Royal Galipeau

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that does not come with an apology.

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has much experience in this House and is a privy councillor to boot. He should know to strictly respect other members of this House and not attribute titles that do not exist. If he only read page 613 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, he would know that what he did was wrong. There is no such minister in this House. There is a Minister of Finance, and he happens to be the best minister of finance in the world.

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate to hear such remarks and such viciousness.

In the area of health, we know full well that from 1965 to 1995, the federal government provided 50% of the funding for health services from one end of this country to the other. Before we were elected in 2006, the member's government made cuts, in 1995, that reduced the funding from 50 cents per dollar to 14 cents per dollar. Over the past seven years, we have gradually increased the federal contribution to the provinces for health and education.

What does the member think is so meanspirited about that?

[Manufacturing Industry, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, nearly two million Canadians work in the manufacturing sector. These Canadians and their families expect their government to support their jobs, not undermine them. The last thing they want is a government that taxes everything that moves and travels to foreign capitals to ruin their reputation.

Canadians certainly do not want a government that taxes everything that moves and visits foreign capitals to talk down the Canadian economy.

Can the government confirm how we will continue to stand up for jobs and strengthen the competitiveness of our manufacturers and processors?

[Points of Order, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a matter of decorum.

This is what it says on page 613 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

13. Rules of Order and Decorum

Rules Regarding the Contents of Speeches

References to Members

During debate, Members do not refer to one another by their names but rather by title, position or constituency name in order to guard against the tendency to personalize debate.

However, today, in the statements before question period, a member with 688 days of experience in the House, the hon. member for Manicouagan, deliberately and viciously named a member of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to read his statement in the blues, and you will see that that is what happened. I hope that you will make the decision you feel is best.

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the co-chairs of the committee will call a meeting of the committee at the appropriate time.

[St. Joseph's Day, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, now that we have just wrapped up the celebrations for St. Patrick's Day, today we celebrate an even more important saint.

He was a simple labourer who, since March 19, 1624, has been the patron saint of the best country in the world.

In fact, today we celebrate St. Joseph, the patron saint of Canada and, since March 19, 1860, the patron saint of Orléans. He is the chaste husband of St. Mary the virgin, adoptive father of the divine infant, patron saint of cabinetmakers, carpenters, confectioners, craftsmen, families, fathers, of course, pioneers, professional engineers, real estate agents, social justice, travellers and all working people.

Récollet missionary Joseph Le Caron chose St. Joseph as the patron saint of New France, which would later become Canada.

I am very pleased to wish all Canadians, and all residents of Orléans in particular, a happy St. Joseph's Day.

[Points of Order, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite common that ministers responsible for certain areas have the word “responsible” in their titles. To use that word today as a veiled insult to a minister shows a lack of respect. It shows a lack of respect for the minister, the House and the Speaker.

[Global Community Alliance, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is with both pride and humility that I congratulate Global Community Alliance, which held its fourth annual gala last Saturday.

Global Community Alliance is one of 300 organizations in Ottawa—Orléans that relies heavily on volunteers.

Its gala aims to highlight diversity and encourage unity in Ottawa, values that our community holds dear.

Moses Abayomi Pratt did an excellent job organizing the event, which raised money for Black History Month.

Congratulations to Yomi and his wife Kelly Pratt, to Ryan Pascal for his inspiring speech, and to Bertilia Christian, Tarrah Mauricette, Ewart Walters, Adrienne Coddett, Gabriela Bernal Astrain, MPP Yasir Naqvi and my friend June Girvan for the recognition they received.

To all, thank you for making Ottawa—Orléans and our nation’s capital a place where everyone has a chance to succeed.

[Language Skills Act, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to provide the government's response to Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills.

As you know, this bill was introduced by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent nine months ago. I would like to commend and congratulate him. I support the intent and the core objective of this bill, and the government that I support in this place will support it also.

However, there are some technical issues that need to be addressed to strengthen it as the legislative foundation for linguistic duality among the 10 positions listed in the bill.

Our approach is a practical one that demonstrates both our agreement with the spirit of the legislation and our desire to make it an effective legal foundation for something we all believe in.

Linguistic duality is one of the pillars of Canadian history, culture and democracy, and this government is determined to strengthen it in our public institutions. We believe that the individuals occupying the 10 positions listed in the bill should be proficient in both of Canada’s official languages.

However, there are a number of technical issues with this bill that need to be examined more closely in committee before it can be implemented. If passed as currently drafted, the bill would require that persons whose appointments require the approval of the Commons or the other place or both chambers must, at the time of their appointment, understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter and be able to express themselves clearly in both languages.

In addition, the bill provides the Governor in Council with the ability to add officers to this list.

It also provides that in the case of an incumbent's absence or incapacity, the person appointed in the interim would also have to meet these requirements.

We would rather give the language-skills requirement a stronger legal foundation.

Let me provide our objections to the bill as it stands.

First, the preamble indicates that the bill is grounded on the principle that the 10 officers of Parliament identified herein need to communicate directly with parliamentarians in both official languages. We believe this does not take into account the constitutional right of all Canadians, including the officers listed in this bill, to speak in the official language of their choice in Parliament.

Our second objection is that the bill, to be meaningful, should also specify the type of language skills required, which it does not do now with sufficient clarity. This requirement, as it is currently proposed in the bill, does not distinguish between written and oral expression. Without specifying the type of language skills required, it would be difficult to evaluate whether or not a candidate meets this requirement.

Third, we believe that due to the constraints the bill imposes on the selection process of senior officials, the ability to add to the list of officers should lie with Parliament rather than the Governor in Council.

Our fourth concern is that the language-skills requirements would also apply to interim appointees.

This could hamper the government's ability to make timely and effective interim appointments to ensure the continuity of an institution's operations. In addition, this requirement could create a de facto language skills requirement for those people occupying other senior positions within the 10 organizations listed in the bill.

When this bill goes to the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the committee will need to examine how to mitigate the risks associated with these issues. We believe that the bill needs a stronger basis for the introduction of these requirements for the 10 positions listed in the bill.

We are committed to promoting linguistic duality in Canada and strengthening the use of our two official languages. We understand that linguistic duality is at the heart of our identity as a nation, and it contributes to our historical and cultural wealth. It empowers official language minority communities across the country and contributes to Canada’s economic vitality.

It strengthens the resilience of our federation through the provision of services in both official languages.

Indeed, linguistic duality permeates all fields of our society, and is a social, cultural and economic asset for Canadians not only at home, but also abroad. Bilingualism, for example, opens Canada to la Francophonie.

Through this international organization, Canada promotes fundamental Canadian values, such as freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

At the same time, we benefit from the political, cultural, scientific and other contributions made by other members.

In fact, this government’s long-standing commitment to bilingualism was shown in 2008 by the Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality 2008-2013: Acting for the Future.

The roadmap laid out the path to build on Canada's linguistic duality for the future with an unprecedented government-wide investment of $1.1 billion over five years.

This investment represents a 40% increase over the previous roadmap and is proof of our government’s commitment to Canada’s official languages.

Clearly, as we reaffirmed in the 2010 Speech from the Throne, Canada's two official languages are an integral part of our history and give us a unique advantage in the world. The government has not wavered from that.

By recognizing that the individuals occupying the 10 positions listed in the bill should be proficient in both official languages, we are acting on our beliefs and strengthening Canada’s linguistic duality for the future.

Our position is consistent with the spirit of the bill, and we want to ensure that the introduction of these language requirements has a solid basis in law.

As for the appointment of the 10 positions listed in the bill, there are many relevant considerations in addition to language skills to be taken into account. These include formal education, practical experience, abilities, personal suitability, knowledge and expertise. We will continue to consider all the criteria that allow us to appoint the most suitable candidate.

We look forward to working with the members of this house to pass this landmark legislation, which will be good for Canada and all Canadians.