Richard Nadeau

[Business of Supply, October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.

The national day of French Canadians is June 24. Quebec's fête nationale, or national day, is celebrated on June 24. The national day of Acadians is August 15. Each of these people has a right to be represented with dignity and based on what it means, first to the world and also to itself. All the pride attached to that on the international scene, in one's hometown and across the nation is worth celebrating.

It takes place on June 24 for some, on August 15 for others. On August 28, the leader of the official opposition might celebrate somewhere, I do not know where, perhaps in some dreary place. He could take his colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie along or take a little trip to Harvard. Something may be happening there on August 28. I wholeheartedly hope so for them.

In short, Quebeckers and French Canadians celebrate their national day on June 24. Acadians have theirs on August 15.

[Business of Supply, October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the NDP's motion. The Bloc Québécois will support this motion being debated today. The purpose of this NDP motion is to debate a subject that Quebeckers have agreed on for a very long time and that, for the Bloc Québécois, is restating the obvious. There is no doubt that the Québécois form a nation.

Since a nation has its own language, culture and territory, recognizing its existence implies recognizing its identity, values and interests as a nation. By recognizing the nation of Quebec, the House of Commons has recognized that Quebeckers have the right to control the social, economic and cultural development of Quebec.

Quebec is a French-speaking nation and not a bilingual province, something that should be made perfectly clear. It is all very well for the House of Commons to adopt motions recognizing the existence of the nation of Quebec and stating that it must have certain powers. The reality is that the federalist parties far too often oppose plans to grant more power to that nation. Just look at the Bloc Québécois bill to apply Bill 101 to companies under federal jurisdiction.

The Liberal Party of Canada opposed having Bill 101 apply to federally regulated businesses. Yet the member for Papineau recognizes that it is important for immigrants to learn French. He says that Quebec's goal of francization is legitimate and that the wording of Bill 104 simply lacked “subtlety”. “Immigrants to Quebec must learn French first and foremost,” he said about Bill 104, on which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled. Yet if he recognizes the importance of learning French, why did his party oppose the application of Bill 101? I am referring to the member for Papineau.

Recently, a Supreme Court ruling invalidated Bill 104 in Quebec with regard to bridging schools. What this means is that even in its own areas of jurisdiction, Quebec does not have full jurisdiction. This is one reason why many Quebeckers want Quebec to become independent.

It is important to remember that this is the reason René Lévesque refused to sign the Canadian Constitution in 1980: the National Assembly was losing part of its jurisdiction over education and the language of the Quebec nation, which is completely unacceptable. It is always dangerous when one nation's language laws are subordinate to another nation's laws and institutions. Quebec passed legislation to protect its language, and a federal institution has just decreased that protection. That is something we cannot accept.

For 20 years, Quebec has had a policy on integrating immigrants: interculturalism. But the federal government's insistence on imposing multiculturalism, an integration policy that is foreign to Quebec, is doing tremendous harm to the integration of immigrants to Quebec.

My colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber will have a chance to talk about this. The official language of Quebec is French everywhere, except when it comes to the federal government, which considers that there are two official languages. The Bloc Québécois asks that the federal government recognize and comply with the Charter of the French Language in Quebec in the Official Languages Act and comply with the spirit of the charter in regard to the language of signage and of work in related legislation.

At the risk of repeating myself, it is important to remember that Quebec is a French-language nation, not a bilingual province.

Also, since civil law and family law fall under Quebec's jurisdiction, the province should have full authority over family reunification.

The Bloc Québécois believes that since telecommunications and broadcasting are important to the future of Quebec culture, these powers must be delegated to the Government of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois believes that Quebec could create its own broadcasting and telecommunications council which, while complying with federal legislation, could implement its own regulations based on its own concerns and interests.

The recognition of a nation is more than symbolic, because the nation is where political decisions are made. Recognizing a nation means recognizing a political entity with legitimate political rights and aspirations.

That is exactly what Robert Bourassa said in the Quebec National Assembly when the Meech Lake accord failed:

—English Canada must clearly understand that, no matter what, Quebec is today and for all times a distinct society, free and capable of assuming its destiny and its development.

Unfortunately, most Canadians who thought that there would be consequences for recognizing the Quebec nation were opposed to doing so. The House will remember. It was 2006. Most people who supported it were quick to point out that it essentially meant nothing. That is rather appalling, since recognizing a nation means recognizing a people and an entity. It means recognizing that people have the right to take the destiny of their nation and of their fellow citizens into their own hands. It means recognizing that nation's needs.

Having independence and sovereignty means three things: it means creating one's own laws; it means collecting all one's taxes, all the money that is from the people for the people; it means signing one's own international treaties. That is what Quebec wants. It wants complete and full sovereignty.

By recognizing that the people of Quebec form a nation, Canada recognized that all the positions that the Bloc Québécois defends in the House of Commons are legitimate and appropriate. These positions include: respect for Quebec's distinct character; acknowledgement of Quebec values; settlement of the fiscal imbalance; full respect of Quebec's jurisdictions, which means putting an end to federal spending in Quebec jurisdictions; the end of Canadian nation building, which aims to create a Canadian nation and to weaken the Quebec identity.

In short, by recognizing the Quebec nation, Canada recognized that it was normal for Quebeckers to think about Quebec's interests first and foremost, which is consistent with the view of the Bloc Québécois.

The Quebec nation has a language, French. Canada must take that into account and adjust its legislation accordingly, including by making sure that federally regulated businesses are required to operate in French in Quebec, just like Quebec businesses.

The Quebec nation has a culture, the Quebec culture. Federal laws and institutions that have an impact on culture and identity must take that into account and stop trying to shove us into the Canadian mould as if there was only one nation in Canada, the Canadian nation, of which Quebec was only a regional component.

With our vision of Quebec and the integration of newcomers to Quebec, the Bloc Québécois is working, here in the House of Commons, hand in hand with the National Assembly of Quebec, not against the National Assembly and its decisions. We have a vision of a full-fledged society that is international in scope, a society that has aspirations, a society that welcomes immigration based on Quebec's needs. This vision of immigration, by the way, recognizes fully that French is the common language of Quebeckers.

[October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games open in 113 days, and there is still no guarantee that French will be on an equal footing with English at the games.

Where is the leadership of the Treasury Board in coordinating federal institutions with regard to official languages at the Vancouver games? Are the deputy heads of federal institutions making an appropriate effort to ensure that French-language services are available for the games?

In closing, I will quote Commissioner Fraser, on page 30 of his 2008-09 annual report:

To prevent such an outcome, all institutions involved, including the Vancouver Airport Authority, the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, Air Canada and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, must roll up their sleeves and work together, along with the Canada Border Services Agency, to showcase Canada’s linguistic duality to the world.

[October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in the report released by the Commissioner of Official Languages last May regarding the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Vancouver, he states that unless drastic action is taken the Vancouver and Toronto airports will be unable to properly greet visitors in French. He also states that the administrations of Air Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency should work together with their parliamentarians to ensure that French is on an equal footing with English.

Last September, in his report “Raising our Game for Vancouver 2010: Towards a Canadian Model of Linguistic Duality in International Sport”, Commissioner of Official Languages Graham Fraser, pointed out, among other things, that ten or so federal institutions had dismal results in terms of the provision of services in French for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Vancouver. In addition, of the points of service that are designated bilingual under airport authority, only 10% are bilingual.

And yet, the Olympics are drawing near.

In its Constitution, Canada recognizes French and English as equal. Furthermore, French is one of the International Olympic Committee's official languages. The fact that we are nearing the end of October 2009, just three and a half months away from the games, and that we are still talking about serious shortcomings throughout the Canadian Olympic organization speaks volumes about the lack of respect for Quebeckers, Acadians and Franco-Canadians in this country.

The goal is a simple one: Canada, the host country, must be able to serve in French anyone who requests it anywhere in Vancouver, Whistler or Richmond, the cities in which athletes will be competing during the 2010 winter games.

A lot of questions remain unanswered. Where is the French signage and the French documentation for visitors, athletes, coaches and tourists?

Why is the City of Richmond still negotiating with Olympics organizers to determine whether it will have signage in French? The mayor of Richmond wants to go back to his municipal council for the next round of negotiations on the presence of French in the city. Why has the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, VANOC, not yet forced its partners to be reasonable about the French fact?

Will Vancouver Tourism and BC Tourism kiosks be able to offer services in French? Will they make an active effort to do so?

Will the supposedly bilingual volunteers, the 3,500 recruits, be functional in French at the C level for comprehension, B for written and C for oral? What about their housing and transportation? Will we lose officially bilingual volunteers because of shortages in these two areas? Will the 7.5 million words to be translated into French actually be translated?

The Cultural Olympiad will not be showcasing many francophone artists. That is a problem. We hope that francophone artists from British Columbia, along with Quebeckers, Acadians, and Franco-Canadians in general will be well represented.

A Vancouver Games that respects the French fact in a country where French is an official language would be a fitting legacy for the francophone community in British Columbia. Among other things, let us consider authentically bilingual signage.

[Museums, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, employees of the Canadian War Museum and the Canadian Museum of Civilization have been on strike for several weeks now. They are denouncing the government negotiators' attitude and demanding employment security as protection against subcontracting and as better protection for contract employees.

Why are these museum employees being denied the same conditions that are offered in other federal museums?

[Museums, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, employees of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum have been on strike for several weeks now. They held a demonstration today to denounce the government negotiators' attitude and to demand employment security as protection against subcontracting.

Why are museum employees being denied the protection enjoyed by other public employees? Why is there a double standard?

[Search and Rescue Helicopter, October 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Motion M-346 proposed by the Newfoundland member from Random—Burin—St. George's.

Motion M-346 states that “it is imperative the government move expeditiously to allocate the necessary resources to put in place a full-time dedicated helicopter fully equipped to search and rescue standards at the airport nearest to offshore oil activity and that it be available on a 24-hour basis with a crew trained in all aspects of search and rescue.”

The Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of increasing security for those working at sea. The Bloc Québécois believes that the government must carry out its mandate of providing a search and rescue service for marine industries and the general public.

Let us not forget the tragic case of the Ocean Ranger, the semi-submersible mobile drilling platform that sank off the coast of Newfoundland on February 15, 1982. It was exploring the ocean floor in the Grand Banks area, 267 kilometres from St. John's, Newfoundland. All 84 crew members on board lost their lives.

Following this catastrophe, a royal commission was established, chaired by Justice Alex Hickman. After two years, it submitted its findings and recommendations, which included:

That there be required a full-time search and rescue dedicated helicopter, provided by either government or industry, fully equipped to search and rescue standards, at the airport nearest to the ongoing offshore drilling operations, and that it be readily available with a trained crew able to perform all aspects of the rescue.

Government or industry should provide a full-time search and rescue dedicated helicopter that is fully equipped and based at the airport nearest the drilling platforms. For reasons that are unknown, that recommendation was not implemented.

Look at the tragedy that ensued during the Cougar helicopter accident. On March 12, 2009, a Sikorsky S-92 helicopter with 18 crew members on board, crashed into the ocean following a technical problem. That helicopter shuttled workers between land and various oil platforms off the coast of Newfoundland. Only one passenger survived. Following that tragedy, Tom Hann, a St. John's city councillor, introduced a motion calling on the federal government to review its search and rescue services, to base a Cormorant helicopter in St. John's, Newfoundland, and to provide Goose Bay and Gander with a search and rescue unit.

Another sad accident comes to mind, the one involving Robert Keough. During the weekend of September 12, 2009, less than a month ago, a 58-year-old fisherman, Robert Keough, died when the boat he was working on sank. This tragedy occurred roughly 120 kilometres from St. John's, Newfoundland.

The boat owner said that this tragedy could have been avoided if there had been a rescue helicopter based in St. John's, Newfoundland, closer than the one that came from Gander.

As we have heard, maritime trades are very dangerous. The men and women who risk their lives every day to earn a living are tied to their ships, their platforms, or worse, become trapped in them when they founder. They cannot escape as easily as they could on land. That is clear.

This is why response times are even more important at sea. It makes sense to try to make these jobs safer, so it makes sense to move rescue services closer to the areas where they will, unfortunately, be called upon to respond.

It is also important that the new helicopters remain in good condition. We must be careful not to spread resources too thin, and to ensure that they are being used to optimum effect. Thus, we must consider the comments of the mayor of Gander, who said that before sending new helicopters elsewhere in Newfoundland, we should be upgrading the ones in his city.

Furthermore, this new service must not be an excuse for the oil companies to shirk their own obligations to see to the safety of their employees.

For all of those lost at sea, and to act on the recommendations of the royal commission chaired by Justice Alex Hickman in the mid-1980s, the House of Commons must approve this motion.

Helicopters must be available year-round to perform search and rescue operations at sea. They must be provided by either government or industry, equipped with the latest in lifesaving technology, stationed at an airport close to offshore drilling platforms, and ready to respond to all distress calls with a crew trained to rescue persons in distress.

We hope that Motion M-346 will be adopted and acted upon without delay.

Thanks to technology, we have been able to orbit the earth and put astronauts on the moon for 40 years. It does not make sense that we cannot save lives at sea with helicopters right here on the surface of the planet. Out of respect for those lost off the coast of Newfoundland, and to ensure that their tragic disappearances are not in vain, let us act to prevent similar losses of human lives. Let us vote for Motion M-346.

[Labour Relations, October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, 420 employees of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum, members of the Public Service Alliance, have been on strike since September 21. I met with them on the picket line. These employees want only one thing: to go back to work with a fair collective agreement. Ninety-two per cent of these employees voted to strike. I believe that is significant.

What is the minister waiting for to instruct the employer to go back to the bargaining table?

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Papineau, who is extolling the virtues of his own party, as compared to the government, where is the $3.3 million that the Liberals pocketed during the sponsorship scandal and that is still missing? Where is it? Why has it still not been put back into the government's coffers? Where is the $50 billion that was taken from the employment insurance fund? Workers and employers had contributed that money to create a fund so that workers would have adequate income if they lost their jobs. Where is that money that was misappropriated from the EI fund? It started with Jean Chrétien, then Paul Martin—

[Outaouais Festival of New Artists, September 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the second Festival de l'Outaouais Émergent was held from September 10 to 13. This locally organized festival was created to put on an event in downtown Gatineau that would bring together the people and artists of the Outaouais and promote the development of Gatineau's culture and identity. With great pride, we can say, “Mission accomplished”.

Many artists took the stage to share their art and their passion with the people. We were treated to performances by artists including 37 Laval, Dress & Gomez, le Duo d'Hull, Les Jaseurs, Tracteur Jack, Beast, Ghislain Poirier and more in addition to the work of other talented artists on display under the tents. It was a feast for the eyes and ears.

With a festival like this one, there can be no doubt that the Outaouais is an exciting place to experience Quebec's culture and identity.