Evidence of meeting #138 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rural.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I believe the clerk can distribute it. The motion is “That the committee report to the House its recommendation that the procurement ombud study indigenous procurement.”
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chair, can we just suspend literally for one minute?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We are back.
We left it with Mr. Kusmierczyk, who asked for a suspension, so it's back to you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Okay. I will yield the floor to my colleague, Mr. Bachrach.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think there are two competing objectives here, and I want to propose a bit of a compromise. Strange, I know.
I take the argument that having the procurement ombud commence a study on this should not jeopardize our calling of witnesses or our securing of any witness testimony. I don't see a need to postpone that until after we've conducted our study. Likewise, I don't see a need to report to the House that we're going to ask the procurement ombudsperson to start a study. My preference would be that the committee write directly to the ombudsman and request that the work get under way.
I don't know if it would be welcomed as an amendment, but I would make that amendment—that we remove the part of the motion requiring a report to the House and that we change the wording to have the committee write directly to the ombudsman and request that he initiate a study on indigenous procurement.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mr. Bachrach's proposed amendment is to just change it out and have the committee write instead of reporting to the House.
Does anyone wish to speak on that?
Mr. Bachrach, I'm disappointed that you took Mrs. Vignola's role of compromise.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I mean, it's not my preferred route, but we can see it as a compromise if others will see it as a compromise.
Do we all agree to go that route?
Okay. Mission accomplished.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
The amendment is for the committee to write to the ombudsman to study the set-asides on indigenous procurement.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
So it's just a letter that we're sending to them.
Okay. That's fine.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Wonderful. It sounds like we have an agreement.
(Amendment agreed to)
We're back to the original motion as amended, where we write to the procurement ombud.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Can you read the whole text of the motion, just so we're clear?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
The original states, “That the committee report to the House its recommendation that the procurement ombud study indigenous procurement.”
We'll change it to this: “That the committee write to the procurement ombudsman with a recommendation that he perform a study on indigenous procurement.”
That's as we've done in the past. Are we fine with that all around?
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Wonderful.
I have Mrs. Vignola and then Mrs. Kusie.
Mrs. Vignola, go ahead.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
If I understand correctly, we’ve passed both of Mr. Genuis’ motions, so I can now table a notice of motion.
My motion is about Canada Post, which is also part of our mandate. I will read it to you. It will be distributed to you in the next few seconds.
Given the decision to change the status of 24 of the additional post offices in the Greater Montreal area from unilingual French to bilingual, That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), the Committee invite to testify for a minimum of two hours each, no later than September 28, 2024: a) the Minister of Official Languages; b) representatives of Canada Post.
We could also debate the motion and pass it, if we can come to a consensus quickly.
I’ll explain why I’m tabling this motion.
The vast majority of people affected are French-speaking. Of course they speak English, but they prefer to be served in their own language. When offices go from being unilingual French to bilingual, as we’ve seen in some cities, French is completely sidelined. If only one person in the office speaks English, everyone has to speak English. That person won’t learn French and won’t want to. My apologies, but sometimes there’s a distinctly colonialist feeling that some people are the victors and others, the vanquished. I’m sorry, but this feeling towards francophones really does exist, and it’s extremely sad.
To protect the right of francophones to work and be served in their language, we must maintain unilingual French status. One way or another, when a customer arrives and speaks English, employees will respond in English. However, francophones are entitled to have and maintain unilingual French status.
I’d be curious to see just how people would react if offices located in one of Canada’s English-speaking provinces went from being English-speaking to bilingual, or even French-speaking. The reaction would be just as strong, and rightly so. People have the right to work in their own language. We have to make sure there are no lapses in that regard.
We are currently discussing the work of the committee and I am entitled to table this motion. It’s important for francophone citizens and employees who want to continue to work in their language. It must be said that compromises are rare. Compromises often favour one side and rarely the other. It’s unfortunate. It shouldn’t be this way.
I therefore request that the committee meet with representatives of Canada Post and the Minister of Official Languages to clarify this decision, which in no way reflects the status of Quebec, its official language or even the Official Languages Act.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mrs. Vignola, are you putting this on notice, or do you intend to have it debated right now?
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I’d say we can debate it now, and hope we can reach a consensus quickly.
Conservative
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
My only point is that, again, Canada Post is at arm's length. I understand here that the motion requests that the Minister of Official Languages come, but I don't know how much control the minister has over Canada Post. I would say it's probably negligible. Canada Post is a separate entity. It's an arm's-length Crown corporation.
I think bringing in Canada Post makes sense, but bringing the Minister of Official Languages, who is not responsible for Canada Post.... I'm just trying to understand that motion.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
In my humble opinion, bringing in the Minister of Official Languages would clarify the rights and obligations of businesses under federal jurisdiction. Of course, Canada Post is a public corporation, at arm’s length from the government. Nevertheless, there are laws to uphold.
It would be interesting to have the minister appear and find out to what extent the Official Languages Act can be applied, and how it can comply with Quebec’s linguistic status, which is different. I would point out that the official language of Quebec is French. I think it would be appropriate for the committee to hear the minister speak on this subject and ask him how he is ensuring compliance with the Official Languages Act.
The minister won’t be able to explain Canada Post’s decision, of course, but he can easily make the connection with the Official Languages Act, which is important too.
It is important to maintain the status of French in Quebec and see how things can be reconciled on both sides. We need to be able to make recommendations that address all aspects of the problem. On the one hand, Canada Post’s representatives can explain the decision to us. On the other hand, we can get explanations regarding the Official Languages Act and conduct an in-depth, comprehensive analysis of the matter.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a quick point of order, Chair.
Has the motion been distributed? If it's not available for distribution, could it be read out in its entirety again?
September 17th, 2024 / 1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Again, I want to underline that Canada Post is its own entity. It is separate. It is an arm's-length corporation. We know this. It is separate from the government. There is no minister controlling its operations. The Minister of Official Languages does not oversee the operations of Canada Post. I agree with bringing officials in from Canada Post to answer those questions, but, again, the Minister of Official Languages is not connected to the operation of Canada Post, which is arm's-length.
I want to ask whether Madame Vignola, in order for us to begin, would be willing to simply focus on having Canada Post officials at that inaugural meeting to answer questions.
I'll reiterate here that the Minister of Official Languages does not control Canada Post because, again, Canada Post is its own entity. It is independent. Its operation is controlled on its own and outside the purview of ministers.