Mauril Bélanger

[National Acadian Day Act, June 12th, 2003]

moved that Bill S-5, an act respecting a National Acadian Day, be read a second time and referred to committee.

Mr. Speaker, today is a great day, because we will finally officially recognize August 15 as Acadian Day. This bill originates from the other place, and I am privileged to be able to move it on behalf of my Acadian francophone colleagues here in the House. They were not able to introduce the bill, because they are parliamentary secretaries or ministers. They are good colleagues. They could not accept the invitation from the other place to introduce this bill, so I was asked to do it, and I am proud to be able to do so.

I know that one must be careful in identifying individuals in this House and in the other place, but I believe I should indicate that there were are least two senators who worked particularly hard in this matter. The initiative began with a colleague from the same party in the other house, Ms. Losier-Cool. I would be remiss in not mentioning her initial motion that led to a senator from an opposition party, Senator Comeau, introducing this bill. I will not go any farther with my recognition of them, but I did not want to miss this opportunity to commend their work as the intiators of this bill, which will officially recognize August 15 each year as National Acadian Day.

This date was chosen during the first Acadian National Convention, which took place in Memramcook, the birthplace of one of our Governors General, the Right Hon. Roméo Leblanc. It is also the birthplace of the parents of one of my assistants and I know she will find this reference a little ironic. I wanted to mention it because, since becoming a member of this House, I have discovered an absolutely incredible affinity for the Acadians as a people.

They are an exemplary people. They survived the deportation, which, as we know, began in 1755 and continued for some years. This is a people who have been put to absolutely incredible tests, who reacted with determination, came back to their homeland, and now are a shining example of abilities, energy, imagination and creativity for all francophones in Canada.

This creative energy is found in Acadia in the spheres of the arts, business and politics. There is also a fierce determination to take one's place and put down strong roots in the land. In this people, we see pride that they exist and that they are flourishing. I would like to be able to take this pride and spread it through the rest of the country. The star on Acadia's flag shines brightly and shows us the way ahead.

When I was asked to introduce this bill, I felt very proud, and I accepted at once. I thank my hon. colleagues in the other place for their initiative, and my hon. colleagues in this House, for giving their consent so that next year, we will celebrate not only the first anniversary of National Acadian Day, but also the 400th anniversary of the presence of francophones in the Americas.

[Committees of the House, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this creates a huge problem for people who want to follow the debates of the House. It is a technical problem in some cases because the debate is not available in both languages, but it is also an accessibility problem.

I will give an example of the technical aspect. Some television viewers—that is what we are talking about—have a feature called a second audio channel, or SAP, which allows them to switch from English to French. However, there are so many steps to go through that by the time a person accesses the other official language, the comments are finished and often, in the House, we have moved on to something else. This is an unacceptable solution to most people, especially since it is not available to everyone.

The other problem is that, following a CRTC decision, every Canadian with cable will now have to pay a few cents more every month to access the Cable Public Affairs Channel and the debates of the House. This is not right because if we are required to pay for something, we should be able to receive it in the language of our choice.

That is what the Constitution of Canada and the Official Languages Act stipulate and that is what we want. I think the case can be won. We will see what happens in the courts shortly.

[Committees of the House, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue. The Government of Canada, as instructed by the Parliament of Canada, has created a court challenges program. This Parliament has recognized that it should be providing assistance to its citizens who wish to uphold their rights, despite actions of the government or of Parliament, rights that are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We created the court challenges program to that effect, which has been used time and again to challenge government and parliamentary decisions so they are respectful of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of the country. Unfortunately, as members of Parliament, we are precluded from applying to the court challenges program. Therefore that avenue is closed.

As colleagues know, we cannot use our members' operating budgets to seek legal advise, or legal help or to pay the costs associated with the preparation of legal briefs. We must get it from the House. In this case we are in a bit of a quandary because the Board of Internal Economy holds a different position than I and many members of the House. The committee asked, through the proper channels, that the Board of Internal Economy supply financial assistance so the opposite view could also be defended, as the courts have agreed to hear it. That has been turned down.

We now have a situation where the privilege of members of Parliament, I believe, is being infringed upon, not by any intent but by circumstance. If members of Parliament are restricted from using the court challenges program, if the Board of Internal Economy will not provide any assistance, and if a member's operating budget cannot be accessed for that, how is one supposed to challenge the chair, challenge the Board of Internal Economy, challenge the laws, as it is our duty to do, especially in the matter of official languages where the committee is given a mandate by the Official Languages Act to do so?

It is rather unfortunate that the Board of Internal Economy chose not to consult the committee, a committee struck by the House, with a mandate to look at the Official Languages Act and its application. That is fine. However I believe the committee and myself, representing it in this case and as a member of Parliament, have a right to that.

I thought it was important that these matters be put on the record. What the courts will decide, the courts will decide and we will act accordingly. However I believe it is important that members of Parliament be given the ability, if the courts will recognize their applications to be interveners in a case, to have funding to that effect. It is a principle that is adhered to in Canada. We adhere to that as Canadians.

For Canadians to be unable to listen to the debates in their own language, means we would then have trumped their rights. If we can speak either language in the House and they cannot access those debates in their language, whether it be French or English, then someone's rights are not being respected as per the Constitution of this country and as per the Official Languages Act.

I understand that the members opposite are not fussy about official languages and respect of rights, but I would hope that this message would be conveyed to the Board of Internal Economy in due course.

[Committees of the House, June 12th, 2003]

There is time. Twenty minutes is allowed for motions to be moved.

[Committees of the House, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by giving a brief chronology of the events leading up to this day and perhaps into the near future.

In the spring of 2000, a gentleman by the name of Louis Quigley, who is a resident of Riverview near Moncton, New Brunswick, wrote to the Commissioner of Official Languages of the day complaining about not being able to follow the debates in the House of Commons in his own language. Mr. Quigley is an anglophone and the cable distributor in his municipality offered strictly the floor sound.

Whenever someone intervened in the House in French, he could not follow that discussion and interventions. This is because the cable distributor for Riverview has opted to only broadcast the floor sound, instead of broadcasting two channels, one in English and one in French.

Mr. Quigley wrote to the Commissioner of Official Languages in the spring of 2000. In October 2000 the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled the reports of the inquiry that was conducted in this matter. The reports concluded that the Official Languages Act obliges the House of Commons to ensure that all citizens of Canada have an equal access to the debates of the House of Commons in both of Canada's official languages.

In December 2000, after the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages had not been accepted by the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons, Mr. Quigley sought redress at the Federal Court Trial Division, as the Official Languages Act entitled him to do.

On December 5, 2001, the case was heard in Halifax. It was a case where the Commissioner of Official Languages was granted intervener status defending the recommendations of her committee.

On June 5, 2002, Judge O'Keefe of the Federal Court Trial Division ruled in the Quigley case and stated that indeed the House of Commons was subject to the Official Languages Act, with special reference to article 25 of that act. Judge O'Keefe ordered the House of Commons to ensure that where its debates were available to Canadians that they be available in both official languages within a year.

One June 21, 2002, the Board of Internal Economy appealed the decision of the Federal Court Trial Division. On July 29, 2002, the Standing Joing Committee on Official Languages issued a press release after it had met stating essentially that: first, it welcomed the decision of Judge O'Keefe of the Federal Court Trial Division; second, it regretted the decision by the Board of Internal Economy to appeal that decision; and third, it would consider seeking for itself intervener status.

On September 16, 2002, Parliament was prorogued and all committees were disbanded.

On September 27, 2002, and it gets a little complicated here and that is why these things have to be put on the record, the Attorney General of Canada advised the Federal Court that it would not seek a leave to appeal this decision. It was satisfied and accepted the decision of the Federal Court Trial Division.

On October 10, 2002, the other place made a decision to create its own official languages committee, thereby causing the House to review its own regulations to have its own standing committee. There was some delay in setting up the committee, which occurred on November 7, 2002.

In that timeframe the decision to seek intervener status had to be made because the ability to do so was closing. Acting on my own, but with the full knowledge of the members of the official languages committee, I sought intervener status. There were no objections from Mr. Quigley and no objections from the Commissioner of Official Languages. The Board of Internal Economy also had no objections as long as I sought it personally, which I did.

On November 22, 2002, I obtained intervener status in this case, which I believe might be heard at the end of September 2003 in Halifax.

The reason why I and the committee felt it was important to seek intervener status was because we felt that the House of Commons was subject to the Official Languages Act and that the invocation of privilege, although we recognized privilege, had its limits.

In this case our view is that it is up to the House to decide whether it wishes its debates to be broadcast, and no one will ever question that privilege, certainly no member of the committee. However once that decision has been made, it is our view, mine in particular, that the House must ensure that these debates are available to all citizens through their cable distributors in both of Canada's official languages.

As the past co-chair of the joint committee and current chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I thought it was my responsibility, as it is that of the committee, to ensure that the Official Languages Act was respected. The act itself gives such a mandate to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Therefore it has had an interest in this issue since day one.

[Committees of the House, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, presented on Wednesday, April 30, be concurred in.

Before I get into my remarks, there are two things I wish to state. First, I will not be voting either for or against concurrence of this report because this matter has been brought to your attention on a couple of occasions that, given the content of the report which was adopted by the committee and reported in the House, it might involve a conflict or perception of conflict.

Even though I am moving this motion so that I can seize the House of the content and the subject matter in order to avoid any perception of conflict, I will not be voting for or against this report. I shall abstain if ever it comes to a vote.

Second, I will make all of my remarks in English in order for some Canadians who might be listening and in particular the member who is involved in this matter so he can follow the debate in his own language.

[National Acadian Day Act, June 11th, 2003]

moved that Bill S-5, an act respecting a National Acadian Day, be read the first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

[Interparliamentary Delegations, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, as well as the financial report relating thereto.

The report deals with the meeting of the APF parliamentary affairs committee held in Sofia, Bulgaria, from May 17 to 21, 2003.

[Urban Affairs, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Ottawa Business Journal carried a story about possible announcements regarding municipal transit in Ottawa.

One source had a major funding announcement coming out of the Minister of Transport's office before June 18. Another one had a major announcement regarding a funding mechanism from Industry Canada regarding municipal transit projects. There seems to be quite a bit of confusion.

Would the minister responsible for the strategic infrastructure program care to dispel some of this confusion and comment on these announcements about municipal transit in Ottawa?

[Public Service Modernization Act, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have three questions for the member for Halton. First, why were there no amendments about this matter introduced in committee or even in the House at report stage? There were ample opportunities for that to happen, yet it does not seem to have happened and one wonders why?

Second, I have been advised that in Great Britain public servants do not swear allegiance to the monarch but to the duly constituted government of Great Britain. I am also advised that in Australia, a Commonwealth country which had a referendum supporting the monarchy, public servants also do not swear allegiance to the monarch. If that information is not correct I would like to know. However, if it is correct, why should we have it if it is not the case in Great Britain?

Third, is the member aware that the President of the Treasury Board has indicated that the code would allow an employee to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Therefore, it would be a matter of choice. If an employee wishes to swear allegiance to the Queen, he or she would be able to do so. What is wrong with that openness and way of doing business? I would like the member for Halton to answer those questions.