Richard Nadeau

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Prince Edward Island.

In 1977, under the René Lévesque government in Quebec, the Abenakis, Algonquin, Attikamek, Cree, Huron-Wendat, Innu, Maliseet, Mi’kmaq, Mohawk, Naskapis and Inuit were allowed to have schools taught in their language for the first time ever. This is very important for the preservation of the culture of many such nations that deserve our respect and that, for the first time, had a government that would listen. In fact, it was a sovereignist government in Quebec.

I would like to know how the member sees the Speech from the Throne meeting the needs of first nations people in Quebec and in Canada, who have, for quite some time—for over ten years—been asking the federal government to invest in first nations schools, to put them on a level playing field with other schools across Canada? How does he see this throne speech helping first nations?

[Privilege, June 20th, 2008]

That is out of order.

[Official Languages, June 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's new official languages action plan is based on a faulty understanding of the relationship between French and English in Canada. English is not under threat, but French, which is spoken by a minority of people in Canada and America, is. To treat both linguistic minorities as equals is to deny reality and allow the assimilation of francophones to happen.

By choosing to defend this kind of linguistic duality, is the minister not turning her back on the French language and those who speak it?

[Petitions, June 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition signed by 38 Quebeckers who want the Government of Canada to respect the nation of Quebec and Bill 101 in a tangible way.

[Excise Tax Act, June 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is only to say that there is no interpretation into French.

[Public Service of Canada, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, June 15 to 21 is National Public Service Week. With the theme “Recognizing our history, while building our tomorrow ”, the week commemorates the importance of federal public service employees, their professionalism, their initiative and their constant efforts to provide quality service to the public and contribute to its well-being.

The week is also a chance to improve work environments and to foster communication between government institutions and crown corporations. Many public servants also play an important role in their communities, where they serve in various capacities.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues join me in acknowledging the work of all public servants and in thanking them for their valuable contribution.

Happy Public Service Week.

[Bill 101, June 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of people including many artists demonstrated in Montreal yesterday for the strengthening of Bill 101. The Bloc Québécois has introduced Bill C-482, which attempts to do just that, for example, by amending the Official Languages Act in order to have the federal government recognize that French is Quebec's only official language. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against this bill.

With Quebec's national holiday just a few days away, will the Conservatives finally put their words into action and promise to support this initiative?

[June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the CBC made a serious mistake that must be corrected. I have already made the point to the president and vice-president of the crown corporation that when a gala such as the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame gala, featuring French and English songwriters from Quebec and Canada, is broadcast, at least one quarter of the program must be in French. This is imperative. People whose language of use is French represent 25% of Canada's population, and they are entitled to hear francophone singers during such a gala.

This requirement should be included in all CBC and Radio-Canada contracts for galas similar to the one we are talking about today.

[June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on April 15, the vice president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Richard Stursberg, said before the Standing Committee on Official Languages that the broadcast of the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame gala last March did not show French-Canadian songwriters and composers because the anglophone audience would not appreciate the music and would change the channel. This left French-language singers without a chance to showcase their talent.

The gala was three hours and fifteen minutes long, and all of the French-language singers were cut for reasons that border on xenophobia. “Anglophones will change the channel if the francophones sing.”

It is despicable. And it has been this way for three years. It is unacceptable. Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat and Bloc members do not approve of this state of affairs. This is what we told Mr. Stursberg and his boss, Hubert Lacroix, the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, on May 27 when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

What if Inuit singers Kashtin were to perform? Would the CBC go off air so as not to displease people who do not speak their language? You have to wonder.

Mr. Stursberg claimed that audience ratings studies supported his decision. That is out of order. Quebeckers, Acadians and Brayons, together with francophones in Newfoundland, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, not to mention francophile anglophones, all pay their taxes to the federal government, and some of that money goes to the CBC. They all have the right to hear francophone singers on the CBC, particularly during its broadcast of the hall of fame gala honouring Canadian songwriters from coast to coast.

There is every reason for members of the House of Commons to get involved in issues related to the crown corporation's programming. We were elected by citizens who want us to represent them and who want us to spend their tax money well. In this case, they want us to make sure that public television programming reflects their Quebec culture or their Canadian culture, as the case may be.

According to Canada's broadcasting policy, the crown corporation, which includes both the Société Radio-Canada and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, must “reflect Canada”.

For the past three years, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has failed to comply with that important part of its mandate during CBC broadcasts of the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame gala featuring both francophone and anglophone songwriters. That has to change.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech the hon. member for Toronto Centre just gave. I know he is new to this House and I think he has a great deal of potential here. We will continue to listen to his speeches now and again to see if he stays on the same path.

Of course, today's debate has to do with the freedom of speech of elected members of the House of Commons. It is an extremely important issue that forms the very foundation of the parliamentary system and our work as legislators here in the House.

We all know that, since May 7, 2008, the hon. member for West Nova has lost his right to free speech within the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics as well as in the House of Commons, because of a decision by the Ethics Commissioner in the Mulroney-Schreiber case.

Incidentally, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

It is important, and I said this from the outset, for members to have freedom of expression to do their work as legislators properly. This right goes as far back as the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Mr. Speaker, I know that you were certainly among those who thought of the Bill of Rights. In this House, this goes back to another time, namely the BNAA, 1867. I am not talking about AA as in Alcoholics Anonymous, but the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Parliament of Canada Act.

It is extremely important for members to be able to work for the advancement of society as it evolves and in accordance with the duty we have to our electors.

Parliamentary immunity is necessary for members to be able to do their work. We have to avoid allowing a lawsuit against one hon. member from becoming a way to prevent all elected members of the House of Commons from doing their work as legislators. Can we say that enough?

Imagine if the rich and powerful sued the 308 members of the House of Commons with the evil intention of preventing them from speaking and legislating one way or another. We have to avoid that scenario. We have to prevent the intimidation and manipulation of the democratic process by such suits against elected members. Imagine 180 members of the opposition suing the Prime Minister to prevent him from speaking on a certain subject. We cannot allow that to happen.

We are in a similar situation with respect to our colleague in this House, our Acadian friend, the hon. member for West Nova. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we have to prevent such a situation from happening. I hope you will be among those who vote in favour of the motion presented by the Liberal Party of Canada, as the Bloc Québécois will be. We know that you are a fine democrat and that you are in favour of the principle that I have just outlined.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion. We must protect the freedom of speech of parliamentarians and those they represent. We absolutely must keep the door closed on the use of SLAPP suits against elected members. The ethics commissioner herself opened the door to parliamentarians by writing, on page 24 of her report:

Concerns have been raised about the use of lawsuits, more particularly libel suits, to prevent a Member from performing his or her duties in the House of Commons. I cannot predict whether this may indeed become a problem and I hope [this is still the ethics commissioner speaking] it does not. Should this become a serious concern for Members, however, the Code could be adjusted to except libel suits from the ambit of “private interest” for the purposes of sections 8 and 13.

The ethics commissioner was already expressing concern. Unfortunately, this happened, and fortunately, we are going to work together to correct this situation.

The opposition members responded by adopting a resolution in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The Conservatives, as expected, opposed this resolution and prevailed with the Speaker of the House on a technicality—I repeat, on a technicality.

After trying to muzzle the parliamentary press gallery, women's groups and minority groups funded by the court challenges program, the Conservative government is now trying to gag the opposition, which is deplorable.

Moreover, in the wake of the Cadman affair, the Prime Minister threatened to sue the Liberal Party of Canada and its leader, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, as well as the Liberal members for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and Wascana. In the end, he sued only the Liberal Party of Canada. If he had taken legal action against the three parliamentarians, however, they would not have been able to continue asking questions about the affair. That is what is deplorable.

In addition, the Liberal member for Ajax—Pickering is being sued for libel by Chris Froggatt, chief of staff of none other than the member for Ottawa West—Nepean and the current Minister of the Environment. The latter is facing allegations of political interference in the Ottawa light rail project, a matter currently being reviewed by a parliamentary committee.

This is a fundamental issue. In this case, the ability to carry out his legislative work must be restored in full to the Acadian member for West Nova, especially since the ethics commissioner pointed out that he acted in good faith.

In view of this situation, we must absolutely ensure that we uphold the fundamental principles making it possible for elected members of the House of Commons to have all means available to them in order to represent their citizens, to carry out their legislative work and to ensure representation within the various components of Parliament—whether committees, sub-committees or even here, in the House—, and with respect to all matters affecting society, with no exceptions. This situation, this reality, this duty that we have must be protected.

In the particular case being debated, there has been a violation of the rights of one of our colleagues—and there is no partisanship in this—and that is unacceptable. There are mechanisms to correct the situation and to ensure, according to today's motion, that our colleague's ability to legislate be restored in full.