Raymonde Folco

[Official Languages, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Commissioner of Official Languages, Ms. Dyane Adam, for her 2005-06 annual report, tabled today in Parliament.

This report calls for more vigorous federal action to promote Canada's vitality as a bilingual country.

I wholeheartedly support every recommendation she made to the government.

The first task of the Standing Committee on Official Languages must be to thoroughly study the content of the report.

The report, entitled “Official Languages in Canada: Taking on the New Challenge”, will compel the Conservatives to build on the social and economic foundations of the policy and practices put in place by the Liberal government.

The Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages must end her silence, prove to communities that the action plan for official languages has a future, and enter into dialogue with community partners.

Congratulations to Ms. Adam for her seven years of service as the Commissioner of Official Languages.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across is showing his Reform roots. He ought to look at pre-1993 history. We had a debt but we used the money wisely. We did not have a debt that was doubled by the previous Conservative government. In those few years we managed to reduce the debt by $55 billion. I think that speaks for itself.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague opposite angers quickly. I understand why: the Conservatives are in a tough spot and are putting the ball back in our court.

The Conservatives have now been in power for three months. My colleague has been working on his budget for at least that long and we have seen the results. One cannot always send the ball back to this side of the House.

I would just like to mention, since my colleague invited me to do so, several items on which we worked very hard. They were not promises but concrete accomplishments, as in the case of landmines. Those of us who were in the Liberal government at the time even influenced the entire world to adopt international landmine laws.

Let us speak about the deficit left by the former Conservative government in 1993. Our Liberal Prime Minister erased that deficit.

Let us speak about fiscal balance, for which the Conservatives are so proud. Who brought in the fiscal balance in the first place? We paid off the $55 billion of debt that was left by the Conservative government.

When we talk about promises, we are talking about concrete facts that we brought in as a government. The lowest unemployment rate in history was through the Liberal government. The largest tax cut in history was through the Liberal government. The list is very long. I just wanted to talk about some very concrete examples of what the Liberal government did when it was in power.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy today to take part in the debate, which will, I certainly hope, contribute to improving the work of Parliament. I am however very embarrassed, I have to admit, to be in this House today and have to tell Canadians that this budget will not prepare our children for primary and secondary school and even less for university. I will give a few examples.

Canadian students will be unable to access the paltry pittance of $80 for university textbooks the government is dangling as a tax credit. It is obvious that he architects of the budget have not recently visited a university book store anywhere in Canada or even tried to purchase a book. One textbook can cost now as much as $115 and some courses definitely demand more than one textbook.

I am dismayed to stand here today to discuss a budget that confirms what the Reform-Alliance-Conservatives have been saying all along.

The Conservatives intend to attack the very heart of our country. They are going to build megaprisons instead of developing support systems that would enable us to work on the causes of crime and isolation among our youth.

Canada's labour market is booming, particularly in the construction industry, and employers need illegal immigrant workers. Yet the Conservatives have begun expelling them.

This government has also abandoned federal-provincial-territorial agreements, even though the negotiations demanded an investment of time and patience by all the signatories. By abandoning these agreements, the Conservatives have intentionally destroyed access to early learning opportunities for minority official language communities, especially francophones in the western provinces and the Maritimes.

The Conservative budget's $50 million for arts and culture includes nothing for linguistic communities. What does the government intend to do, considering that its primary responsibility under the law is to establish and enhance the vitality of our linguistic communities and promote positive measures?

Should we in the opposition thank the government for the settlement and integration program budget increase in immigration? Three hundred and seven million dollars over two years cannot support settlement and integration of new immigrants. Liberal immigration spending in 2005 exceeded the Conservatives planned spending by $1.879 billion.

As one example, Canada has a doctor shortage of which $75 million was pledged by the Liberals to integrate internationally trained doctors. This was presented in the Liberal budget of 2005. In that Liberal budget, $920 million alone would have been focused in Ontario for settlement and integration based on the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement. Instead, the government has announced recently the off-campus work experience for international students based on the Liberal plan, but CIDA funded students and other Commonwealth awards programs students have been excluded. This makes absolutely no sense.

Many of these students are ambassadors for Canada when they return to their own country. Even though many of them do business with Canada once they have completed their studies, we are refusing them the opportunity to gain Canadian experience, especially those who are willing to work outside major urban centres. Many students choose to start their education with our neighbours to the south, where they receive financial assistance and work experience for another three years after graduation with their visa. It appears that this Conservative government has cut the $700 million we had promised to improve the system and create an economic component in Canada.

How does the government expect to support this initiative without any money?

What is the reason for excluding them?

What message does the government send to the people of Canada through its budget? Is it the one that the Prime Minister had been preaching all along, that bilingualism is the god that failed? Is that the legacy of the government?

We live in a country in which citizens should be able to count on fair, equitable and accessible services in both official languages, whether they live in Penetanguishene--a Franco-Ontarian community near Toronto that, in the 1960s, had to fight to receive services in its language--or in Alberta, the Prime Minister's home province where more than 438,000 francophones live.

I challenge the government to honour the Official Languages Act by pursuing the implementation of the action plan for official languages that was announced in March 2003 and for which $751.5 million was set aside. This includes the promise to respect language rights in the area of early learning programs and the expansion of educational and other services in the preferred language.

I would like to remind the government of its obligation to respect the Official Languages Act. Otherwise, legal action could be taken against the government, pursuant to the changes made to part VII of the act in November 2005 through Bill S-3.

Language is the social and economic foundation of our country. Language allows us to expand our global markets beyond traditional markets and into emerging economies. Knowledge of the two official languages expands the experiences of future generations and will provide us with a Canadian workforce that has the facility to offer service in the two official languages as a choice in small towns, large urban centres and every region of this great country.

This government must not default on this obligation.

[Child Care, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, even in Alberta, the Prime Minister’s own province, francophones have no guarantees.

Families in Quebec have voiced support for the Liberal plan for early learning and child care which would have helped create 200,000 new places for children in my province. By tearing up the agreement with the province of Quebec next year and replacing its universal access provisions with a meagre cheque, what guarantee will the minister give to the anglophone community today that their children will have access to quality services in their own language?

[Child Care, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in complicity with the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative government is preparing to sap the vitality of francophone communities in Canada.

By insisting on eliminating the national child care program, the government is also eliminating the universality criterion in the Liberal program.

Can the minister tell us how the meagre cheque that she intends to send parents will ensure that francophone children living outside Quebec will be able to have services in their mother tongue at this crucial stage of early childhood?

[Armenia, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on April 7, the House addressed the subject of the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

Today, we commemorate the 91st anniversary of the Armenian genocide which the House condemned as a crime against humanity in April 2004. On April 25, tomorrow, we will remember the 6 million Jews deliberately murdered by Nazis during the second world war.

Without hesitation, we have labeled these massacres as genocides because, for racial, ethnic, religious or political reasons, certain countries have sought to annihilate these populations in violation of their right to life.

Canadians have lost family members in these genocides.

It is our responsibility to commemorate the memory of these victims as we reflect on the senselessness of these sadistic atrocities. Canada must serve as an example to the world that all peoples, regardless of their colour, ethnicity or religion can live with dignity and respect.

Finally, I would like to welcome to Ottawa Canadians of Armenian origin from my riding of Laval—Les Îles.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the government’s website, on which the Prime Minister, for more than 24 hours, left his speech totally in English, except for a few words in French, in spite of the fact that we contacted him.

It is the duty of the Prime Minister of Canada, of the leader of the government, to be the first to respect legislation. The Official Languages Act clearly says that all government documents, those from Ottawa as well as those coming from elsewhere in Canada, must be presented to the Canadian public in both official languages.

Perhaps that does not count for some people, but it is very important for us whose language is the minority official language in Canada. I am sure that my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse would agree with me, contrary to his party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really do not at all see the connection that my colleague is trying to make between these two things. What is very clear is that in our party there are a lot of bilingual people from across Canada. This is one of the signs of the respect our party has for our country’s two founding languages, not just for the French language.

Furthermore, I would like to remind the member that, when we were in power, we set aside a large sum for language-teaching. The amount of $751.3 million over five years was provided for the action plan for official languages.

A question arises, and I would like to put it to my colleague and to all the members on the other side of this House. Do they intend to respect this agreement for $751.3 million provided for the action plan for official languages? We have not heard anything from the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women or from the Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages. They were appointed over two months ago and we have not seen anything yet. We stand before a large void. This is very worrying for us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House of Commons on behalf of the official opposition to reply to the government's throne speech.

Before I begin, allow me please to welcome the new government, especially the new members. I would also like to offer you my warmest congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole House. I have no doubt that you will provide the wisdom and calm needed in this House.

I must also take a moment to thank the residents of Laval—Les Îles in Quebec for electing me a fourth time. It is an honour to continue to be their voice in Canada's Parliament on issues such as immigration, early childhood, youth employment, expanding the labour market, infrastructure development, old age pensions and, right now, bilingualism. Their trust will not be betrayed.

In the 10 minutes that I have, I will cover four issues missing from the government's agenda: integration of minority language communities outside Quebec, support for la francophonie arts and culture, youth and child care.

The Governor General's opening remarks reminded me of my own travels across Canada and the people I have met in the two great linguistic communities. I too can attest to their tremendous asset to our country. We are indeed living in a country where everything is possible. We can follow our dreams and help build a strong and united country.

Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with the rigid contrast found in the message of the Government of Canada. It offers no vision for the ongoing integration of francophones and anglophones in Quebec or for the development of official language minority communities.

The year 2006 will mark the 40th anniversary of French immersion programs. It all started with a project at the Riverside school board in St. Lambert, Quebec. Today, this vision of the duality and equality of the two languages is enshrined in the Official Languages Act, and $751.3 million over five years has been earmarked by the action plan for official languages, which sets out clearly the government's responsibility for putting it in place. Linguistic duality is now firmly entrenched in the foundations of our multi-faceted society.

The mother tongue of almost six million people in Quebec today is French. Almost 66% of another approximately 700,000 English speaking people speak French at work. Also, 400,000, or 63%, or another half a million people without French or English, many of them immigrant workers, live and work in French.

The most recent statistics indicate that nearly seven francophone workers in ten living outside Quebec, or some 566,000 people, use French at work.

The Liberal vision of a bilingual country has taken root. We now have a government that is trying to destroy that vision. The day before yesterday I asked a question in this House about the future of bilingualism in Canada. The hon. member responded, and I quote:

“We have a strong minister in charge of heritage and culture who has indicated that she wants to promote that”, meaning bilingualism, “throughout Canada”. The member also said that “bilingualism is something this party supports”. I am very happy about this since the Prime Minister can certainly thank the Liberal policy on bilingualism for having had the opportunity to learn French.

How has the government shown support for bilingualism? The Prime Minister appointed a unilingual minister whose mandate is to coordinate the horizontal work of the government in promoting French and English. What has that minister done since her appointment? She has refused every attempt by the Commissioner of Official Languages, Madame Dyane Adam, to meet with her.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has yet to say two words about official languages or even meet with francophone and other national organizations which are still waiting two months later for a return phone call.

These groups confirm today that:

in the Speech from the Throne, arts and culture in Canadian francophonie have been eradicated from the vision of Canadian society as the Conservative party sees it. The Conservative party wants to build a strong, united, independent and free Canada, but it is an aberration to think they can do so without culture, without the arts and without cultural diversity. We cannot accept this. How does the Canadian government intend to sustain these sectors, these strong social, economic and educational drivers of our Canadian society and true foundations to building our identity, within the francophone and Acadian communities?

Instead, the minister had a lot to say about the CBC even before her briefing and nothing to say about the minority language community.

There is more. Without even bothering to read the mandate of the Canadian Unity Council, funding was gutted from the council because it does not fit into the Conservative government's vision of open federalism that, according to the throne speech, recognizes the unique place of a strong, vibrant Quebec in a united Canada.

The Canadian Unity Council is a non-profit, non-partisan organization created in 1964 when a group of francophone and anglophone Quebeckers established the Canada Committee, which was the precursor to the council. Its mandate is to create an openness toward federalism and its mission is to inform and mobilize the public on the development and promotion of Canada. It stems from our social foundations as a nation.

Most of the council's work affects young people. For example, its summer job and student exchange program, originally supported by all parties, allows young francophones and anglophones to improve their second language while discovering a region of Canada they are unfamiliar with. I know for a fact that one hon. member opposite benefited from this program when he was young. Because of this decision by the Conservative government, roughly 80 Canadian employees, including 21 at the council's head office in Montreal, have lost their jobs.

The Conservative government talks about supporting democracy, about accountability, open federalism, respect for diversity, bilingualism and the understanding of cultures. How does it do it? It does it by gutting the funding of the Canadian Unity Council across Canada.

Here is an institution able to add to the dialogue of our country. It has or, more aptly put, had offices located in every region of the country. Thirty-two regional round tables were held in Quebec alone through the Council's Centre for Research and Information on Canada. They engaged all sectors of our society: academics, business people, volunteers and the general public. Their work was citizenship participation in action.

How do Canadians get to understand their country if cultural misperceptions exist, if access to people's stories is cut off? If integration and adaptation is eroded by the government's hidden agenda that is now coming to light, how many other non-profit community based organizations are going to be affected?

In the meantime, the Prime Minister's first public address to public servants, delivered mainly in English and posted on the government's website, was a direct violation of the Official Languages Act. Now we know the Conservative leadership's stand on bilingualism. Since being elected and establishing its cabinet, the government's target has not been about bilingualism because it has no vision.

It has been about building super jails to house youth while abolishing the gun registry, instead of putting in place better community support systems and leaving in place the substantive national crime prevention strategy and the youth employment strategy that have helped to reduce crime by 12% over the last 10 years.

This government's Speech from the Throne is an insult to the five-year plan of action to allocate $751.3 million to official languages. The agreements reached between the federal government and the provinces on early childhood education helped to fund more places for official language minority communities.

Nova Scotia could have stimulated the vitality of its francophone and Acadian communities. Newfoundland and Labrador could have worked with its associates, such as the regional health services, to satisfy the needs of francophone children.

There were also plans to have the appropriate authorities report on the provisions available for services in French. This government will put the future of our children at risk because of its linear views on flexible and open federalism.

The Conservative alliance government might definitely need to use as its guide the foresight which our forefathers showed to build a federal system that would be flexible and accommodating of diversity.

In that way, the Conservative alliance could build on one of Canada's greatest strengths—the federal system of government. In the meantime, it would build on the unique strengths of the different parts of our federation.