Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais

[Privilege, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I raise this question of privilege and would like to inform you that if the Chair determines that this is a bona fide question of privilege, I am prepared to table the usual motion to refer the issue to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I would like to refer to Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament , 21st edition, p. 126: molestation, reflections and intimidation.

It is a contempt to molest a member of either House while attending the House, or coming to or going from it. The Commons on 12 April 1733 and the Lords on 17 May 1765, resolved That the assaulting, insulting or menacing any member of this House, in his coming to or going from the House, or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament, is a high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and a high crime and misdemeanour', and on 6 June 1780 the Commons resolvedThat it is a gross breach of the privilege of this House for any person to obstruct and insult the members of this House in the coming to, or the going from the House, and to endeavour to compel members by force to declare themselves in favour of, or against any proposition then depending or expected to be brought before the House'.

It goes on to say in the second paragraph:

To molest members on account of their conduct in Parliament is also a contempt. Correspondence with members of an insulting character in reference to their conduct in Parliament or reflecting on their conduct as members, threatening a member with the possibility of a trial-

Earlier this afternoon after the speech by the member for Beaver River, I went to talk with my colleague from Mississauga South. At that time the member for Beaver River came over and challenged me to a debate in my riding. She wanted to know when I was available. I said I was probably available all summer, that I would be in my riding. She said she would be contacting my office.

Afterward in the discussions, I reinforced what I had said earlier in my speech that as the federal representative for the population of Madawaska-Victoria in regard to the remuneration, the pension and whatever other compensation Parliament allocates to me, I truly believe that I am worth it. It is her problem if she does not believe that she is worth it. The discussion escalated to a point where, Mr. Speaker, I think you rose.

At the same time, the whip from the Reform Party came behind the curtains and told us to bring the level of discussion down. I told the whip to take the member for Beaver River away from where I was standing. I turned to go back to my seat. It was not a question of my falling; I was turning to go back to my seat in order to end that discussion. At that time the member grabbed me by the arm.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a parliamentarian since 1987. I have never, either in the House where I was sitting, outside the House or in my riding, ever received any such physical threat.

I do wish, Mr. Speaker, that you will be ruling on this as soon as possible because I find that absolutely no member in this House, whether a man or a woman, should be assaulted physically. I was sent here to speak my views and the views of my constituents. That is what Parliaments are all about, to speak and to discuss. This is not a boxing match. I do wish that you will rule very soon on this point of privilege.

[Points Of Order, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the member in question was the member for Beaver River and it was an assault on me.

[Points Of Order, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think that-

[Points Of Order, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have an apology from a certain member who just came over here, tried to bully me around and actually physically pushed me. That is not the kind of respect we should receive in the House.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to say first that I am not a rookie. Second, I have been challenged to-

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The members of this House who have been here for more than a year should be quite familiar with parliamentary procedure. If the hon. member wishes to respond to my comments, she is welcome to do so, but not by rising on a question of privilege, as she just did.

In the old days, members of Parliament belonged to the financial elite of Canadian society. The Canadian people eventually rebelled and decided that those showing leadership in each of their communities-regardless of social and financial status, age and gender-were entitled to adequate compensation for their work so that they could represent the people properly.

In 1987, I was elected to the New Brunswick legislature for the first time at the age of 31. As in all the other legislatures, there is a pension plan for the people's representatives in the legislative assembly. In 1993, one year before having accumulated all the accrued credits for the Government of New Brunswick pension plan, I chose to run in the election to represent the people of Madawaska-Victoria in this Parliament.

Unlike some Reform members, I do not have an already established provincial pension fund and cheques coming in every month. Neither do I have millions of dollars in the bank or an armed forces pension like certain Reform members. Judging by the hubbub coming from that direction, it sounds as if I hit a very raw nerve in some of my hon. colleagues.

I would also like to remind this House that a Reform member who is a millionaire is rumoured to have said that members of Parliament, in Canada, are not paid what they are worth, and that they should be paid at least $150,000 per year. Again, whatever the topic of discussion, be it members's pensions, official languages or what not, there is this great flip flop. Name the topic, listen to the speeches, and you will notice this flip flop.

I would like to come back to a very sensitive issue that I am committed to, and that is to ensure that, in any election, the people of Canada, from coast to coast, can vote freely, without social, financial or fiscal status considerations coming into play, for the person who can best represent them proudly and honestly in this place. It is the least we can do, as Canadian parliamentarians, for the people of Canada.

I must say in all honesty that, as the member for Madawaska-Victoria, when I look at the work I am doing for the people I represent, I have no qualms of conscience whatsoever about the salary, pension or what not I get from the Parliament of Canada to serve the people of Madawaska-Victoria.

I hope that, even though they are against employment equity, my hon. colleagues from the Reform Party, will be honest and recognize that. I would call upon the hon. member for Lethbridge in particular to rise in this House today and say: "Now that I am no longer a provincial member of Parliament, I relinquish the pension I earned as a MPP. I relinquish this money I am putting in my pocket every month right now". I also call upon him to be true to what he believes in and honest with the people he represents.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening for a few hours to the remarks and sometimes even the flights of fancy of Reform members, and I would like to remind this House that the Reform Party is against employment equity, against the fact that this Parliament includes women and treats its members equitably.

[Official Languages, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate on the motion tabled in the House by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan and, what is really surprising, supported by a Bloc member, which indicates that the Bloc Quebecois will vote for this motion.

Over the week-end, in New Brunswick, the Société nationale des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick is holding its annual assembly; as one of its members, I would have liked to be there, but as the member of Parliament for Madawaska-Victoria and co-chair of the joint committee on official languages, I think it is even more important for me to speak to this motion.

I will begin by recalling the history and the purposes of this act. The original Official Languages Act was passed by the Parliament of Canada in 1969, following the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The purpose of that act was to give French and English equal status, non only in Parliament and before federal courts, as was already guaranteed in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, but in the whole federal administration.

In 1988 the Official Languages Act was thoroughly reviewed and amended. The new act defers from the old one in that it not only sets out the official languages right of the public but also clearly spells out the duty of the federal institutions in respect to these rights. It contains as well a solemn commitment by the government to enhance the vitality of the English speaking and the French speaking minority communities and to advance the recognition and the use of English and French in Canadian society at large.

We strongly believe that the Official Languages Act in its present form contains a complete legislative framework which is sufficient to ensure and to monitor the implementation of the act in a manner that is efficient, fair and transparent.

The House will know that all federal government institutions, departments, agencies and crown corporations are subject to the act. The key departments entrusted with specific responsibilities for the implementation of the act are treasury board, Canadian heritage and justice.

However, the administration of the act does not stop with federal government institutions. It is important to stress that the commissioner of official languages, the federal court and the standing joint parliamentary committee on official languages also fulfil important functions.

Allow me to review briefly the roles of the key federal institutions responsible for overseeing and reviewing the implementation of the act.

The Official Languages Act entrusts the treasury board with the responsibility for the co-ordination of the policies and programs of the government in the area of communication with and service to the public, the language of work within federal institutions as well as the equitable participation of English speaking Canadians and French speaking Canadians within those institutions.

The President of the Treasury Board informs the House when tabling his annual report.

It should be noted that the government on the recommendation of the treasury board has put into place regulations respecting service to the public in both languages. The final provisions of these regulations came into force last year.

Another key department under the act is that of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is responsible for co-ordinating the federal government's commitment with respect to the enhancement of the vitality of official language minority communities and the advancement of English and French.

Last summer in New Brunswick the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced new initiatives, including an accountability framework for the co-ordination of government commitment to the enhancement of the vitality of official language minority communities and the advancement of English and French.

The Minister of Justice is the legal custodian of the act since he retains general legislative responsibility for it.

The Minister of Justice has particular responsibilities in the areas of drafting legislation and administering justice, in both official languages, in federal courts as well as in criminal prosecutions under the authority of the Solicitor general of Canada.

We have already mentioned that the administration of the act does not stop with federal government institutions. The act provides for a linguistic ombudsman, independent of government and reporting to Parliament, who is charged with the duty of taking action to ensure that federal institutions comply with the spirit and the intent of the act.

The commissioner of official languages is not a court. He attempts to resolve issues relating to the application of the act through a process of administrative mediation. Through his annual and special reports to Parliament as well as his complaint reports the commissioner ensures that Parliament, the government and the public are kept well informed as to the administration of the act.

The act also provides Canadians with the right to seek court remedy. Pursuant to part X of the act the federal court may, if it finds that a federal institution has failed to comply with the act, grant an appropriate and just remedy.

Finally, I come to the role of the standing parliamentary committee on official languages which is charged, in the words of the act, with the duty to review on a permanent basis the administration of the Official Languages Act, any regulation and directive made under this act, and the reports of the commissioner, President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The committee has been very active in listening to the views and concerns of Canadians on official language matters. Both the commissioner of official languages and the Minister of Canadian Heritage have recently appeared before the committee as have a number of other ministers.

In my opinion the parliamentary committee is proving to be an effective, open forum for Canadians concerns with the implementation of the act.

I would like to add something to the speech. The hon. member who introduced the motion is a member of the Joint Committee on Official Languages. At the beginning of his speech, a short while ago, the hon. member said that his party, the Reform Party, supports the principles of individual bilingualism. At the end of his speech, he said that the Reform Party also supports the principles of official bilingualism.

In the Committee on Official Languages the hon. member did the same kind of flip-flop regarding the Official Languages Act, as I will demonstrate. At the beginning of our proceedings, the member made the following motion to the Committee: "Be it resolved that this committee endorse the recommendations contained in the commissioner's report on service to the public and further, that this committee encourage Treasury Board to draw up an action plan to implement these recommendations in as cost-effective and expedient a manner as possible, and that Treasury Board officials be invited to appear before our committee for the purpose of tabling their action plan at an early date", asking the committee to support unanimously the intent, the report and the Official Languages Act.

One month ago, the same member presented another motion where he proposed to abolish entirely the budgetary votes and the operating budget of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

This quite a turnaround. During the last Parliament, the Committee on Official Languages held only ten meetings over a two-year period. Since the beginning of our mandate, we have had 30 meetings in one year. Why? Because our government is keen on seeing justice done to both linguistic communities in Canada. And the main supporter of this justice and the primary promoter of the Official Languages Act is the Right Hon. Prime Minister.

If the Reform Party and the Bloc have doubts about that and are not sure that Canadians throughout the country support the Official Languages Act, they only have to look at the recent Gallup poll. It says it all.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Through the eyes of the observer.

[Committees Of The House, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages on concurrence with vote 25, Official Languages Commissioner, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996.