SoVote

Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.)

Apr/1/22 12:08:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for Richmond Centre for his advocacy. Our government recognizes that more support is needed for women and girls who are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change, natural disasters and biodiversity loss. That is why we announced $67.5 million in international assistance funding that will provide support to eight projects. These projects will support women's leadership in climate change adaptation and mitigation and natural resource management.

79 words

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

Apr/1/22 12:09:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-245

Madam Speaker, 2030 is quickly approaching, and the Liberals still do not get it when it comes to climate change. They refuse to meet the urgency of this moment. They are still handing out billions to big oil, and it is no surprise that emissions continue to go up. We cannot wait any longer. We need infrastructure investments for indigenous and northern communities that are already paying the price for climate change. Canada's infrastructure bank is just sitting there, literally, because it has yet to complete one project. That is why we in the NDP want to put it to work with my bill, Bill C-245. Will the Liberals stand with indigenous and northern communities by voting for this bill?

122 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Apr/1/22 12:09:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-245

Madam Speaker, Tuesday was a very exciting day: It was the day the emissions reduction plan was announced. It is a road map for Canada to reach our ambitious climate targets, sector by sector. It is getting great reviews from environmental groups, banks and the resource sector. Let me cite a few for the hon. member. Andrew Weaver, former leader of the Green Party, has praised it, as well as the World Wildlife Fund. There is also a very important one from David Suzuki, who says, “For the first time, Canada charts a credible path to 40% emissions reduction by 2030.”

103 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Apr/1/22 12:10:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to four petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

35 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

Apr/1/22 12:11:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Ms. Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle) for Mr. Therrien (La Prairie).

43 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Apr/1/22 12:11:53 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Okay. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

34 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Apr/1/22 12:12:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present today. The first petition is from Canadians from across the country. The petitioners are concerned about the accessibility and impacts of violent and degrading sexually explicit material online and the impacts on public health, especially the well-being of women and girls. The petitioners recognize that we cannot say that we believe in preventing sexual violence against women while allowing pornography companies to freely expose our children to violent, explicit sexual imagery day after day, which is a form of child abuse. The petitioners note that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires Canada to develop means to protect children from the forms of media that are injurious to their well-being. As such, these petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to adopt legislation that would require websites to have meaningful age verification on all adult websites.

150 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Apr/1/22 12:15:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I have to present is from constituents from the towns of Fox Creek and Swan Hills. These two towns are in northern Alberta. The petitioners say that rising heat costs and other expenses make life more expensive in northern Alberta. They also have to travel great distances to access grocery stores and shopping centres. The petitioners state that there is an arbitrary line that runs across Alberta preventing Fox Creek and Swan Hills residents from accessing the northern residents deduction. The petitioners are calling on the government to include Fox Creek and Swan Hills communities within the prescribed intermediate zone, allowing the people who live in these two communities to be able to receive the northern residential deduction for living in northern Alberta.

128 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Apr/1/22 12:15:43 p.m.
Watch

The final petition I am presenting today, Mr. Speaker, is from Canadians from across the country who are opposed to and want an end to the COVID-19 mandates. The petitioners state that throughout the pandemic, truckers have served Canadians and are heroes but now are subject to vaccine mandates that are impacting the supply chain. The petitioners say the Prime Minister has politicized the vaccines and insulted Canadians who disagree with him. Moreover, the petitioners comment that it is the sacred duty of the government to guard against discrimination and guarantee the freedoms of all Canadians. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to immediately end all COVID vaccine mandates implemented and controlled by the federal government, which includes federal employees, truckers and travellers. They are also calling for the end of all mandates and restrictions.

139 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Apr/1/22 12:15:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I have to present is on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about charities that could be targeted based on their views and forced into a values test. The petitioners note that the Liberals have promised to deny charitable status to groups that they view as dishonest. The petitioners say that this could jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other organizations. The petitioners also note that the Liberals previously used the values test to discriminate against groups that were applying for the Canada summer jobs grant. The petitioners are asking the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious views, and without the imposition of another values test. They are asking for an affirmation of their freedom of expression as Canadians.

154 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Apr/1/22 12:15:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to table this petition for residents largely from the Powell River region who have a lot of concerns about DFO and the fact that funding has not been increased for community economic development program hatcheries since 1982. My constituents are very passionate and want the government to increase the annual contribution to the Powell River Salmon Society hatchery, to allocate any increase to the conservation stamp funds to the CEDP program and, of course, to ensure proper representation of coastal communities by DFO staff members, which continues to be of major concern in the region that I serve.

104 words

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC)

Apr/1/22 12:16:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The petitioners note that Canada is home to 1.4 million citizens of Ukrainian descent and that Canada was the first country to recognize Ukrainian independence in 1991. The petitioners are calling on the government to provide further lethal defence weapons and supplies to the Ukrainian people. They are also calling on the Government of Canada to immediately urge NATO allies and Ukraine-friendly nations to close the airspace over Ukraine and deploy peacekeeping troops to the country.

92 words

All Topics

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Apr/1/22 12:17:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. The petitioners call on the federal government to take bolder action to address the climate crisis, including a transition to a more sustainable economy, investments in green jobs for Canadians, respect for indigenous rights and expansion of the social safety net so no one is left behind. I want to thank For Our Kids for its advocacy and work to build a more sustainable future for generations to come.

88 words

Mr. Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana, CPC)

Apr/1/22 12:18:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions today, both related to Canada's military contribution to the war in Ukraine and both signed by the Ukrainian community in Regina and southern Saskatchewan. The first petition calls on the Government of Canada to resume providing RADARSAT image intelligence to the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian military. This is something that the Ukrainians have been calling for for some time and is something that Canada can and should be doing to help Ukraine win the war. The second petition calls on the Government of Canada to expedite the approval of any export permits of arms sales to Ukraine. This one is pretty much self-explanatory. When President Zelenskyy addressed this chamber just a couple of weeks ago, he was very clear that Ukraine needs military equipment to help win the war. This petition says that any military equipment that is provided should be given in a timely manner. I am pleased to present these petitions today on behalf of the Ukrainian community in Regina and southern Saskatchewan.

176 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Apr/1/22 12:19:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 333 to 336 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

25 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Apr/1/22 12:19:52 p.m.
Watch

Is it the pleasure of the House that the foregoing questions be made orders for returns and that they be tabled immediately? Some hon. members: Agreed.

26 words

Apr/1/22 12:20:21 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 333—

Questioner: Laila Goodridge

With regard to the federal government’s actions to increase hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) capacity across Canada since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic or March 2020: (a) what is the total amount of all federal government funding provided to provinces or territories meant to increase the permanent hospital and ICU capacity; (b) broken down by province or territory and by month, how much did each receive to permanently increase hospital and ICU capacity; (c) what was the total hospital and ICU capacity in Canada as of March 1, 2020; (d) what is the total hospital and ICU capacity as of February 14, 2022; and (e) what is the breakdown of (c) and (d) by province or territory?

Question No. 334—

Questioner: John Williamson

With regard to government funding provided to BC Ferries and to East Coast Ferries, since January 1, 2019, and broken down by year: (a) what is the total amount provided to BC Ferries; (b) what is the total amount provided to BC Ferries through (i) the Safe Restart Agreement, (ii) other programs, broken down by program; (c) what is the total amount provided to East Coast Ferries for their service between Deer Island and Campobello; and (d) what is the total amount provided to East Coast Ferries, through (i) the Safe Restart Agreement, (ii) other programs, broken down by program?

Question No. 335—

Questioner: Jamie Schmale

With regard to asylum seekers who entered Canada at the unauthorized border point at Roxham Road since the government lifted the crossing ban on November 1, 2021: (a) how many asylum seekers have crossed the border at Roxham Road; (b) how many of the individuals in (a) were (i) fully vaccinated, (ii) not fully vaccinated; (c) were asylum seekers who were not fully vaccinated returned to the United States; and (d) were the individuals who entered through the unauthorized border at Roxham Road subjected to the same public health requirements related to COVID-19, including the requirement to present a negative PCR or molecular test result taken within 72 hours prior to entering Canada, and, if so, how many (i) presented the required negative test, (ii) did not present the required negative test?

Question No. 336—

Questioner: Tony Baldinelli

With regard to polling data obtained by the Privy Council Office since January 1, 2016, concerning Canada Post: what are the details of all such polling including, for each poll, (i) who conducted the poll, (ii) the start and end dates of when the poll was conducted, (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the complete results of the poll, including the questions asked and the responses received, (v) the value of the contract related to the poll, (vi) the date the polling data was shared with Canada Post, if applicable?

453 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/1/22 12:20:21 p.m.
Watch

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

12 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Apr/1/22 12:20:29 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Apr/1/22 12:20:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-13

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 seeks to amend the Official Languages Act, which was enacted by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberal government in 1969 and then amended once by Brian Mulroney's Conservatives in 1998 based on the same principles. Before that, for almost a century, the so-called equality of languages established by the Constitution of 1867 never really existed, except in theory. It was nothing new when Gilles Duceppe said that there are two languages and that bilingualism in the federal government means English and translated English. In fact, French has remained the translated language, and in the past, francophone members who wanted to make themselves understood had to speak English because there was no simultaneous interpretation. Anglophones were responsible for the important economic portfolios and held the vast majority of management positions in the public service. That too has not changed very much, but until the 1970s there were almost no francophones at all working in the federal public service. For nearly a century, there were laws that banned French in all the provinces that are now predominantly English-speaking. Ontario's Regulation 17 is just one example. Unfortunately, it was not an exception, and it caused nearly 70% of Canada's francophones to become anglicized. These are the figures from the last time this was measured. However, objectively speaking, I have to admit that there has been some progress, such as the adoption of bilingual stamps in 1927, bilingual bank bills in 1936 and bilingual federal cheques in 1962. Of course, with such dizzying progress, many people were not happy in Quebec, where things were moving and shaking. The Quiet Revolution was under way, Jean Lesage's “maîtres chez nous” was on everyone's lips, and the modern independence movement was gaining traction. I am not suggesting things were better outside Quebec. Speaking French outside Quebec remains a daily struggle. It is an act of resistance. Getting back to the Official Languages Act, people say it is the result of the work of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. That is not quite true. The Laurendeau-Dunton commission was set up at the urging of André Laurendeau, who wrote an editorial calling for a commission of inquiry rather than debates about bilingual cheques and other trivial concessions to French Canadians. André Laurendeau was a federalist. He thought the French‑Canadian nation could co-exist with English Canada. He would have wanted Quebec to be given special status as the heart of French‑Canadian society. He wanted to create an egalitarian partnership between French Canada and English Canada. To him, bilingualism was a secondary tool. He wanted a new division of powers between the central government and the francophone province. Prime Minister Pearson made the commission of inquiry an electoral issue. He was elected. He said he wanted “to develop the Canadian Confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races”, but it did not happen that way because André Laurendeau died in the meantime and a new Liberal leader arrived. He was a fiercely anti‑nationalist Quebecker. His name was Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Contrary to what is often written, the key recommendations of the Laurendeau‑Dunton commission were cast aside by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who rejected the idea of two peoples and two national cultures and kept only the idea of having two languages associated with individual rights and multiculturalism, rather than biculturalism, which reduced Quebec culture to one culture among many. It is important to consider the historical context because the fundamental principles of the Official Languages Act have not really changed, despite the fine declarations offered up in Bill C‑13 and in the Speech from the Throne. In the study of language planning around the world, language policies are grouped into two major categories based on whether they are founded on the principle of territoriality or the principle of personality. Virtually all experts agree that only an approach based on territoriality and collective rights can ensure the survival and development of a minority language. It is also interesting to note that André Laurendeau talked about the Belgian and Swiss models, which are examples of how effective the territoriality principle can be in defending minority languages. In Flanders, in Belgium, everything is done in Dutch. The entire public service and education system, from kindergarten to university, operate in Dutch. This does not prevent people there from learning five or six second languages, often very capably. The same thing goes for French in Wallonia, but the central government in Brussels is bilingual, and that is where most of the problems have been, but that is not the subject of today's debate. The Quebec model is based on the principle of territoriality, with the Charter of the French Language, which aims to make French the only official and common language in Quebec, while respecting the historic anglophone community and recognizing the right of first nations to maintain and develop their original language and culture. In fact, Quebec treats the anglophone community eminently better than the Canadian provinces treat the francophone and Acadian communities. In response to the rhetoric I hear from the Liberals, I would say that the principle of territoriality could very well apply outside Quebec, in territories that have a large concentration of francophones or Acadians, as we heard from an expert who recently testified before the Standing Committee on Official Languages. This does not mean that we could not maintain some form of institutional bilingualism, as already exists in regions in which there are fewer francophones and they are more spread out. This would be a nominal gesture towards righting all of the wrongs done by the Canadian government's assimilation policies. The Canadian model, with the Official Languages Act, is based on the principle of personality. It establishes individual language rights that can be transported across the Canadian territory. It claims to guarantee equal access to federal government services for people who belong to either of the two big linguistic groups, yet it limits such access to areas where numbers warrant. This personality-based approach ultimately ends up creating a situation in which the strongest of several official languages develops at the expense of the other, more vulnerable ones. All over the world, models like Canada's non-territorial institutional bilingualism result in minority languages being assimilated. This is what we have seen over the past 52 years with the Official Languages Act. The assimilation rate of francophones outside Quebec has steadily increased. It was 40% in 2016, which means that 40% of francophones outside Quebec now speak English at home. As for language of use, it went from 4.3% in 1971 to 2.3%. This drop in the use of French is a result of the Official Languages Act. The Office québécois de la langue française is predicting a drop in the demographic weight of francophones in Quebec from 78.9% in 2011 to 69% in 2036. That prediction was made based on a high rate of immigration, but there has been a lot less immigration under the Liberal government. Federal bilingualism is also territorial to some extent, because, as I was saying earlier, it is limited to regions where the numbers warrant it or there is sufficient demand. That does not make any sense at all. When French declines, the government cuts services in French. That is a bit like having a law to support employment that provides for cuts to employment services when there is a high rate of unemployment. People would be inclined to inflate the numbers to hide the real unemployment rate so that employment services would not be cut. That is more or less what is happening here. Francophones outside Quebec have an incentive to inflate the numbers, to seem more numerous because they do not want their French services taken away. This is good for Ottawa, which makes it look like all is well. However, the consequence is that the federal government has, until very recently, denied the decline of French despite all the obvious signs. It has found all sorts of ways, all manner of indicators to send the message that French was doing just fine and, ostensibly, to help Francophone and Acadian communities. This adversely affects Quebec because organizations like the QCGN and Canadian Heritage use indicators such as FOLS, first official language spoken, which they manipulate somewhat to inflate the figures. As a result, the QCGN advocates for the rights of anglophones who are defined in this way, many of whom are newcomers whom Quebec should, in fact, integrate into the francophone community. Our big problem is that, in order to maintain the demographic weight of francophones in Quebec, 90% of the language transfers must be to French. At the moment, it is a little more than 50%, and this is mainly because of an agreement that enabled the Quebec government, for a time, to select more francophone or francotropic immigrants. However, that is happening less and less because the federal government adopted a two-stage strategy whereby immigration is increasingly based on temporary study permits. As we have heard in the media, the main sources of francophone immigration are experiencing abnormally high rejection rates. At the same time, the federal government has, until very recently, always denied the decline of French. Another principle underlying the Official Languages Act is the symmetry established between anglophones in Quebec and the francophone and Acadian minorities. This is another absurdity that has been criticized by the Bloc Québécois, in particular, but also by a number of authors and journalists in Quebec. It is very easy to demonstrate that this does not correspond to reality. Even the Laurendeau-Dunton commission showed that in Quebec, not only did anglophones have considerable privileges, but there were fewer francophones graduating from university, and that is still the case today. Francophones also had lower incomes. They ranked 12th out of 14 linguistic groups. Although there has been some catching up, there is still a decline, and the average salary of francophones, for example, if we do not use the doctored Statistics Canada indicators, is still well below the average salary of anglophones in Quebec. The very principle of official language minorities is highly questionable, since as long as Quebec is in Canada, it will unfortunately be subject to the will of the federal government, which is controlled by the English Canadian majority. We have seen the results. This government had no qualms about changing and imposing a Constitution in which the principles of the Official Languages Act were enshrined, against the will of Quebec. It never worked. No Quebec government has signed this. It is locked up, so to speak. In 1993, even the UN Human Rights Committee stated that anglophone citizens of Canada could not be considered a linguistic minority in the Canadian context, where they are in the majority. Still today, the sociolinguistic reality is that English is used in Quebec as a majority language in Canada and not as a minority language in Quebec. As in the rest of Canada, language transfers disproportionately favour English. This symmetry that is at the very foundation of the concept of official language minority communities has another adverse effect, in that it has divided Quebec from francophone and Acadian communities. As a result, the federal government has ignored French language advocacy groups, claiming that they represented a majority. A study was done on the status of French at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the first in 52 years. Despite all these criticisms, the Official Languages Act has maintained this fictitious symmetry between the anglophone community and the francophone and Acadian communities. This has allowed the federal government to justify providing massive funding to anglophone institutions and lobby groups, thereby contributing, as several researchers have noted, to the anglicization of Quebec. Let us come back to Bill C‑13. After the Canadian government announced that it would modernize the Official Languages Act, the Government of Quebec stated its expectations. It asked that the Official Languages Act recognize that of the two official languages, French is the only minority language across Canada. This seems to have resonated because the government mentioned it in the Speech from the Throne and in Bill C‑13, while maintaining that the federal government has a responsibility to protect and promote the anglophone minority in Quebec. The federal government acceded to the Government of Quebec's request to some extent, but upheld the same principles. There are no specific measures in Bill C‑13 for defending the French language in Quebec. It is a little contradictory. We will see how things develop. A month before the first bill to modernize the Official Languages Act was presented, the Quebec government detailed its position and presented five guiding principles. The first was recognition of the minority status of French. As we saw, the bill offers some very ambiguous recognition and maintains the principle that the anglophone minority in Quebec needs support. We understand this to mean that all of the money from the official languages programs will continue to be devoted to defending English in Quebec. The second request was that an asymmetrical approach be adopted. However, no such approach can be found in Bill C‑13, which maintains a symmetry between anglophones in Quebec and francophone minorities outside Quebec. The third principle was that the Official Languages Act should recognize that Quebec is the sole architect of language policy on its territory and that the Charter of the French Language must take precedence. The bill does not incorporate this at all. In fact, it does the contrary, with measures that will have an impact on French as the common language and that will hamper the Quebec government's efforts. There is a strong consensus in Quebec. All of the political parties unanimously adopted a motion in the National Assembly. The mayors of all of the big cities and the former premiers, including the very liberal Jean Charest, want Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated businesses. The previous bill, Bill C-32, prevented Quebec from doing this by including a clause that made the application of Bill 101 optional. The present bill, Bill C‑13, goes so far as to raise the prospect of a separate bill that will prevent Quebec from applying Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses by allowing these businesses to choose which law will apply to them. We saw how this will play out when the question was put to the CEO of Air Canada, Michael Rousseau. Naturally, he said that he would prefer the Official Languages Act. In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois recognizes the progress made in terms of promoting and protecting the French language in francophone communities outside Quebec. That said, we feel that we could go much farther, and we will support the demands of the francophone and Acadian communities. There again, we see the value of a differentiated approach. However, the demands of the Quebec government and the Bloc Québécois were completely ignored, both in the previous bill and in this one. At the time of the Laurendeau‑Dunton commission, it was said that Quebeckers had two choices. They could either choose an extensive amendment to Confederation and the Constitution, or they could choose independence for Quebec. We are now in the same place 52 years later, just worse off because we are gradually losing our language and at risk of losing our political weight. Quebeckers need to be well aware of this. In conclusion, long live a free, French Quebec.

2647 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 51