Richard Nadeau

[Philippe Aumont, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the city of Gatineau is home to an 18-year-old pitcher, a major league baseball prospect. His dream has come true. Yesterday, Philippe Aumont was selected by the Seattle Mariners.

According to experts, Philippe Aumont was very likely to be chosen in the first round. He was in fact the seventh pitcher chosen. Only two other Canadians have been selected higher than Philippe: Adam Loewen by Baltimore and Jeff Francis by Colorado.

Thank you to his family and to the Gatineau amateur baseball association for the support they have given Philippe.

The Bloc Québécois joins me in saying to Philippe Aumont that we are proud of his rise to the major leagues. We wish him the best in his career. Philippe is a role model for young Quebeckers who also play their favourite sport.

[June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government members are not answering the question. The court challenges program was eliminated. This violates the Official Languages Act. It was done in a cavalier manner. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women simply announced to the people who work in the court challenges program that the program had been cut and would come to an end. The evaluations of the program conducted in 1997 and 2003 were not even taken into account. The cut was based on ideology.

This file is damaging to French-language minority communities, just as it is damaging to anyone who believes the Constitution should protect the rights of vulnerable people in our society. Furthermore, the Commissioner of Official Languages and other key players in Quebec and Canadian society have demonstrated that this program has helped to strengthen the fight against assimilation. It is a very important tool for those communities.

[June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in this adjournment debate because of a question I raised on May 15, 2007.

I had asked the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages some questions following certain events and decisions taken by the government. The questions had to do with the text panels filled with errors in French at Vimy, the appointment of a unilingual English ombudsman for victims of crime, and the elimination of compulsory bilingualism for the senior ranks of the army. On those issues, we wanted to know what the Prime Minister or the minister had to say to the Commissioner of Official Languages regarding the way the Conservative government is trampling the rights of linguistic minorities. The situation is not getting any better in that regard, especially considering the court challenges program.

Today in the Standing Committee on Official Languages we had the pleasure of receiving the Commissioner of Official Languages. He told us that the Conservative government is absolutely not obeying former Bill S-3, which was passed during the last Parliament and implemented things and gave more teeth to the Official Languages Act, to section 7 among other things. Eliminating the court challenges program is another breach of the act.

The Prime Minister tells us that he wants to eliminate this program because his government will respect the Canadian Constitution and we will therefore no longer need the court challenges program. The Commissioner of Official Languages made it quite clear that we do indeed need this type of program. Furthermore, Mr. Matte, the chair of the court challenges program, and Gisèle Lalonde, who advocated for the Montfort Hospital thanks to this program, illustrated the need for this program.

The federal government cannot force a province, a school board or any agency in society that does not recognize or respect the Canadian Constitution. In Canada, some citizens have to pressure the government through the court in order to have their rights respected and the government shows up with a whole host of lawyers. These agencies do not have the money they need to deal with the expertise before them. The court challenges program is so very necessary.

In light of this situation, I want to know what my Conservative colleagues have to say to the Commissioner of Official Languages about their non-respect for the application of the Official Languages Act, with respect to the examples I have just given.

[June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague from the Kitchener—Waterloo area, formerly Berlin, in south central Ontario.

With regard to my riding, and in reference to her example, I will speak of the Canada Summer Jobs program. The federal government has decided to go with a new way of doing things. The former program worked well. It seems that, when things are working well, our Conservative colleagues have a knack for dismantling them.

Our multi-ethnic organizations are probably smaller than those in my colleague's riding. Nevertheless, we do have an Arab community and a Portuguese community. I am thinking of self-help and anti-poverty organizations, which provided young people with summer jobs in youth job cooperatives or summer camps that were axed because of a set of criteria developed by the government that did not make sense.

Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party of Canada and community groups—those affected first and the fabric of our society—challenged the government. I have to acknowledge the Conservatives for recognizing that they made mistakes. However, that is as far as I will go because they have not recognized all their mistakes. They should have kept what was working well.

I will therefore say to my hon. colleague that my riding has experienced certain difficulties in that regard. An element of unfairness is introduced when using a points-based assessment, and when riding officials no longer have a say and everything is sent to Montreal—which is a lovely city but where the people are not familiar with the social fabric and events in the Gatineau riding—rather than relying on the work of government employees who are very familiar with the riding. I empathize with the multicultural communities, which unfortunately—and I did use the term unfortunately—have had to pay the price for this lack of judgment. But there is always hope. One never knows. Perhaps our colleagues will come to their senses in this matter?

[June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to my colleague from Blackstrap, in Saskatchewan, if my memory serves me right.

What is important to understand about what I was saying earlier is that there are some things that must be improved in the budget. There are things to be improved that are part of the social fabric, the human fabric. These elements must be taken into consideration, and we must not just hang on to a document released on March 19, the current government's second budget.

I hope my colleague paid close attention to my speech, because in the end, these elements really must be there. First, they must keep their word regarding festivals, since summer is here. Second, the court challenges program must be reinstated.

[June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join the debate on the subject of the government’s latest budget. As we all remember, this budget was tabled on March 19.

There are some things in this budget that really need to be pointed out. Among friends, colleagues, political parties and taxpayers, we must describe things as they really are to improve conditions for the people of Canada and, when an error has been made, we should make every effort to correct it. As you well know, enlightenment comes when ideas collide.

I want to talk about several points in the budget that deserve our attention. The first point deals with the Conservative government’s retention of the festival support program. I have had discussions today, and for several days, with representatives of volunteer groups and organizations which are organizing festivals planned for summer 2007.

This year, the federal government set aside $30 million for summer festivals. A large number of the organizers of these festivals have been told that the government—to be more precise, the Department of Canadian Heritage— is in the process of considering how the funds will be distributed. We are now into June and people have been told that it may be the fall before we have a clear answer on how the funds will be distributed. However, we must show some respect for the organizers of summer festivals in Quebec and elsewhere, because, after all, the seasons change. To find an analogy with what the Conservatives are doing, I think back to the Social Credit party. At one point, the Social Credit party said there were only four problems in Canada: spring, summer, fall and winter. Apart from that, everything would be fine. I must emphasize that summer festivals take place in the summer. An answer in the fall is of no use.

Specifically, I would like to underline the value of a festival. What does a festival mean to the population? Today, I debated with an economist from the Institut économique de Montréal. On a radio station in my riding, CJRC, not to mention names, I heard it said that—hold tight, Mr. Speaker, or you might fall off your chair—festivals were a means of preventing movie theatres from making money. The argument was that when people went to a festival, money was going to the wrong place. They added that festivals were not something very important in economic terms, because a dollar spent at one place is like a dollar spent at another place. A festival does not result in any value added.

Well, I really had to answer that. I would like you, Mr. Speaker, and above all my colleagues opposite—the Conservatives, of course— to understand that a festival is a way for a city, a community or a region to become better known. A festival can attract people into the community, into the region. It gets people moving from one region to another to take part in activities. That makes our region better known, and, at the same time, it brings money into the region.

For example, I think of the Festival de montgolfières in Gatineau, of which you are surely aware, and which for the past 20 years has taken place during the first weekend of September. It is celebrating its 20th anniversary in 2007. Last year, the festival generated revenue of $6 million. Since its creation, more than 3.3 million people have attended the festival.

The federal government invests in these programs. I must also mention that the organizers of these festivals do not count solely on the support of the federal government. They do their own fund-raising at various levels.

If the federal government does not step in as it used to, tourism will suffer. That is what the organizers told me. They will also not be able to bring in as many artists. That is another aspect. Festivals are a question of pride. People show off their culture and discover others, depending on the themes of the show, and this leads to a broadening of minds at festivals. The Conservatives are holding things up here for reasons that are really beyond me.

I just wanted to point all this out to our colleagues because I am sure that they will react quite quickly when they see that what they are saying does not make any sense, especially as the money for this was approved in the budget. It is very important, therefore, to point this out.

There is a statistic showing that, in Quebec in the year 2000, festivals got 18% of their funding from the three levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. That same year in the United States—our neighbour to the south where capitalism is a kind of religion—the three levels of government subsidized festivals to the tune of 23% to 26%. Maybe they thought it was important for them to add value. In France, festivals are subsidized at a rate of 47%.

Our Conservative colleagues should say to themselves that even though they are not providing very much, they really should make it available before the end of the summer or else we will be in an absolutely ridiculous situation. In view of this, I would like my Conservative colleagues to understand that they have to keep the commitments they made in their budget.

In regard to a completely different issue, I would like to mention a very embarrassing situation. September 25 or 26, 2006 was a black day in human history because that was when the federal government cancelled the court challenges program. The Conservative government decided last March not to renew this program, even though a great many social stakeholders from both the English and French minority communities as well as citizens rights groups demanded that it be saved. This meant that $5 or $6 million could be cut from the federal budget.

I took some political science courses at the University of Ottawa in the 1980s, and one of my professors, Mr. Carrier, told us that $1 million in the coffers of the federal government of Canada was like a penny to an average worker in Canada or Quebec. When $5 or $6 million are cut from a rights program like the court challenges program, it is clearly not very much in view of the $220 billion budgets that Canada’s federal government generally has. So this is an ideological cut. The government wants to prevent something, rather than helping citizens challenge decisions made by the federal or a provincial government or even a school board, a town or municipality, or a department that was not complying with the law of the land, that is to say, the Constitution.

The government comes with all its lawyers and sets them on a parent or business person who wants his or her rights respected. Without the court challenges program, there is no level playing field.

People cannot spend the kind of money that the government, the federal State, can spend on its own army of lawyers. I could provide some pretty unbelievable examples of this.

That said, there is something even worse. We often hear our Conservative colleagues say that the Bloc Québécois did not support Bill S-3, which was in fact passed—on division, as they say—in the previous Parliament.

By eliminating the court challenges program, the Conservative government is failing to respect the Official Languages Act. I would refer the members to the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which just came back to life today. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, taught a very interesting lesson to all members of the committee—and we are very pleased that the Conservatives have decided to come back—about how eliminating the court challenges program violated legislation passed in this House. That is pretty serious. Those who violate laws must pay in the end. They have violated this law, and they must pay the price.

It is important to understand a few things about this program. The committee heard witnesses who work for the program. It also heard people who fought for the Montfort Hospital, for example. That happened in the mid-1990s. We were around then; this was not something that happened back in Louis Riel's day—which is another subject about which much could be said. This was back in 1995, when the Government of Ontario wanted to do away with the services of a French-language hospital right here in Ottawa. I was born in that province, and so was my youngest daughter, my baby. She was born in the Montfort Hospital.

The people who came to talk about this situation had been told by a Prime Minister whom we know well, our current Prime Minister, that the Government of Canada had no intention of continuing to pay for Liberal lawyers in the court challenges program.

Yet Ms. Lalonde and Mr. Gratton, who attended the committee meeting, demonstrated quite clearly that the lawyers who helped the Montfort Hospital fight the indignity foisted upon it by Mike Harris' government and three of his ministers, who are now known here as the Minister of Finance, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health, did it for free.

In response to the infamous criticism that partisan politics were involved, I would remind the House that Mr. Gratton was Brian Mulroney's press secretary. As far as I know, he did not belong to the Conservative Party, but rather to the Progressive Conservative Party. There are hints of this Reform-Alliance mindset still causing problems today. It is going to burst, sooner or later, like last time, but that is their problem. Gisèle Lalonde once ran—hold on to your hats—as a candidate for the Conservative Party of Ontario. This jambalaya—although jambalaya can sometimes be quite tasty—, all this mishmash being served up by the Conservatives, involving partisan politics when it comes to the rights of minorities, it is appalling. I see them turning red. They are ashamed, and I understand why.

That said, the elimination of the court challenges program, illustrated by the ideology reflected in the budget, seriously jeopardizes the recognition of the existence of French-language minority communities in Canada.

That is prejudicial. The day the Montfort Hospital file reached its full scope was the day that the Premier of Quebec—Lucien Bouchard of the Parti Québécois, not to mention any names—declared that, indeed, it was seriously prejudicial. Every fighting force for democracy and the respect of the rights of minorities from Quebec and Ontario, including myself, who was in Saskatchewan at the time as president of the Fédération des francophones de Saskatoon, we all signed petitions and raised money to tell the Harris government that it was unacceptable.

Of course the Liberal government—this was during the Chrétien years—looked at the issue and said it could not intervene because it was a provincial jurisdiction. Well, now would be the time for Canada to pull up its socks and get to work, because, under such circumstances, it is through the court challenges program and political action that we must ensure the rights of minorities.

The court challenges program also has an impact on the social aspect of the fight against poverty and injustice. For example, people with disabilities had to fight their own government, demanding that it install ramps so they could have access to the same services as people with full mobility. We must not forget this.

A broad range of services was provided to society. In 1997 and 2003, evaluations of the court challenges program determined that the needs of Quebec and Canadian society were well served by the program. Without it, we would not have rights of access to minority language education. The disabled would not be able to access certain areas and premises. It is very important to take note of these facts.

Today, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada is taking the government to court because it abolished the court challenges program and is not fulfilling its obligations under the Official Languages Act. My colleagues should hang on to their hats when they hear what I have to say. This government says that it wanted to abolish the program because, among other things, it no longer wished to pay lawyers who challenge federal or provincial governments, school boards or others who do not respect these rights. That is why it abolished the program. Now it is paying lawyers to ensure that it does not pay lawyers in future. Talk about unbelievable. The logic is rather complicated.

There is no question that the court challenges program must be reinstated. We must realize that society evolves. By way of illustration, consider that at one time horses ruled the road. Then along came the Model T Ford. Today, things are altogether different; we have other means of transportation. In terms of citizens' rights, we cannot predict how current situations will unfold in the near future. Therefore, it is important to have the court challenges program, precisely to protect the state from itself.

In the movie, The Name of the Rose, based on the novel by Umberto Eco, old Jorge, a professional criminal, believes only in sublime repetition. The Conservatives are the sublime copy of the Mulroney Conservatives. They are doing the same thing—abolishing the court challenges program in today's context. It is quite deplorable.

We should be emulating William of Baskerville. I recommend reading about the dialectic that belongs to society. In fact, we are evolving. I am thinking of Yann Martel who sends books to the Prime Minister from time to time. He should send more there because reading is interesting. We should read things that enable us to evolve in life.

As we evolve, things change and we must have mechanisms to protect ourselves.

I will say one last things about festivals: they have to get on with it. Summer is coming, it has already arrived.

The court challenges program is not in the budget and that is deplorable. It should be reinstated.

[Employment Insurance Act, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today to Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine). I take this bill very seriously, as well as the fact that I have the honour to speak to this issue.

This bill extends the maximum period for which benefits for illness, injury or quarantine may be paid from 15 to 50 weeks. I believe this is a very laudable principle and the Bloc Québécois supports it wholeheartedly.

To put things in perspective, I will say that the Bloc Québécois worked hard at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to get a report on EI reform through in February 2005, and that it continues to ask for its implementation. In the past two years, the Bloc Québécois has worked relentlessly on improving the system. This bill builds on the spirit of recommendation 27 made in the February 2005 report, which says:

The Committee recommends that the government study the possibility of extending sickness benefits by 35 weeks for those who suffer from a prolonged and serious illness.

The bill is totally in this spirit.

The Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of substantial improvements to the EI system and while the Bloc intends to vote in favour of the bill, the House must nonetheless remember that the bill introduced by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle is more comprehensive than that of the Liberals, who still do not propose a fundamental reform of an EI system that is ill adapted and inaccessible for 50% of those who should be insured. For the benefit of this House and of all those interested in the issue—who are many in Quebec and Canadian society—I will read some of the 28 recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

First, the committee recommends the creation of an independent EI fund.

Second, on the administration issue, the committee recommends that the money in the fund be used only for EI purposes and not to pay back the federal government debt. That money comes from employers and employees. It must be used as employment insurance for employees who, at some point during their career, find themselves in need. EI benefits then become a solution for them. The government, be it Conservative or Liberal, should not be allowed to help itself freely from the fund to finance its expenses. Workers in need deserve the respect of the government.

The committee also recommends the following: that employers be reimbursed overpayments of premiums—what else would it do?—; that a standard eligibility period of 360 hours be established throughout Canada and Quebec; that the maximum period of regular benefits be increased to 50 weeks; that the benefit period be extended by five weeks in order to cover what is known as the spring gap, the period of about one and a half months where there are no benefits before seasonal work begins again. This would provide seasonal workers with income needed for their families rather than having them live with considerable uncertainty.

We are also asking for additional benefits after the 50 weeks for workers who are 50 and over, especially for those having difficulty finding work because of their age, for those experiencing a form of discrimination I would say.

The benefit calculation should be based on the 12 best weeks of insurable employment. This will provide a more decent income for our citizens who need it. Therefore, the calculation should be based on the 12 best weeks and not on the 12 last weeks.

The rate of benefits should increase from 55% to 60% of their earnings.

Finally—this is the last item that I wanted to highlight from the list—we are asking that the waiting period be eliminated for persons in approved training programs, so that they are not sent on training without any income. That is a bit of a contradiction. We want them to be trained in order to return to the labour market. However, if they do not have any income, they are not interested in training because they will not have any money to meet their needs during the weeks of training approved by those responsible.

This bill highlights the importance of reforming employment insurance. As such, we hope that parliamentarians, my colleagues here, will vote in favour of the real improvements proposed in Bill C-278. I would like to go through my list of these major improvements, which is similar to the one given earlier.

First, we must reduce the minimum qualifying period to 360 hours of work, regardless of the regional unemployment rate. Second, we must increase the benefit period by five weeks. Third, we must increase the weekly benefit rate from 55% to 60%. Fourth, we must eliminate the waiting period. Fifth, we have to eliminate the distinctions between new entrants and re-entrants to the work force. Sixth, we have to eliminate the presumption that people who are related to one another do not deal with each other at arm's length. Seventh, we have to increase the maximum annual insurable earnings from $39,000 to $41,500 and introduce an indexation formula. And finally, the benefit calculation must be based on the 12 best insurable weeks.

It is important that we all support this bill because it offers solutions to problems experienced by vulnerable people who lose their jobs. As someone said earlier, that is the heart of the matter. This affects people who are sick and need their benefits extended. In that respect, we must consider a universal 360 hour requirement to receive employment insurance benefits.

I see that my time has run out, but I would just like to add that it was important to me to talk about this bill. We must go forward with this kind of bill. We have to think of the people whose employment situation makes them vulnerable. That is our duty, and we must fulfill it.

[Summit of Francophone and Acadian Communities, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend I will have the pleasure of representing the Bloc Québécois at the first summit of francophone and Acadian communities. This event, which is being held in Ottawa, is organized by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, and over 600 participants are taking part in it. Several speakers will be heard, including the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, the chair of the former court challenges program, Guy Matte, the president and chief executive officer of the Montfort Hospital, Gérald Savoie, and the administrator of the international organization of the francophonie, Clément Duhaime.

Five issues will be discussed: the demographic and identity challenge; the daily lives of francophones in their own language; the strategies for collective organization and mobilization; the political power and the francophonie; and the economic vitality of francophone and Acadian communities.

The Bloc Québécois is joining me in saluting this initiative and in wishing a great summit to all participants.

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

To 1996.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the minister, who is responsible for official languages.

Earlier, we heard her very disappointing answer regarding the way that the Standing Committee on Official Languages was put on standby—let us hope that it will not be for too long. We have serious doubts when we hear the minister.

The minister says that she is giving $30 million to the francophone communities outside Quebec. She should know that, in 1996, the Franco-Saskatchewaners were asking for $22 million for themselves alone, simply to be able to operate for a year. The principle of redress has yet to be implemented at the federal level, even if studies by Roger Bernard, from the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française, were referring to it more than 15 years ago. It is completely lamentable to hear that kind of explanation of how the government highlights the official languages. Bill C-29 is another example. Following the recommendation of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the bill must be sent to the Standing Committee on Official Languages to be looked at.

How will she do it, with all that rhetoric that shows her inconsistency in regard to the recommendations made by knowledgeable people?