information on language of work, and the 2006 edition confirms that 99% of francophone workers in Quebec use French most often or regularly at work. These figures speak for themselves. It is very difficult to claim that the use of English in Quebec is a serious threat and that the federal government is to blame. There are no facts to back up this claim.

Some 94% 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 10 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 equally important, because it touches on a deeply Canadian value. It concerns the equal status of French and English, and the federal government's commitment to enhance the vitality of the English and French minorities in Canada. Our government can never overstate the importance of this principle of the equality of the two official languages.

With this bill, the Bloc Québécois is suggesting that the federal government poses a threat to the French fact in Canada, although 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 everywhere in Canada and provides particular support to the minority francophone communities. There are a million of these francophones in Canada. This reality opens the gates 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 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.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, May 1—International Workers' Day—was barely two weeks ago, yet it seems that there are two categories of workers in Quebec. Workers in the first category have the right to work in French in Quebec. They are governed by Quebec labour laws and Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language.

Over 200,000 Quebec workers in the second category are governed by the Canada Labour Code, and their employers are not subject to the Charter of the French Language. All too often, they have to work in both languages and sometimes, in English only. Some of them feel like second-class citizens in Quebec. They are the ones working for organizations that fall under federal jurisdiction, such as ports, airports, telecommunications and broadcasting companies, interprovincial and rail transportation companies, banks, and Canada Post Corporation.

Most of these organizations ignore the Charter of the French Language. Some openly flout it. Bill 101 does not apply to these employers in Quebec, so they can impose their language on their employees, who receive their weekly English-language schedules, and are blithely asked to attend meetings that are held, all too often, in English when at least one of their colleagues is unilingual anglophone. Bizarre situations arise as a result. For example, a company under federal jurisdiction is not required to respect the language of its workers in Quebec, but the union representing those workers, which is subject to the Quebec Labour Code, must comply with Bill 101.

Witnesses have stated that employers even force their employees to work in English, threatening to cut jobs in Quebec and create new jobs elsewhere in Canada, where people speak “Canadian”, if they do not agree to write their reports in English or if they speak up when they receive internal documents written in English only. I should clarify that employees are not refusing to provide services to clients in the latter's own language. They simply want meeting minutes, or the meetings themselves, as well as their interactions with their employers and colleagues, to be in French.

Of course, the situation varies with the region. In Montreal and in the Outaouais, the situation is far more problematic than in the Saguenay region, for example, where francophones make up 99% of the population. Overall, English is the main language of work for 17% of Quebeckers. Statistics recently released by the Quebec Office de la langue française indicate that many more francophones work in English than do anglophones in French. Forty per cent of workers in Quebec use English at work regularly.

The federal government stubbornly refuses to recognize Bill 101 in Quebec, so that even today, despite the legislation's 30 year existence, the process of francisation is still in its infancy. When we raise the matter in the House, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages replies that she is promoting bilingualism in Quebec. In fact, each time the government promotes bilingualism in Quebec, it pushes French back. English is not threatened in Quebec and Canada. Promoting French in Quebec means advancing the cause of francophones outside Quebec.

However, in response to the Bloc's initiative, the Conservative government recognized in 2006 that Quebeckers formed a nation. Who honours the rights of this nation? Certainly not the Conservative government, which protested far too much when the Canada Post calendar did not include Quebec's national holiday—and I say “national”, which is Quebec's national holiday on June 24—only to discover two weeks later that the same error of omission had been made on its own calendar.

Clearly, denial of the Quebec nation and disdain for its rights seem to be part of the culture of the federal government machinery. When have we heard the Prime Minister, one of his ministers or even one of his MPs use the term Quebec nation? Recognition of it is not to be found in either their remarks or their actions.

Let us not forget that the Conservative Prime Minister did not recognize the Quebec nation in November 2006 for its intrinsic value or because he was fond of or respected Quebeckers, but rather with the malicious intent to trip up the Bloc Québécois by adding the words, “within a united Canada” after “Quebeckers form a nation”.

But the time for empty words is over. It is time the Conservative government walked the talk.

To protect workers' language, identity and culture, this government must recognize the Quebec nation in fact by giving workers throughout Quebec the right to work in French.

The Bloc wants to amend federal legislation so that federally regulated businesses carrying on activities in Quebec are subject to the Charter of the French Language. The member for Drummond introduced Bill C-482 to amend the Canada Labour Code. We thank her and congratulate her.

I hear someone applauding. That is a very good idea, because this is a very fine initiative on her part.

Bill C-482 will require the federal government to recognize the Charter of the French Language in Quebec and will extend its application to businesses under federal jurisdiction.

First of all, to avoid any ambiguity, it must be clear in the Official Languages Act that French is the official language of Quebec. We therefore consider it important to amend the preamble so that it provides that the federal government recognizes that French is the official language of Quebec and the common language in Quebec.

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 IX, which deals in part with the mandate of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

The amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois will force the federal government to undertake that it will not throw up obstacles to the objectives of the Charter of the French Language. It is important to remember that recognition of the Charter of the French Language in no way diminishes the rights and privileges of the Quebec anglophone minority provided for in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These amendments only limit the power of the federal government to interfere in Quebec's language policy.

The specific reference to a provincial act in the context of federal legislation is possible and even common. This is referred to as a statutory reference, in other words the government recognizes the provisions of another Canadian legislative assembly. For example, the Canada Labour Code sets the minimum federal wage based on provincial minimums. Section 178 states that:

—an employer shall pay to each employee a wage at a rate

a) not less than the minimum hourly rate fixed, from time to time, by or under an Act of the legislature of the province where the employee is usually employed—

This bill will amend the Canada Labour Code.

Federal undertakings or federally regulated enterprises are not governed by the Charter of the French Language, particularly with regard to the language of work. Some of these enterprises choose to abide by it, but on a voluntary basis and too infrequently for our liking.

Which federal enterprises are affected by the Canada Labour Code? I mentioned some earlier: Bell Canada has 17,241 employees; the Royal Bank, 7,200 employees; the National Bank of Canada, 10,299 employees; ACE Aviation Air Canada, 7,657 employees. We estimate that 200,000 Quebeckers are governed by the Canada Labour Code, or about 7% of Quebec workers.

The Bloc Québécois' bill will also amend the Canada Business Corporations Act to ensure that corporations' business names respect the Charter of the French Language.

The problem is that Quebec, as a nation, is still not able to ensure the use of French as the official and common language because of limits imposed by the federal government and its blatant disregard for Bill 101.

I ask that my colleagues in this House seriously reflect on the rights of a nation.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-482, concerning the Charter of the French Language.

This bill proposes a number of changes with the goal of increasing the use of French as the language of work. It also proposes an amendment to the Canada Labour Code to protect the language rights of francophone workers in the federal sector governed by the Canada Labour Code.

My NDP colleagues and I believe that this bill deserves to be examined in committee. Our primary interest is to protect French where there is the largest group of francophones—in Quebec—and then to focus on the need to increase and promote the use of French at work. Of course, that does not mean that we want to reduce the presence and influence of French elsewhere in Canada. On the contrary, everyone wins when we strengthen Canada's uniqueness and truly try to respect the spirit of bilingualism.

We are all aware that there are still numerous obstacles preventing many Canadians and Quebeckers from truly learning French. Several reports suggest that the use of French is declining even in Quebec. Is this true? We do not know. Further study and discussion are required. A few months ago, the writer Roch Carrier spoke about the high rate of illiteracy in Quebec. That is disturbing. This bill should be examined in light of that kind of problem.

After listening to the comments of my Liberal colleague, who seems to simplify the problem, I believe that we should stop fueling the separatist cause. In a recent interview, the Commissioner of Official Languages expressed his disappointment with the Conservative government's policies pertaining to official languages. I am thinking of the appointment of judges and others, the abolition of the court challenges program— which truly helped francophones exercise their rights outside of Quebec—or the lowering of standards for French in the public service and the military. All these actions taken by the Conservative government undermine this type of educational programs. Yet, the Prime Minister himself is an example of the success of these programs. So why refuse to study a bill that seeks to protect the right to use French as the language of work?

Affirming the language rights of francophones does not at all diminish the rights of anglophones. On the contrary, these actions provide all Canadians with choice and, in this way, ensure the continued growth and vitality of the French language throughout the country.

We know that this is an important issue for Canadians living outside Quebec as well. For example, in my riding, French immersion programs are in high demand and are probably the most popular education program in British Columbia. That is definitely the case in my riding.

On a personal note, my own experiences growing up in Manitoba showed me the importance of promoting French there.

French was banned from the education system for an entire century. I even remember being a little girl, taught by nuns, and when the inspector came into the classroom, we had to put away our French textbooks and hide them. Imagine such a situation. It really created a feeling of being attacked. We had the impression that we did not have the right to speak French.

And if we believe that the French fact enriches Canada as a whole, it must be given the support it needs to fully develop.

However, it remains to be seen if this bill could do that, if it could really achieve those goals, given that we are talking about areas of federal jurisdiction. That is one of the main reasons why we are suggesting further deliberations on this bill in committee.

In addition, the issue of how the provisions concerning federal institutions and companies will be imposed still has yet to be resolved. My hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst already raised this question in his comments. What impact will this bill have on companies such as Air Canada, VIA Rail and many others?

The business administration of these federal institutions, and particularly the promotion of French in those settings, will be a focal point of the committee deliberations, if the bill is in fact referred. That is another reason this debate is necessary. It would be one way of assessing the health of French in those federal institutions.

I am convinced that if we keep an open mind, both in the House and in committee, we will successfully make decisions that will allow us to achieve the following goals: first, to allow Quebeckers to express themselves fully at work in their mother tongue and, second, to preserve and encourage the use of this rich, dynamic language, which we are fortunate to be able to use anywhere in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here in the House today to speak to Bill C-482, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

When we look at the whole issue of the Official Languages Act, there is one thing we must always keep in our sights, one very important thing. That is ensuring that the legislation will improve the conditions of official language minority communities, for both francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec.

In order to be able to move forward and not backward we must also ensure that the act can be properly defended. If we want to be in a position to properly defend it we must make sure that, when people propose amendments to certain acts, those proposals do not run counter to what many generations have been trying to do over the years to improve the conditions of official language minority communities.

Clearly, anyone who tries to improve the conditions of official language minority communities must be an ardent defender. The Liberal Party of Canada has always been an ardent defender of official languages in this country. We have taken steps to advance many causes and have ensured that programs are in place to enable communities to defend their rights before the courts.

However, when we look at a bill like Bill C-482, we might ask ourselves some serious questions. Serious questions might come to mind because, indeed, as though by chance, this bill is trying to separate one part of the official languages issue in this country and shift it. In the end, it conveniently addresses one part of the issue without considering the overall situation. And the overall situation is very important.

It is not possible to try to make amendments to an act or take over an act—acts under federal jurisdiction—that exists to ensure respect for communities, that exist to ensure that communities, even those in a minority situation in any given region, province or territory, do not see any decreases in their services, their standard of living or their rights.

Respecting their rights also includes the whole issue of employment and language of work. Certainly, if at some point we try to generalize and say that everything is going to go in one direction, people are going to suffer. People are going to suffer because their rights will not be respected. That is one of the reasons why we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to ensure that communities, including language communities, are respected.

But this is a constitutional issue as well. The Official Languages Act guarantees Canadians the right to be served in the language of their choice, be it French or English. Some people want services in both languages, because many communities across the country are bilingual. However, the government has to be able to provide those services.

Imagine for a moment telling the people who work in institutions and undertakings governed by the Canada Labour Code, “Now, you no longer have the right to serve people or work in your own language.” It is a matter of respect.

This does not necessarily mean that the language of work has to be English only or French only. There has to be a balance. In my riding, for example, there are francophones, mainly in the Madawaska area, and there are more anglophones in the Restigouche area. We cannot say that the francophones would not have the right to work in French and would have to work in English only, because it is the majority language in New Brunswick. The reverse is also true. Imagine if it were to happen one day. In one case, the rights of the francophones would be trampled, while in the other, the rights of the anglophones would be violated.

When it comes to official languages, we must always make sure we do not come up with just any bill to promote one part of the official languages issue for our cause. The issue here is not just a separatist cause versus a federalist cause. People all across the country have the right to be served in their own language, but they are also entitled to some respect when it comes to language of work.

As I mentioned earlier, we must never forget that there are other communities in the country, notably francophone communities outside Quebec. These people would like to be able to work in their language, but they are conscious of the fact that they are not necessarily in the majority and that there are also anglophones who work in their language.

We cannot simply tell a minority community that some of their rights will be taken away because the language of work must be limited to a single language. Nor can we say that their rights will be set aside because they are not important. We have to be careful. Often when we talk about linguistic issues it leads to debates because it directly affects individuals. People most often express their gut reaction because they remember the struggle they went through to defend their rights.

It is hard to comprehend that a Bloc Québécois member has introduced such a bill. Bloc members must also be aware that Canada has two official languages. The problem does not crop up province by province. If things were that easy, there would not be any problems in the world. At some point, we have to be able to recognize that each one of us has the right to our own little space and the right to more forward in consideration of our linguistic situation.

It is a bit difficult to understand where people want to go with this bill. We need to have a broad overview and not just look at elements here and there. If we only look at the elements in isolation, we would never be able to move society forward. That would certainly benefit some. However, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms exists to protect minorities.

If there were no injustices, there would be no laws. If justice prevailed across the country and there were no problems, we would not need any laws. However, it is because there are injustices, and rights are not being respected, that we have to bring in legislation to govern the country fairly and appropriately, to ensure respect for official language communities within the country and within each province.

Imagine if each province made its own decisions on this. Some provinces might be interested in doing so. Imagine though how difficult it would be to have the official languages respected. People would end up having to choose which province to live in to receive certain services or to have the right to work in their language. It is somewhat illogical to think that way. That is not what we want. We want people to stay in the province of their choice and work in their language. That does not mean it has to be English only or French only. It is a matter of basic respect.

At the very beginning of my speech, I was saying that we have to make progress on the entire issue of the Official Languages Act. I will give an example that is rather easy to understand. Recently, Ms. Paulin from New Brunswick stood up for her rights and won, and now the RCMP has to provide services in French in New Brunswick. This is a reality: the law will enhance the quality of life of citizens who will be respectfully served in their official language.

The same is true for language of work. It is important to observe reality and get statistics. How many people who speak a certain language work in the public service or in places governed by the Canada Labour Code? Sometimes, these percentages are quite low.

Often, people adapt. Minority communities adapt far more than others to the language of the majority. At the very least, an anglophone should not be required to speak French and vice versa. It is always the same issue: we do not want the inverse to happen. We do not to put others through something we would not want to experience ourselves.

My presentation is drawing to a close. In my opinion, we must remember this: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If we want our rights to be respected then we have to give everyone rights.

[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.

[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.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in November 2006, when the House of Commons recognized the Quebec nation, the Bloc Québécois emphatically pointed out that that recognition had to have consequences, that there could not simply be purely symbolic recognition.

The Conservatives and the Prime Minister himself have been congratulating themselves for months now on recognizing the fact that we exist. It is now time for the Conservatives and the other Canadian parties to walk the talk, and we are giving them the chance to do just that.

The first concrete action that must be taken is to recognize that in fact Quebeckers form a francophone nation in America. If the Canadian parties are consistent in that recognition, they will have to understand that the Quebec nation and the French language are inseparably connected. Recognizing one means recognizing the other, hence our Bill C-482

The Quebec nation has developed a tool for ensuring that French is the common public language: the Charter of the French Language or Bill 101. We often forget, though, that insofar as Ottawa is concerned, Bill 101 does not exist. As a result, areas under federal jurisdiction are exempted, including within Quebec.

For example, banks, telecommunication firms, interprovincial transportation companies such as CN and CP, ports and airports are exempt from Bill 101.

The Bloc Québécois therefore tabled amendments to the Canada Labour Code requiring these businesses to comply with the provisions of the Charter when it comes to language of work.

The Official Languages Act contradicts Bill 101 by promoting the use of both English and French even in Quebec. We are not a bilingual nation; we are a francophone nation. Therefore, we tabled amendments to this law to ensure that the federal government recognizes that French is the official language of Quebec and undertakes to recognize the Charter of the French Language and to respect its application in Quebec.

Contrary to what the Conservatives have suggested, the Bloc Québécois is obviously not asking the federal government to interfere in language issues in Quebec. All that we want is for the federal government to respect the Charter of the French Language.

To ensure that Bill 101 is applied across the board, including in all the institutions mentioned earlier that are subject to federal legislation, the Constitution will have to be amended, which it seems is impossible in Canada. The Bloc Québécois' desire to amend federal legislation—which could be done easily with a bit of political will—demonstrates that our objectives are reasonable.

There are some precedents. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over its employees. However, the Government Employees Compensation Act states that the legislation of the province where the worker is usually employed applies with respect to the compensation plan covering a work injury. Therefore, according to federal law, the Quebec law—the Loi sur les accidents du travail et les maladies professionnelles—applies.

The Canada Labour Code also requires the federal government to adjust to provincial legislation when setting the minimum wage. If it is possible to adjust federal legislation in terms of compensation and minimum wage, how can the government justify refusing to adjust the federal legislation on language, an issue that is even more fundamental for the Quebec nation?

Official Languages Act

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-482 aims to force the federal government to comply with Bill 101 within Quebec. I refer to the Quebec nation recognized in this very place in November 2006. It was recognized as well on a number of occasions in the National Assembly of Quebec. We are a nation and want to be treated as one.

Bill C-482 aims to amend the Official Languages Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Business Corporations Act.

In the light of my remarks, when the House of Commons recognized the Quebec nation in November 2006, the Bloc Québécois contended vigorously that recognition meant consequences and that symbolic recognition alone would not suffice. Months ago, now, the Conservatives and the Prime Minister congratulated themselves on recognizing the obvious, namely that we existed. It is now time for Conservatives and other Canadian parties to act. We are giving them the opportunity.

The first specific step required is recognition in fact that Quebeckers comprise a francophone nation in North America. If the Canadian parties mean this recognition, they will have to understand that the Quebec nation and the French language go hand in hand. Recognition of one is recognition of the other, hence Bill C-482.

The Quebec nation has established an instrument to ensure that French is the common public language, the Charter of the French Language, or, Bill 101, if you will. What people often forget is that Bill 101 does not exist as far as Ottawa is concerned, and so sectors under federal jurisdiction are exempt from its application, and that means in Quebec as well.

Banks, for example, telecommunications companies, interprovincial transport companies, ports and airports can avoid compliance with Bill 101. The Bloc Québécois therefore introduced amendments to the Canada Labour Code so that these operations may be subject to the charter with respect to language of work.

The Official Languages Act contradicts Bill 101 by promoting English and French in Quebec as well. We are not a bilingual nation. Quebec is a francophone nation. We thus introduced the amendments to this legislation so the federal government would recognize that French is the official language of Quebec and would commit to recognizing the Charter of the French Language and respecting its application throughout Quebec.

Contrary to what the Conservatives have been saying, the Bloc Québécois obviously is not asking the federal government to intervene in linguistic matters in Quebec. All that we ask is that the federal government respect the Charter of the French Language.

To ensure the full application of Bill 101, it would be necessary to amend the Constitution, which seems to be impossible in Canada. The Bloc Québécois’ willingness to amend federal legislation, which can easily be done with a little political good will, shows the reasonable nature of our objectives.

There are some precedents. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over its employees. The Government Employees Compensation Act provides that the legislation of the province where the employee is usually employed will be the applicable law for compensation of a work-related injury. As a result, by virtue of the federal act, it is the Quebec legislation respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases that applies to workers in Quebec.

The Canada Labour Code also provides for the federal government to take account of provincial laws in establishing the minimum wage. If it is possible to adapt federal laws in terms of compensation and the minimum wage, how can anyone justify refusing to adapt federal laws concerning language, which is a more fundamental matter for the Quebec nation?

The amendments introduced here by the Bloc Québécois would have the effect of requiring the federal government to undertake not to obstruct the objectives of the Charter of the French Language. It is important to remember that recognition of the Charter of the French Language in no way diminishes the rights and privileges of Quebec's anglophone minority as provided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These amendments simply limit the power of the federal government to intervene in Quebec's language policy.

Specific reference to a provincial act in the text of a federal act is possible. We are talking about a statutory reference. That means that the government recognizes the provisions made by another Canadian legislative assembly. There is another instrument that could be used to amend an act. It is called incorporation by reference; that is another tool that can be used.

Federal undertakings or enterprises under federal jurisdiction are specifically not affected by the Charter of the French Language in relation to language of work. Some companies choose to comply with the charter, but that is done on a voluntary basis. Accordingly, our amendment specifies, “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, which stated, and I quote:

The francization of the workplace in Quebec also concerns the workplace of the federal government and workplaces under federal jurisdiction. That is why the Government of Canada should take the necessary measures to ensure that these workplaces respect language legislation when they are in Quebec.

This amendment would eliminate the legal void that enables federal companies to flout the Charter of the French Language when it comes to the language of work. It is important, though, to note that many federal companies decide on their own to abide by the francization programs of the Office québécois de la langue française.

Nevertheless, some federal companies fail to comply with Bill 101 and do so with impunity. Since 2000, some 147 files have been closed at the Office québécois de la langue française because it could not do anything in view of the fact that the companies were under federal jurisdiction. These figures refer only to files that were opened in response to complaints. If no one complains, no file is opened. We can conclude, therefore, that the number of delinquent firms was probably higher.

The Bloc Québécois bill will also amend the Canada Business Corporations Act so as to ensure that corporate names comply with the Charter of the French Language. Corporate names have been the subject of 1,434 complaints since 2000.

This amendment will ensure that Quebec businesses that decide to register in Ottawa rather than Quebec are subject to the Charter of the French Language.

I would remind the House that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which Pierre Elliott Trudeau imposed on Quebec in 1982, aimed above all to counter Bill 101. As Mr. Trudeau's former advisor André Burelle wrote: “Make no mistake; the purpose of Mr. Trudeau's charter was to neutralize Bill 101. In the charter, language rights are elevated to the rank of fundamental rights of individuals that are safeguarded from the notwithstanding clause, while other human rights, even the most basic ones, are subject to the notwithstanding clause.”

It is very important to say that today, with Bill C-482, we are reaching out to the federal government, hoping it will recognize that in Quebec, these institutions must abide by the Charter of the French Language above any other official language legislation. The Quebec nation exists. It is a francophone nation in the Americas. That is what we are and what we want to remain.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-482, sponsored by the hon. member for Drummond. This is a really important issue, particularly for Quebeckers, who have the benefit of Bill 101, not to mention the fact that the Canada Labour Code not only gives priority to French, but makes it the language of work. I can understand that.

However, there is something that bothers me when it comes to the federal level. Here, Bloc Québécois members are experts. They have become experts at telling the federal government that it should not get involved in provincial jurisdictions, that it has no business in these areas, and that it is up to Quebec to decide what must be done in provincial jurisdictions. I can never say it often enough.

Now, we are talking about a federal jurisdiction. The bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois provides that French should be the official language of Quebec and the common language in that province. It amends the Canada Labour Code to provide that federal businesses carrying on activities in Quebec will be subject to the requirements of the Charter of the French Language. The bill also amends the Canada Business Corporations Act, so that the name of a corporation that carries on business in Quebec shall be in a form that meets the requirements of the Charter of the French Language.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier mentioned an aspect related to the Official Languages Act, the Constitution, and so on. However, I do not want to get on this theme, because these things have already been mentioned. Moreover, testimonies on this issue are along the same lines.

The member for Drummond said that the use of French is on a downward slope, in Quebec and across Canada. I agree with her on this. That is indeed the case. Perhaps we should wonder why that is the case. Why is French losing ground in Canada?

I think that gains were made in Canada. For example, francophones have made gains, thanks to the court challenges program. They have gained French schools in Prince Edward Island and in Nova Scotia. In Ontario, we can think of Boréal College, in Sudbury, and the Montfort Hospital, in Ottawa.

The court challenges program was the tool provided to minorities—whether the French minority outside Quebec, or the English minority in Quebec—to allow them to seek justice before the courts regarding their equality rights, including their linguistic rights.

There were successes everywhere, in Manitoba, in Saskatchewan and in British Columbia. In fact, wherever the Standing Committee on Official Languages travelled for its study, people and community representatives told us clearly that gains had been made thanks to the court challenges program.

The Conservative government decided, however, to deprive minorities of the instrument that enabled them to go before the courts to safeguard their rights, the instrument that enabled them to have their schools. That is regrettable. Some $2 million is involved. It is sad.

Something else is regrettable too. In 2003, under the Liberals, the federal government established a strategy. The Library of Parliament provided us with the data. They have been checked. They are accurate in our opinion, because they come from the Library of Parliament and have been checked again. There were regular programs of study in the minority regions. At the time, the Liberal government under Jean Chrétien said it would establish a strategy in addition to the regular programs.

We saw that more funds were invested in the strategy in 2002-03.

For teaching in the minority language regions, the federal government had promised $209 million. Each year, the money allocated to the strategy increased. A surplus amount was allocated even to help with teaching in the minority regions or minority communities. The regular program, however, faced a reduction. The federal government was to have invested some $750 million in the regular teaching program by the end of five years, but it spent $500 million. Subsequently, the Liberals boasted that they had spent an extra $50 million on the strategy, making them appear to be good Samaritans.

In Quebec, for example, in recent weeks, it has been reported in the news that the Charest government and others have been saying clearly that more money was needed so anglophones and immigrants could learn French. If this money had been transferred—the $132 million the government took from the regular program, in fact, wanting us to think it had provided money for the strategy—it could have helped the minority facilities and communities with the teaching of the official language of the country and of the province of Quebec. But no, that money was taken away, just like that.

You have to wonder. Other comments were also made. The proposed amendments to the Official Languages Act raise some legal issues. First, it is difficult to discern the restrictions imposed by the new measures added to the Official Languages Act by Bill C-482. As the member for Ottawa—Vanier was saying, subsection 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines the principle that French and English are the official languages of Canada.

The Bloc Québécois bill makes us wonder what would happen in private industry. Take Air Canada, for example. The Bloc Québécois members fought very hard with us over the fact that Air Canada should be a bilingual company. Are they saying that Air Canada will no longer be bilingual? Are they saying that flight attendants and pilots who leave Ottawa and arrive at Quebec's border—they will say I am exaggerating—will have to switch languages in mid-air and speak French? Must we switch languages because we have crossed the Quebec border?

Are the Bloc members saying that when the VIA Rail train leaves Toronto and arrives on the outskirts of Valleyfield, Quebec, the employees will have to speak French?

I am talking about federal institutions. Let us imagine that someone who works in a federal institution is transferred from Toronto to a job in Montreal. If that person does not speak French, will he lose his job?

These are important matters that we must address. We must pay attention to this. Personally, I believe there are two peoples in Canada. In fact, there are three peoples, four peoples, even five peoples if we count the Acadian people. We can keep naming peoples or nations, but the point is that we have to respect our languages and cultures.

We will study all of this. There are questions that need to be answered. We should be able to study the bill. The only way to do so is to vote in favour of the bill at second reading so we can listen to experts and the Commissioner of Official Languages. He could study the bill with us. Let us listen to the lawyers and the people who know the Constitution, and get their advice on how to proceed. If the bill does not seem like a good bill, then vote against it. However, if you can live with the bill, vote in favour of it.

The NDP will vote in favour of this bill. I want to be clear that this bill will be studied only if we vote in favour of it. Parliament is not here to pass bills at first reading. There is first reading, second reading, and then third reading. We are here to study bills. That is why the NDP is recommending that we study the bill. Then we will make a final decision at third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, as has been said, Bill C-482, which was introduced by the member for Drummond, would amend three acts: the Official Languages Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Business Corporations Act. If these amendments were to pass, their effect would be to give precedence to the Charter of the French Language within Quebec, and the three acts in question would therefore be subject to that charter.

To begin with, it is important to quote the Official Languages Act and give a very quick sketch of its history—of course, we cannot do justice to the complexity of this question in 10 minutes.

The act grew out of the situation that existed in Canada in the early 1960s, when it was observed that French was being given short shrift. That observation prompted Prime Minister Pearson to create the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which led directly to the proposal that later became the Official Languages Act, enacted by this Parliament in 1969. Since then, the act has been defined by the courts as quasi-constitutional.

We should also note that amendments were made to the act in 1988, including the amendment that committed the federal government to “enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities”. Further amendments in 2005 required federal institutions to “ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation” of those commitments.

Since this legislation was enacted, over 35 years ago, it has truly become an indispensable beacon, lighting our collective way when it comes to official languages in Canada.

While both French and English are official languages of Canada, the reality is that, in North America, English is not threatened in any way. That is a fact that has to be recognized. The same cannot be said of French, which has to be protected. Successive governments in this place, in Quebec and, recently, even in provinces other than Quebec have realized that they do have a role to play in protecting the French language and culture in Canada.

As a francophone living in Ontario and having sometimes had to endure unacceptable conditions, I completely understand this sensitivity, this desire to protect the French language and culture. I am therefore not insensitive to the desire of francophones in Quebec and their successive governments to protect and promote the French language and culture.

This, however, has to be done in complete respect for our laws and constitutional principles. I will refer to a few legislative provisions, including the preamble of the Official Languages Act, section 16(1) , and perhaps also section 21, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as to the 1998 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference.

Let us start with the preamble of the Official Languages Act. It is a lengthy preamble, but I will only quote the most interesting part:

The purpose of this Act is to

(a) ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions—

In debate and in speeches, the Bloc Québécois argues that this is not binding. That statement in itself would make for an interesting debate, but I will move on.

In response to a question, the hon. member for Drummond said among other things that consultations had been held and everyone appeared to be in agreement. I think, however, that if we checked with the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, we would hear something quite a bit different. The official languages commissioner told the Bloc Québécois he had huge reservations about the bill, as drafted. That ought to be taken into account.

In addition to this brief passage from the preamble to the Official Languages Act, I would like to quote subsection 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

Subsection 16(3) states:

Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.

It is very important to recognize that we are now referring to the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and not the preamble of a quasi-constitutional law. The Constitution is authoritative. We must respect it, and the Government of Canada cannot divest itself of its obligations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must remember this.

I will now examine the constitutional principles referred to in the Supreme Court ruling concerning the reference on Quebec secession. The court made sure it examined what are referred to as the constitutional principles. Although often implicit, these are the underlying principles of our Constitution. I will quote a passage from page 40 of the ruling.

These principles may give rise to very abstract and general obligations, or they may be more specific and precise in nature. The principles are not merely descriptive, but are also invested with a powerful normative force, and are binding upon both courts and governments.

The following quote is from page 50 of the Supreme Court ruling.

An understanding of the scope and importance of the principles of the rule of law and constitutionalism is aided by acknowledging explicitly why a constitution is entrenched beyond the reach of simple majority rule. There are three overlapping reasons.

First, a constitution may provide an added safeguard for fundamental human rights and individual freedoms which might otherwise be susceptible to government interference. Although democratic government is generally solicitous of those rights, there are occasions when the majority will be tempted to ignore fundamental rights in order to accomplish collective goals more easily or effectively. Constitutional entrenchment ensures that those rights will be given due regard and protection. Second, a constitution may seek to ensure that vulnerable minority groups are endowed with the institutions and rights necessary to maintain and promote their identities against the assimilative pressures of the majority. And third, a constitution may provide for a division of political power that allocates political power amongst different levels of government. That purpose would be defeated if one of those democratically elected levels of government could usurp the powers of the other simply by exercising its legislative power to allocate additional political power to itself unilaterally.

The last quote from this Supreme Court decision is found on page 54. It reads as follows:

The concern of our courts and governments to protect minorities has been prominent in recent years, particularly following the enactment of the Charter. Undoubtedly, one of the key considerations motivating the enactment of the Charter, and the process of constitutional judicial review that it entails, is the protection of minorities. However, it should not be forgotten that the protection of minority rights had a long history before the enactment of the Charter. Indeed, the protection of minority rights was clearly an essential consideration in the design of our constitutional structure even at the time of Confederation.

The purpose of these quotations is to put this debate back into a constitutional context, which cannot be overlooked. I also sought and obtained legal opinions. As the official opposition critic for official languages, I cannot support this bill. I recognize that, in terms of language of work, there may be a legal void. However, I believe it is up to the Government of Canada to fill that void and not mix public corporations, such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, ports, airports and Air Canada, which are subject to the legislation, with banks, transport companies and telecommunications companies. If there is a legal void, and I think there is, it is up to the federal government to fill it.

Nevertheless, accepting the amendments proposed would go against the Constitution, potentially threaten the anglophone minority in Quebec and create the precedent that the hon. member for Drummond tried to deny. We might then see other provincial governments in Canada ask for the same treatment, thereby also endangering the francophone minorities.

As the official opposition critic for official languages, I will vote against this bill.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the bill tabled by the member for Drummond.

The bill proposes to amend three federal acts. It is based on the premise that the Government of Canada is impeding the growth of French in Quebec as well as its arts and culture.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the government is promoting and solidly supporting Quebec's arts and culture, as well as the French language, in many ways.

Today, I want to emphasize the role that the cultural institutions and programs of the Government of Canada have played, and continue to play, in relation to the French language and the cultural vitality of Quebec.

Bill C-482 seeks to require the Government of Canada to undertake not to obstruct the application of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec. Bill C-482 would amend the Official Languages Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Business Corporations Act, would make French the official language of Quebec and would recognize the Charter of the French Language as the governing legislation on questions of language in Quebec. Before considering amendments to existing legislation, I believe it is important to look at the system that is now in place.

The Official Languages Act states that “English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.” Canada is made up of three territories and 10 provinces, including Quebec, in which, by virtue of the Official Languages Act, English and French enjoy equal status. The Canada Labour Code and the Canada Business Corporations Act apply to all of Canada in fields under federal jurisdiction, while the Official Languages Act applies only to federal institutions.

According to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, the department is responsible for programs and policies dealing with the arts and culture. It is also responsible for implementing many of the Government of Canada's commitments related to official languages, pursuant to sections 41, 42, and 43 of the Official Languages Act. Its mandate includes the responsibility to ensure that the cultural and linguistic needs of communities that fall within the federal sphere are supported all across Canada, including the needs related to the French language and cultural diversity in Quebec. These programs, policies and tools help Quebec to remain competitive and contribute to the growth of its artistic and cultural sector, in addition to ensuring the vitality of the French language within Quebec and throughout Canada.

Our government has played an active role in this success, and the range of measures available—including funding programs—provides equal opportunities for all Canadians.

The bill before us suggests that existing federal legislation is an obstruction to the French language and culture in Quebec. And yet through various federal programs, the Government of Canada provides Quebec with extensive support in the area of culture. Those federal programs stimulate the development, sharing and promotion of the French language in Quebec, throughout Canada and everywhere in the world.

We need only think of the support given by the federal government to Radio-Canada, an important link in the extraordinary cultural success that Quebeckers enjoy in the audiovisual and broadcasting industries. Radio-Canada, which is funded by a federal government program, offers high-quality cultural content in French, presenting francophone talent from Quebec and other francophone regions to the general public. Radio-Canada also provides news broadcasts in French on its specialized television network, Réseau de l'information, RDI.

We would also point out that for many years the Canada Council for the Arts has supported the extraordinary artistic development that has occurred in Quebec in the fields of dance, theatre, literature and audio recording.

The Department of Canadian Heritage administers impressive federal programs providing grants and contributions for the arts in Quebec and in French, through arts presentation Canada, cultural capitals of Canada, cultural spaces Canada, the national arts training contribution program and the Canadian arts and heritage sustainability program.

The Government of Canada as a whole promotes the culture of Quebec by investing in artistic creativity and development. Through these activities, francophone artists and creators express their thoughts, showcase our differences and celebrate our similarities.

In 2006 and 2007, the Canada Council for the Arts granted over $44.5 million to the arts in Quebec. Cultural Capitals of Canada approved the payment of $1.9 million to five municipalities in Quebec that are organizing special activities they will use to harness the many benefits of arts and culture in the community.

The goal of Cultural Spaces Canada is to improve the physical conditions for artistic creativity and innovation and to improve access to performing arts, visual arts, media arts and museum collections and heritage displays. In 2006 and 2007, 32 projects were funded in Quebec. In the last six years, the financial assistance injected by Cultural Spaces Canada into that province has risen from nearly $3.7 million to over $6.4 million.

The National Arts Training Contribution Program assists organizations training Canadians seeking a professional career nationally or internationally in the arts. In 2006 and 2007, it supported 10 training facilities in Quebec alone.

The Canadian Arts and Heritage Sustainability Program aims to strengthen organizational effectiveness and build capacity of arts and heritage organizations. The Montreal Symphony Orchestra, for instance, has received nearly $3.3 million in staffing funds from the federal government, and the Grands Ballets Canadiens has received over $2.6 million.

We must not forget that Canadian Heritage and the organizations it funds support the creation of Canadian content and access to artistic excellence, promoting innovation. In 2006 and 2007, the Canada Music Fund paid out $11.1 million to 837 recipients in Quebec. Nearly half of the funding it provides goes to French-language artists living in Quebec, such as Pierre Lapointe, Daniel Bélanger, Ariane Moffat, Kaïn and Les Trois Accords, all of whom received assistance from the Canada Music Fund. The Canada Feature Film Fund provided funding for the 10 top French-Canadian films in 2007.

The federal government has generously invested for years in Quebec so much so that Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board both have their headquarters there.

The Canadian Television Fund has a mandate, through its contribution agreement with Canadian Heritage, to fund projects in French, English and Aboriginal languages. Approximately a third of its program commitments involved French productions, 90% of which come from Quebec.

In conclusion, all the information provided here converges on a single point. We sing, we tell stories, we publish, we surf the Net and we grow—all in French. These activities are made possible in large extent thanks to the help the federal government is providing to actively promote the vitality of the French language.

To conclude, given the federal government's commitment to fully support French culture and language in Quebec, we must question the merits of Bill C-482.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me the exact same question as my colleague on the constitutionality of the bill. The fact is that a number of studies were conducted. We did our homework. Before introducing Bill C-482, we did reviews, we worked, we conducted studies, and we heard stakeholders. The bill in no way conflicts with any constitutional guarantee relating to languages.

I repeat what professor Henri Brun, who is an eminent lawyer and professor of constitutional law, said himself. In his review of the bill, he stated the following:

Bill C-482 in no way conflicts with any constitutional guarantee relating to languages. On the contrary, it respects and promotes constitutional standards in this area. That bill also does not violate any principle governing the division of powers in our federation. On the contrary, it seeks to take advantage of one of the recognized means of promoting cooperative federalism. Therefore, Bill C-482 is airtight in terms of its constitutionality.

I would like to add that—

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her excellent speech. I would like to ask her this question. We know that the purpose of Bill C-482 is to amend the Official Languages Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Business Corporations Act. We also know that the Conservative Party in fact tried to prevent this debate from being held, claiming that the bill was anti-constitutional.

I would like to hear my colleague’s opinion about its so-called anti-constitutional nature, which in the final analysis does not exist. The Conservative Party alone has objected to it being discussed here. That party, which supposedly recognizes the Quebec nation, has fought with all its might to try to prevent this debate from taking place.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-482 proposes to amend the Official Languages Act, among other legislation. This bill seems to assume that the Official Languages Act is a barrier to the promotion and use of French in Quebec. And yet the last census, in 2006, disclosed a number of positive developments in this regard, such as the fact that a majority of recent immigrants, 75%, have adopted French, and that the proportion of the population that knows French has now reached 94.5%.

How can the Bloc Québécois demonstrate that the Official Languages Act and the existing rules governing language amount to an obstruction of the French fact in Quebec?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C-482. I would like to explain what Bill C-482 sets out to amend. First, it would amend the Official Languages Act to recognize French as the official language and the common language in Quebec. Therefore, the federal government would be required not to obstruct the application of the Charter of the French Language within Quebec.

As I begin my speech, I would like to review the elements that led to the creation of Bill C-482.

The starting point was the decision by the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a nation more than 140 years after Canada became a country.

The Quebec nation existed long before it was recognized. There has been consensus on that for some time now. The fact of the Quebec nation has transcended eras, political parties and debates. In 2003, well before the House of Commons finally decided to recognize it, Quebec's elected representatives in the National Assembly unanimously reiterated the fact that the Quebec people form a nation.

Long ago, the province of Quebec designated the place where elected representatives would sit as part of the National Assembly. The city in which the assembly sits has been given the noble and evocative title of “national capital”. The House of Commons' recognition of the Quebec nation, though slow in coming, was simply to be expected.

The decision to recognize a nation has consequences. Recognizing a nation means recognizing its institutions, its emblems, its traditions, its history, its territory, its culture and, inevitably, its language. The people of Quebec are well aware of this. They saw their government recognize first nations, a step that resulted in the signature of a historic agreement known as the Peace of the Braves.

Recognizing the Quebec nation means also recognizing the predominance of the French language. That predominance is ensured in Quebec by a piece of legislation, Bill 101, which makes French the official language throughout Quebec, except as concerns the federal government, which has two official languages. What we are asking the federal government is to be consistent in its decision making. After recognizing the Quebec nation, it is only natural that it should recognize and abide by the Charter of the French Language in Quebec in the Official Languages Act and comply with the spirit of the charter in regard to the language of signage and of work in related legislation.

Some people will say that such an arrangement is impossible. The question is whether Canada is the only country in the world to face such a situation. The answer is no.

Long before us, democracies such as Spain and the United Kingdom proved that it is possible to successfully combine multiple nations within a state. To do so, they relied on creative solutions that respected the coexistence of the national communities within and equipped themselves with the tools they needed to manage the areas where those communities differ.

No later than November 2006, Quebec's Minister for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs delivered a speech on the subject of the Quebec nation in which he stated:

Quebec and Canada can learn from these experiences in other countries and find unique solutions adapted to their reality. These examples also demonstrate that, far from being a thing of the past, Quebec's desire to be recognized as a nation within Canada is more current than ever. Its legitimacy and feasibility are confirmed by the developments we have seen in other federations or quasi-federations. By respecting and recognizing sociological and political differences instead of denying them, and by translating them into special rights within their political system, these democracies avoided any futile or counterproductive social conflicts.

We must be creative in our pursuit of recognition. We must stop denying the complex character of our society and our national identities, and stop placing them in artificial categories. The reality of those countries experimenting with multi-nation states is just as complex as that of Quebec and Canada. We must not be tempted to abandon the debate, simply because it is a complex question, on the contrary.

Let us remember that those words did not come from an elected member working on Quebec's sovereignty; they came from a minister of a federalist government in Quebec City.

We find that Bill C-482 constitutes an original response that is adapted to the reality of Quebec and Canada. Recognizing the specificity of Quebec is not a whim; it is an overriding duty.

I want to remind hon. members that the Bloc Québécois bill is nothing new. The specific mention of provincial legislation in the text of federal legislation is possible and even common. We are talking about statutory reference. In other words, the government recognizes the provisions of another Canadian legislative assembly.

Take for example the Canada Labour Code, which sets the federal minimum wage according to provincial minimum wages. Section 178 states:

Except as otherwise provided by or under this Division, an employer shall pay to each employee a wage at a rate:

(a) not less than the minimum hourly rate fixed, from time to time, by or under an Act of the legislature of the province where the employee is usually employed and that is generally applicable regardless of occupation, status or work experience.

The Canada Labour Code is subject to amendment within the framework of this bill.

Federal or federally regulated companies are not affected by the Charter of the French Language, particularly insofar as the language of work is concerned. For example, interprovincial transportation companies, maritime transport and ports, air transport and airports, broadcasting, telecommunications, banks and certain companies declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada are exempt. Some of these companies choose to abide by the charter, but it is all entirely voluntary.

An estimated 200,000 Quebeckers work under the Canada Labour Code, or more or less 7% of workers in Quebec.

The amendment to Part I of the Canada Labour Code states that federal companies are subject to the Charter of the French Language when they operate in Quebec. This responds to the request made in 2001 in the Larose report:

The francization of the workplace in Quebec also concerns the workplace of the federal government and workplaces under federal jurisdiction. That is why the Government of Canada should take the necessary measures to ensure that these workplaces respect language legislation when they are in Quebec.

This amendment does away with the legal void whereby federal work, undertaking or business can ignore the Charter of the French Language as concerns language of work. It is, however, important to note that many federal businesses decide on their own to commit to Quebec's Office de la langue française's program of francisation.

But what about those that decide to circumvent Bill 101? The response is distressing. Federal companies and companies under federal charter failing to comply with Bill 101 do so with impunity. Since 2000, 147 files have been closed at the Office de la langue française in Quebec. Its hands were tied because the companies were under federal jurisdiction. This figure includes only files arising from complaints. If no one complains, there is no file. So we can assume the number of delinquent businesses is greater.

This is taking place as a number of studies on the state of French in Quebec are being released. According to 2006 census figures, French has lost ground right across Canada, and in Quebec as well, even though more immigrants than ever speak French at home.

While the number of people with French as their mother tongue increased between 2001 and 2006, from 5.33 million to 6.29 million, their relative importance decreased, and they now represent only 22.1% of the population. This is from Statistics Canada. The figure was 22.9% in 2001 and 26.1% in 1971.

As regards the language used predominantly at home, the proportion of French is declining consistently, dropping from 26% in 1971 to 21% in 2006. The proportion of English rose in 2006 to the figure it stood at in 1971, of 67%. This figure reached 69% in 1986, shortly before the strong influx of immigrants speaking other languages. In the light of these figures, we cannot sit idle. Quebeckers, it is true, must do their part to change things.

I congratulate the leader of the Parti québécois on her courage in introducing a bill in the National Assembly on Quebec identity. The media made a great deal about it. This bill, to its credit, dares to look the facts in the face. It proposes better teaching of French to ensure the quality of French written and spoken in Quebec and promotes an understanding of Quebec's history, a mastery of spoken and written French and the enhancement of Quebec culture.

The bill on Quebec identity aims to help Quebec express its identity, through the passage of legislative provisions to ensure the preeminence of the French language as the language of work and economic activities and education in Quebec. Legislation will be passed to ensure the quality of written and spoken French in Quebec. I am proud to recognize and pay tribute to this initiative.

Bill C-482 will require the federal government to recognize the Charter of the French Language within Quebec and extend its application to businesses under federal jurisdiction.

An amendment to the Official Languages Act is needed to eliminate all ambiguity. It must be clear in the act that French is the official language of Quebec. We therefore consider it important to amend the preamble so that it provides that the federal government recognizes that French is the official language of Quebec and the common language in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks, but does not talk about Bill C-482 brought forward by the Bloc Québécois because she has nothing to say on this topic. She was seen and heard laughing earlier when I spoke to the motion.

After one of my questions, the member and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages said in the House that their government was promoting both official languages, and it is true. The Conservative Party and the Conservative government are promoting both official languages in Quebec.

The Conservative government does not protect the interests of Quebeckers. It cannot offer any protection because these interests include the French language. The Conservative government is « powerless » and cannot do anything for the French language. « Powerless » is one of the favourite words of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

We, the Bloc, are the ones who stand for the Quebec nation, its fundamental rights, its civil code and its language. In fact, the Canada Post Corporation gave us a clear reminder about this fact during the week. It printed a calendar without the Fête nationale des Québécois. This is an insult to all Quebeckers. The Canada Post Corporation has a corporate culture—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to correct what my friend Mr. Gravel just said. Unless I am mistaken, Bill C-482 from the Bloc Québécois is aimed at private undertakings under federal jurisdiction and not at the public service. There is a difference.

With regard to Montreal, I do not know whether the study is finished. We heard on the news that Montreal was becoming more anglophone than francophone. We hear about the Island of Montreal, but has the entire Montreal region been fully studied? Many people have left Montreal to settle on the south shore, in the area around Taschereau Boulevard, in what is now called region 10-30.

Bill C-482

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last November I tabled Bill C-482 to amend the Official Languages Act. The amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois would require the federal government to recognize Quebec's Charter of the French Language.

Yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, this bill was deemed votable by everyone except the Conservatives. Those who boast constantly about having recognized the Quebec nation refuse to even vote on a fundamental aspect of this very nation: the French language.

The Conservatives attempted to impede debate on the primacy of the French language by citing false constitutional arguments. In one fell swoop they clearly demonstrated that the motion adopted by this House on the Quebec nation is nothing but empty words and that the recognition is meaningless.

Recognition of the Quebec nation means respecting the primacy of Bill 101 in Quebec.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding Bill C-482.

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(3)(b) the committee hereby reports that it does not concur in the first report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business and is of the opinion 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 should remain votable.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Yes.

We examined the various pieces of legislation and the federal charters. We found nothing that made it possible to... Obviously, there is a political debate—that has to be acknowledged—about whether it is desirable to have businesses under federal jurisdiction made subject to the Charter of the French language in Quebec, in order to promote the common language of our nation. We did not find anything.

As I have already mentioned, the 1867 Constitution Act refers only to the Parliament of Canada, the Quebec legislature and the courts.

Subsection 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

16.(1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada.

It does not talk about businesses under federal jurisdiction and subject to the Canada Labour Code. As I mentioned, there are precedents already. For example, where the minimum wage is concerned, the Canada Labour Code applies the minimum wage legislation in each province and there is no uniform federal minimum wage.

I would like to call the attention of the members of the committee to clause 13 of Bill C-15, An Act respecting the exploitation of the Donkin coal block and employment in or in connection with the operation of a mine that is wholly or partly at the Donkin coal block, and to make a consequential amendment to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. The clause deals with regulatory powers, and subsection 13(3) states:

13.(3) The regulations referred to in subsections (1) and (2) may incorporate by reference in whole or in part any Act of the province or instruments made under such an Act, as amended from time to time, with any adaptation that the Governor in Council considers necessary.

This approach was used again recently. So nothing technically would prevent us from including provisions in the Official Languages Act and the Canada Labour Code to have the Charter of the French language, Bill 101, apply to businesses under federal jurisdiction in Quebec.

We are not talking about federal institutions. You know that the language of work in federal institutions is governed by the Public Service Staff Relation Act. That is a completely different matter. When we are talking about federal departments and agencies, it is a different matter.

In our opinion, there needs to be a political debate. That may be what side tracked some members of the committee. They came to hasty conclusions rather than dealing strictly with the form of the motion regarding the bill's “votability”. That debate should take place.

We will see how the debate goes. But it would be quite contradictory if the committee were to decide that Bill C-482 was not votable for reasons that do not hold water.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Yes, all right. I want to inform all the committee members and Ms. Robillard of the arguments contain in the letter tabled by Ms. Picard.

We found several provisions in federal legislation that deal with language. For instance, the 1867 Constitutional Act deals with it under section 133, but that deals with the Parliament of Canada, the chambers of the Quebec legislature and the drafting of courts documents. It says nothing at all about private business, or about federal jurisdiction over private business.

Therefore, this cannot apply to Bill C-482.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, colleagues.

As stated clearly in the letter provided by my colleague, Pauline Picard, who has appeared before the committee, Bill C-482 is in full compliance with the Canadian Constitution. Indeed, the Bloc Québécois took great pains to ensure that it did not violate the Constitution. That is why the bill's scope is limited. Pauline Picard mentioned that earlier.

The constitutional rules applying to linguistic matters are identical for private businesses under Quebec and federal jurisdiction. In Quebec, the Charter of the French Language applies to private businesses under Quebec's jurisdiction, and its provisions are fully in compliance with the Constitution.

All that our bill seeks to do is to incorporate, by reference—which is a common procedure—the provisions of the Charter of the French Language into federal legislation so that the provisions apply on Quebec territory. Legislation that is constitutional when it applies to Quebec does not become unconstitutional when it is incorporated into federal law. In fact, incorporation by reference is frequent in federal legislation.

For example, although the Supreme Court decided in 1966 that the Quebec Minimum Wage Act could not be applied to businesses under federal jurisdiction—like all provincial legislation, incidentally—the Canada Labour Code currently incorporates by reference the provisions of provincial legislation to set the minimum wage for employees under federal jurisdiction.

The pretext that has been used, in particular by the members of the Conservative Party of Canada, is completely specious. It is an unsubtle tactic to prevent the House from voting on a bill that some people in Canada might be uncomfortable with.

The fact is that in November 2006, a year ago, all parties in this House formally recognized the Quebec nation. Either that recognition was sincere and meaningful, or it was a pointless, empty gesture. If you acknowledge the existence of Quebec as a nation, you also recognize that for the French, the common public language is French and the language of work is French. In Quebec, everyone is in agreement on this: the National Assembly and all the parties, including the Liberal Party of Quebec and the Action démocratique du Québec.

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that Quebec was justified in adopting legislative measures to protect the French language. The Prime Minister, who is the leader of the Conservative Party, said the same thing in his speech last Friday in Rivière-du-Loup. I would invite all members, but particularly those from the Conservative Party, to listen carefully to what their leader, the Prime Minister, stated:

[My] Conservative government practises a federalism of openness that respects Quebec's historical, cultural and linguistic distinctiveness and gives it the flexibility and autonomy it needs to maintain its francophone identity [...]

The “flexibility and autonomy... [...] to maintain its francophone identity” is what the Conservative leader said and what our bill is about, quite simply.

Does the Prime Minister say things just to deceive Quebeckers, or is he sincere? Either the members of this committee have to walk the talk in keeping with their recognition of the Quebec nation and the Prime Minister's statements and therefore make C-482 a votable bill, or Bill C-482 will not be votable and Quebeckers will have to conclude that recognition of our nation by the NDP, the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada was just an empty gesture.

If the committee members do not allow a debate and vote on our Bill C-482, Quebeckers will see clearly that the behaviour of the Conservative Party of Canada toward Quebec can be summed up in a word: hypocrisy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Michel Bédard, Committee Researcher]

While we are waiting for the copies of the report to be distributed, I will read it out loud to you.

The Subcommittee on Private Members' Affairs has the honour to present its FIRST REPORT Pursuant to Standing Order 92(1)(a), the Subcommittee has agreed 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 , should be designated as non-votable, on the basis that it contravenes the criterion that bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have come here before you today to demonstrate 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, of which I am the sponsor, does not in any way violate the Canadian Constitution and that it should therefore be deemed to be votable by this committee.

I provided a written argument to this effect this morning to the committee chair. However, before dealing with the constitutional issue, I would first like us briefly to review the provisions in this bill.

To begin with, it proposes four amendments to the Official Languages Act, aimed basically at specifying that French is the official language of Quebec and that the federal government must not obstruct the application of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec.

The bill amends the Canada Labour Code to make any federal work, undertaking or business carrying on activities in Quebec subject to the requirements of the Charter of the French Language.

Finally, it amends the Canada Business Corporations Act by requiring that the name of a corporation that carries on business in Quebec shall be in a form that meets the requirements of the Charter of the French Language.

I will now give the floor to my colleague, Pierre Paquette, the Bloc Québécois House Leader, who will speak to you about the constitutional issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you. I have just been told by our clerks and analysts that we can be ready to report this bill to the House today.

Thank you for that, colleagues, and thank you very much for your consideration today.

We now have the opportunity to move to our final bit of business today.

Madame Picard and Mr. Paquette, please have a seat. We will move on to our business.

Thank you very much. Colleagues, our final business for this meeting is concerning the private members' business on Bill C-482. I will open the floor for comments.

I'm not sure if a decision has been made about who will speak first, but I'll open the floor.

Madame Picard, please make your opening statement to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Ladies and gentlemen, let's bring our meeting to order.

First, I want to apologize briefly—simply because we're running a little short on time—for starting late this morning. We had some business in the chamber that had to be attended to. So we're starting right away, following a vote in the House, pursuant to the committee's order of reference of Friday, November 16, 2007, on Bill C-18, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, in regard to verification of residence.

During the second hour of this meeting we're going to begin discussions and consideration of the first report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business regarding Bill C-482.

Colleagues, this morning we have a number of witnesses. We have two witnesses here in the room with us, as well as three by video conference.

To the witnesses, in a moment's time I'm going to give you each no more than two minutes to introduce yourself and, if you choose, provide us with an opening statement. That will allow members more time to ask questions that are very specific to their needs.

I want to remind members and witnesses that we have been dealing with a few bills that are very similar. I'm going to listen very carefully and try to keep us on topic and relevant to the topic this morning, which is the rural address identification and verification issue.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

And the fact remains that Bill C-482 was ruled to be not votable.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Yes. As I was saying, the subcommittee met yesterday, and the members of the federalist parties thought that Bill C-482 was not votable because it was unconstitutional.

For the benefit of my colleagues on the committee, I would note that the purpose of that bill, introduced by Ms. Picard, is to have Bill 101 apply to undertakings in Quebec that are under federal jurisdiction.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be very brief. Yesterday there was a meeting of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure and we felt that Bill C-482 was not votable. That bill is...

Official Languages Act

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-482, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill, which requires the Government of Canada to undertake not to obstruct the application of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec. The bill follows up on the government's decision to recognize the Quebec nation. Language and culture are key to a nation's identity.

We are asking the government to recognize the fact that the common language in Quebec is French. This also applies to federally chartered institutions. For example, the Canada Labour Code establishes minimum wage based on provincial minimums. This bill targets the same situations.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)