House of Commons Hansard #113 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was nations.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
Order. We have to give the member for Etobicoke North a chance to answer the questions, although I am not sure that any were asked.
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I bow to the wisdom and experience of my colleague from Willowdale. He said it all. He reinforced some of the messages that I was making. He gave a good example with Peerless shirts which is exporting globally. It has created a niche all around the world. It was not intimidated by the free trade agreement. It was not intimidated by globalization. Other examples abound. I will leave it at that.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think if anybody was listening, they would be a little confused. To hear the debate today one would think we were talking about globalization, good or bad, or Canada's role in globalization. We are nowhere near anything quite that lofty.
We are talking about a change in the World Trade Organization rules as a result of China joining. We are asking the government right now to avail itself of a clause that would allow it to take steps to protect Canadian jobs from now until the end of 2008. How does saving Canadian jobs become controversial in this place? How does saving Canadian jobs become something other than the unanimous position of the entire House?
I want to bring this debate to its proper level and talk about the people who are being affected. They are the reason we are asking this to be done. Let us keep in mind that the Conservatives took a position prior to the last election. In a news release their international trade critic said:
A Conservative government would stand up for Canadian workers and work proactively through international trade policies to ensure Canada competes on a level playing field.
The Conservative government should do it. Why the debate? The government has the power and the support of the House. Why do we have to get on bended knee and beg for Canadian jobs when there are clauses to lawfully protect them? It is outrageous.
People are scared. They do not understand why we are not using the same clause that the European Union used to save its jobs. The United States saved its jobs. Other jurisdictions around the world availed themselves of this clause and saved their jobs. The Conservative government is prepared to say bye-bye to Canadian jobs. For what? The Conservatives folded up before they even said there was a fight.
I want to read into the record from the meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade in December of last year. Ms. Wynne Hartviksen from the National Office of UNITE HERE Canada, the union representing these workers, said:
My name is Wynne Hartviksen and I am the communications and political action director for UNITE HERE Canada. Our union represents 50,000 workers across Canada and a wide range of industries. Our members work in hotels and restaurants and social service agencies and in autoparts plants. For the past century, we have represented Canadian garment workers. It's those workers in that industry we want to talk to you about today.
At the beginning of 2002, tariffs began to be lifted on many categories of apparel and textile products from China.
This resulted, of course, from China joining the WTO. She continued:
On January 1, 2005, all WTO-sanctioned quotas on apparel imports from China were also removed. Since that time, there has been a severe market disruption in the Canadian apparel industry, with imports from China rising in some product categories by a shocking 200%. Following the elimination of the decades-old apparel-quota system, many countries, most notably the United States and the European Union, moved to impose time-limited restrictions on the growth of specific apparel imports into their domestic markets, as allowed for under article 242 of China's WTO accession agreement.
That means when it agreed to join the WTO. She went on to say:
These restrictions, which are known as safeguards, allow countries to cap the growth of imports from China in specific apparel categories to 7.5% each year, from the past year until the end of the calendar year 2008.
This combination of events--the lifting of the quotas in 2005, and the fact that the U.S. and the EU both moved to implement safeguards--has left the Canadian domestic apparel market even more vulnerable to surging imports from China, the global leader in apparel production. As the EU and the U.S. safeguard measures reduced the flow of Chinese exports to the world's two largest markets, ours has been accessed more readily to fill the void.
With all these facts, we've been left to wonder why. Why is the new Canadian government not acting to stand up for Canadian jobs? Why has the government not moved to utilize the same WTO-sanctioned safeguard measures as the U.S., the EU, Brazil, Turkey, and--just in September of this year--South Africa have all used to protect their domestic industry and their local jobs? Why is one of the bedrock manufacturing industries in this country not allowed the same chances as its counterparts in most of the developed world?
Workers in this industry like Radika are the ones paying the price for this competitive disadvantage and simply want their government to utilize the same measures—safeguards—as many of our major trading partners have already used.
Why will the government not do it?
Are we so frightened of the Chinese that we are prepared to allow ourselves to be beaten up to prove to them that we want to be their buddy? This is ridiculous.
Here is someone from my riding of Hamilton who was at that committee meeting and said:
My name is Radika Quansoon, and I live in Hamilton, Ontario. I've worked for Coppley Apparel Group for about 22 years. We manufacture men's clothing. There are about 400 people who work for Coppley, and we make high-end suits, some of which some of you guys may be wearing here.
About 90% of the Coppley staff in Hamilton are women and immigrants. Over 75% of the women there can't even read or speak English.
We have jobs that allow us to support our families. We are skilled workers who take pride in our high-end, quality products. The problem is that our industry is under serious pressure. We wonder if our jobs will be there five years from now.
Levi's closed down in Hamilton, and most of the people there came to our company, but we could only take so many.
We work at good-quality, union-wage manufacturing jobs to support our families. What I'm trying to say is that we just need to save our jobs.
If these people cannot count on their own government to stand up and save their jobs when there is a legal framework to do it, then what hope do they have? This is outrageous.
These are some of the issues that other members have talked about in terms of globalization. They are all valid arguments. Let us have that debate. We need it in this nation in a bad way. Certainly, NAFTA is not serving our needs.
When we are faced with an issue where we are given a legal process by which we can mitigate the job losses until the end of 2008, I defy anyone to stand up in this place and say why we would not do that, particularly when our major trading partners, the European Union and the United States as the best examples, have taken advantage of it for their workers.
Why are we not doing this for Canadian jobs? They are just as important as anyone else. My friends, their children are going to be just as hungry as anybody else's children when there is no money for food.
This is a matter of decency, not legislation. We owe it collectively, and the government specifically, to begin the process that mitigates the damage that will be done until the end of 2008 and that Canadian workers are entitled to.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
International TradeCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
In my opinion, the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
The vote stands deferred until tomorrow at the end of government orders.
The House will now resume with the remaining business under routine proceedings.
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to table a petition signed by residents of Verchères, landowners on the banks of the St. Lawrence, who are urgently asking the government to protect riverfront properties by installing protective riprap to stop an existing wall from deteriorating.
This petition is similar to a petition that my predecessor, Stéphane Bergeron, tabled in this House on November 24, 1999, in which 621 people called for the implementation of satisfactory measures to halt the phenomenon of shoreline erosion. Now that over seven years have passed, clearly it is time to act.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
February 19th, 2007 / 6:10 p.m.
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, some serious concerns have been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Churchill. They have articulated most eruditely a wide amplitude of quite legitimate issues that must be addressed before the proposals of Bill C-44 become law.
If the intent is truly to reform, improve and address the concerns of aboriginal, Métis, Inuit and native peoples, then sincere dialogue that truly hears the messages as presented by such organizations as the Assembly of First Nations is more than requisite. It must be compulsory.
In my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, a constituency that covers the entire northern border of the state of Minnesota, covers two time zones from Manitoba to Lake Superior and takes seven and a half hours to travel end to end at the speed limit without stopping for coffee, it tells us that the expanse of this one riding affecting 11 first nations is similar to the rest of the nation that has first nation populations.
My riding also has large Métis populations in several communities and growing populations in the cities and towns of the 16 municipalities of the riding. All of these citizens need to feel that justice is being done. Canadians who do not live on reserves and already enjoy all benefits of human rights as enacted want all Canadians to have equity. Who can disagree?
As I hear the other party representatives make their presentations, it is clear that there are some grounds for commonality. I am quite convinced, after listening intently to the arguments of the members opposite, that by following a reasonable process everyone can be heard, adjustments can be made and we will be able to develop a solution that incorporates the unique aspects of indigenous Canadians.
A demonstration of good faith by Parliament utilizing all the principles of decorum and democracy would go a long way to demonstrating to first nations that we are sincere, truthful and honest. Our goal will be to support this bill and have it move to committee with a series of amendments to be introduced in committee stage. The amendments should be to extend the implementation period, allow for consultations to be held, insert an interpretive clause and to allow for an examination of the constitutional analysis and its impact on aboriginal and treaty rights because this is a matter of human rights.
The Liberal Party is the party of the charter of human rights and supports this measure to extend fundamental human rights protection to all native Canadians. The Liberal opposition believes that aboriginal communities will need time to change their laws and interpret the Human Rights Act.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission's report on section 67 recommended an 18 to 30 month transition period and we believe the bill definitely should be amended to allow for this modest transition period. The Liberal opposition supports the legislation and again needs to push the minority government to address the human rights needs of aboriginal Canadians. These include such issues as education, employment, poverty, water supply and health.
In 1977, when the CHRA was first implemented, section 67 was intended to be temporary. The clause was added because it was recognized that it was possible that certain provisions of the Indian Act would not pass human rights scrutiny and could be struck down.
Since its inception, however, it is interesting to note that section 67 has been the subject of innumerable calls for appeal from national and international organizations, such as the United Nations human rights committee. The CHRC issued a report in October 2005 entitled, “A Matter of Rights,” a special report by the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which recommended an immediate repeal of the section.
Since being proposed, it is clear that the stakeholders throughout Canada have had considerable concern in a most valid way, but let us not assume that because someone has a criticism or concern that it is necessarily negative. The Assembly of First Nations and Native Women's Association were disappointed that the legislation was introduced without consultation and have called on the minister to accept the Canadian Human Rights Commission's recommendation of an 18 to 30 month period of transition. This, I believe, is reasonable if we are going to address fairly those questions of capacity.
I believe that in any legislation the affected parties should have a direct response and it would probably save an enormous amount of time if they were actually addressed beforehand.
First nations themselves are recommending that the federal government not proceed with any repeal until they have been adequately consulted. When we think about what that could mean, it could be that we have recognized national groups, not only representing first nations communities but such groups as the Native Women's Association which represents constituencies that will be directly affected and, therefore, have more than a reasonable interest in wanting to have their say.
We know that there should be no repeal of section 67 until an interpretive provision has been designed, developed, passed the scrutiny and consulted upon and then we will at least know that portion will be dealt with properly.
When we think of constitutional analysis, it is also a recommendation that there be no repeal until the government concludes an impact assessment to determine the potential impact of the repeal of section 67 on aboriginal and treaty rights and, furthermore, that the federal government not proceed with any repeal until any analysis on operational issues is completed.
I believe, as reasonable people in the House, we would feel that these would be things that not only would be requisite but, in terms of fairness and equity, should be part and parcel of any provisions.
As I mentioned briefly before, there have been numerous calls to repeal but they also argue correctly that first nations people are entitled to full protection from discrimination. In re-emphasizing the key point, it is a matter of rights.
The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, in his aboriginal policy paper, “From Principles to Action: ...Plan to Tap into the Full Potential of Aboriginal Peoples” , indicated that it was his position that all first nations people should be protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act.
As an opposition party, we have been on a scale of somewhat to very critical of the minority government for opposing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. We believe that supporting the repeal would be consistent with our position on the UN declaration.
It is interesting how this has become a hot button issue with many first nations people who simply cannot understand why Canada, which seemingly wants to be a world leader and recognized for its position on human rights and fairness, will not support the UN declaration.
Currently, self-governing first nations that are operating outside the Indian Act are subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Therefore, there is no rationale for treating first nations communities differently and the repeal of section 67 would go a long way to correcting this inequity.
After hearing the other speakers, I hope they will also support the bill, at least those from the opposition parties. We hope the government accepts our proposed amendments and the Canadian Human Rights Commission's report and amends the bill to provide for some period of time for transition. I would think that the minority government would see an implementation period of 18 to 30 months as being fair and that it would address the capacity issues. We also ask that the bill, as recommended by the CHRC, have this interpretive clause to assist the commission and the tribunal in adjudicating claims against first nations governments, agencies and institutions.
A recent article in The Globe and Mail indicated that a major Senate report warned of more Caledonian style blockades and violent confrontations between natives and non-natives unless Ottawa started setting aside $250 million a year to settle land claim disputes. By repealing this and doing it properly with consultation, we can avoid these kinds of things. I agree.
Resolving land disputes would allow native communities to benefit from economic activities and, in every case where these have been settled, it has meant an improvement in the lives of first nations people. Similarly, as federal leaders, we need to treat the legal liabilities in the same way a business sets the money aside so this can be done.
In summary I will just clarify. In 1977, it is remarkable that this was established as a temporary measure. Although it has the effect of shielding the Indian Act and any decisions made or actions taken by band councils pursuant to the Indian Act, it would prohibit the discrimination in areas of federal jurisdiction on 11 grounds: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
In an effort for us to reduce, minimize and eliminate the domestic and international criticism for our failure to repeal this, we had an obligation to do it. Historically, I think the three previous bills to repeal it did not receive royal accent due to the prorogation or dissolution of Parliament.
After 30 years we have had enough reports and discussions. We know that the number of aboriginal people representing so many different national and regional organizations have spoken in favour of repeal. I believe that what we can do prior to introducing a bill is consult and determine that, in principle, no aboriginal organization opposes it.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, the other day I raised a question in the House regarding Bill C-45, the new fisheries act tabled by the Minister of Fisheries on December 13 of last year.
It is ironic that this very thick bill, almost two and a half times bigger than the previous act, represents a sweeping change to the oldest act of Parliament, the Fisheries Act, which is 138 years old. It is ironic that it was dropped on our desks on December 13. Shortly afterwards, we went on Christmas break.
After carefully reading the bill, I started asking questions of fishermen, their communities and their organizations, various provincial premiers, various aboriginal groups, and environmental groups. In the premise of the preamble and the news releases, it was said that the bill came from “extensive consultations”.
Believing the government to be honest, I started asking who had been consulted with. I am still waiting for the names of the people who were consulted. I asked: “Were you asked to help the government redefine a new Fisheries Act prior to December 13? Were you consulted or were you presented with papers?”
Consultation means to actually seek input from people, not tell them what we are going to do. I know that my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary from British Columbia, is going to answer this question, so I am going to give him a little preamble.
He probably already knows a very fine and learned gentleman, Mr. Christopher Harvey, Q.C., who is a very well spoken, articulate and very informed lawyer from British Columbia. I will quote a paragraph for the hon. member, because I know the hon. member himself is from B.C.
Mr. Harvey talks about the fact that Bill C-45 is a colossal expropriation of fishing rights, which means that it privatizes a public resource. The hon. member knows that in 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the fisheries are a “common property resource” to be managed by the Government of Canada in the public interest. Mr. Harvey, in his dissertation on the act, says:
This is a transparent attempt to download unlimited and unspecified charges onto fishermen. Long ago, in the B.C. Terms of Union of 1871, the federal government agreed to “defray the charges” for protection and encouragement of fisheries.
That is what it said. The parliamentary secretary can say whatever he wants from his departmental notes. That is exactly what happens. This bill will not protect fish and fish habitat. It will privatize a public resource, will further destroy fishing families and their communities across the country, and will eventually divide and conquer first nations and non-aboriginal fishermen and further create a divide that is already there.
We have already said to the minister and his parliamentary secretary that if they truly want to have a new fisheries act, we welcome the debate. We would welcome the opportunity to take this to a special legislative committee before second reading so that we can truly consult with Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and those on our inland waters, in order to develop a new fisheries act that not only protects the habitat but enhances opportunities for commercial and recreational fishermen right across this country.
I have questions for the government.
Why were 31 environmental groups across the country unanimous in their condemnation of this bill the other day?
Why was the UFAW/CAW union in B.C. upset over this act?
Why were Otto Langer and Carl Hunt, two renowned fisheries biologists, one from B.C. and the other from Alberta, so very angry and upset over this bill?
Why was Phil Morlock, head of the CSIA, the association for our $7 billion sport fishing industry in this country, never once consulted on this bill?
Randy Kamp ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, we have heard this speech before and saying it louder and more often does not make it any more true.
In fact, the proposed act reflects the wishes of fishermen in this country and would ensure that individuals who are licensed to fish will fish the resource for the benefit of their families and all Canadians.
Fishermen have repeatedly told us that they want predictable, stable and transparent decision making and that they want to be involved in decisions that affect their lives. They know that sustainable fisheries for the future means that conservation has to be their first goal. Bill C-45 considers all of these factors.
What Bill C-45 does not do is privatize the resource or corporatize the fishery.
The notion of fisheries as a common property resource is the law of the land as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997.
In the case of Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd. v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:
Canada’s fisheries are a “common property resource”, belonging to all the people of Canada. ...it is the Minister’s duty to manage, conserve and develop the fishery on behalf of Canadians in the public interest.
The concept of a common property resource is spelled out in several sections of Bill C-45 so that the public resource would continue to be managed on behalf of the public by a public authority and in the interest of all Canadians.
In the proposed bill, the preamble declares that, “Parliament is committed to maintaining the public character of the management of fisheries and fish habitat”.
Further evidence that the act would uphold the notion of the fisheries as a public resource is found under the considerations pertaining to access and allocation.
It states that the minister and others who administer the act must encourage the participation of Canadians in the making of fisheries management decisions, as well as decisions around the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat.
The importance of maintaining the public access to the fishery is explicitly stated as an important consideration in section 25.
The bottom line is that we need to modernize the way we manage fish and fish habitat, and that is what Bill C-45 would do. Unlike the current act, Bill C-45 would require us to consider impacts on habitat from fishing. It would require us to consult with industry when changing the rules of the game. It would give us and the industry the tools to strengthen industry participation in the day to day management of the fisheries.
It would give a formal role to a broad range of stakeholders in determining how fisheries should be managed. It would take the politics out of access and allocation so that industry could focus on making their businesses viable and economically competitive in a modern and global marketplace.
In short, we are modernizing the fisheries management and the Fisheries Act to meet the needs of a modern industry, one that has evolved significantly over the last 20 years, not to mention over the last 139 years, with an absolutely clear commitment to the sustainable use of the fishery resources for present and future generations.
Like everything in life, use of a common property resource requires rules. Similarly, there are obvious boundaries on the public right to fish. It has been a regulated activity since the dawn of Confederation. In fact, there is currently very little fishing in tidal waters that is not completely regulated by federal legislation. That would continue under Bill C-45. Without regulation and appropriate legislation, there would be chaos on the water and the health of fish stocks would be in peril.
Unlike the current act, which makes no reference at all to common property resource or the public right to fish, a renewed Fisheries Act would set in place rules so that Canadians can continue to engage in fishing activities now and in the future.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, one would almost think he believed what he just read but the fact is that he forgot to tell us that further on in the act the governor in council may override certain things that the minister chooses to do.
The reality is that it was a previous Conservative government that was in power when the world's largest collapse of a natural resource took place off the east coast, the collapse of the northern cod. Four billion of our tax dollars went to readjust that industry and over 50,000 people left the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not one person from DFO or the government was ever held accountable for that.
It will be those people who will be there for the collapse of the independent fishermen and their communities.
If the member is so convinced that it is a public resource, as stated in the Supreme Court decision in Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd. v. the Government of Canada, why is that not in the preamble of the text? It is not there. It is incorrect for him to say that it is public property. It is not. This act would clearly turn it over to corporate hands, the big players.
If he is right about a public resource, how does he explain that the Jim Pattison Group controls over 70% of the herring stocks on the west coast? How does the--
NDP
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
Order. I am sorry, but the hon. member had only a minute and it is over.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Mr. Speaker, despite allegations to the contrary, Bill C-45 does not privatize or corporatize the fishery or destroy fish and fish habitat. The member keeps talking about that. He has not pointed us to a single section that actually demonstrates this. Rather, this bill means predictable access and allocation, greater transparency and stability, and more direct participation of Canadians in the management of Canada's fisheries.
The new habitat section strikes a careful balance between allowing opportunities for economic development and protecting fish and fish habitat for future generations.
Bill C-45 is all about the sustainable development of Canada's coastal and inland fisheries. Conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat is its cornerstone. A modernized Fisheries Act does indeed reflect the wishes of fishers in this country. I encourage my hon. colleagues to support this act.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, on February 8, 2007, I asked the Minister responsible for Official Languages a question about the Department of National Defence.
As we all know, for many years now, the Commissioner of Official Languages has been criticizing the Department of National Defence for being the department that least respected official language legislation. Personally, as a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I noted that this was often brought up at committee. The department violated the Official Languages Act. The act was not respected approximately 60% of the time.
We now learn, through the CBC, that the Department of National Defence will do only the bare minimum to implement bilingualism. It is giving itself until 2012 to adjust its new bare minimum plan.
How can this be? DND goes into other countries to fight for the right to enjoy liberty and justice. It claims that the laws of those countries must be respected. How can the Department of National Defence justify its failure to respect Canada's laws on official languages?
The federal government wants to implement this new measure or new bare minimum plan by 2012. This therefore means that Canada's Official Languages Act no longer exists.
I wonder how many senior military officers at the Department of National Defence are francophones who speak absolutely no English? I do not believe you would find one.
How many deputy ministers speak just English as opposed to just French? There are several in the former category but none in the latter.
How can this Conservative government say that it is ready to defend our country's minorities when it changes its policy for a department that defends human rights and justice? We go to other countries to fight and to defend justice. In our own country, we have a law that was adopted quite some time ago but that has never been respected and that has the worst track record.
What do we say to our soldiers, our francophone men and women? That they cannot rise in the ranks and be promoted unless they speak both official languages? Yet an anglophone will not be required to learn French until 2012. How can we accept that? The parliamentary secretary will rise soon to defend her Conservative government. How can she, as a francophone Quebecker, publicly defend it?
I cannot wait to hear her what she is going to say when she just defends the Conservative government's position. That government took away from Canadian minorities the court challenges program that gave them the opportunity to be able to defend themselves before the courts. This same government is changing Department of National Defence policy. As a francophone, how can she defend her government?
I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary tell us how her government will respect official languages.
Sylvie Boucher ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to reiterate that the government has an unwavering commitment to the official languages in all federal institutions. We are taking steps to honour that commitment.
I want to reassure this House that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces recognize the importance of the official languages and that the official languages program transformation model is designed to improve performance in this regard.
We all know that the previous government had an abysmal record on this issue, and I would like to point out that, in less than a year, the new Minister of National Defence has introduced a new approach that will produce tangible results.
The Commissioner of Official Languages says that the former one-size-fits-all approach did not produce the desired results. That is true, and it was a Liberal failure. Our approach will give real results. In fact, the former Commissioner of Official Languages conducted two major investigations, one into the impact of language on the recruitment, appointment and transfer of unilingual personnel to bilingual positions within the Canadian Forces, and another into language of work at National Defence headquarters.
Her investigations led her to conclude that the Canadian armed forces did not fully respect the Official Languages Act. She therefore made 13 recommendations designed to improve respect for the Act by the Canadian Forces.
The new official languages program transformation model for the Canadian armed forces is a response these recommendations. The former commissioner indicated that she was encouraged by the fact that the new plan addressed most of the recommendations in her report. She also recognized the positive role that this new model may play in improving the use of official languages in the Canadian armed forces.
The transformation model establishes a strategic vision for the Canadian armed forces with respect to official languages. It guarantees that members of the Canadian armed forces will be supervised, trained, managed and supported in the official language of their choice, pursuant to the Official Languages Act. The new plan improves compliance of the Canadian armed forces with the Official Languages Act and takes into account, to a greater extent, the particular needs of the Canadian armed forces.
The model describes three specific objectives guiding the overall vision: ensure that linguistically qualified civilian and military personnel are provided in the right place and at the right time to effectively support Canadian Forces operations and to comply with the Official Languages Act; put in place an enhanced official languages awareness and education program that will ensure that civilian and military employees are fully cognizant of their linguistic rights and obligations; establish a performance measurement system that will accurately monitor the ability of Canadian Forces civilian and military personnel to consistently provide bilingual instruction, services and leadership, when and where required by the act.
The implementation of these objectives will provide a new approach that is more targeted and equitable and that takes into account the particular structure of the Canadian Forces.
The Canadian Forces manage their staff by unit and not by position, and every unit functions as a team. This new approach will allow each unit to provide services and supervise and instruct its members in the official language of their choice, pursuant to the Official Languages Act.
I can assure hon. members that nothing is stopping francophone members of the Canadian Forces from progressing up the ranks. In fact, they are well represented in the Canadian Forces. Let us be clear. In 2005-06, the percentage of francophones in the Canadian Forces exceeded the percentage of francophones in Canada. More than—