44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 12, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages. I am happy to be speaking in the House at 10 p.m., even though this is usually when I go to bed.
We are here to talk about Bill C‑13, bilingualism and Canada's two official languages.
First of all, I want to provide an overview of the situation. I believe that all members of the House recognize that French is in decline and, in some ways, threatened. This is the case in Quebec and in minority communities across Canada.
Quebec's National Assembly has demonstrated, almost mathematically, that the use of French has been declining for more than a decade. It is fully documented as well. The Quebec government has tabled legislation that is being debated in the National Assembly. Let the debate take place where it belongs, in the National Assembly, in Quebec.
Here, we are debating Bill C-13, which addresses the issue of bilingualism and the decline of French in this country. I will have the opportunity to come back to this in more detail, but, in our opinion, this is a minor reform, when a serious reform was needed. It proposes minor changes when what we need are big ones.
As it stands, we do not believe that the bill will stop the decline of French. This is essentially because the bill lacks teeth. We will describe it later, but what we need are concrete enforcement measures. The fines must be significant and not symbolic. This bill does not contain the measures needed. It also ignores the demands made by nearly all French-language advocacy groups.
The Treasury Board is where the final decision has to be made and where the action will have to be taken. That is where everything happens. I say this with all due respect to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Official Languages. The Treasury Board needs the tools to enforce bilingualism and the French language in certain areas where it is in decline. Unfortunately, the bill does not go quite that far.
How has it gotten to this point?
I remind members that it was back in the 1960s that the debate started over whether Canada should be a bilingual country and whether, its two languages, French and English, should have equal status in its institutions.
There was the creation of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, or the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. That commission was established in the 1960s, under the leadership of the prime minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, as the member for Hull—Aylmer mentioned.
In 1969, the prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, passed in the House of Commons the first legislation on both official languages, which put French and English on exactly the same footing, the same level, with the same responsibilities and the same privileges.
Across Canada, in the federal government, in the public service and elsewhere in its territories, this meant having the same services from coast to coast to coast in both official languages. Of course at first, there was some gnashing of teeth, which is entirely predictable and legitimate, for those who grew up in a country where official bilingualism did not exist. When we have to learn a second language overnight, that can seem like a huge challenge.
Now, almost 53 years later, anyone pursuing a career in the federal public service can expect to have to speak both official languages at some point. Anyone with their sights set on a senior position needs to expect that, and that is as it should be.
The first Official Languages Act was passed in 1969. The Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government gave it a major refresh and upgrade in 1988. After that, nothing was done right away to completely overhaul bilingualism. As everyone knows, the Harper government took steps to really protect French in some areas where it is not the majority language.
Then came the 2015 election, and members will recall that the current governing party promised, with hand over heart, to review the Official Languages Act.
From 2015 to 2019, no progress was made in this regard. There was an election and then, in 2021, lo and behold, the government began to take action. However, since the Prime Minister decided to call a second election in the midst of a pandemic, against all scientific advice, the government's initiative did not go any further.
That is why we have Bill C-13 before us today, when my government friends promised such a bill in 2015. It took them six years.
We have concerns about this bill. We believe that, when the government talks about official languages, there is all too often a lot of lip service. No one can be against apple pie, as the saying goes, and we all want to protect minority languages and French, but is the government really taking the strong, serious, meaningful and appropriate measures needed to fully achieve that? Unfortunately, that is where the problem lies.
That is why, as I mentioned earlier, we would have liked the Treasury Board to have the final say on the application of the Official Languages Act, to show that there is muscle and that it is serious and rigorous. When it comes to government services to the public, it is the Treasury Board that has the greatest authority, since it is the body within the federal administration that says yes or no to tax expenditures.
I am not going to pass judgment on how enthusiastically successive Treasury Board presidents since 2015 have accepted endless spending. The authority to approve or refuse expenditures lies with the President of the Treasury Board. Several groups had asked for the Treasury Board to be given the responsibility in this instance, but unfortunately that did not happen.
The government also wants to make sure there is successful and acceptable francophone immigration in all communities from coast to coast to coast, but, once again, there is no clear and specific objective.
There is also no power to issue orders or deterrent fines to businesses that fail to respect official languages. Earlier, someone mentioned the example of a $25,000 fine for a national organization whose president is not bilingual. That amount is a drop in the bucket for an organization of that size.
The bill also gives federally regulated organizations in Quebec the option of being subject to either Bill 101 or the federal legislation, but that is no way to handle this file. A person cannot be half pregnant. We are either for Bill 101 or against it. In this case, we are letting businesses choose, but that is not the way it should be.
That is why many minority rights advocacy groups have come forward to say that Bill C‑13 might be well intentioned, with laudable objectives, but, basically, it fails to meet the needs of minorities.
Liane Roy, president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, put it so well when she said that the biggest disappointment is that there needs to be someone in charge who can look at the other departments and give orders and be proactive instead of reactive all the time. Responsibility for the new act is still split between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, which may delegate powers to other departments.
As the FCFA said on March 2, the bilingualism policy lacks a clear objective. Will it be about maintaining or increasing our demographic weight? This does not accomplish what the government says it wants to do in immigration, if we refer to the February 2021 document from the former official languages minister.
As a final point, the Economic Development Council for Manitoba Bilingual Communities said on March 1 that in Manitoba's experience, what is needed is an approach to francophone immigration that goes beyond federal targets and objectives, that involves all those working on the ground, even municipal authorities, similar to what was done with the welcoming communities project.
From the Conservatives' perspective, Bill C‑13 does not go far enough and should go back to the drawing board.
1399 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I very much like, for his speech this evening.
Over the past few months, I had the privilege of meeting many stakeholders who told me what they wanted to see in the new version of Bill C-13.
One suggestion I heard many times was to create a central agency. I believe my colleague mentioned exactly that tonight. I do have to say, however, that I am a bit lost, because I keep hearing the Conservatives talk about that. However, we did actually formalize the role of the Treasury Board as a central agency. Going forward, it will be in charge of implementing the act, and it will also have a coordination and evaluation role. Moreover, in the fall economic statement, we gave the Treasury Board more resources to make sure it has everything it needs.
I wonder if my colleague knows about these changes, which are exactly what stakeholders asked for. That change was made in the new version of the bill.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to echo my colleague's comments. I really enjoy the minister's company. I knew her in another life. She was a parliamentary secretary to the finance minister when I was the finance critic, as members will recall.
If the minister thinks that we, the Conservatives, are harsh, I would simply like her to be aware of the fact that someone who she certainly knows very well, Liane Roy, the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, commented on the subject the minister just brought up and expressed her great disappointment. She said, and I quote:
There needs to be someone in charge who can look at the other departments and give orders and be proactive instead of reactive all the time....That is the difference between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, which can delegate powers to other departments.
In short, we are not the only ones who are being a bit tough on the minister's bill. It is the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, which she is very familiar with.
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague said that the bill does not go far enough. I agree.
I think that it needs to undergo a major reform, particularly based on the requests of the Government of Quebec, which asked that Quebec be given sole authority over linguistic development and management within its borders. I know that my colleague agrees that Bill 101 should apply to federally regulated businesses. There are also positive measures that must be taken with Quebec's consent. Right now, 100% of the positive measures in Quebec seek to strengthen the anglophone community.
I want to know what he thinks about that.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is well aware that, in our last two campaign platforms, Conservatives said that Bill 101 could apply to businesses in Quebec. Over three-quarters of a million Quebeckers voted for us and that approach.
I also want to make it clear that we Conservatives seize every opportunity to demonstrate our tremendous respect for jurisdiction. One thing federal Conservatives will not do is tell the provinces how to do certain things. That is reciprocal, actually.
To us, protecting the French language is essentially in Quebec's bailiwick. Quebec started working on it in the 1960s with Bill 63, which was not exactly the greatest invention of the century. In 1974, there was Bill 22, which had more teeth but did more harm than good, some say. Then Bill 101 was passed in 1977, and the debate on Bill 96 is under way as we speak.
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.
I just want to come back to the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages to issue orders. In the bill, those powers apply only to parts IV and V of the act, but part VII is the part that promotes the equality of official languages and supports the development of official language minority communities.
Does my colleague not think the commissioner should also have the power to issue orders for part VII of the act?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, from our perspective, in order to be taken seriously, one must grant the necessary powers.
As far as we are concerned, what matters most is Treasury Board authority, but yes, the Commissioner of Official Languages must have some real muscle. That said, should we be surprised to see this government introduce a bill that is weak with respect to certain demands?
After all, this is the Prime Minister who, when looking to appoint someone to the position of governor general, the highest position in the land, when he had 38 million Canadians to choose from, selected someone who does not speak French.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about our official languages and Bill C‑13, which proposes a long-awaited reform of our language framework.
As a francophone from southwestern Ontario, I am proud to be able to rise in the House of Commons to speak to this bill, which would support the modernization of the Official Languages Act in Canada.
We need to talk about the compliance of federal institutions that drive our language framework. Many Canadians complained to the Commissioner of Official Languages over the past few years. They asked that we ensure that the necessary work is done to support the institutions so that they can do a better job on official languages. It is time for the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada to have a level of authority comparable to that of his counterparts, including the Information Commissioner.
If the bill passes, the daily work of the official languages commissioner will not change drastically. However, he will still be responsible for processing complaints from citizens and federal officials who are having difficulty working in the public service, getting services from a department or communicating with federal institutions in the official language of their choice.
Right from the start, the commissioner will have a wide range of powers, including more enforcement powers for dealing with federal institutions that already fall under the Official Languages Act. The commissioner will be able to enter into compliance agreements with federal institutions, detailing the exact conditions they have to comply with to rectify the contravention. The commissioner will also have the authority to oversee the implementation of the compliance agreement and to assist federal institutions in honouring it. In short, the bill provides for a continuum of powers to reinforce the authority of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
My second point is based on francophone immigration to Canada, which can undoubtedly respond to the concerns expressed earlier by our friends from the Bloc Québécois. The new version of the bill includes more support for francophone immigration outside Quebec.
Before I get into that, I want to say that francophone communities outside Quebec are at the core of what we are doing. This vast enterprise started in 2019 with a large-scale review process aimed at modernizing the Official Languages Act. During that review, the government of Canada consulted Canadians through events organized in every province and territory. Afterwards, we published a white paper that clearly showed Canadians what the intentions behind the reform were.
In June 2021, we introduced the first version of this bill, which described in detail the proposed changes to the Official Languages Act. I understand that francophone minority communities have concerns about wanting to see an increase in francophone immigration to their communities. This bill will make that possible. We will be able to respond to the concerns of francophones in minority communities. We know that waves of immigration have continued to enrich Canada throughout our history.
Immigration is a major tool for economic, social and cultural development, and we are at a point in our history where we are relying more than ever on immigration, even though the pandemic has complicated matters.
We heard those Canadians calling for more francophone immigration outside Quebec. We have a duty to support the demographic weight of these communities.
I want to make a clarification. Francophone immigration has the potential to support the demographic weight of these minority communities, but francophone immigration alone cannot protect the demographic weight of these communities. There are other factors that come into play here, such as interprovincial and intraprovincial movements, births and many other factors. Furthermore, the provinces and territories also have a role to play in ensuring that these communities continue to grow and flourish in the future.
In short, support for immigration outside Quebec is an incredible boost for the vitality of francophone minority communities like mine, which is located in London, Ontario. That is why we are proposing targeted measures when it comes to francophone immigration.
We are proposing a reform of the provisions relating to francophone immigration outside Quebec. The bill proposes changing the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship's obligation to adopt a policy on francophone immigration, which my colleague on the other side of the House criticized earlier. I know that is something we all care about. From now on the Official Languages Act will be clear in that regard. This policy will contain specific elements and have clearer objectives. It will set out more specific targets.
What is more, the legislation will recognize that immigration is one factor that can help maintain or increase the demographic weight of francophone minorities in Canada. We are talking here about a policy directed solely at francophone minority communities, because Quebec already has a special agreement with Canada with regard to the selection of immigrants. We will have other opportunities to talk about our commitment to supporting the francophonie throughout Canada, including Quebec.
However, amending the Official Languages Act will probably not suffice. That is why we have made a commitment to introduce administrative measures to support francophone immigration in communities outside Quebec. I invite members of the House to follow the work we are doing in advance of the next action plan for official languages. This strategic document will contain the government's priorities and the means to achieve them. We plan on including the issue of francophone immigration.
All these initiatives will converge on a shared ideal, that of fostering the substantive equality of French and English in Canada. Federal institutions will be better equipped to take into consideration the needs of our official language minority communities. They will have better guidance for developing positive measures in the interest of these communities. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship will be required to use this policy on francophone immigration as a tool for demographic development in support of minority communities.
990 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure working with the member on the immigration committee. I note that she focused a substantial portion of her remarks on this bill, as did I, on the issue of francophone immigration.
This bill includes another aspirational statement. It asks the minister to put forward a policy. Of course, there is nothing preventing the minister from putting forward a policy as it is on francophone immigration. Effectively, we have the government, through this legislation, asking itself to put in place a policy, and there is nothing wrong with that as such.
We have a bit of a sense already of what the challenges are with respect to francophone immigration. The member knows, from having listened to the witnesses, issues around backlogs, concerns about racism and high refusal rates, especially from francophone Africa.
How is the government going to tackle those issues that, up until now, have not been tackled? We have not met our target. Does she think the statement in this bill is actually going to change what the government does in this respect?
180 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague, who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
I know he was there during today's committee meeting when the minister announced that we would be opening two more visa offices in Africa. My colleague knows that we are making a lot of progress.
Unfortunately, I have to contradict him when he says that we are not doing much. Francophone immigration keeps increasing in places like Moncton. I know that it is easier to complain from the other side of the House.
Since he was at today's committee meeting, my colleague heard that we continue to increase francophone immigration and to open visa offices throughout Africa to help manage applications from francophone immigrants.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to come back to francophone immigration and temporary permits for African students, who face an incredibly high rejection rate when we have missed our francophone immigration targets for the last 20 years or so.
Does the member not think that it would be a good idea to amend Bill C-13 to include binding targets and an obligation to produce results?
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question from my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
As I just said in my speech on Bill C‑13, we want this policy to help the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship build on efforts to increase francophone immigration to Canada.
Today he announced that we will continue to work on this. Let us not forget that, when the Conservatives were in power, they closed many of our diplomatic missions in Africa. We cannot do more if we have fewer missions and fewer visa offices. Right now, we are trying to make up for the work they did not do so we can continue to grow francophone immigration.
I deeply appreciate your work on francophone immigration, specifically francophone immigration in Africa.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 10:28:39 p.m.
- Watch
I have to remind the member that she must address her questions and comments directly to the Chair, not directly to members.
The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am sorry to sound like a broken record, but this is on the same subject. This section of Bill C-13 reminds me of the government's Bill C-5, where it used a declaration of principles rather than doing the heavy lifting of amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
This talks about setting objectives, targets and indicators. There is no catch-up target and no clearly stated objective. Francophone communities outside of Quebec have been let down for a couple of decades.
Would my hon. colleague not agree with me that having some specificity in this bill would give those communities some certainty and hold the minister to account, rather than giving a wide swath of interpretation as the bill is currently written?
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the bill is pretty specific.
We are talking about francophone immigration outside Quebec and asking the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to work with everybody to make sure that francophone immigration continues to increase in Canada and Quebec.
I do not think it is true that we have no targets and no specific measures. I just mentioned some of them. I would encourage my colleague opposite to read the bill.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, even though we are discussing a government bill to amend the Official Languages Act, I do not think my colleagues, or the interpreters for that matter, would like to hear me using this time to practice my French, so forgive me if I spend the entire 10 minutes here with members today speaking in English. I will save that for another day.
When discussing our two official languages in Canada, it is important to first acknowledge the role each of them has had to play in our history, and they continue to actively shape our national culture. This is not only true for Quebec in the past, the present or, quite frankly, the future, as we go forward from here tonight.
There is a lot of French heritage across the entire country. To this day, we will find francophone communities in the Atlantic provinces, in Ontario, in Manitoba and even across western Canada. In fact, right in my riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, we have several distinctly francophone communities, and I am going to spend a few minutes tonight talking about those communities, if members will indulge me.
I will start with the great community of Gravelbourg in my riding. It has a great Catholic heritage with the Church of St. Philomena, which became the Cathedral of St. Philomena on July 27, 1930. It was later renamed Our Lady of the Assumption Cathedral in 1965. The construction began in 1918, and the Most Reverend O.E. Mathieu, Archbishop of Regina, presided at the blessing ceremony on November 5, 1919. The architect, however, and this is important to know for the context of the speech here tonight, was the one and only J.E. Fortin of Montreal.
On December 14, 1918, le Collège catholique de Gravelbourg opened its doors to its first students. This college is the oldest institution that still operates in Gravelbourg. In 1976, the Oblates of Mary Immaculate handed over the direction of the college to the francophonie of Saskatchewan.
This college has been a very important piece in my life. I played many volleyball matches at Collège Mathieu when I was growing up in the great community of Frontier. We travelled there multiple times to play. It is a great, beautiful school right in the middle of the Prairies, and pays a great homage to the French heritage that belongs to the community of Gravelbourg. The people are very proud of that community, and as a representative for the area, I, for one, am very proud of the great heritage that is represented there.
I also want to point out the great community of Lafleche, Saskatchewan. Lafleche is named after Louis-François Richer Laflèche, a Roman Catholic missionary to Rupert’s Land from 1844 to 1856, who also happened to be the bishop of Trois-Rivières, Quebec, from 1867 to 1898.
Members may be starting to sense a theme here of the great French heritage imported through the Catholic church from Quebec into Saskatchewan. However, there is one more community I want to talk about here tonight. There are more than three great communities, but I am going to focus on these three here tonight, because we have a limited amount of time in this debate.
The third one is the great community of Ponteix, Saskatchewan, and I just want to go over the history of it. The Paroisse Notre Dame D'Auvergne Parish was born of Father Albert-Marie Royer's dream of founding a parish that he would dedicate to the Virgin Mary. In 1907, after having studied the nature of the soil on several occasions, Father Royer made his choice on the land that runs along the Notukeu Creek in Saskatchewan, which seemed promising to him. It was a land without wood, but very fertile and easy to cultivate.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that this land also happens to fall within the Palliser Triangle, which was deemed not to be suitable for mankind to live within, yet here we are today. We have many great communities that live in within the Palliser Triangle. They happen to be feeding the world, not just Canada, and doing a great job of it.
It is also important to keep in mind something that I am sure most parties will agree with in this place. The French language, with its history and future in Canada, is much bigger than the Liberal Party, or any other political party for that matter, including the Bloc Québécois. There have already been, and there still are, Conservatives and members of many other parties who have participated in its history and supported its growth.
Besides transcending political parties and partisan interests, French Canada is also something that is much bigger than what governments try to do. That is why we have to make sure that the issue of official languages is handled in a careful way that gets the right balance, which is also why a member from Saskatchewan would be willing to speak to this important bill here tonight.
I will turn now to a general concern, which has already been raised by other members, including the great member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier in Quebec, who also serves as our Conservative shadow minister of official languages. It has to do with the minister and the department of heritage. There are some technical questions with how they should be involved with the implementation of these proposed changes. Along with those points, I want to bring up some broader context. There has been some confusion expressed and feedback, not only from the opposition, but also from other parts of society as well. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada was quoted on Radio Canada saying that they also have to wonder about the fact that the Department of Canadian Heritage retains a coordinating role in the implementation of the law when it has no authority over other federal institutions.
Ultimately, this minority Parliament needs to hold the federal government accountable. We need to make sure that any power we give to them is used responsibly for the good of Canadian francophones and that it will not somehow be used by the Liberals to promote their own partisan interests and political gain.
As always, I also want to make sure that we never miss the rural perspective on this issue. Our policy for official languages does not just impact a single region in the country, and I hope the experience of francophones who live outside of Quebec's biggest cities is considered.
Here is something that I came across in the summary of Bill C-13, which reads:
(l) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to enter into compliance agreements and, in certain cases, to make orders; and
(m) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to impose administrative monetary penalties on certain entities for non-compliance with certain provisions of Part IV of that Act.
It also makes a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.
Part 2 enacts the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, which, among other things, provides for rights and duties respecting the use of French as a language of service and a language of work in relation to federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and then, at a later date, in regions with a strong francophone presence. That Act also allows employees of federally regulated private businesses to make a complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages with respect to rights and duties in relation to language of work and allows the Commissioner to refer the complaint to the Canada Industrial Relations Board in certain circumstances. It also provides that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for promoting those rights. Finally, Part 2 makes related amendments to the Canada Labour Code.
I find it interesting that this bill would allow for fines to be levied against a private business or a Crown corporation for not adhering to the act, up to a maximum of $25,000. I know that this is all in response to the pressure that the government is facing for Air Canada hiring an anglophone executive, and that would be a $25,000 fine for a corporation that is responsible for bringing in millions and millions of dollars of profit, but I wonder about the far-reaching consequences of having a knee-jerk reaction to this decision.
For example, I wonder if we were to go back through history, does that mean that, when it was still a federal program, it would have excluded or fined a PFRA pasture rider for simply not being bilingual. I also wonder about other federally regulated businesses in my riding.
What about, for example, Farm Credit Canada, which provides crucial financial services to farmers and ranchers? Over the last two years, we have heard many, many people talk about the impacts Farm Credit Canada has had on their farms. What is this act going to mean for people who do business in a very important industry such as agriculture? What is this legislation going to mean for a business like Farm Credit Canada? What about grain elevators and inland terminals, which happen to be federally regulated, that are responsible for the contracting and shipping of commodities to the coasts for processing or export to the world markets?
1586 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 10:40:50 p.m.
- Watch
We are out of time.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I can only agree with my colleague, who stated that all members of the House are entitled to be proud of our French language. I hope that he will try to say a few words in French the next time he gives a speech.
I would like to know what the Conservatives are actually proposing as an amendment. It is almost 11 p.m. on a Thursday evening. I was in the House when the Conservatives proposed referring the bill to a committee, but so far I have not heard any concrete proposals for improving this bill.
Can the member talk about his party's concrete suggestions so we can learn how to improve this bill, if he wishes?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in my riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, we have three very distinct francophone communities. In my speech, I was talking about the fact that there is the possibility that businesses beyond Air Canada or Canadian National might be fined based on the wording within this bill. That is something I find concerning because there are many federally regulated industries in my riding.
My hope is that we can send this bill to committee, where hopefully, because the bill is very broad, we can find a very refined approach to make sure that shoreline railways, for example, will not be unfairly punished by this bill because they are federally regulated. We are clearly trying to target specific companies, such as Air Canada and CN, for having anglophone executives or boards, as we have heard in the House previously before this debate tonight.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
He spoke about his riding and a town called Gravelbourg. My butcher told me that members of his family established that town a long time ago. He remains in contact with his family who lives there. It is a small world.
French is declining, especially in Quebec. To better protect French, Quebec is asking that Bill 101 apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. Does my colleague agree with that?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
