Paule Brunelle

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first speech in this chamber, I want to thank the population of Trois-Rivières for granting me their trust for a second time.

After the reading of the Speech from the Throne last Tuesday, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on one of the subjects it addressed, namely early child care.

Quebeckers and Canadians are in agreement that the various stakeholders of society must work together to help families. There is no doubt that children are our succession and our future. We must be able to help parents realize their desire to have children. To do so, numerous support measures are needed. This is essential and necessary.

The Prime Minister spoke about respecting provincial jurisdictions. But he seems to have forgotten that education is a provincial jurisdiction guaranteed in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act. A family policy is therefore clearly the responsibility of Quebec. Nonetheless, one of the first intentions of this new government is once again to utilize its spending power to encroach directly on the fields of jurisdiction through a child care allowance. And yet a funding agreement had been reached between the federal government and the provinces. Now we are told that this agreement will not be honoured. That means a shortfall of $807 million for Quebec. This solution is truly unacceptable.

During the election campaign, the candidates of the Conservative Party of Canada said that a Conservative government would send out an allowance of $1,200 a year for every child under age six. There would be numerous disadvantages if that measure were introduced. For example, that $1,200 is taxable. Furthermore, certain parents, among the poorest in our society, will see their benefits cut, i.e. the child tax benefits and the Government of Quebec family support benefits. This will especially affect low- and middle-income families. According to a number of credible studies, this measure would give certain parents much less than the $1,200 we are being promised.

For example, a single-parent family with two children and an annual income of $28,000 would lose benefits of all kinds. Out of the $2,400, there would remain less than $700.

We in the Bloc Québécois are proposing a change, that is, to transform this allowance into a refundable tax credit. This change will make it possible to give close to $1,200 to parents and will be much more compliant with Quebec’s jurisdictions.

Numerous groups are militating to convince the current government to go back on its intention to drop the agreements concluded in 2004 on funding child care services.

In Quebec, a very large coalition is speaking out. We are talking about the Association des centres de la petite enfance, the Association des enseignantes et des enseignants en technique d'éducation à l'enfance, the Chantier de l'économie sociale du Québec, the Fédération des femmes du Québec and the largest central labour bodies. Everyone is demanding this agreement on the funding of child care services.

In Canada, the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents over three million workers, feels that, to give working parents a real choice, the agreements already concluded have to be implemented. The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, which comprises 140,000 members, shares this opinion.

I will add that in yesterday’s edition of The Daily, a Statistics Canada publication, we read that in the past eight years the proportion of children in child care has increased significantly.

To sum up, a majority of parents, from Quebec and throughout Canada, are clearly expressing the wish to be able to entrust their children to affordable, safe, competent and equitable child care services, services available to everyone.

During the election campaign, the Conservatives also said they would help employers create child care spaces. A tax credit representing $250 million a year would be offered to employers in order to cover the total cost of creating new child care spaces.

I am rather sceptical about these suggestions. Businesses have many other concerns, do not have a tradition of this, and do not have the administrative skills to do this kind of organizational work.

Women in Ontario tell us that the experiment with workplace child care was already done in that province and the results were negative. Very few child care spaces were created. In addition, the amounts that the Conservative government is talking about are clearly not enough to really deal with day care services.

Remember that Quebec invests $1.5 billion a year in its child care system. A taxable family allowance and a tax credit for employers will certainly not make it possible to create educational day care that is high quality, viable, and affordable.

In Quebec, many mothers of young children return to work after their parental leave. Their skills, we should remember, are essential for commerce and industry. In addition, their participation in the paid workforce preserves the equality of chances, the equality between men and women. We must recognize that work for mothers outside the home must be accompanied by affordable, competent day care so that they do not get exhausted and abandon their paid jobs or break off promising careers.

In the throne speech, the government was less specific about the $1,200 allocation, which is an intrusion into Quebec’s jurisdiction. It says in the speech:

In collaboration with the provinces and territories, employers and community non-profit organizations, it will also encourage the creation of new child care spaces.

I hope that this is a sign of openness and compromise and that a solution can be found to avoid infringing on an area of Quebec jurisdiction. Most importantly, methods have to be suggested for ensuring that we do not aggravate the fiscal imbalance because the government intends at the same time to tear up an agreement, which, I remind everyone, will result in an $807 million shortfall for Quebec.

I repeat, for the Bloc Québécois, the resolution of the fiscal imbalance must not remain just an election promise, one which will not take into account the agreement reached with Quebec on day care.

In conclusion, accessible day care is a very important factor in creating equality between men and women. Furthermore, this support for young families helps prevent many social problems and avoid major health costs. Accessible, quality day care is absolutely essential in order for women to have equal access to the workforce and professional training and for them to participate in public life.

[Child Care, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec and the former federal government signed an agreement on child care that provided for investment of over $1 billion to recognize Quebec's past efforts. The new government put an end to that agreement, which will deprive Quebec of $807 million.

How does the government, which says it wants to correct the fiscal imbalance, intend to make up for this $807 million shortfall?

[Official Languages Act, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there are three points I want to talk about.

First, I would like to explain why we are still opposing Bill S-3. I am talking about the importance of the French language as the common language in Quebec. I also want to say that we regret not being able to support our French speaking colleagues from Acadia, Ontario and western Canada. Finally, I wish to reaffirm the Bloc Québécois' commitment to and solidarity with the francophones of North America who do not live in Quebec.

Part VII of the Official Languages Act says:

The Government of Canada is committed to (a) enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and (b) fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

This section clearly allows the federal government to fulfill its constitutional commitments to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society.

The promoters of Bill S-3 believed that subsection 77(1) of the same act had to be replaced by the following:

Any person who has made a complaint to the Commissioner in respect of a right or duty under sections 4 to 7, sections 10 to 13 or Part IV, V or VII, or in respect of section 91, may apply to the Court for a remedy under this Part.

Contrary to what was said just now by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, section 41, which is worded as follows:

Within the scope of their functions, duties and powers, federal institutions shall ensure that positive measures are taken for the ongoing and effective advancement and implementation of the Government of Canada’s commitments under subsection (1).

It is understood that this implementation shall take place in compliance with the fields of jurisdiction and powers of the provinces—as amended. We agree that section 41 assigns the government an obligation of result and, combined with section 77, this application to the courts for remedy could lead us into major difficulties, in this desire to ensure the equal status of French and English. So this is a particular issue in Quebec.

It is above all this possibility of applying to the courts that concerns us.

The Bloc Québécois considers that the absence of specific criteria as to the results to be achieved by the federal government, for the promotion of French and English, leaves room for the possibility of abusive application to the courts for remedy by certain persons or certain groups. And let us be frank, such exaggerated application would perhaps occur too often, unfortunately, in Quebec

Furthermore, the federal government too frequently uses its spending power to invade fields of provincial jurisdiction. It has already done so in the field of health. For example, it has concluded a $11.5 million, five-year agreement with the government of Quebec with the aim of increasing access to health care for anglophones. This agreement has been criticized because it imposes bilingualism on the Info-Santé workers in contravention of the right to work in French in Quebec, something clearly laid out in our Charter of the French Language.

In the Action Plan for Official Languages tabled in March 2003 by Minister Stéphane Dion, we read in Axis 2, which deals with community development, and I quote:

The measures considered will enhance the communities’ access to public services in both official languages, mainly in the areas of health, early childhood development and justice.

Need I point out that health and early childhood development are within provincial jurisdiction? It is not surprising that the hon. members on the Standing Committee on Official Languages felt themselves obliged to include in the bill a reminder to the federal government to respect the jurisdiction and powers of the provinces.

It is sad to see the Liberal government in Ottawa pushing its arrogance to the point of thinking itself superior to all those with whom it should, in fact, be collaborating in good faith.

Mrs. Linda Cardinal, holder of the chair of research on francophonie and political studies at the University of Ottawa, testified before the Standing Committee on Official Languages on September 29. She said she was choosing the political and administrative route, which was reinforced through providing new official language coordination responsibilities to Privy Council.

We, in the Bloc Québécois, agree with Mrs. Cardinal.

This has not always been the case and it is very difficult to take these measures at a time when we have to enact laws to try to correct the situation. Court action may weaken the status and use of French in Quebec.

Another witness who appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages, Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault, summarized nicely the problems with Bill S-3. He said:

This policy would not only go against the general objectives of the Charter of the French Language, which is to ensure that French becomes the common language used in Quebec, but it would also cause a further weakening of the language.

French is still unable to attract the majority of speakers, these Quebec immigrants who adopt a new language spoken in Quebec. Consequently, we fear that the new policy will increase the current imbalance in Canada's language situation, always in favour of English. language. The asymmetry of the official language situation in Canada must be recognized, especially in Quebec.

I worked many years in Mauricie and in Quebec promoting the French language before coming to the House of Commons as the member for Trois-Rivières in 2004.

I continue to work for the recognition of French and to promote quality French. Is this some sort of passing craze? I do not think so. On the contrary it is because language is important for the development of individuals, communities and their culture.

Dr. Camille Laurin, the father of Bill 101, remains an authority and a model for those of us who have the general wellbeing of Quebec society at heart. Dr. Laurin explained the importance of one's language in a speech he delivered on September 12, 1998. He said:

All my life, I have been passionate about building Quebec, to make it a country able to help its citizens to realize their full potential. I tried to do this in a number of areas, including language, because I became aware of the situation language was in at that time.

In fact, this is a psychological issue. We lacked self-esteem and self-confidence because our language had been belittled and despised. The only way to overcome these kinds of obstacles to development was to adopt an act or a charter that would allow Quebeckers not only to live in their own language but also to develop in that language.

This shows how important the Charter of the French Language is to us. We know how sad the situation of aboriginals is in this country, because when we lose our language and culture, it creates a void, a loss of identity that triggers some very serious social problems.

Language is the connection between thought and concrete action. While we are open to the learning of a second and even a third language, we believe that a strong first language, a common language, promotes better relations between the various classes in our society. In Quebec, French, as a common language, helps children and hard working classes, and also contributes, to a point, to avoiding isolation and ghettoization.

A language that allows people to express themselves clearly is an asset in school, and definitely later on in adult life. It helps develop an independent spirit and also pride because of this sense of belonging to a people that has a common will to live.

The Bloc Québécois has always been committed to Canada's francophone and Acadian communities. It was over 10 years ago that it solemnly pledged its support to all francophone and Acadian communities in Canada. Since then, the Bloc Québécois was the first party in Ottawa to raise the major issues affecting the Canadian francophonie.

It is the Bloc Québécois that urged the federal government to acknowledge the specific realities confronting French-speaking minorities. We were among those who supported francophones in Ontario when they were asking that Ottawa be given the status of bilingual city. We also encouraged Quebeckers to provide financial support to the campaign led by S.O.S. Montfort, to maintain the only francophone hospital west of the Ottawa River.

Recently, we condemned the use of automated translations by the federal government, because it was a blatant lack of respect. I want to express our regret to our fellow francophones outside Quebec, namely in Acadia, Ontario and western Canada, for not being able to support them.

But we know—

[Official Languages Act, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleague that I know perfectly well that we are finally going back to section 43 of the Official Languages Act. However, the fact remains that that section says “The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate to advance the equality of status and use of English and French”.

Moreover, I have noted that combined with the possibility of using the courts, the fact remains that French is in danger in Quebec.

[Official Languages Act, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell said so eloquently, Bill S-3 will certainly bring about greater obligations.

What does he think about the power of complaint that would be provided to French and English speaking communities, to minority communities, combined with the wording of section 43? How can he justify that the government would still be required to take measures to advance the equality of both official languages and, if it does not, it might be prosecuted by the courts and would have to comply with their rulings in provincial jurisdictions? What does he think about this?

[Literacy, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on this Literacy Action Day I want to pay tribute to all those involved in adult literacy.

In my riding of Trois-Rivières, there are several literacy groups including COMSEP and Ebyôn.

Several hundred people participate in their workshops, which are run by a number of volunteers. Helping adults to learn to read gives them the keys to the world.

What is more, the participants become more informed on economic, social, political and cultural issues and meet new people, thereby making important social connections.

Attending the literacy and popular education workshops helps participants become aware of their problems, find suitable solutions and take action to improve their lot.

We wish the literacy groups many more years of success.

[Chatelaine Magazine, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, back in 1960, Chatelaine magazine began, with articles encouraging women to develop their full potential.

The magazine is turning 45 this year. To mark this event, it has decided to devote a 300-page October issue to the theme of happiness.

No hearts and flowers here. They are looking at happiness from a scientific point of view and the analysis of a professional survey. Women from age 10 to 100 are included, women who are in good health and women who are not. In short, it is an examination of the living conditions of women both here and elsewhere.

The Bloc Québécois salutes Chatelaine for the aptness and usefulness of its articles. Women readers are not the only ones to benefit, society as a whole. does as well. The anniversary issue is a great read.

[Trois-Rivières, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, downtown Trois-Rivières received international recognition on September 12 with an award in the special events and promotion category at the International Downtown Association conference in Denver, Colorado.

The purpose of this association is to help its members share winning formulas, whether for drumming up new business, communication and marketing strategies, urban transportation, or for social or other projects to revitalize downtown cores.

Trois-Rivières' success is the result of concerted efforts by several groups including the municipal council, the tourism bureau and the Société de développement commercial du centre-ville.

The award decision was based in large part on the originality of the International Festival of Poetry. Trois-Rivières tied with Los Angeles and beat out New York and Milwaukee.

Congratulations, Trois-Rivières.

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, minister after minister tell us about the multiple causes of these gas price hikes. It is certain that we do have an opportunity to intervene into some of its causes, but not others, admittedly. It seems to me, however, that at no time should the presence of those causes rationalize the government's inaction.

The minister presents us with some solutions, such as investing in the fuel economy and mass transit, or creating a monitoring office. These are certainly worthwhile solutions and are what we in the Bloc Québécois are calling for.

Action is, moreover, urgent and necessary. I wonder to what extent the government is going to not just justify its inaction but rather provide us with an action plan indicating the specific points at which there will be intervention, thereby avoiding public panic.

[Official Languages, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, curiously, complaints under the Official Languages Act have been filed, in the past, against two of the companies hired in the Outaouais region.

Is the example of poorly translated documentation at Public Works not proof that, although the Official Languages Act has been in effect for a number of years, it is not a very major concern to that department, and that francophones are paying the price?