Benoît Sauvageau

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make and a little question to ask the President of the Treasury Board.

If the foundations are a model, if other countries come to look at what our foundations are and how they work, if they are a model of transparency, if the Auditor General says that in large part they are good, if his government and everyone watching us says they are good, why does he not want the Auditor General to look at how these foundations are managed? I agree with him that we must not stoop to the demagoguery of the Conservatives and say there is a sponsorship scandal in all the foundations. I am sure that they are all well managed. However, if they are all well managed, let us accept the proposition. That is my comment.

When the President of the Treasury Board says—and I thank him for it—that Bill C-277 is tabled in this House, this bill must go to committee and the Auditor General called in for that to happen. I am sure that he is quite familiar with the parliamentary legislative process. So his party has to support Bill C-277. My question is this: does the President of Treasury Board and his party support Bill C-277?

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the speech by my friend and colleague from the Conservative Party.

This is the third time that this recommendation has been made—the second was by the Auditor General and the first by the committee—that the Office of the Auditor General be designated to look into what is happening with the foundations. Each time, the government has given the same answer. I would like to hear the comments of the hon. member about this answer.

The government says that the Auditor General must not be given this right of oversight, because it might cast doubt on the independence of the foundations. That is more or less what we are going to be hearing from the government party all day—that the Auditor General cannot examine the foundations, because doing so would prejudice their strategic or organizational independence, or whatever.

I would like to ask my colleague how he interprets the act of verifying whether money has been well managed and well used. As I see it, that is one thing. Furthermore, does he agree with me that an external audit held to ensure money has been well managed, does not call into question the decisions of the board of directors, the mandate of the foundation, its operating method, its operational strategy or anything else?

Does he feel the government's excuse that this would prejudice the independence of the foundations still holds?

[Jutra Awards, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the seventh annual Jutra Awards, which took place last night in Montreal, confirm the vitality of Quebec's cinema and the brilliance of those who work in this industry.

Two feature films, Mémoires affectives by the young and talented director Francis Leclerc, and Ma vie en cinémascope by the legendary Denise Filiatrault, swept the highest honours at this gala.

The Hommage award went to Michel Brault. He has been at the forefront of Quebec cinema and in a half-century career has been associated with nearly 200 productions, as a cameraman, director of photography, director or producer.

Considered the father of Quebec cinema, Michel Brault, in all his usual modesty, had this to say to the audience, “Thank you to my people, you who have entrusted me with your words and actions. Thank you, Quebec.”

The Bloc Québécois applauds the immense talent in Quebec's artistic community who never fail to surprise us, touch us and move us, to our great pleasure and that of movie fans the world over.

[Official Languages Act, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill S-3. I would be remiss if I did not begin by paying tribute to the role played by former Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, his exceptional devotion and untiring efforts on behalf of francophone minorities and the promotion of their rights. Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier is the very soul of this bill.

I had the privilege of sitting on the Joint Committee on Official Languages, a committee where partisan politics were very often set aside in order to focus our efforts on promoting the francophone communities. Throughout our debates and deliberations, I was able to witness the efforts of francophones living in minority situations as well as their marvellous tenacity. They deserve our total admiration.

Since its inception, The Bloc Québécois has been a staunch defender of francophone minorities. My friend and colleague, the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes, is also a strong defender of the Acadians in particular.

Implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act has been hotly debated for close to 20 years. At this point it is important to read section 41 of the present Official Languages Act, along with its proposed replacement in Bill S-3.

Section 41 at present reads:

The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

The words “is committed to” are extremely important here. However, Bill S-3 stipulates:

Section 41 of the Official Languages Act is renumbered as subsection 41(1) and is amended by adding the following:

(2) Within the scope of their functions, duties and powers, federal institutions shall ensure that positive measures are taken for the ongoing and effective advancement and implementation of the Government of Canada’s commitments under subsection (1).

(3) The Governor in Council may make regulations in respect of federal institutions, other than the Senate, the House of Commons or the Library of Parliament, prescribing the manner in which any duties of those institutions under this Part are to be carried out.

So, the aim of this amendment, as our colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell mentioned, is to section 41 enforceable and provide guidance for its interpretation by the courts.

Subsection 43(1) currently states:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may take measures to—

If Bill S-3 were passed, this subsection would read as follows:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take appropriate measures to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may take measures to—

So, the words “such measures as that Minister considers appropriate” are being stricken and replaced with “appropriate measures”.

Finally, Part VII is being added to subsection 77(1) of the Official Languages Act, which would read:

Any person who has made a complaint to the Commissioner in respect of a right or duty under sections 4 to 7, sections 10 to 13 or Part IV, V or VII, or in respect of section 91, may apply to the Court for a remedy—

First, I want to give a historical overview of Bill S-3.

This is the fourth bill that Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier presented in the Senate during the 37th and 38th Parliaments. During the 37th Parliament, he had first proposed Bill S-32 in the first session, then Bill S-11 during the second session, and finally Bill S-4 during the third session. These three almost identical bills preceded Bill S-3, which is before us today. The previous bills died on the order paper when the House prorogued.

After reading and thoroughly studying the bill before us, we must state that we cannot accept it as is. First, we could not accept S-4 during the previous legislature. Moreover, this version of the bill only removes the word “nécessaires”—after the words “mesures positives” in the French text— in sections 41 and 43. In Bill S-4 we read, and I quote:

Within the scope of their functions, duties and powers, federal institutions shall ensure that positive measures are taken for the ongoing and effective advancement and implementation of the Government of Canada’s commitments—

In Bill S-3 we read:

Within the scope of their functions, duties and powers, federal institutions shall ensure that positive measures are taken for the ongoing and effective advancement and implementation of the Government of Canada’s commitments—

In the French text, the word “nécessaires”—meaning necessary— has been removed.

Regarding section 43, the English version of Bill S-4 reads “The Minister of Canadian Heritageshall take appropriate measures—” and in Bill S-3, it says “The Minister of Canadian Heritageshall take appropriate measures—” but in the French, the word “nécessaires” has been removed.

Nothing was changed in section 7, where the new bill continues to direct that Part VIII be added.

The reasons the Bloc Québécois opposed Bill S-4 have not changed. We believed then that the scope of section 41 was too broad and too vague and lacked definition.

There is another aspect that one forgets in a debate like this, and that is the fact that the two minority language communities in Quebec and in Canada are not on an equal footing. They do not have the same needs. Some francophone communities in Canada are still very fragile. The rate of assimilation of francophones continues to be very high.

One major flaw in the Official Languages Act lies in the fact that it does not recognize the asymmetry between the linguistic minorities in Canada at this time. The situation of francophones outside Quebec is much more worrisome and precarious than that of anglo-Quebeckers, and the act should recognize this.

I am sure that the sponsor of this bill, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, and Senator Gauthier, if he was watching, recognize this fact, but unfortunately this reality is not reflected in the bill and that poses a problem.

The architect of the official languages action plan wrote, in reference to anglophone rights in Quebec, that French Canadians in other provinces can only dream of having the same conditions.

The Council of Europe wrote in its political affairs report that the minority anglophone situation in Quebec is an excellent example of protecting a minority language group's rights.

The Commissioner of Official Languages said something along the same lines during an RDI interview when she said that we must recognize that Quebec—which is where most French Canadians live—is nonetheless a minority in the Canadian federation and therefore a certain asymmetry exists.

However, some departments already use an asymmetrical approach in terms of implementing responsibility pursuant to part VII of the Act. Look at the way Citizenship and Immigration handled the parity committees, which exist only for minority Francophones and Acadians.

Yet, in the fourth version of this bill, the concept of asymmetry is still not included.

These are the main reasons we conclude that, as it stands today, Bill S-3 does not meet the laudable objectives it had set for itself, that is, to encourage the development of minority francophone communities and protect their rights.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes the particular situation of French-speaking minorities and it hopes the Liberal government will recognize this particularity as well.

The Bloc Québécois cannot support Bill S-3 unless it is amended to include the concept of asymmetry, which has been recognized by everyone involved in this issue.

I would like to point out, in closing, that the federal government may now and for some time past feel obliged by section 41 to take measures in support of the development of francophone minority communities. It is obvious, however, that the federal government chooses not to see anything binding in part VII of the Official Languages Act and does not really impose any obligations upon itself to take positive measures. This brings us to this bill designed to twist its arm and force it to assume its responsibilities in terms of supporting francophone minorities. It is because of the government's lack of political will that we are finding ourselves in this situation today.

The Bloc Québécois believes that applying the same measures across the board, in Quebec and in Canada, would prejudice the uniqueness of the heart of francophone Canada. The government knows it very well.

The Bloc Québécois opposed Bill S-4 previously. Well aware of that fact, the government still introduces an almost identical bill. Why?

Sometimes, I wonder if the government is not purposely introducing legislation it knows full well to be incomplete.The government keeps introducing legislation that makes no room for asymmetrical needs, as recommended by the likes of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the father of the government official languages action plan, the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. But why does it do that?

Perhaps this explains why the bills in question always have names like S-3, S-4, S-11 and S-32, which means that they originated in the Senate, instead of being called C-3, C-4, C-11 and C-32, as bills inspired by the government would be.

[Foundations, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board should have read, too, the excerpt in which the Auditor General asks for the right of oversight of these foundations.

The Treasury Board continues to turn a deaf ear to repeated requests by the Auditor General and parliamentarians demanding better accountability by foundations.

Does the government not realize that it is possible to increase financial controls while maintaining the operational autonomy of these foundations?

[Foundations, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Auditor General is condemning transfer payments to foundations. She believes that these foundations are being used to hide federal surpluses and that Parliament is losing control over funds transferred to them.

Given the numerous scandals that have tarnished the current government and given that most of these foundations were established by the Liberal government, will the President of the Treasury Board agree that, at the very least, there is only one thing to do, and that is to designate the Office of the Auditor General as the external auditor of these foundations?

[Financial Administration Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-8. I am a little disappointed by the lack of response from the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Bill C-8 affects mainly two aspects, one of which is very important and that is official languages. My colleague from Sudbury emphasized this very well. I think she would agree it is sad to see that the Conservative Party critic has no idea how the Official Languages Act will apply or influence the new tenor or philosophy in the federal public service.

I gave them a chance to say a few words about it. During the election campaign there was some bad press, but sometimes people are quoted out of context. We thought we would give our opponents a chance and allow them to say a few words about this. We will have to wait for the next time to get an explanation on their party's position on this.

This is the second time I am speaking to Bill C-8. As I was saying, I listened closely to the speech by my colleague from Sudbury, who summarized this bill very well. I will mostly repeat what she said. However, I will try to make concrete arguments on certain aspects of the changes made by this bill.

One of the main objectives of Bill C-8 is to amend the Financial Administration Act to establish the office of the President of the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada. That is clause 1. This bill only makes official what has already been done. Indeed, on December 12, 2003, Michelle Chartrand was appointed by order in Council, order PC-2003-21-13, President of the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada.

The president of the agency has the powers of a deputy head of a department and is appointed by cabinet and can be removed at any time. This is not so for the Commissioner of Official Languages or the Auditor General, which is not a problem, I simply want to clarify that there is a difference in terms of their status and independence from the House.

The powers of the president are assigned to him or her by the Treasury Board, not by Parliament. Clause 1(2) provides that the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for the coordination of the activities of the Secretary of the Treasury Board, the President of the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada and the Comptroller General of Canada. As I recall—correct me if I am wrong—this provision was amended in committee to add that he or she is responsible for the coordination but must also be accountable. I thought that was what I heard the hon. member for Sudbury say.

Why should the president be accountable? Hon. members know that the wording is important when amending bills or drafting legislation. Allow me to say a few words about the ambiguous nature of the word “coordination”. Clause 1(2) provides that the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for the coordination.

I was official languages critic for a few years and I have learned that, in theory, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the coordination of the Official Languages Act. In practice however, the minister with the least responsibility in connection with the Official Languages Act is the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

If the Minister of Canadian Heritage is the minister responsible under section 42 of the Official Languages Act, this should also be the minister responsible—I realize I am not speaking directly to Bill C-8, but I just want to make a quick point about the word “coordination”—for implementing the official languages action plan. But this responsibility was assigned to a different person at the time, namely the current Minister of the Environment.

The Official Languages Act provides that the Minister of Justice is responsible for part of the act, that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the coordination, that the Prime Minister shall appoint a minister responsible for the act, that the President of the Treasury Board—as the agency's secretary—is responsible for the act as it relates to the public service, with the result that the individual responsibilities have been diluted to the point that no one is responsible for anything anymore.

When they appear before the committee and are asked why they have failed with regard to some aspect of the legislation, there is full latitude—since there are 22 individuals responsible, so none—for them to say that it is not them and that someone else is responsible.

That is why the Bloc Québécois amended one little word that may seem completely inconsequential. However, given our experience with the Official Languages Act, this little word is extremely important. In fact, this amendment means that the President of the Treasury Board is no longer the only one responsible for coordination of this legislation, but accountable for it too. Consequently, if there is a problem, he cannot say that it was the fault of the commissioner, the president of the agency, his brother-in-law or anyone else; he is the one who is ultimately responsible.

We know too that ministers appeared before the committee—Gagliano, to name just one—and they told us that ministers are not responsible for their department. In this case, the minister responsible is the President of the Treasury Board. This is the first question I asked him when he appeared before the committee, “Are you responsible for your department? If you are not responsible for your department, there is no point in our asking you questions, since you are not responsible for anything”. To my great surprise, he said that he was responsible for his department. If he is responsible for his department, he is therefore accountable for the actions taken during his mandate. That is why the Bloc Québécois sought this amendment—and we are happy that it passed—to subclause 1(2), which provides that the President of the Treasury Board is responsible and accountable for the coordination of activities.

Further on in the bill, they are amending—as I have said, and will keep on saying—the Canada School of Public Service Act, section 2, and the Official Languages Act, section 3, to ensure that the president of the agency is an ex officio member of the school. The second point is an interesting one, The supposed purpose is to ensure that it is the president of the agency, rather than the president of the Treasury Board, who will provide the Commissioner of Official Languages with any reports concerning the monitoring and auditing of observation by the federal institutions of the principles, instructions and regulations originating by either himself or the governor in council concerning official languages.

The purpose of all that verbiage is to say that the head of the agency will be the one to provide the COL with these files.

I have another problem here. When the president of the agency receives these reports and passes them on to the COL, there should be both responsibility and accountability in place. This is not the case. The person who receives them and passes them on is not assigned any responsibility.

I filed a complaint nearly a year ago to the COL about the Treasury Board. My complaint was that the Treasury Board policies and action plans state in black and white that it will not comply with the Official Languages Act. It is not set out in so many words that: “We are going to go against the Official Languages Act”, but it is there in connection with the position designated bilingual. For instance, it indicates that 60% of army positions designated bilingual are staffed with unilingual anglophones, and that in a specific sector, 22% of positions designated bilingual are staffed with unilingual anglophones. Finally, Treasury Board writes that it has an action plan whereby, in the next two, three or four years, they will bring those figures down by 2%, 3% or 4%. It we look at this carefully, what that comes down to is stating “We hereby inform you that we will continue to break the law for the next three, four or five years.”

I thus filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages and that complaint was deemed to be in order and is currently being investigated. Accordingly, when people say that the president of the agency will receive the annual reports relating to the implementation of the Official Languages Act and will be in charge of follow-up, I have a little problem. Indeed, what was done before was not proper. We are renewing what was done before. It will not be proper.

I seem to recall, Mr. Speaker, that you too used to sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. You must have heard this part of my pet question, which goes like this, “Why is a unilingual person hired to fill a bilingual position, if the hiring criterion is being bilingual?”

I often asked the question of all the ministers who appeared, namely how many lawyers in the Department of Justice are not lawyers, but carpenters, who managed to get hired on a promise that they would eventually become lawyers. My impression is there are none. How many people who formerly worked at Jean Coutu's have been hired in the Department of Finance as accountants on the promise that eventually, since they know how to operate cash registers, they will become accountants? I think that the hiring criterion to be a lawyer in the public service is to be a lawyer. Similarly, the hiring criterion to be an accountant in the public service is to be an accountant. Why is that the hiring criterion to be bilingual in the public service would not be to be bilingual?

In this respect, I would be willing to accept—it is called non-imperative staffing—that we extend this criterion to the public service as a whole, if we want to apply it this way. In other words, if criteria do not matter, let us hire truck drivers—for whom I have a lot of respect—as management executives or accountants at the Treasury Board, on the promise that they will one day become accountants.

You know that, with exception clauses, some people are being hired in designated bilingual positions, on the promise that they will become bilingual one day. Afterwards, they go through their career as unilingual employees in the designated bilingual position. Then, when they retire, other people make sure that their farewell party is in one language, because they would not understand if it was in another one.

Bill C-8, in transferring the current powers of the President of the Treasury Board to the president of the agency, does not solve this problem, which I think is very serious. I heard Conservative members say there was somewhat of a void. However, this is a problem that we would like to see corrected in a speedy and concrete fashion with the new agency. However, we do not have much hope.

The bill also has a number of transitional provisions, consequential amendments and coordinating amendments to tie Bill C-8 with the coming into force of certain sections of the Public Service Modernization Act, that is Bill C-25.

So, we must make the connection between Bill C-25 and Bill C-8, which I will do briefly. Indeed, I spent too much time on official languages, but it is a subject dear to my heart. Since the essence of the work of the Human Resources Management Agency and of its president is to implement the provisions of the Public Service Modernization Act, it is important to remind the House about the main comments of the Bloc Québécois on this bill.

In the 2001 Speech from the Throne, the government said that it was undertaking:

—the reforms needed for the Public Service of Canada to continue evolving and adapting. These reforms will ensure that the Public Service is innovative, dynamic and reflective of the diversity of the country-able to attract and develop the talent needed to serve Canadians in the 21st century.

Bill C-25 contained four significant measures to reform the public service: it amended the Public Service Staff Relations Act; it repealed the Public Service Employment Act; it amended the Financial Administration Act to transfer certain powers with respect to human resources management to the Treasury Board; and it amended the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act to pave the way for its merger with Training and Development Canada, and the eventual birth of the new Canada School of Public Service.

In fact Bill C-25 significantly changes the legislative and institutional framework for the management of human resources in the public service. The role of the Treasury Board increases considerably with the consolidation of employer responsibilities. The Public Service Commission will refocus its activities on the protection of the merit principle and political neutrality in staffing.

This is an important principle. I have sat on committees with certain Liberals. One of the positions taken by the Bloc Québécois is that returning officers in each riding should be appointed based on their ability, merit and skills, rather than being appointed by the Prime Minister.

The Liberals are opposed. I keep telling them that I am sure that some Liberals will continue to be appointed as returning officers because there have to be a few competent ones in the bunch. They need not worry. I am not suggesting they will be the majority, but there could be five or six appointed in the 308 ridings. They need not worry. People can still be appointed on the basis of their qualifications.

Bill C-25 also dealt with the protection of whistleblowers. It has since been amended and has now become Bill C-11. It is under consideration at the Standing Committee on Governmental Operations and Estimates. It is designed to allow the disclosure of wrongdoing. The Bloc Québécois has two main reservations with respect to Bill C-11. First, there should be an independent officer of the House—like the Auditor General or the Commissioner of Official Languages—whom the employees throughout the public service could trust and whom they could tell about wrongdoing taking place in their departments or workplaces.

We have seen how difficult working for his department became for Mr. Cutler after he brought the whole sponsorship scandal to light. I am not referring to the minister, because I am not allowed to refer to Minister Cotler by name. I have to refer to his riding. I was talking about Mr. Cutler, the government employee.

Mr. Cutler had problems in his department when he disclosed what happened in the sponsorship program. We want to make sure public servants can divulge such information not to their supervisor, but to an independent officer of the House and that the public servant is protected from retaliation. All of this is laid out in Bill C-25.

Let me come back to Bill C-8. I do not know if I was sufficiently clear, but the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-8, despite our many reservations. We have reservations about certain aspects of the bill, especially when it comes to the Official Languages Act. We support Bill C-8 because its purpose is to refocus some existing legislation and correct some legislative and administrative measures.

We are in favour of this bill because, despite several omissions, it will ensure better cohesion for human resources management within the federal public service. The Bloc Québécois accepts the principle of the bill since it is the first step to improving the coordination activities involved in human resources management in the Canadian public service. However, we will continue to expose the omissions that we feel are far too important.

While we reaffirm our confidence in and our admiration for the federal public service and while we say that it needs Bill C-11 to allow public servants to disclose possible acts of wrongdoing, we would not want to go as far as the President of the Treasury Board, who said on his website that, being the President of the Treasury Board of the very best country in the world, he wanted to have the best public service in the world. I have not checked today, but last October, when I made my first speech, this is what appeared on the President of the Treasury Board's website.

Again, I have a lot of respect for public servants. We must have an exemplary public service, that is respected and that respects itself. I hope that Bill C-8 will give these people better working conditions and that other laws will also allow them to tell us about serious wrongdoing. I know that we are dealing with a huge machine and a huge public service. Unfortunately, as we say “man will do what man will”. There will unfortunately always be wrongdoing. However, serious wrongdoing, such as we have seen lately, must be disclosed promptly to prevent serious situations like that to undermine public confidence in the politicians and the public servants.

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

[Financial Administration Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her excellent answer. The only problem is she did not answer the right question. I will repeat my question: What does she think about the Official Languages Act and Bill C-8? I did not talk about the firearms registry or the sponsorship scandal, but about the implementation of the Official Languages Act under Bill C-8.

[Financial Administration Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and of the hon. member of Sudbury before her. She talked about the part of Bill C-8 dealing with the amendments to the Official Languages Act.

Does the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke consider adequate the amendments in Bill C-8 on the Official Languages Act, the transfer of responsibilities from the President of the Treasury Board to the president of the agency, and this horizontal transfer, which does not include greater responsibilities?

Since her party has a special sensitivity as concerns the implementation of the Official Languages Act in the public service, I would like to know what she thinks.

[Mathieu Lafond, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on December 26, 2004, Mathieu Lafond lost his life in the Asian tsunami. His body has been found but DNA evidence must be obtained before his body can be brought home. This procedure usually takes 48 hours. Forty-four days later, Mathieu Lafond's family is still waiting.

Is the government prepared to send a Canadian delegation, including a physician to Thailand to do the DNA test and speed up the repatriation of Mathieu Lafond's body?