Debates of April 1st, 2008

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the member for Lévis—Bellechasse said. If he thinks the status of French in Quebec is as great as he says—and he ought to remove his rose-coloured glasses—it is because he failed to take into account all the employees and workers who receive a work schedule, not an horaire de travail on Monday mornings, but who do not want to speak English, because they cannot, for various reasons.

The member also fails to make the distinction between individual bilingualism or multilingualism, which is desirable, and the status of French in a given community.

I would like to ask him why he will not support this motion to defend the interests of Quebec and promote Quebeckers' values.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and for her interest in French at work.

As I said earlier, close to 95% of Quebeckers speak French at work. The motion thus seems to be superfluous.

Thankfully, the Government of Canada is here to defend French when Quebeckers, who are quite mobile, go abroad to work.

In this regard, I invite her to support our bill to let more qualified workers come to Canada, especially francophones, in order to improve the status of French in businesses across Quebec and Canada.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, as part of this debate on the Bloc motion, I would like to speak to my colleagues in this House about how important the influence of the French language in Canada and the world is to the government, and what the Canadian government is doing in this respect.

Canada's official languages policy and the status it confers on the French language are part of the very nature of this country. This policy is a reflection of the desire of francophones and anglophones throughout the country to live together, and is a sort of social contract between our two major linguistic communities. The government strongly defends these founding principles of Canada.

As for Quebec City's 400th anniversary, we should not forget that Canada was born in French, as our Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, has said many times. Quebec and the French language are at the heart of Canada, its history and its identity. So an event like the 400th anniversary of Quebec City, for example, is important to all Canadians. The federal government is making a considerable contribution to the anniversary celebrations, through organizations such as the Department of Canadian Heritage, Canada Economic Development and Parks Canada. Quebec City will also host the next Summit of La Francophonie, as announced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the summit held in Bucharest in September 2006.

Our government is very pleased to have the opportunity to work with Quebec to strengthen the presence of the French language and culture throughout the world. The summit is also a unique opportunity for Canada to promote a strong and diversified Canadian francophonie.

This gathering will bring heads of state and government from all Francophonie countries to Canada. The last time this happened was in 1999 in Moncton, New Brunswick. Our country has a lot to be proud of when it comes to the influence of its francophonie within the international Francophonie. It is no coincidence that francophone heads of state and government are turning to Canada to hold their discussions. Canada is a beacon of support for the distribution and promotion of the French language.

The 2007 federal budget announced, for instance, that the federal government would contribute $52 million to the Francophone Summit. We will ensure that francophones from all parts of Canada are represented in the activities surrounding the summit. This support for the Francophone Summit shows how committed the government is to ensuring not only that Canada’s francophone aspect is fully represented on the international stage but also that Canada as a whole benefits from the fantastic advantages of having French as one of its official languages.

Spoken by more than 200 million people, French is an official language in 29 countries. Canada is very aware of the importance of its French fact and is determined to help it shine on the international stage. Canada was one of the first countries, therefore, to promote the Francophonie by participating actively in the creation and development of its numerous institutions. Canada helped found the Agence de coopération culturelle et technique, which was established in Niamey, in Niger, in 1970 and eventually became the International Organization of the Francophonie.

Canada has been playing a leading role ever since and is a member of all the multilateral institutions and ministers’ conferences of the Francophonie. The Government of Canada is the second largest provider of funds after France, with a contribution of more than $40 million a year for the International Organization of the Francophonie and francophone institutions.

For Canada, belonging to the Francophonie is more than just talk, as the Bloc Québécois is so wont to do. It means aligning Canada with a rich network of 68 countries and governments that have the French language in common. This network extends from Europe, Africa and the Middle East all the way to the Antilles, the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, and our own continent. It gives Canadians more opportunity to shine internationally in the areas of language and culture, politics, economics, new technologies and international cooperation.

Finally, it enables the rest of the world to truly appreciate Canada’s original contribution to the building of a modern international Francophonie open to diversity.

Canada’s membership in the Francophonie is one of the main thrusts of its foreign policy. Domestically, Canada’s participation in the Francophonie highlights the linguistic duality of our country and helps the French fact in Canada assert itself and thrive. Internationally, the Francophonie is a natural zone of Canadian influence. It is an area of multilateral cooperation and dialogue where Canada can play a major role and promote the values that Canadian want to share.

The government goes to great lengths to involve Quebec and New Brunswick in the Francophonie and both these provinces enjoy participating government status in it. In the case of Quebec, this status was granted back in the early 1970s.

Thanks to this cooperative approach by the federal government and these provincial governments, Quebec and New Brunswick have been able to play a major role in the work of the Francophone Summits. There is no doubt that the Francophone Summit to come in Quebec City will clearly demonstrate the kind of cooperation that can exist between the governments of Quebec and Canada when it comes to supporting the French language and culture.

I should also mention that the Francophonie has contributed significantly to the adoption, by UNESCO, of a convention that makes cultural diversity an inescapable frame of reference. As we know, this convention formally recognizes, in international law, the fact that cultural goods are different from other goods.

Given the importance that we attach to the strengthening and thriving of the French fact and, of course, to the many other facets of our country's cultural diversity, it is not surprising that we were the first ones to ratify the new Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which is a critical treaty for the future of cultural diversity at the world level. In so doing, Canada confirmed its historic leadership role regarding an initiative that is providing the international community with a means to draw all the benefits of our diverse cultures and identities, this for generations to come.

I should also point out that, once again, the cooperation between the governments of Canada and Quebec has been exemplary. Our two governments worked in close cooperation to ensure the adoption of the convention and the success of the initial implementation phases.

Such cooperation efforts with Quebec show how the respective initiatives of the Canadian and Quebec governments can complement and strengthen each other. In fact, considering that the challenge of preserving Canada's French language and culture must be met increasingly in the broader context of North American integration and of globalization, I firmly believe that the governments of Quebec and Canada must work together to consolidate a true francophone critical mass within the Canadian, North American and global village.

That is why the Canadian government wants to work to promote the French language in the context of a unifying, inclusive and respectful vision of all the francophone realities of our country. Our approach aims to create a francophone space to connect francophiles from Quebec, from minority communities and from every cultural origin. There are a number of ways to achieve that, but the cultural sector is definitely a preferred option in this respect.

So, whether the purpose is to strengthen the French fact at the international level or within the country, the Canadian and Quebec governments are going to have to work increasingly more closely to strengthen ties between francophones and francophiles in Canada, in Quebec and elsewhere, to promote the establishment of sound partnerships, and to generate concrete and effective measures, which means ensuring that their respective actions complement each other.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague just as I listened to the members for Lévis—Bellechasse and Louis-Hébert. And whatever people say is happening across Canada, the United States and elsewhere, I will give two examples to the contrary.

First of all, we only need to ask 99.9% of sports federations in Canada which language they use. Second, the working language at the Canadian Olympic Association is English. I know; I am a member. When there is time, we translate into French. When our meeting is in Montreal, we manage to translate into French. I know from personal experience. These are practical examples from everyday life.

You can speak French going through security at the Quebec City airport. However, in Montreal, when you go through security at Dorval airport, you are only greeted in English, thank you very much. No matter what is said about things changing, they are not.

The motion put forward today by the Bloc Québécois is not asking for the moon and the stars. It is simply asking that people working in Quebec in businesses under federal jurisdiction be able to work in French. It is that simple.

I will give an example. The Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal, and I will add the CIBC to make my colleagues happy, send out their notices and schedules solely in English because they come from Toronto.

This next question is for my colleague: does he not believe that the only thing we are asking is that workers be able to work in French in Quebec? It seems clear to me.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois' boss, Pauline Marois, recently spoke about the need to be bilingual in Quebec—in a francophone Quebec, of course—and to understand both languages and do business in one or the other.

I would like my Bloc Québécois colleagues to check with their head office to see if everyone there fully understands the motion they are presenting today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand anything that was said by the Conservative members who just spoke, either the member for Lévis—Bellechasse or the member for Louis-Hébert. I do not understand them. I do not understand their language. They speak French, but what they are saying is incomprehensible, especially the latter, who was mistaken about Bill C-55. As soon as someone makes such obvious errors about the content of a bill, how can anyone take the rest of their speech seriously?

Personally, I simply cannot, especially since this is a Bloc Québécois motion concerning French in the workplace but they are talking about the international Francophonie. When asked about the weather, he replies that it is twelve noon. It makes no sense.

This Conservative government and their members from Quebec are completely disconnected from Quebec. That is why they do not understand that in Quebec, Quebeckers want to work in French.

Here, Conservative members across the floor can work in French, thanks to simultaneous interpretation. In fact, it is often said that, here in Ottawa, there are two official languages: English and simultaneous interpretation. These days, it is exceptional for anyone to speak so long in French.

Here is my question for my hon. colleague. How does he explain the fact that every time I take an Air Canada flight, the flight attendants are all unilingual anglophones?

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, really, it is pure demagoguery. It is unbelievable. While the Bloc Québécois keeps arguing about where Bill 101 figures in the Canada Labour Code, I can say that my government has taken concrete steps.

In fact, a report has been written recently regarding the official languages. Since the Government of Canada is the largest employer in the country, universities and educational institutions are being asked to inform students that, if they want to work as public servants, they will have to be bilingual. It is not the Bloc Québécois who accomplished that, nor will it ever be because, after 17 years, the Bloc has nothing but a blank page to show for its efforts.

The member may well leave the House while I am answering her question. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I should not have said that she left the House while I was responding to her.

There is something else. When I talk about bilingualism, in Europe, they are—

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mister Speaker, there will be no demagoguery here today. I will take the floor and will share my time with the hon. member for Laval.

I would like my Conservative friends to note that in me they will not find a demagogue who will run in fear with such a file. I will give you concrete examples. I will speak about an area I know very well. My colleague from the region of Quebec should know one thing: I sat on the Canadian Olympic Committee for 25 years; I was president of the Canadian Cycling Association for 10 years; I was on the international scene in the bicycling field for at least 15 years and I have begun working with the World Anti-Doping Agency, and when one attends these meetings, the working language is English.

If the conservative Members of Parliament from Quebec understood French in the least, they would understand that the motion that we have tabled today is just one step toward the recognition of the Quebec nation, which the current government boasted that it promoted.

If the Quebec nation wishes to say something to our francophone colleagues in the Conservative Party, the latter should be able to read what the motion asks for. It asks that the language of work apply to employees of companies under federal jurisdiction on Quebec territory. I will repeat myself to allow my francophone colleagues from other parties to translate this into English so that it is understood. The only request in the motion is that, with regard to the language of work, the Charter of the French Language should apply to employees of businesses under federal jurisdiction on Quebec territory.

This is not a revolution. It is simply a step in the right direction to recognize employees who work in Quebec in businesses under federal jurisdiction. I have named several, including Bell Canada, TELUS, Rogers, CanWest, CTV Global, Cogeco, Astral Media, the Royal Bank, Scotiabank, TD Bank, CIBC, the BMO Financial Group, the National Bank of Canada, ACE Aviation Holdings, which is Air Canada, and Canadian Pacific. We want the people who work in these companies to be able to speak French. I think it is quite natural to speak French in Quebec. I am not talking about the individual who works for Air Canada in Flin Flon, Manitoba. It would be nice if he spoke French, but that is his own problem. We are speaking of employees who work in Quebec and who deal with Quebeckers every day or almost every day.

I can give you some examples regarding Air Canada. Mr. Speaker, if you arrive in Montreal, at Dorval airport—and I hope you do—you will be surprised when you check in at the business class counter. Because all members of this House travel in business class. English is the language used. Yes, some people speak French, but I guarantee you you had better request it.

Let us talk about gate security at Montreal airport—I mention it because I experience it. I can understand in the case of international flights or flights to the United States: there is U.S. customs, even though there is Quebec customs, which is supposedly francophone, Canadian customs. Nevertheless, security officers, those who check your luggage at the domestic flights counters, greet you in English only. That is unacceptable and that is what we are criticizing. This is what we want.

The motion the Bloc Québécois is introducing today does not constitute an armed revolution.

I have heard some things. Unfortunately for the members opposite, I understand English very well. I took intensive English courses when I sat on the Canadian Olympic Association and the Canadian Cycling Association, where everything is done in English. Earlier I heard it said in English that the Bloc was useless and that the things it proposed were completely crazy. We have long since stopped listening to our Quebec colleagues in the Conservative Party who say the same thing in French. However, the discomfort on the anglophone side is noticeable.

We should have taken the time to explain matters to our colleagues, including those in the Liberal Party, which is not any different. Earlier I heard our colleague from Hull—Aylmer, whose position greatly surprised me. He lives next door to a region very important for Quebec, next door to Ottawa. However, his position is that our motion is pointless, the French language is protected, and everything is just fine. My answer to him is that we have a problem. He has not been to the Ottawa airport in a long time. He may not have taken a flight recently, but I have. I can say that there are security problems at Ottawa airport. I can also talk about Air Canada and WestJet. He may tell me that WestJet is more from the other side.

We are asking that those who work in enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec be allowed to speak French if they so wish. That is not asking too much. That is all what this Bloc Québécois motion is asking today. If Quebec is a nation, let us take a step forward and say it explicitly. That is what we are asking in this motion today.

We are asking the House to recognize Quebec as a nation. People are wondering what a nation is. It is defined as a large community of people, typically living within the same territory and having, to a certain extent, a shared history, language, culture and economy. That does not come from the members for Louis-Hébert and Lévis—Bellechasse. It is how the Larousse dictionary defines the word “nation”. We did not invent that definition. That is what a nation is.

Here is how the Petit Robert defines the word “nation”: “Group of people, generally large, characterized by awareness of its unity and a desire to live together”. That is what a nation is. That is exactly what we are asking. To achieve that, we are asking—and I will say it very slowly again so that my francophone colleagues from the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party can translate that into their own words—that all enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec comply with the Charter of the French Language as it applies to language of work.

The Bloc Québécois is not asking for a revolution with this motion today. If the recognition of Quebec as a nation really means something, then let us allow employees of enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec to work in French.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again today, we have been hearing all kinds of things here. I have been hearing so many unbelievable things that I feel quite disoriented. While people in Europe are typically bilingual and speak a third language to boot, the Bloc Québécois is trying to fix things so that people speak only one.

We have been here for just two years, and in that time, we have resolved the fiscal imbalance and the UNESCO issue, and we invested $350 million in Quebec's green plan. We also resolved the softwood lumber issue.

A few weeks ago, I tried to table the Bloc Québécois' record: a blank sheet of paper. Has anything been added to that over the past few days?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, if we had not been here during the forestry crisis, I am pretty sure that the member for Lévis—Bellechasse would not have done anything about it. Nor would the member for Louis-Hébert, because I doubt that he was in his riding the last time he saw a tree.

However, with all due respect, I want to set things straight right now. I travelled all around Europe. I visited 58 countries, and I witnessed Czechoslovakia's velvet divorce when it split into Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

Here is what I want to say to the member for Louis-Hébert. In Europe, countries give power to the central governing body, the European Union. We would like to be able to do the same thing. That is all we ask.

If the member for Louis-Hébert wants to take a look at the Bloc Québécois' agenda, all he has to do is check bloc.org. He might be surprised at how much there is to read on the site. It can sometimes be hard to understand.

However, I want him to know that today, we are talking about real issues affecting real Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated very much the excellent and very clear speech of my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Air Canada is a Canadian company under federal jurisdiction, and it operates in Quebec. I would like to put on the record my experience with this company. Again last week, on Tuesday night, I was aboard Air Canada flight 425 to Toronto. The flight attendant in the business class did not speak a single word of French. We were in Montreal. I asked her for newspapers in French, but she told me there were none, since the plane was going to Toronto. On Friday, when I came back from Toronto, I again asked for newspapers in French, but the answer I got was there were none because the plane was coming from Toronto. That is the way it is. That is the kind of bilingualism we get when Bill 101 is not complied with. That is what happens when private companies which operate in Quebec are not required to comply with Bill 101. That is what I mean, and my question to my colleague deals with that.

Does he not agree with me when I say that the Conservative members from Quebec, in the House of Commons, become suddenly helpless and incapable of defending the interests of Quebeckers and their own language? And the most striking evidence of this is that, again today, they refuse to vote for the protection of the French language in Quebec.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The Conservative Party is controlled by Western Canada. It is something I can accept. There is no problem, and I can live with that. That is the choice they made. But there is one thing they need to understand. They can say what they want in Louis-Hébert, but Quebec’s interests have been served much better by the Bloc Quebecois since 1993 than they have been by the member for Louis-Hébert and his blank page.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's performance is a tough act to follow. He made a truly remarkable speech and has very clearly outlined the situation currently prevailing in Quebec, mainly as a result of the Conservative members who are not standing up for the people they are supposed to represent. That is unfortunate, but we saw that in November 2006. When they voted to recognize Quebec as a nation, they did so because it was a debating contest, it was out of defiance, and they believed it would give nobody any ideas at all. You do not make those kinds of decisions, then shirk your obligations and responsibilities.

When the Quebec government decided to recognize that the aboriginal peoples were nations and that the situation had to be managed with them, people to people, nation to nation, it signed the Paix des Braves. When you think that the Conservative government decided to name the Quebec nation merely because the Bloc Québécois had tabled a motion seeking recognition of that nation, you can wonder what kind of opportunism the government showed in doing so.

The Quebec members of the Conservative government in Quebec do not believe in the nation. We have proof of that today. I heard the Conservative members from Quebec ask my colleague questions that would shame anyone from Quebec. These people must toe the party line, which is to say nothing and do nothing contrary to the Prime Minister's decisions. We know that the Prime Minister does not have Quebec in his sights, but rather Alberta and the western provinces. It is those provinces he wants to please and that he has been pleasing for a long time.

Quebec is thrown some crumbs, as has always been done. People recognized the existence of the Quebec nation long before the Conservatives. I am thinking in particular of someone for whom I have no respect and to whom history has not been kind. I am referring to Maurice Duplessis, who said in 1946 that Quebec was a nation and that no one would strip Quebec of that status. Even Lord Durham, whom my Conservative colleagues must know, declared before Canada came into existence that there were two nations, two peoples warring in this arid, difficult land, which we cleared by the sweat of our brows and which our ancestors developed by the sweat of theirs.

The Conservatives should understand readily and clearly, if they have the slightest pride in their language, that we are not abdicating the right to learn English, Spanish, Russian or Italian. When I meet individuals of other nationalities, I can speak to them in their language. Can the member for Louis-Hébert do the same? I doubt it.

[The member spoke in Spanish]

[ French]

The Conservative members must stop being so haughty towards the Quebec nation, stop treating us as if we were less than nothing and they must understand that in accepting the premise that we are a nation, they also accept the associated rights, particularly abiding by the laws that are inherent to the Quebec nation. The first law that must be obeyed is Bill 101. The federal government is not being asked to abide by Bill 101 in Alberta or New Brunswick.

We are asking that the federal government abide by Bill 101 in its institutions within Quebec's borders. That is the nature of our request. If the Conservative members who are in power cannot understand the legitimacy of this request, the Quebeckers that they represent have a serious problem, and I know that these Quebeckers realize it today.

Being elected is not all there is to it. We are not elected to represent just those who voted for us. We are elected to represent all the individuals in our riding and unless I am mistaken, as at least 40% of Quebeckers vote for the Bloc Québecois, at least 40% of the individuals residing in the Louis-Hébert riding vote for the Bloc Québecois.

This member does not respect the wishes of his electors. He does not respect that it is a nation as a whole, a people as a whole, that have given themselves laws so that they can survive. In the past, we confirmed that the French language was quickly being lost. We confirmed it. If we do not take steps today, now, to ensure that our grandchildren and great grandchildren will be able to continue to speak French, I am afraid that the Conservatives in Louis-Hébert, Lévis and pretty much all over Quebec will get their wish, and that we will be reduced to speaking English throughout Quebec. We are surrounded by a sea of anglophones.

Is it a sin to want to keep French as the language of belonging? This is my ancestors’ language and I am proud to speak it. I hope that the Conservative members from Quebec will see the light and vote as their constituents would like them to vote, that they will be sure to vote as the individuals who live in their ridings would like them to vote. Nobody, whether Conservative, Liberal, NDP, or Bloc, nobody in Quebec wants English to become the official language. Everyone in Quebec wants to keep French as the language of belonging.

They better think twice before making a decision on a vote which, once again, will be historic and will show the Quebec nation the true intentions of the Conservative government when it declared Quebec a nation. This declaration is not enough. We saw it at UNESCO. Having a seat where we can sit and chat with our neighbour is not a big deal when we have to beg for the permission to have an idea and to express it. It is really not a big deal.

It is wrong to claim that the Conservative government has made significant progress in terms of recognizing Quebec as a nation. We were given a title, but what about the rights that go with it? I hope our liberal colleagues realize the importance of the French language in Quebec. I hope they realize the importance of this motion. We are not asking Canada to speak French. We are asking Quebec to keep its language et we are asking those who work for the federal government in Quebec to honour the French language. This is all we are asking.

I thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer any questions my colleagues may have. I hope they will have the courage to tell their fellow citizens whether or not they are going to support this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my dear friend from the Bloc, for whom I have great respect, it must be said. Does she think that to be part of the Quebec nation one must be a Quebecker and a sovereigntist or can we federalist Quebeckers be part of it too?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how glad I am to answer that question. My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou will be happy to know that she is part of the Quebec nation, since all people living in Quebec are part of the Quebec nation.

That is clear. The Petit Robert, the Larousse and all other dictionaries say so: a nation is comprised of all the persons composing a people living on a defined territory, who have common values and aspirations. No matter what political party one represents, one should be proud to be part of the Quebec nation and to want to preserve the French language in America.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I gave a list of the accomplishments of Conservative members, including those from Quebec. I mentioned UNESCO and the fiscal imbalance, but I could also mention the return of the lands at Mirabel. I could also speak about the Quebec City airport, a matter about which my predecessor from the Bloc did nothing. He too had only a blank page to show. We could also talk about the reopening of the Collège de Saint-Jean. The member for the Bloc was never able to do anything about that. He too has only a blank page to show.

Earlier, in a question I asked, I mentioned that the boss of the Bloc Québécois, Ms. Pauline Marois, talked about the importance of bilingualism and of learning English. Does the hon. member agree with her boss on that?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that he sat in opposition from 1993 to 2006 and that his party did not do anything during that period. I hope that now that the Conservatives are in power, they will stop blaming the Liberal Party for everything that was not done and that they will start doing something.

His list of accomplishments was exhaustive but very short. I would certainly not be bragging about having done so little in two years; I would be hiding.

I think that the Bloc Québécois has proven its relevance in the Canadian Parliament. Despite the fact that we are sovereigntists, we have always made responsible decisions. Every time we voted with the government, it was in the interest of Quebec, and what is in the interest of Quebec is often good for everybody else too.

I would ask the member for Louis-Hébert to refrain from presenting such an exhaustive list of his party's accomplishments, because after two years, this list is rather slim.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Laval for her excellent speech and for the answers she has given to the Conservative members. It is hard to understand why the Conservatives are asking these kinds of questions because every time they do, they shoot into their own net.

My question to my colleague from Laval is also related to the Bloc's accomplishments. The Bloc achieved something big with the passage of the motion on the Quebec nation. The motion was introduced in November 2006. We all know that the Conservatives, who wanted to pull a fast one on us, decided to take this motion in their own name.

Can the member give us an extensive list of the accomplishments of the governing party, the Conservative party, that helped them move from words to deeds and to solidify that recognition of a Quebec nation?

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The member for Laval has only 30 seconds left.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will be a short answer: zero, a blank page.

The blank page referred to by my colleague from Louis-Hébert just now is likely the page he was using to show his fellow citizens all that he has done for the Quebec nation.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in the debate on the Bloc Québécois opposition day motion moved by the member for Joliette, which reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, following the recognition of the Quebec nation by this House, the government should move from words to deeds and propose measures to solidify that recognition, including compliance with the language of labour relations of Quebec's Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec.

Everybody in the House knows I am fluently bilingual and that normally when I take part in debate I make a point of doing a good part, if not the majority, of my speech in French but, as a member of the linguistic anglophone minority in Quebec, I think it is important that my thoughts on this motion be registered in English.

If we look at the question of official languages and the history of our country, our country came together under the British North American Act, our Confederation, and Quebec was part of that. Our Constitution clearly set out what was federal jurisdiction and what was provincial jurisdiction. It is clear that the language of enterprises and federal agencies comes under federal jurisdiction.

I find it interesting that a party that has made its brand attacking successive federal governments for allegedly overlapping into provincial jurisdiction would now, under the guise of the recognition by this House of the nation of Quebec people, as an excuse to enter into federal jurisdiction.

We have two official languages in Canada and those languages are French and English. Anyone who attempts to say that by having and promoting both official languages somehow opens the door to other languages is making a spurious argument. That is the first thing.

Second, anybody who sits in the House, in my view, has a duty to ensure that linguistic minority rights are protected, and that means anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside of Quebec.

I have a great deal of respect for many of the Bloc MPs but with this motion they are ensuring that the linguistic minority rights of anglophones living within the borders of the province of Quebec will be unprotected. As it stands now, when one looks at the report of the Official Languages Commissioner, anglophones in Quebec are not adequately represented in federal institutions. I will not even talk about provincial institutions.

The Government of Quebec has had an equity employment program for cultural communities and the linguistic minority anglophones and yet anglophones comprise, I believe, possibly 1% of the provincial civil service, and federally, notwithstanding the fact of our presence in Quebec since the very first days, we do not comprise more than 8% of the federal public service in Quebec.

The Official Languages Commissioner has, time and time again, been forced to investigate complaints about the roughshod treatment that the English-speaking minority in Quebec has suffered within federal institutions and now the province would like to see the workplace language of enterprises under federal jurisdiction be French only.

When the Bloc Québécois first tabled its private member's bill, which is where this motion comes from, the Official Languages Commissioner already had concerns about the English-speaking minority in Quebec having equal access to health services, which is provincial jurisdiction, in their mother tongue.

Educationally, an article appeared recently in the paper about how the English-speaking school boards, the teachers and the unions were demanding that the Government of Quebec not institute its pedagogical educational reform. Do members know why? It is because the textbooks that the children need to use to learn the subject matter and from which their final exams will be based on are not yet available.

Therefore, we know there are already difficulties both provincially and federally. Neither government has clean hands when we talk about the English-speaking minority in Quebec and ensuring the protection of our linguistic rights and our rights to services in our language. The Bloc Québécois, which states that it defends all Quebeckers, is not defending my rights in Quebec nor is it defending the rights of my community in Quebec. It is not defending the rights of the other English-speaking minority in Quebec.

I will not even begin to speak about the French-speaking minority outside of Quebec because, Lord knows, should this motion be adopted, the Bloc and anyone in the House who votes in favour of this motion will have opened the door for provincial governments outside of Quebec to suddenly decide that the only official language will be English and forget about the French-speaking minority outside of Quebec.

I do not understand the lack of shame on the part of that party. I am a Quebecker. I just heard one of the Bloc members say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Status of Women is a Quebecker, notwithstanding the fact that she is a federalist. I too am a federalist and, according to the definition that the Bloc member of Parliament just gave, I am a member of the Quebec nation.

In that case, if the Bloc wants to claim that it defends the rights of Quebeckers I expect to see it defending my rights in Quebec as the English-speaking minority within Quebec. I am a strong supporter and advocate of bill 101. One of the good effects of that was that my community began to freely choose to send their children to French language schools. They wanted their children to be bilingual so they could work for the provincial government or for private enterprise which come under provincial rule. However, surprise, surprise, we cannot get jobs there even though we speak French.

In this case, the Bloc is not defending my rights as the English-speaking minority in Quebec. It is not defending the rights of my community within Quebec because the only place where we are able to find jobs, notwithstanding the fact that we are bilingual, is in federal institutions. Even there we are not represented as much as we should be, but at least that door is partly open.

I would like to see the Bloc members get up and defend my minority language rights. I would like to see the Bloc members get up and talk about the fact that textbooks that are required in our schools in Quebec are not available in English and that our children are being forced to use photocopies. It is ridiculous. The textbooks are not available because they have not been translated by the government.

[An hon. member]

C'est faux.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am being told by members of the Bloc that what I am saying is not true. What I am saying is factual. There are textbooks that are required by the ministry of education of Quebec and those textbooks are only available in French. It is up to the ministry of education to ensure those textbooks are also available in a translated form. It has not done that and as a result the school boards are asking that the implementation of the pedagogical reform be delayed.

As a member of an official language minority, it never ceases to amaze me how the Bloc, which claims that it wishes to ensure le fait français in North America, so easily drops the interest, the protection and the defence of those protections of the French-speaking minority outside of Quebec. When it suits the Bloc's purpose, suddenly it is the defender of the French-speaking minority rights outside of Quebec. However, when it does not suit its purpose, it drops them as quick as a hot potato. It is shameful.

I would like to read a few statistics from the Official Language Commissioner's report of 2006-07. On page 26 it states:

Linguistic duality is strongly rooted in Canada’s historic and contemporary realities. It has been one of the core values of our country since its inception, and while it has been the subject of heated debates in the past, it is not as emotionally charged as it used to be...82% of Francophones and 74% of Anglophones believe that the two official language groups should enjoy the same quality of education and are willing to dedicate more resources to the minority in order to meet this objective.

That is quite different from what the Bloc is suggesting. It goes on to state:

Canadians now consider it to be at the centre of their country’s history, culture and values. In fact, bilingualism and respect for the rights of linguistic minorities currently enjoy unprecedented support in Canada. According to a recent poll carried out in early 2006, 72% of Canadians personally favour bilingualism in Canada, a 16% increase since 2003.

I talked about the fact that anglophones in the federal public service in Quebec are underrepresented. According to the Official Languages Commissioner's annual report 2006-07, it states that “on March 31, 2001 it sat at only 8%”. This is unacceptable.

The report goes on to state:

The Commissioner will closely monitor the action undertaken by federal institutions and the Quebec Federal Council to increase Anglophone representation in the federal public service there.

However, there is the report on Canada Post. Why? It is because Canada Post is a crown corporation that comes under federal law and, therefore, it has a legal duty to create a workplace that is conducive to the use of both official languages, promoting English and French. However, Canada Post has had serious problems in the past with regard to ensuring that English-speaking minority employees had their rights respected and there have been complaints.

However, the Official Languages Commissioners who have worked on that file, the previous one, Madam Dyane Adam, and now Mr. Graham Fraser, have seen a real effort on the part of management, particularly senior management in Canada Post, to ensure that Canada Post employees are not penalized if they happen to be members of the English-speaking minority and that their access to senior managerial posts, if they meet the requirement, is not hampered by the fact that they are members of the English-speaking minority, which was the case when I worked there. It also means that managers are able to communicate with each other and properly communicate with the employees.

I want to finish with one little quote from the NDP member for Outremont who was quoted in the Montreal Gazette newspaper on October 23, 2007. Apparently he was being interviewed about the piece of legislation that incarnates this particular motion and its relevance to Bill 101. This was his response:

There is absolutely no problem right now in Quebec with the language of work...Bill 101 has taken care of the problem and removed a lot of the tension and ill will that used to exist when people in a majority French province were forced to work in English in the past.

I would take from that then that the NDP will not be supporting the Bloc motion. I would take from that then that the NDP will be very careful about the position that it takes on this particular motion because this particular motion will put the rights of the English speaking minority in Quebec in jeopardy and the rights of the French speaking minority outside of Quebec in jeopardy.

If any of the members of the NDP are thinking about supporting the Bloc motion, I would ask them to think twice about it, and possibly if they need to, think three or four times. I would urge them not to support this motion.

The majority of the English speaking minority in Quebec will take it as an affront and a denial of our minority language rights being afforded and protected within Quebec.

I do not presume to speak for the French speaking minority outside of Quebec although my family members on my mother's side are all Francophone Manitobans. My sense is that they as well will take it as an affront and a denial by the NDP, should they support this motion, of their linguistic speaking rights outside of Quebec and opening the door to provinces outside of Quebec deciding that the only language of work will be French, and that they have no reason whatsoever to protect the linguistic--

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Quand as-tu les oreilles sensibles?