Jean-Claude D'Amours

[Supreme Court Act, March 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative member opposite may be tired of grandstanding, but he should have more respect for the matter we are discussing because it is extremely important.

[Supreme Court Act, March 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House this afternoon to express my support for Bill C-232, which was introduced by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.

Since I became a member of Parliament nearly six years ago, this member and I have sat together on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We may not always see eye to eye, but we always work to the same end when it comes to bilingualism. We also promote bilingualism so that it plays an active role in Canadian society.

Today, the end is finally in sight for this bill my colleague introduced in the House, and I hope it will be passed in the near future.

My colleague from Bourassa introduced a similar bill, but it died on the order paper when the Conservative government hastily called an election in the fall of 2008.

This bill does not try to tell all Canadians that they have to be bilingual. That is not the purpose of the bill. But under this bill, all Canadians have the right to be heard in their own language in the Supreme Court. That is a huge difference. It is not imperative that all Canadians be bilingual, but we want every individual or lawyer who appears before the Supreme Court of Canada—the highest court in the country—to be able to use the language of his or her choice.

More and more, Canadians are realizing the importance of bilingualism, even though no one is required to be bilingual.

My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst named several organizations that support his bill. I will not repeat all their names, for I want to talk about something else. I would like to mention one, however, Canadian Parents for French. I say hats off to this group of anglophone parents who want to ensure that their children can receive an education in their second language. This will help them develop their bilingual skills in the areas of education, work and their social lives in general. This kind of organization or community group understands the importance of bilingualism. We must be able to continue supporting them.

Supreme Court judges sit on the highest court in the land. If someone is not satisfied with the Supreme Court ruling, we cannot tell them to plead their case to another court at a higher level. That is impossible, because that court is the highest court. Accordingly, we must provide adequate services to citizens who appear before it. To do so, we cannot forget certain things when trying a case.

For instance, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst gets carried away now and again, but that is his nature. He uses expressions that are unique to him. In a speech, however, the expressions are just as important as the vocabulary one uses. Before a court, people speak passionately to get their point across. A judge's perception can be very different if simultaneous interpretation is used. Once again, it is not that the simultaneous interpretation is bad. On the contrary, it is an excellent service.

However, as we all can appreciate, defendants and their lawyers may talk so quickly that their way of speaking and the words they use could have completely different meanings for a francophone judge and an anglophone judge. Accordingly, judges must be able to speak and understand both official languages, so that defendants can be guaranteed that they can make themselves understood before the Supreme Court. If it does not work, at least they will have the satisfaction of knowing they took their case as far as they could.

They will have to take comfort in that fact that they were able to make their point fully without getting the impression that interpretation worked against them.

We have argued that the words used will be translated. My family name is D'Amours. It would be translated as Alove by those who can translate. That is not the same; it might be someone else's name. The purpose of this example is to show that this sort thing can make a difference when in court. I can completely change the meaning of a sentence or expression.

Bill C-232 introduced by my colleague does not require every Canadian to be bilingual and undergo training in both official languages. It provides that a citizen or lawyer will be able to plead a case before the highest court in the land in the language of their choice, knowing that the people in front of them understand what they are saying.

We are not talking about introducing a fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh language at the Supreme Court. We are talking about this country's two official languages: French and English. Both French and English-speaking people in my riding expect me to address them in their own language. People expect that much of a private member. They expect it even more when they go before the highest court in the land. They expect that they will be addressed in their own language and that the final judgment will be made on the basis of the message that was conveyed.

The Conservatives can say they are making an effort regarding the bilingualism of judges. The Supreme Court judge who replaced Justice Bastarache is bilingual, but this cannot just happen from time to time; it has to happen every time, with an emphasis on the word “every”.

I do not know why the Conservatives are against Supreme Court judges being bilingual. Very few people are against my colleague's bill. However, my colleague has realized that a number of members opposite are against the bill. We see that they are out of touch with reality.

[Supreme Court Act, March 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, first, I wish to thank my colleague for his speech.

He raised an important point. We may tend to speak a little faster in French. This makes it a little harder for the interpreters, who are doing an excellent job, to follow what we are saying. The same is true at the Supreme Court level.

I would like the member for Acadie—Bathurst to clarify a point. When he says that he hopes the government too will support his bill, I do not think he means just with kind words. He does not expect the government to just say nice things about official languages, but to actually vote for his bill, so that being bilingual becomes required to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Is that right? Does the member not want the Conservatives to do more than say nice things about bilingualism, and take some very concrete action like passing this bill concerning the Supreme Court?

[Petitions, March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by more than 250 people from Sainte-Anne-de-Madawaska, a town in my riding, who want to save their post office. The petitioners mention that the Liberal government imposed a moratorium in 1994 on rural post office closures.

The people of Sainte-Anne-de-Madawaska are afraid of losing this asset, which is important to the future of a small community. This small town needs infrastructure and needs its post office, and the petitioners are calling on the federal government to maintain the moratorium on post office closures.

The people are very nervous, because they found out that the government had decided to close some post offices on short notice.

The people and the Liberal Party are asking that the moratorium be maintained so that people continue to be served by our rural post offices.

[Rural Regions, March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has to understand that a position cut and transferred is a job lost in rural areas. When 24 good federal jobs are lost, the economy of our regions is affected and opportunities for our youth are curtailed.

Before talking about the decentralization of jobs in rural regions, the Conservatives could at least show respect and replace the positions in our regions which were moved elsewhere as part of centralization.

There is only one thing for the Conservatives to do and that is apologize and bring jobs back to our regions. When will the Prime Minister stop the hemorrhaging imposed in rural areas?

[Rural Regions, March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, since the Conservatives came to power, we are seeing a massive wave of job losses. In my riding, highly trained Service Canada employees who are retiring are not being replaced and their positions are simply being transferred elsewhere.

Now we learn that the Conservatives are going to eliminate all the employment insurance processing positions in the regions of New Brunswick. My riding will have lost more than 24 well-paid permanent positions.

Why are the Conservatives attacking the country's rural regions? Why are they so against the Atlantic regions? Why do they have no respect for people from rural Canada?

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, March 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

The two ACOA programs were for a five-year period ending March 31, 2010, with a total investment of over $475 million. Now those funds have run out, and the Conservatives are offering a mere $19 million a year to replace them.

The Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency should do as his colleague, the Minister of Industry, did: apologize for the cuts and restore the programs with 2009-level funding.

When will the minister take action for the people of Atlantic Canada?

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, March 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, with budget 2010, the Conservative government has shown that it hopes to eliminate economic development agencies, including ACOA.

Under the previous Liberal government, two programs were created: an innovation fund and a communities fund.

Last year, $113 million was available for those two separate programs. Today it was announced that only $19 million would be available.

Now that the Conservatives have announced a $94 million funding cut for this year, can the minister explain to us why he has abandoned the people of Atlantic Canada?

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservative member opposite mentioned employment insurance. It seems that the Conservatives are trying to take over the file, but it still remains a problem. Whenever they talk about it, they try to take the credit, but, on the flip side, it is necessary to consider the drawbacks they created.

We know that the Conservatives introduced a bill that was passed. It was under their economic action plan, as they say. For instance, a long tenured worker could receive up to 20 additional weeks of EI benefits. But who does not have access to that? Seasonal workers.

So I have a simple question for the member opposite. Why does she not consider seasonal workers, who have worked in the same industry for the same employer for 30 years, to be long tenured workers?

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member across the way for his speech. He raised an extremely important issue that also affects my riding: EI.

I think the member forgot to mention one thing though. The pilot project for economic zones will end just a few days from now. That affects my riding, the Madawaska region, and the member's riding, the Lower St. Lawrence region.

Over the past few weeks, we have heard the member say that people just have to find more than one job. Then they might not have to apply for EI benefits, and the pilot project for economic zones would become irrelevant. Without that program, the unemployed will simply be penalized and will not be eligible for other EI programs. Economic zones have a specific role.

I would like to hear the member tell us if his position remains the same or if he has changed his mind, like the industry minister who flip-flopped today about community Internet access centres. I would like to know if the member still thinks that all workers have to do is find more than one job to avoid having to rely on the economic zones pilot project.