Alexandrine Latendresse

[Official Languages, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives are serious about protecting the French language, they will have to be accountable with respect to the status of the study of French in federally regulated businesses.

In November 2011, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable promised to set up a committee to study the issue.

It is now 2013. Where is the committee? Who will sit on it, and what will its mandate be?

[Official Languages, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-419 on the bilingualism of officers of Parliament will be put to a vote this evening.

It is unfortunate that the Conservatives forgot the parliamentary tradition of appointing bilingual officers of Parliament and that the NDP was forced to remind them of it with a bill.

However, they are not the only ones to have lost their way. Auditor General Kenneth Dye, who was appointed by Pierre Elliot Trudeau, did not speak a word of French.

Now that the Prime Minister has acknowledged that appointing unilingual officers of Parliament is a mistake, can the Conservatives assure us that they will not prevent Bill C-419 from going to committee?

[Language Skills Act, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank all those who believe in this bill and have expressed their support.

I am very proud that I can count on the support of so many of my colleagues from all parties. To my colleagues in the governing party in particular, I would like to reiterate the fact that we remain very open to discussion and co-operation regarding any amendments they would like to propose in committee. We think it is very important that this bill pass and we are open to co-operating with them regarding any technicalities they might like to improve.

Language is a fundamental part of identity. Our language is the structure upon which our thoughts are built. Language is an essence of the self. It is intimate, because it lies hidden in all corners of the conscious mind. In a way, we are the language we speak. It has programmed us. We spend our lives trying to defeat its mastery over us.

I love language. It is the field I studied, and one day I will go back to it.

Language has political consequences. Our understanding of nationhood is mostly based on linguistic differences. Where the language changes, often, with time, a border has appeared. Then there are the wonders of the world, bilingual countries, such as Finland, Belgium, Switzerland, Tunisia, Lebanon, Morocco and Canada. All these countries came to adopt official bilingualism because of different historical and political realities. Arab countries on the shores of the Mediterranean have French from France's former colonial empire. The kingdom of Belgium is a country with borders defined by ancient wars of succession. Switzerland is a patchwork of little and gorgeous cantons that each enjoy a great amount of political independence. Canada is a huge chunk of land left over from British imperial might that has succeeded in becoming one political entity.

History quite literally shapes countries, and it shapes our lives, however detached from it we may feel. Let us talk about history a bit.

In Canada, over the last 40 years, we have come to terms with many aspects of language issues. A great amount of energy has been invested by extraordinary people to make sure that both English and French are respected in Parliament. We have come a very long way from when we were practically a uniquely English-speaking environment. A strong prejudice was once felt by French-speaking minorities scattered across the provinces that saw English as a language ruthlessly imposed by a majority.

Political sensibilities in the 19th century were very different from what they are now. Canada was an imperial colonial experiment from the get-go, so naturally, it carried in its very structure the will to impose. We do not need to try to imagine what that was like. Aboriginal people are still being imposed upon and treated as if they are colonized. This is one thing we still have to fix.

The Parliament of Canada is a bilingual institution. I am often amazed at the quality of the work done by the translators who make sure that every single line of legislation, every last sentence jotted down, is made available in both languages. The task is huge, and it is carried out effortlessly, like it was no more demanding than a stroll through a park. However, translation takes a lot of time. Parliamentary translators work around the clock to make sure that everything is translated.

I am lucky. Even though I still have an accent, I am bilingual. When I sit here in the House, I do not have to listen to the translation. I listen to each person directly. I read papers as they come to me in whichever official language.

Officers of Parliament need to access all kinds of information quickly, and that means without delay. Their job is very important, as they make sure that Parliament does its job properly. They are the eyes of Canadians in the core of the institution. They make sure that everybody is accountable. They are the safeguards in the system. As such, they need to understand exactly what is happening. We cannot possibly tolerate an officer who needs to deal with French-speaking Canadians through a translator.

I would like to remind the members and the public at home that my bill is only consecrating in the law something that is already an established habit. Officers of Parliament need to be bilingual. Institutional bilingualism is something Canada cannot go back on. The only way is forward, and this bill is a decided step in the right direction.

[The Senate, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are cutting public services like crazy. Aboriginal Affairs will be cut by $480 million and CIDA by $471 million. VIA Rail Canada will lose 60% of its budget.

In the meantime, the budget of that relic we call the Senate continues to increase. Just ask any Canadian, regardless of their age or province, whether it is better to spend money on services and job creation or on an outdated institution like the Senate.

No one would choose to squander public funds on people who are unable to fill out a form and who just approve Conservative policies without even reading them. In fact, only the Liberals and Conservatives continue to feel entitled to have their parties' fundraisers subsidized by taxpayers.

While the Conservative expense scandal is heating up, with Senator Wallin—who did nothing wrong in the Prime Minister's eyes—having to pay back thousands of dollars, the Conservatives are nonetheless going to increase the Senate's overall budget while reducing that of the office of the Senate ethics officer.

The NDP has had enough of senators who cheat. In 2015, we are going to put a stop to this.

[Ethics, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives did not defend Senator Duffy the way they are now defending Senator Wallin. If I were him, I would be worried. Sooner or later, they will have to stop taking us for fools.

For the quarter in which the 2011 federal election was held, Senator Wallin spent over $25,000 on “other” taxpayer-funded travel during which she campaigned with Conservative candidates. She is the guest of honour at party fundraising dinners and makes the rounds of TV studios to spin the Prime Minister's message.

Do the Conservatives think it is okay to spend taxpayers' money spreading the word about their campaign platform?

[Ethics, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in two years, Senator Wallin, an unelected senator who is not accountable to anyone, racked up over $350,000 in travel expenses. She criss-crossed the country, mostly doing partisan work for the Conservatives. Your taxes, ladies and gentlemen, are being used to fill the Conservative Party coffers.

In the hall of shame that is the Senate, Wallin ranks fourth on the spending charts. That is hardly the kind of housecleaning the Prime Minister promised seven years ago.

Do the Conservatives condone the use of public money for partisan purposes, yes or no?

[Petitions, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition signed by more than 3,000 people from my riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent who object to the closing of a Canada Post office.

For the past few years, access to postal services in my riding has been declining steadily, and people are worried. The post office in L'Ancienne-Lorette closed last year despite fierce opposition from the people who live there. Now Canada Post wants to close the post office in the largest shopping centre, Les Galeries de la capitale, despite clear opposition from the merchants.

In response, some 3,000 people have joined those merchants in calling for postal services to be maintained in Les Galeries de la capitale. The people in my riding and the surrounding area treasure that post office and do not understand why their local service, which is located in such a strategic place, should be closed so abruptly. It is clear to these people that Canada Post must reverse its decision.

[Canada Elections Act, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, how can we take them seriously when they are dragging their feet like that?

It has been nearly a year since the House of Commons unanimously adopted a motion to give more power to Elections Canada. Since that time, however, the Conservatives have been twiddling their thumbs.

Instead of following through, they have treated us to wonderfully creative tall tales about the NDP.

In short, they have done nothing to strengthen laws, and their party has even reoffended with more fraudulent calls.

What measures will the government put in place to end election fraud?

[Canada Elections Act, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last year the Conservatives voted for an NDP motion to clamp down on fraudulent calls. The motion called for more power to the Chief Electoral officer. That motion also said that legislation would be introduced in six months. However, here we are 11 months later, and while they drag their heels on making the law stronger, Conservatives are making thousands of deceitful robocalls. Is that why the government has delayed amending the Elections Act?

[The Senate, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the antics of the Prime Minister's buddies, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Brazeau, are revolting.

It is not enough to simply get rid of these bad apples while still protecting the Liberals' and Conservatives' entitlements. This five-star retirement home for generous donors is hemorrhaging public money.

In 2011-12, 19 senators missed more than one-quarter of the Senate sittings they were expected to attend, and seven of the senators appointed by the Prime Minister racked up six-figure travel expense accounts. It costs a lot of money to pretend to live somewhere.

The Senate is stacked with political organizers who use taxpayer money for partisan activities. Talk about a deep-seated lack of accountability.

While the Conservatives are prepared to milk community groups for every last obsolete penny, every year the Senate guzzles hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to simply do the bidding of the Prime Minister's office.

And the latest trick designed to fool people? Pretending to be more legitimate by appointing elected senators for life who do not have to be re-elected. Good job.

Why not put an end to this farce and abolish this hall of shame once and for all?