Richard Nadeau

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We are indeed in a rather fuzzy, if not downright grey area. The government wants to get $3 billion from the House of Commons—one billion equals one thousand million, so three billion equals three thousand million dollars—to spend on the so-called infrastructure programs, which have no criteria and no guidelines. This clearly smacks of patronage. The way the current government is trying to set aside a sum of money, supposedly to help jump-start the economy, is totally inadequate.

The Auditor General of Canada was the one who expressed these opinions. We are not making anything up. Hon. members just need to hearken back to the sponsorship scandal, which is still very clear in the Liberals' memories. Or the long dark period in Quebec under Maurice Duplessis, for example, when not everything about public funds was made public.

When the Conservative Party of Canada came to power in 2006, it introduced bill C-2 concerning government responsibility and accountability. It claimed that it wanted to avoid this situation, and we welcomed that with open arms.

Yet now it is doing exactly the opposite of what it proposed in that bill, by not setting any criteria for that $3 billion. So the whole process is open to suspicion. This is no small matter, when we are well aware of how many Quebeckers and Canadians are desperately in need of money as they face the current economic crisis. On top of that, they have to put up with this totally unacceptable procedure being used by the Conservative government.

We cannot react to this situation in any way other than negatively. I hope that there is at least one Conservative who will be able to wake up the rest of them and let them know that this plan they have in mind to set aside $3 billion with no guidelines is absolutely unacceptable. All the opposition agrees on this. All Quebeckers, all Canadians, all the people represented in this House of Commons support this principle. When the federal government spends money, we have to know where it is going to be spent, and what guidelines and rules have been set out.

This is the exact opposite of an accountability bill. It is the exact opposite of appropriate, honest and democratic government responsibility.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today in connection with the Liberal Party motion concerning vote 35, that is the interim vote of $3 billion. Let us review the motion itself:

That, due to the extraordinary nature of the spending authority proposed in Treasury Board Vote 35 in the Main Estimates for 2009-2010, this House calls upon the government to table in the House, by April 3rd, 2009, a list of the departments and programs which are likely to require access to this extraordinary authority;

on each occasion that the government uses Vote 35, this House calls upon the government to table in the House, within one sitting day of each such use, a report disclosing:

(a) the name and location of each project to which the funding is being provided (including the federal electoral district in which it is located),

(b) the amount of federal funding,

(c) the department and program under which the federal funding is being provided,

(d) what each project is intended to achieve in fighting the recession, and why it requires recourse to Vote 35 rather than any other source of funds;

that each such report shall be posted on a publicly accessible government website, and referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and to the Auditor General.

To begin with, the fact that the government wishes to appropriate the means by which taxpayers' dollars are to be spent is totally unsatisfactory and disrespectful of democracy. Let us start off by acknowledging that the Conservative budget is clearly insufficient and unacceptable for Quebec. I will take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to give you an example of this, since I know you are very attentive to the question.

In the last budget, the forestry industry is allocated an envelope of $170 million, while close to $4 billion in loans are offered to the auto industry. A rapid calculation if we put those two amounts together gives 4% for forestry and 96% for the auto industry. This is unequal and unacceptable.

I am thinking today of the workers at Abitibi-Bowater in Gatineau, who are waiting for another downsizing exercise. This paper mill employed 1450 in 1992, but the figure had dropped to 580 in 2007 and is now less than 400. Abitibi-Bowater, the biggest newsprint producer in the world, is now involved in debt restructuring. Its deadline for announcing its plan is tonight.

It is quite understandable for workers to be holding their breath, because they are wondering, quite simply, whether there will be more job losses. We have to feel for these folks. The budget does not.

We can certainly understand the remarks by Gaston Carrière, the president of section 142 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, which has a membership of some 370 tradesmen at the Gatineau pulp and paper mill. In this morning's Le Droit, he criticizes the federal government's lack of intervention to help the forestry industry while the automotive industry in Canada is getting nearly $4 billion in loans. Pulp and paper in Canada has lost 25,000 jobs in the past two years or so. It is scandalous.

Mr. Carrière went on to say that they had been through streamlining, that the Gatineau plant was among the most efficient and that they had worked to increase productivity and competitiveness. He pointed out that the government helps the automotive industry and the oil industry in the west.

Mr. Carrière is not very impressed by the Prime Minister of Canada and his refusal to help the forestry industry.

In the light of Mr. Carrière's remarks, we reiterate that the Conservative budget is totally inadequate and unacceptable to Quebec. In addition, the Liberal party failed to assume its responsibilities and preferred to have the budget passed, a budget that did not meet Quebeckers' needs.

Out of concern for rigorous management of public funds, the Bloc québécois opposes giving the federal government a blank cheque for $3 billion.

The federal government has been negligent in the past in its management of secret funds, as the sponsorship scandal revealed.

The Liberal party will give the Conservative government the sum of $3 billion, which will not be under the control of Parliament.

The Liberal motion does not alter the fact that the Conservative government will be able to spend the $3 billion however it likes.

The Liberal motion obliges the government to be accountable, albeit minimally, in managing the $3 billion under vote 35.

Despite the passage of this motion, the Bloc will continue to hound the Conservative government to ensure that the money invested from this secret fund will be spent legitimately. The details sought by the Liberal party are a start, for sure, but quite inadequate. On the basis of this principle of accountability, we will support this motion.

After the 2009 budget was tabled, the Conservatives tabled with the main estimates, a request for a vote of $3 billion to be spent by June 2009, this coming June, by Treasury Board. So, 11/12 of this vote will be voted on this evening as interim supply.

The details surrounding this vote are unknown and that is the scandal. In other words, under the pretext of rapidly injecting money into the economy, the Conservatives are asking Parliament to sign over a $3 billion blank cheque.

Yet as the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities himself admitted, the political ministers of each region will be consulted concerning the allocation of the money made available by vote 35. This is what I would call favouritism.

In that regard, I would like to quote from a period of questions in the March 5 meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, that is, 19 days ago. My colleague, the transport critic and member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, asked the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities the following question:

My second question is about community recreational facilities. The Minister of State Responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, [the Conservative member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean], announced that his department was prepared to receive applications, but no forms are available. Earlier you mentioned that the [Minister of Public Works and Government Services, the Conservative member for Mégantic—L'Érable], was also looking after this file. Which [of the two ministers] will manage programs for community recreational facilities in Quebec?

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Conservative member for Ottawa West—Nepean, replied:

I work constructively with all my cabinet colleagues.

Listen carefully, for all is revealed in his next comment.

The political minister in each region is obviously one of the principal advisers whom I would turn to for advice and counsel. [The Conservative member and minister from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean] works for the Regional Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec. Obviously that might be a delivery agent for one or more initiatives. We'll be coming forward in very short order with some specifics on that.

That is favouritism. Is that not scandalous? The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities will consult his colleagues in each region—the Minister of Public Works and Government Services this time and maybe the Minister of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec another time—to determine whether the project is worthwhile rather than examining the quality of the project, all without having any criteria. That is favouritism, that is taking taxpayers' money and doing what they want with it. And to do what? To put up a building here, in a riding that did not win a project last time, or to build a road there, in a riding they want to hold onto in the next election. This is an appalling and unacceptable way of doing things.

I am thinking of forestry workers, the paper mill workers in Gatineau today, who will find out tonight if they are still employed. The federal government has money and what does it want to do with the $3 billion? It wants to hand it out to friends because it is not in the least accountable to taxpayers. That is unacceptable and I understand Quebeckers' and Canadians' outcry and revolt against these types of proposals from the Conservative government.

It is shameful. We should be ashamed and vote against a government that acts in this way. We will support the spirit of the motion by voting for it.

[Supreme Court Act, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first off, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-232, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages). This bill was introduced by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst. It is the tip of the iceberg, as the federal government does not set an example in the matter of bilingualism in this country called Canada.

They want the federal public service to be bilingual so that it may serve people in their first language. The government currently wants to look into how universities could train students at the bachelor's, master's and doctoral levels to be able to speak English and French in order to create a pool of recruits to work in the federal public service. In itself, this is quite a good thing.

However, as regards this idea, which is currently under scrutiny by the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the issue is bigger. I call this issue “the Canadian disease”. In other words, the government wants a public service in which most of the employees are bilingual, while the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are not required to be bilingual. This makes no sense. In Canada, there is no requirement for deputy ministers to be bilingual, but there is for their employees, the people who work for them and are part of the government machine. The deputy minister does not need to be bilingual. That makes no sense.

Canada's ambassadors are not required to be bilingual and they represent Canada, a country whose constitution provides that its two languages are on an equal footing. However, ambassadors, representing Canada abroad, are not required to be bilingual. That is cynicism. And it does not end there, because 37% of positions designated bilingual in the federal public service are filled by unilingual anglophones.

As you see, the problem is a complex one. This is the way to ignore the French fact. And this is how the Government of Canada acts toward the French fact. It explains why people like the Bloc members, all our members, are here in order to defend the French culture and language, the common, public culture and language of Quebec. In Canada, there is no respect for this language. Now you understand the whole issue of Quebec's independence, a fundamental element. Cynicism in Canada runs high.

I am sure you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker. I will show how the Conservative party has dealt with bilingualism, a concept it claims to support. In Canada, one language is more official than the other, and you will understand which one. Nearly 40 years after the passage of the Official Languages Act, it is still difficult to work in French in the federal system. When a manager is a unilingual anglophone, all the employees work in English. When 10 public servants—nine francophones and one anglophone—hold a meeting, the meeting is most often in English because, in all likelihood, the francophones are bilingual and the anglophone is not.

Worse yet, Ottawa continues not to consider bilingualism necessary for appointments to bilingual positions, as non-imperative staffing is still largely used, especially for senior positions. That is typical Canadian cynicism with respect to the French fact.

While the Conservative Party committed to support the Official Languages Act in its March 2005 policy statement and, again, in its latest election platform, ensuring that English and French have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada, we have to recognize that, clearly, that statement is not being acted upon.

Following the cancellation of the court challenges program, the elimination of the interdepartmental partnership with the official-language communities, the appointment of a unilingual English-speaking judge, and the antics by members who show contempt by daring to call Quebeckers illiterate in their second language, even while French is losing ground, what is next? Think of the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who said that Quebeckers did not want to learn English, their second language, when data from Statistics Canada clearly show that Gatineau and Montreal rank first and third respectively in terms of bilingualism in Canada. I am from Hawkesbury, Ontario, a town located between Gatineau and Montreal, the second most bilingual city in the country. The people of Quebec are making efforts. Quebec is the province with the largest number of citizens who speak French and English. Yet, some Conservative members are making spiteful comments about the French fact and, in this case, the comments came from a francophone, which goes to show that being a member of the Conservative government does not help further the cause of the French fact in Quebec and Canada.

In May 2008, the Conservative members sitting on the official languages committee refused to support a motion on bilingualism for Supreme Court justices. If the Prime Minister is sincere in his commitments, let us hope he can rally his troops and show his support for linguistic minorities. We are living a horror story from the inside, and it is the Conservative Party that is responsible for this situation.

Considering that the bill seeks to make the understanding of French and English without the assistance of an interpreter a requirement for judges appointed to the Supreme Court; considering that the Official Languages Act provides that English and French have equality of status and use; considering that the French and English versions of federal acts have equal value and that one is not a translation of the other; considering that the right of any citizen to use French or English before Canada's courts is a fundamental linguistic right and that the Official Languages Act already recognizes the importance of being understood without the assistance of an interpreter before federal tribunals such as the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal; considering that simultaneous translation can create problems because it does not allow adequate reaction time to interrupt someone, to ask questions, whether for the justice, the lawyers or even the individuals subject to trial who have a right to be able to understand all the nuances and subtleties of each language, it goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-232.

I will conclude by saying that the Quebec nation has dealt with this issue. On May 21, 2008, the members of the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed the following motion: “That the National Assembly of Québec affirm that French language proficiency is a prerequisite and essential condition for the appointment of Supreme Court of Canada judges.”

We support this legislation. It is the tip of the iceberg. So much remains to be done in Canada. The federal institution does not respect the French fact. It is about time for it to begin to do so. We still have doubts about the Conservatives, but the Bloc Québécois supports the French language and it also supports this bill.

[Supreme Court Act, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst on his bill. I have a question for him.

He has just made the point that Supreme Court judges should be able to understand French and English, and we agree with him. He has also just pointed out that deputy ministers and senior public servants should meet the same requirement.

What about ambassadors who represent Canada and are unilingual? What about designated bilingual positions held by unilingual people? What concerns does he have about these situations?

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleague's speech is a heartfelt appeal for science and for scientific development in Quebec and in Canada.

However, I found one thing very intriguing and it can be found on page 107 of the budget that was passed by the Liberals and Conservatives. In my opinion, this budget was written by the Liberals and delivered by the Conservatives. The Liberals are speaking out against this budget, but they will vote in favour of it, in a real show of political schizophrenia.

On page 107 of the budget, there is an announcement that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada will focus on scholarships for business-related research. That is a far cry from the Liberal member's speech in which she said she wanted to defend scientific development. In the end she will vote, along with her party, to ensure that business will receive more scholarships in universities.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Sherbrooke.

He mentioned that, on page 107 of the recently passed Liberal-Conservative budget, the government states that scholarships granted by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will be focussed on business-related degrees. I would like him to expand on that and talk about who gets hurt when such specific criteria are imposed.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague indicated earlier that, while allowing subsidies for the oil industry, which does not seem to be struggling too much right now, the Conservative federal government was making cuts in the aviation industry, among others.

Did I understand him correctly? Also, what is the current situation in that regard?

[National Cemetery of Canada Act, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-17 concerning Beechwood Cemetery in Ottawa. If Canada wants to create a national cemetery on Canadian land, that is Canada's business, and we of the Quebec nation respect that choice.

In addition, I am very happy to speak to this bill, because several famous Quebeckers are buried there.

I would like to extend sincere thanks to Michel Prévost, chair of the Outaouais historical society, for all the historical information he sent me to share with Quebeckers and Canadians about illustrious Quebeckers whose graves are in Beechwood Cemetery. Mr. Prévost is a consummate professional and a great guy. Thank you very much, Michel.

First, there is Alonzo Wright, a lumberman and politician, who was born on April 28, 1821 in Hull, Lower Canada, and died on January 7, 1894 in Ironside, Quebec. He was the grandson of Philemon Wright, the founder of Wrightville in Lower Canada.

There is a bridge over the Gatineau River that is named after him. Today, on some of the land he once worked stands the Collège Saint-Alexandre in the town of Touraine, in Gatineau.

In the rugged “Ottawa valley country”, he became, to his contemporaries, a “king” of the forest industry.

Alonzo Wright's political career spanned the years from 1863 to 1891. First elected as the member for the Quebec riding of Ottawa, under the infamous union forced by the equally infamous Lord Durham, he was re-elected five times in the Dominion. He was always elected under the banner of the Liberal-Conservative Party, whose first leader was John Alexander MacDonald. Prior to 1863, he was an admirer of the Reformers Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine. As a politician, he fought hard for his riding, championing agricultural development, colonization and the construction of canals and railways to link the region to what is now the rest of the Quebec nation. Perhaps with him, the Outaouais would already have its four-lane highway 50, but we will never know.

Another well-known Quebecker who has left her mark on Beechwood Cemetery is Élisabeth Bruyère. The founder and first superior of the Sisters of Charity of Bytown, she was born in L'Assomption, Lower Canada, on March 19, 1818 and died in Ottawa on April 5, 1876. A hospital in the Lowertown area of Ottawa bears her name, and there are streets named for her in Gatineau and Ottawa.

Mother Bruyère is not buried in Beechwood Cemetery, but a beautiful monument has been erected there in her honour. A Quebecker by birth, Mother Bruyère established a community that is present today in the Outaouais.

Under the protection of a cousin, abbé Charles-François Caron, the parish priest of Saint-Esprit in Montcalm County, she received a religious, intellectual, and domestic training of the highest quality. In 1834 she taught at the local school; she continued teaching at Saint-Vincent-de-Paul on Laval Island when her benefactor was transferred there in 1836.

Elisabeth was easily moved by the sufferings of others, and in 1839 entered the order of the Sisters of Charity of the Hôpital Général de Montréal, commonly called the Grey Nuns. In 1845, she went to Bytown where, under the yoke of the Act of Union, Franco-Ontarians had no schools, hospitals or organized assistance. Young Sister Bruyère was among those who served this community and surrounding ones. She had to combat the tragic typhus epidemic of 1847-1848.

The Grey Nuns saved some 475 of the 600 who fell ill. In addition, they were entrusted with the care of fifteen infant orphans. Mother Bruyère trained sisters in Bytown who opened no less than 25 houses serving as schools or hospitals under her control, such as St. Andrews West, near Cornwall, Ontario, or Timiskaming, known at the time as Canada West, and Buffalo, in New York State. Élisabeth Bruyère was a woman of courage and vision.

Louis-Théodore Besserer, notary, soldier, member of the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada and businessman, was born in Château-Richer, near Quebec City, on January 4, 1785, and died in Ottawa on February 3, 1861.

He was a pupil at Petit Séminaire de Québec and then studied to become a notary.

At the beginning of the War of 1812, Besserer was a lieutenant in the 2nd militia battalion of the Quebec City district. He was transferred to the 6th battalion on March 20, 1813 and on September 25 of the same year was promoted captain. He represented the county of Quebec in the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada from October 7, 1833 to March 27, 1838. He agreed with the Ninety-Two Resolutions and was a Patriote of the Quebec region.

Disappointed and embittered by political events, Besserer retired in 1845 to an immense estate he had purchased in 1828 near Bytown. A shrewd businessman, he had it subdivided into building sites, and gave Bishop Patrick Phelan a lot for a church and school in order to attract buyers. He also had several streets laid out, one of which, in Sandy Hill, still bears his name. This speculation brought him a fortune. Along with other fellow citizens, he was concerned with the incorporation of Bytown as a town, which took place in 1847.

Unfortunately, assimilation reared its ugly head. Mr. Besserer quickly became anglicized and, by the end of his life, considered himself to be a unilingual anglophone.

Sir George Halsey Perley was born in Lebanon, New Hampshire on September 12, 1857 and died on January 4, 1938. For half a century this Quebecker had a bridge between Grenville, Québec and my home town of Hawkesbury in eastern Ontario proudly named after him. The bridge that replaced it is now known as Long-Sault because it is in the area of New France where Dollard des Ormeaux died during a conflict.

Perley was a politician and a diplomat. Between 1904 and 1935, he was elected seven times as the federal member for Argenteuil—a seat now occupied by none other than our Bloc Québécois transport critic. He served, among other things, as minister of the overseas military forces during the first world war.

Many other people are buried in Beechwood Cemetery.

Built in 1873 in a hilly area surrounded by trees, it has winding paths, picturesque views and numerous wooded islets as well as its variety of trees, shrubs and ornamental plants. This place of pastoral beauty, which lends itself to reflection and commemoration of the dead, is also home to monuments of considerable artistic and historical significance. There is also a beautiful chapel on this sacred site.

In conclusion, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my colleagues from Ottawa—Vanier, a Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, a Conservative, and Ottawa Centre, from the NDP, who set aside partisanship and worked together with the Bloc Québécois to make this project a reality in their city.

[Eva Souligny Deschamps, February 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Eva Souligny Deschamps, a resident in my riding, recently celebrated her 100th birthday. She was born on February 1, 1909, in Saint-Bernardin parish in eastern Ontario. She lives at the Cité Jardin in Gatineau.

Mrs. Deschamps says she was brought up in a loving, patient farming family. She and her late husband, Henri Deschamps, had 10 children together, seven of whom are still alive, and she is proud to have 25 grandchildren and 26 great-grandchildren.

Mrs. Deschamps likes to say that she is as old as the Montreal Canadiens and that, as an ardent hockey fan, she has always cheered for them. But she does admit that she now rather likes the Ottawa Senators.

The Bloc Québécois and I would like to offer Mrs. Deschamps our best wishes, and we hope that she will keep both her health and her sense of humour.

[February 26th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, here is an example of what I was talking about earlier.

Last fall, because of the Reform Conservatives' cuts, the La La La Human Steps dance company had to tell its Italian partners that it was cancelling the performance of its opus, Amjad, which was to be staged at the Ferrare theatre in Leonardo da Vinci's homeland. Fortunately, Gisberto Morselli, the manager of the theatre, paid out of his own pocket to bring the Quebec dance company to his venue. That is an exceptionally rare situation that is not available to many artists.

There is a solution to the problem the Reform Conservatives have created, and it is this: now, more than ever before, all responsibility for culture must be transferred to the Government of Quebec, together with all of the funds earmarked for it.