Mauril Bélanger

[Committees of the House, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, presented on Wednesday, December 12, 2007, be concurred in.

I am pleased today to support my colleague by moving adoption of a very important report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. This report is the result of many meetings with many witnesses over a considerable length of time, which led the committee to make two main recommendations.

Before I read the two recommendations, I would like to mention some of the witnesses who appeared. This is important, because it shows the quality of the work the committee did on the Conservative government's wrong-headed and unjustifiable decision to eliminate the court challenges program.

Gisèle Lalonde, who is known in the area and even across the country, appeared before the committee as an individual. She is the former president of the SOS Montfort movement, and she spoke very eloquently. The committee also heard people from the Quebec English School Boards Association, the Association des parents fransaskois, the Canadian Bar Association, the Centre for Cultural Renewal, the Commission nationale des parents francophones, the Fédération des associations de juristes d’expression française de common law and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. We received other representatives of the Montfort hospital and the administrators of the court challenges program: Noël Badiou, Guy Matte and Kathleen Tansey, who was vice-president of the board of directors. Representatives of the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick and the faculty of the University of Ottawa, as well as jurists and constitutional experts from the University of Moncton and McGill University, also testified before the committee.

Basically, the committee heard everyone who really wanted to be heard. The committee's conclusion is very simple, and it made two recommendations. I will read the first recommendation from this second report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages:

That the government clearly explain to Canadians its reasons for cancelling the court challenges program.

This recommendation is very clear and very simple, and provides the government with an opportunity to explain this decision. It has tried to do that several times. In the beginning, when it announced the abolition of the court challenges program, among others, the government told us there were four categories of abolition. That was the announcement made by the President of the Treasury Board at the time, the member for Ottawa-West—Nepean, and by the Minister of Finance, who were bursting their buttons with pride for having abolished the court challenges program. They classified that decision under the heading of useless expenditures, or even a waste of public funds, a description that was insulting to the public and the people who had benefited from the program.

What was even more insulting that it was an amount of less than $3 million that produced extraordinary results, not only for minority language communities but also for minority communities all over Canada. Moreover, this was only a tenth of what was spent that year on surveys and focus groups. Yet, the government called the court challenges program a waste. That was nonsense.

Later, when we started to ask questions in the House, because we could not accept the decision or the alleged reason for it, the Prime Minister and some other ministers of his government tried another tack. They claimed that the bills they were introducing in this House would respect the Constitution. That is an interesting argument but it is totally false. It is not up to the government to determine the constitutionality of its proposed legislation.

In our legislative structure, two parties determine the manner in which Canadians are governed: the courts and the legislature.

When the government comes before the House and introduces legislation, it is not the government's place to determine whether its bills are constitutional or whether they respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We always hope that the government does its homework and verifies with the appropriate authorities that its legislative proposals would meet the Charter test—to use a legal expression—but it is not up to the government to determine that. It falls first to the legislators, all of us here in this House and in the other place, the upper house, and, finally, the courts.

When the government rises in this House and says the reason it abolished the court challenges program is because it will not introduce any legislation that goes against the Constitution, it is, in the final analysis, ridiculous and unacceptable.

There are other reasons in addition to the fact that it is not up to the government to decide. The objectives of the court challenges program are not limited to bills being introduced by a government. It also applies to all existing legislation. We are talking about laws that have existed for more than 125 years. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been embraced by the country and it has been hailed for 25 years now. The evolution of our legal and legislative system has moved forward because of the decisions of the Parliament of Canada and the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. For that reason, it cannot be claimed that, because the government says it will introduce bills that respect the Constitution, we do not need a court challenges program. All the other existing laws are subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is why the court challenges program is still necessary.

That is not all. There is all of the provincial legislation, because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains language rights and equality rights that apply not only to federal legislation, but also to provincial legislation. There is the whole body of provincial legislation that comes under this aspect of court challenges. Even if the government were truly careful to introduce only bills that, in its view, were consistent with the Constitution, there remains all the other federal and provincial legislation.

And that is not the worst part. Even the bills that this government has presented after canceling the court challenges program are being challenged under the Constitution by other levels of government. In this category there is legislation that has been presented by the government that would change aspects of the Senate and that is being challenged in the courts by the provinces.

All down the line, the government’s arguments for eliminating the court challenges program do not stand up, whether because of existing federal legislation or because of provincial legislation.

There is yet another factor that I can cite to demonstrate that there is no justification for eliminating this program: the question of decisions. Decisions that are made by governments often deserve to be challenged. I can give several examples, in fact, that involve decisions made by the Government of Canada or the governments of the provinces.

One of the most famous examples, to my mind, is the decision in the case of Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island has signed the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and enjoys the language and education rights that result from them. The province, however, for some reason, refused to provide schools for its francophone community. The francophone community won its case by bringing the matter before the courts, with the assistance, although not exclusively, of the court challenges program.

In point of fact, the francophone community of Prince Edward Island now has schools because the courts had to rule and state that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies and its scope has been defined. The government of Prince Edward Island has had to get on board and ensure that the francophone population of the province has access to its own schools.

That is a very famous case. It revolved around the absence of a decision, that is, a government decision not to build. That decision was challenged and ultimately we won the case. We could cite the example of the famous case of Mahe v. Alberta. That is a very important case in the development of the right to manage schools in Canada.

In Mahe v. Alberta, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the rights of parents who belong to an official language minority group to manage minority language educational facilities.

I have another example of a decision we are all familiar with. In this Parliament, I have the privilege of representing the electoral district of Ottawa—Vanier, where the Montfort Hospital is located. In that case, the Government of Ontario, the Mike Harris government, decided to close that hospital, the only francophone teaching hospital , the only one that offered training. It was not the only francophone hospital; there was also the hospital in Hawkesbury, we must not forget. Montfort Hospital, however, was the only teaching hospital. In that case, we were faced with a bad government decision that would have done enormous harm to a community. We won that case as a result of a hard-fought battle in the courts, waged over six or seven years, in which the court challenges program played a role in helping the litigants to make their case. Other decisions also played a part in this outcome.

It is interesting that this decision makes reference to two other decisions by the Supreme Court. One was related to the reference re secession of Quebec, where the novel principles underlying the Constitution, including the protection of minorities, were written down for the first time—I believe. In the decision that saved Montfort Hospital, there was a reference to yet another ruling where the Supreme Court recognized the basic rights of the French language community in Canada.

I have just listed a series of reasons why it is useless for the government to say that it will not introduce unconstitutional bills. But that is not the real issue. The issue is that we need a court challenges program that will help enforce the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We wondered if it was because of poor administration. The Standing Committee on Official Languages, and also the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, asked if it was because the program had been badly managed or if there had been conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest. After hearing witnesses and examining the way the court challenges program was managed, we came to the conclusion that such was clearly not the case. All evaluations and audits concluded that the program was well managed, that there was no conflict of interest and that the program had been structured in a way to avoid all risk of conflict of interest.

We must then conclude that the Government of Canada, the Conservative government, decided—in fact for the second time—to abolish the court challenges program for purely ideological motives. That is disturbing. That is why the committee asked the government to give some explanations. We are still waiting for those explanations.

The other recommendation is interesting. It reads like this:

That the Government of Canada re-establish the Court Challenges Program under the terms of the contribution agreement that was in effect before its cancellation was announced on September 25, 2006.

While it is a bit technical, there are reasons for that recommendation. First, it deals with the full program and not just the language aspect. The court challenges program consisted of two elements. About one-third of the money, slightly less than $1 million, was spent on language cases.

The other two-thirds, a little less than $2 million—I believe it came to about $800,000 in one case and $1.6 million in the other—was devoted to equality cases. It is extremely important to take that into account. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell had tabled a resolution in the House seeking to restore a type of language challenge program. That is troubling because it shows the real reason why the government eliminated this program.

During the first session of this Parliament, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage did almost the same thing as the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The committee met with a number of groups, not only on language issues but on issues of equality rights between men and women and issues of discrimination based on race or sexual orientation. Groups representing persons with hearing impairment and those with disabilities solemnly vouched for the undisputed value of this program. They had some success right after the program was abolished. It must be said that the case was already before the courts. They told us that VIA Rail, an agency of the Government of Canada, was not respecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because they operated railway cars that people using wheelchairs could not use. That is a very solid case. It is not theoretical; it is real. It is about people’s lives. There are also issues of equality. Other cases that were supported by the court challenges program before the courts involved aboriginal women and pay equity.

We suspected that the reason the Conservatives abolished the program had something to do with same sex marriage. Indeed, the courts had ruled that the current law does not respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That upset the most “conservative” members of the party. We suspect it was the reason behind the abolition of the court challenges program. That was truly heart-breaking because this was an exemplary program, not only at the national level but internationally. Canada had been congratulated by the United Nations and by many countries for its forward-looking constitutional approach in creating a court challenges program that helped citizens to defend their rights in their country’s courts. Why are they so mean-spirited?Why did they abolish the court challenges program? It breaks our hearts.

However, I am pleased to be able to say the Leader of the Official Opposition has made a commitment to restore the court challenges program when we form the next government. We will not only restore the program; we will double the funding.

I hope we can restore the program in such a way that, 30 years from now, if there ever is another Conservative government, they will not be able to abolish it a third time. I also hope we can make it independent because the Canadian Constitution is not carved in stone; it is a document. I believe that the members of the Supreme Court themselves have described it as a “living tree”. If we want to maintain and nourish this living tree, we have to feed it. The food for our Constitution, for our rights, for our way of doing things in this country, came in large measure from the court challenges program.

I find it absolutely shameful that the Conservative government, out of obstinacy,because of a mean and narrow spirit, has decided for a second time to abolish this program. They refuse to explain their reasons because there are none. On behalf of my colleagues in the official opposition, I can promise that we will restore this program and that we will continue to defend the rights of Canadians.

[ByTowne Cinema, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there is in the heart of our community on Rideau Street a cultural institution called the ByTowne Cinema, which has carved for itself an enviable and well-deserved reputation.

At this time of year when film awards loom, we will often see lineups outside the ByTowne. Why? Because more often than not, the ByTowne has found those pearls the public loves and the cinema chains have neglected. This is due mostly to the cinematic flair of Bruce White, the ByTowne owner whom I wish to congratulate.

I would like to thank Mr. White for the happy mix of indies, foreign and Canadian productions. I would also like to thank him for Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulin, March of the Penguins, Volver, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and for this year's Persepolis, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Away from Her, La vie en rose and 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days.

The next time the ByTowne features The Rocky Horror Picture Show, members should go. It is worth the price of admission and then some.

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 12th, 2008]

With regard to the tracking mechanism put in place by Canada Post in calendar year 2007 to accurately determine the cost and usage of the Library Book Rate Program, based on the data available to date: (a) what is the total cost of the program for libraries; (b) what is the total cost of the program for Canada Post; (c) what are the financial losses and revenues of the program for Canada Post; (d) how many libraries are participating in the program; and (e) what were the actual and estimated costs of the program for each fiscal year from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007?

[Grandmaître Award Gala, February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the recipients of the Grandmaître awards at the 8th annual gala, which was held February 7, 2007. Among the winners were André Brisebois, young person of the year, Jean-François Picher, educator of the year, and Alain Vachon, citizen of the year.

Le Patro d'Ottawa was recognized as organization of the year, an award that has been well earned, as the organization celebrates its 50th anniversary. Congratulations to its executive director, Denis Bédard, and his predecessors.

Dr. Harvey Barkun was recognized as francophile of the year. After a brilliant career in hospital administration, he became a board member of the Montfort Hospital in 1998 and has been actively contributing to its development ever since.

I would especially like to congratulate Pierre De Blois, a good friend, who was awarded the Grandmaître prize. After over 35 years of activism, we owe him a huge debt of gratitude for the Festival franco-ontarien, homogeneous school boards in Ontario, the important role played by the University of Ottawa in the francophonie, and I could go on.

Bravo, Pierre, and my sincere thanks.

[Official Languages Act, February 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as has been said, Bill C-482, which was introduced by the member for Drummond, would amend three acts: the Official Languages Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Business Corporations Act. If these amendments were to pass, their effect would be to give precedence to the Charter of the French Language within Quebec, and the three acts in question would therefore be subject to that charter.

To begin with, it is important to quote the Official Languages Act and give a very quick sketch of its history—of course, we cannot do justice to the complexity of this question in 10 minutes.

The act grew out of the situation that existed in Canada in the early 1960s, when it was observed that French was being given short shrift. That observation prompted Prime Minister Pearson to create the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which led directly to the proposal that later became the Official Languages Act, enacted by this Parliament in 1969. Since then, the act has been defined by the courts as quasi-constitutional.

We should also note that amendments were made to the act in 1988, including the amendment that committed the federal government to “enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities”. Further amendments in 2005 required federal institutions to “ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation” of those commitments.

Since this legislation was enacted, over 35 years ago, it has truly become an indispensable beacon, lighting our collective way when it comes to official languages in Canada.

While both French and English are official languages of Canada, the reality is that, in North America, English is not threatened in any way. That is a fact that has to be recognized. The same cannot be said of French, which has to be protected. Successive governments in this place, in Quebec and, recently, even in provinces other than Quebec have realized that they do have a role to play in protecting the French language and culture in Canada.

As a francophone living in Ontario and having sometimes had to endure unacceptable conditions, I completely understand this sensitivity, this desire to protect the French language and culture. I am therefore not insensitive to the desire of francophones in Quebec and their successive governments to protect and promote the French language and culture.

This, however, has to be done in complete respect for our laws and constitutional principles. I will refer to a few legislative provisions, including the preamble of the Official Languages Act, section 16(1) , and perhaps also section 21, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as to the 1998 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference.

Let us start with the preamble of the Official Languages Act. It is a lengthy preamble, but I will only quote the most interesting part:

The purpose of this Act is to

(a) ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions—

In debate and in speeches, the Bloc Québécois argues that this is not binding. That statement in itself would make for an interesting debate, but I will move on.

In response to a question, the hon. member for Drummond said among other things that consultations had been held and everyone appeared to be in agreement. I think, however, that if we checked with the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, we would hear something quite a bit different. The official languages commissioner told the Bloc Québécois he had huge reservations about the bill, as drafted. That ought to be taken into account.

In addition to this brief passage from the preamble to the Official Languages Act, I would like to quote subsection 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

Subsection 16(3) states:

Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.

It is very important to recognize that we are now referring to the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and not the preamble of a quasi-constitutional law. The Constitution is authoritative. We must respect it, and the Government of Canada cannot divest itself of its obligations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must remember this.

I will now examine the constitutional principles referred to in the Supreme Court ruling concerning the reference on Quebec secession. The court made sure it examined what are referred to as the constitutional principles. Although often implicit, these are the underlying principles of our Constitution. I will quote a passage from page 40 of the ruling.

These principles may give rise to very abstract and general obligations, or they may be more specific and precise in nature. The principles are not merely descriptive, but are also invested with a powerful normative force, and are binding upon both courts and governments.

The following quote is from page 50 of the Supreme Court ruling.

An understanding of the scope and importance of the principles of the rule of law and constitutionalism is aided by acknowledging explicitly why a constitution is entrenched beyond the reach of simple majority rule. There are three overlapping reasons.

First, a constitution may provide an added safeguard for fundamental human rights and individual freedoms which might otherwise be susceptible to government interference. Although democratic government is generally solicitous of those rights, there are occasions when the majority will be tempted to ignore fundamental rights in order to accomplish collective goals more easily or effectively. Constitutional entrenchment ensures that those rights will be given due regard and protection. Second, a constitution may seek to ensure that vulnerable minority groups are endowed with the institutions and rights necessary to maintain and promote their identities against the assimilative pressures of the majority. And third, a constitution may provide for a division of political power that allocates political power amongst different levels of government. That purpose would be defeated if one of those democratically elected levels of government could usurp the powers of the other simply by exercising its legislative power to allocate additional political power to itself unilaterally.

The last quote from this Supreme Court decision is found on page 54. It reads as follows:

The concern of our courts and governments to protect minorities has been prominent in recent years, particularly following the enactment of the Charter. Undoubtedly, one of the key considerations motivating the enactment of the Charter, and the process of constitutional judicial review that it entails, is the protection of minorities. However, it should not be forgotten that the protection of minority rights had a long history before the enactment of the Charter. Indeed, the protection of minority rights was clearly an essential consideration in the design of our constitutional structure even at the time of Confederation.

The purpose of these quotations is to put this debate back into a constitutional context, which cannot be overlooked. I also sought and obtained legal opinions. As the official opposition critic for official languages, I cannot support this bill. I recognize that, in terms of language of work, there may be a legal void. However, I believe it is up to the Government of Canada to fill that void and not mix public corporations, such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, ports, airports and Air Canada, which are subject to the legislation, with banks, transport companies and telecommunications companies. If there is a legal void, and I think there is, it is up to the federal government to fill it.

Nevertheless, accepting the amendments proposed would go against the Constitution, potentially threaten the anglophone minority in Quebec and create the precedent that the hon. member for Drummond tried to deny. We might then see other provincial governments in Canada ask for the same treatment, thereby also endangering the francophone minorities.

As the official opposition critic for official languages, I will vote against this bill.

[Points of Order, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the statement by my colleague from Mount Royal about Holocaust Remembrance Week and it is what causes me to stand now and make this intervention.

While the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam was asking a question about Afghan detainees, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West yelled twice, “How many Canadians were abused?”

I take it that the member for Northumberland—Quinte West would not mean by that that it is okay to abuse human beings as long as they are not Canadians. I wish he would take an opportunity to correct that record.

[Telefilm Canada, February 1st, 2008]

He just recognized, Mr. Speaker, that the funding was not adequate.

In December, I asked the minister why the Conservatives were cancelling the exhibit transportation services. The parliamentary secretary said that they were “continuing to work” on the matter. Some actually drew hope from that answer.

Yet in January, the minister's chief of staff wrote to the member for Charlottetown stating, “the only option was to discontinue the service”.

Who is telling the truth? Has the government really chosen to abandon the 100-plus museums and galleries that rely on this service? Why is the government promoting cultural isolation?

[Telefilm Canada, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the new chair of the Telefilm Canada board of directors, Mr. Roy, who was appointed by the Conservative government, yesterday told the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that Telefilm Canada's funding is insufficient. The industry has been calling for an increase for two years.

When will the government increase the Telefilm Canada budget? When will it finally support Canada's English and French film industries?

[Academy Awards, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, January 22 saw a record seven Oscar nominations for Canadian artists or related to Canadian film productions.

The film Juno features Haligonian Ellen Page who is nominated for best actress, and Canadian Jason Reitman who is nominated for best director. Torontonian Sarah Polley received a nomination for best adapted screenplay for Away from Her and for the same film Julie Christie is nominated for best actress.

Not to be outdone, Canadian David Cronenberg's Eastern Promises has its lead, Viggo Mortensen, up for best actor.

In addition to these five nominations, two short films have been given the nod. They are the NFB's Madame Tutli-Putli by Montrealers Chris Lavis and Maciek Szczerbowski, and I Met the Walrus by Torontonian Josh Raskin.

On behalf of all of my colleagues, I would like to wish these fantastic nominees the very best, and I hope that Telefilm Canada will work hard promoting these films to members of the Academy.

The envelope, please.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary delegation of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association respecting its bilateral visit to Tanzania and Uganda from September 2 to 8, 2007.