Benoît Sauvageau

[The Grey Cup, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to add the warmest of congratulations from the Bloc Quebecois to the thousands of Montreal Alouette fans. They may have had to wait 25 years to do it, but the Alouettes are finally taking Lord Earl Grey's cup back to Montreal.

This great victory leaves a bad taste in the mouths of French-speaking fans, however. How could we not comment on the fact that thousands of Quebeckers and French Canadians could not follow the exploits of the Alouettes in French unless they had cable? What excuse can there be for such a major sporting event, one of the major sponsors of which was the Government of Canada, not being able to attract the attention of those in charge of Radio-Canada? After the threatened demise of La Soirée du hockey , Radio-Canada has done it again and, in league with the CFL, has once again penalized francophone sports fans. This is one time too many.

[Official Languages, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

After a seven month delay, the Minister of National Defence has finally released his annual report on official languages in his department.

Does the Minister of National Defence not find it indefensible that, again this year, the situation is far from having improved, since close to 60% of military personnel in bilingual positions are still unilingual anglophones?

When will this government respect francophones?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 18th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is appropriate to begin by reminding the House what led to today's debate on Bill C-17. This bill has been before us for a long time. It previously had different titles. It was originally known as Bill C-55, before becoming Bill C-42. It is now before us as Bill C-17. This legislation was changed and improved somewhat to meet the major concerns of the public, the main stakeholders and the opposition in recent years.

The bill was significantly amended as regards designated military zones. We can say—as my colleagues have done, and it is only normal to do so without being too boastful—that it is a victory for the opposition, a victory for individual rights over security. In this regard, the fact that this legislation has been tightened up the way it has is a victory for democracy and for the public.

During the week of recess, we went back to our respective ridings. People often ask us “What exactly is the role of the opposition?” Bill C-17 provides a good example of the role of the opposition. I do not agree with the former Minister of Finance who said that the opposition does not make solid suggestions to the House. An example of a solid suggestion that we made to the government is when we said “Listen, you are probably going a little too far with these designated military zones”. We called the government to order.

This bill, like the young offenders legislation and other bills that I could mention, provides an example of the role of an informed opposition. It provides an example of how it helps correct proposed measures. At no time have Bloc Quebecois members, and members of the other opposition parties, said “We are opposed to the bill, whether it is Bill C-55 or Bill C-42”. However, we said “Even though we agree with the idea of providing greater security for the general public, individual and civil rights must not be violated for the benefit of collective security. Let us be cautious in this regard”. We said it time and again.

People ask “What point is there to a debate, if there is no vote immediately afterward? Are these just empty debates?” We have, however, been heeded by someone somewhere. Between the two sessions there have been some positive changes made which enable us to say that this bill is an improvement. We are therefore encouraged to continue to make improvements. We are all in agreement with the principle of ensuring people's safety. As I have said, however, their rights must not be sacrificed in the process.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore very pleased with the amendment relating to military security zones, namely that they have been done away with. On the other hand, we are still wary. We are saying to the government and the stakeholders “Heed us as you did for the military security zones. We feel some improvements still need to be made if this bill is to be the object of consensus. Consensus is the goal of everyone in this House”.

There are still problems, however, one of them concerning interim orders. Here again we have evidence of how the opposition can bring about constructive improvements to a bill, if only through what is said here in the House. Let us compare the three bills we have had presented to us concerning these interim measures: Bills C-42, C-55 and C-17. Initially, we were vehemently opposed to C-42 and C-55 as far as military zones and interim orders were concerned.

What did Bill C-42 have to say about these interim orders? The interim order was made by a minister, or in certain cases by departmental officials. It ceased to be in effect after 90 days, unless ratified by the governor in council. In other words, these were 90-day interim orders.

We said “This is terrible; it is wrong; it is dangerous. It goes beyond common senses to give so much power with respect to interim orders”. If memory serves, the government members' reaction at that time was to label us irresponsible, to tell us “These responsibilities are justified. We are entitled to have 90-day interim orders”. They listened to us, nevertheless.

When Bill C-55 was introduced, the period was reduced from 90 to 45 days, “unless it is approved by the Governor in Council”. At least, the government listened to us and reduced the period to 45 days. Still, the timeframe was felt to be unreasonable and, as a result, in Bill C-17, it was further reduced to 14 days. It went all the way from 90 days to 14 days.

To those who ask what good the opposition and its speeches are, I say that we have the ability to influence the government and bring it to make changes when it goes too far—in negotiating, one often asks for more just to get what is reasonable—and 14 days is probably more reasonable.

With regard to the introduction in Parliament of a bill like this one and the important role played by parliamentarians, members should know that there were no provisions for the tabling of interim orders in Parliament. At no time could the people's representatives have voted on or examined the orders, had Bill C-42 been passed.

In Bill C-55, the provision read “within 15 days after it has been made”. Under Bill C-55, the timeframe was 15 days from the time an interim order was tabled, and this timeframe has been maintained.

Naturally, we see that substantial improvements have been made from the initial version of the bill. However, the main problem, the lack of a preliminary review period to ensure compliance with the charter and enabling legislation, remains.

While welcoming improvements with respect to the powers of the various ministers and officials in connection with interim orders, there is a more serious problem with the new legislation before us—we are not alone to say so—and it concerns the exchange of information.

In this respect, if time permits, I would like to read two excerpts from the release by the privacy commissioner:

This same provision has now been reintroduced, with only minimal and unsatisfactory change, in the replacement legislation, Bill C-17.

He is talking about the exchange of information. And he adds:

But my concern is that the RCMP would also be expressly empowered to use this information to seek out persons wanted on warrants for Criminal Code offences that have nothing to do with terrorism, transportation security or national security.

I would like to point out to the President of the Treasury Board that the Privacy Commissioner does not respect the Official Languages Act, as far as I am concerned, or at least the spirit of the act, because he seems to have problems with our language, unlike the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Auditor General, both of whom respect the act and the spirit of the act. However, I am sure that the President of the Treasury Board was aware of this. Just a quick aside.

The Privacy Commissioner found other problems and when Bill C-42 was introduced, he was quick to voice his concerns about the broad powers that were being given to CSIS and the RCMP to obtain information on matters unrelated to security, terrorism or the protection of citizens. With these new powers, they would be able to arrest other criminals here and there, based on information they received. There was a great deal of talk about this, and “Big Brother” was what we saw.

To conclude, this bill is very interesting. It proves that it is possible to improve upon a bill. It also proves that the opposition, when confronted with a bill as important to public safety as this one is, can make real and specific proposals to improve it, calling on the government and stakeholders, so that everyone can support it.

However, at this time, we in the Bloc Quebecois still cannot support this bill because of the interim orders but, more importantly, because of the sharing of information, which, as the Privacy Commissioner has said, goes beyond the powers of this government.

[Official Languages, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government has set March 2003 as its deadline for ensuring that people in positions designated bilingual are bilingual, which is self-evident.

Will the Minister of National Defence tell us if he plans on respecting this deadline, given that his department's last report on official languages indicated that 46% of the staff at defence headquarters still do not meet the bilingualism requirements?

[Official Languages, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this has gone on for 33 years. That is long enough. In defence, Air Canada said yesterday that it was applying Department of Transport directives.

Can the minister tell us who is telling the truth? Is it Air Canada or the Department of Transport that is in violation of the law?

[Official Languages, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, 33 years after the Official Languages Act was passed, Air Canada continues to violate it. Unable to assign bilingual staff to certain flights, the company is asking French-speaking passengers to switch flights, instead of respecting their rights.

Does the Minister of Transport find it acceptable that after 33 years, Air Canada is still unable to comply with the law?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, had I had the opportunity to take part in the questions and comments period following the speech by the Minister of Indian Affairs, I could have asked him, after these consultations with 10,000 members of aboriginal communities and after all these fine words and wishes on what he intends to do to support these communities, what he has done with the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission's report, which contained clear, specific recommendations. They were tabled four or five years ago, and we have yet to see a sign from the government that it intends to follow up on these recommendations. The answer would probably have been that the consultation process was still going on.

The Commissioner of Official Languages used this analogy, which I do not want to claim as my own. If they used this principle in hospitals when someone who is seriously ill arrives, if they analyzed, if they consulted and took that much time, they would probably be better off calling the mortician, because they would not have time to act after finally making a diagnosis.

The same kind of thing seems to be happening with aboriginal people, unfortunately for them and for the government.

Before getting into the subject of the throne speech, I will expand on what I said during oral question period, because it appears there may have been a misunderstanding by some people. It is important to keep in mind, to underscore, what I said and to spend a few moments on this within this address in response to the Speech from the Throne. I will be splitting my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Matapédia—Matane.

Even if there is little reference to it in the throne speech, the federal government does contribute financially to some one hundred international institutions. Earlier, I gave the names of three of these, the World Tourism Organization, the High Commission for Refugees and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Year in and year out, the federal government contributes financially to these organizations.

In these three organizations, and several others I have not as yet named, one of the prerequisites for candidates is that they must have English as their mother tongue, along with a knowledge of French or another language.

In other words, although all francophones in Canada pay taxes to the federal government, and a portion of those taxes goes to these huge international institutions, whose merit we all acknowledge, they cannot apply for a job with these huge international institutions because they have the misfortune of having been born to a French-speaking mother or father.

More than seven million Canadians who pay federal taxes are denied access to jobs with these institutions.

If a satisfactory or excellent knowledge of English were required, or perfect bilingualism, trilingualism or knowledge of four languages, there would not be a problem. However, everyone not born anglophone—for it is not only French-speaking Canadians who are penalized, but all non-anglophones in this country—cannot apply to these large international institutions for jobs. Canada will, however, continue to pay its contribution, take part in major international forums and pat itself on the back.

This is a very important matter the government needs to address. It is specifically mentioned in the throne speech. On page 12, it is stated:

Linguistic duality is at the heart of our collective identity.

In this case, linguistic duality means affording equal opportunity to the English-speaking and French- speaking people of this country, everywhere. I have, however, just cited a concrete case, one that is with us every day and is very pertinent, to prove that there is no equality, no employment equity, as far as linguistic duality is concerned when it comes to employment opportunities in major international institutions.

Further on in the throne speech, the following statement is made:

The government will implement an action plan on official languages—

Allow me to comment briefly on this action plan.

The last Speech from the Throne, two years ago--in April 2001 if memory serves me well--mentioned appointing a person, an official languages coordinator. The supposed saviour in this important area came in, the minister responsible for official languages coordination, and promised us that an action plan would be presented in short order, an essential, vital and important element to ensure the vitality of minority language communities.

There were some very humble acknowledgments from the minister. He said that he was given this responsibility by the government, by the Prime Minister. However, in committee, he admitted candidly that he had no additional staff in his office to help him work on the issue and that he had not been given one cent more in term of his budget to put toward dealing with the enormous challenge. He also admitted that he had no action plan, and that he had not started work on anything, and that he had not even established a timeframe. However, he assured us that he would be presenting a plan soon.

I think that someone should do a master's thesis, or a doctoral dissertation on the definition of soon as used by the Liberal government. For two years now, the Minister of Transport has been saying soon with reference to a highway; for four years now, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been saying soon with regard to the Erasmus-Dussault report; for 14 years now, the various ministers responsible for official languages have been saying “we will soon be providing a specification to section 41 of the Official Languages Act”. So, we are justified in at least wondering what the true, etymological significance of the word soon is, when used by our friends opposite.

But we are still waiting for this action plan from the minister responsible, who does not have money, resources or people to implement it. Last year, in 2001, the minister told us that he would release his action plan. But then he backed off and said, guess what, “I need to hold more consultations”.

This is what he did. Last June, he said, “I will release the draft of my action plan, the initial version, to find out if minority communities are living under satisfactory conditions”. The minister showed up in Whitehorse and said, “I am not ready. I will release my action plan in the fall”. He arrived here in Ottawa at the beginning of the parliamentary session and told us, “I will table my action plan in October or November”. Then, surprise. The minister said, “Come to think of it, perhaps I should wait until after the budget, to find out if I will have the resources to do what I set out to do in my action plan”.

Everyone is anxiously awaiting this action plan, and expectations are high. The minister is well aware of this, which is why he keeps postponing his plan from year to year, month to month, week to week, with the result that we will have to wait longer.

Elsewhere in the throne speech, it says that the plan will be released and will focus on minority language and second language education. Reference is also made to doubling the number of high school graduates. Everyone recognizes—and the minister was told so in Bathurst, New Brunswick—that this is a provincial jurisdiction.

We have nothing against encouraging this with the provinces' consent. But stepping in and invading an exclusive provincial jurisdiction across Canada is out of the question. The minister should focus on entitlement. Fifty per cent of those entitled to French schooling do not have access to it. Why not pay closer attention to them instead of interfering in matters that concern the provinces?

Further on, it has this to say about the government, and I quote:

It will support the development of minority English- and French-speaking communities, and expand access to services in their language in areas such as health.

They say they will wait for the Romanow report. We are still waiting for a report or some form of consultation. I am still quoting from the throne speech:

It will enhance the use of our two official languages in the federal public service—

I conclude by reminding hon. members that more than 30 years after the enactment of the Official Languages Act, approximately 30% of positions designated as bilingual within the public service are held by unilingual individuals. Still today, over 30% of positions designated as bilingual are held by individuals who speak English only.

The Speech from the Throne was very well written. So was the previous one, in 2001. However, what minority communities expect is for these words to be acted on, because there is an urgent and immediate need for action. The Commissioner of Official Languages keeps repeating, as do the Bloc Quebecois and the committee, that action is urgently needed, and that a concrete plan, along with resources for its implementation, is expected.

[Official Languages, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that several international agencies and organizations stipulate English as a first language as a condition of employment, rather than asking for a good knowledge of that language.

What concrete and quick action does the minister responsible for official languages intend to take to put an end to the discriminatory practice of certain international organizations to which Canada makes a financial contribution, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the World Tourism Organization and the NATO parliamentary assembly, which stipulate English as a first language as a condition of employment?

[Official Languages, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Commissioner of Official Languages reminded us of the government's slowness and apathy regarding the issue of official languages. While urgent action is needed, the minister responsible is suggesting that he may postpone until this winter the tabling of his action plan, which we have been waiting for two years.

How does the Prime Minister explain this new delay in the tabling of the action plan, considering that the Commissioner of Official Languages is increasingly insistent in condemning the slowness, lack of leadership and apathy of this government in the area of official languages?

[Business of the House, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are happy to hear that the Liberal government accepted the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois under Motions Nos. 1 and 6, in the debate on Bill C-54, an act to promote physical activity and sport, which should be taking place this afternoon.

Now that the government party has agreed with the Bloc Quebecois' position, it gives me great pleasure to request the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motion Nos. 1 and 6, to amend Bill C-54.