Debates of Feb. 6th, 2008

Official Languages Act

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly amazed that a Quebecker could ask me that question, while citing completely inaccurate figures. I have just spoken about this. The number of people who have French as their first language rose between 2001 and 2006, from 5.33 million to 6.29 million. Their relative weight fell, and they now represent only 22.1% of the population, according to Statistics Canada.

[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.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read 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.

This is dated December 19, 2007, by Henri Brun, a professor of constitutional law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member. Before tabling her bill, did she conduct an independent review showing that the provisions of the Official Languages Act are at odds with the Charter of the French Language? I remind her that the preamble of that charter provides that the National Assembly “is resolved to make of French the language of Government and the Law, as well as the normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business”.

Has the hon. member proven that the federal Official Languages Act and the Charter of the French Language are incompatible? Has she researched that aspect, and could she take a few minutes to explain to us whether her bill is based on material that could be useful to all parties here?

[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—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Status of Women.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, two months ago in this House, we commemorated International Genocide Day and International Human Rights Day. At that time, I spoke of the fact that the first genocide in the 21st century was continuing to find expression in Darfur and that the number one humanitarian catastrophe of our time today was in Darfur.

I asked the government if it would commit itself to combat these mass atrocities and the genocide by attrition in Darfur. I asked if it would commit itself to peace and security in Sudan as the first human rights foreign policy priority of the government and this country. I asked if it would engage in concrete involvement to stop the killing.

In particular, I asked, “Will it, for example, provide the necessary resources, equipment, logistical support...the force multipliers” for the expeditious and effective deployment of the UN African Union protection force?

As the commander has said, the force was to be deployed by the end of December 2007, yet he did not know how many troop contributions he had. He did not have one helicopter. Not one country had yet pledged even one helicopter. This is against a backdrop of 400,000 already dead, 2.5 million people displaced, 4 million people on humanitarian assistance, and mass atrocities continuing unabated.

Two months later, not only has the situation deteriorated, but the Sudanese government, responsible for the killing fields to begin with, is actively blocking any and all initiatives to stop the killing and secure the peace.

First, the Khartoum government has blocked the effective deployment of any international protection force, refusing to accept, for example, non-African peacekeepers, limiting the use of helicopters, limiting the use of access and the like, and even attacking, as it did the initial deployment of the peacekeeping force to begin with.

Second, the Sudanese government not only refuses to surrender the génocidaires indicted by the International Criminal Court but, in a mocking reaction to the arrest warrants, actively promotes the génocidaires to senior government positions in Sudan.

Third, it not only blocks delivery of humanitarian aid, but just last week attacked the humanitarian aid workers themselves and hijacked the trucks delivering the food.

It not only denies any security to the internal displaced persons camps but actively engages in ethnic cleansing in that regard.

I could go on.

So this is my question to the government at this point: what will it do to help ensure that the international United Nations African Union peacekeeping force can be effectively and expeditiously deployed as quickly as possible? Will it not only help to ensure that the Sudanese government is no longer engaged in blocking the deployment of this force but also help to work with the international community to mobilize the necessary troop contributions that are still wanting and the necessary equipment that is still missing? As I mentioned, helicopters have not even been pledged for this mission.

Will the government help to assist in the promotion of the peace processes, both with regard to Darfur and with regard to southern Sudan? Both the Darfur peace agreement and the comprehensive peace agreement are in danger of unravelling.

Will it help--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

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

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Mount Royal is very much engaged on this file. As part of the efforts of Canada's Parliament, as well as parliamentarians on this side of the House, we are working with him and his colleagues to ensure that this issue regarding Darfur remains in the public domain. Members have been pressuring the government to carry on working toward bringing the situation in Sudan under control.

I attended a conference at the UN on Darfur and talked about many of the issues that my colleague has raised.

Canada is heavily engaged in Sudan. Since 2004, Canada has given $414 million for UN peacekeeping forces as well as the humanitarian effort. We will continue to do that.

I can assure the member that we will continue to work with the international community to bring more pressure on the government of Sudan to accept the UN peacekeeping forces as mandated by the UN Security Council.

Canada was at the forefront at the United Nations human rights council. We want to ensure that Sudan's human rights record remains under scrutiny all the time. We have repeatedly called on the government of Sudan to cooperate with the international criminal code with respect to the two Sudanese my colleague is talking about who have been indicted by the International Court of Justice.

Canada is working with both the UN forces and the African Union forces. As a matter of fact, we have pledged money to the UN until it is able to get all the resources it requires. We have extended the leases for the helicopters for the African Union.

The UN is facing challenges in trying to bring that force together. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, with whom I have talked on many occasions, is working hard to ensure that those UN forces are there, but it is a challenge.

The United Nations is an expert in these kinds of issues. It has the knowledge on setting up peacekeeping missions. It has its own standards. It has its own department to take care of these things.

Canada is waiting for the UN to tell us what it wants. We cannot tell it what to do. It is for the UN, through its peacekeeping division, to tell us what it wants and what we can do to help.

The UN has asked Canada to carry on supplying the helicopters for the African Union and we have agreed. Originally, the UN had told us it did not want our helicopters, but as has been rightly pointed out, the UN is facing challenges, so we will continue with the lease program so the UN forces can use them.

The government of Sudan is putting up a lot of roadblocks with respect to this issue. We do not expect the government of Sudan to suddenly welcome all these forces considering its record in the past. However, we are cooperatively working with the international community. We have been at all the peace talks that have taken place and will continue to do that.

I assure the member that Canada will ensure that this issue of Darfur is addressed as quickly as possible.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite referenced the fact that the United Nations is itself responsible and accountable, and knows what needs to be done.

Several days ago the director of United Nations peacekeeping acknowledged that the African Union and the United Nations protection force will not be deployed if things continue as they are. He does not see this force being deployed until the end of 2008, yet it was to have been deployed by the end of 2007.

That means that the killing fields will continue to go on for another year in the absence of the effective deployment of the United Nations peacekeeping force.

I appeal to the government to make the question of the genocide in Darfur its number one foreign policy priority. I appeal to the government, that every time it speaks to the issue of foreign policy, to make the tragedy in Darfur its number one compelling priority.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that he knows that human rights is the number one policy of the government. The Prime Minister has stated on many occasions that our government will take a principled stand on human rights abuse around the world and for that reason we have been very active on the international scene, including the UN.

Yes, the UN director general has said that the UN is facing challenges in line with the African Union, but we are all working together to ensure, and I agree with him, that the quicker the deployment takes place the better it is and the killing fields, as he mentioned, will stop.

We will continue working on it, but I can assure him that this government will, and that is part of our priority, work very hard on the issue of human rights.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said last week and as my colleagues have reiterated this evening, the Official Languages Act fosters the use of French and English within Canadian society.

The Government of Canada considers the reality of francophone Quebec in all of its actions, particularly in the implementation of the Official Languages Act. It fully takes into account Canadian linguistic duality, which it is committed to promoting in Quebec, as in the other provinces and territories.

This is evidenced by the current development of the renewal strategy for the official languages action plan, and by the numerous measures that have been taken. An important component of the Official Languages Act and the approach that will be taken is based on the principle of linguistic duality.The Government of Canada reiterated its support for linguistic duality and for the next phase of the action plan for official languages in the last throne speech.

Our government is a responsible government. We take the necessary actions in order to ensure that we make decisions that are in the best interests of our communities, as well as decisions that ensure that vitality of both French and English languages in our Canadian society.

Last December the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages announced the appointment of a special adviser on linguistic duality and official languages. Bernard Lord will report the results of his discussions that he has had with Canadians from coast to coast. Our government made a promise and we are keeping it.

The findings of regional and online consultations were used by Mr. Lord to facilitate discussions with the national office language stakeholders at the wrap-up event held on January 24.

The Government of Canada is a dynamic partner that supports the French language and Quebec culture.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are determined to promote official languages in Canada, and we are working to do so. Of course, this includes French right across Canada, but also in Quebec. The Government of Canada considers the reality of francophone Quebec in all of its actions, particularly in the implementation of the Official Languages Act. This is evidenced by the current development of the renewal strategy for the official languages action plan, and by the numerous measures that have been taken.

Quite frankly, I am surprised at the position of my colleague. He is a member of the official languages committee and yet his very proposal is undermining official languages in the province of Quebec.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this adjournment debate gives me an opportunity to go back to a question that I asked the government before the holidays.

I would like to begin with a few comments for the member who just rebuffed our Bloc Québécois colleague. I have to say that it takes some nerve for someone who cannot speak a single word of French without reading a prepared statement to blame a member who is just doing his job by trying to defend the French language in Canada.

He has nothing to learn from a government that, on the one hand, talks about recognizing the Quebec nation, and on the other, sends someone who has to read his responses in the House to tell us that we do not even have the right to talk about promoting the French language. I have found that a few months in Ottawa is all it takes to understand that recognition of two official languages is nothing more than a theory. The reality of the situation is something else entirely. The French language needs the support of all parliamentarians and will always need that support. The government has nothing to teach us in that respect.

And now for the question I asked the Minister of Public Safety in November. My question was actually for the Minister of National Defence, but he refused to answer, so his Public Safety colleague rose. The answer was very interesting.

My question was for the Minister of National Defence, who worked for Thyssen, a German company. If that name rings a bell, that is because it is one of the companies that the now-notorious Karlheinz Schreiber worked for. The Minister of National Defence worked for Thyssen, and I believe that his father, who was a Conservative member of Parliament and even a minister a while back, paid $100,000 to bail out Karlheinz Schreiber.

The question was a simple one about government ethics. I wanted to know whether the current Minister of National Defence had taken part in cabinet discussions about Bear Head, Thyssen and Schreiber. He refused to answer. Ethically, he should have disclosed the conflict of interest and should have abstained from participating in those discussions in light of the close economic connections that may have existed not so long ago between the current minister and Mr. Schreiber.

We did not get an answer. Instead, the Minister of Public Safety said that we would have to be patient and wait for an answer from David Johnston, who would provide what they are still calling the terms of reference for what they promised. The Minister of Public Safety made that promise formally in the House. He promised a full inquiry into the Airbus affair and the actions of Messrs. Mulroney and Schreiber.

What did we get instead? We got the Prime Minister's theories during his year-end interviews. He spoke to the journalist, but it sounded more like he was thinking aloud. He said that maybe now that Mr. Mulroney has testified, there would be no need to pursue all of these questions. What did we get a few days later in Mr. Johnston's report? He said that now that Mr. Mulroney has testified, there may be no need for all of that. Again today, they are saying that the final touches will probably be added once Mr. Johnston gives the terms of reference to the inquiry commission.

The second part of the question was about how to ensure that taxpayers would get their $2.1 million back. That is the question we asked again today.

I would like to conclude by saying that when the Minister of Finance cavalierly breaks the rules for awarding contracts, when the government does not punish him as a result, and when the minister is not forced to face the consequences of his actions, we can see that there is many a slip—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the member from the New Democratic Party that there is a very simple answer to his question about whether the Minister of National Defence had recused himself in any discussions about Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney that came up in cabinet. There were no such discussions. He certainly did not have to recuse himself because there was no need to recuse himself.

This is absolutely typical of members of the opposition when they are attempting to create a scandal where no scandal exists. We have heard the same sort of poppycock from the members of the Liberal Party, who again desperately for weeks upon weeks in question period were asking questions trying to find some smoking gun, trying to find some connection between the current Prime Minister and Karlheinz Schreiber.

In fact, when the ethics committee started discussing this very issue, I recall with great amusement when the Liberal Party brought in their hired gun, the official opposition House leader, who came in to ask the question that was going to blow the lid off this inquiry. He was there, he was primed and he said, “Mr. Schreiber, what contact did you ever have with the Prime Minister and when did you have it?”

Of course, Karlheinz Schreiber said, “I have never spoken with the man. I never had any conversation with him or any of his officials”. Then the opposition House leader whimpered off into the sunset because he did not know the answer to the question before he asked it, which I find astounding since the member for Wascana is a lawyer by profession.

The point I am trying to make is the fact that all opposition parties continually try to smear the government with invented scandals. In the Schreiber affair, as we all know, they are happenings of 15 to 20 years ago. There is no connection whatsoever to this government. There is no connection whatsoever to the current Prime Minister. There is no connection whatsoever to the Minister of National Defence.

I am sure that the member opposite and all members in opposition will continue to try to find fabricated and trumped up charges to try to smear the government in a sordid attempt to enhance their election chances whenever that election may be called.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, we have an expression that applies to people who think they are someone they are not. My Conservative government colleague seems to think he is a member of cabinet, but he is not at all.

My simple question for my colleague is, since he is not a member of cabinet, how could he possibly know what has been discussed in cabinet?

I think that is typical of the Conservatives. When they are faced with moral and ethical challenges, they deny, even when their denial lacks all plausibility, because they are not in a position to know the facts that their supposed denial is based on.

Suffice it to say that when there is a finance minister who has broken the rules on contract attribution and there is absolutely no consequence, as we saw again today, the Conservatives are not in a position to give lessons to anyone.

The member talks about supposed scandal. There is a real scandal and it is just one example.

With regard to Schreiber there is no way for the member to know if it was discussed at cabinet. All we asked is that he recuse himself. He was in a conflict.