Debates of May 10th, 2023

(Return tabled)

Question No.1351—

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

With regard to surplus government buildings being converted to affordable housing: (a) what are the details of all buildings which have been sold by the government since November 4, 2015, including, for each, the (i) location, (ii) address, (iii) description of the building, including the square footage, (iv) buyer, (v) price, (vi) number of affordable housing units expected; (b) what are the details of all government buildings currently deemed to be surplus, including, for each, the (i) location, (ii) address, (iii) description of the building, including the square footage; (c) of the buildings in (b), which ones will be sold or used for the purpose of developing affordable housing; and (d) are there any other government buildings, not listed in (c), which the government is taking steps toward converting to affordable housing, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each, the (i) location, (ii) address, (iii) description of the building, including the square footage?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1352—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

With regard to the Pembina Institute, from November 4, 2015, to present: (a) how much money has the government allocated to the Pembina Institute and what are the details, including, the (i) department, agency or other government entity, (ii) date of the funding, (iii) amount and deliverables expected; (b) of the allocations in (a), which ones were (i) sole-sourced, (ii) awarded through a competitive bidding process; (c) of the allocations in (b)(ii), what was the (i) duration of the competition, (ii) number of organizations that submitted bids for the required deliverables; and (d) what programs from the Pembina Institute received government funding, broken down by year and deliverables expected?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1354—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB): (a) what are the details of the process that led to the selection of the former McKinsey & Company partner Ehren Cory as the CEO of the CIB in October 2020; (b) how much money was spent on consulting services since the creation of the CIB, including, for each, the (i) consulting firm, (ii) number of consultants hired from each firm, (iii) fees paid to each consultant, (iv) duration of each consultant's contract, (v) reason each consultant was hired, (vi) proposals worked on by each consultant; (c) how many employees were hired by the CIB, broken down by month since its creation; and (d) how many project proposals were received by the CIB, broken down by year since its creation, including the number of proposals (i) rejected, (ii) approved?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from April 26 consideration of Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑13 on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

As members know, this is a historic moment. It has been a long time since we have reviewed this legislation, 35 years to be exact. As the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, I want to tell my colleagues that I did all of my schooling in English because there was no French school. We did not have this essential protection at the time. My children, however, were able to do all of their schooling, from kindergarten to grade 12, in French. What a change. That was made possible because of the first Official Languages Act in 1969. Thanks to that, my grandchildren will also be able to complete all of their schooling in French.

I want to tell my colleagues that this was a very long process. First, there was the Official Languages Act in 1969. Section 23 was added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 and changes were made to the act in 1988. Then, as members know, Bill C‑32, which sought to strengthen the Official Languages Act, died on the Order Paper. Now, we are back with Bill C‑13, which underwent a number of essential changes in committee.

As I see it, the most important thing is that the act will have to be reviewed every 10 years. We will not have to wait 35 years. The procedure has already been established. The Minister of Canadian Heritage, in consultation with the President of the Treasury Board, will have to undertake a review, a comprehensive analysis of the enhancement of the vitality of the communities. They will examine whether we have achieved our objective of protecting and promoting the French language. They will also examine whether sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of Quebec's francophones and anglophones, including health, immigration, employment and French-language education from early childhood to the post-secondary level, have been respected. A report will have to be tabled in the House of Commons. In my opinion, this is a well-regimented procedure.

Let us start with the Treasury Board. It is the most important machine in Parliament. Bill C‑13 would make the optional powers, duties and responsibilities mandatory, which is essential. The Treasury Board will have some meaningful work to do.

Other improvements were made in committee. They are very important to mention. Every community across the country asked that there be a central agency, a minister responsible, and we can now check that off the list. What is more, the minister cannot withdraw from their responsibilities or delegate them. The Treasury Board and the minister will have to ensure compliance.

As far as justice is concerned, Bill C‑13 confirms that justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have to be bilingual. Still today, the Conservatives do not agree with that and do not want that to happen. I do not understand it. In committee, progress was also made on appointing justices to superior courts and appeal courts. It is extremely important. We have to take into account people's needs in terms of access to justice. The Canadian Bar Association and the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law have been asking for that for years.

Let us talk about immigration. In my opinion, this is the perfect example. When we started working on Bill C‑32, having a policy was important. When we moved on to Bill C‑13, ensuring that the policy had some content, some details, was important. Finally, in committee, we determined that not only did we need details, but we also needed to ensure that the demographic weight was restored and increased. It is going to be a game of catch-up and we will have to increase our newcomer target to 8% or 9% and then go back to our target of 4.4% or better.

Let us move on to real estate. I am quite pleased because this was a problem for 20, 25, 30 years across Canada.

I can say that now, because of the amendments that were made, the government has to consider the needs of the school community, which was not the case before. It is great to have a charter of rights that recognizes the right to education in French, but if land cannot be purchased, how and where are we supposed to build schools? It is not possible. Now, this will be guaranteed. It will no longer be an option, but an obligation, for the government to do something that is essential. It must consult the school boards about their needs.

I can cite examples such as the Jericho lands and Heather Street lands in Vancouver, Royal Roads in Victoria, Lagimodière Boulevard in Winnipeg, or Oxford Street in Halifax.

With respect to the language clause or the positive measures, the Standing Committee on Official Languages has made a lot of progress. It is not perfect, but it made a lot of progress.

When agreements are being negotiated, those involved, such as school boards or the organizations concerned, must be consulted. It is important to ensure that there is accountability, and that when money is earmarked for a certain organization or a certain location, it ends up there. Major progress has been made in that regard.

The Commissioner of Official Languages has been given significantly increased powers. Bill C-13 of course gives him the power to impose penalties and to make orders. This does not mean that violators will have to pay billions of dollars in penalties, but the idea is that anyone who has to pay $10, $100, $1,000 or $10,000 will be called out. That is very important. We are also giving the commissioner other powers and additional tools to do his job, which is to protect and promote the French language, and that is extremely important.

Now, I must say, there are areas where we did not accomplish as much as we would have liked, and that hurts. On enumeration, we were not able to get it done the way we wanted. Nevertheless, we added that question to the short form census two years ago, which means that everyone had to answer it. We still have that data, which will be good for 10 years. I am confident that if the Liberals are still in power in 10 years, we will be able to achieve and cement this. This is extremely important.

As I mentioned, the language clauses and positive measures are not what I would have liked, but we did make some progress, and I would like to thank the opposition parties for helping us.

I also realize that English-speaking Quebeckers have some concerns that deserve mentioning. However, I can assure you that our government is going to defend linguistic duality and the rights of anglophone Quebeckers in Quebec.

We will continue to provide funding, protect language and culture, and ensure the court challenges program is kept in place and adequately funded.

I am extremely proud to commend the government and the opposition for doing a great job and for the work done and the progress made on bills C‑32 and C‑13 at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It truly is a team effort. I am very proud of the House and, as always, ready to answer questions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I always appreciate the energy of my friend from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook as an Acadian from Nova Scotia.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you on listening to my colleague, a passionate Acadian, talk to us from his heart and soul today.

Now, I have a question for my colleague the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. Today we are speaking at report stage, following the motions that his government moved in the House, instead of moving them in committee.

He appreciated the work that we did as members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, so why are the Liberals delaying the process to pass Bill C‑13 again today?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank my colleague for his question, but also for his leadership within his party on official languages. There is no doubt that he does exceptional work. We thank him and the community across Canada thanks him for his work.

I have to say that it is too bad that he was not in the House at the time. What did the Conservatives do between 2005 and 2015? I will tell the House what they did. For the action plan, there was zero increase for 10 years. Under the Liberals, there was $1.4 billion. The Conservatives made cuts to the court challenges program that ensures that rights are protected. They made spending cuts to the Translation Bureau and they even cancelled the long-form census. It is incredible.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am always surprised to see people of Acadian descent join a party like the Liberal Party, which is a monarchist party. I might understand it one day. We know that it was the monarchy that ordered the deportation of Acadians. They are fervent defenders of Canada, even though French is prohibited in almost every Canadian province, except for Quebec.

The member is very pleased with the results of the Official Languages Act, which was passed in 1969. This same law has performed so many miracles that the French-speaking population in Canada continues to steadily decline. The number of people whose mother tongue is French and the number of people who speak French at home is declining. In the member's province, Nova Scotia, about one in two people whose mother tongue is French speak it at home. That means that one in two people have already lost their language and cannot pass it on to the next generation.

I wonder if the member opposite is deluding himself that the Canadian government is not killing French in North America.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to respond to my colleague.

I must say that I am a bit surprised. I expected a question about immigration, considering that tomorrow is an opposition day and we are going to discuss demographic weight. Bill C‑13 settles this issue, and that is very impressive.

I would like to say something very important to my colleague. If the Official Languages Act had not been passed in 1969, very few people in Nova Scotia or outside Quebec would be speaking French now. That fact is indisputable.

Not only that, but we had no French schools before 1969. Today, Nova Scotia has 23 French schools, and the student population has doubled in size since the Conseil scolaire acadien de la Nouvelle‑Écosse school board was founded in 1996. That is impressive.

The Official Languages Act is doing its job.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very impassioned response. I am glad to see some excitement in the House today.

I speak no French. I grew up in a remote community in the north, and French was not even offered. I look at the area I represent right now, and we are seeing a lot of people pick up the language. There is a lot of focus on having more French. I am really impressed with the work that is being done in my region.

We are happy to see this legislation, but we acknowledge that it took a long time. In fact, the Liberal government proposed it on the eve of an election call. Could the member explain why the Liberals just continued to wait for so long when this action needed to be taken quickly?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the excellent work she does on veterans affairs.

I really want to answer this. Looking at B.C., I talked about how in the B.C. schools, they could not get any lands. In the bill, there are guarantees that they would be consulted, which is important.

If the member is asking why I am upset with the delay, I have to be very honest and say that today, where I stand, I am happy with the delay. I explained that Bill C-32 had strengths, but Bill C-13 has more strengths. Now, going to committee with the new amendments, it is even better. In 10 years, we will make it perfect, if it is not perfect today.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on a subject that is near and dear to my heart, namely, official languages, and the French language in particular.

First of all, I hope everyone can hear my Saguenay accent, because I am very proud of it. There are many types of linguistic variations: morphological, syntactic, diachronic. Speakers choose a certain word and not another, and the reason for their choice is mainly due to their age or geographic location. Therefore, I hope that everyone understands that, when I speak, my lexicon is tinged, shaped by my regional roots in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. I am proud to be someone from the Saguenay who says “là là” every once in a while.

No matter where we come from, language unites, brings us together and creates a feeling of community. Regardless of a person's accent, the expressions they use or the words they choose, French speakers are vectors of a true linguistic treasure. This language that we share and love so much is a legacy that has been bequeathed to us and of which we can be very proud.

As members can see, I care deeply about my language. I learned enough English to have a foundation, but there is nothing like proudly carrying the voice of my constituents in Ottawa in French. French has always been a big part of my identity.

I want to talk a little bit about linguistic identity, because that concept really resonates with me. I have never been embarrassed to identify myself as a francophone anywhere in the country or in the world. If someone were to ask me to describe myself in a few words, one of the adjectives I would use would obviously be “francophone”. Being francophone is part of my identity. It guides me and is part of who I am. Language allows us to express our thoughts and feelings, to communicate with those we love, to exchange opinions, to open up to the world. Language is one of the tools of our trade as politicians. We must use our language skills to debate, to denounce the things we disagree with and to support what we think is right.

Language is more than important; it is essential, hence the importance of promoting the richness of our two official languages across the country. That is why I am very pleased to rise in the House and begin the discussion on Bill C-13 to amend the Official Languages Act. Specifically, this conversation is relevant and necessary, because the Liberals have proposed a number of amendments. I was actually quite surprised when I saw the list of Liberal amendments, because I thought the Minister of Official Languages was insisting that the bill be passed as quickly as possible, because it was supposedly ready to be voted on.

I even remember that just a few months ago, the minister wanted to remove witnesses from the list of the Standing Committee on Official Languages when it was studying the bill. She did not think it was a good idea to hear from experts on such an important issue. We are talking about linguistics professors from several universities, stakeholders and people on the ground. She wanted to move a motion that was nothing more than a gag order.

As a result of the pressure applied by my colleague and friend, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, whom I would like to thank once more, we fortunately obtained more time for witnesses at the Standing Committee on Official Languages to continue studying the bill. The minister took a strictly political approach and wanted to end debate. As usual, the Liberals make it a priority to advance their political agenda and, this time, it was at the expense of bilingualism and the protection of French in Canada. The minister mentioned several times that she wanted to speed up debate on Bill C‑13 and pass it as quickly as possible.

It seems to me that anyone who wants to pass a bill quickly does not move 10 motions. What is more, why move so many motions in amendment if the bill is considered ready to be passed?

The Minister of Official Languages is being very contradictory on this file, but contradiction is not exactly out of character for the Liberals. The good news is that the Conservatives are here to fix the Liberals' broken promises.

As far as Bill C‑13 is concerned, I hope that the minister does not really believe that her bill will slow the decline of French. They keep making things up as they go along. It makes us wonder if the minister truly understands the issue of Canada's official languages. If she went out there to talk to the communities involved, the people who are living in linguistic insecurity daily, she would see that she is wrong.

Linguistic insecurity can be described as feeling uneasy, uncomfortable, even anxious about using one's mother tongue in an environment where they are not the majority. Obviously, that concept has become a hot topic for official language minority communities and Bill C‑13 is not exactly going to make them feel less linguistic insecurity. The content of this bill is not a big step forward for francophones outside Quebec or those in Quebec either.

Most of the amendments proposed by stakeholders, including the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Commissioner of Official Languages, were not even heard by the Liberals. Ignoring the observations made by the people on the ground who are directly affected by Bill C‑13 shows a complete lack of respect.

However, the Liberal-NDP coalition is not listening to Canadians. Once again, it only wants to advance its own political agenda. It wants to check Bill C‑13 off the list and move on to the next item.

Let me assure all the stakeholders we met with that the Conservative Party is here. We listened to them, and we have worked hard to incorporate their requests and their demands into this bill.

I would like to remind the House of a few Conservative amendments that were unfortunately rejected. First of all, we wanted to expand the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. It is vital to enhance the commissioner's ability to perform the duties of that position. Right now, the commissioner's powers are too narrow. In practical terms, the commissioner has the power to make orders concerning parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act. The problem is that the very core of the act is in part VII. Part VII is the one that talks about the equality of status of French and English and mechanisms for achieving it.

The commissioner must have the power to make orders that will ensure that federal institutions follow through on implementing positive measures, and that these measures do not have a harmful impact on official language minority communities. Bill C‑13 contains nothing but commitments under part VII of the act, without any obligation to achieve results. A lack of results is a tendency we see fairly often among the Liberals. For that reason, we wanted a central agency and expanded powers for the commissioner, to ensure that there is a way to meet the equality of status objective, and because we can by no means rely on the Liberals.

Then, we wanted to add obligations for federal institutions to take the necessary measures to protect and promote both official languages. The Conservatives were asking for regular, proactive reviews of the act in order to ensure that any necessary adjustments are made in keeping with the linguistic situation at any given time.

In short, I am disappointed, not only as a Conservative MP, because my party's amendments were not incorporated into the bill, but also as a francophone. I feel that the government is abandoning Quebeckers, official language speakers in minority settings and the French language altogether.

A Conservative government will ensure that we put a stop to the decline of the French language and that it is promoted across Canada. Bring back common sense.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. Will the Conservative Party support the bill, yes or no?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague well knows, we are currently at report stage. It is not yet time to vote. The next step will be to debate the amendments and then, further down the road, we will vote.

I remember noticing when I was in committee that there were a lot of contradictions among the Liberal caucus members who were there. It seemed like the West Island contingent had one version and everyone else had another.