Debates of April 1st, 2008

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

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member. As usual, and it is unfortunate, what he has done is he has simplified and ignored an important issue.

It is the same way the Conservative Party has ignored the housing crisis in this country and the economic dislocation that we are seeing. Most Canadian families are earning less now than they were before. We just keep hearing the Conservatives with their talking points and we hear it again here, that there is no problem.

The fact that there are dozens and dozens of complaints that cannot seek a resolution, the fact that often we see workers unable to work in their language, unable to function in their language when simple courtesy and respect would necessitate that those businesses adapt to a certain extent, the fact that there is a problem is something that seems to be ignored by the Conservative government.

The Conservatives simply say, “It is not a problem. We are not going to deal with it”. We are seeing this problem and a lot of other problems festering because the Conservatives seem to have inaction as their middle name.

The only things they seem to be able to bring in are corporate tax cuts, and they bring tens of billions there. They just shovel money off the back of a truck to the corporate sector, and the fact that most Canadian families are earning less but they are working harder and harder, the fact that our health care system is slowly falling into crisis, the fact that we have a housing crisis with hundreds of thousands of Canadians sleeping on the streets tonight, they just seem to say, “It is not a problem. If it is not a corporate tax cut, we cannot deal with it”.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for his speech.

While we are having the debate, a wonderful thing is happening in my riding. A delegation from Baie-Saint-Paul, Quebec, is in our town of Nelson, B.C. I will have the great pleasure to join them tomorrow and I will meet these people and talk to them this week. I also want to add that when I was a teacher, my students participated in two exchanges with Quebec students, and I accompanied them.

I would like to ask the following question to the member. Does he think that if we made more exchanges, if we had more contacts with our friends in Quebec, English speaking Canadians would understand why it is essential to protect the French language in Quebec? Would they be more willing to work with our Quebec friends to protect the French language in Québec? That is my question to the hon. member.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have always admired the quality of his French and his English. He does a great job of representing one of the most beautiful parts of our country.

He is absolutely right. We live in the world's largest democratic country. There has never been another democratic state as big as Canada. However, over the last 20 years, first under the Liberals and then under the Conservatives, cuts have been made regarding these communication links that foster Canadian unity.

For instance, the cuts to Radio-Canada or the CBC, the cuts to VIA Rail's network and the cuts to exchange programs have all hindered communication and contacts between regions. That communication and those contacts are vital. It is so important to see Quebeckers go to British Columbia. Some members in this House have never visited British Columbia. It is really important to see British Columbians go to Quebec, up North and to Acadia.

Over the last 20 years, first under the Liberals and then under the Conservatives, we have seen the same thing. There has been nothing but cuts, cuts and more cuts in the creation of communication links here in Canada.

There is much more to do in Ottawa than to cut corporate income taxes. That shows the lack of vision on the part of the Conservatives and the Liberals.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, the National Capital Commission; the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Darfur.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. Secretary of State for Agriculture, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

The Canada Labour Code exists to protect the heath and safety of workers. The Code was never designed or intended to be used as political leverage. A number of businesses under federal jurisdiction now have international plans that require their workers to be bilingual, and francophones can usually work in their first language.

Bloc Québécois members are disconnected from Quebec voters, and can no longer explain why they are always in Ottawa. So they desperately try to find solutions to problems that do not exist.

The Bloc does not understand how things work in Ottawa. This bill would just isolate Quebeckers even more. The Bloc is making a big deal about this bill, but the reality is that it will do nothing to improve conditions for Quebec workers.

The Bloc Québécois does not understand that our government promotes French across the country. Our government supports both official languages. We do what is necessary in the interests of minority language communities, and we ensure the vitality of French and English throughout Canada.

In the throne speech, we committed to developing a strategy for the next phase of the Action Plan for Official Languages. Then, in the 2008 budget, we confirmed that commitment.

On March 20, the International Day of La Francophonie, we released Bernard Lord's report on official languages and linguistic duality. This report, like the work of the Standing Committee on Official Languages and of the Commissioner of Official Languages, will help us move forward with the new phase of the Action Plan for Official Languages. The Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages will table this in the spring.

Since 2006, we have concluded minority language and linguistic duality education agreements with the provinces and territories worth close to $1 billion over four years and, in budget 2007, we increased funding to official language minority communities in the promotion of linguistic duality by a total of $30 million over the next two years. In 2007, our government also announced an investment of $4.5 million to improve access to health care by official language minority communities across Canada.

Our government also recognizes the Québécois as forming a nation within a united Canada. First, our government does recognize the importance of arts and culture in Quebec. Here are some examples: our government announced $40 million for the Quartier des spectacles de Montréal; we also announced $120,000 for the festival to promote the Montreal All-Nighter and Celebration of Light; we announced $2 million in funding for the Festival International de Jazz de Montréal and the Just For Laughs Festival; and, we announced $550,000 for the 41st edition of the 2008 Quebec City Summer Festival.

We also understand that French is the common language in Quebec. This is why our government was pleased to hear, following the release of the study by the Office québécois de la langue française that 94.9% of francophones throughout Canada use French almost all of the time or regularly. We also learned that allophone foreign workers use French often, as a matter of fact, 63% of the time. This is great news.

We are also very proud of francophones throughout our country. Our government has been quite busy lately on the announcement of funding for francophone communities. Our government was pleased to announce a total of $102,000 in funding shared by two groups: la Fédération des francophones de Saskatoon and the Association jeunesse fransaskoise.

In March, we announced funding of $1.1 million to help the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française coordinate a cross country tour of Francoforce in close cooperation with la Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada.

On March 28, 2008, our government announced funding of $946,100 to 10 francophone organizations to pursue activities to promote francophone and Acadian communities in New Brunswick and linguistic duality across Canada.

On that same day, our government also announced funding of over $3 million to the organizing committee of the 2009 Congrès mondial acadien. A part of the amount came from the Department of Canadian Heritage and another from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Thanks to this contribution, thousands of Acadians, francophones and francophiles from across Canada and abroad will have an opportunity to celebrate Acadian culture at the Congrès mondial acadien.

Our government is also looking forward to its role as host of the 12th Sommet de la Francophonie from October 17 to 19, 2008, the year of the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the foundation of Quebec City, one of the oldest cities of the Americas.

As everyone can see, we do support Quebec as well as the French language throughout all of Canada.

Following everything mentioned in this speech, it is hard to understand why the Bloc Québécois is here today defending French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec, an issue that the Bloc never raised before in 17 years of being in this House. The only explanation is that it seems that the Bloc and its leader have run out of arguments to justify why they are in Ottawa.

To be honest, there is a paradox here. Ever since there has been a new government in Ottawa that has respected the abilities of each province, the Bloc has raised a provincial law to interfere in a federal jurisdiction. That is backward. For example, the last census informed us that 75% of new immigrants to Quebec adopted French and almost 95% of the Quebec population is now able to speak French, which has never been seen before.

This is great news but clearly our government is giving concrete results to Quebeckers, something the Bloc could never do. Quebeckers have told us that they want open federalism based on respect and cooperation and this is exactly what we have been offering them for over two years.

Following recent articles clearly stating that the Bloc Québécois no longer has a reason to be in Ottawa, it is time for that party to re-evaluate its priorities and respect the will of Canadians to support the vitality of both official languages in Canada.

I represent a bilingual riding. The riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry has a very large francophone population. All of my anglophone and francophone constituents get along very well. We are very proud to live in a bilingual environment. In Canada, we are proud to celebrate English and French.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very surprised to hear my colleague say that language has no place in the Canada Labour Code. I would like to point out that in terms of workplace safety, it is a definite must to have safety standards posted in the language of the worker. It greatly improves the work conditions and prevents many accidents.

What is more, world renowned specialists, small- and medium-sized businesses and the holder of the research chair at Trois-Rivières, Pierre-André Julien, tell us that the creativity of entrepreneurs is improved and they are more likely to come up with something productive when they are expressing themselves in their own language and culture.

It should be no surprise that the members of the Bloc Québécois want to share this language and allow everyone to work in it. We appreciate anglophones and their language; that has nothing to do with it. However, for us, it is important to keep our language and culture alive. While working as part of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I saw wonderful initiatives all across Canada, from daycare centres in Vancouver to French health care services. There is something shocking happening in Canada: the people taking the most French courses in western Canada are of Asian origin. They have a vision, they understand.

I have a question for the member. Is French not a necessary evil for the Conservative Party? It cut the court challenges program, which allowed francophone communities to assert and defend themselves. That is not a vision for the future, in our opinion. Before lecturing us, the Conservative Party needs to do its homework.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc really is a sad sight. It is a pity because they are trying to create problems where there are none. I have just said that 95% of Quebeckers are able to work in their mother tongue. I do not know why the Bloc keeps making much ado about nothing. They are trying to cause problems. At the moment, it is clear that the Bloc is not needed here in this House. They do nothing. They have no power and can do nothing for the people of Quebec. The Conservative government can do things for the people of Quebec. They told us that they wanted an open federalism based on respect and cooperation. That is precisely what we have been providing for more than two years.

The Prime Minister has recognized that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada. The Bloc just wants to tear that country apart. Our government will never let that happen to this wonderful country.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow-up on that last question with my hon. colleague. Ever since the Conservative Party has been in government, we have frankly been committed to working with Quebec in many ways. We recognize Quebeckers and Quebec for the great strengths they bring to Canada.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on the vitality of Quebec's culture and the ways that our government has fulfilled its commitment to Quebec.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have done a great deal for Quebec. We respect our Quebec colleagues. We respect our Quebec friends.

I would first of all like to thank the hon. member, but I also want to say that this Prime Minister, for the first time ever, recognized “les Québécois comme une nation”.

I was so proud when that happened because my ancestors come from Quebec. That allowed them to be proud of their heritage as I am proud of my heritage.

We have established fiscal balance between Quebec and Ottawa. We have all the provinces on the same fiscal footing. We have tried to do everything possible to welcome this wonderful province of Quebec into the wonderful unity of Canada.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Secretary of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today as a Quebec Conservative MP. From the very outset of the debate, I noticed an unfortunate tendency on the part of our Bloc colleagues. As usual, when others take a position that is different than theirs, they say all sorts of things about them, which may or may not be appropriate. For example, that say that they have sold out, that they do this or that.

Let us leave behind this demagoguery and bring the debate back to a civilized level.

First, for the benefit of the House, I would like to introduce an editorial that is worth reading. It was written on October 13, 2007, by Mr. André Pratte, the editor-in-chief of La Presse.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you see, they are laughing again.

We will place this editorial on file, because it really is worth reading. I hope that, instead of laughing, they will think carefully about this debate for once.

The editorial is called “À la recherche de la crise perdue”, which means “in search of the lost crisis”.

Deprived of the arguments that have aided his cause in recent years—sponsorships, fiscal imbalance—[the leader of the Bloc Québécois] has set about stirring up a new crisis to help his party get back on its feet again. In two speeches this week, the leader of the Bloc Québécois has called for the elimination of federal spending power (i.e. the emasculation of the federal government) and the application of Bill 101 to the federal government (i.e. abandoning bilingualism in federal offices in Quebec). These tactics are so crude, they are laughable. [The leader of the Bloc Québécois] knows that even the federal government the most open to the reality in Quebec would refuse such demands. When the Conservatives say no, he will start rending his garments again, something at which the Bloc are second to none.

The sovereigntist leaders were told by the party faithful that they had been wrong to abandon identity issues, so they are bringing them back with a vengeance. What could be better than rousing Quebeckers' linguistic insecurity? That is what [the leader of the Bloc Québécois] did when he painted a black picture of a language situation that greatly benefits French. For example, the Bloc leader claimed that “language transfers always benefit English for the most part”, neglecting to mention that the situation is improving every year (the Office québécois de la langue française talks about “considerable progress”). “For too many francophones in Quebec, the language of work remains English”, [the leader of the Bloc Québécois] also complained. What does he mean by “too many”, when we know that 93% of francophone Quebeckers work mainly in French?

With such a damning description of the situation of French, all it takes to get people upset is to blame the federal government, which the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie obviously hastened to do: “One of the main reasons for this is the Canadian government's stubborn refusal to recognize Bill 101 in Quebec”.

[The leader of the Bloc Québécois] will demand that the government [of the Prime Minister] amend the Official Languages Act to make federal organizations in Quebec subject to Bill 101. Federal offices in Quebec would therefore have signage in French only (or French would have to be dominant) and would no longer be required to provide services in English. In other words, [the leader of the Bloc Québécois] wants to force the Government of Canada to become unilingual!

Clearly, this is a demand Ottawa will never give in to. Not because Ottawa does not recognize the primacy of the French language in Quebec, but because in the rest of the country there would be a backlash that would ultimately spell the end of official bilingualism. For francophones outside Quebec, it would be the beginning of the end.

[The leader of the Bloc Québécois] thinks he has the confrontation he is looking for. But Quebeckers will not be fooled. They know a real crisis from a melodrama, a reasonable demand from a con job.

This editorial reflects what many Quebeckers are thinking, even though the Bloc Québécois does not want to admit it. This has to be taken into account in a debate that the Bloc members want to hold seriously and respectfully. The least they could do would be to consider these arguments, which are powerful, to say the least.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a nice way to waste 10 minutes and to show a lack of respect for speeches and debate. If the member had at least the decency to provide a single original idea to contribute to this debate and to talk about the Quebec nation, we would be quite happy. However, when you are part of a government who dictates to its members what they must say, original ideas cannot come up.

I regret, but I think that the member should try again and be worthy of his nation, the Quebec nation.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a useless comment! How does this help us with the debate? Frankly, the member should do her own share of soul searching. We are bringing forward new ideas to contribute to a very serious debate. We discuss the Quebec nation. We try to apply the concept in all kinds of way.

These people are looking for a reason to justify their existence. In fact, last weekend, a crisis in that party became obvious. We are not making it up. They wrote it themselves in the Journal de Montréal.

The member stands up, looks indignant and expresses senseless and demagogic ideas, as usual. Unfortunately, none of that will help with the debate.

I encourage the member to try to be more interesting next time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #78

Business of Supply

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the motion lost.

It being 5:45 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Court Challenges Program

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately and fully restore the Court Challenges Program to enhance the access that every person in Canada, regardless of wealth, should have to the protection of their Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on the government to fully restore the court challenges program to ensure all Canadians are able to access the protections of their Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Without any prior warning or consultation, the government decided in September 2006 to cancel the court challenges program because it was allegedly inefficient and too costly.

Was the court challenges program really inefficient and costly? False. An independent study conducted in 2002-03 confirmed the value and importance of this program for Canadians. Its value and importance were also confirmed by countless testimonies and the program's strong record on protecting the rights of disadvantaged Canadians and linguistic minorities.

Just think about the Montfort Hospital, the only francophone hospital in Ontario which, in the 1990s, survived efforts made by the Harris government to close it down. Ms. Gisèle Lalonde, former chair of SOS Montfort, said, “Without the court challenges program, [...] we wouldn't be where we are now.”

The Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance were all part of the Harris government. Thanks to the court challenges program, they lost the battle to close down the Montfort Hospital. A few months after forming the federal government, they joined forces with the current Prime Minister who had also lost a court case against a beneficiary of the program. They managed to get the court challenges program out of their way. It is the Minister of the Environment himself who announced the cancellation of the program. That was a vendetta.

Here is what Ms. Lalonde said after the announcement, “What the Harper government is asking us to accept, however, exceeds in its deceit what any other government may have done in the past. This is not just a matter of cutting expenses. The [...] government is depriving the most vulnerable in our society of access to justice system.”

The government may have cancelled the court challenges program but it could not erase its remarkable achievements. The program helped confirm that Canadians accused of a crime can have a trial in their own language and it helped reaffirm the right of official language minority groups to manage their own school boards and to higher education in their mother tongue.

The court challenges program helped homosexual couples achieve equality protection, allowing them to secure spousal benefits and paving the way on same sex marriage.

The program helped seniors secure employment insurance benefits, helped women win pay equity cases and helped disabled groups fight VIA Rail for the right to accessible trains.

Because of the court challenges program, the religious freedom of Sikh Canadians has been confirmed, deaf persons have the right to receive sign language service in hospitals and aboriginal Canadians living off reserve have the right to vote in band elections.

These certainly sound like results to me, as I am sure they do to most Canadians. They fly in the face of the government's suggestion that lawyers were the primary beneficiaries of the court challenges program.

In an attempt to defend the government's decision to cancel the program, the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean suggested that it made no sense for the government to support a program designed to help groups challenge its laws. Any government afraid to have its laws challenged in court ought to take a second look at the soundness of those laws. Regardless, the court challenges program was not about who wins and who loses. It was about ensuring that the justice system was accessible.

In 1982, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien, who were then the prime minister and the justice minister, ratified the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In so doing, they were enshrining in the laws of our country the values of diversity, tolerance, freedom and justice. They made equality under the law the keystone of our democracy.

The court challenges program that had been created to help define linguistic rights was broadened further to the enactment of the Charter in order to help those who were trying to defend their right to equality. The court challenges program strengthened the Charter. This program ensured that the cost of a lawsuit would no longer deter those who wanted to fight for their rights. It gave practical expression to the principle of equality promised by the Charter.

But today, because of decisions made by this government, the Charter has been weakened and is now out of reach for too many Canadians. The termination of this program, that was after all not so expensive at only $5.6 million a year, has meant that even middle class Canadians cannot turn to the courts anymore.

Yet, there are still a good number of battles to fight, and rights to win. The court challenges program is still needed. Between April and September of 2006, 61 funding applications were submitted. The majority of these applications dealt with the rights of aboriginal Canadians, of ethnocultural minorities, of disabled persons and of women. This suggests that inequalities still exist in our society for these groups and that solutions have to be found.

Therefore, we find ourselves at a crossroads. If we want to keep the power of the charter in the hands of individual Canadians, if we want to continue, as the charter instructs us to, to strive as a country for the highest possible achievement, building a country in which the rights of every Canadian are equally respected, then we must restore the court challenges program. If we do not, accessing the charter will become the exclusive privilege of the wealthy in our country, and its promise of equal treatment will be broken.

Leading Canadian non-governmental organizations and individuals across the country have spoken against the government's actions.

Bonnie Morton of the charter committee on poverty issues has called the cancellation of the court challenges program “an attack on the Charter itself and the human rights of everyone in Canada”. She has said:

If [Canadians] cannot ensure respect of their rights because of financial barriers, Canada’s constitutional democracy is hollow. We turn the Charter into a paper guarantee, with no real meaning.

Yvonne Peters of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities has explained:

Without the Court Challenges Program, Canada’s constitutional rights are real only for the wealthy. This offends basic fairness. And it does not comply with the rule of law, which is a fundamental principle of our Constitution.

Author and journalist Michel Gratton said:

It is illegal and unconstitutional for a government to encourage assimilation.

Franco-Ontarian Michel Gratton was also the press secretary to former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada is taking the government to court in an attempt to restore the court challenges program.

Jean-Guy Rioux of the association stated:

Cancellation of the program shows a serious lack of respect for francophone Canadians living outside Quebec, for anglophone Canadians living in Quebec and for all Canadians who may need the protection of their government to assert their rights.

Even the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has joined the throng calling for the court challenges program to be re-established. These voices can no longer be silenced. The government must respond by restoring the court challenges program so that all Canadians may continue to have access to the protection guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Last year Canada celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Events that took place across the country recognized that the charter was more than just a legal document. It has helped us become one of the most successful multicultural, bilingual federations on the face of the planet. It articulates our shared identity by reminding us and by tell the world where we want to go as a nation. It is a vision of for what our country can and must strive.

I am immensely proud to lead the party that secured the charter for Canadians. I think every Canadian prime minister ought to make a point of publicly celebrating the charter, but last year the government made the decision not to. It decided not to celebrate this integral part of our Canadian identity.

We need the court challenges program today for the same reasons we needed to enshrine the charter in law almost 26 years ago. Legislatures are not perfect. Despite their best efforts to uphold our fundamental Canadian values, parliamentarians sometimes make mistakes. When they do, they need the charter to be accessible to all Canadians so it can guide us back to the vision we all share of building a better Canada.

In 1992 the Mulroney government cancelled the court challenges program. When we Liberals came back in government, we restored the court challenges program. Now we have watched the Conservatives cancel it again. It seems they have failed to learn from their mistakes. If they do not reinstate the program, then the next Liberal government will again, and this time we will double its funding.

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

Mr. Speaker, in as much as the dispute between the FCFA and the government has been under consideration by Judge Martineau of the Federal Court since February 26, it would be inappropriate to make any comment whatsoever about this case.

Furthermore, the government has clearly stated its position with regard to the lawsuit in its written representations to the court.

The Government of Canada will honour all undertakings it has made within the framework of the court challenges program up until September 25, 2006 until all available avenues have been exhausted, including appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The government has a responsibility to the people of Canada to set priorities and to ensure that every dollar paid in taxes is used in the most effective way in the interests of all Canadians. Taxpayers' hard-earned dollars should be spent on programs that get the most relevant results for Canadians.

Our government is pursuing efforts that support community participation as well as individual contributions and respect for all. This debate provides me the opportunity to highlight some of the truly great initiatives of our government.

For example, through the Department of Canadian Heritage's multiculturalism program, the government supports measures that help ethnocultural communities respond to the challenges they face. We fund projects that recognize the value of our diversity and address issues facing cultural communities.

There is also the issue and challenge of foreign credential recognition. Labour market access is a crucial factor in integrating ethnocultural communities. Our government recognizes that people with foreign credentials too often encounter closed doors. We are committed to doing everything we can to help open those doors for those who face barriers.

That is why we are funding projects which take action to address labour market access issues. This will allow new Canadians the ability to begin the qualification process and to search for employment that uses their talents, skills and experience.

The new labour markets agreement committed $3 billion over six years in labour market investments that are expanding training opportunities for those not eligible under employment insurance. As well, our government has cut the right of permanent residence fee in half and more than $300 million has been budgeted for additional immigration settlement measures.

As for official language minority communities, we have allocated an additional $30 million in funding over two years in budget 2007 to promote the greater use of minority official languages in the daily lives of Canadians in official language minority communities.

I would like to highlight that the Liberal leader and all of his deputies voted against budget 2007 and, therefore, voted against this additional $30 million for official language minority communities. They should hang their heads in shame.

Our commitment to official languages was also reaffirmed in budget 2008 and we are set to announce the next phase of the action plan on official languages this spring. Once again, the very few Liberals who bothered to vote regarding budget 2008 voted against it and, therefore, voted against the follow-on phase of the action plan for official languages. They should hang their heads even lower in shame.

Our government also introduced a bill to amend the Criminal Code, Bill C-13, which increases access to the courts in either official language in criminal cases.

Our government has made a firm commitment to official language minority communities and to the promotion of English and French in Canada and we have shown this through our actions.

Our government is also investing in programs that help Canadians with disabilities develop their skills and participate fully in society.

With regard to women, our government has increased the women's program budget to $20 million this year—which is an increase of 66% and the highest level ever. As for all approved projects resulting from a second call for proposals, 47% came from groups which had never before received financing from Status of Women Canada.

Also, as mentioned in budget 2008, our government will move forward with a plan of action to improve women's equality in Canada, and more specifically by improving their economic and social conditions and their participation in democratic life.

Our government is focusing on two key issues of concern to vulnerable women: security and economic prosperity; health and the elimination of all forms of violence.

Through initiatives such as these, we are strengthening and providing Canadians with tools that will make a real difference in their lives today and in the near future. In this way, we will make our society more equitable, open and prosperous for all Canadians, regardless of language, religion, cultural background or any other defining characteristic.

We have to make choices, often very difficult choices, regarding how best to serve our fellow citizens. As our government contemplates these choices, Canadians can rest assured that our decisions are not made lightly. When it comes to spending limited taxpayer dollars, we will always choose to make a positive difference in people's lives.