Revue de presse : bilinguisme pour les officiers du Parlement et transparence pour les syndicats

  •  Partager/Enregistrer
  •  Imprimer
  •  Articles (RSS)
  •  Commentaires (RSS)
16-décembre-2012 · 10 commentaires  

img_1730_-_clac Le Parlement a ajourné cette semaine jusqu’à la fin janvier. Je suis heureux qu’avant que la session ne finisse, mon gouvernement ait donné son appui à deux importants projets de loi privés que j’appuyais également.

Le premier est un projet de loi présenté par une député du NPD, Alexandrine Latendresse, qui exigera que les personnes nommées à des postes d’officiers du Parlement – il y en a dix, dont le vérificateur général et le commissaire au lobbying – soient capables de comprendre le français et l’anglais sans l’assistance d’un interprète et puissent s’exprimer clairement dans ces deux langues.

Je suis en faveur de la liberté de choix en ce qui concerne l’utilisation des langues. Je m’oppose à ce qu’on force les gens à devenir bilingues, mais aussi à ce qu’on les empêche de devenir bilingues et d’utiliser les deux langues officielles du Canada (voir ma position sur la loi 101). Le bilinguisme institutionnel est toutefois quelque chose de différent. L’institution politique centrale de notre pays, le Parlement, doit fonctionner dans les deux langues. Cela signifie que quiconque souhaite occuper l’un des postes clés du Parlement doit être bilingue.

Je comprends que cette exigence de bilinguisme implique que certains bons candidats qui sont unilingues anglophones ou francophones ne seront pas éligibles pour ces emplois. S’ils prévoient faire une carrière et occuper des postes supérieurs à Ottawa, ils devraient cependant commencer à apprendre et à utiliser leur langue seconde bien avant d’avoir 50 ans et de postuler pour de tels postes. C’est un aspect incontournable de la planification de sa carrière dans un pays officiellement bilingue.

Ces postes ont presque toujours été accordés à des candidats bilingues au cours des dernières décennies. Ce projet de loi ne fait qu’enchâsser ce principe et permettra d’éviter des controverses inutiles sur cette question dans l’avenir.

La plupart des mes collègues ont également voté pour l’adoption d’un projet de loi privé présenté par un député conservateur, Russ Hiebert, qui imposera de nouvelles exigences de transparence aux syndicats. Les syndicats ont ce qui revient à un pouvoir indirect de taxation des travailleurs grâce à la formule Rand. Ils jouissent également de plusieurs avantages fiscaux. À cause de ces privilèges, ils devraient avoir les mêmes exigences de transparence que des organismes publics.

Je crois que cela bénéficiera aux travailleurs syndiqués, qui doivent avoir davantage d’information sur les activités de leur organisation syndicale – par exemple, quelles sont les causes qu’elle appuie, ou quel type de lobbying fait-elle – et qui seront ainsi mieux en mesure de contrôler ce qu’on fait avec leurs cotisations syndicales.

Voici quelques articles en français et en anglais qui mentionnent les positions que j’ai prises sur ces deux projets de loi :

Chantal Hébert, « Seven standouts on Parliament Hill in 2012 », The Toronto Star, 14 décembre 2012

Daniel Leblanc, « Internal pressure force Tories to support bilingual bill », The Globe and Mail, 10 décembre 2012

Joël-Denis Bellavance, « Bilinguisme des agents du Parlement: Harper va appuyer le NPD », La Presse, 10 décembre 2012

Éditorial, « Bilingualism essential for Officers of Parliament », The Gazette, 12 décembre 2012

Presse canadienne, « Les syndicats contesteront le projet de loi C-377 devant les tribunaux », La Presse, 13 décembre 2012

« Ottawa : le projet de loi sur la divulgation des finances des syndicats est adopté », Radio-Canada, 12 décembre 2012

Martin Croteau, « Ottawa comprend mal le monde du travail québécois, dit Agnès Maltais », La Presse, 13 décembre 2012

Vous pouvez ajouter un commentaire.

10 commentaires à “Revue de presse : bilinguisme pour les officiers du Parlement et transparence pour les syndicats”

  1. JoeFrmEdm dit:

    Max, not so sure on the first one but very good on the second keep up the good work………

  2. John dit:

    « Our country’s central political institution, Parliament, needs to function in both languages. And that means anyone willing to occupy one of its key positions has to be bilingual. »

    Based on my memory of logic lectures at university, it most certainly does not. There are two main conditions: necessary and sufficient. Individual bilingualism is not a NECESSARY condition for ‘function’; however, interpretation IS a SUFFICIENT condition for ‘function’ in a bilingual nation. In other words, ‘function’ does not REQUIRE bilingualism; however, in a bilingual nation, interpretation is SUFFICIENT for ‘function’. Any experts in this field: please comment as I recognize that my memory may be flawed.

    Great job on the union bill though!

    John

  3. Sean M dit:

    I agree with Heberts union bill, but the forced bilingualism nonsense is as always, exclusionary, arrogant, tribal, and like forced « bilingualism » generally, it is inherently racist and delusional. The further imposition of forced « bilingualism » is a poisonous proposition and is extremely disappointing to hear that it will continue to be used as a tool of dubious social engineering and as an end to a means. It is unfortunate, but I have no choice, and now I will NOT be voting Conservative again. I cannot in good conscience vote for a political party that wants to continue such an ill-conceived, inherently racist, social engineering scheme that has cost this country 100′s of billions of dollars, and it’s soul. The Conservatives have lost my support, and my vote, and I will do everything possible to make sure they lose the vote of everyone I know over this issue.

  4. JoeFrmEdm dit:

    @Sean, do you know of any Cdn political party that dosen’t suppport this social engineering ?? If so name them so I can vote for them otherwise I will be voting Conservative………….

  5. Cytotoxic dit:

    1) « …that means anyone willing to occupy one of its key positions has to be bilingual. »

    -Does this include MPs?

    2) You must realize the union transparency bill is against the principles of limited government. This is an overreach into the private dealings of an organization (unions) to ‘compensate’ for another overreach by the government that favors unionization (Rand and other stuff). Two wrongs do not make a right just abolish the Rand formula and other laws that tip the scales to unionization.

  6. Rob C dit:

    At one time I was of the opinion that Mr. Bernier was one of the few level headed one on the hill. No more. By backing the bi-lingual BS that makes a large percentage of Canadians ineligible for these government positions no matter HOW WELL QUALIFIED they are he indicates to me he is a typical quebec « me first » elitist. My life long support for conservative governments is wearing thin. I can see the conservatives loosing the next election by default. The core CPC supporters will just not bother voting. Sad way to loose power is it not.

  7. Stan dit:

    The rest of the conservative MPs could take lessons from you in communications with Canadians.

  8. Sean M dit:

    No « joefrmedm » I do not know of any other political party that wants to end the wasteful, useless, inherently racist imposition of forced « bilingualism » and that is why I have never supported, and never will support any of the other political partys. I foolishly thought the Conservatives were different. Now that the Conservative Party has decided to enforce divisive, destructive, bigoted Trudopian style social engineering schemes I feel no reason to offer them my support, as I have never supported the delusional, tribal poison of forced « bilingualism » imposed by Quebec politicians. Of course this new imposition of speaking french was put forward by another Quebecer, Latendresse, a person who accepts Bill 22 and Bill 101, both illegal Bills, and has as part of their function the outlawing and restricting of the use of English… irony, duplicity, or hypocritical, take your pick. I’m tired of the endless tribal vandalism coming from that Province and being imposed upon the whole nation. The Conservative Government are making a serious mistake enforcing the tribal bigotry of Quebec upon the whole nation, and as I said, I will NOT be voting for them again, and I have already notified others who voted Conservative in past elections and they are as outraged and fatigued as myself. If, by the time of the next election there is no other political party brave enough and ethical enough to finally put an end to this diseased program I will happily spoil my ballot, but I will do everything in my power up until that time to make the Conservative voters I personally know abandon the dream of clear honest Governance and NOT vote Conservative. The Conservatives have made a colossal mistake!

  9. hollinm dit:

    Canada is not a bilingual country. Look at the stats. Because the government decrees it is so does not make it so. As others have said this social engineering experiment has not brought us unity as a country. The old battles are still there. Quebec wants Canada to be a French Canada and they will do anything to pressure the politicians to believe they can buy linguistic peace by imposing draconian laws on the ROC. Quebec is not bilingual but they expect the rest of the country to accept bilingualism but everday their actions show they have no interest in bilingualin and in fact the opposite is true.
    To suggest that 80% of the country should learn another language to appease a minority group is not how it is suppose to work. Would we accept our government suggesting that Mandarin should be become an official language? I doubt it. Imagine if the President of the United States declared the U.S. bilingual with English and Spanish. There would be rioting in the streets.

    Great job on the union bill. If they want to have charitable status they need to follow the rules for charities.

  10. Harry dit:

    Less than one-quarter of the population can even speak French. I do not understand why bilingualism even exists in this country. We never hear French spoken in the West. A total waste of money.

Envoyer un commentaire