Debates of Oct. 28th, 2009

Opposition Motion—French Language Instruction in Quebec

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, I still had about six minutes.

Let us look at what the Supreme Court actually wants. It speaks for itself. What I was just reading was a global assessment of the child’s educational pathway depending on the specific facts of each case. It is in paragraph 29 of the Supreme Court decision. Just imagine.

In my introductory remarks, I mentioned that I had been a commissioner on the Commission d'appel sur l'accès à l'enseignement in Quebec. Just imagine what this will mean. They say in the decision that the specific facts of each child and the specific facts of each school will have to be assessed in order to determine whether it was a bridging school. Different terms are used to describe these schools.

If people want to know what this is really all about, we should remember that the Supreme Court grudgingly admitted that the French language was a good idea in Quebec because it is part of Canada. However, the framers—the Supreme Court’s code word for Jean Chrétien and Pierre Trudeau—decided in 1982 that sub-section 23(2) of the Canadian Charter would take precedence over the Charter of the French Language. This is reflected throughout the decision.

Let us look at the decision, word by word. Look at this in paragraph 30: “Section 73 CFL—”. If the members want a telling detail that shows just how the Supreme Court really thinks, look at “CFL”. That is how they write it. It means the Charter of the French Language. The courts in Quebec have already said that this is a quasi-constitutional statute. But here it just has initials, as if it were the Canadian Football League. They say: “The [...] CFL is to implement the constitutional guarantees [...]”. So the CFL, the Charter of the French Language, is supposed to implement. It is as if the Charter were some kind of gofer, doing someone else's bidding. This is about language. Quebec is the only province in Canada with a francophone majority that needs to protect French. Look at the rest. This is from the same sentence. It says, “[...] implement the constitutional guarantees provided for [...]”. So there are guarantees. Where? In the Canadian Charter, written out in full. What a fine demonstration of basic prejudice.

The CFL implements while the Charter confers rights. Lets us look a little further. Paragraph 31 says: “As I mentioned above, paras. 2 and 3 of s. 73 CFL provide that instruction received [in a UPS or pursuant to a special authorization under s. 82, 85 or 85.1 CFL] must be disregarded”. It can therefore not be given any consideration whatsoever in either qualitative or quantitative terms. The specific facts of each case have to be considered. Every school has to be studied, one by one, on a case by case basis, to determine whether it was a bridge school or not. They even go so far as to analyze the schools’ advertising. What a mess.

According to paragraph 32, “In the protection afforded by the Canadian Charter, no distinction is drawn as regards the type of instruction received by the child, as to whether the educational institution is public or private.” What matters instead is “the child’s overall situation and [...] an analysis of the child’s educational pathway that is both subjective and objective”. Just imagine. It is each specific child, on a case by case basis, qualitatively and quantitatively, and finally considered both subjectively and objectively. That is what has to be done in each case thanks to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the court’s view, “this interpretation is compatible with the primary objective of s. 23(2) [...]” of the Canadian Charter.

There is more. Moving along to paragraph 36: “The ‘bridging’ schools appear in some instances to be institutions created for the sole purpose of artificially qualifying children for admission to the publicly funded English language school system”. A bit further in the same paragraph, it says: “However, it is necessary to review the situation of each institution, as well as the nature of its clientele and the conduct of individual clients. As delicate as this task may be, this is the only approach that will make it possible to comply with the [Charter] [...] That is what Quebec is expected to do.

Look in paragraph 38 at the order of importance: “Bill 104 [the bill that is attacked in this decision] had two principal objectives. The first was to resolve the problem of bridging schools [...]. The second, more general, objective was to protect and promote the French language [...]”. It seems to me that protecting the French language was the first objective. For them, it was secondary and more general. That really shows their state of mind.

Finally, look at what happens in paragraph 44. It is really something. The judge says that six months or a year in a bridging school may not be enough to purchase this right. What they are saying is that if people have the $15,000 to $20,000 a year it costs to send their child to an unsubsidized private school, it is not enough for them to buy just one year.

The court is providing a roadmap here. People have to buy two years and then all their children can go to an English school.

Far from giving real meaning to the recognition of Quebec as a nation, this decision would create a breach that is impossible to fill in the efforts that have been going on for decades to reach a linguistic settlement.

For those of us who have always worked to assure Quebec’s place in Canada, this judgment is an unfortunate relic from a bygone era and a potent weapon in the hands of those who think it is time to leave.

The House should support our motion to get the facts straight and enable Quebec to do what it has always wanted, that is, ensure that newcomers who choose to go to Quebec, even though they could go elsewhere, learn first and foremost the common language of Quebeckers, which is French.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. colleague from Outremont has brought this motion before the House today. Recognizing the Quebec nation of course means recognizing the French fact, but the whole question of the integration model for immigrants remains.

For some time now in Quebec, people of all political stripes have been saying that Canadian multiculturalism could not meet our needs when it comes to immigrant settlement. Robert Bourassa said so from the beginning, that is, when he was premier and the notion of multiculturalism was first implemented. More recently, Julius Grey, a human rights advocate who is well known in Montreal, repeated that Canadian multiculturalism did not apply in Quebec and that it was not a good model for integration.

I would like to know if the hon. member for Outremont would be able to convince his NDP colleagues to go one step further in recognizing the Quebec nation. Does the NDP agree that this will have an impact not only on the French issue, but also on the integration model for newcomers, and that Quebec should be allowed to opt out of Canadian multiculturalism?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber raised a very important issue indeed. There is now a multicultural vision of Canada whereas, in the 60s, we were talking about bilingualism and biculturalism.

If he is interested, I think that the member should first help us with the moneys voted by the Canadian Parliament to help integrate immigrants. Quebec is the only Canadian province with responsibility for its own immigration policy. The Cullen-Couture agreement adopted by the first Conservative government includes specific clauses that allow Quebec to play a specific role in immigration.

There are moneys voted by this Parliament that are transferred to Quebec. If the hon. member wants to help us, he should look at whether all these moneys are effectively used to integrate immigrants. But he would have to agree that the federal government has the prerogative to monitor spending, and I am not sure he would.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the hon. member for Outremont who moved this motion. I am the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst in New Brunswick. A third of New Brunswick's population is francophone. It is the only province recognized as bilingual in Canada. In my region, SAANB, the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, agrees with the motion since it still wants at least one-third of New Brunswick's population to be francophone. We would like to have even more francophones than that. Families are not what they once were. People are no longer having 12 children. That is why it would be nice to have immigrants in our province who are able to learn French and live in French.

I would like to know whether the hon. member agrees with the fact that if we want to preserve the francophonie, immigrants will have to be able to go to French schools, especially in Quebec since that is the province that can secure French in North America. That is what we need.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must first say that the fact that my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, supports the motion so fully and sincerely is reassuring to me because he is a francophone who lives outside Quebec. He realizes, like many francophones outside Quebec, that it is only with a Quebec where French is a living, real, common language that there is any hope of keeping French alive and real in other provinces.

He is right: New Brunswick is the only province recognized as bilingual in the Constitution. I agree with him. This legislation will help us to have more immigrants—I hope not just in Quebec, but in other provinces as well—from francophone countries. Manitoba has also done good work on this.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Outremont, for the presentation of this motion today.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, recognition that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada means, in particular, that Quebec has the right to ensure that immigrants to Quebec must learn French first and foremost.

Unfortunately, I will not be speaking French during my speech because I do not have the level of French required to do so.

So I will speak in English, and I will also speak from the perspective of a member from Newfoundland and Labrador.

We in particular have an understanding of what it takes to be part of Canada when there are strong differences. We of course joined Confederation in 1949 and we too have questions about our place in Canada. In fact, a royal commission on the relationship between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada was called just that, “Our Place in Canada”, and it did a study of all of the issues and grievances that may take place.

We understand the uniqueness of Quebec, just as we understand the uniqueness of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I also speak as a Canadian citizen who is concerned about the future and the unity of our country. I want to reflect upon the importance of this motion and the future of French language rights in Quebec to the unity of this country.

I recall vividly, as I am sure members do and those listening across the country do, the events of 1995 when we had thousands and thousands of Canadians from across the country attend in Montreal, the last day or so before the referendum vote on separation, to express their concern that Quebec continue to be part of Canada. We want to ensure that Quebec remains a part of Canada and that Quebec and the Québécois recognize that their future lies in a united Canada.

Key to that is a sense that the Québécois can continue to survive within a united Canada, and the Québécois have the ability to protect the vitality of the French language and culture. What is important to that of course is this very issue of language law. We do not want to see the French language diluted in Quebec through waves and generations of immigration, and of course Quebec has the responsibility to itself, in terms of its preservation of its language and culture, to do that.

In fact, my colleague from Outremont detailed some of the issues and attempts to do that over the many years, and in some detail looked at the Supreme Court of Canada. While the decision is open to serious criticism, I do want to underscore two things that the Supreme Court of Canada did say which I support very much.

It looked at the legislative objectives of Bill 104, first, to resolve the problems resulting from its attempt to get around the language law; and second, the objective to protect and promote the French language in Quebec. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its legalistic language, said that these legislative objectives were valid; in other words, that the Government of Quebec has the legitimate right to undertake these activities and to protect and promote the French language in Quebec.

It says in paragraph 40:

Moreover, this Court has commented several times on the importance of education and the organization of schools to the preservation and promotion of a language and its culture

It also quotes, with approval, a report from the office of French language in Quebec entitled “Rapport sur l’évolution de la situation linguistique au Québec 2002-2007”. This is the translation:

In both the Canadian and North American contexts, French and English do not carry the same weight and are not subject to the same constraints in respect of the future. The durability of English in Canada and in North America is all but assured. That of French in Quebec, and particularly in the Montréal area, still depends to a large extent on its relationship with English and remains contingent upon various factors such as fecundity, the aging of the population, inter- and intraprovincial migration and language substitution.

It is very clear. The Supreme Court quotes this with approval and recognition of the importance of this. It is very clear that the Supreme Court of Canada, as our signal national legal institution, does recognize this. We may argue over what this particular decision is, and my colleague and learned friend, as a fellow lawyer, is quite capable of doing that, but the Supreme Court suspended the application of this particular decision to allow the National Assembly of Quebec to recraft a law to meet these same objectives, but in a different way. I would hope that it has the capability of doing that over the next year and I look forward to seeing result achieved.

However, I want to say this. I think all of us across this country, from coast to coast to coast, from Vancouver to Victoria as they say, to Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, have to understand that the diversity of our country includes a strong and vital Quebec, with the first language of French.

It is important to me, I must say. I have three children who are all studying in the French immersion program. I regret to say that I did not have the advantage of doing that. We have a bilingual province in Quebec. We have important francophone populations in Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba. I think that the support for those populations, and the language and culture that is shared with the Québécois depends on a vibrant first language culture in Quebec that is French, I think we accept that.

It does not mean that we have to be forced to speak French. We do not hear any more the language that we used to hear 30 or 40 years ago, complaints about French being shoved down our throats on the back of boxes of corn flakes or that sort of nonsense. I think we are past that.

My colleague from Outremont smiles at that. Perhaps he is not old enough to remember that. But that was the kind of thing that used to be said back in the 1960s, or thereabouts, when talk of bilingualism and biculturalism began to come about. I think we are way past that in this country, and I think many people in this country look with envy to some of the European countries where it is quite common for people to be bilingual or, in some cases, trilingual.

I remember in my own student days travelling in Europe, as I was reminded by my colleague from Nova Scotia, and meeting with students from Holland. They spoke English, Dutch, German and French, all as a matter of course, as part of their lifestyle; particularly if they were students having to learn subjects in different cultures and languages, and watch television and entertainment . It was marvellous to see that. They took it all for granted.

We are at a point in this country where we can respect and acknowledge not only the right but, I would suspect I would go further and say, the duty of the province of Quebec and the Government of Quebec to promote and protect the French language and to find ways of doing that, particularly with respect to immigration.

When people come to Canada, they have a choice. They can come to Toronto. They can come to Newfoundland and Labrador, and we would welcome them. However, if they choose to come to Quebec, it is reasonable to have a rule that says that part of that choice is that their first language of instruction will be in French. If they want to learn English, too, that is good. They could be trilingual with their original tongue, with French and English. They can come and learn to speak French and they can learn to speak English, and be all the better for it in terms of their ability to operate within Canada.

In summing up, I support this motion. I thank the hon. member for bringing it forward. It is important for us as parliamentarians to understand Quebec and to understand how vital this particular role for the people of Quebec and the Government of Quebec is, but to also try to explain to the various parts of the country, our own ridings, our own province, people all across the country, how uniquely important this is for the preservation of our nation. I do not want to see another referendum about separation. If we are going to recognize the rights here, I think we can support the existence of Quebec in a unified Canada with these kinds of rights.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I must say that I am pleased that the NDP has brought forward this motion today. I know that the member for Outremont has played a key role in this and I am happy to see how his position on this issue has evolved over the years. At some point in the past, the member for Outremont belonged to an organization, Alliance Québec, that was seeking to weaken Bill 101. Today, we are thrilled to see him firmly defend this legislation in the House.

Earlier, I asked him a question about the idea of exempting Quebec from Canada's multiculturalism policy. He skilfully dodged the question, as he often does. I know that, deep inside, he probably supports that idea, as does Julius Grey. However, there are certain constraints associated with being a member of a federalist party. My question for his colleague is this. Does he not fear that the member for Outremont might take the next step and join the ranks of the sovereignists?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I do not have the eloquence of my colleague from Outremont. It seems the question may be more directed at him than at me.

I have a great deal of confidence in the people of Quebec, given the kind of recognition this motion brings forward. I look forward to the support, not only of the colleague who has asked the question, but all members of members of the House, for this motion so we can demonstrate that Quebec can reach its aspirations within Canada, preserve and protect its culture, language and identity and do so with this.

There is no need for sovereignty for my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, nor for the member for Outremont.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Outremont for bringing forward this important motion and for his comments. I also thank my colleague from St. John's East for his comments.

This is a very important motion. It is not only important for the people of Quebec, but it is also an important for people in the rest of Canada. I personally believe the motion will help unify the country. In fact, the motion is important for Quebeckers to understand that the rest of Canada stands behind them.

Would the hon. member for St. John's East like to comment on that?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to people all across the country, not just the province of Quebec. It is a question of the place of Quebec in Canada, the role of Quebec in preserving and protecting the French language and culture. That is important not only to Quebec, but to other places.

I neglected to mention that we also have a small but vibrant French population in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly on our west coast, the Port au Port Peninsula, and up and down the west coast. Some of the people came directly from France and there are some Acadians. They did not all get expelled down south to Louisiana. Some of them managed to hang on and get as far as Newfoundland and preserved their culture over the many years. They are also a very important part of the French culture in Canada and they deserve some recognition too. Also, for all of us anglos and other people and cultures across the country, it is very important to have a strong and vibrant Quebec culture, protected and promoted by the province of Quebec. It is extremely important to the whole of the country.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, recognition that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada means, in particular, that Quebec has the right to ensure that the immigrants to Quebec must learn French first and foremost.

I support the idea behind the motion, that newcomers have to integrate by learning one of our official languages, and French in particular, in Quebec.

In fact, I think that in moving this motion, the NDP has, perhaps inadvertently, adopted an argument I have been making since I became Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism last year. I have talked a lot about how it is essential for newcomers to learn one of our official languages in order to succeed and my concerns about the fact that only one quarter of newcomers access the free language training offered by settlement assistance agencies across Canada.

Working with provinces to increase the participation of immigrants in the Newcomer Settlement Program, a large part of which is devoted to teaching the official languages, English and French, is a federal government priority, identified in the 2008 Speech from the Throne.

In fact, it is not merely a priority. It is an aspect in which we have invested. Since 2006 when we first formed the government, we have nearly tripled federal investments in language training for settlement services. That includes substantial increases in transfers to the government of Quebec for language training for newcomers. Obviously, in Quebec, those services are in French.

I have repeated many times the importance of encouraging newcomers to Canada to learn one of our official languages, or preferably both, as time and resources permit. All the available evidence and data indicates to us that the single most important factor in the success of immigrants to Canada is their official language ability.

Of course it is still possible for immigrants to succeed in our society with limited knowledge of the official languages, but it is much easier to integrate, economically, in the labour market, culturally, and in our society, if one can speak English or French. Obviously, in Quebec, that is done in the language of Quebec, which is French.

There is a lot of data showing that the reason we see a much higher unemployment rate among immigrants in Canada is their limited knowledge of our official languages. This is a matter of concern for me as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I want to see immigrants succeed in Canada. They come here to succeed economically. We are very aware of the various challenges they must overcome. For example, newcomers working in regulated professions need to have their foreign diplomas recognized. Our government has taken action on this, by creating the Foreign Credentials Referral Office, by investing over $30 million and by providing a budget of over $50 million for the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development to assist organizations that work with immigrants to expedite recognition of foreign diplomas.

That is why the Prime Minister demonstrated important, historic leadership in January when he proposed an agreement to create a framework for recognizing foreign diplomas to the provincial premiers. I think there will be an important announcement on this subject in the near future.

That means we are working impatiently to improve the success, the economic outcomes and the labour market access of immigrants in Canada. But we must always emphasize the importance of language skills.

We form the government, and our last Parliament voted in favour of recognizing the fact that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. We therefore recognize the unique characteristics of Quebec: its history, its traditions and the fact that it is a French-speaking society.

People from all over the world come to Quebec and Canada. They come from over 200 countries of origin. We are open. One of the greatest national characteristics of Canadians, and so of French-Canadians, is their openness toward other people. That is why we are keeping immigration at the highest level in the developed world, in relative terms. This means that 0.8% of our population is composed of permanent residents each year. As well, there are another 250,000 temporary residents, specifically students.

With an immigration level like this—I believe Quebec accepts about 54,000 of these newcomers—we have to emphasize the importance of integration. I am not talking about cultural assimilation, I am talking about positive integration. We do not want to create parallel communities, communities in which young people grow up in cultures that have more in common with the cultures of their parents’ countries of origin than with Canada’s. We want to give young people, children of immigrants, the full range of economic, social and cultural opportunities. The key, the door to all those opportunities, is language, and in Quebec, it is French.

This weekend, I attended 16 events in various cultural communities in the great metropolis of Montreal. I visited Muslim, Jewish and Middle Eastern communities, communities of Asian, African and Caribbean origin. Success has not been complete, but I am still genuinely impressed by the success of the Canadian Quebec model, particularly among young people. I am genuinely impressed by the number of children of immigrants who have learned French, who use French as their first language or second language. Sometimes their first language is their mother tongue, their parents’ language. It is truly impressive.

I therefore support the spirit of this motion. I have some concerns. We must be clear that under the 1991 Canada-Quebec Accord on immigration, training for immigrants is the responsibility of the provincial government, and we will honour that accord.

I work closely with my counterpart in Quebec, the Minister of Immigration and Cultural Communities, Yolande James, who is doing a good job. I can say that when the accord was first signed, in 1991, the federal government gave the government of Quebec $90 million to invest in settlement services and French language training. This year, in 2009, we are giving Quebec $234 million for the same services, and next year our federal government will give Quebec even more, $254 million, a quarter of a billion dollars, to provide French language training for newcomers and to provide other settlement services.

We are therefore providing tangible support to achieve the goal we see in the motion by the hon. member for Outremont.

I would like to emphasize that we must talk not just about the importance of French language training for newcomers in Quebec, but rather about the duty to assist newcomers everywhere in Canada, in every corner of the country, to learn one of our official languages.

In the same spirit as the motion is in French, Canada has the right to ensure immigrants must learn English or French first and foremost, and obviously in Quebec that is overwhelming French.

I am concerned when I see that only a quarter of new immigrants actually enrol in the free language classes that we provide and for which our government has tripled funding. This is the reason we are looking for more innovative ways to provide those programs, to empower the newcomers with, for instance, vouchers.

Two weeks ago I announced a pilot project in the provinces of Nova Scotia, Ontario and Alberta. We will send out vouchers to 2,000 newcomers worth up to 500 hours of language training at a properly registered and licensed language training school and where they can go and redeem those.

We are trying to raise the consciousness among newcomers of the language services we offer, to make the settlement organizations more responsive to the particular needs of newcomers and to create a kind of positive competition and to hopefully increase the uptake of these language classes that we offer.

I know that in Quebec, the participation rate of new immigrants in French training is a sign of success, but we must work together to do more. I agree with the member for Outremont that the federal government has a responsibility to work with Quebec to ensure that the money it invests in integration services is actually spent on these services and not put into other government services. I repeat that we put a quarter of a billion dollars specifically towards services for immigrants.

I hope the motion can help to inform a broader debate in the House and in Canada about the importance of language as a key to success for newcomers. On behalf of one of the immigrant employment organizations, Compas research group recently did an interesting survey of employers asking them why they do or do not hire immigrants in their companies. The number one reason was the employers' concern about language ability.

That is why we are ambitious for newcomers to succeed in our country. and why we are offering additional services, but it is also why there is an obligation on newcomers to make a real effort to learn one of our official languages. In our immigration program, the only part of our many streams of immigration to Canada that requires some degree of linguistic ability in French or English is the federal skilled worker program.

Obviously in Quebec, to get a Quebec selection certificate, an individual must have some French-language skills. However, for the federal skilled worker program, an individual must have a certain level of French or English.

However, for other streams of immigration, such as the family reunification stream, or the protected persons scream including the refugees we settle from abroad and people who obtain protection as asylum seekers in Canada, there is no language requirement. I want to emphasize that there is a requirement in the Citizenship Act that new citizens have the ability to speak one of our two languages unless they are under the age of 18 or over the age of 55.

I think that is very important. What I mentioned is a legal requirement. What concerns me is that I have met some new Canadian citizens between the ages of 18 and 55 who appeared to speak neither French nor English. I think that is a problem. I think that there should be a consistent standard.

We need to have a consistent standard. It is not fair to tell people that they are welcome into our political community with all the rights and responsibilities of a citizen but that we will lower the bar and not require them to have some basic ability to get by in one of our two languages because that would severely limit the ability of people to advance in Canada.

I do not think this is a harsh message. I think it is a message of hope and ambition for newcomers. Parents understand that if teachers pass a student through primary school and high school even though the student cannot read or write, they are not doing the student any service. I have sent the same message to the citizenship commission that I fully expect our judges and officials to ensure that the language requirement in the Citizenship Act is consistently applied to those who must have an ability to communicate in English or French in order to become citizens.

This is why I hope we will create a new citizenship guide, a new book for citizens that gives more information on Canada's history, symbols, democratic practices and values.

We must ensure that new Canadians have a thorough understanding of our traditions, our way of life, our institutions and our democratic practices. When I look at the current citizenship guide, there is hardly any information about the history of Confederation, the history of Canadians in the wars of the past century, the development of our democratic parliamentary system based on British traditions, or the importance of the founding of French civilization in North America. There is almost no information on any of these things in the citizenship guide. That is why we are in the process of revising all of the tools and all of the information in the guide for new citizens to ensure that they truly understand where we come from as Canadians.

Whenever I speak at citizenship ceremonies, I always say to new Canadians that in becoming Canadians, our history becomes their history. They too take ownership and become part of this amazing story that started thousands of years ago with our first nations and hundreds of years ago with the arrival of the European civilization. They take ownership with us of our struggles and achievements. They face many significant challenges but we, as a government, stand with them in overcoming those challenges. We believe that one way we can do that is to help them learn one or both of our country's languages.

I would therefore like to thank and congratulate the hon. member for Outremont on his motion. I look forward to working with him to develop concrete ways to help new Canadian immigrants improve their knowledge of our official languages, and, especially in Quebec, their knowledge of French.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister just talked about the importance of democratic political symbols, and I will give him an opportunity to apply this principle. The motion before the House reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, recognition that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada means, in particular, that Quebec has the right to ensure that immigrants to Quebec must learn French first and foremost.

My question is quite simple: are Conservatives for or against this motion?

The minister surely noticed that the part about the “recognition that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada” is taken word for word from the Conservative motion about the recognition of the Québécois nation that the House adopted.

The Supreme Court of Canada is an invitation to a teleological interpretation, to an examination of objectives and context. In this place, our goal is to make sure that we express ourselves unanimously, despite the Supreme Court ruling. When we talk about recognizing the Québécois nation, we say that the Government of Quebec has the right to require that immigrants and newcomers to Quebec send their children to French schools first and foremost. However, in last week's nonsensical ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada tore a big hole in the protection of the French language.

Can the minister tell us if his government will support the recognition and protection of the French language, yes or no? Will he, just like the Supreme Court, pay lip service to it and simply disappear when the time for real action comes?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I have been saying yes for the past 20 minutes, Mr. Speaker.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism on how good his French is. I think he is making truly remarkable progress.

If he agrees that new immigrants should learn French upon coming to Quebec and is looking forward to supporting the French language and integration—he said something to that effect—, this minister who says that government invested in that and will continue to do so must be completely and utterly disgusted by last year's decision by the Supreme Court. The minister said nothing about that. It seems to me that he is showing a lack of logic.

Could the minister tell me if, under the circumstances, he still believes that newcomers must learn one of the official languages? That is what he said at the end of his speech. I am putting the question directly to him.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, we do support the emphasis put on French training for new immigrants in Quebec, and I must add that we also support French training elsewhere in the country.

My colleague, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages, represents a francophone community of Manitoba, and I know that her community and immigrants in Saint-Boniface, for instance, take advantage of services provided by this government in French.

The member and myself recently made an announcement in Saint-Boniface concerning the provision of settlement services in French to refugees in Winnipeg.

As for the issue of education in Quebec, it is not up to the federal government to interfere with Quebec's areas of responsibility. Education falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on what I think was a well-intentioned and well-placed speech for the motion that is before us today.

I know, from a personal perspective, that the minister has spent a lot of time over the past summer and spring travelling the country talking about the importance of citizenship. He mentioned in his speech the important weight that language plays within this country in terms of French and English.

I wonder if he could briefly expand upon the comments that he made in the thoughtful and provoking way that he actually drew to our attention that we need to pay more attention to both of our languages when we are becoming citizens of this country.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in some of my speeches, I recount an experience I had when I visited our immigration mission in New Delhi. I sat in on an interview with a lady of Indian origin who had been a Canadian citizen for about 15 years. She was making a sponsorship application for a spouse. What concerned me was that the lady could not conduct an interview with the Canadian official in English. She is from Surrey, British Columbia.

It struck me that a middle aged woman could not discuss with a government official some basic questions about her personal life in English even though she has been a Canadian citizen for about 12 years and a resident for 15 years. It struck me that we had let down this woman and, I fear, many others like her by not applying in a consistent fashion the legal requirement of the Citizenship Act that people speak English or French to obtain citizenship.

We want to continue to benefit from our country's diversity with some of the highest relative levels of immigration in the world but we want our model of unity, diversity and pluralism to continue being a success. I fear that may not happen if we allow large numbers of citizens to live in Canada without ever learning one of our two languages.

That is the key to economic success and to socio-economic and cultural integration, and it is not inconsistent with our best traditions of pluralism and of respecting the heritage languages and cultures of our ancestors to learn English and French. It is a necessary part of becoming Canadian and we are there with newcomers investing in those services to help them do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for being so clear about the fact that he will support the motion. I think it is a step in the right direction. Our country has two official languages. In order to save the French language, looking at the situation in the province of Quebec or the fact that 2% of the North American population is francophone, this is the right approach.

My question is very brief. I would say this to the minister. It is great that he is supporting the NDP motion for now. However, what will the minister do next? Will he introduce a government bill to put this into action, so that it becomes law in this country?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do not need new legislation to do something that already exist. If he is talking about concrete action, I would reply that the government is investing a quarter of a billion dollars in services for language institutions, including French training for immigrants in Quebec. We are talking about a quarter of a billion dollars. We are investing more in French and English training for newcomers everywhere in Canada.

We are investing in New Brunswick for francophone immigrants. We are making unprecedented, concrete investments for French language training for immigrants in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. Does he know that French is the sole official language in Quebec? If so, does he agree that Bill 101 should apply to all institutions within Quebec's borders, including federal institutions?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that the National Assembly and the Government of Quebec have adopted French as the sole language of Quebec. When it comes to issues related to public school administration, that is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. I never understand why the Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to interfere in matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction like education, a provincial matter.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start my speech by reading the motion of the member for Outremont, because I believe it deserves to be read.

That, in the opinion of the House, recognition that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada means, in particular, that Quebec has the right to ensure that immigrants to Quebec must learn French first and foremost.

This is a self-evident motion. It does not need to be adopted at all by the Parliament of Canada and needs even less to receive the approval of the members of Parliament for the members of the Quebec National Assembly to consider it feasible and legitimate.

Of course, my party will vote for this motion. However, if the Liberal members intend to massively support this motion by the NDP, it is certainly not because Quebecers need that step in order to make their own decisions. In other words, we think that the member for Outremont is in the wrong House. Perhaps he misses his days in the National Assembly.

Contrary to what the New Democrats seem to believe, Quebec simply does not need the consent of the federal members to take charge of its own destiny and insure the sustainability of its language and culture. In fact, Quebecers do that very well, and I want to congratulate them and offer them the support of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I also want to compare the work of the member for Outremont to the behaviour of an attention-seeker who puts a great deal of energy into kicking down a door that has been open for a long time. I would not be surprised if the next motion from the member for Outremont would ask us to vote for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to be celebrated on June 24. Perhaps he will also submit a motion legitimizing the presence of the Quebec flag in front of the Quebec National Assembly.

I said that the member for Outremont was trying to break down open doors, essentially because all his motion does is state the truth about Quebec. I would remind my NDP colleagues that Quebec has had its own immigration policy for decades. It selects the new Canadians it accepts, and the Government of Quebec guides them as they integrate into our society.

I therefore invite the member for Outremont—since he clearly did not have the opportunity to do so when he sat in the National Assembly of Quebec—to visit the website of the Quebec Department of Immigration and Cultural Communities. There he will find a whole range of programs whose sole purpose is to help new Canadians who settle in Quebec integrate into their new society.

The Quebec portal has this to say about immigrating to Quebec:

Choosing to live in Quebec means choosing to live in a French-speaking society, since French is the language of 80% of the population. Knowledge of French will help you create the network of contacts you will need to become established and find your first job.

The fact that Quebec has its own immigration policy is nothing new. The first Ottawa-Quebec agreement on immigration was signed 30 years ago and renewed 20 years ago. What is surprising is that this motion was made by a former Quebec government minister. What is he trying to do with this motion? Is he trying to show his ignorance, attract media attention, set himself up as the new protector of the French language?

I must say that I am confused about what is really behind the motion put forward by the member for Outremont. It seems to me that he is trying desperately to justify his role here, especially with regard to issues in Quebec, but I also have to ask myself: is he aware of the events of recent decades? Does he know that Canada has evolved?

Naturally we recognized the Quebec nation and I am proud of the fact that the Liberal leader did so before the rest of this House did. With his support and that of his party, and well before the Bloc and the Reform Conservatives got involved for purely political reasons, he demonstrated that he understood Quebec and that it was important to affirm its unique nature. The leader of the Bloc and the Prime Minister were wise to follow his lead in this matter.

Naturally we promoted the French language and recognized the virtues of Bill 101. Without a doubt it was the right thing to do. Bill 101 and the Official Languages Act are complementary tools for promoting the French language and ensuring its vitality and sustainability throughout North America.

The members of the Liberal Party of Canada believe that French should be more prevalent, not only in Quebec but throughout Canada. It is part of the fundamental values of the great Liberal vision, which recognizes the unique nature of Quebec as well as its right to protect its language and culture. This vision also provides for the protection of the French language and its development in all provinces and territories of our great country.

The CBC, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada and many other organizations are the tools that we have developed and adopted to promote the French language in Quebec and throughout the country.

The Conservatives recently cut their funding. The Bloc has continued to criticize them. As for the NDP, it has never taken an interest in the matter.

However, all of a sudden, the New Democrats have woken up and are asking us to interfere in a matter that is strictly Quebec's responsibility. Fine words about language and culture are all very well, but they have yet to put their words into action.

Yesterday, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada met with artists from Quebec's cultural scene. He sat down with three groups: those working in theatre arts; those from the museum field; and those in video, film and television.

Our leader announced concrete and specific commitments. He promised to double financial support for the Canada Council. He promised to provide stable and long-term funding for the CBC. He clearly stated that a Liberal government will restore the cultural programs eliminated by the Conservatives.

Unlike them, we Liberals do not think that cultural investments are a frivolous waste of money. We do not think the performances of pianists and singers are “a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers”. That is clearly what the Conservatives think though. They said so and their actions prove it.

No, we Liberals know that culture is first and foremost the spirit of a people, a national identity. It is the mirror we hold up to ourselves when we ask the question, “Who are we really?”

If, in addition, the money that governments spend on culture generates considerable economic spin-offs, which produce tax revenues, it is a very naïve government indeed that would take the axe to its cultural investments. It is cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. It is certainly not the best of strategies.

While the NDP discovers the linguistic issue in Canada—and the hon. member for Outremont demonstrates all the zeal of a last-minute convert—we Liberals will continue to work hard to promote the language and culture of Quebec and of all francophones in Canada.

It is clear that new Canadians who choose to live in Quebec—like all new arrivals across the country—need a bit of government help to adapt to their new situation. That is why the Liberals will always be a loyal partner for Quebec in this regard. If it likes, the NDP will have all the time it needs to support our initiatives as well.

I would like to turn now to the Bloc. Its ultimate goal is well known: to divide our country and pick quarrels. Its refrain today is hardly new and is not surprising. It can be seen coming a mile away. We know well in advance. There is no vision there. No inspiration. Nothing to bring us together and unite us. They never contribute anything to building the great country we have inherited from our ancestors. The Bloc never helps to enhance the respect and harmony among our citizens. So there are no surprises there.

Getting back to the hon. member for Outremont, we are left wondering what his real motives were. What was his purpose today in getting us to debate matters that have been closed for ages? Is he trying to sew ill-feeling and stir up new quarrels? If so, he will certainly fail.

If that is his intent, he is wasting his time. It is a dud. The NDP is only demonstrating that, like the Bloc, it does not want to unite, but to divide. The hon. member for Outremont can take my word if I say that Quebeckers do not need his intervention. They are doing quite well by themselves and we are all very proud of that.

Quebec asks us to recognize and respect its unique character, its language and its culture. The Liberal Party of Canada has understood that message very clearly and commits itself to do it. There are well established jurisdictions at the federal and provincial levels and the jurisdiction over the subject of today's motion is one of them. The time to play political games, as the NDP member and as our colleagues from the Bloc constantly do, is over. Let us talk about important things that will help us build Quebec and Canada.

I will conclude by saying that the Liberal caucus will support the NDP motion because we are true to ourselves. We were the first to recognize Quebec nation. We still recognize it and, contrary to the member for Outremont, we respect it truly and sincerely.

To claim that the adoption of the motion by the House will in any way whatsoever give the Quebec National Assembly some kind of legitimacy it does not already have borders on navel-gazing and egocentricity.

To be very clear, I will say that Quebec nation is free to make its own decisions. It is certainly not for us, members of this House, to tell it what to do.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 and pursuant to an order made Tuesday, October 27 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, Automotive Industry; the hon. member for Don Valley West, Public Transit.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred if the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie had congratulated the NDP for understanding Quebec and being ready to work with and support Quebeckers, instead of patting himself on the back or trying to attack the member for Outremont.

Instead of congratulating the member for Outremont, he tried to say that the Liberals were the saviours of our great country that we love so dearly—speaking for myself anyway, the country that I love. Indeed, it was under the Liberal governments of Trudeau and Chrétien that we had our worst falling-outs with Quebec and that we almost lost our country.

Who was in power during the referendum? The Liberals were. They never managed to give proper respect to the Québécois as a nation. They say they recognized the Québécois as a nation, but they pounded them every day.

I am proud to be a member of a political party like the NDP, a party that respects Quebeckers, that respects and wants to save the French fact in North America, where Francophones represent only 2% of the population.

I would like to hear the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie try to gloat about his Liberal government and his Liberal Party that has not always been up to the task of saving the country that we love so dearly.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst. Last-minute converts are always the most passionate.

I will simply say that it is a bit much to expect me to congratulate the member for Outremont on his grandstanding today.