44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 12, 2022 10:00AM
- May/12/22 2:41:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, gas prices are hurting Quebeckers and our businesses, especially in rural areas. In the meantime, oil companies raked in record profits in the last quarter: almost $3 billion for Suncor and $1.1 billion for both Imperial and TC Energy.
What is most infuriating is that regardless of these profits, the federal government is giving Trans Mountain $10 billion in loan guarantees. There was $2.4 billion for carbon capture in the budget.
Does the government agree that it is embarrassing to be subsidizing oil companies instead of helping people who are being bled dry?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 3:06:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for the outstanding work she does for her constituents.
Unlike some colleagues in the House, we believe that the issues that really matter to Quebeckers are having a strong economy and good jobs. That is why we are proud to help SMEs in every region of Quebec, like Chocolat Lamontagne in Sherbrooke, in order to give local entrepreneurs the means to achieve their goals.
That is just the start. Canadians should stay tuned to find out what comes next.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am rather pleasantly surprised by my colleague's speech. I am addressing my comments to him as a Quebecker because the Official Languages Act is likely the biggest impediment to the application of Bill 101 and to French as a common language in Quebec.
I will give an example. The Official Languages Act is based on the concept of an anglophone minority, when anglophones in Quebec are actually part of the English Canadian majority. I am not the only one saying that.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee rendered the following decision in 1993, and I quote:
A group may constitute a majority in a province [French Quebec, for example] but still be a minority in a State and thus be entitled to the benefits of article 27. English speaking citizens of Canada cannot be considered a linguistic minority.
The so-called “positive” measures under Part VII of the act translate into roughly $100 million in funding dedicated exclusively to strengthening English in Quebec, funding for English schools that are entitled to the same funding as French schools but that also get additional funding.
All of the organizations that spend their time saying or implying that Quebeckers are racist because they want to live in French are funded by the federal government. That includes the Quebec Community Groups Network.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. Should the federal government continue to dedicate 100% of funding for official languages in Quebec to English communities?
257 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think that no one is in a better position than Quebeckers are to understand people who are fighting for their language and their culture. We Quebeckers know all about it. That is what we have been doing for 200 years: fighting for the survival of the language and culture. No one is in a better position than we are to recognize the importance of saving one's language and culture.
I completely agree with my colleague from Nunavut that it makes no sense that it took 102 years before there was an Official Languages Act, and 152 years for legislation protecting indigenous languages. It is high time that we have a major discussion on everything to do with truth and reconciliation in Canada, but that has yet to start.
132 words
- 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 could not agree more with my colleague. In all the notes I prepare for my speeches, I am always tempted to remind members of that early and absolutely useless election that cost all Quebeckers and Canadians time.
We are now starting over again, discussing bills that we could have tackled back then. Furthermore, the government is constantly telling us that it is urgent. I would submit to my colleagues that we are sitting until midnight tonight. There could have been other ways of doing this.
I would like the government to take responsibility for its own bills and its own legislative agenda so we can get things done. There is no point in simply talking without there being any concrete action. We see it even with tonight's bill: There is a great deal of goodwill, but, when it comes to concrete measures, that is a different story.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague will not like my answer, but there really is an anglophone minority in Quebec. That is the truth.
I remember well when a member of Bourassa's cabinet left. It was Clifford Lincoln. He stood in the National Assembly in Quebec when the rights of anglophone Quebeckers were reduced, and he said that “rights are rights are rights”. It was a brave statement from a courageous man of real integrity, and it spoke to the reality of a minority in Quebec that speaks English.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to respond to my friend, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
When we look at the statistics, French is in decline in Quebec. What we see is reflected in the bill. Some $100 million annually is given to the anglophone community, while that community is growing. What is in jeopardy in Quebec is French, which is in decline.
In fact, when we talk about languages in Canada, there are three major problems. First, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said, there are indigenous languages. We have to tackle the problems in order to properly support them. Then there is French outside Quebec and, finally, French in Quebec. English in Quebec is not at risk, it is growing.
When we look at the past few years and the past few decades, we see that the share of French outside Quebec is in decline. Have the policies and support in place been enough? The numbers speak for themselves: French is in decline. When we look at what is happening in Quebec, the statistics show that French is declining there too. Are the policies in place enough to protect French in Quebec and outside Quebec? The answer we are getting from the statistics is no.
Bill C-13 is nothing special. There will be no revolution. Things will continue as they are. We understand that the aim of the government, regardless of its political stripes, is assimilation, the gradual disappearance of the French language. That is what is happening. French is in decline outside Quebec and in Quebec. It is working, so well done. That is the goal. If that is not the goal, we are dealing with incompetents who have no common sense. I think the government is incompetent in many areas, but not in this area.
In Quebec, francophones thought that their province was the only place where francophones were still in the majority. The only solution that can stop this decline in our nation is independence. I want to reiterate a message of unwavering solidarity to all francophones outside Quebec and reassure them that Quebec will always stand with them. They are all our brothers, our sisters, our cousins. The same goes for all the indigenous peoples throughout Quebec and Canada. They are our brothers and sisters.
My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who is by far the greatest expert on the matter in the House, Quebec and Canada, mentioned frogs. People often call francophones frogs. If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump out right away. It will not allow that to happen. However, if you put a frog in a pot of cold water and turn on the heat, the water will slowly heat up. The frog will not realize that the water is too hot until it is too late. I get the impression that that is what is happening to francophones in Canada, both inside and outside Quebec. At first everything is okay. Then they are not so bad. Then they get worse, and when things get really bad and we finally realize it, it is too late. It is not too late for Quebec yet, but we see that the proposed bill will not change anything.
The only solution is independence. I work in economics. If we were masters of our own house, we could have leverage, tools and all the rest. It is important to remember the basic principle of two peoples and two cultures. The only way to protect French and to keep it alive in North America is to declare our independence. If we look at what the government is doing, we see that things are regressing in Quebec and outside Quebec. The numbers prove it. I can only conclude that the goal is assimilation.
I want to quote something that was said by the great Guy Rocher, a key player in the Quiet Revolution and co-author of Bill 101. His remarks were published in Le Devoir five years ago and reprinted in other newspapers for the 40th anniversary of Bill 101. This summer, the bill will be 45 years old and nothing has changed.
Here is the text:
Bill 101 is a national law. It is linked to the identity of the Quebec nation because it addresses the heart of that identity—the French language. Bill 101 has contributed to this identity, and continues to do so, but in a socio-political context that has evolved, one that is no longer that of 1977 and now requires us to rethink our language policy in Quebec.
The Charter of the French Language did not magically appear on the Quebec political scene. It came into being over several years; it has a history. Without invoking a distant past, don't forget that the Bill 101 of 1977 is intertwined with the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Indeed, Bill 101 is a direct result of the “Maître chez nous”, masters in our own house, which meant so many things. This phrase was intended, above all, to express the idea that the state and the community would take charge of our Quebec economy, regain control of our natural resources and keep the revenues for ourselves.
But, more deeply, “Maître chez nous” implied the affirmation of a Quebec identity that would replace the French Canadian identity. It was at the height of the Quiet Revolution that this transformation took place. French Canadians became Quebeckers, which at the same time lent an inclusive connotation to our name, so that every citizen of Quebec would feel like a Quebecker.
This transition to the Quebec identity was a prelude to Bill 101. It was certainly an essential condition. It would give Bill 101 its national meaning. The identity function borne by this law originated in that fundamental dimension of the Quiet Revolution.
The other change brought about by the Quiet Revolution, which is also part of the context of Bill 101, is the transformation of the Quebec government. From 1960 on, it became more interventionist in economic, social and cultural matters. It contributed directly to promoting the economic interests of Quebeckers and Quebec society. It took charge of the entire educational system, financially and pedagogically, and created a ministry of culture. It was in this same vein that Quebec lawmakers began to legislate language policy.
From 1967 to 1977, Quebec went through a major language crisis, the most significant in its history. Ten pivotal years in the modern history of Quebec, when Quebeckers were searching for what they were, for what they are. The catalyst for that crisis appeared in early 1968 as a threat to the francophone community: the almost systematic anglicization of children of immigrants, through their large-scale enrolment in English schools rather than French ones. One might say that this choice could easily be interpreted as a rejection of French schools and, as a result, of the French-speaking community in Quebec and its culture.
The freedom to choose a school became a major issue. The question was simple: Should Quebec parents of all origins, whether old-stock or immigrants, be given a free choice between English and French schools? Or should access to English schools be restricted to the English-speaking minority in Quebec? This dilemma inflamed minds and divided public opinion, leading to major street demonstrations and confrontations.
In this climate of turmoil, the Quebec legislator twice tried to calm the situation, but without success. In 1969, Bill 63 entrenched the freedom to choose a school, which outraged the francophone majority. In 1974, Bill 22, which required language tests for immigrant children to attend English schools, outraged the English-speaking minority and ethnic communities. To understand Bill 101, its spirit and its substance, we must place it in the context of the language crisis of 1967 to 1977. The surprise election of the Parti Québécois to power on November 15, 1976, was part of this crisis: it was largely opposition to Bill 22 that brought the Parti Québécois to power.
I just read the first part of the piece. Guy Rocher goes on to say that, 40 years later, many things have changed and we need to think about that.
First, we must design language policy today “for a Quebec that has experienced globalization in all its forms, especially culturally”.
Second, “in 1977, the English language was dominant by virtue of history, the history of colonization by Great Britain”, but, today, “American English has spread as the language of communication well beyond the borders of the Commonwealth and is [very] attractive to Quebeckers”.
Third, “information and communications technologies have exploded, mainly benefiting English over all other languages”.
Fourth, “the status of French no longer strikes a chord with enough Quebeckers to worry political leaders, despite all the signs of the growing fragility of French”.
I will continue to talk about Guy Rocher's words during questions and comments.
1524 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member talked about expressing solidarity with francophones outside of Quebec. He would have to acknowledge how devastating it would be, particularly for francophones outside of Quebec, if his preferred scenario of separation were to proceed. It would really undermine the presence of French and its size and impact in what would remain of the country.
I believe the ideal, though certainly imperfectly realized, of having a genuinely bilingual union in a country of shared values is an ideal worth striving for. It is one in which English and French together in the same country allow us to be stronger and project a stronger image on the world stage. Every time Quebeckers have been consulted on this question, they have chosen to remain with the rest of Canada.
Would it not be more productive for the member to devote his attentions to working on strengthening our country and strengthening the French fact within Canada, rather than pursuing a policy that, at the end of the day, would weaken substantially the French fact within Canada?
176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
