Debates of Feb. 18th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Religious Minorities in China

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the hon. member and it has been a problem for a long time.

The government at the time adopted certain positions that I agreed with and others where I think it made a mistake. We are now talking about the vote that will be held on Monday on this motion and on what we are going to do to change our relationship with China. I hope that the House will adopt the motion and that the Government of Canada will respect it and act in such a way as to respect our Canadian values. I hope that we will be more serious with China.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot today about courage and having the courage to stand up for human rights.

Will the hon. member and his Conservative caucus keep this same energy and focus on courage for Palestinians, for the Muslims who are in the Assam region of India, for people in Myanmar, and for other human rights victims across the world, or are they only fixated on the Chinese government?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, no, not at all. I welcome future debates in the House on those issues as well. I share the member's concern.

China is somewhat different because China also poses a clear danger to Canada's economic well-being, as well as to our security, so that is twinned with its human rights violations and its undemocratic, propriety and aggressive approach to its relation with Canada and other democracies. I think that is the big difference, but I certainly share the member's concern for those other issues.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That brings us to the end of the time allowed for Government Orders.

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, or that the amendment be adopted on division, I would now invite them to rise and so indicate to the Chair.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the division be deferred. I am talking about the vote on the main motion, not the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to order made Monday, January 25, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, February 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Before resuming debate, I would like to make a clarification. The deferred division on the amendment will take place before the vote on the main motion, which will be held on Monday, February 22.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these are not words I ever imagined I would utter in this House, but I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 so we can begin with Private Members' Business.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 19, 2020, consideration of the motion that Bill C-223, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Citizenship Act

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the Bloc Québécois bill on citizenship for newcomers to Quebec. This bill would raise the age at which people must have an adequate knowledge of one of Canada's official languages, specifically French in Quebec, from 54 to 65.

This is a pretty significant change for people who have decided to immigrate to Canada, especially for older people, considering how hard it is to master a second language at a certain age. Often these newcomers are fluent in a language other than French or English. In Quebec, older people would have to become proficient in French.

At the same time, I think it contributes to the commendable goal of protecting French throughout Canada, but also in Quebec. The recognition that French is at risk is a big change in the discourse of the Canadian Parliament. French is the minority language in the other provinces outside of Quebec but also within Canada. French is also at risk in Quebec, as we learned from a study that was just published today. It found that the number of people who speak French at home is dropping in my beloved home province of Quebec.

It is important to point out that Quebec is the only unilingual francophone province or region in North America. Of course, there are anglophones and people who speak all sorts of other languages living in Quebec, but it is basically a francophone province. New Brunswick is bilingual, and the other provinces are anglophone, and they all exist in a country that has a law defining it as bilingual and where people can express themselves in both official languages, French and English.

Given that Quebec is a unilingual francophone province, we must be very careful and ensure that immigrants to Canada who settle in Quebec and apply for Canadian citizenship can do so in Quebec's main language, which is French. If we do not, the number of people who can speak French will fall steadily. We need only look at what is happening in Montreal, Quebec's economic metropolis and the second-largest city in Canada, where almost half the population primarily speaks English.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced a very interesting bill that deserves our consideration and that I believe should be studied in committee. That said, increasing the age from 54 to 65 may be problematic, and this provision should be amended and the age of 54 reinstated. However, we are fairly comfortable with the idea of having people in Quebec take a test to demonstrate their knowledge of French.

We are also very concerned that the Liberal government is making little effort to protect and promote the French language and ensure that it is healthy in this country. We often hear sanctimonious virtue signalling from the Minister of Official Languages and the Prime Minister, but in the past few months alone, the government accepted a unilingual English report on the former governor general, for example.

We know what a scandal that kicked off. This was someone who had been appointed by the Prime Minister, without even using the advisory committee that was created by former prime minister Stephen Harper to ensure that all appointments would be merit-based and non-partisan. We saw what happened three years later.

Just look at WE Charity, which the Prime Minister wanted to help. This organization, which had very close ties with his family, received a nearly $1-billion contract to administer a volunteer program. We know that this organization is unilingual anglophone and unable to serve communities in Quebec and across the country. That is another good example of this government's sloppy, insincere approach to protecting French.

We could also add to that the fact that some public servants feel they are being treated unfairly because they do not get to express themselves in French at work. We can think about the fact that COVID Alert texts are being sent in English only in Quebec. I am also thinking about the Commissioner of Official Languages, who made 18 recommendations in 2018 to ensure that the modernization of the Official Languages Act could be applied properly, French could be promoted and celebrated, and we could help francophones across the country. However, to date, none of those recommendations have been implemented by the current minister.

I could give countless examples that demonstrate how French does not seem to be a priority for this government. We have been waiting for the Official Languages Act to be modernized for months and years now. The consultations have been done, the Senate has done its work and the commissioner has made his recommendations. There was a bit of drama before the holidays, when we learned from the print media in Quebec that the minister would not introduce a bill after all, which is what everyone in the country was expecting, but would instead table a white paper.

As we waited for that white paper, another pseudo-consultation intended to stall for time, a media leak earlier this week revealed that in the end, there will be no white paper, but rather a discussion paper for a committee to reflect on what should be done to protect and promote French across the country. This issue is so important and we are supposed to be so proud of it, and yet it keeps being put off.

In Canada, there are two official languages. Having a francophone community like Quebec, this people, this nation of Quebec that Prime Minister Stephen Harper recognized under the previous Conservative government, is something we should be proud of and do everything we can to protect. We do not get that feeling from the current government, which is putting off this work by not bringing in legislation to respond to concerns we have across the country and in Quebec.

I understand that the Bloc Québécois wants to work with newcomers to Quebec to make French the priority. The Government of Quebec wants to improve Bill 101 so that employees in all federally regulated businesses and all private businesses in Quebec can work in French.

The Conservative Party supports this initiative. I think that Quebeckers will be happy to hear that. Meanwhile, once again, the Liberal government is not getting to work. The Liberals are not joining us in this movement to recognize that there are indeed two official languages, but only one is in jeopardy: French.

We support the substantive principle of this bill, that is, the principle behind its French language requirement. Indeed, this requirement is truly consistent with our values and our leader's commitment to Quebeckers and francophones.

However, as I pointed out earlier, the Conservatives are concerned with the proposed change to the maximum age for requiring linguistic knowledge, from 54 to 65.

We therefore supported this bill at first reading, making sure that the perspectives of older newcomers to Canada would be heard and that their concerns would be addressed in committee, with opportunities for amendment. This is extremely important to us and I hope the Bloc Québécois will take that into account.

This bill will make knowledge of French, rather than English or French, mandatory for permanent residents living in Quebec who wish to obtain Canadian citizenship. As I said, we support the principle behind this measure and we recognize the urgency of doing more to protect the French language not only in Canada's smaller communities, but also in Quebec. This represents a major shift in discourse on Parliament Hill. I think that is clear to all opposition parties.

Despite the fact that the Liberal Party has more than 35 Quebec MPs, several of them ministers, that our Prime Minister was born in Quebec and that the Minister of Official Languages is a Quebecker, there seems to be no sense of pride or desire to take action. Talk is not good enough. Lip service and public posturing change nothing. We need concrete action to promote French everywhere and create a sense of pride.

Our leader has even said that, once he is prime minister, in the first 100 days of the next Conservative government, he will introduce an official languages bill to implement positive measures—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I have to interrupt the member because time is up.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-233, which was introduced by my colleague.

First, I would like to remind members that the Bloc Québécois believes that the protection of French in Quebec requires an asymmetrical approach, which is why the bill is specifically tailored to Quebec with respect to the knowledge of French required to obtain citizenship.

In a way, we are pleased that the federal government is recognizing for the first time, albeit it timidly, that Quebec's situation and the status of French are unique. I would like to quote from this fall's throne speech:

Our two official languages are woven into the fabric of our country.... The Government of Canada must also recognize that the situation of French is unique. There are almost 8 million francophones in Canada within a region of over 360 million inhabitants who are almost exclusively anglophone. The government therefore has the responsibility to protect and promote French not only outside of Quebec, but also within Quebec.

This is in stark contrast to what we have seen in the past. The government is now talking about the importance of protecting the French language in Quebec. However, the government needs to walk the talk, and that is what the Bloc Québécois wants to achieve with this bill.

The notion of citizenship is closely tied to politics. It always has been, and that is still the case. The main differences between a permanent resident and a citizen are the following: the right to vote or run in elections; the right to hold a job requiring a specific security clearance, such as a position with a company that does business with National Defence; and the right to sit on a jury. All of this requires some knowledge of French, and the French-language test required for citizenship is not very difficult. Candidates are required to be able to interact in everyday situations or to ask simple, basic questions to express their needs in day-to-day life. They are not asked to compose poetry or write in Alexandrine verse.

This is not the first time that this bill has been introduced. What I find unfortunate is that, in the past, there seemed to be a determination to nip the bill in the bud. I am thinking of former MP David de Burgh Graham, who said the following concerning the bill at the admissibility stage, and I quote:

My wife speaks five languages. French is not one of them. When she got her Canadian citizenship, we had just moved to Quebec. I had already lived there; she came to Quebec with me. She would have had to return to Ontario or stay in Ontario to get her citizenship, and I think that's against the values of our Constitution, our charter. I cannot support that on constitutional grounds.

No evidence was ever provided to show that the bill was unconstitutional, aside from an opinion that was not supported by legal advice, and the clerks of the House had found the bill to be constitutional. It therefore seems that some were determined to kill the bill from the start, which I think is unfortunate.

This time, the bill has gotten further in the process. It has been deemed admissible. After second reading, the bill will be sent to committee, where expert witnesses will speak to various issues. I think it would be a shame to abort the process now and kill the bill again before it even gets off the ground. The argument is that we should not vote in favour of the bill because it would hinder many people from obtaining citizenship.

I would like to point out that, to obtain citizenship, a person has to have spent 1,095 days in Canada. That is a good opportunity to learn the basics of French. I would also like to point out that not having citizenship does not prevent anyone from working or getting health care, because permanent residents can do both of those things.

I think it is a shame that people are refusing to send the bill to committee. The purpose of this bill is to protect the French language, so I think it is a shame to miss this opportunity to see what other obstacles to citizenship exist.

Some people have said that making knowledge of French mandatory would prevent a lot of people from obtaining Canadian citizenship. However, in November 2019, which is not so long ago, Statistics Canada reported that the citizenship rate among recent immigrants had dropped between 1996 and 2016 and had declined much more dramatically after 2006. Even without the requirement to pass a French test, there has been a decrease in citizenship uptake. It would have been interesting to examine the reasons for this decrease in committee.

I also find it odd that the government claims that knowledge of French would be an obstacle to obtaining citizenship, when we know that one of the obstacles to citizenship is the cost of the tests that are required to obtain citizenship. In the 2019 election campaign, the Liberals promised to make the test free, but it still costs $630 per person. For a family of two adults with children, that could mean up to $1,200, $1,800 or $2,400. That is a lot of money, and it is a major obstacle to citizenship. This could also have been studied in committee.

There is another aspect that could have been studied in committee, although I admit it is rather upsetting. In some cases, to obtain permanent resident status and to access other stages of the immigration process, the person needs to already have knowledge of one of the two official languages. However, we are seeing an imbalance when it comes to the tests that are administered. The Commissioner of Official Languages has received several complaints about the cost of tests in French, which is not the same as the cost of tests in English. We see that the cost of these official language proficiency tests is twice as high in French as it is in English. We also see that those who choose to take these tests in French get their results much later.

Fundamentally, there is already an imbalance when it comes to knowledge of one of the two official languages. That is something that could also have been looked at in committee. This has been going on for some time. The government has made several promises on this, but it has not kept them.

Furthermore, these tests are developed and also marked in France, not Quebec. The tests given to many immigrants are not necessarily appropriate. I will give a very simple example. In France, the meals are called “petit-déjeuner”, “déjeuner” and “dîner”, whereas the terms used in Quebec are “déjeuner”, “dîner” and “souper”. This can lead some people to make mistakes and possibly fail the test. For example, a U.S. citizen stated that when she took the test, she was asked to role-play a conversation where she had to order something at the Bistro du Louvre. The different expressions used in Quebec and France were a thorn in her side.

By not sending this bill to committee, we are missing opportunities to improve access to citizenship in general. We are denying ourselves the chance to identify obstacles to citizenship. We are also missing an opportunity to examine how knowledge of the official languages is evaluated in Canada, not just in Quebec. This is a missed opportunity for the provinces and territories as well. We could also have examined the criteria, in particular for obtaining permanent residency.

That is the very essence of the bill. If it does not go to committee, the claims that this bill would make it difficult to obtain citizenship will remain unsubstantiated. We will not be able to determine whether the bill could help strengthen the French fact and ensure that newcomers will fulfill the duties that come with citizenship and that they will be able to fully and completely participate in all that citizenship entails, such as the right to vote and the right to run in elections.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-223, which would amend the Citizenship Act to require that citizenship applicants who ordinarily reside in Quebec must demonstrate an adequate knowledge of French and must pass a test on the rights, responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship in French.

This bill would also increase the age range of applicants who must meet the language and knowledge requirements to 18 years of age or more but less than 65 years of age, compared to the current age range of 18 to 54 years.

In 2017, we amended the Citizenship Act to make it easier for immigrants to build successful lives in Canada, reunite with their families and contribute to the country's economic success. The goal was to encourage immigrants to develop a permanent sense of belonging and to become full-fledged members of Canadian society by getting their citizenship more quickly. These changes to the act reduced the age range for language and knowledge requirements from 14 to 65 to today's 18 to 54. By asking only applicants between the ages of 18 and 54 to meet the language and knowledge requirements, we are making life easier for immigrants to Canada and reducing barriers to citizenship for our oldest and youngest populations.

This flexibility also helps support the reunification of families by helping children, their parents and their grandparents obtain citizenship more quickly. That is an important step in enabling immigrants to develop a deeper sense of belonging to our society and become more active citizens.

By proposing to raise to 18 or more, but less than 65, the age range of people who have to show that they meet the language and knowledge requirements, Bill C-223 would undo the changes made in 2017 and restore the barriers to citizenship for older applicants. This would also have an adverse effect on the naturalization rate in Canada, which is currently one of the highest in the world at 85.8%.

We encourage all immigrants to become full members of Canadian society and we know that one of the most important pillars of a successful integration into Canadian society is obtaining citizenship. The success of our immigrants is our success as a strong and united country.

The proposed changes in this bill that would expand the age range and eliminate the choice of language would have a disproportionate and adverse effect on refugees, women, older newcomers and other vulnerable populations who might consider the obligation to meet the language and knowledge requirements in French only to be a barrier to citizenship.

These are populations that need our support and compassion and not additional barriers that have already been exacerbated by COVID-19.

We know that the intention of this bill is to protect and promote the French language in Quebec. Our government values Canada's linguistic duality. French and English are a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian identity, and we know how important it is to promote both official languages.

French and English are fundamental characteristics of the Canadian identity, and we know how important it is to promote our two official languages. We are committed to promoting French across Canada and to preserving and protecting the French language in Quebec.

The Government of Canada has committed to helping all newcomers get the French- or English-language skills they need to integrate into their communities and contribute to the Canadian economy. We know that immigration plays a key role in supporting francophone minority communities across the country and in maintaining Canada's bilingualism. We also know that established immigrants who obtain Canadian citizenship have a very strong sense of belonging to Canada.

Citizenship is a key element that opens doors to greater economic opportunities and encourages full participation in Canadian society. We have implemented measures to attract francophone newcomers to Canada and are working hard to support their integration and retention. This approach has helped strengthen the capacity of francophone communities across the country. By consolidating the francophone integration pathway, our government is committing to the principle of “par et pour”, ensuring that settlement services for francophones are offered by francophones.

It is important to note that Quebec selects all immigrants settling in that province except those in the family reunification for protected persons category. Under the Canada-Quebec accord, the Government of Canada gives the Province of Quebec an annual amount to administer and deliver services for the reception and linguistic, cultural and economic integration of immigrants who settle in Quebec, including resettled refugees.

Statistics show high rates of French acquisition over time among permanent residents who remain in Quebec, which reinforces the ultimate goal of French language acquisition. Census data show that, 10 years after arriving in Quebec, over 90% of those in the economic immigrant category, over 70% of those in the family reunification category and over 83% of refugees speak French. That means the vast majority of immigrants residing in Quebec end up speaking French.

I think we can all agree that that is good news. Given the importance of French in Canada and Quebec, we should do and are doing everything in our power to maintain and support Canada's rich linguistic duality. However, becoming Canadian should be as inclusive and equitable as possible, no matter where one lives in this great country.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this evening's important discussion on Bill C-223.

I have been listening to my colleagues speak in the House for a little while now, and I think we all agree. The bill's objective is clear. We support the objective, which is entirely laudable and noble: to stand up for the French language, for the place of the French language and for the demographic weight of francophones. As a New Democrat, a Montrealer and a Quebecker, I fully endorse those objectives.

However, we believe that this is the wrong tool to achieve a good objective. In that regard, I think the bill completely misses the mark in terms of its original intention, and for several reasons. A bill can be judged on several criteria, and I will name three of them: its enforceability, its effectiveness and the unintended consequences that might arise from the application or non-application of the bill. Unfortunately, what is being proposed here today would be difficult to enforce and not very effective and could have a harmful impact on some people.

Essentially, there are three main immigration categories, which my colleague mentioned earlier: family reunification; refugees who are in distress and fleeing violence; and economic immigrants, who represent the vast majority of immigrants welcomed into the country for economic development reasons, to mitigate labour shortages and to stimulate the economy by growing communities. Quebec already has the exclusive power to select its economic immigrants. There is also a whole series of factors that are taken into account when determining whether an applicant should be accepted as an economic immigrant.

For years, under various governments, Quebec has used a points system that gives more points for knowledge of French. The questions are extremely easy. By and large, that has worked well. Quebec is already able to attract francophone immigrants because it has total control over the system. The federal government also provides support in the form of French integration and French language classes for those who need it. Quebec is fully autonomous in that regard and has made decisions aimed at increasing the percentage of francophone immigrants. This is working fairly well, and I think this is the type of approach that should be taken, where incentives and resources are provided to help immigrants learn French.

The two other immigration categories stem from something else entirely, with objectives that are quite different. Family reunification is fairly clear. However, we accept refugees out of humanitarian duty, solidarity and compassion for people experiencing oppression, discrimination, violence and civil war, as is currently the case in Yemen. I would not want to withhold Canadian citizenship from someone fleeing Yemen because there is little chance that they speak French. We prioritize immigrants from north Africa, Belgium, Switzerland and France because they are awarded more points to come work here and contribute to Quebec's economy and society. I believe we should be able to make this distinction.

What is the objective of the program and the end goal? I do not think it is right to put obstacles in the way of refugees seeking citizenship just because they do not speak French or have difficulty learning French. I believe that those people need help, not additional obstacles, even if we agree on welcoming more francophone immigrants. I think it is completely inappropriate to apply these provisions to refugees, and refugee advocacy groups are concerned about that approach. It is not just the idea of saying that we do not want them to come here, it is that they will not obtain citizenship, and if they never get citizenship, they will not become engaged citizens and will not be able to vote in elections. It is like telling them to come here because we want to help them, but warning that they will never have the right to vote unless they learn French.

Is that really the message we want to send to promote French?

Some refugee advocates, including lawyer Guillaume Cliche-Rivard, with whom I spoke recently, told me they were very concerned, because this proposal assumes that a refugee coming from a war zone does not have a learning disability or PTSD, and that he or she is on an equal footing with an economic immigrant who comes here to start a business or work for Quebec companies. These are two completely different scenarios, and the bill before us is very broad in scope.

That is why I said it could have unintended consequences on certain categories of immigrants, such as refugees and people who come for family reunification. This concerns us, when Quebec already has a system that works well for economic immigrants.

It would also be difficult to enforce and ineffective, because it does not really take into account the fluidity of interprovincial moves.

A French test might be a prerequisite for citizenship in Quebec, but many immigrants who do not speak French will go to Toronto, Halifax, or Moncton, New Brunswick. They get their Canadian citizenship there, and three months or six months later, they move to Quebec to find work.

That means some people have to take the test and some do not. The latter can still move to Quebec because nobody stops them at the border to ask them what test they had to pass to get citizenship. Given that interprovincial moves were not considered, we find ourselves with a double standard. What should we do about that?

We share the same goal of defending the French fact. I am actually very proud that a motion I moved in the House of Commons a few weeks ago regarding the fragility of French in Quebec and Canada and the need to strengthen and promote it received the unanimous support of the House.

The NDP has a history of defending French. I want to mention a former member of ours from the Quebec City area, Alexandrine Latendresse, whose hard work resulted in a real victory. Because of the bill we introduced and got passed in the House of Commons, all officers of Parliament, such as the environment commissioner and the Auditor General, must be able to understand and speak French. This is a great example of a very tangible and very practical victory for the rights of francophones across the country.

For the past 10 or 12 years, we have been saying that Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language, should apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. As I mentioned earlier, when I was talking about contradictions and double standards, the situation right now is a little strange. For example, a Caisse populaire employee is protected by Bill 101, but a Royal Bank employee does not have the same protections to communicate in French. If Bill 101 applied, all workers in Quebec would have equal rights, no matter which company they work for. The NDP has been advocating for this since before Jack Layton was our leader, and we are still advocating for it under our current leader.

We are also calling for and requiring that Supreme Court judges be bilingual, that they be able to understand French and speak it well. It is a matter of equal legal rights for people pleading their case in court. I am sure that my Bloc Québécois and Conservative Party colleagues agree with us on that. Unfortunately, the Liberal government does not seem to be listening when it comes to these two files, namely, the application of Bill 101 in Quebec and the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges.

Another issue on which we could take meaningful action to change things is the modernization of the Official Languages Act. That is something that was promised by the Liberals, who have been in office for five years. Rather than a new bill, we might see a white paper or a discussion paper tomorrow. The more time passes, the further behind we fall on this issue. This law has not been modernized in nearly 30 years. I think it is time to look at what we can do to give the Official Languages Act more teeth, to give it more power and authority to defend vulnerable francophone communities in some parts of the country.

We want to give rights to francophones working in federally regulated businesses outside Quebec, but we are somewhat concerned that this is only possible where warranted by the concentration of francophones. Information was recently leaked to the media that seemed to indicate that if immigrants may not have this right if they are not sufficiently francophone. It is like a Scotiabank employee in Moncton having certain rights and an employee of the same bank in Calgary not having them.

The Liberals must do better.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

As no members are rising, I invite the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou to use her right of reply. She has five minutes.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again to conclude the debate at second reading of the bill that I introduced.

I had the opportunity to hear from members of the different parties and I am disappointed that the Liberal Party and the NDP do not seem to want to give this bill a chance to be examined in committee. I am disappointed because many studies clearly show that French is in decline in Quebec, particularly in Montreal. I am disappointed because it is essential that we put a stop to this trend and it is by passing bills like Bill C-223, combined with other measures, that we will be able to prevent this disaster. Quite frankly, I am not sure what the Liberal and NDP members did not understand. During the debate, we heard them say all sorts of things that had nothing to do with the bill. Sometimes I wondered if they even read it.

As we know, only 55% of allophones in Quebec make the language transfer to French. In English Canada, approximately 99% of allophones make the language transfer to English. To maintain our relative weight, 90% of allophones in Quebec would have to make the transfer to French.

I therefore invite my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-223 because it recognizes the primacy of French in Quebec, it is consistent with recognition of the Quebec nation, it contributes to sustaining French in Quebec, it restores the status of French in Quebec, it acknowledges the importance of speaking the language to exercise all the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship in Quebec, and it is an additional means to slow the decline of French in Quebec.

As for the Liberals, especially the ones from Quebec, I do not really understand why they would vote against this bill. I have to say that all I heard from the Liberals were weak and unconvincing arguments that often had nothing to do with my bill. As usual, the Liberals are using empty words to hide their unwillingness to take action. This bill in no way prevents anyone from immigrating to Canada, because citizenship is the final step in the immigration process. Our bill does not prevent anyone from seeking asylum in Canada. It does not prevent anyone from applying for permanent residence, a study permit, a work permit or a visa.

The Liberals have offered us false arguments. I get the feeling the Liberals do not actually have a reason to oppose the bill. They are against it because they are against it. They are against it for ideological reasons. They just do not like it when opposition parties come up with good ideas.

I think it makes perfect sense for people who immigrate to Quebec to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of French, just as it makes sense to know English in Great Britain, German and Germany and Mandarin in China. Making knowledge of French a prerequisite for obtaining Canadian citizenship in Quebec just makes sense.

Members of the House of Commons who vote against the very principle of Bill C-223 will be proving two things. First, they will be proving that Canada's bilingual nature is not important to them, by rejecting a minimum requirement for ensuring the vitality of French in North America. Second, they will be proving that Canada's constitutional framework cannot ensure the full vitality of the Quebec nation. It is important to make French the common language, as well as to ensure that everyone is included in order to build a coherent and inclusive society.

I therefore ask all of my colleagues in the House to do the right thing and support my bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request either a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I ask them to now rise and indicate so to the Chair.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 24, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 6:08 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 37, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-234 under Private Members' Business.

Income Tax Act

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

moved that Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (home security measures), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, this is something my constituents have been talking about. It is an issue that is near and dear to their hearts, one they have been dealing with over the past few years. They are glad to see that something is finally being done.

I am proposing Bill C-234, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (home security measures). It was reinstated from second reading in the previous Parliament. The bill would help make home security more affordable for Canadians by creating a home security tax credit. This non-refundable tax credit would be applied to the installation, maintenance and monitoring of a security system installed in an individual's home. This would include any structure that is separate from an individual's home, such as a garage or a barn. The maximum dollar amount eligible for the tax credit application is $5,000 a year.

I am proud to mark the first hour of debate on this important piece of legislation, which would make a real difference in the lives of Canadians, especially those in rural areas. Like many parts of rural Canada, my riding of Prince Albert continues to suffer from increasing crime rates, and my constituents have made it very clear that they expect action on this file.

The bill came about through a variety of different ideas and consultations among colleagues in the Conservative Party. More importantly, it came to fruition through a meeting I had back in 2016. I have to give some context for the meeting.

On a Friday afternoon I got a phone call from a guy named Terry in my riding, who was very mad. He was upset. He informed me that he had another break-in. Someone broke in on his farm. His insurer was telling him that it may not be able to reinsure him, and he wanted to talk about it. I told Terry I was in the Christmas parade in Prince Albert, and I suggested we get together Saturday morning after the parade and talk about it.

When I was in the parade, I remember quite vividly that all of a sudden my phone went off. I hit the speaker button and Terry said there was going to be a few other people at the meeting. I told him it was not a problem; it was fine. He said some neighbours wanted to talk about it too.

I got to my office after the parade and there were 25 people in my office. This was with six hours of notice. They proceeded to tell me their property had been vandalized. They had been targeted, had things stolen out of their shops and had gas and vehicles stolen. They felt the police force was not doing anything about it and the legal system was letting them down.

They wanted action. They were upset. Of course, a lot of the actions are not federally regulated; they are provincially regulated. Having said that, they wanted to vent and let people know what was going on, and to look for solutions.

We came to the conclusion that we would hold a town hall meeting, so we put together a meeting at the Prince Albert Golf and Curling Centre for the next Saturday morning. They asked me not to advertise it, because they did not want the criminals to know they were not going to be home. I did not advertise it. I just let them spread notice of it by word of mouth.

That Saturday morning when I got to the hall I was nervous. All of a sudden, there were cars in the parking lot and it was full. There were cars parked all the way down the street. I got downstairs and there was probably 200 to 300 people packed into this hall. We had no sound system, no speakers. We were expecting maybe 25 to 35 people, but it was a huge crowd.

I have to thank the mayor of Prince Albert. He quickly grabbed his sound system and brought it back so we could present. We brought together RCMP, city police, provincial colleagues, MLAs in Saskatchewan and Crime Stoppers, and we proceeded to talk about the options and what was available.

As we went through the meeting, there was a recurrent theme: People's property had been broken into once, twice or three times. Some felt a lot of this was gang-related, and some felt it was drug-related. People were looking for solutions. They seemed to know exactly where these culprits were coming from. The police were looking for advice on how they could best handle it, and even the municipalities wanted to know what they could do.

People knew that the one place where the criminals were hanging out was the only place on that road, so one solution came up: Maybe the road should not be graded. They wanted to let the snow blow in to keep the criminals home. Different ideas were tossed around, but what became very apparent was that people wanted to see action on this issue.

This is not unique to Prince Albert. In Alberta, former Alberta justice minister Doug Schweitzer wrote to the Minister of Justice asking for more serious penalties for rural crime. There was an Alberta task force, and the issues in my riding were issues right across Alberta. They are issues right across Saskatchewan, right across rural Ontario and in Quebec. They are right across the country.

One thing that was really unique, which the RCMP made me aware of, was the addictions issue and what they had seen or suspected when we had a slowdown in the oil patch. People who were making good money were all of a sudden out of work or no longer had a job, but they still had addictions. They still had issues.

What did they do? They resorted to crime, to stealing or whatever they could to feed their addictions.

There are many different issues in the background that need to be addressed and there are different things that we should be looking at as parliamentarians on how to solve this problem or make it better for our constituents. This is just one way. We will hear other ideas and suggestions from the Conservative Party to deal with this in a holistic manner.

One may ask what a home security system does? It actually does a lot. When one thinks of the idea of a tax credit for a home security system, first, people would have a good security system in place. What does that system do? It deters people from breaking into facilities or homes. That is one thing. Second, if people do break in, it allows police to have good identification factors to make the appropriate arrests, and hopefully those identification factors will stand up in a court of law. It provides a chance to identify who the culprits are. In a lot of cases, they are repeat offenders who are already known to the RCMP or the police, and the police need the evidence to proceed with arrests and to put the accused through the courts and to get convictions. That is one thing.

There is another thing that has come about, which I did not expect. It was a surprise. It should not shock me now, but it did at the start. People want action. They want us to do something. They want us to take action. Not only that, they want us to acknowledge that there actually is a problem. They want Ottawa to realize that they are in a situation for which they cannot seem to get a resolution. More people talk to me now, since the announcement of this bill, about how they have been personally impacted. I encourage all members to go to people not only in the rural areas but also in towns and cities, and they will find all sorts of examples of break and enters and crimes where a security system might have been the thing that would have deterred that action.

The head of the Saskatchewan Cattlemen's Association called me on Saturday. He wanted me to know that the company was going to send a letter of endorsement for my bill and that he had been talking to APAS and SARM, who were thinking of doing the same thing. We are starting to see the need for action for people in rural Canada. They are looking for hope and this would give them some hope. This bill would allow us to talk about the issue, and it is a good issue that we should be talking about. This is very relevant to pretty well everybody in rural Saskatchewan, rural Canada or even in urban centres or cities. People want to feel safe in their homes. They want to make sure their families are safe, that their homes are their castles that will not be violated by any means. This will be one step in doing that. This will provide some of that comfort and safety for families. It is something that we should look at doing.

It is not just the family home. Like I said, it is the garage, the barn or the outbuildings that farms may have on their acreage. The bill would allow people to position the appropriate tools in the appropriate place so they can get the appropriate coverage to do what they need to do. This looks to me like a small step moving forward to deal with rural crime.

I look forward to hearing the debate and this bill's going to committee. This is a bill that people can work with quite easily. It is very simple: it is a $5,000 tax credit, which is easy for people to include on their tax returns. It shows them that we care and it starts the conversation about exactly what we need to do on rural crime. We are going to see different examples and ideas come from our colleagues in all parties on how to address this issue and hopefully find some solutions. If this bill gets people talking about it, then it is a success. I am looking forward its going to committee, and if there some things the committee wants to do to expand it or make it better, I look forward to those, too.

At the end of the day, when this bill hopefully passes and all parties agree that it makes sense and is something we want to do, I hope we can look our constituents in the eye and say that we started down the road of fixing this problem. Hopefully we will be creative enough as parliamentarians to discuss what we are going to do about the other parts of the problem, namely, what we will do about addictions, what we will do about the economic situations that a lot of people have been forced into, and what we will do about getting people jobs so they do not have to resort to crime in order to feed their families. Those are the types of things that we also need to discuss, and not just home security systems or home system monitoring and protection. Hopefully this is the start of those types of conversations among ourselves.

I hope to have intelligent conversation on this. This is something we can all look at and say we can get behind: that it makes sense and we can move it forward. If we can make it better, let us make it better. I have never been one to say that it is my way or the highway, and I am not about to say that with this bill.

I look forward to the spirit of the bill being recognized and appreciated, and the spirit is that we need to be doing something to help our constituents in rural areas and cities to protect their houses, to protect their families and to provide the security that they need. We are seeing lots of groups and individuals stepping on board. They are looking at this and saying this is a start.

As I said, when I talked with Arnold for about 15 minutes, he gave me an example of cattlemen in a rural area. People had gone out to their farms and shot cattle. We had a scenario just outside of Saskatoon, I think this spring, where somebody went in and shot some buffalo. They actually cut the gates and let them go. Buffalo wandering around in small towns is not something good. Again, we can see there is a recurring theme here that we need to provide better protection for people in rural Canada.

I want to stress that it is not just rural Canada. There are other examples. A person called me today saying that in urban centres they could use something like this bill to protect themselves. It would just provide that extra sense of safety.

I do not think I need to go on to use my full 15 minutes. I will stop there and I look forward to seeing support from all parties on this. I look forward to this moving through the House, to the debate and to positive suggestions that all members may have, participating in this dialogue to address things like rural crime and break and enters, and see some resolution and benefits for all our constituents.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this bill forward and for doing the work that goes into it. Having tabled and gone through the process of a private member's bill, I know there is an incredible amount of work that goes into this.

I also want to thank him for identifying an issue that was incredibly important in his community, and for the manner in which that came to light, but I absolutely fail to understand how this bill would improve the situation of the people he represents. To me, it is nothing more than a boutique tax credit that is going to be used by a particular demographic: those who can afford these systems. I fail to understand how it would increase the safety of the people he is trying to affect by this. All it would do is make the systems slightly cheaper because they do not have to pay tax on them.

I know the member said specifically that somebody said they need more serious penalties on rural crime. Although I do not know if I would support that, at least that might be something that aims to address the issue here.