House of Commons Hansard #62 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was languages.

Topics

Official LanguagesRoutine Proceedings

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to participate in this extremely vital and important discussion on the document tabled by the Minister of Official Languages.

I want to take a moment to say that, as a Quebecker, I had the good fortune to be born into a francophone family. My father was a poet and a writer, so I grew up in a home where I was literally surrounded by books. All of the walls were bookshelves filled with books. My brother and I had a very happy childhood filled with Quebec music, including that of Félix Leclerc, Gilles Vigneault, Pauline Julien and Claude Gauthie. We also had the opportunity to meet poet Gérald Godin a few times. All of this helped us to develop a love of the French language. We also grew up listening to music by French musicians, such as Jacques Brel, Georges Brassens, Barbara and Léo Ferré. The French language is part of my DNA, and it is also part of the DNA of my political party, the NDP, which, on many occasions in the past, has taken action and proposed sensible and effective measures to help the French language thrive in Quebec and throughout Canada.

I am pleased to participate in this debate because I want to express my concern, which is shared by many of my colleagues, about the ongoing threats to the survival, maintenance and development of the French language in Quebec and across Canada. I think virtually all of us would agree that French is in jeopardy at the moment, that we must take urgent action, that there has been a marked decline in Quebec and the other provinces, that the French language requires greater support and that federal institutions and the Government of Canada should be more respectful of it.

Once we realize that, we have to choose our words carefully. Saying that French and English are on equal footing in theory is perfectly acceptable. For example, we agree that Quebec's anglophone minority has historical rights and institutions that must be preserved and protected, but people also have to understand that only one of our official languages is vulnerable and under threat, and that language is French.

We need to protect the French language, and doing so will require measures and additional assistance. French is a beautiful language loved by all, but it is in the minority in North America. There are some nine million francophones in a sea of around 370 million anglophones. We neighbour the United States, the largest producer of cultural content, such as music and film, in the world. The United States may come behind India, but we have fewer influences from India here. We need to acknowledge this and do something about it. Some francophone communities have been on the decline in recent decades. We need to stop the decline once and for all and support francophone communities. Some of these communities are vibrant and captivating and they are achieving great things, while others are very much struggling.

In some parts of Quebec, even, the situation is bleak, and downtown Montreal has struggled in recent years on the customer service front. We all need to be able to acknowledge this situation and then take action. I want to talk about the phrase “take action”, because that notion came up a number of times in the minister's statement, but I am not too sure what she meant by it. The government seems to use the notion of taking action when it is holding consultations but not actually doing anything about the situation.

The federal government has presented a document, a plan to reform and modernize the Official Languages Act. This act has not been amended much since 1988 and its current structure makes it difficult to fully respect the principle of linguistic duality and makes it difficult for communities to access services in the official language of their choice.

That is why francophone minority communities and the official languages commissioner asked the Liberal government over and over again to introduce a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act.

Despite the urgency of the situation and the marked decline of French in Quebec and across Canada, the Liberal government continues to delay the implementation of tangible measures. The Liberal government actually began its consultations on the modernization of the act in 2018. It held numerous consultations in 2019. The minister also acknowledged that between March and May 2019, the federal government held other cross-Canada consultations on the modernization of the act, which concluded with a national symposium in Ottawa attended by more than 300 people.

I must also add that the Liberal 2019 election platform promised the introduction of a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act and the enhancement of the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages, as well as the appointment of bilingual judges to the Supreme Court.

With respect to bilingual judges on the Supreme Court, I have the impression that the government, which rejected this principle until recently, has seen the light, like Saint Paul on the road to Damascus, and suddenly decided that it was a good idea and would include it.

Seriously, though, the minister says it is time to take action. After all the consultations that were held, after all the reports that were released, after the work of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, after the work of Senate committees that studied this issue and tabled reports, what is the government actually giving us now? It is giving us a working document that will lead to the creation of a committee that will conduct more consultations, which will lead to a report being tabled with recommendations that may provide some inspiration for a bill that may be introduced someday. That does not seem very serious to me.

If the government really felt a sense of urgency around taking action for the French language in Quebec and across the country, it would not create a new committee; it would draft a bill.

The Liberal government could have introduced a bill three, four or five years ago. Right now, a minority government has been in power for 18 months, and the situation is deemed to be so urgent that the Liberals are planning to strike a committee that will hold consultations and produce a report.

I do not think that members of the NDP define the phrase “take action” that way, despite the fact that the minister used it many times in her speech. The NDP has taken action and we will continue to take action to protect and promote the French language.

I want to mention something that happened eight years ago. When we formed the official opposition, our former colleague, Alexandrine Latendresse, introduced a bill that was passed by the House. The purpose of that bill was to ensure that all officers of Parliament are able to understand and speak French, to ensure that all commissioners, such as the commissioner of the environment, the commissioners for various departments, and the Auditor General be bilingual. That changed things, and that is a practical measure brought in by the NDP that has been successful and produced results.

Recently, I had a motion passed by the House recognizing the fragility of French and the need to promote and defend it. The motion was unanimously adopted.

Today, I get the impression that we have before us a discussion paper that is just a bunch of pious wishes. Believe me, I am not against virtue. The statements and approaches seem worthwhile, but it has no teeth. There are no real measures and no real sense of urgency.

We are glad to see the right to work in French and to communicate in French with the employer in federally regulated businesses finally implemented. The NDP has long been demanding that the principles of the Charter of the French Language be applied to federally regulated businesses. Currently, two sets of language rights apply to workers in Quebec. Those who work for the Caisse populaire have certain language rights to use French at work, but Bank of Montreal or Royal Bank employees do not enjoy the same rights. There is a bit of a contradiction here.

There finally seems to be some willingness to move forward. It certainly took a while. The NDP has been clamouring for this for 10 years. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals had done anything until today. We will see if this amounts to anything.

There is also the possibility of extending this right to francophone workers outside Quebec. That is an interesting idea, but it looks like it would apply only where there is a heavy concentration of francophones or where the francophone presence warrants it. It is not really clear.

This morning in an interview, the minister did not seem to be able to provide specific criteria saying that this committee would study and make recommendations on what this really means. However, there is already a rule in the Public Service Employment Act about the right to work in French. It requires a 5% presence of francophones as a threshold for exercising the right to communicate and work in French. I wonder why the Liberal government has not taken a rule that already exists in the federal public service and applied it to workers in the private sector who could exercise similar rights to work and communicate with their employer in French.

Instead of reinventing the wheel and going back to square one, there is a rule that everyone agrees on and is accepted by everyone, but is not being applied. This will give rise to another debate, namely what constitutes a community where the proportion of francophones is enough to claim this right.

Going back to the question Patrick Masbourian asked this morning, are we creating a two-tier system? I think the answer is yes. What we are looking at here is a two-tier system where, for instance, someone working for Rogers in Moncton would be able to claim French language rights with their employer, but someone working for the same company in Calgary could not do the same because language rights for francophones outside Quebec vary from region to region. For the NDP, that is a major issue.

The government is also giving more powers to the Commissioner of Official Languages. That is also something that the francophone and Acadian communities had been calling for for a long time, and we are happy to see that. However, it seems like the commissioner would have new powers to issue orders, but not to impose financial penalties. It does not look like the official languages commissioner would be able to impose financial penalties on institutions, organizations and businesses that fail to comply with the act. Why is that? In my view, it is a major aspect of strengthening the commissioner's powers. We are going to keep pushing for that.

Most francophone and Acadian communities have asked for an administrative tribunal to handle appeals of certain situations. This is also missing from the document before us today. However, it would be an important and worthwhile element to have in the next few years. There are many other things that can be done and that the federal government should do to promote and defend the French language. I am referring specifically to the Official Languages in Education program. There has been a significant increase in the number of students at the 700 French-language schools found outside Quebec. There has been a 16% increase in the past five years. However, the budget for the Official Languages in Education Program has been frozen for about 10 years. They are not receiving more money. There are more students, but the budget is the same.

The minister seems to be challenging my claims, but we can review the figures and discuss them. This is the kind of thing that is problematic because this program funds many cultural and sports activities in schools. If they do not have the money they need to have interesting programs for students, this may result in elementary students choosing to go to English-language secondary schools if the services and programs offered—

Official LanguagesRoutine Proceedings

1 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. member's time is up.

Official LanguagesRoutine Proceedings

1 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am seeking unanimous consent to respond to the minister's statement.

Official LanguagesRoutine Proceedings

1 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to speak to this matter?

There being no opposition, it is agreed.

The hon. member for Fredericton.

Official LanguagesRoutine Proceedings

1:05 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in reply to the ministerial statement. I welcome the government's plan to modernize the Official Languages Act.

I come from New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada. I am proud to represent the riding of Fredericton, where so many people live and work in both official languages. That reality exemplifies the vision for society that Canadians adopted more than 50 years ago.

As mentioned by other colleagues today, the French language unites millions of people across Canada. In every province and territory, people share stories, love and dream in French. It is of the utmost importance not only to protect the language, but also to take steps to ensure it thrives and flourishes.

I have a deep personal connection to what language represents and an endless empathy for what it means when someone has lost the ability to express their deepest thoughts in the language that once belonged to their ancestors. Language is the reflection of our soul. It is the means by which we are able to better describe the world in which we live, without hesitation or doubt, with love.

When my stepfather was growing up, he and everyone he knew was shamed for speaking Wolastoqiyik. Shame is a powerful weapon. It cuts deep and almost totally severed the connection of his people to their language, the language that should be passed on to my children. Language is at the root of identity. Once this land was a diverse forest of cultural identity, and it can be again with the proper nourishment.

As we protect the two official languages of this country, let us also ensure that the ones spoken on this land for millennia take root to stand proud and strong once again. I am encouraged by the minister's statement affirming the unfailing support of our government toward preserving and revitalizing indigenous languages—

Official LanguagesRoutine Proceedings

1:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt. Some members do not have their microphone off. I remind members to please ensure that their microphone is off. Otherwise, their conversations will be heard in the House, which interrupts the proceedings.

The hon. member for Fredericton.

Official LanguagesRoutine Proceedings

1:05 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Speaker, learning a new language is not easy, but it opens up a world of opportunities and adventure.

Immersing yourself in another culture and learning to communicate in a second language is enough to make your head spin. Searching for the right words and not knowing exactly how to answer a question is intimidating. In a way, I am proof that it is possible to reconcile both identities, to be receptive and to celebrate what makes us unique from coast to coast to coast.

However, only by giving ourselves the means to take ownership of this unique Canadian reality will we be able to collectively claim that our two official languages are finally truly equal.

We can sometimes forget what linguistic rights truly represent beyond “Hello, bonjour”. Quite often, they directly affect people's safety and security and their dignity.

During this pandemic, which only causes more stress, the ability to express ourselves in our language and receive a service in that language is essential to ensuring everyone's well-being, whether we are talking about people crossing the border, so that they can understand the quarantine guidelines, or unilingual francophone seniors in my own province, who were unable to receive services in their language at the care centres during a COVID-19 outbreak. This only added to their suffering.

Being able to access education and the resources necessary for schooling in French is also an eternal struggle for francophone minorities, and the burden has been borne by generations from Charlottetown to Victoria. Nothing will ever be achieved until the Supreme Court of Canada proclaims that French and English have equal of status and equal rights and privileges in Canada.

Because there is a difference between having a right and having a right respected, ensuring that the oversight body has the appropriate tools to reinforce the act is also crucial. I am encouraged to see that the government is moving in that direction.

During these last months, I thought a lot about the meaning of the word “resilience” and how we collectively had to learn how to navigate between grief and sorrow and moments of unity and hope. Resilience is the strength that minority linguistic communities have mastered through the decades.

“In unity there is strength”. This Acadian slogan encapsulates what will enable us to prosper after the pandemic and, more importantly, what will enable our communities and families to stay vibrant.

I believe it is only by working together and upholding the values of respect and diversity of this country that we will be able to re-establish this new linguistic balance in all aspects of Canadians' lives: at work, at play and at home. Let us be an example of unity beyond our borders.

I hope that the plan presented by the minister will be a turning point toward a new, long-awaited chapter.

Official LanguagesRoutine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 57 minutes.

Governor General's ActRoutine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Simon Marcil Bloc Mirabel, QC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, An Act to amend the Governor General’s Act.

Madam Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce a bill to reduce the amount of money that Quebeckers pay to support the monarchy. I am sure that all of my colleagues will be pleased to support it out of respect for the taxpayers they represent.

The monarchy is an outdated, archaic and undemocratic institution based on the idea that we are not equal. To remain connected to it in anyway is tantamount to saying that we agree to submit, which is obviously out of the question. It goes against our values of freedom and equality.

It is outrageous to pay $270,000 a year to a representative of the monarchy. We are told it is a symbolic position, so let us solve the problem by providing only a symbolic salary for this position. We are proposing a salary of $1 a year. We are also proposing to do away with the generous retirement pension for the Queen's representative. To be frank, even $1 is far too much, but as members know, our party is all about compromise.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's ReportRoutine Proceedings

February 19th, 2021 / 1:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I wish to remind the House of the provisions of section 28(12) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, which reads as follows:

If no motion pursuant to subsection (11) has been previously moved and disposed of, a motion to concur in the report shall be deemed to have been proposed on the 30th sitting day after the day on which the report was tabled, and the Speaker shall immediately put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.

Given that the motion of the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes has not been disposed of and given that today is the 30th sitting day after the day on which the report was tabled, the Chair is obliged to proceed.

Pursuant to subsection 28(12) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, a motion to concur in the report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, entitled “Maloney Report”, is deemed to have been moved.

The question is on the motion.

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

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's ReportRoutine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Madam Speaker, the New Democratic Party caucus requests that this motion be adopted on division.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's ReportRoutine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Does the hon. member have consent to adopt the motion on division?

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's ReportRoutine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's ReportRoutine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Call in the members.

During the taking of the vote:

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's ReportRoutine Proceedings

2:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Before we continue, I want to remind members they are only to state whether they vote in favour or against, and not to add anything else to that: not “absolutely”, not “indefinitely” or whatever else.

The other issue I want to raise is the discussions that are being had in the House, and how disrespectful it is to talk while the vote is going on. It is difficult enough for the clerks to do their jobs, but to do them under those circumstances is really not acceptable. I would hope that at the end of the vote those members will apologize to the clerks for the goings-on.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #54

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's ReportRoutine Proceedings

2:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I declare the motion lost.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's ReportRoutine Proceedings

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I want to address a comment you made during the vote. You are absolutely correct: I do owe an apology. During the vote, the member for Carleton and I got into a heated exchange, and I know it distracted from the work of the table and the House. It was not appropriate to do that, so for my part in it I sincerely apologize to the table, to you and indeed to the entire House.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's ReportRoutine Proceedings

2:25 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, if our conversation was slightly too loud, slightly too energetic and slightly too distracting, I join with my colleague from Kingston and the Islands in offering an apology for it.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's ReportRoutine Proceedings

2:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

It being 2:27 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's ReportRoutine Proceedings

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC

Madam Speaker, will you be proceeding to presenting petitions?

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's ReportRoutine Proceedings

2:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

No. We are now going to Private Members' Business. There will be no presenting of petitions today unfortunately.

The House resumed from November 20, 2020 consideration of the motion.

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

2:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. I want to remind him that he has six minutes left.

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

2:30 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion, which asks us to instruct a committee of the House of Commons to study the possible implementation of consumer-friendly environment grading labelling on all products available to Canadian consumers. I think it is a very positive initiative.

There are a number of issues that come to mind when I think of motions of this nature. First and foremost, we underestimate the true value of providing information through labelling. I think anything we can do to enhance that, the better it will be. One only needs look at what is on a can or food product labels. There is a very clear indication of the amounts of trans fats, sodium or calories from consuming that product, and a lot of people like to watch their calories. I believe it meets an interest that Canadian consumers have. To that degree, through this motion, I think the member is providing for a positive educational aspect. The motion recognizes the importance of educating the public on our environment and expanding that sense of consumer awareness.

I had a chance to make some comments on it when it first came up. It was not my intention to necessarily prolong that, but to state what I believe is very important. Indeed, when we talk about the issue of consumer labelling in general, it is a very strong positive. Earlier today we had a ministerial statement on the importance of bilingualism. When we think of labelling, that also applies. I believe we need further discussion on this issue, which could generate some positive ideas of how to be consumer friendly in public education. That is a good thing.

With those few words, I want to compliment the member for bringing the motion forward. I know that the House will get an opportunity to vote on it shortly.