Marlene Jennings

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am being told by members of the Bloc that what I am saying is not true. What I am saying is factual. There are textbooks that are required by the ministry of education of Quebec and those textbooks are only available in French. It is up to the ministry of education to ensure those textbooks are also available in a translated form. It has not done that and as a result the school boards are asking that the implementation of the pedagogical reform be delayed.

As a member of an official language minority, it never ceases to amaze me how the Bloc, which claims that it wishes to ensure le fait français in North America, so easily drops the interest, the protection and the defence of those protections of the French-speaking minority outside of Quebec. When it suits the Bloc's purpose, suddenly it is the defender of the French-speaking minority rights outside of Quebec. However, when it does not suit its purpose, it drops them as quick as a hot potato. It is shameful.

I would like to read a few statistics from the Official Language Commissioner's report of 2006-07. On page 26 it states:

Linguistic duality is strongly rooted in Canada’s historic and contemporary realities. It has been one of the core values of our country since its inception, and while it has been the subject of heated debates in the past, it is not as emotionally charged as it used to be...82% of Francophones and 74% of Anglophones believe that the two official language groups should enjoy the same quality of education and are willing to dedicate more resources to the minority in order to meet this objective.

That is quite different from what the Bloc is suggesting. It goes on to state:

Canadians now consider it to be at the centre of their country’s history, culture and values. In fact, bilingualism and respect for the rights of linguistic minorities currently enjoy unprecedented support in Canada. According to a recent poll carried out in early 2006, 72% of Canadians personally favour bilingualism in Canada, a 16% increase since 2003.

I talked about the fact that anglophones in the federal public service in Quebec are underrepresented. According to the Official Languages Commissioner's annual report 2006-07, it states that “on March 31, 2001 it sat at only 8%”. This is unacceptable.

The report goes on to state:

The Commissioner will closely monitor the action undertaken by federal institutions and the Quebec Federal Council to increase Anglophone representation in the federal public service there.

However, there is the report on Canada Post. Why? It is because Canada Post is a crown corporation that comes under federal law and, therefore, it has a legal duty to create a workplace that is conducive to the use of both official languages, promoting English and French. However, Canada Post has had serious problems in the past with regard to ensuring that English-speaking minority employees had their rights respected and there have been complaints.

However, the Official Languages Commissioners who have worked on that file, the previous one, Madam Dyane Adam, and now Mr. Graham Fraser, have seen a real effort on the part of management, particularly senior management in Canada Post, to ensure that Canada Post employees are not penalized if they happen to be members of the English-speaking minority and that their access to senior managerial posts, if they meet the requirement, is not hampered by the fact that they are members of the English-speaking minority, which was the case when I worked there. It also means that managers are able to communicate with each other and properly communicate with the employees.

I want to finish with one little quote from the NDP member for Outremont who was quoted in the Montreal Gazette newspaper on October 23, 2007. Apparently he was being interviewed about the piece of legislation that incarnates this particular motion and its relevance to Bill 101. This was his response:

There is absolutely no problem right now in Quebec with the language of work...Bill 101 has taken care of the problem and removed a lot of the tension and ill will that used to exist when people in a majority French province were forced to work in English in the past.

I would take from that then that the NDP will not be supporting the Bloc motion. I would take from that then that the NDP will be very careful about the position that it takes on this particular motion because this particular motion will put the rights of the English speaking minority in Quebec in jeopardy and the rights of the French speaking minority outside of Quebec in jeopardy.

If any of the members of the NDP are thinking about supporting the Bloc motion, I would ask them to think twice about it, and possibly if they need to, think three or four times. I would urge them not to support this motion.

The majority of the English speaking minority in Quebec will take it as an affront and a denial of our minority language rights being afforded and protected within Quebec.

I do not presume to speak for the French speaking minority outside of Quebec although my family members on my mother's side are all Francophone Manitobans. My sense is that they as well will take it as an affront and a denial by the NDP, should they support this motion, of their linguistic speaking rights outside of Quebec and opening the door to provinces outside of Quebec deciding that the only language of work will be French, and that they have no reason whatsoever to protect the linguistic--

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in the debate on the Bloc Québécois opposition day motion moved by the member for Joliette, which reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, following the recognition of the Quebec nation by this House, the government should move from words to deeds and propose measures to solidify that recognition, including compliance with the language of labour relations of Quebec's Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec.

Everybody in the House knows I am fluently bilingual and that normally when I take part in debate I make a point of doing a good part, if not the majority, of my speech in French but, as a member of the linguistic anglophone minority in Quebec, I think it is important that my thoughts on this motion be registered in English.

If we look at the question of official languages and the history of our country, our country came together under the British North American Act, our Confederation, and Quebec was part of that. Our Constitution clearly set out what was federal jurisdiction and what was provincial jurisdiction. It is clear that the language of enterprises and federal agencies comes under federal jurisdiction.

I find it interesting that a party that has made its brand attacking successive federal governments for allegedly overlapping into provincial jurisdiction would now, under the guise of the recognition by this House of the nation of Quebec people, as an excuse to enter into federal jurisdiction.

We have two official languages in Canada and those languages are French and English. Anyone who attempts to say that by having and promoting both official languages somehow opens the door to other languages is making a spurious argument. That is the first thing.

Second, anybody who sits in the House, in my view, has a duty to ensure that linguistic minority rights are protected, and that means anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside of Quebec.

I have a great deal of respect for many of the Bloc MPs but with this motion they are ensuring that the linguistic minority rights of anglophones living within the borders of the province of Quebec will be unprotected. As it stands now, when one looks at the report of the Official Languages Commissioner, anglophones in Quebec are not adequately represented in federal institutions. I will not even talk about provincial institutions.

The Government of Quebec has had an equity employment program for cultural communities and the linguistic minority anglophones and yet anglophones comprise, I believe, possibly 1% of the provincial civil service, and federally, notwithstanding the fact of our presence in Quebec since the very first days, we do not comprise more than 8% of the federal public service in Quebec.

The Official Languages Commissioner has, time and time again, been forced to investigate complaints about the roughshod treatment that the English-speaking minority in Quebec has suffered within federal institutions and now the province would like to see the workplace language of enterprises under federal jurisdiction be French only.

When the Bloc Québécois first tabled its private member's bill, which is where this motion comes from, the Official Languages Commissioner already had concerns about the English-speaking minority in Quebec having equal access to health services, which is provincial jurisdiction, in their mother tongue.

Educationally, an article appeared recently in the paper about how the English-speaking school boards, the teachers and the unions were demanding that the Government of Quebec not institute its pedagogical educational reform. Do members know why? It is because the textbooks that the children need to use to learn the subject matter and from which their final exams will be based on are not yet available.

Therefore, we know there are already difficulties both provincially and federally. Neither government has clean hands when we talk about the English-speaking minority in Quebec and ensuring the protection of our linguistic rights and our rights to services in our language. The Bloc Québécois, which states that it defends all Quebeckers, is not defending my rights in Quebec nor is it defending the rights of my community in Quebec. It is not defending the rights of the other English-speaking minority in Quebec.

I will not even begin to speak about the French-speaking minority outside of Quebec because, Lord knows, should this motion be adopted, the Bloc and anyone in the House who votes in favour of this motion will have opened the door for provincial governments outside of Quebec to suddenly decide that the only official language will be English and forget about the French-speaking minority outside of Quebec.

I do not understand the lack of shame on the part of that party. I am a Quebecker. I just heard one of the Bloc members say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Status of Women is a Quebecker, notwithstanding the fact that she is a federalist. I too am a federalist and, according to the definition that the Bloc member of Parliament just gave, I am a member of the Quebec nation.

In that case, if the Bloc wants to claim that it defends the rights of Quebeckers I expect to see it defending my rights in Quebec as the English-speaking minority within Quebec. I am a strong supporter and advocate of bill 101. One of the good effects of that was that my community began to freely choose to send their children to French language schools. They wanted their children to be bilingual so they could work for the provincial government or for private enterprise which come under provincial rule. However, surprise, surprise, we cannot get jobs there even though we speak French.

In this case, the Bloc is not defending my rights as the English-speaking minority in Quebec. It is not defending the rights of my community within Quebec because the only place where we are able to find jobs, notwithstanding the fact that we are bilingual, is in federal institutions. Even there we are not represented as much as we should be, but at least that door is partly open.

I would like to see the Bloc members get up and defend my minority language rights. I would like to see the Bloc members get up and talk about the fact that textbooks that are required in our schools in Quebec are not available in English and that our children are being forced to use photocopies. It is ridiculous. The textbooks are not available because they have not been translated by the government.

[Human Rights, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to invite all of my hon. colleagues to visit the Tolerance Caravan, which is being hosted all day today in room 256-S Centre Block by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide and other Crimes Against Humanity.

This is an initiative of the Tolerance Foundation, a Montreal-based organization created to raise awareness about the consequences of exclusion, prejudice, racism and the most unspeakable of crimes, genocide.

On this 14th anniversary of the Rwandan tragedy, blood is flowing in the streets of Lhassa, villages have turned into bloody battlefields in Darfur, and yeshiva students have been murdered in Jerusalem.

In the shadow of these events and in the light of the message of hope offered by the caravan, I invite my fellow parliamentarians to visit the Tolerance Caravan. There will also be a reception today at 4 p.m. in the same location, 256-S Centre Block.

[Ethics, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative committee chairs have been following orders from the geniuses in the Prime Minister's Office to ignore the rules of Parliament. They have regularly been leaving meetings they are responsible for chairing so that nobody can ask the Conservatives about the Cadman affair.

My question is for the Chair of the Standing Committee on Justice, not the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Why did he decide to cancel his committee's meeting scheduled for this afternoon? Is he trying to prevent a democratic vote to study the Cadman affair and the Criminal Code?

[Ethics, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker,

The opposition parties have a majority on parliamentary committees...The government will have no choice but to listen to these newly-empowered committees.

Who said that? It was the now Prime Minister back in 2004.

It looks like the Prime Minister does not stand for accountability when his own ethics are called into question. Why is the government now stopping the justice committee from carrying out any parliamentary examination of Conservatives trying to bribe Chuck Cadman?

[Business of Supply, March 12th, 2008]

If you want the death penalty to come back, you should say that again.

[Business of Supply, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate with quite a bit of interest.

I will say about my esteemed colleague for Mount Royal that his ears must have been burning as he listened to the Minister of Public Safety repeat over and over again that it is the policy of the current government not to seek to overturn the death penalty in Canada. While I do not have the information in front of me, I will be more than happy to table, later today or early tomorrow morning, specific quotes from the minister himself, from the Prime Minister and from other members of the Conservative government who clearly stated that they support the death penalty.

The government may have a formal policy that it will not seek to reinstate the death penalty in Canada, but members of the cabinet, including the Prime Minister, and members of the Conservative caucus have clearly made public statements that have been publicly reported which indicate that they do favour revisiting the issue of the death penalty and having it reinstated.

I would ask my colleague from Mount Royal if his ears were burning as he listened to the Minister of Public Safety obfuscate--

[Ethics, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on December 5, 2005, at two separate events, the Prime Minister was asked about an offer to Mr. Riddell, and he replied each time “there is no agreement”. However, an email from his party reveals there was in fact a binding agreement in place on November 25, 2005, 10 days before the Prime Minister's categorical denials.

Given these facts, why should anyone in this House believe the Prime Minister now when he categorically denies there was any financial consideration or offer to Chuck Cadman?

[Ethics, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in December 2005, the Prime Minister denied that his party had reached any kind of agreement with Alan Riddell so he would step aside to make room for another Conservative candidate. He was asked twice and denied it both times.

An agreement was in fact reached on November 25, 2005, a month before the Prime Minister denied it right here.

Why should we believe the Prime Minister today, when he denies making a financial offer to Chuck Cadman?

[Fay Bland, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to a resident of my riding, Fay Bland, who recently passed away.

Fay was a committed and compassionate activist for developmentally disabled. For more than 50 years, her efforts enabled scores of developmentally disabled children and young adults to lead fulfilling autonomous lives in their communities.

Her accomplishments are too numerous to mention. One of these projects, AVATIL—Apprentissage à la vie autonome/Towards Independent Living, provides apartments, group services, social development programs and assistance to clients so that they can live independently on the West Island.

In 2006, Fay Bland was honoured for her efforts with the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award.

Our condolences go to her family and friends and I salute the legacy of this wonderful Canadian woman.