Debates of May 28th, 2007

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for his question.

The bill was effectively introduced in this chamber on October 18, 2006. In keeping with the legislative process, we are proceeding today with the second reading. This may be the light at the end of the tunnel with regard to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I am optimistic and I hope that no one will put a damper on my optimism.

If this bill is adopted, the Standing Committee on Official Languages will have to review it according to the recommendations issued by that same committee and by the former Commissioner of Official Languages, Ms. Dyane Adam.

In that spirit and in the light of the question that I was asked, I wish with all my heart that the Conservatives who are now in power will stop boycotting the Standing Committee on Official Languages and will ensure that a Conservative member serves as chair in order to get the process flowing again and to get the committee running for legislative measures like this one or issues that must be addressed with witnesses who can help us increase our understanding.

Let us not forget that enlightenment comes when ideas collide, but if we keep the committee in the dark, we are abusing democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

As I mentioned when I asked my question to my friend from Gatineau, this bill received first reading on October 18, 2006. It is ironic that the Standing Committee on Official Languages is no longer sitting because the government decided not to appoint a new chair after the committee members lost confidence in the chair.

Bill C-29 is finally called for second reading, and we are certainly not opposed to that. Personally, I asked repeatedly when the bill would be called again so that we could debate it and amend the legislation for ACE Aviation Holdings Inc., Air Canada's parent company.

The committee still exists, but the Conservatives are pouting. Still, they have to realize that there is a process for the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and that that process must be followed. If we believe in democracy, then we must follow the democratic process. The Conservatives are going to have to stop their childish pouting. We no longer had confidence in our chair. The people who are watching must be wondering what I am talking about.

I have been a member of this House since 1997, and I have seen just about everything. This chair decided, in our democratic system, to go against the majority of committee members. Whether this government is in a minority situation or not, it does not have that right. It is antidemocratic to do such things. Not only did he cancel a Tuesday meeting because we wanted to discuss the court challenges program, but he decided to cancel all the meetings on that topic. We felt it was important to stress that one person could not tell everyone what to do. The majority rules, and things have to be done democratically.

The member for Trinity—Spadina wanted to know why the other airlines were not bilingual and asked whether they should be. I believe that they should be bilingual, because I think it would be good for Canada. If a national airline like WestJet flies all over the country, I believe it should provide services in both of Canada's official languages, especially since both official languages are recognized by Parliament, by the government and by the laws of our country.

What is special about this case? Why are we talking about Air Canada or ACE Aviation Holdings Inc? Well, during its first years, Air Canada was owned by the Government of Canada. The company was subject to the Official Languages Act. In the late eighties, the government decided to get rid of its responsibilities regarding Air Canada and to sell the company to the private sector. Since then, the majority of the shareholders are from the private sector. When the government decided to sell Air Canada to private interests, it passed a bill whereby Air Canada must respect official languages, since it had been a crown corporation.

Today Air Canada is telling us that it is hard for it to be competitive when other companies do not need to follow the official languages law. We told Air Canada many times at the parliamentary committee that when it bought the enterprise and became privatized that it knew what it was buying. It knew it was buying a company that had to respect both languages. The government was clear at that time, at the end of the eighties, that any company that bought Air Canada would need to serve people in both languages. I do not expect anglophones from Montreal to get on an Air Canada plane and nobody is able to speak their language because our country has two official languages and it is the law of our country.

I found it sad that when Air Canada went under bankruptcy protection that a judge decided that nobody should interfere in the official languages. I find it sad that a judge decided that the official languages, even though it is the law of our country, could be put aside. It was insulting to hear a court say that the official languages law is not important in our country even if it is the law. That is what really happened when Air Canada went under bankruptcy protection.

When Air Canada was placed under the protection of the Bankruptcy Act and went to the court, the judge said very simply that even the Commissioner of Official Languages could not ask it questions anymore. Air Canada had to be left alone because it was reorganizing. So we take the law and we set it aside. But the court's role is to interpret the law and not to say to set it aside because a company is in trouble. This is not the mandate of the court. This decision was insulting to official language communities.

Personally, I found it insulting. I say it here, in this House, and I will say it outside the House as well as everywhere people can hear me: it was insulting that a court could decide that the Official Languages Act was not important.

The federal government—the Conservatives—is telling us today that the Standing Committee on Official Languages is not important since the committee members do not have confidence in the chair, who has decided not to respect the committee's agenda and that, consequently, the government will not appoint another one. This shows how much the government respects the official languages in our country.

The Conservatives can make up any story they want. They can tell Canadians any story they like. They can tell our people in Acadia any story they want. They can tell their stories in Caraquet, in Shippagan, in Lamèque, in Pigeon Hill, in Miscou, in Pointe-Verte, Petit Rocher or Beresford. They can come tell us their stories, but that is not acceptable. It is unacceptable for the government to do that. The government did not do this to us; it did this to all Canadians.

As I understand it, this is how Parliament works. As elected representatives, we have the right in this House of Commons to debate bills, vote on them and decide whether to pass them or not. Ordinary citizens cannot come to the House of Commons and say that they do not think a certain bill is acceptable, that it is bad and that this or that provision must be changed. In this country's democratic system, we have agreed to have parliamentary committees that can organize meetings and invite citizens to express themselves.

Then we, the parliamentarians, can study the bills and what citizens tell us, then draft amendments to improve those bills. That is democracy, with everyone participating: members of Parliament and citizens. They say that five heads are better than one. As for me, I think that 33 million heads are better than one, especially if that one head is a government that wants to tell us that there will be no meeting if we do not want to listen to a certain person.

Let us get back to the new Bill C-29. The main idea is that Part IV (communications with and service to the public) of the Official Languages Act will apply to Air Canada Jazz, but not Parts V (language of work), VI (participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians) or VII (advancement of English and French), as per the legislative amendment adopted in 2000.

So Air Canada had a change of heart and, instead of buying new planes and offering services across the country, it decided to amalgamate with another company, just like it did with Jazz, Air Nova and Air Alliance before. From now on, they will not comply with Parts V, Part VI or Part VII.

This concerns us, because it is a way of doing through the back door something that cannot be done through the front door. Thus, the fact that Air Canada's services have to be provided in both official languages must be protected, because when it was bought by the private sector, the private sector knew right at the beginning that it had to respect the official languages of our country.

This does not change the fact that the government could change its mind and pass a bill saying that all national airlines must serve the whole country—WestJet will operate from the West to the Atlantic provinces— and that the service will be offered across Canada in both official languages. I would not be against that.

I am sure that Air Canada would not say no to this. But in the meantime, Air Canada must acknowledge that the act and regulations were clear from the beginning.

You cannot buy Air Canada and say after 10 years that the company would like to be left alone; that, after 20 years, it would want to run its operations without having to abide by the legislation because it is not fair; that it would want to change the rules.

We know that Air Canada violated the Official Languages Act. How many complaints have been filed? Air Canada will say there were not that many, perhaps only 134 complaints in one year. I remember asking Air Canada whether, out of the 134 complaints, 50% came from English-speaking people and 50% from French-speaking people. I was told that all 134 complaints came from French-speaking people. The only verbal complaints that it had came from the fact that, sometimes, people did not like flight attendants speaking French on the plane. This is a problem, because I think it is a lack of education on the part of Air Canada. We must show people that we have two official languages in our country and that we respect them.

We should not be afraid of our two official languages, but some people are. They think we are asking too much of them and that it is costly to them. Some countries have four official languages. We must be able to provide the service in both languages so as to respect people.

Antonine Maillet put it so well. I often mention it. Antonine Maillet is a New Brunswick writer and she said that we do not want all francophones to speak English and all anglophones to speak French: we just want both communities to be served in both languages. Bilingualism and official languages are also about providing opportunities to people in their community, so that they can express themselves and live in their own language, regardless of where they live.

Two years ago, Acadians celebrated their 400^th anniversary. Quebec will celebrate it next year. This shows that Acadians were here before Quebeckers. We had a nice celebration. In our country, the francophonie goes back a long time.

It seems as though communities want to fight each other. That is not right. I find it regrettable from a language point of view, because there are countries where people learn up to six languages. I tell my children that I want them to learn English, not because they will have better opportunities to find a job, but because it is enriching to learn languages. This is what we should tell our children.

We travel all over the world and people speak two, three or four languages. There is nothing better than to be able to learn another language.

Personally, I tell my children to learn English, and this has nothing to do with finding a job. I want them to learn it and be able to speak both languages. I want them to be able to talk to people when they go to Ontario, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. I do not want them to need an interpreter. This is how I see things. Is this what my children want to do? That is another story, but I can say that they have already learned to speak English quite well, and I am proud of that.

I am happy that we were able to create that in my family. I pushed for it. We should do it more, be more open to it and look at it like anything else. People go to trade schools. They also go to university to become doctors which requires nine years of study. I am sure in those nine years they could learn another language. It is not that hard. People just need the will to do it.

I do not think we should be scared of it but we do need to respect the two official languages in our country and we should proud of them. I am very proud of New Brunswick but I would like to be proud of the whole country. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province where people can obtain services in both languages.

At one time people were fighting among themselves but today I see people getting along better and doing things together. I believe that if we promote that we will have a better country in which to live.

I was saying that, at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we heard complaints about Air Canada. For example, I remember well the former hon. member Benoît Sauvageau, who has passed away. He worked hard in order to have the small complaints card onboard Air Canada and Jazz flights. However, Air Canada representatives said it would cost too much.

Mr. Sauvageau went so far as to have it done himself. All those who attended the Standing Committee on Official Languages will certainly remember that he had the complaints card made himself. He showed that it was not expensive at all. It was done professionally.

During one of our recent meetings of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the vice-president of Air Canada commended Mr. Sauvageau's initiative. The complaints card is now on Air Canada flights to give people who are not satisfied with the service the opportunity to file a complaint.

I want to thank the late Benoît Sauvageau who worked hard for official languages and who helped the cause of official languages.

I remember one time in the Standing Committee on Official Languages when we were questioning Air Canada representatives. All the safety instructions during takeoff were in both official languages. However, the instructions in case of an emergency were all in English. There was a taped recording played upon descent. Imagine getting on a plane and the instructions are on tape. Imagine what the tape will say when the plane is getting ready to land. It got to the point where the name of the passenger sitting near the emergency exits was verified to ensure that the person could speak English because the instructions had to be given in English only. We have made progress since then, but we still have a long way to go.

There is a section of the bill that concerns me. If we look at clause 10.2(4) of the bill, it says:

Only Parts IV, VIII, IX and X of the Official Languages Act apply in respect of

(a) the air service undertaking owned and operated by Jazz Air Limited Partnership, a limited partnership registered on September 13, 2004 under the laws of the Province of Quebec; and

(b) any new undertaking that provides air services.

Clause 10.2(5) of Part 3 states:

With respect to a new undertaking that is acquired after the day on which this section comes into force, the Parts of the Official Languages Act referred to in subsection (4) commence to apply after the expiry of one year, or any longer period that the Minister may fix, after the day on which the new undertaking is acquired.

This part of the bill frightens me because I cannot believe that, if Air Canada purchases another company, anyone can learn another language in just one year. I cannot believe that. This would therefore force the minister to grant two, three or four years, and we will once again be in the same position as when Air Canada bought Canadian International. It will be the same situation.

Thus, Air Canada must know, when it purchases a company, that the staff must be bilingual, because current legislation clearly states that Air Canada must provide services in both official languages.

In closing, I would hope that the government will consider at least some of my suggestions and that, in committee, there will be no filibustering on the part of the government. I hope that the Standing Committee on Official Languages will resume its proceedings and that the necessary amendments can be made, since the minister has said here this evening that he believes in official languages. Only time will tell.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to what my colleague said. He spoke about the Standing Committee on Official Languages. If this committee is not working today, it is not for the reasons he gave.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages is not working because the Opposition members voted against its chair, forcing him to resign.

When the opposition forced his resignation, the committee, as it existed at that time, ceased to exist and its good work came to an end. I mention this because we are discussing a bill that was in front of the committee.

The bill we are discussing today was part of the good work done by the official languages committee, the committee that the opposition terminated. The bill we are discussing today is a bill that has been put forward by our government.

In fact, this is a government bill, tabled by our government. The Standing Committee on Official Languages was involved in its drafting.

Therefore, I want to correct the record. The official languages committee is not sitting today because the member who just spoke tabled a motion against the chair who had done such good work. The opposition voted against the chair and forced his resignation and the good work of the committee came to an end.

Could my hon. colleague comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to set the record straight, he needs only to say where he was on that Tuesday morning, at 8:58, when the chair cancelled the committee meeting, while the committee members and witnesses who had travelled from Winnipeg and Montreal were in attendance. The government had paid for these witnesses to come and testify.

The member knows very well that he voted with us to have these witnesses before the Standing Committee on Official Languages. If he wanted to tell the truth in this House, he would say that the Conservatives were embarrassed because the members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages were doing a good job. The Conservatives claim to have been doing good work, but the fact is that the chair did not even travel with us across the country, from Newfoundland to Vancouver, to attend the hearings of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Two minutes before it was scheduled to begin, the meeting was cancelled by the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Not only was that committee meeting cancelled, but so was the Thursday meeting, because the chair did not like the committee's agenda. A committee chair does not have that power. The Conservatives may allege whatever they want, the fact remains that a chair may have the power to cancel a meeting. Indeed, if on a Tuesday morning the witnesses do not show up, it is natural for the chair to have the power to cancel the meeting, but he cannot do so because he does not like the agenda and he thinks that the committee has become too partisan.

If the member has a sense of honour, he will admit that this is what happened. It is true that the Standing Committee on Official Languages has done good work. I have been sitting on that committee since 1997. The members of that committee have worked hard and brought forward good proposals.

The same member was with me when we toured Canada. He has heard Canadians say that it was unacceptable to cancel the court challenges program. The member is aware of all that. He should not attempt to confuse the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, who sits with me on the official languages committee and comes from the same province as I do. I find comments like those of the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell a bit absurd. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. As the member for Acadie—Bathurst put it so well, it is unacceptable that a chair would decide not to listen to witnesses because he does not feel like listening to them.

We must show respect. We have been elected by the Canadian people. Those who follow the news regularly may notice that it is not always easy to keep people's respect for the members of Parliament. One must work hard for that. It is gestures like the one the Conservative chair of the committee made that make people wonder about the work we do here in Ottawa. But most of us are trying to make things go forward. It is always a minority that gives the majority a bad name.

But what I wanted to say is that the only thing that is not found in the title of the bill is the fact that it relates to official languages. Maybe that should have been mentioned because that can be confusing. People think that since the bill is about Air Canada, it is about transportation. In fact, the bill is concerned with transportation because it relates to Air Canada, but it is about official languages.

It is hard to conceive that the minister would want to send the bill to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities since it should be sent to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

How does the member for Acadie—Bathurst see the situation? Is there any respect in this House when the Conservatives do not want the Standing Committee on Official Languages to operate?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, what is important today is Bill C-29, which ensures that Air Canada respects the official languages. Just because the company changes, that does not mean Air Canada does not have to assume its responsibilities any more.

But let us go back to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. This is where we have to be very clear. Why is the government saying that it had nothing to do with the decision made by the chair? Why is it supporting this decision then? This means that it agreed—agreed with the fact that the chair was preventing the committee from sitting.

The chairman said that it was due to partisanship. If anybody showed any partisanship, it was the chair himself. The abolition of the court challenges program was challenged across the country, everywhere we went. The Conservative MPs know it because they came with us on this trip, except for the chairman who was not there. They knew it. There were the ones who showed partisanship. They cancelled the Standing Committee on Official Languages meeting because they did not want to hear what the witnesses had to say. It is quite simple. This is what they wanted. They did not want to hear the truth. The Conservative government is hurting our people; it is hurting the whole francophone community.

I hope that we can hear the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages explain to us later, maybe, how she is helping us in that regard. She should be ashamed of herself for not standing up to the Prime Minister and telling him that what he is doing to our francophone communities is not acceptable. I am looking forward to hear what the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages will say.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst who has a long and rich experience as a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Let us take the example of a bill such as this one that deals with Air Canada. Problems arise in far too many instances with regards to services provided, or that should be provided, in French or that are requested in French in the context of air travel.

How can we ensure, through the House and the work of parliamentarians, that we will come up with an efficient bill that will offer a solution to the problems that are too often reported, namely that the French fact is not respected in air transportation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Gatineau. I do hope that, in the next few days, the government will see the light at the end of the tunnel. What is going on in Parliament is not normal in a democracy. I explained very clearly a moment ago that denying citizens the right to express themselves before Parliament is an assault on democracy. It can be called nothing else. It wounds democracy.

The four whips will convene tomorrow morning. We will meet to discuss the situation. Let us hope the government revises its position and acknowledges that these things are simply not done. A chair cannot simply decide that he does not agree with the committee's agenda. That is not done in a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules and he needs to recognize that.

The Conservatives say they were elected to be the government. That is true, but it is a minority government. We need to work together. For that to happen, it needs to let the committee do its work. It was working well. Right up until the last minute, even after the committee was shut down, they were saying how it was doing great work. Unbelievable! The committee does great work but it is still shut down. That is unacceptable.

I trust a reasonable decision will be taken. The government will need to think about things. The ball is in its court. Otherwise, we will have to change the rules of the House. If it refuses to name another chair, we will need new standing orders. The rules will change. Is that what the government wants? That is what will happen. If that is the road it wishes to embark on, we will change the rules. It must never forget that it is a minority and not a majority government.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, as Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, I am proud to present, together with my colleague, this bill to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which will ensure respect for the linguistic rights of Canadians.

This is another example of our government's commitment to the official languages and linguistic duality. Our government is strongly committed to promoting both official languages. We believe that linguistic duality is a fundamental aspect of our identity. It is an economic, social and cultural asset for Canadian society and for Canada on the international scene.

Our new government has signed service and education agreements with the provinces and territories totalling $1.18 billion over four years. Dozens of other funding agreements with official languages community groups and organizations have been signed as well.

In addition, in the 2007 budget, the new government of Canada also increased funding for official languages minority communities by providing an additional $30 million over two years. These monies will fund cultural and extracurricular activities as well as community centres. The $30 million is in addition to $642 million over five years allocated by the Action Plan for Official Languages, which seeks to promote and develop the official languages in Canada.

We have proven, and our actions will continue to prove, that respect for the Official Languages Act in every department, including Transport Canada, is a priority for us.

I would like to present a brief history of Air Canada in order to support the proposed amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Air Canada, as we know it today, was established in 1937 by legislation whose purpose was to create a national airline for Canada, the Trans-Canada Air Lines.

During the second world war, Trans-Canada Airlines was charged with carrying Canadian armed forces and Canadian government officials and diplomatic dispatches regarding urgent war business over the Atlantic Ocean between Canada and the British Isles. What began as an urgent war measure became the springboard for Trans-Canada Airlines' expansion into the international commercial air market.

Trans-Canada Airlines was renamed Air Canada through an act of Parliament on January 1, 1965. This change reflected its changed status from one of a national air transportation, cargo and mail service carrier to one of a Canadian based international commercial airline. Consideration was also given to the fact that being bilingual, the name Air Canada better reflected Canada's two official languages.

Throughout its history, Air Canada has shown its will to correctly reflect Canadian linguistic duality. For example, as early as 1963, Air Canada set up an internal committee on bilingualism to examine its policies and practices and recommend corporate improvements.

In 1968, more than 34% of all Air Canada employees, including 57% in Quebec, were classified as bilingual. In 1969, when the Official Languages Act was passed, Air Canada made sure that its corporate policies were in line with official languages requirements, just like other federal institutions.

As members will recall, on two occasions, the Government of Canada imposed official languages requirements on Air Canada through the Air Canada Public Participation Act in order to ensure the continued protection of the linguistic rights of Canadians. Full obligations under the Official Languages Act were imposed on Air Canada, once when privatization occurred in 1988-89, and again in 2000 when Air Canada purchased Canadian Airlines International.

In 2000, these obligations were extended to require that Air Canada make sure that its subsidiaries that provide air services serve their clients in both official languages.

In 2002, in response to a report from the Standing Committee on Official Languages, Air Canada tabled its Linguistic Action Plan 2001-2010, in which it renewed its ongoing commitment to both official languages and put forward a 10-year plan describing how it intended to further that goal. The action plan was updated in 2004.

Furthermore, on November 25, 2004, an Air Canada senior executive appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages. He said to the committee that during the restructuring process of Air Canada, when the company had to identify $2 billion in savings, only three budgets had not been reduced: safety, security and official languages.

Air Canada showed on a number of occasions that it was willing to meet its responsibilities when it comes to official languages.

However, on October 1, 2004, as part of its corporate business plan, Air Canada made major changes to its corporate structure aimed at maximizing efficiency and boosting investment. Air Canada then created independent trading units under a new parent company, ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. Therefore, the Air Canada Public Participation Act now applies to only one part of Air Canada.

The former internal divisions and subsidiaries of Air Canada, including Jazz, have now become independent companies and are not subject to the official languages obligations set out in the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

In response to Canadians, Air Canada's employees and the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the Government of Canada committed to introduce legislation to ensure that there would be no erosion of Air Canada's official languages act and headquarters location obligations as a result of its corporate restructuring.

Since then, Air Canada has showed its intention to keep up its efforts and initiatives to respect and improve the quality of its services in both official languages. Last November, at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, a senior executive presented Air Canada's hiring policy which focuses on hiring bilingual candidates. The company has also transferred a good many flight attendants in an effort to increase the bilingualism ratio.

This is why I will gladly support this bill before the House. The House intends to maintain this commitment and to respect the obligation it has under the Air Canada Public Participation Act to give Air Canada's employees the right to work in the language of their choice. It will also ensure that the linguistic rights of Canadians are preserved as far as the services offered by this company are concerned. This bill will help the company keep contributing to the social fabric of Canada and to play its role as an ambassador of Canadian values abroad in the years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for her speech on Bill C-29.

I would like to know, if possible, why a government that supports official languages and prides itself on bringing Bill C-29, which is in fact the continuation of Bill C-47, back to the House has taken so much time to do so—from October to this week—and has also refused to designate a chair for the official languages committee. Is it because it was not important?

How many times have I reminded the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons of the importance of Bill C-29?

Maybe she could also clarify what the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell meant when he said that I misled the House about the Standing Committee on Official Languages. He seemed to say that we are the ones who cancelled the hearing. Where was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages two minutes before the hearing started, when the clerk said that the committee hearing was cancelled?

That evening, on the five o'clock news with Don Newman, we learned that the committee had been shut down for being too partisan. The member has no respect for the members of the committee. Can you imagine? How has the simple examination of the court challenges program become a partisan issue? Where does the minister, who is a francophone, stand as far as the francophones of the country are concerned? I would also like to hear her comments about Air Canada and the other companies it may buy.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said many times in this House, I have a great deal of respect for the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages and for all my Conservative colleagues sitting on this committee.

The committee has done an excellent job, most notably the tour of the country, from coast to coast. Our colleagues were there, including my parliamentary secretary. A phenomenal job has been done. The committee tabled a report about two weeks ago. It contains 39 recommendations that we will examine. Of course, we will respond within the required 120 days.

I also have a lot of respect for my colleague who is here in this House and with whom I had the opportunity of making announcements regarding minority communities, notably for L'écho d'un peuple. For instance, we announced $195,000 in funding for this extraordinary show intended for the Francophonie and all Canadians.

More recently, the Festival franco-ontarien received $130,000 to help the development of francophone communities throughout the country.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the minister, who is responsible for official languages.

Earlier, we heard her very disappointing answer regarding the way that the Standing Committee on Official Languages was put on standby—let us hope that it will not be for too long. We have serious doubts when we hear the minister.

The minister says that she is giving $30 million to the francophone communities outside Quebec. She should know that, in 1996, the Franco-Saskatchewaners were asking for $22 million for themselves alone, simply to be able to operate for a year. The principle of redress has yet to be implemented at the federal level, even if studies by Roger Bernard, from the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française, were referring to it more than 15 years ago. It is completely lamentable to hear that kind of explanation of how the government highlights the official languages. Bill C-29 is another example. Following the recommendation of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the bill must be sent to the Standing Committee on Official Languages to be looked at.

How will she do it, with all that rhetoric that shows her inconsistency in regard to the recommendations made by knowledgeable people?

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

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

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

To 1996.

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

He refers to claims dating back to 1996 and I would invite him to express his griefs to the government that was in office at the time.

For our part, we announced an additional $30 million for communities and we intend to ensure that these $30 million are well spent to promote the Canadian francophonie.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat mystifying to hear the minister make these kinds of remarks. First of all, let us set the facts straight. We are no longer talking about the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages—which is unfortunate—we are talking about the former chair of official languages because of his actions and the lack of respect he has shown towards language communities in Canada.

However, the minister says she is proud that her government has decided to meet with these communities. There is however a reality, which is that the then chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages did not take the time to travel to the different regions of the country to meet with these communities and get a sense of the problem. This might have been an important and necessary thing to do in order to better identify the issues down the road.

The big issue under debate just happened to be the court challenges program. Several months later, the government, by way of the chair, cancelled the court challenges program, cancelled the Standing Committee on Official Languages and now they try to tell us they care about official languages. In my opinion, the minister should take back which she said and say the exact opposite.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages has one minute to answer the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, that will be enough to tell my colleague from the opposition that those who showed disrespect to minority communities are the Liberals and the members of the NDP who voted against our budget measures for the country's minority communities. They voted against investing $30 million in our youth and against money for the construction of community centres.

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

That is a Liberal project.

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

The member says it is a Liberal project. From what we hear from the Liberals these days, now that they are in the opposition, it seems that they were on the verge of implementing projects, but, as it was often the case, they did not deliver, and it is too bad.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the original question that I put before the House a number of weeks ago touched on two issues. One was the lack of apology from the government for the sad history of residential schools and the subsequent impact on first nations communities. The second question was on the Conservatives' own blue ribbon panel that disputes the fact that $10 billion ended up in the hands of first nations communities and it is on this panel's findings that I will be focusing.

The blue ribbon panel's report on spending indicated that in 2004-05 first nations communities across this country received only $4.9 billion in grants and contributions. A subsequent Assembly of First Nations document that was updated, a more recent one, indicated that figure was at $5.4 billion. This is largely different than the $10.1 billion that is bandied around both in the House and in public.

In a speech that National Chief Phil Fontaine gave at the Canadian Club on Tuesday, May 15, he outlined some of the problems around why it is so important to be talking about the reality of these numbers. He put a face to poverty in first nations communities in this country.

In his speech he talked about the fact that Chief Shirley Castel tells us that some two bedroom homes have as many as 28 people living in them and that overcrowding in Canada is generally 7%, according to Statistics Canada, but for people in rural areas in first nations communities it is 19%.

He goes on to talk about the fact that aboriginal children across Canada live in poverty and that number is one in four. Also, first nations child welfare agencies receive 22% less funding per child than provincial agencies. He goes on to say in his speech that this is blatant discrimination.

Much work has been done around this myth and I want to highlight a document entitled “The $9 Billion Myth Exposed: Why First Nations Poverty Endures”. Really, we are talking about inadequate housing. We are talking about lack of access to clean drinking water and educational standards that do not meet the norm in the rest of Canada. This document talks about the fact that there has been a 2% funding cap since 1996. It says:

Due to the 2% cap on core services that has been in place since 1996, the real purchasing power of First Nations has steadily decreased due to annual increases in population growth and inflation. The total purchasing power lost by First Nations communities since 1996 is now 23 cents for every dollar, and we are losing more every year that the 2% cap remains in place.

Later on in this article on the $9 billion myth, it talks about the age of many first nations communities. It says:

More than half of First Nations peoples are under 23 years old. Freezing their budgets at a 2 to 3% growth rate means that First Nations governments can’t keep up with the demand of their growing population, as well as inflation, aging and poorer health and social status. INAC has found that on-reserve per capita expenditures for basic services have declined by 6.4% since 1996-1997.

In case we think that these numbers only come from the Assembly of First Nations or first nations communities across this country, I would like now to turn to some of the government's own documents.

The government conducted a cost drivers project that looked at a number of funding factors in first nations communities from coast to coast. The government's own documents acknowledge serious shortfalls in education, housing, community infrastructure, water and so on.

Since I am running out of time I cannot quote from these government documents that clearly outline the problem.

The overwhelming needs are there, so the question to the minister still remains. How much money will actually end up in the hands of first nations people and their communities in this country?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question because in fact this is one of the very reasons why I got involved in politics. For the first time in my life I was able to join a party that was interested in actually reforming the very system that prevents the money needed by first nations people, aboriginal people, in order to improve their lives, from reaching them.

It is our party that actually sees this system as the very barrier this member talks about. Thankfully, our government has been able to begin to chip away at a system that has suppressed first nations people for a very long time, going back over 100 years as we look back to the Indian Act, a document that was prepared from pre-Confederation documents. Of course everyone realizes it is an antiquated piece of legislation that only suppresses the very people it espouses to help. This reform is something that our government is very interested in pursuing.

Some have suggested that more money is necessary to fix these problems. I would argue that although more money may need to be invested at some point, it is actually the system itself that needs to be fixed. Before we can invest more dollars, we need to ensure that the money is actually going to make a difference in the lives of the people it is meant to help.

One of the things that we are doing as a government is bringing forward Bill C-44, an important piece of legislation. The bill actually begins to target this system and actually will extend human rights to first nations people.

Most people in Canada do not realize that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply on first nations reserves. This is a shameful fact about our history. Canada, one of the best countries in the world to live in, has not extended human rights to first nations people. We have an excellent record on human rights, yet we have not extended these benefits to first nations people.

Thankfully, right now our committee has the opportunity to bring forward this important and historic piece of legislation. I would sure like the member to endorse extending human rights protections to first nations people. I know the member wants to head home as soon as possible to her summer estate. That is why she has put off extending the Canadian Human Rights Act to first nations people on reserve until some time in the fall. I challenge her to change her mind and actually endorse extending human rights to first nations people.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am fully prepared to stay here until the job is done. Of course what we are talking about with Bill C-44 is actually the repeal of section 67, which allows people to file complaints against the Indian Act. First nations on reserve already have access to the Canadian Human Rights Act. In fact, the Assembly of First Nations has filed a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act about the serious underfunding of 22% for child services.

I still am looking for an answer about how much money actually ends up in first nations communities and in the hands of the people who live in those communities. We have seen this over and over, and again, from the government's own documents such as the government's cost driver report, which talks about the fact that “after nine years of a 2 percent cap the time has come to fund First Nations basic services costs so that population and price growth are covered in the new and subsequent years”. The report goes on to talk about the very serious needs around improved comparability. When will the--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs.