Evidence of meeting #119 for Official Languages in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was brock.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

The Chair Liberal René Arseneault

I now call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 119 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages. I want to welcome Mr. Bachrach, who is here to replace Ms. Ashton.

I won't read out all the usual guidelines today. Please speak one at a time, once I've given you the floor, to avoid acoustic incidents. These incidents aren't caused by the people participating remotely, but by the people around the table.

Last week, I adjourned the meeting on condition that we pick up exactly where we left off. This is what we're doing today. We had just heard from Marc Dalton, to whom I now give the floor.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone.

I know that we would prefer to talk about something else and hear testimony regarding the education continuum, from early childhood to post‑secondary education. This study is extremely important. I also know that Mr. Beaulieu wanted to table a motion, but that he decided to wait.

However, my Liberal colleagues decided to move their motion, which amounts to an admonition or disciplinary letter. The motion asks “that the Committee expresses its disappointment at the behaviour of Conservative MPs, notably…the MP for Brantford—Brant, toward Francophone ministers and toward the entirety of the Canadian population that speaks French, an official langue of Canada.” The motion also states that all members of Parliament have the right to speak in either official language, which is certainly true. The Conservative Party supports this. It also states that English and French are important in Canada, and that French is indispensable to the Canadian identity.

However, clearly the motion goes further than a simple reprimand of a Conservative member. It admonishes the Conservative Party. People think that we're against francophones and the French language, and this is further proof. The member of Parliament in question apologized to the House. However, people still think that the Conservatives don't like the French language and the Quebec nation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is a key discussion. I won't go back to the beginning of colonization, but I would like to make a few comments on the origins of Canada as a nation. When the charter was originally created—

The Chair Liberal René Arseneault

Let me interrupt you, Mr. Dalton.

This marks my second time hearing the argument that an apology was made to the House of Commons. I heard it last week and this week. If so, could you tell us about it, since it concerns the crux of the motion? I don't want to influence the debate. However, if an apology really was made to the House of Commons, the time has come to make this clear and show the facts. This concerns the crux of the motion.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC

Mr. Chair, I'm free to speak about this motion. That's what I'll do.

The motion refers to the behaviour of a Conservative member of Parliament. My point is that Conservatives have always supported the Canadian identity, English and French.

John A. Macdonald, Canada's first prime minister, George‑Étienne Cartier and other politicians held a number of discussions before coming up with the charter, the country's governing framework. Without this agreement signed in 1864, first in Charlottetown and then in Quebec City, there wouldn't be any Canadian nation. Before John A. Macdonald was elected, both he and George‑Étienne Cartier wanted to create a nation.

At the time, there were a number of colonies. There were major issues in the British colonies. In those days, Quebec was a colony of Great Britain. In those days, there was a civil war in the United States. People were afraid that the Americans would force us to join the United States. This agreement and these negotiations were really important. I'll talk a bit more about this.

I'm a member of Parliament from British Columbia. I said this before, but I live near the first capital of British Columbia, Fort Langley, which was a colony. This colony was created in 1856, because people were afraid of the Americans.

At the time, the American president really wanted the border between the United States and Canada, which belonged to England, to go all the way to the 60th parallel. Major efforts were made to establish Canada's independence from the United States. This was important. Quebeckers and French‑Canadians remained in British colonies, because this allowed them to speak French and practise their religion, particularly Catholicism.

Just before Confederation, the small colonies faced both military and economic pressure. George‑Étienne Cartier, who led Quebec, and John A. Macdonald saw the need for Quebec in Confederation. Quebec had quite a large population. The total population of all the colonies was around 3.5 million at the time. Quebec's population was quite large and central. Quebec needed to become part of the new country of Canada. The concerns of these people, who were Conservatives, mirrored the concerns of the people of Quebec. They wanted to protect the French language and francophone culture, as well as the freedom to practise their religion. This was vital, since all the other colonies were English‑speaking and Protestant. The culture was different.

John A. Macdonald originally wanted a stronger and more centralized government. However, Quebec and the francophones wanted control over education, for example. This was really important to them. They decided to find accommodations. There was a federal government, but the provinces were strong. The accommodations were designed to protect the Canadian identity, especially French and Catholicism. That was really important. A compromise was reached, with a view to having a strong but decentralized nation. The provinces also needed to be given enough power. There are many other federations in the world, such as Australia and the United States. I could argue that the provinces of the Canadian federation have more power than in other parts of the world.

This was a concern. Even 150 years ago, francophones were already worried that their culture and language would be marginalized or swallowed up in a sea of English. Quebec and francophones had to be part of the country. It was vital for the national identity to ensure that francophones could participate in both Quebec and Canada as a whole. At the time, it was also decided that francophones could speak in French in Parliament and that anglophones could speak in English. Since the birth of our country, in 1867, people have had the right to speak in the language of their choice.

The member of Parliament was in the wrong. We've had this right and freedom since 1867. There have been issues, as in all countries. However, our country has been a democracy for a long time. I think that there are two other independent countries that have been around as long as Canada. These countries are the United States and Great Britain.

As anglophone or francophone Canadians, we have something really important to take pride in, and that's our Parliament. This shows that the accommodation made back then forms the basis of our country's multiculturalism.

Since Quebec's distinct identity is accommodated, multiculturalism serves as a policy foundation and embraces diversity across Canada. This is a key factor.

I think that we can draw a valuable link here. We conservatives have been here since the start, since the founding of our country. We support the anglophone and francophone identity within one Canada. The Liberals have also been here from the start. However, I'll let a Liberal member talk about Wilfrid Laurier.

So far, I've talked about the first Conservative prime minister. I would like to talk about another prime minister, Brian Mulroney. My colleagues may wonder about the connection with the motion, but—

Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Chair—

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC

—I'll explain.

The Chair Liberal René Arseneault

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Serré?

Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON

Yes, Mr. Chair.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Chair—

The Chair Liberal René Arseneault

One moment, Mr. Godin.

Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Chair, we're talking about Mr. Brock's apology to the House of Commons. I don't understand why Mr. Dalton is talking about the censure of Mr. Brock. I don't understand why he's talking about Confederation.

The purpose of the motion is to ask Mr. Brock to apologize to the House of Commons. However, for the past 15 minutes, I haven't heard anything on this topic from Mr. Dalton.

The Chair Liberal René Arseneault

I understand. However, Mr. Dalton referred earlier to the Canadian identity, which is part of the motion.

The motion also refers to disappointment with the behaviour of Conservative members. It should be noted that it refers to Conservative members, plural. I think that Mr. Dalton touched on this. He was about to make another argument regarding a different prime minister. He said that he would relate it to the motion. I'll at least listen to him. As long as he's talking about the motion, I'll allow the debate.

You have the floor, Mr. Dalton.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair Liberal René Arseneault

Mr. Godin, I apologize. I forgot you.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Don't worry, Mr. Chair. I'm not taking it personally.

I just want to make sure that the committee is running properly. I raised a point of order earlier, but you didn't give me the floor.

The Chair Liberal René Arseneault

When you didn't say anything, I assumed that it had something to do with Mr. Dalton.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Chair, I would like us to come to an agreement on the procedure. I believe that, according to the rules of procedure, any point of order must stop the debate immediately. Is that right?

You applied the rule in Mr. Serré's case. However, you didn't apply it earlier in my case. I simply want to understand and make sure that the committee is running properly. I want to follow your instructions.

The Chair Liberal René Arseneault

You're right, Mr. Godin.

Members who raise points of order are usually quite persistent when I don't give them the floor. Since you didn't push for the floor, I thought that my remarks to Mr. Dalton had answered your questions.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make sure that the committee was running properly.

The Chair Liberal René Arseneault

No doubt, Mr. Godin.

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair Liberal René Arseneault

Mr. Iacono, you have the floor for a point of order.

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

My colleague opposite is making a presentation based on Canadian identity. At the end of the motion I presented, Canadian identity is mentioned; however, the basis or the heart of the motion is about something that happened in the House of Commons. The heart of the motion deals with a lack of respect in the House of Commons. Talking about Canadian identity and X or Y characters isn't relevant to the motion. The motion deals with something that happened on October 24. The motion is about an apology. We're asking the member who showed a lack of respect for a minister to do something; we're talking about the French language. My motion doesn't talk about prime ministers or all kinds of Canadian historical figures. The motion is very clear.

Could we make sure that we focus on the motion instead of going beyond its wording?

The Chair Liberal René Arseneault

Mr. Iacono, I understand your comments, except that we must consider the motion as a whole.

Mr. Dalton has the floor, and he's been explaining that he supports or agrees with one of the statements in the motion, namely that “the Committee recognises that French is just as important to Canada's bilingual status as English, and that French is indispensable to the Canadian identity.” That is part of the motion and of the whole. I think that Mr. Dalton always brings us back to this point to tell us that he agrees with that.

The motion as such, in its entirety, is indeed much broader than that. However, I can't interrupt a debate when it concerns the motion directly or indirectly, if the arguments or the debate are still related to the motion.

Mr. Dalton, you have the floor.