Pauline Picard

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, February 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, Jean Charest and Dalton McGuinty called on the Conservative government to improve aid to the manufacturing and forestry industries. On Tuesday, the CSN joined in the call; on Wednesday, the FTQ; and yesterday, the Forest Products Association of Canada.

In the face of such a consensus, will the government finally stop doing nothing and take action immediately to improve aid to the manufacturing and forestry industries?

[Official Languages Act, February 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me the exact same question as my colleague on the constitutionality of the bill. The fact is that a number of studies were conducted. We did our homework. Before introducing Bill C-482, we did reviews, we worked, we conducted studies, and we heard stakeholders. The bill in no way conflicts with any constitutional guarantee relating to languages.

I repeat what professor Henri Brun, who is an eminent lawyer and professor of constitutional law, said himself. In his review of the bill, he stated the following:

Bill C-482 in no way conflicts with any constitutional guarantee relating to languages. On the contrary, it respects and promotes constitutional standards in this area. That bill also does not violate any principle governing the division of powers in our federation. On the contrary, it seeks to take advantage of one of the recognized means of promoting cooperative federalism. Therefore, Bill C-482 is airtight in terms of its constitutionality.

I would like to add that—

[Official Languages Act, February 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the following:

Bill C-482 in no way conflicts with any constitutional guarantee relating to languages. On the contrary, it respects and promotes constitutional standards in this area. That bill also does not violate any principle governing the division of powers in our federation. On the contrary, it seeks to take advantage of one of the recognized means of promoting cooperative federalism. Therefore, Bill C-482 is airtight in terms of its constitutionality.

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

[Official Languages Act, February 6th, 2008]

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

[Official Languages Act, February 6th, 2008]

moved that Bill C-482, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C-482. I would like to explain what Bill C-482 sets out to amend. First, it would amend the Official Languages Act to recognize French as the official language and the common language in Quebec. Therefore, the federal government would be required not to obstruct the application of the Charter of the French Language within Quebec.

As I begin my speech, I would like to review the elements that led to the creation of Bill C-482.

The starting point was the decision by the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a nation more than 140 years after Canada became a country.

The Quebec nation existed long before it was recognized. There has been consensus on that for some time now. The fact of the Quebec nation has transcended eras, political parties and debates. In 2003, well before the House of Commons finally decided to recognize it, Quebec's elected representatives in the National Assembly unanimously reiterated the fact that the Quebec people form a nation.

Long ago, the province of Quebec designated the place where elected representatives would sit as part of the National Assembly. The city in which the assembly sits has been given the noble and evocative title of “national capital”. The House of Commons' recognition of the Quebec nation, though slow in coming, was simply to be expected.

The decision to recognize a nation has consequences. Recognizing a nation means recognizing its institutions, its emblems, its traditions, its history, its territory, its culture and, inevitably, its language. The people of Quebec are well aware of this. They saw their government recognize first nations, a step that resulted in the signature of a historic agreement known as the Peace of the Braves.

Recognizing the Quebec nation means also recognizing the predominance of the French language. That predominance is ensured in Quebec by a piece of legislation, Bill 101, which makes French the official language throughout Quebec, except as concerns the federal government, which has two official languages. What we are asking the federal government is to be consistent in its decision making. After recognizing the Quebec nation, it is only natural that it should recognize and abide by the Charter of the French Language in Quebec in the Official Languages Act and comply with the spirit of the charter in regard to the language of signage and of work in related legislation.

Some people will say that such an arrangement is impossible. The question is whether Canada is the only country in the world to face such a situation. The answer is no.

Long before us, democracies such as Spain and the United Kingdom proved that it is possible to successfully combine multiple nations within a state. To do so, they relied on creative solutions that respected the coexistence of the national communities within and equipped themselves with the tools they needed to manage the areas where those communities differ.

No later than November 2006, Quebec's Minister for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs delivered a speech on the subject of the Quebec nation in which he stated:

Quebec and Canada can learn from these experiences in other countries and find unique solutions adapted to their reality. These examples also demonstrate that, far from being a thing of the past, Quebec's desire to be recognized as a nation within Canada is more current than ever. Its legitimacy and feasibility are confirmed by the developments we have seen in other federations or quasi-federations. By respecting and recognizing sociological and political differences instead of denying them, and by translating them into special rights within their political system, these democracies avoided any futile or counterproductive social conflicts.

We must be creative in our pursuit of recognition. We must stop denying the complex character of our society and our national identities, and stop placing them in artificial categories. The reality of those countries experimenting with multi-nation states is just as complex as that of Quebec and Canada. We must not be tempted to abandon the debate, simply because it is a complex question, on the contrary.

Let us remember that those words did not come from an elected member working on Quebec's sovereignty; they came from a minister of a federalist government in Quebec City.

We find that Bill C-482 constitutes an original response that is adapted to the reality of Quebec and Canada. Recognizing the specificity of Quebec is not a whim; it is an overriding duty.

I want to remind hon. members that the Bloc Québécois bill is nothing new. The specific mention of provincial legislation in the text of federal legislation is possible and even common. We are talking about statutory reference. In other words, the government recognizes the provisions of another Canadian legislative assembly.

Take for example the Canada Labour Code, which sets the federal minimum wage according to provincial minimum wages. Section 178 states:

Except as otherwise provided by or under this Division, an employer shall pay to each employee a wage at a rate:

(a) not less than the minimum hourly rate fixed, from time to time, by or under an Act of the legislature of the province where the employee is usually employed and that is generally applicable regardless of occupation, status or work experience.

The Canada Labour Code is subject to amendment within the framework of this bill.

Federal or federally regulated companies are not affected by the Charter of the French Language, particularly insofar as the language of work is concerned. For example, interprovincial transportation companies, maritime transport and ports, air transport and airports, broadcasting, telecommunications, banks and certain companies declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada are exempt. Some of these companies choose to abide by the charter, but it is all entirely voluntary.

An estimated 200,000 Quebeckers work under the Canada Labour Code, or more or less 7% of workers in Quebec.

The amendment to Part I of the Canada Labour Code states that federal companies are subject to the Charter of the French Language when they operate in Quebec. This responds to the request made in 2001 in the Larose report:

The francization of the workplace in Quebec also concerns the workplace of the federal government and workplaces under federal jurisdiction. That is why the Government of Canada should take the necessary measures to ensure that these workplaces respect language legislation when they are in Quebec.

This amendment does away with the legal void whereby federal work, undertaking or business can ignore the Charter of the French Language as concerns language of work. It is, however, important to note that many federal businesses decide on their own to commit to Quebec's Office de la langue française's program of francisation.

But what about those that decide to circumvent Bill 101? The response is distressing. Federal companies and companies under federal charter failing to comply with Bill 101 do so with impunity. Since 2000, 147 files have been closed at the Office de la langue française in Quebec. Its hands were tied because the companies were under federal jurisdiction. This figure includes only files arising from complaints. If no one complains, there is no file. So we can assume the number of delinquent businesses is greater.

This is taking place as a number of studies on the state of French in Quebec are being released. According to 2006 census figures, French has lost ground right across Canada, and in Quebec as well, even though more immigrants than ever speak French at home.

While the number of people with French as their mother tongue increased between 2001 and 2006, from 5.33 million to 6.29 million, their relative importance decreased, and they now represent only 22.1% of the population. This is from Statistics Canada. The figure was 22.9% in 2001 and 26.1% in 1971.

As regards the language used predominantly at home, the proportion of French is declining consistently, dropping from 26% in 1971 to 21% in 2006. The proportion of English rose in 2006 to the figure it stood at in 1971, of 67%. This figure reached 69% in 1986, shortly before the strong influx of immigrants speaking other languages. In the light of these figures, we cannot sit idle. Quebeckers, it is true, must do their part to change things.

I congratulate the leader of the Parti québécois on her courage in introducing a bill in the National Assembly on Quebec identity. The media made a great deal about it. This bill, to its credit, dares to look the facts in the face. It proposes better teaching of French to ensure the quality of French written and spoken in Quebec and promotes an understanding of Quebec's history, a mastery of spoken and written French and the enhancement of Quebec culture.

The bill on Quebec identity aims to help Quebec express its identity, through the passage of legislative provisions to ensure the preeminence of the French language as the language of work and economic activities and education in Quebec. Legislation will be passed to ensure the quality of written and spoken French in Quebec. I am proud to recognize and pay tribute to this initiative.

Bill C-482 will require the federal government to recognize the Charter of the French Language within Quebec and extend its application to businesses under federal jurisdiction.

An amendment to the Official Languages Act is needed to eliminate all ambiguity. It must be clear in the act that French is the official language of Quebec. We therefore consider it important to amend the preamble so that it provides that the federal government recognizes that French is the official language of Quebec and the common language in Quebec.

[Bill C-482, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last November I tabled Bill C-482 to amend the Official Languages Act. The amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois would require the federal government to recognize Quebec's Charter of the French Language.

Yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, this bill was deemed votable by everyone except the Conservatives. Those who boast constantly about having recognized the Quebec nation refuse to even vote on a fundamental aspect of this very nation: the French language.

The Conservatives attempted to impede debate on the primacy of the French language by citing false constitutional arguments. In one fell swoop they clearly demonstrated that the motion adopted by this House on the Quebec nation is nothing but empty words and that the recognition is meaningless.

Recognition of the Quebec nation means respecting the primacy of Bill 101 in Quebec.

[Women's Employment Organization, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the organization Partance was established in Drummondville in 1982 to help women deal with the difficulties of integrating into the job market.

Twenty-five years later, the job market has been transformed, but many obstacles remain for women who wish to realize their professional objectives. Almost 4,000 women have used the services of Partance, which has come to symbolize a beginning, a jumping off point, a door to the future.

On the occasion of this anniversary, tribute was paid to the winners of the “women of influence” contest: Berthe Tessier of the Association des retraitées et retraités de l'enseignement du Québec, Drummondville region; Francine Ruest Jutras, mayor of Drummondville; Mariette Saint-Laurent, founder of La Rose des vents; Micheline Locas, President and CEO of Association des clubs d'entrepreneurs étudiants; and Paula Provencher, President of AFEAS, central Quebec chapter.

They bear witness to the place occupied by women in Drummondville. They have paved the way for others. I congratulate all of them.

[Canada Elections Act, December 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-29, loans, guarantees and contributions from individuals could not exceed the limit set out in the Federal Accountability Act, $1,100 in 2007. Only financial institutions—at commercial interest rates—and other political entities would be allowed to lend amounts exceeding that amount. The rules governing unpaid loans would be strengthened to prevent candidates from walking away from their debts.

We agree with these provisions. Quebeckers have always wanted this legislation to be as transparent as possible. We think that the way we do things in Quebec—

[Canada Elections Act, December 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on October 2, 2002, the Globe and Mail revealed that the current Prime Minister raised $1.1 million for his leadership race in 2002. According to the article, the Prime Minister quietly published a partial list of contributors on the Alliance's website. The list only includes contributions in excess of $1,075.

[Canada Elections Act, December 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment I am most concerned about is the one in lines 29 and 30. It would make a party or other unregistered association responsible for candidates' loans. A candidate could decide to borrow money without informing the party, without the party's knowledge. Later, if the candidate failed to repay the loan—no matter what the reason—the party or the unregistered association would be responsible for the debt. I find that unacceptable.

When the committee discussed this liability issue, which could hurt the party or even jeopardize it, we all agreed that parties should not be liable for debts incurred by candidates.

I am therefore extremely disappointed that the government refused to go along with this.