SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 51

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 1, 2022 10:00AM
  • Apr/1/22 1:07:33 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments and her question. We think that should be Treasury Board's job because its primary responsibility is to ensure that measures applicable to the federal government are upheld by the entire public service and the federal government. That is consistent with recommendations from the Commissioner of Official Languages and many other people who submitted comments on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
72 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:08:18 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her French and for the work she is doing as a francophile for francophone communities across Canada and in Manitoba. My colleague and I have fathers with similar backgrounds. Her father was a member of the Manitoba legislature, and my father was here in the House when the Official Languages Act was enacted in 1969. We are currently studying Bill C‑13 at second reading, and we have heard several opposition members offer up suggestions. Would my colleague be in favour of a motion asking the Standing Committee on Official Languages to conduct a pre-study of the bill before it is passed at second reading and referred to the committee?
119 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:09:23 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing that personal story about the fight for language rights and protecting French. We are all proud to continue the work of our parents and those who came before us. To circle back to my colleague's question, when a bill is debated in the House, I feel it is paramount that all members of each party have the opportunity to share their views. It appears, based on the schedule, that we will soon have time to discuss this further in committee. Clearly, we all want to move forward as quickly as possible with the express goal of improving this bill.
111 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:10:30 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech. She said she agreed with the principle that French is a minority language in Canada. What does she think of the fact that all of the Quebec government's requests have been refused or else accepted but in a very ambiguous way? Does she understand that Quebec should be allowed to implement its own territoriality policies? I see that as a condition for ensuring the future of French in Quebec and in North America.
84 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:11:11 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Mr. Speaker, my colleague has clearly described the situation in Quebec. I would also like to point out that he asked the committee to study the decline of French in Quebec, which gave us the opportunity to hear some troubling testimony on this reality. The NDP supports Quebec's right to manage its own affairs. When it comes to the French language, clearly, Quebec is very familiar with its own reality and the need to respect the minority communities on its territory. The federal government must respect Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and recognize that the decline of French exists not only outside Quebec, but also in Quebec itself.
109 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:12:28 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for speaking so eloquently in support of this bill. I note how interesting and important it is to support minority languages across Canada, not just here in this place, but everywhere. I come from Alberta and in Alberta we have a francophone community. Of course, in my city we have Campus Saint-Jean. We have seen significant attacks on Campus Saint-Jean over the last few months, particularly under the Conservative provincial government. How does this bill help those minority communities to see that their language will be protected in other places, like Alberta?
103 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:13:05 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He and our colleague from Edmonton Strathcona have been champions for Campus Saint-Jean, defending it and the francophone community in Alberta against vicious attacks by the provincial government. It is because of this reality that we in the NDP are recommending several measures for improving Bill C‑13. One of them involves ensuring that federal-provincial agreements contain language clauses, investment requirements and specific protections for francophone communities outside Quebec. As we have said, we missed an opportunity to include such protections in the last federal‑provincial agreement on child care. In all areas where federal‑provincial agreements are signed, such as post-secondary education and health, we must protect the rights of francophone communities outside Quebec and meet their needs.
131 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:14:41 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. At the Standing Committee on Official Languages, she mentioned the importance of francophone immigration. I would like her comments on how we might improve Bill C‑13 in that regard. How can we help community organizations from coast to coast to coast support and increase francophone immigration?
58 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:15:15 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for raising this important question. We believe it was important for this bill to specifically address the need for an immigration policy, but it must go beyond that. The policy needs to include clear targets to get the numbers up to where they should be. As I said, the 4.4% target does not reflect the demographic weight of francophones, which is declining across the country. We need to get those numbers up and invest in community organizations, of course. This week I visited the Association des communautés francophones de l'Ontario, or ACFO, here in southeastern Ontario. Representatives from the association made it clear that in order to support immigrants, they need recurring investments, not investments renewed on an annual basis. The policy about accepting francophone students also needs to be changed, and we need to look at the unacceptable rejection rate among students from Africa. We need to bring in the francophones that our country needs. They want to contribute, and we want to build stronger francophone communities together. We have a lot of work to do.
190 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:16:56 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. member for Saint-Jean on a point of order.
11 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:17:04 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Mr. Speaker, although this is an interesting debate, I have noticed that there are not many members in the House right now. I was wondering if you could check if we have quorum, including the members participating virtually.
38 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:17:21 p.m.
  • Watch
All right. I would ask the members joining virtually to turn on their cameras so that we can count. I confirm that we have quorum. Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages.
37 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:17:49 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands. As a proud francophone from Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury, a region with deep francophone roots, I am very appreciative of the opportunity to give this speech today. The Franco-Ontarian flag, which was designed by Gaétan Gervais, a history professor at Laurentian University, and Michel Dupuis, a student there, was officially flown for the first time in Sudbury on September 25, 1975, at the University of Sudbury. In 1958, my father, Gaétan Serré, the former member for Nickel Belt, also attended the University of Sudbury. As an MP in 1969, he voted in favour of the Official Languages Act. I am so proud to be here today. Since 2019, our government has made it a priority to gather and analyze information about the linguistic situation in Canada and to monitor the evolution of official languages since the adoption of the first Official Languages Act over 50 years ago. The linguistic landscape is constantly shifting. The world we are living in has also changed since 1969. It is time we look at the successes and issues in this act in order to propose a new, modernized vision of our linguistic duality and bilingualism. The conditions in which we are modernizing the Official Languages Act are unique. The entire planet is in the midst of a health crisis with COVID-19, and in Canada we have seen how the pressure and urgent need to act can affect whether the requirements to communicate and provide services to the public are enforced. We have a duty to act and we have taken that into consideration in our modernization bill. For more than 50 years, the Official Languages Act has helped shape our country's linguistic landscape. It established institutional bilingualism and enabled francophones not only to have a career in the federal public service, but also to be served and educated in their mother tongue. For 50 years, in addition to promoting our two official languages, the act has protected the rights of our official language minority communities, both francophone communities across Canada and English-speaking communities in Quebec. It has ensured their vitality. In my riding, the federal government's support and commitment have translated into direct support for francophone projects, such as Place des arts du Grand Sudbury; the West Nipissing Arts Council; the Réseau de soutien à l'immigration francophone du Nord de l'Ontario; and, in the area of post-secondary education, institutions like Collège Boréal. This is an undeniable Canadian reality and a uniquely Canadian distinction, but it also presents a challenge. This is a situation that requires a Canadian response. We have a duty and an obligation to support the vitality of these communities from coast to coast to coast, tomorrow and for generations to come. Our rich history recognizes the presence, perseverance and resilience of francophone minority communities across the country and of anglophone minority communities in Quebec. Maintaining the demographic weight of these communities is important to us. The numbers speak for themselves. The demographic weight of the francophone population is plummeting. The proportion of people whose first language is French outside Quebec fell from 6.6% in 1971 to 3.9% in 2011. The statistical projections are not getting any better. Despite efforts in the area of francophone immigration and the protection of the right to access federal services in the language of one's choice, our government needs to do more in terms of its responsibilities and its commitment to enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities. We need strong institutions that serve as a beacon in their communities. We also need better data so we can fine-tune our interventions in these communities. In order to achieve that, federal institutions also need to listen to our communities. We know that minority communities, whether French or English, need institutions and services in their own language. These institutions are part of the public space that these communities need in order to live and grow in their language. When we talk about services, we are talking about those offered by large public institutions, provincial and municipal governments and community organizations. That includes school boards, day cares, community health clinics and cultural organizations. Our government's bill seeks, among other things, to help these communities reach their full potential by supporting the vitality of institutions in key sectors. To do that, we want to amend part VII of the Official Languages Act by including practical examples of positive measures. These include providing support for key sectors of the official language minority community, such as education, employment, health, immigration, culture and justice; including an obligation for the Government of Canada to contribute to an estimate of the number of children who are entitled to an education in the language of the official minority; and affirming the Government of Canada's commitment to strengthening the education continuum from early childhood to post-secondary studies in the minority language. These amendments will require the government to take more positive measures to support official language minority communities and will clarify the obligations of federal institutions, particularly when it comes to consulting these communities and protecting their key programs and services. The bill we introduced presents solid and lasting solutions to protect the future of our official language minority communities and their institutions. The bill also proposes some innovative improvements. One example is the creation of the new rights to be served and to work in French in federally regulated private businesses. Our government is deeply committed to both our official languages and to these communities across Canada. The introduction of the bill to modernize the Official Languages Act is a milestone for our identity as Canadians and for the defence of our language rights today and for generations to come. Having spoken directly to francophone activists and passionate organizations in Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury, such as the community health centre, the ACFO and post-secondary institutions, I know that they are proud of these initiatives. They feel that the government understands the needs of francophones and is committed to building a region and services for francophones, by francophones, in addition to promoting the development of language and culture in minority settings. We have known for a long time that our official language objectives can only improve the lives of Canadians through measures taken together with the targeted communities. This bill sets the stage for a collaboration that will strengthen federal institutions and official language minority communities.
1105 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:27:30 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for an excellent speech and for his work on official languages. I would like to know whether he thinks the sanctions that are now able to be imposed on those who do not comply with the act are adequate to drive the right behaviour.
54 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:27:53 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the work we have done together on several committees in the past. The Commissioner of Official Languages made several recommendations. Some of those recommendations were included previously in Bill C-32. We have listened to communities across the country and we have also listened to the commissioner during this time. Bill C-13 now has more teeth for the commissioner in looking at making public statements and looking at les sanctions pécuniaires. I am not sure of the English term. We know that the commissioner now has more powers and is really pleased with the additional responsibilities the commissioner now has to officially look at the Official Languages Act.
122 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:28:48 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Madam Speaker, my question will be similar to the one I asked earlier. We have heard a lot about francophone minority communities, but I would like to speak more specifically about Quebec. Can my colleague name a single positive measure that provides further protection for Quebec? I want to forestall a potential answer and clarify that giving people the right to work in French in Quebec is not a positive measure and does not improve the situation of French in Quebec.
81 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:29:21 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. If we look at Bill C‑13, as well as minority communities in Canada and in Quebec, there are some positive measures that are proposed. The bill talks about a central agency and about federally regulated private businesses. We all agree that French is declining in Quebec and in Canada. We must come together to find ways to work with the communities, the provinces and the federal government to protect French in Quebec and across Canada.
87 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:30:21 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Madam Speaker, I have been following today's debate with great interest. Here is something that has long struck me as interesting: the number of MPs from all over the country with French names. This shows us how, throughout our history, French Canadians have travelled and settled all over. Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages think that the bill before us today, Bill C‑13, will support Francophone communities across our great land and help them thrive?
82 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/1/22 1:31:07 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-13 
Madam Speaker, as my colleague said, we have francophones and francophiles here in the House who have travelled across the country. Bilingualism is important from coast to coast to coast. We have to find ways to promote French and protect minority communities in Quebec, and we have to work together to find ways to support minority communities across the country. We will do that by working with the provinces, municipalities and organizations. Bill C‑13 is a step toward helping French flourish everywhere in Canada.
86 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
moved that Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, be read a second time and referred to a committee. She said: Madam Speaker, today is April Fool's Day, so I could not start this speech without saying that one would have to be a fool not to support my private member's bill. My private member's bill is centred on pension protection and working to prevent the loss of pensions for employees whose companies have declared bankruptcy. Canadians deserve to know that the contributions they have made over their whole lives will result in a secure financial future for themselves and for their families. However, the last few years have shown us that security can disappear in a moment. We need to do better for Canadians. My bill would remedy this issue. It would do three things. First, it would require that an annual report on the solvency of pension funds be tabled here in the House of Commons for greater transparency and oversight. Second, it would provide a mechanism to transfer funds into a pension fund to restore it to solvency or to ensure the insolvent portion until the funds could be restored. Finally, in the case of bankruptcy, pensions would be paid out ahead of large creditors and executive bonuses. To put things in context, I want to point out that there have been far too many cases of businesses that have declared bankruptcy to the great detriment of their own employees. Nortel Networks declared bankruptcy in 2009, leaving 200,000 Canadians to fend for themselves when it came to their pensions. An article published in the Financial Post in 2016 entitled “The big lesson from Nortel Networks: Pension plans aren't a guarantee” gave a detailed account of the battle waged by these employees as they tried to recover even part of their share of Nortel's assets, which were estimated at $7.3 billion. Legal and consulting fees totalled over $1.9 billion, which further reduced the amount these former employees were seeking. According to CBC, at the end of 2016, former Nortel employees were pleased with the agreement they reached under which they would get a payout of 40¢ on the dollar. That was an improvement over the 10¢ on the dollar they were initially offered. However, in 2020, the employees lost out again when the Ontario pension benefits guarantee fund managed to reclaim some $200 million from monies allocated to pensioners in Nortel's bankruptcy proceedings. In all, the whole mess with Nortel turned into a more than 11-year battle for former employees who failed several times while simply trying to obtain the financial security to which they were entitled. That is just one example. Sears Canada is another infamous case, perhaps one of the most well known. Between 2005 and 2013, Sears Canada paid more than $3 billion in dividends to shareholders, even as it was operating at a loss and its pension plan was underfunded by about $133 million. In 2017, Sears Canada declared bankruptcy after attempting to restructure. During that restructuring, Sears Canada faced heavy criticism for giving retention bonuses to 43 executives and senior managers, when it did not plan to offer severance to laid-off employees. Allegedly, the bonuses were intended to maintain the morale of senior staff at the cost of providing the necessary funds to the company's pension plan, leaving more than 17,000 pensioners cheated of their full pensions. Sears pensioners learned that their payments were going to be cut by 30%. Of Mount Pearl, Newfoundland, 72-year old Ron Husk told the CBC that the cut caused his monthly pension payment to drop by $450. Many said they would have to go back to work in sales in their seventies. Pensioners in Ontario fared marginally better because of the provincial mechanism that protects the first $1,500 of a pensioner's payments, but it made little difference overall and in today's era of extreme inflation it is helping even less. Looking back further, when the Eaton company folded in 1999, the vast majority of its 24,500 employees were terminated without being paid termination pay, severance pay and other amounts owed to them. All employee and retiree health and other benefits were cancelled. In the end, the liquidator released payments to employees and retirees of just 53.7¢ on the dollar. There are several other noted cases in which courts have ruled in the favour of creditors and lenders over pensioners, including Indalex, Stelco and Grant Forest Products, among others. In the Indalex case, Indalex Limited obtained creditor protection under the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act, known as the CCWA. The court authorized Indalex to obtain debtor in possession, or DIP, financing, which would provide the company with loans to allow it to continue operating its business during the restructuring period. These DIP lenders had superpriority over the existing debt equity and other claims. At a hearing for the approval of this motion in 2008, two groups of pension claimants opposed the distribution, asserting that assets equal to the funding deficiencies in two defined benefit pension plans administered by Indalex were deemed to be held in trust and should be given to the pension plan in priority over the DIP lender. The CCWA court ruled in favour of the DIP lender, not the pensioners. This decision was upheld and became a precedent for the Grant Forest Products case. Sadly, many other examples of workers who did not receive their full pensions exist. There is no doubt that this has been a problem for a long time. The government needs to intervene by taking stringent measures to rectify this and protect Canadian workers. I want to acknowledge the contribution of some of my colleagues in the House. Many MPs from all parties came to see me to present bills on this same topic. In 2018, my colleague, the member for Durham, introduced Bill C‑405 on pension benefits standards in order to authorize the administrator of an underfunded pension plan, in certain situations, to amend the plan or to transfer or permit the transfer of any part of the assets or liabilities of the pension plan to another pension plan. This bill did not receive enough support, because changing the type of pension or the benefit amount means breaching the contract signed by employees who worked for a company for a certain number of years and thought they would receive a certain pension. His bill also called for the tabling of an annual report in Parliament respecting the solvency of pension plans, which I thought was a useful and brilliant provision. Currently, there is a requirement for an annual report on the solvency of a fund, but it goes to the superintendent of finance and what, if any, actions are taken is not clear. In fact, there is evidence, with companies like Air Canada, that pension fund insolvency has been allowed to continue for far too many years. My bill would require this report to be tabled here, for greater transparency and oversight. In October 2017 and again in 2020, the Bloc member for Manicouagan introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-253, which would have amended the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the CCAA. The bill would have provided priority status for pensions in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. It ultimately made it to committee but died on the Order Paper when the Liberals called the election. I have incorporated her bill here with some suggestions that were brought forward. There was concern that implementing an immediate priority for pensions could have unintended consequences. The suggestion was to have the coming into force of the reporting on the insolvency of funds to happen immediately, along with the mechanism to top up the fund to restore it to solvency. It was recommended to have several years of time for companies to get their funds in order before implementing the priority part. Five years was suggested in the bill, but there are stakeholders who would prefer to see it at three years. I am flexible about this, and these are exactly the types of conversations that need to happen when the bill goes to committee. Most recently, the NDP member for Elmwood—Transcona reintroduced work first put forward by former MP Scott Duvall. What was originally Bill C-259 in 2020 would amend the act to ensure that claims in respect of unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiencies of a pension plan are accorded priority in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. It would also provide that an employer had to maintain group insurance plans that provide benefits to or in respect of its employees or former employees. This was the part of the bill that was a sticking point. This bill would also amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act to empower the superintendent of financial institutions to determine that the funding of a pension plan is impaired or that the pension plan administrator is at risk, and to set out measures to be taken by the employer in respect of the funding of the plan in such cases. What I did was cherry-pick from all of the ideas that were previously supported by the House and put them all together in Bill C-228. Learning from both the numerous cases of company collapse and the various pension protection bills that came before to improve pension protection in a way we can all agree on is my goal here today. I also want to acknowledge that the Liberal member for Whitby is sponsoring e-petition 3893 on pension protections, supporting this very issue. My bill has been reviewed by a variety of stakeholders, including the Canadian Federation of Pensioners and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. Bill VanGorder, the chief operating officer of CARP, offered this quote: Most older Canadians have fixed incomes but face rising costs, growing inflation, an unpredictable economy and retirement savings that suffer as a result. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) believes it is vital that the Federal Government protect pensioners by giving them ‘priority’ status and creates a pension insurance program that insures 100% of pension liabilities. This proposal would go a long way in making that happen. Some banks and large financial institutions have expressed their reluctance. They are concerned that if pensioners are given priority, companies with insolvent funds will have to pay higher interest rates to obtain credit and will be less likely to apply for credit. This is part of the reason why the timing of the implementation should allow time for companies with insolvent funds to get their finances in order. I would like to point out that if a company cannot restore the solvency of its fund after a period of five years, it should indeed pay a higher interest rate to obtain credit, because it really does present a higher risk. The Canadian Labour Congress would like unions to have a say in how priorities are set when it comes to pensions. If we can agree on the priority status and include that in the legislation, so that it is not subject to whim or pressure, I think that would strengthen pension protection. In summary, this is reporting to Parliament on the solvency of funds for greater transparency so that we can ensure actions are being taken to protect pensions; creating a mechanism to top up the funds to restore solvency; and, in the event of bankruptcy, ensuring that people who have worked their whole lives receive the pensions they were promised. The Library of Parliament has created an excellent table from the three-inch-thick Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to show where I am suggesting pensions go in the priority of discussion. They would come after source deductions for CPP, QPP and EI and taxes due; after suppliers take back their goods delivered within a month of bankruptcy; after salaries up to $2,000 and the associated contributions; and before secured claims, preferred claims and unsecured claims. Many members of the House in all parties have indicated their support for getting this bill to committee. I am open to consideration of other suggestions on how we can work to improve this bill to provide a successful outcome for Canadians, and I look forward to the industry committee's review of the bill. I want to thank my colleagues for all their support in drafting this bill, and the MPs for Durham, Manicouagan and Elmwood—Transcona for their efforts to enhance pension protection. I would also like to thank Mr. VanGorder for his support and Mr. Mike Powell, the president of the Canadian Federation of Pensioners, for his invaluable help on this bill. Finally, I want to end with a call to action. For many years, the House and the Senate have tried to address this issue. We have the opportunity now, as members of Parliament in difficult times, to come together and ensure that Canadians no longer find their pensions and retirement in jeopardy. We can work together to ensure that Canadians are able to live in dignity in their golden years, able to support themselves and their families with their hard-earned pensions. Let us show Canadians that we have their interests at heart and support Bill C-228.
2254 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border