Raymonde Folco

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, May 28th, 2007]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. The current Prime Minister, who was not Prime Minister at the time, made erroneous statements, such as:

Most francophones actually live in French unilingual regions of Canada--mainly Quebec....

That is absolutely false. That shows to what extent the person who is now Prime Minister of Canada has absolutely no understanding of the dilemma that he has presented to minority francophones everywhere in Canada, be it in the west or in the Atlantic provinces.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of all possible relationships between WestJet and Air Canada. In my speech, I simply asked that everything that comes out of Air Canada today and that will come out of it in the future be subject to the Official Languages Act.

I am not surprised by the other side's negative reaction. The quote I mentioned earlier was taken from the Calgary Sun of May 6, 2001, at the time when Mr. Stephen Harper belonged to...

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague from New Brunswick. In my view, as I have said, we have a Standing Committee on Official Languages. It exists. Unfortunately, it does not work. It exists under a provision of the standing orders of this House and it is composed of parliamentarians of all parties represented in this House. It is not working because the Conservative members of the committee decided, last week and two weeks ago, that they did not want to put forward the name of a new chair. We are therefore at an impasse which forces the three opposition parties to continue working in an unofficial way. We have no other choice.

This being said, the committee exists. We are hoping that the Conservatives will finally wake up and understand that they are stalemating debate in this Chamber and that they have acted in an undemocratic and unparliamentary way.

This bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I would not dream of putting words into the mouth of government members sitting across from me, but if they send this bill to the Standing Committee on Transport, practically no one on that committee will be familiar with the Official Languages Act. It is a complex act, like all acts. By proceeding this way, there will be no committee members who could ask specific questions and obtain specific answers.

Obviously, it is more dangerous to refer the bill to a committee where members understand the act. That is precisely where the government does not want to refer this bill.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that has to do with Air Canada, which, obviously, is a Canadian transportation company, but it is also a problem that has to do with official languages and the relationship between Canadian citizens and the only company providing air transportation throughout Canada.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Liberal Party as the critic for la Francophonie and Official Languages to take part in the debate at second reading of Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

This bill should have been adopted a long time ago. I find it ironic that the intent of the bill is to make sure that Canadians and others that travel with Air Canada are served in the official language of their choice, when we have seen, in the past few weeks, a shameful, deliberate attempt by the Conservative government to misinform Canadians and to undermine the work of the members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, just as the committee was about to hear from language advocacy groups regarding these very services that are guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is one of the strengths of Canadian democracy, fostered by Liberal governments since Confederation.

Our national airline must reflect our linguistic duality. It must be the symbol of the pluralistic society in which we live and an integral part of our best business practices.

Mr. Speaker, before going any further, I would like to mention that the Liberals support the principle set in Bill C-29. A lot of work remains to be done before this bill becomes law. Therefore, we on this side of the House wish to inform the Conservative-Alliance-Reform government that we will do everything we can to have the bill amended, so as to include the recommendations made by Dyane Adam in her last report as official languages commissioner, in which she recommended that the Official Languages Act apply to all new corporate entities belonging to ACE Aviation Holdings Inc., and to any other corporation bought in the future by Air Canada.

I remind this House that, between April 1, 2006 and March 31, 2007, Air Canada has been the target of the largest number of complaints among the 10 most frequently reprimanded institutions by the commissioner, and among those mentioned by commissioner Fraser in his first report to Parliament.

Out of the 162 complaints filed with the commissioner, 126 were allowed. The commissioner specifically referred to the Thibodeau case, where the Federal Court accepted the commissioner's arguments to the effect that “Air Canada’s subsidiaries had an obligation of result and not an obligation of means towards the travelling public and the complainant”.

In other words, the fact that Air Canada is an exclusively private corporation that has belonged to ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. since 1988 does not exempt it, or its affiliates, from its obligations under the Official Languages Act. Air Canada has always been subjected to the Official Languages Act, and it must serve its clients in both official languages. This is also in line with the corporation's project to extend its activities around the world. Organizations such as Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, Passport Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada follow up on the commissioner's report on Canada's linguistic duality abroad, and Air Canada must do the same, as one of Canada's symbols.

Canada's image abroad and its prestige as a country lie in our linguistic duality. The Prime Minister comes from a province where 31% of the population speaks French.

Even if the Prime Minister admits that his parents probably sent him to a basic immersion course more for the sake of peace than to allow him to learn and contribute to the making of a new federal theology—quoting the Prime Minister—it is that same immersion course that allows him today to address the people, here in Ottawa and nationally, first in French, then in English, even if, 40 years later, the Conservative Prime Minister believes that the “religion of bilingualism is the god that failed”-- I did not know that bilingualism was a religion—and even if the Conservatives and former members of the Alliance and the Reform, and their leader apparently do not believe that there is a good economic, social and cultural reason for mastering and protecting the French language.

It is ironic that for our Prime Minister, who speaks before Canadian civil servants, during ceremonies pertaining to the monument in Vimy, France, at the dinner for Canadian parliamentarians held by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, in Ottawa, before the leaders of APEC or at the last NATO summit, the French language has no value.

It is only because of his parents who believed in a bilingual Canada that our Prime Minister is served so well by bilingualism today. Bilingualism has the value of an economic, social and cultural symbol.

Therefore, I am requesting, at this early stage in the debate and contrary to what the Minister of Transport has just informed us, that the bill be sent for study to the Standing Committee on Official Languages where it can be amended.

We know that the proceedings of this committee were completely stopped because the Conservative government refused to designate a new chairman when the preceding one was forced to resign. In this manner, the government continues to impede an important aspect of parliamentary debate.

However, if those and other amendments are not integrated into the bill, let this be sufficient notice, as the critic for my party, that I will recommend to my colleagues in the official opposition to vote against this bill when it returns to the House for report stage and third reading.

I would like to add an argument to the fact that this bill should go to the Standing Committee on Official Languages considering that we are discussing official languages and their role in a company that stands for the symbol of Canada.

The myth of the two solitudes no longer exists in Canada. Although very few people probably realize that long before the coming into force of official bilingualism some 40 years ago, as early as 1877, French enjoyed official status in the Northwest Territories. In fact, the first throne speech delivered at the time by Lieutenant Governor Joseph Royal was delivered in French and English.

Despite a relentless fight over the years to abolish linguistic duality in Canada, we have seen our identity strengthened not only in Quebec, but also in Ontario, New Brunswick, British Columbia and in all the small communities in those provinces. Yes, this comes at a cost to Canadian taxpayers. To us, the former Liberal government, these costs are more than worth it. In 2003, we allocated $751 million to the action plan for official languages. By the time the Conservatives came into power, we had spent $123 million. So far nothing leads us to believe that this government intends to renew this commitment beyond 2008. The Commissioner of Official Languages has called on the government to make a commitment and adopt a strategic plan not just to preserve the principles of our linguistic duality, but to exceed them. Where are the Conservative government's plans?

Pierre Elliot Trudeau dedicated his life to defending the right to learn and the right to use both official languages, not only at home, but also at work, in public services, in communications with public services and in the hiring methods of Canadian companies, both private and public.

An article in the Globe and Mail on May 22, 2006, quoted parents whose children are getting their education in French in Regina as saying that people who speak both of Canada's official languages have opportunities that are not available to the majority of unilingual Canadians. If the opportunity is there, why not give our children everything in our power we can?

In Vancouver, parents have gone to great lengths to register their children in a French immersion program because, in the world in which our children are living today, this ever-growing global village, society demands it. The Prime Minister's parents recognized this and gave him this opportunity because it existed.

In February 2002, the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages produced before Parliament a report entitled “Good intentions are not enough!”, and attached a dissenting report from Alliance members sitting on the committee. Some of these people are now members, I believe, of the government party. They said at the time that maintaining Air Canada's bilingual corporation status would slow down its competitiveness.

Witnesses do not agree with this at all. Three union representatives of Air Canada's employees, among whom was Mr. Serge Beaulieu, president of the Montreal regional board of the Air Canada Pilots Association, and Mr. Edmond Udvarhelyi, the union representative of local 4001 of CUPE, said before the committee in October 2001 that out of 3,500 pilots at Air Canada, fewer than 300, that is a little less than 8%, were French speaking. Before it merged with Canadian Airlines International, the percentage was 16%. The company's recruiting policy constantly disregards its obligations. Moreover, Air Canada never made any effort to advertise its job offers in minority language newspapers, using the pretext that there were no qualified French-speaking pilots. However, an average of 25 potential pilots graduate each year from the three-year training program of the Quebec centre of aerospace training of the Chicoutimi CEGEP in Quebec. According to witnesses, this program is equivalent to those offered in Ontario and Alberta. This means that, even though the pool of candidates was expanding, Air Canada continued to ignore minority language media.

According to the report that was made public at the time by the standing committee, commissioner Fortier filed 11 complaints in 1990 before the federal court relating to Air Canada's unwillingness to advertise in French newspapers in the Winnipeg and Moncton regions. Afterwards, the company reached an agreement whereby it would advertise in French newspapers.

Then, when it acquired its subsidiary carriers, Air Canada's responsibility for advertising was automatically transferred to the subsidiaries, which are not subject to section 30 of the act, requiring communication with members of the public in both official languages.

At page 68 of Commissioner Fraser's report, we read that investigations into over 100 complaints revealed that many airport authorities did not consider themselves obligated to communicate with the general public in both official languages. What measures does the Conservative government intend to take to ensure equal status to both official languages in providing public services? Recently, the commissioner commented on “the lack of clear rules or policies”.

If Air Canada really wants to be more competitive internationally, any new subsidiaries, of which it hold 50% or less of the shares, have to—I repeat, have to—meet the linguistic obligations under Canadian law.

As reluctant as government members are to admit it, surely some good had to come out of the past 40 years. For example, a survey conducted by Decima Research in September 2006 and mentioned in the commissioner's report shows that seven out of ten Canadians say they personally favour bilingualism for the entire country; among young Canadians aged 18 to 34, support for bilingualism has reached 80%; nine out of ten 10 Canadians feel that bilingualism is a factor for success internationally.

Bilingualism is more than just a thread in the social fabric of this country; it absolutely defines us as a country. Children of immigrants, whether they speak a third language at home or not, have embraced our linguistic duality not only because of the fantastic economic opportunities it provides, but also because of the cultural sensitivity they develop through learning about and experiencing the realities that immersion in a new environment entails.

When language becomes incarnated in a reality, it helps to harmonize society. These are positive measures that businesses representing our interests at home and abroad ought to take.

I am very aware of the fact that there are provincial jurisdictions to be respected. However, in our agreements with the provinces, we must provide for measures to make French and English instruction in primary schools mandatory. French must become a mandatory subject like reading, writing and mathematics. It is the only way for bilingualism to become an integral part of the structure of our society. In Europe, these subjects are mandatory right from the primary level.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how much time I have left, but I would like to speak about our trade differences with respect to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. During the last series of talks and previous consultations initiated by other federal governments with the public, it came to light that there are many countries in the world where the first language is neither French or English. I am thinking of certain Asian, Latin American or African countries. For most of these countries, French or English is a second language spoken at home, school or in the workplace. This should encourage companies such as Air Canada to provide services in both languages and thus appeal to a growing market.

A study by J. Carr states that money and language share the same characteristics: he suggests that money enables more than negotiations, and a common language makes transactions and lower costs possible. In the end, everyone wins owing to a better understanding.

I will close by stating that the Conservative government is wrong to state that our linguistic duality has no economic value. The opposite is true. Our ability to communicate in both official languages contributes to a better understanding of the other, gives us an opening onto the world and makes it easier to do business in all countries.

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, in the last election the Conservative Party promised to station three new armed naval heavy icebreakers, to be made in Canada, in the area of Iqaluit, which would include 500 regular force personnel for crucial support.

I would like to hear from the minister what steps he has taken to implement this promise.

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I have a hard time believing the minister's explanation. As I understand it, young francophone soldiers could find themselves in a unit that speaks English only. I am not talking about a situation on a military base, but a war situation, where people have to react very quickly. I would like the minister to explain how two unilingual people could communicate quickly to keep safe on the ground, with bombs falling all around them.

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, according to the minister's answer, that means that within the Canadian Forces, some units would be French-speaking and others English-speaking because people cannot understand one another, especially at some levels of the army.

I would like to know how these people can communicate among themselves in complete safety, especially considering the very dangerous situations the armed forces often find themselves in.

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I too would like to salute the Canadian Armed Forces. As someone who was not born in this country, I had the very great honour of spending some time with the 22nd Regiment in Valcartier and later, with that same regiment in Bosnia. I must say that during the weeks I spent with them, I learned a lot. Most importantly, I learned to respect our armed forces and our young Canadian men and women who are working so far from home in situations that are often very dangerous.

I would like to ask the minister a few questions. First, the minister recently stated in this House that he intended to change the policy on bilingualism in the armed forces. I find that the change amounted to lowering the standards and reducing the level of bilingualism in the armed forces. Can the minister explain to the House how the new system works and can he tell us about the new percentage targets for the armed forces?

[Summer Career Placement Program, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not seem to understand that their cuts to the summer career placement program have had serious repercussions on a number of organizations.

In my riding, the Fondation de la Maison des arts de Laval, the Musée des Enfants de Laval and Tourisme Laval will all feel a major impact. What does the government have to say in response to the letter from the president of the Musée des Enfants de Laval, who asks: “How can anyone have so little regard for children, culture and education?”