Alexandrine Latendresse

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou who is such a wonderful colleague. He always encourages us to go farther. I am very grateful to him because he is part of the reason why I am here now. He was one of the first people to encourage me to go into politics over five or six years ago now.

So, he is partly responsible if I am now in this position where I can defend these ideals and try to build a Canada that better reflects who we are and that will listen to my generation, something that has practically never been done to date. This will allow us to have a Canada where no one is left behind. I therefore thank him very much for his contribution.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his question. That is the reason we decided to support this bill. Despite it all, we think that we have to go in that direction.

Like him, we agree that many amendments should be adopted in committee. We therefore want Bill C-52 to go to committee and for the amendments proposed by his party and ours to be seriously considered and possibly adopted.

I am fully prepared to be hopeful and optimistic. However, statistically speaking, if we look at the number of bills that have been amended in committee since the Conservatives got a majority, chances are not in our favour. Still, we think it is important to continue in that direction.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to Bill C-52, which would amend rail transportation legislation.

It really surprised me that I could find something to be angry about in a rail transportation bill. Perhaps "angry" is a bit strong. Exasperated may be a better word.

What could I find so exasperating in an attempt to provide recourse for unsatisfied users of rail shipping services? It is very simple. It is as though the government is pretending to fix the problem to give the illusion that it is taking action. Members will notice that I said "exasperating" and not "surprising", since this is becoming a trend.

Bill C-52 is another example of the Conservative government's chronic mismanagement. Rail transportation fuels Canada's economy. Of all the countries in the world, Canada is one that was built by the railway. The railway was behind every aspect of our growth.

The quality of rail infrastructure still has a direct impact on Canada's entire economy today. This is not news to the government; it knows that.

Usually, the Conservative government—as patriotic as ever—would defend our businesses' access to the rail system. Nearly 150 years ago, at the start of our Confederation's growth, it was the country's lifeblood. It was an almost heroic era when Canada dreamt of defying the world.

That was the 19th century. While the situation is quite different today, it is easy to explain. Rail companies are extremely prosperous and make ridiculous profits. And that is understandable because without them, Canada would be paralyzed and would have almost no economy.

A crucial detail that I should point out, even though it may be useless to do so, is that there are only two rail companies in Canada. The minister spoke of a “duopoly” when describing the situation, and that was fine in the first hour of discussion. But I do not like that term because “duo” means “together”, not just “two”. And that is the crux of the issue.

The ridiculous profits I mentioned keep piling up. Let us face it, there really is no competition. These two companies share all of Canada's rail transportation business and more, and they always have. These are two major, historic Canadian companies, if we can still call them Canadian now that they have been privatized.

That is the government's only motivation: do not upset the large corporations that are raking in huge profits. If any disputes arise between those companies and the small shippers, let us give the companies the power to shut them up quickly. Some would even say with nickels and dimes.

One might speak out and say that it is counter productive, that it is irrational to do that. Yes, that is true, but this would be forgetting that, first and foremost, these people, the government and the railway companies, know each other and talk to one another. These people are perhaps not exactly in collusion, but they definitely share certain sympathies. Yes, they are sympathetic to one another.

In addition, in the intellectual shackles of puritanism, which is the basis of the entire Conservative approach, it is clear that the fittest gets his power directly from God and must not be opposed. Success comes from God almighty. Put that all together and there you have the inspiration for Bill C-52 and for everything else, of course.

Here is what bothers me about the result, Bill C-52. I already know how the Conservatives will respond: “The economic recovery is too fragile. We must not make any waves. We have to ensure that we have everything going for us. We cannot do anything to compromise the railways' efficiency, not for the measly crumbs, not for a company worth, at worst, $100,000.”

After all, we are not reinventing ourselves. These people are not likely to engage in such deep reflection now in the middle of February.

This is the same old story. After dragging its feet for so long, now the government is stubbornly defending a characteristically weak and contemptuous bill. Let us rename it: Bill C-52, an act that says that railway companies can break any contract they like for $100,000, and be done with it. What a bargain.

Rail lines are real structures that result in exchanges and economic benefits that are just as real. There is a direct impact at all levels of economic life. If remote shippers can no longer rely on the two national companies, they might not exist at all. If shippers are neglected, they and their communities are not being allowed to participate in the country's development.

All paths starting on the margins lead to the centre. Coming from a government that claims it will leave no stone unturned to achieve prosperity, it is rather strange. For people who take every opportunity to proclaim to the world that supporting the right is the best way to ensure the well-being of business, it is more than revealing.

Is that the Conservative government's great recovery plan for outlying regions? Yes, undoubtedly. Bill C-52 is striking proof. Develop resources, process them, but do not try to sell them because all the railway cars are taken. This is more proof that there is no plan and that this will have to wait, again. However, be happy, there are a lot of people lined up to talk to the government and you can chat with them. There is the manufacturing sector, my entire generation and all aboriginal peoples of Canada. You will surely find something to talk about to pass the time.

I would like to acknowledge the work my colleague from Trinity—Spadina has done on the issue before us today. I say "colleague" because that is how we refer to each other here, even though I would prefer to use a word that better represents the respect I have for her. She not only wants to do everything, she can do everything. If the official opposition transport critic says that she has met with all of the stakeholders, it means that she has met with all of the stakeholders, even the ones who were hiding. And if she says that a clear majority does not like anything in this bill, it means that there is damning and incontrovertible evidence.

The government can pull all kinds of adjectives out of the Oxford English Dictionary to defend itself, evade the issue and have us believe it worked very hard to restore balance, but no one is listening. That is what I find so exasperating. I hope I am being clear. I find the gaps in logic between what this government claims it is doing and what it is actually doing appalling. The urgent need to fix the problems with the rail companies was a perfect opportunity for the overconfident Conservative government to show that it could do its job. And what happens? It is the first to jump into bed with the rail companies. Nothing gets in the way of love, not even having the lights out.

When Canada has a problem, it would make sense to look elsewhere to see if other countries have found solutions, not to copy them, but to at least draw some inspiration from them. We do not live in a vacuum. And I mean that in a geographic sense, because intellectually speaking, it is obvious that the other side has sucked people in with their empty rhetoric.

Over the past 50 or so years in Canada, the concern that we used to have for our rail system has all but faded. When passenger rail travel became less common, trains and the incredible rail system that stretches like fingers across the country no longer captured our imagination as they once did. The superhuman effort that rallied half a continent quickly died. Yet trains in Europe are flourishing. How often have I heard Quebeckers talk about travelling in Europe and how astounded they were by the quality of rail infrastructure in the European Union?

The pride that you feel is overwhelming when you arrive at Berlin's central station and see “Bombardier” in huge, white letters in the middle of the large window. But you quickly see the unbelievable difference between the European trains that Bombardier builds and the antiquated trains we have here because there is no political will.

The European Union will stop at nothing to ensure that its rail system, which is a huge tangled web of railways that it inherited from the national systems of 27—soon to be 28—countries, is the most competitive in the world. Europe understands our own historical example better than we do ourselves. Without an outstanding, competitive rail system, our country would almost not exist. Bill C-52 may look like a simple legal adjustment concerning a situation that the public can quietly neglect. In fact, quite the opposite is true: it is the government that is neglecting it. When blood flow is cut off to an organ, it dries up and dies. And nolens volens, the rest of the organism will die along with it. That may be a somewhat silly and dramatic image, but it is fair to a certain extent.

In closing, a country is like a house and Canada is like a house built on a beautiful, huge plot of land. It is a land of dreams. We can build little out buildings, create gardens and build a chicken coop. The house itself, which is already huge, could easily be improved, since we have the wood and the carpenters needed to do so. When the NDP has the last word in the affairs of the house, we will work hard to make this house, which we all share, more comfortable, more manageable and even more beautiful. We will add new rooms for children and grandparents, as well as a library and bicycle storage.

For years the Liberals spent their time changing the carpets and arguing about what to call the house, and the Conservatives boarded up the windows because it was too drafty and heating is too expensive. You have to spend money to make money. The right-wing faction should understand that.

The Conservatives need to create jobs in rail transportation instead of allowing themselves to be wooed by the rail companies who have everything to gain by seducing them. In any case, that has already happened, and here is the result of their six years of efforts: Bill C-52.

[Language Skills Act, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Nickel Belt for his comments and his question.

I was quite moved and very honoured to learn that my bill is likely to receive widespread support in the House of Commons. The whole process of introducing a bill, meeting with people and convincing them of its merits is quite remarkable.

It is crucial that we, as Canadians, take care of one another, that we talk to each other and that we reconcile our linguistic duality, which all too often takes priority over other issues in this country. This is a good way to send a clear message in order to promote bilingualism and everything that makes Canada such a beautiful country.

[Language Skills Act, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier for his question.

I have indeed heard that some amendments may be brought forward, but I have not officially been apprised of any details. Therefore, I cannot say where exactly matters stand. However, we are more than willing to consider any proposed amendments, particularly as regards acting appointments. Obviously we are open to considering any amendments that are brought forward.

However, I do think that we must proceed with caution. We must not make too many concessions, because we do not want people to use this to get around the law. But we are open to considering any amendments brought forward. The important thing is for the bill to be passed and for mistakes like the ones we saw last fall to be avoided in future.

[Language Skills Act, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. It is quite relevant in light of the nature of the bill and initiative under discussion.

As I see it, reconciling bilingualism and competency is not really a problem because bilingualism as such is a skill in this instance. To argue that requiring persons to be bilingual in order to be appointed to office potentially excludes some more qualified individuals is a little like saying that there are no bilingual persons in Canada qualified to fill this position, or that there are no bilingual persons who are qualified enough to hold this office. In my view this is not a real problem because clearly we have a large pool of highly skilled bilingual persons. I do not think it is that difficult to appoint persons from this pool to these positions.

[Language Skills Act, December 10th, 2012]

moved that Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise here today to introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-419, to the House and to answer questions from my hon. colleagues.

First of all, I would like to take a moment to sincerely thank my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, for all his support and the huge efforts he has made regarding my bill. I do not know anyone who advocates for bilingualism as passionately and eloquently as he does. I hope his bill requiring Supreme Court judges to be bilingual will enjoy as much success as mine.

If I may, I would like to take the time to provide some more detailed information about the substance of my bill. I know my colleagues are already aware of what Bill C-419 proposes, but I would like to begin by clearly defining the foundation for the changes proposed in this bill.

My bill has already received quite a bit of media attention, which makes me very proud. My bill has inspired people to take the time to contact my office, looking for more information and asking some excellent questions. During my speech, I will draw on some of those very relevant questions in order to ensure that my approach remains clear and can be easily understood.

Bill C-419 is actually very simple. The bill's official summary states that “persons whose appointment requires the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament must understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter and be able to express themselves clearly in both official languages”.

Those few people whose appointment must be approved by one house or both houses are commonly called “officers of Parliament“. Therefore, Bill C-419 would require that officers of Parliament be fluent in Canada's two official languages when they are appointed.

For people watching at home, I want to stress again that this bill would not require that all elected federal MPs be bilingual. That would be an amazing proposal, but it is a different kettle of fish and not what we are working on today. This bill only refers to officers of Parliament, those senior officials who, as I just explained, are appointed by the House of Commons or the Senate, or by both the House and Senate.

There will still be unilingual MPs in our Parliament. That is totally normal. However, just as government operations must adapt to the needs of Canadians, Parliament must adapt to the needs of elected MPs. This means that officers of Parliament must adapt to the needs of MPs, no matter what their language background.

A question that naturally springs to mind is: how many officers of Parliament are there in total?

Who are they? First of all, these are people who have expertise like few others, who fulfill an essential role in our democratic system. The Parliament of Canada has to be accountable to Canadians. That goes without saying. This accountability is guaranteed through the work of officers of Parliament. In a way, they are akin to safeguards, alarm systems and safety nets. They guarantee the legitimacy of the parliamentary system. They are there to support the government in its obligation to keep Canadians abreast of what it is doing. When the government fails to disclose everything, officers of Parliament can go through the government's paperwork to ensure that everything is in order, legal and fair. They are the eyes of Canadians in the drawers, wastebaskets and paper shredders of the government. Understandably, officers of Parliament are a valuable resource in our system. They are the most reliable component of the entire parliamentary process.

How many are there? Roughly 10. Why do I say “roughly”? Because this is not a precise and well-defined category. There is a bit of a grey area. The precise definition of who is an officer of Parliament and who is not—and for many other categories for that matter—seems to be more a matter of tradition than anything else.

My bill focuses on 10 positions. What are they? I will list them: the Auditor General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Senate Ethics Officer, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada and the President of the Public Service Commission of Canada.

That is all of them. Canadians are not always aware of the important role these various people play. Every year, these officers of Parliament table reports that have a major impact on how political life in Canada unfolds. If any inconsistencies are noted, the government will be required to explain those to the opposition and, by extension, to Canadians, to whom we are all accountable.

The system is perfect not because it prevents abuse but because any abuse will always be detected in the end. The safety measures are an integral part of the system and help to ensure that the system functions properly. However, to be able to detect this abuse, officers have to be able to understand what they are told and what they read.

Imagine if the former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, had not been bilingual. It would have been much harder for her to understand the complexity of the sponsorship scandal, since it was centred in Quebec. When officers have to analyze such sensitive and complex documents, it is of the utmost importance that they be able to do so in the language in which those documents were written. A mastery of both official languages was absolutely essential for Ms. Fraser because, despite the excellent work of the translators and interpreters, she might have missed some nuances that were key to understanding the scandal. Let us not forget that, without Ms. Fraser, this charade might still be going on.

Officers of Parliament have a clear mandate: to uphold, promote and monitor integrity. They have the right to know everything, to ask anything and to understand everything that is happening within their jurisdictions.

The Auditor General of Canada must conduct independent audits of government operations. He reviews the accounting, checks the accuracy of financial statements and decides whether the government is using public funds effectively and fairly.

The Chief Electoral Officer is the senior official responsible for the administration of federal elections and referendums. His office is responsible for registering political parties, maintaining voter lists and enforcing the Canada Elections Act.

The position of Senate Ethics Officer is held by one of the senior officials of the Senate who are responsible for ensuring that the Senate institutions run properly. The Senate Ethics Officer is responsible for enforcing the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators.

Next, the President of the Public Service Commission of Canada is the head of the commission. The commission—and I am quoting the by-laws and operating principles of the Public Service Commission—"is an independent agency mandated by Parliament to ensure a public service that is competent, non-partisan, representative of the Canadian population and able to serve the public with integrity and in the official language of their choice.”

Whether we are talking about the Commissioner of Lobbying, who ensures that elected officials fulfill their rights and obligations under the Lobbying Act, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who is responsible for giving confidential advice to public office holders, or the Commissioner of Official Languages, whose job is to ensure that everyone abides by the Official Languages Act, they all protect Canadians, elected officials and the system.

Our system is precious and reliable. It exists for all of us, and officers of Parliament play an essential role in maintaining the excellence and sustainability of the system. It is easy to see. These senior officials must all deal with Canadians from both of Canada's linguistic groups and must consult documents written in both languages. Their understanding of French and English is essential.

Bilingual candidates have generally been appointed to these positions in the past. Everyone acknowledges the fact that the ability to interact in both languages is a prerequisite if we want the job to be done well in a timely manner. In other words, tradition has been a kind of precedent.

Being bilingual in French and English is a competency. Since Canada adopted institutional bilingualism, anyone in this country who wants to become bilingual can do so. It is a matter of putting in the time; all of the tool to get there already exist. I will be very specific. I am talking to those who may not entirely understand. Institutional bilingualism simply means that the government adapts to its citizens; not the other way around. One thing remains clear: linguistic duality will always exist.

No one is trying to create a culturally bilingual state. Not at all. The anglophone side will continue to live, dream and love in English, and the francophone side will continue to do the same in French. Bilingualism is seen as a plus, but it is not an obligation in this country. When Canadians who live in linguistic minority communities talk about bilingualism, they often mix up certain concepts. Some say mean things, others say incorrect things and others dream about multicultural utopian futures. There is no shortage of opinions.

I would like to make some things clear. People often use foreign examples—European ones, specifically—to support their opinions, but those examples do not necessarily reflect our situation. People name officially bilingual countries in Europe, assuming that it is the same thing and that we should either act the exact same way or the complete opposite way.

One of the countries most often mentioned is Belgium. However, it is actually not an appropriate example. While there are parallels between our situations, the Belgian model does not really apply to the Canadian situation. First, the country’s very small size is a factor. There is no need to deploy resources far from Brussels, since the federal capital is readily accessible to everyone. As we know, that is not the case for us.

Second, the linguistic dividing line in Belgium is very firm, and ultimately it has made Belgium a completely decentralized, even divided, country. Flanders and Wallonia live side by side, but they manage their own cultural affairs without really needing to consult each other. Canada tries to do things quite differently. We want to live together.

If fact, if there is a European country whose language situation better reflects Canada’s, it is Finland. Finland is officially bilingual. Finnish and Swedish are both protected in the Finnish constitution. The Finnish government adapts to the Swedish minority language group by providing it with all government services in Swedish. In Finland, children systematically learn both official languages in school. Our situation is similar. Although the Swedish-speaking minority mainly lives within a well-defined geographic area, its members do still live all over Finland.

The Finnish government makes sure that all services it is responsible for providing to the public are available in both languages.

That is institutional bilingualism. The government arranges things to include everyone. No one is obliged to be something they are not. No one tries to impose their language on anyone else. That is the most appropriate system for Canada, for our demographics and our geography.

It will come as no surprise to anyone if I say that of the two languages, French is the one in the minority in Canada. This naturally creates a situation with which we are already familiar. More French speakers than English speakers are bilingual. This is not a criticism directed at the majority; it is simply an observation.

On that point, however, I would like to mention Quebec's English-speaking minority. The last four decades have had an enormous impact on how that segment of our society has come to see itself. Political events and the development of new sentiments in Quebec have compelled these million individuals to reinvent themselves and adapt.

I would like to take this opportunity to tell the anglophones of Quebec that we are proud to live with them and that our future will be a shared one, just as our past has been.

We might think, then, that this bill would benefit francophones more because they are more aware of the need to learn the second language than are anglophones, who are the victims of an odd sort of prejudice precisely because they are part of a majority all their lives. However, I believe that this is a completely false argument.

You do not suddenly become an officer of Parliament by surprise in the middle of a career as a clerk in Saskatoon or as an undertaker in Sorel, without seeing it coming. Someone who is already moving in circles from which he or she may emerge as a candidate for that kind of position is well aware of Canadian law and knows that bilingualism is a requirement.

We are causing harm to no one by requiring bilingualism as a precondition by law. On the contrary, we are doing a lot of good, and here is why.

I have just returned from Moncton, the capital of Acadia, where I had the opportunity and pleasure to meet with several Acadian cultural organizations. Passing through Acadia always does an enormous amount of good for your national feeling. The people you meet there are often extraordinary. Acadia is a land of rare, even unique dynamism and vitality.

So I went to meet with those organizations to present this bill to them. The Acadians long ago made a clear choice for their future. New Brunswick being what it is, they decided that bilingualism was an asset, and they thus made it part of their vision for society.

New Brunswick is the only Canadian province expressly referred to in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Its bilingualism is protected, and that is clearly set out in the act.

Reaction to this initiative was very positive. All the organizations offered their support for my bill. To them, it was clearly consistent with the general thrust of the goals we have set for ourselves as a country. I was very pleased to see that this bill met some genuine political expectations in Acadia.

Acadians live as a linguistic minority. They are therefore extremely sensitive to that fact and know how to advocate for their rights. From the outset, of course, they are a people of uncommon strength of character. As a Quebecker, I can say that, whereas we in Quebec complain like souls suffering in the limbo of our thwarted desires, Acadians often forge ahead, make demands and win.

It is an unusual privilege to be able to travel across our country and see how attached people are to their language rights.

Perhaps we should stop viewing ourselves as the Trojans of North America.

We need only talk to each other and listen to each other because Canada is a fundamentally open, progressive, fair and good country. We are the envy of the entire world as result of these values that define us and that Canadians fully embrace.

I am personally convinced that we have every interest in joining forces and working together. That is ultimately the only way for Canada's two linguistic communities to reconcile. What some have for too long called two solitudes can ultimately prove to be two solicitudes.

[Conservative Party of Canada, December 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I dreamt that my statement was written by a henchman from the Prime Minister's Office. It went something like this.

Senator Mike Duffy has been a resident of Ottawa for years, but taxpayers pay his living expenses nonetheless. Once again, the Conservatives are stuffing their pockets with taxpayers' money while preaching restraint for everyone else. Had they not had to pay the living expenses of the unelected, unaccountable senator, who has no democratic legitimacy, my constituents could have bought hundreds of Sherwood hockey sticks so their children could play hockey. But no. Instead of having our young people keep the hockey stick market afloat, the Conservatives want our children to drift into the hell of drug addiction. Their proposed merger of the maritime provinces is a diversionary tactic and would transform New Brunswick into a park where they could raise dinosaurs.

Mr. Speaker, it was just a nightmare. In this place, the misuse of public funds is unacceptable. We do not feel the need to make up stories just to lay it on thicker. The Conservatives should perhaps give it a try. It feels good to tell the truth, and it makes one look less foolish.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Western Arctic knows this topic very well. He has always been a good advocate for first nations. I am really proud of him.

I have seen the numbers. The different aboriginal administrations right now table more than 60,000 reports with the ministry of aboriginal affairs. That is 165 reports every day that these administrations have to give to the minister. Right now the government has no shame. It has the nerve to tell us that there is no accountability and there is not enough transparency when it is already drowning in bureaucracy and paperwork.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that subject.

[Labour, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the NDP introduced a bill on protecting French as a language of work in federally regulated businesses.

The Conservatives—even those from Quebec—voted against it and responded by proposing that a committee be set up to examine the issue. Twelve months later, we see that all the Conservatives have done is create more bureaucracy in order to ensure that they do not have to keep their promise. The minister says that it is important to take the time to do things right, so it is time for some answers.

What stage are we at in the process to set up the committee? Who will sit on the committee? What will its mandate be?