Shelly Glover

[Land Claim Agreements, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of three annual reports for 2007-08, including: the annual report of the implementation committee on the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement; the annual report of the implementation committee on the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement; and the 2007-08 annual report of the Inuvialuit Implementation of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement Coordinating Committee.

[Firearms Registry, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to do nothing but play partisan political games when it comes to the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. Even members from his own party think this is nonsense.

This is what former Liberal MP, Hec Clouthier, said:

I told [the Liberal leader] the Liberal Party policies and priorities were targeting the major cities and forgetting about rural Canada.

He continued to say that if the Liberal leader continues playing these political games, he could hold his next caucus meeting in a phone booth.

Not even Liberals are fooled by the real motives behind the Liberal leader's decision to whip the vote. It is clear that the Liberal leader has turned his back on rural Canadians, whipped his members to oppose the long gun vote and empower his attack dog, the member for Ajax—Pickering, to hijack the public safety committee.

We call upon all opposition members who voted in favour of Bill C-391 at second reading to stand up for their constituents and vote to scrap the long gun registry once and for all.

[Points of Order, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, could you remind them to keep quiet while I am raising my point of order?

These insults referred to my career as a policewoman. I have every right to be in the House of Commons. I do not have a gun, and implying that I am carrying one in the House of Commons is completely unparliamentary.

I demand an apology from the Bloc Québécois member for making completely ignorant comments about my career in law enforcement. I also want him to apologize for suggesting that I carry a gun in the House of Commons. It is absolutely appalling that he would suggest such a thing.

I would also like the Liberal Party to apologize for supporting the Bloc Québécois in this matter.

[Points of Order, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising because I think the House of Commons needs to hear the truth. Everything I have said in the House is the truth. The Bloc Québécois voted against a bill that would protect children and women in Canada. It voted against the human trafficking bill.

I heard the point of order raised by the Bloc Québécois member, which was supported by some Liberals who are insulting my career in law enforcement. I listened to the insults being thrown at me based on what I said. All I said was the truth. They voted against our children.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague. No matter how he shouts his question, my answer is the same.

Our government is looking at and preparing a bill, as we said in committee. We hope that bill will be introduced in the House of Commons in the fall.

I want to reiterate not only our government's firm commitment, but also that of all the Conservative government members. We all do our best to always promote both official languages in this House. It is very important to promote both English and French, and we are very proud to do so.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc colleague for his question.

I want to begin with a sincere response to the matter of our government's commitment and my own commitment to the Committee on Official Languages. I can assure my colleagues that our government has a firm commitment. That is why we invested $1.1 billion in the roadmap to support official language minority communities and our country's linguistic duality. That amount is unmatched by any government in Canada's history.

Our commitment is firm. My commitment is firm. I understand this issue well. Perhaps my colleague did not hear our Liberal colleague, who answered the other question about safety instructions twice. That is already in the Act. This is the third time I have answered the question. It is already in the Act. All airlines must give safety instructions in both official languages.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues and am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the Standing Committee on Official Languages’ first report on the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

First of all, we should understand how important Air Canada is. Including Jazz, it is a major economic catalyst that facilitates Canada’s economic growth and its trade objectives. Air Canada has 28,000 employees and more than 23,000 retirees and is the largest airline in Canada. It has more than a 50% share of the domestic market and provides about a third of our international flight capacity. Its economic impact was estimated in 2009 at more than $6 billion in direct contributions and more than $20 billion in indirect spin-offs.

When Air Canada was a crown corporation, it was subject to the Official Languages Act. In particular, it had to serve the public in both official languages and ensure the right of employees to work in the official language of their choice. When Air Canada was privatized in 1988-89, its official language obligations were renewed under the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Other carriers also provide bilingual service on the basis of customer demand and market considerations. So far though, Air Canada is the only carrier subject to the Official Languages Act. All airlines, of course, must provide safety and security information in both official languages, as my Liberal colleague mentioned.

In 2000, the Air Canada Public Participation Act was amended to ensure that Jazz, as an Air Canada subsidiary at the time, served the public in both official languages. Air Canada sought protection under the Bankruptcy Act in 2003-04 and was subsequently restructured, but the Air Canada Public Participation Act continues to apply, including the obligation to provide bilingual service.

Similarly, any future subsidiary of Air Canada providing airline services will be bound by its official language obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act, as it currently stands. However, as a result of organizational restructuring, Air Canada’s official language obligations do not apply to entities that are no longer part of it, such as the former Air Canada Technical Services, now known as Aveos Fleet Performance Incorporated. In addition, the Air Canada Public Participation Act does not apply to ACE Aviation Holdings Inc., which has been Air Canada’s parent corporation since restructuring.

Although the number of complaints is quite low in comparison with total passenger numbers, the Commissioner of Official Languages noted that Air Canada still has some challenges to meet in fulfilling its official language obligations.

As the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities said when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages in April, we must consider introducing a new bill. Although many years have passed since Air Canada became a crown corporation, and a lot of things have happened since then, Canadians still feel that Air Canada's official language obligations are important. However, before moving forward, we must ensure that we take appropriate measures and carefully examine the situation.

Even though Canada's economy has been showing solid signs of recovery, our industries are still struggling. The air industry has to deal with events that are out of its control, such as the ongoing closures of airspace over the European Union as a result of volcanic activity.

I think that we need to better understand the challenges the company faces in meeting its official language obligations.

After Air Canada representatives testified before the committee, we learned that Air Canada has improved its official language performance by offering comprehensive training sessions and by advertising to attract other bilingual candidates. Air Canada's testimony showed that it is committed to meeting its official language obligations under the Official Languages Act, in light of the challenges and pressures that I have mentioned.

I was also happy to learn that the Commissioner of Official Languages will conduct a detailed audit of Air Canada and its obligation to provide bilingual services to the public. I look forward to seeing the recommendations, which will no doubt be very instructive, for how Air Canada can limit the number of complaints in the future.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst shared some stories about the quality of services offered in French by Jazz.

Because Jazz is a private company under contract with Air Canada, Air Canada, under section 25 of the Official Languages Act, has the duty to ensure that services made available to the public by another organization on its behalf are provided in both official languages. However, since Jazz is not a federal institution under the Official Languages Act, the Official Languages Commissioner cannot intervene directly with Jazz but can with Air Canada, which is responsible for meeting official language requirements. In this context, the commissioner has been asked to obtain more information about the types of complaints received about Jazz.

It is important that Air Canada continue to fulfill its obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act and the Official Languages Act. That said, the best way to maintain and ensure progress on official language rights in the airline industry is to have a healthy, viable industry.

I would like to reaffirm our government's firm commitment to promoting and protecting official language rights in Canada. As was said in the throne speech, Canada's two official languages are an integral part of our history and position us uniquely in the world. Using examples from the road map to Canada's linguistic duality, the throne speech indicated that our government will continue to take measures that will further strengthen Canada's francophone identity. These statements are a strong testimony to our government's commitment to official languages in Canada.

[Firerams Registry, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, many provincial and territorial justice ministers have come out in support of scrapping the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. Let us listen to what some of them had to say in their own words.

The Alberta justice minister supports the “repeal of a registry that unfairly targets law-abiding hunters, farmers and sports shooters”.

The Manitoba justice minister wrote that his government has “consistently and repeatedly opposed the registry”.

The Saskatchewan justice minister wrote that Saskatchewan has “consistently opposed the long gun registry, seeing it as a massive waste of taxpayers' money that has yet to solve a single crime”.

The Yukon justice minister wrote that “Yukon's position is that the registry legislation does not deliver positive results”.

Will Liberal members and specifically the member from Yukon listen to his constituents or will they bend to the will of the Liberal leader?

On this side of the House, we will continue to oppose the wasteful long gun registry.

[Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, May 25th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member said about people appearing at committee, but what we have to remember is that the engagement sessions or consultation process that has taken place by INAC officials and members of Parliament and others is not confined only to this place. I have consulted with aboriginal women in my own community, who may not be witnesses in committee but who do in fact have an opinion. Their opinion is in support of the Conservative government's bill. They want to see this changed as quickly as possible.

I side with them today in making sure that happens for their children.

[Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, May 25th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from the opposition for his question. One thing bothers me. I have a lot of concerns when I hear these questions coming from a Bloc member. The Bloc does not have any aboriginal women in its caucus. What is more, it talks about women and children and protecting Canadian and Quebec women and children, but it was the Bloc members who voted against our very important bill on the trafficking of our women and children. Most of those women and children are aboriginal and the Bloc members vote against protecting our children, our young people and our aboriginal women. It is rich to hear such questions. It is not—