Sylvie Boucher

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to respond to the motion by the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

The member is concerned about jobs and the economy. I would remind him that the unemployment rate has not been this low for 30 years. Indeed, 325,000 jobs have been created during the past 12 months.

I also want to point out that family income is increasing steadily. In fact, real family income has increased twice as quickly in the five years between 2000 and 2005 as it did in the previous 20 years. The low income rate dropped from 15.7% in 1996 to 10.5% in 2006. That represents a great achievement.

However, as members of this House have discussed many times, there are industrial sectors where current economic conditions have muddied the waters. It is now recognized that the United States is in a recession. That was caused, in large measure, by the collapse of the residential mortgage market, which, in turn, had major consequences for the forestry sector. In addition, the rise of the Canadian dollar and higher energy prices have dealt a severe blow to the Canadian manufacturing sector.

On numerous occasions in recent months, this House has debated motions concerning the effectiveness of government programs to help communities and older workers affected by these economic conditions. The government has survived these motions.

We have proved many times that this House has confidence in the government’s programs. These include the $1 billion national community development trust and the targeted initiative for older workers, which has proved very effective in assisting workers in need.

But let me remind members of this House of certain facts as we prepare for a vote of confidence on the member’s motion.

Let me remind them that agreements under the national community development trust have been signed with all provinces and territories. Provincial and territorial governments will use those funds to provide occupational training, to prepare community transition plans and to carry out infrastructure projects to help diversify the local economy.

May I also remind members that the targeted initiative for older workers has been extended to March 2012, and that the total investment for this initiative has been increased to $160 million.

I want to remind them that we provided a billion dollars in tax relief to the manufacturing and processing sector in Canada by extending the accelerated capital cost allowance period.

I remind them as well of the new labour market agreements we signed with British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Manitoba. They will make it possible to provide training to people who do not qualify for employment insurance. Further agreements are currently being negotiated with other provinces and territories and will be signed in the coming months. The funding provided under these new agreements amounts to a total of $3 billion over six years.

Our government is clearly taking action to help the people who work in certain key sectors that are going through difficult times. Contrary to what the hon. member’s motion says, the government is reforming employment insurance. We are helping Canadians who have lost their jobs retrain for others. We are helping Canadians who are not eligible for employment insurance.

In response to the motion of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, I hope that we can rise above the kind of debates we have heard over the last few months as the opposition parties attacked the government. The hon. members know all about the national community development trust. They know all about the targeted initiative for older workers. They also know all about the tax relief we have provided for manufacturers and processors, as well as the changes made to employment insurance.

I want to remind them, though, of all that the government is doing to ensure that the next generation of Canadian workers has the skills needed for a knowledge-based economy.

We are taking care of older workers and communities dependent on industries that are experiencing difficulty, while at the same time we are preparing the next generation to meet the challenges of the future.

Our goal is to create the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world. We talk about the knowledge advantage, and it is our youngest people who will be the basis of it. We are giving the next generation of Canadians a chance to excel in the knowledge-based economy by investing massively in post-secondary education.

We made some major commitments in the last federal budget to encourage young people to pursue post-secondary studies and invest in lifelong learning. By post-secondary education, we mean college and university as well as learning a trade.

We improved the Canada student loans program. We spoke with students. Their message was very clear: they need immediate, ongoing financial assistance. And we listened to them.

We introduced the new Canada student grant program, which will come into effect in the fall of 2009. The 2008 budget provides for an investment of $350 million in 2009-10, rising to $430 million in 2012-13. Students from low- and middle-income families who qualify for student loans will automatically be given a grant. It will cover all years of an undergraduate or college program.

The grants will be based on family income, and unlike the Canada millennium scholarships, they will help students in technical schools to continue their education, as well as students in colleges and universities. If a student comes from a low-income family, he or she will be given a grant of $250 per month. If the student comes from a middle-income family, he or she will receive $100 per month. Students will receive this money for each year they are in school. In the first year alone, we believe we will be able to assist 245,000 students. And let us be clear, these are grants, not loans.

This government will invest over $123 million in financial aid to students in the next four years, and $350 million in the Canada student grant program in 2009-10 alone. We will be investing in post-secondary education under the Canada social transfer through transfer payments to the provinces. Transfers will rise to $3.2 billion and will continue to rise by 3% per year until 2013-14.

We are also helping students and their families to save for their education and pay tuition fees and other expenses, through tax measures totalling $1.8 billion, which includes registered education savings plans.

This government is investing $2.7 billion in research and other related activities. This will allow us to prepare a new generation of Canadian workers to take their place at the head of an economy that runs on innovation and knowledge.

To conclude, we know that even with a dynamic economy, some sectors have been hard hit. We have taken measures, by using the tax system, by investing in communities and by introducing a program to help older workers, to meet the needs that are there.

But in the meantime, we are helping a new generation of Canadians to take their place in the new economy, a generation of workers who will have the training, the knowledge and the skills to meet the challenges to come.

It is to this government’s credit that it has introduced and administered a broad range of programs and projects to address the present economic situation, while at the same time building the economy of tomorrow.

[Status of Women, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that our government increased the budget for the women's program by $20 million this year, an increase of 76%, the highest increase ever. We are also helping all organizations and women in Canada, unlike the Bloc, which will never be able to do anything here in 113 years.

[Denise Boucher, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a Quebec author who broke down barriers with her feminist piece The Fairies are Thirsty.

This play was controversial when it was first put on in November 1978. It showed three stereotypical images of women: the virgin, the prostitute and the housewife. This play, banned by the church, was written by Denise Boucher, who opened my eyes to the roles of women.

Although we do not share the same ideals, politically or socially, we have something in common that no one can take away from us: a blood relation.

My dear godmother's experiences, fight for the equality of women, and passion for her culture are the legacies she has left me. This year marks the 30th anniversary of this extraordinary work. I commend the courage she had, Denise, to write this play and to demystify the role of women.

[April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit, I find it unfortunate that the Liberal Party still refuses to respect the rules of fiscal responsibility.

As we speak, museums across the country are presenting travelling exhibitions that have been made possible thanks to the support of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Canada Council.

The department and the council will continue to support the creation and circulation of travelling exhibitions. The decision to discontinue the exhibition transportation service was made official when it became clear that no other option could guarantee the maintenance of those services. The Canadian Conservation Institute is working closely with the museum community to ensure that museum staff have the knowledge and skills they need to take advantage of the transportation services offered by the private sector.

The institute developed special courses that have been offered to museums across the country. Seven training sessions have been presented across Canada this winter and spring.

[April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be here this evening on behalf of the Department of Canadian Heritage, which takes its responsibility to exhibit and preserve Canadian heritage very seriously.

A number of existing programs support museums in their presentation of Canadian heritage to the public. For example, the Canada travelling exhibition indemnification program helps Canadian museums save millions of dollars a year on the cost of insurance for travelling exhibitions. The museums assistance program provides financial assistance for the development and circulation of travelling exhibitions throughout the country.

Our government is responsible for ensuring accountability and transparency. That is why this decision was not taken lightly.

Following an audit of the Canadian Conservation Institute's financial and contracting procedures, it was found that the fine art ETS contract workers could no longer be hired under contract. The practice did not comply with Canada Revenue Agency rules for employer-employee relations.

Rest assured that we examined all options that would allow the ETS to continue operations, including hiring truckers and handlers of artwork as employees of the Government of Canada. The possibility of creating a corporation of their own, as was done at the National Capital commission some years ago, was also considered. However, the situation of the ETS is quite different from that of the NCC. The NCC was able to provide a contract that guaranteed that the NCC would provide former employees with a specific amount of work over a period of several years. In the case of the ETS, the means of transportation is decided by the museums. Thus, the Canadian Conservation Institute could not provide the same guarantee. Neither the ETS employees nor the contract truckers and handlers of artwork expressed an interest in taking over this service.

The decision to cancel the exhibition transportation service was made for operational reasons when it became obvious that there was no other option.

The Canadian Conservation Institute announced that it was cancelling this service in March 2007 so that the museum community would have one year to adjust to the use of commercial shipping for artwork.

The Canadian Conservation Institute organized a two-day workshop in order to help the museum community make cost-effective choices when planning and managing the shipping of artwork and artifacts. Free workshops were offered to all museums across Canada in the winter.

Various commercial shipping services have been available to the museum community for a long time. On April 1, the National Post wrote:

The managing director of the country's largest private art shipping company said the price differences between ETS and his company are smaller than have been reported. Mark Starling, managing director of Pacart, a Toronto-based company that specializes in the transportation of art, said private shipping prices will eventually come down as public museums use the private sector more often. Starling said his company was already lowering its charges by bundling multiple jobs together as its trucks crisscross the country and that museums will be satisfied. In fact, he had just come back from St. John's last week—

[April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc claims to know the official languages. And he has lived in Saskatchewan. When we hear absurdities such as, “There are two official languages in Canada: in Quebec it is French and in the rest of the country, it is English,” we wonder what has happened to the other francophones. What about the millions of others who speak French and who fight, day after day, to make Canada a country united by its two official languages?

[April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition was asking about our government’s commitment to the official language communities. I rise today to reiterate our firm commitment to these communities and to linguistic duality in Canada. We repeated this commitment in the last Speech from the Throne and the budget showed it as well. And yes, we do have two official languages in Canada and not just one in Quebec and the other outside Quebec.

Our government is currently working on the second phase of its action plan. In the first action plan, we provided $30 million over two years, as announced in the last budget in 2007. In the recent Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada stated that it was drafting the second phase of the action plan.

The government is therefore finalizing the process of developing a new strategy for the next phase of the action plan. Many sources of information have gone into the development of the new strategy, including an evaluation of the activities in the first phase of the action plan and discussions with key stakeholders in the area of the official languages, as well as with the provinces and territories, which are privileged partners. The new strategy will also take into account the results of the community meetings, including the Sommet des communautés francophones et acadienne and the Conference on Quebec’s Anglophone Communities, reports of the standing parliamentary committees and of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the results of the 2006 census, and the survey of community vitality.

A key element in this process were the consultations on the official languages and linguistic duality undertaken last December and chaired by Bernard Lord. I do hope that Mr. Lord managed to remember that there are still two official languages in Canada, in contrast to my colleague from the Bloc and his acolyte, the hon. member for Joliette, who claimed not two hours ago that French was the language of Quebec and English the only language of the rest of Canada. This was an insult to francophones all across the country, who are fighting for their language.

These consultations helped the government collect the views of representatives of the minority official language communities and of the public in general on its official languages strategies. The consultations were conducted in the spirit of the Official Languages Act and our government’s determination to abide by it. The budget reflects the importance we attach to these consultations. The Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages has now received Mr. Lord’s report.

The Action Plan for Official Languages includes initiatives in several federal departments and aims to provide horizontal coordination of government activity. The development of the new strategy is therefore a complex process that must be done very carefully. We are reviewing all the information gathered through these various processes. This will enable us to consolidate, renew, modify, modernize and expand government projects on the official languages, as well as to rely on key partnerships and raise Canadians’ interest.

It is also entirely—

[Canadian Multiculturalism Act, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the bill introduced by the hon. member for Joliette. This bill aims, among other things, to exempt Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

The concerns of Quebeckers in the area of immigration and the integration of newcomers are shared by the rest of Canada.

Statistics from the 2006 census, recently published by Statistics Canada, indicate that there are now more than 215 different ethnic origins represented in the country, 11 of which have surpassed the one million mark in population.

Canada's ethnocultural portrait has never been so diverse. Clearly, this means new challenges will arise and we must be able to overcome them together. Immigration plays, and will continue to play, a crucial role in Canada's development, today and tomorrow. Canada's multiculturalism policies must constantly adapt to our changing social realities.

Canada is recognized around the world for its multicultural and human rights principles. Our approach allows us to create an inclusive society that values differences and promotes a feeling of belonging.

Nevertheless, according to the hon. member for Joliette, the Canadian multiculturalism model creates confusion among newcomers and completely contradicts the Quebec model based on interculturalism.

However, when looking at the two systems in place, it is the similarities that stand out, more so than the differences.

The primary functions of the Quebec department of immigration and cultural communities are to support cultural communities by promoting their full participation in Quebec society, to encourage openness to pluralism within society and to facilitate intercultural ties among Quebeckers.

These functions are clearly completely in line with the priorities of our government's multiculturalism program, which aims to support the economic, social, and cultural integration of new Canadians and cultural communities, to facilitate programs for at-risk cultural youth, and to promote inter-cultural understanding and Canadian values.

The Quebec government's Programme d'appui aux relations civiques et interculturelles, or PARCI, aims to “develop knowledge and understanding of Quebec's history, values and democratic institutions among immigrants and members of cultural communities.”

Clearly, this objective is very similar to that of our multiculturalism program, which aims to “promote inter-cultural understanding and Canadian values (democracy, freedom, human rights and rule of law)”.

The irreconcilable nature of the two models, as suggested by my Bloc Québécois colleague, was contradicted in the consultation paper prepared by the Bouchard-Taylor Commission which states, “Over time, it might be said that they have evolved in a convergent manner and the difference between them has faded.”

You will note that this convergence of views is also reflected in the priority given to the fight against racism put forward by both programs.

PARCI speaks of “preventing and fighting prejudice, discrimination, intolerance, racism and exclusion”, whereas the multiculturalism program seeks to help “communities and the broad public engage in informed dialogue and sustained action to combat racism”.

The words are different but the message is the same: a Canada that is proud of and respectful toward its cultural diversity.

Given these great similarities, it is not surprising that a number of initiatives and projects financed by the Government of Canada through the multiculturalism program have the support of the Government of Quebec.

Action Week Against Racism, supported by both levels of government, is one of the most important activities in the fight against racism and in bringing cultures together in Quebec.

There is also the travelling exhibit, “Québec interculturelle depuis 400 ans déjà”, which highlights the contributions of Canadians of diverse backgrounds to the growth and development of Quebec City.

Similarly, projects initiated in Quebec and supported by the Governments of Quebec and Canada have been used as models elsewhere in the country. Such is the case for the Equitas International Centre for Human Rights Education, which teaches young people about human rights and intercultural relations through a day camp program. This initiative, which began in Montreal, is now used in Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg, Moncton, Dieppe, and Fredericton.

If our priorities and objectives were so different, would such collaborations be possible? The answer seems obvious: of course not.

When 82% of Canadians agree that Canada's multicultural composition is one of the best things about this country, we have to believe that, although it is not perfect, the Canadian model is working. This success is seen equally in Quebec, where 75% of new arrivals who settled in the province between 2001 and 2006 have chosen French as their primary language.

Upon reading the recent report from the Office québécoise de la langue française, we also see that in the area of culture, there is a marked increase in the consumption of French cultural products. The percentage of allophones who watch productions in French has gone from 27% to 54.5%. What is more, the percentage of those who read newspapers in French only has reached 51.8%.

It seems clear to me that the multiculturalism and interculturalism models, beyond the inherent differences in the specific context of Quebec, have one and the same goal: to promote the full participation of all Canadians in society. In light of this fact, it seems obvious that Quebec has everything to gain by staying. It is with one voice that Canada wants to welcome immigrants who choose this land as their home.

[Canadian Multiculturalism Act, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very insulting that the member for Joliette is claiming that outside Quebec, the only real language is English. What about the other francophones across Canada who fight for their language day in and day out? We are talking about multiculturalism. How great that the Bloc itself does not even recognize its own language outside of Quebec.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees that working in French is important. Everyone recognizes here in Canada that we have two languages: English and French.

In Quebec, we speak French, as everyone knows, but there is also an anglophone minority that needs to be defended. I stand up for that community. I am a Quebecker, I speak French, but other Quebeckers are English and they need our support as federalists.