44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 26, 2022 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the House about Bill C‑238 regarding the French language.
Everyone in Canada cares about protecting the French language. The latest census data show that French is in decline in Quebec and the rest of Canada. We must act swiftly and collectively. Our government agrees with the Government of Quebec on this matter. I think that everyone in the House has a shared objective to protect and promote the French language, although we disagree on how to do so.
The approach to the future of French in Canada set out under Bill C‑238, introduced by the Bloc Québécois, is very narrow. This bill takes a Quebec-centric approach to our language regime without regard for francophones across Canada, from coast to coast. In addition to the millions of Quebeckers who share the common language of French, there are more than one million francophones outside of Quebec who live, work and thrive in French. My francophone community in Orléans is just one example.
The Bloc Québécois is calling for the recognition of Quebec's language regime, enforcement of the Charter of the French Language for federally regulated private businesses located in Quebec and the requirement that those hoping to obtain Canadian citizenship while living in Quebec have an adequate knowledge of French.
Although we share the Bloc Québécois's concern over the future of French in North America, we do not agree with their solution. We believe that we must take a targeted approach to protect and promote French across Canada. That is what our government proposed in Bill C‑13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act and to make related amendments to other acts, which we introduced in the House on March 1.
It is important to note that Bill C‑238 adopts a narrow view of the future of French, while our Bill C‑13 recognizes not only the linguistic reality of Quebec, but also the language regimes of other provinces and territories in Canada. Let us be clear, Bill C‑238 does nothing for francophones outside Quebec, while Bill C‑13 plans to create new rights for consumers and employees who work at federally regulated private businesses in Quebec, but also in regions outside Quebec with a high francophone presence.
Comparing the provisions of both bills, it is clear that the vision is narrower in one case and broader in the other, that the approach is exclusive in one case and more inclusive in the other, and that the priority is provincial in one case and national in the other. Bill C‑238 will fail to meet the expectations and demands of the majority of Canadians with respect to our two official languages.
This Bloc Québécois bill simply does not meet the priorities of francophone minority communities in provinces and territories outside Quebec. Bill C‑238 does not meet the needs of English-speaking communities in Quebec.
For these reasons, the government cannot support Bill C‑238. As I mentioned at the beginning, we are not against Bill C‑238's objectives. We are opposing the bill because there is so much missing in terms of adapting it to the reality of official language minority communities.
In other words, its vision is too narrow and lacks ambition. We are against Bill C‑238 because we want to go much further. The measures in our Bill C‑13 are ambitious and fine-tuned to meet communities' current and future needs.
Bill C‑13 covers broader segments of our Canadian linguistic regime and will have a real impact on the lives of Canadians. It covers the appointment of Supreme Court of Canada justices, enhances the Commissioner of Official Languages' powers, supports official language learning and addresses francophone immigration. In short, Bill C‑13 does more of what Canadians want than Bill C‑238 ever could.
Bill C‑13 offers a vision for francophones in Quebec and for all Canadians, because the Official Languages Act must reflect their needs and realities too. We are all aware of the facts. Canada's francophone population is declining; our government has clearly acknowledged that. We are also aware that Canadians want to be able to learn official languages. They want to be able to use them in their everyday lives. They want to enjoy the benefits of having French in Canada and of living in an officially bilingual country. Our Bill C‑13 meets those needs and puts forward a real, pan-Canadian vision for Canadians.
It is just such a pan-Canadian vision that is lacking in Bill C‑238. That is why we cannot support this bill. Together, we can reverse the decline of the French language, but we all have to work together to make that happen. That means reaching out to official language minority communities and coming up with policies and programs that meet their needs.
To conclude, let me say to my fellow members that I hope all parties will work with us to pass Bill C‑13 as quickly as possible.
897 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it would be a mistake to oppose Bills C-13 and C-238, so I cannot agree with my colleague.
Bill C-238 aims to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act, the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Citizenship Act. I would like to start by telling my colleagues that, when they vote on this bill, they will not be doing Quebec any favours. What they will be doing by voting for Bill C-238 is correcting a historical error and giving justice where justice is due.
Everyone understands that Canada was founded by the French then conquered by the British a very long time ago. The two peoples have since lived together in times of peace and in more difficult times. Our history includes victories for some, and bitter losses for others. French Canadians became Quebeckers and chose to assert themselves, shouting until they were blue in the face that their culture, their identity and their language were precious to them.
In 1977, under Camille Laurin, Quebec enacted the Charter of the French Language, also known as Bill 101. Bill 101 made French the official language of the Quebec government and courts. French was now recognized as the normal and everyday language of work in education, trade, communications and business. Bill 101 enshrined in law the fact that French was the language of the majority. The French language was precious and statistically a minority language within English-speaking North America. That is why it needed protection.
Of course, not everyone was happy about Bill 101. Although it protected the anglophone minority in Quebec, which, incidentally, is the best-protected minority in Canada, the bill was challenged and cut back. Opponents tried to render it meaningless, and some of their efforts were successful.
Now we are in 2022, and statisticians have confirmed that the French language is in decline in Quebec, especially in the magnificent island of Montreal. I remember walking with my son on Notre-Dame Street in the middle of Saint-Henri, a neighbourhood Yvon Deschamps described as a place where francophone workers and the poor lived and worked. I remember seeing that the snack bars had been replaced with Internet coffee shops with English names. A very nice student from Toronto who had come to work there as part of a French immersion program spoke to us in English and understood nothing of our “gibberish” as we spoke French. I asked for “un espresso, s’il vous plaît”, and he answered, in as friendly and innocent a manner as can be, “Sorry, I don’t speak French”. This experience was repeated throughout our walk down Notre-Dame Street. Not only was the street anglicized in terms of language, but also in terms of social context. We could have been in Toronto, or anywhere in the globalized world. There is not much difference between “un espresso” and “an espresso”, but, still, French did not seem to be important.
Make no mistake: I have nothing against English. Rather, I am simply saying that I am pro-French. Coming back to the example I gave earlier, I find it curious that a student from Toronto who wants to broaden their horizons would come to Montreal, just to work in English in a café located in an area that was historically francophone but has since become primarily anglophone. So much for French immersion.
Beyond the statistics pointing to the decline of French in Quebec, simply walking through the streets of Montreal confirms it. From Second Cup to Five Guys, my beloved French is suffering.
It is important to understand that beyond fulfilling a simple communication function, language is also a political statement and, above all, a mindset. A bit of an explanation is in order.
Let us start by asking the following question: What is language? It is, first and foremost, a matter of linguistics. Language must first be regarded as a system of signs connecting words, drawn from a lexicon and according to specific grammatical rules established by a syntax. Language is the ability to express an idea and communicate through a system of signs. This is where we have a problem.
The rampant anglicization of Quebec society prevents people from thinking in French, creating in French and being French. Globalization, which made Céline Dion popular from Algeria to Indonesia, has also flattened cultures, all cultures except for one, the Anglo-Saxon culture. We were told that globalization liberated cultures whereas, in reality, it simply made people want to or have to live in English.
Language is all about communicating and thinking. Globalization has brought with it the danger of what I call a single mindset, which occurs when what is essential is no longer distinguished from what is secondary, when far-reaching intellectual projects face the powerful inertia of pervasive mediocrity and small-mindedness, and when tastes and ideas become homogeneous.
It is the very perception of existence that is at stake when we talk about a single mindset. English dominates the world and now serves as the platform for this single mindset. That is why we must resist. That is why we are studying Bill C-238 today.
Six living Quebec premiers supported the Quebec government's motion to the effect that the French requirement should apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. The fact that it is not being applied is anachronistic and can only be aimed at exacerbating the decline of the French language.
The former Bill C-223 proposed that those applying for citizenship in Quebec would need to possess an adequate knowledge of French. The fact that this requirement has not already been implemented is equally anachronistic and again can only be aimed at exacerbating the decline of the French language in Quebec.
This is why the Bloc Québécois is categorically opposed to the federal government's attempt to supersede provincial legislation in Quebec with its own law.
The federal government needs to recognize that the Government of Quebec must remain in charge of language planning within Quebec. Language is a fundamental aspect of the specificity and identity of the Quebec nation.
This is the most important part: We must preserve French in order to preserve freedom of thought. That is why I suggest that members of Parliament right a historical wrong and vote in favour of Bill C-238.
1085 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be participating in this debate. Before getting to the crux of the matter, I would like to send my best wishes to all of the Canadians and Quebeckers affected by hurricane Fiona. We were all stunned to see the devastation in the Atlantic provinces, as well as in the Magdalen Islands and on the Lower North Shore in Quebec. Our hearts go out to the brave residents who must now cope with the aftermath.
As the Deputy Premier of Quebec said, there were no serious injuries or deaths in the Magdalen Islands or on the Lower North Shore. The rest is just material things, but I do realize that people need material things to live. I would like to send my regards to the people who are facing this reality today, and I extend my heartfelt thanks to the first responders helping out on the ground in every province, including the military and public safety personnel.
I just want them to know that all of us in the House of Commons are here for them. If anyone needs anything at all at the federal level, Canada will be there to respond. This situation affects us all. Nature is bigger than any of us could ever be.
Today we are discussing the French language. Today we are discussing the official languages. Today we are discussing a reality that is demographically indisputable: The French language is in decline in Canada and Quebec.
This is nothing new at the sociological, demographic or geographical level. Consider the following: The population of North America, by which I mean Canada and the United States, our closest neighbour, is almost 380 million. Of that number, fewer than eight million speak French. Everyone else speaks English as their primary language.
That is like meeting a group of six people, five of whom speak English and one of whom speaks French. That is not quite precise, but I am rounding off the numbers to give an example that speaks for itself. From a mathematical point of view, the French-speaking person will feel dominated by the other five, who speak English. That person will feel strongly tempted to speak the language of the other five.
As I will explain later, wanting to speak two languages does not mean that we want to obliterate our first language.
In addition to this demographic reality that speaks for itself, the figures and the science show that the French language is indeed on the decline in Canada, especially in Quebec. According to the most recent figures from Statistics Canada, between 2016 and 2021, the number of French speakers went from 7.7 million to 7.8 million. Some of my colleagues may say that the opposite is true and that I am misleading the House by saying that the French language is in decline in Quebec when more people now speak French.
It is important to put this in perspective. The proportion of French speakers has declined from 22.4% to 21.4%. Yes, Statistics Canada's figures show that the French language is in decline throughout Canada. The situation is the same in Quebec, only worse. Five years ago, there were 6.4 million people in Quebec whose first language was French. Today, there are 6.5 million. This is an increase in number, but a decrease in percentage, from 79% to 77.5%. We completely agree that the French language is in decline and that something must be done.
We know that the New Brunswick, Quebec and federal governments are working to improve the situation. Bills have been tabled and passed. Quebec passed Bill 96 in June. It is now law.
I will always sincerely respect my commitment. As an elected official at the federal level, I do not get involved in provincial affairs. I have enough on my plate without playing armchair quarterback. A bill was passed at the end of a debate last year to protect the French language. Was that a good thing or a bad thing? We will let the public decide.
At the federal level, the government tabled Bill C-13, which is currently being considered.
I will get back to this later, but I must say something first. It brings me no happiness to say it. I have the utmost respect for the woman herself, but when the government appoints someone as head of state who cannot speak both official languages, it is sending the wrong message. I have nothing against her, but I have a lot against the choice made by this government, which claims to be the great defender of the two official languages.
It sends a very strong message about the person representing the British monarch, not only symbolically but in actual terms. The late Queen spoke both official languages remarkably well, as does the current King, perhaps not as well as his mother, but we salute his outstanding effort. The government's appointee speaks French less proficiently than the person she is representing. The government is sending the wrong message.
We also understand that there is not a law in the world that could change anything about the reality people find themselves in today, whether they are accessing social media or any information that is disseminated around the world.
That is what I want to talk about. It is not because francophones learn English that they want to set the French language aside. The two languages are not mutually exclusive. We need to stop seeing English as the language of the Plains of Abraham. Rather, it is the language that is often used around the world today. It does not mean that we want to eradicate the French language. On the contrary, we must share with the world the fact that we speak French, that we are proud to speak French and that this country received the first Europeans who just happened to be French, like Jacques Cartier and Champlain.
Let us not forget former prime minister the Right Hon. Stephen Harper's lovely and meaningful custom of always starting his speeches in French wherever he was in the world, reminding people that Canada's first language was French.
Yes, people will be tempted to learn English. The two languages are not mutually exclusive.
One way we can make sure that francophones have an important place in our future is immigration policy. This is currently being debated in Quebec. Our history shows that the current debates on immigration in Quebec are nothing new.
In 1968, the Union Nationale government of the late Daniel Johnson Sr. created the ministry of immigration. In 1971, Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberal federal government entered into the Lang-Cloutier agreement with the Quebec government, allowing it to deploy agents abroad to recruit French-speaking immigrants to Quebec. The agreement was renewed in 1975. We mentioned the Andras-Bienvenue agreement, which recognized Quebec's special needs. There was also the milestone Cullen-Couture agreement in 1978. That is important because it was entered into by a sovereigntist government. Minster Couture reached an agreement with the federalist Liberal government of Canada led by Mr. Trudeau: it was this agreement that recognized Quebec and gave it decision-making powers over its choice of immigrants. In 1991, there was the extremely important Gagnon-Tremblay-McDougall agreement between Mr. Bourassa's provincial government and the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's federal government.
In short, negotiations between the federal and provincial governments have been positive and productive for over 50 years now. Of course, they can always be better, but no one should think that the debate on immigration to strengthen the French fact in Quebec is brand new or that it was only sparked by some electoral fervour. Quebec and Ottawa have been getting along for more than half a century.
I had a lot more to say but, unfortunately, my time is running out. I would remind the House that Bill C-13 provides an opportunity to overhaul the Official Languages Act. The Official Languages Act was created in 1969 by a previous government under Trudeau senior, and has been updated only once, in 1988, under Brian Mulroney. This needs to be done, and it must be done properly. We hope that Bill C-13 will be given a lot more teeth in order to help ensure the survival of the French language.
1407 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have been following this morning's debate and, in my view, there seems to be a bit of a cat fight in the House between Bill C-238, which seeks to comply with the will of the Quebec National Assembly on matters relating to Quebec's only official language, and Bill C-13.
I was surprised to hear the parliamentary secretary say earlier that Bill C-238 takes a Quebec-centric approach and fails to respect the rights of francophones outside Quebec, let alone even acknowledge the reality of francophones outside Quebec.
Unlike Bill C-238, what the government is offering us in Bill C-13 is essentially English in Montreal and English in Quebec. It is really important to compare and contrast these two bills. Unlike Bill C-238, Bill C-13 gives federally regulated businesses in Quebec the pretense of choice. It is merely a pretense of choice, giving them the option to operate in one official language or the other. Government members, some of whom have actually stood here in the House and publicly denied that French is in decline, seem to magically believe that a bank headquartered in Toronto, with the majority of its staff in Toronto and 80% of its market in English-speaking Canada, will be naturally inclined to offer services of equal quality in both English and French. Saying something like that is akin to leaving the future of our language in the hands of Michael Rousseau of Air Canada or in the hands of the Royal Bank of Canada, which once was “La Banque royale du Canada”.
The fact is, when these companies located in Quebec are given some semblance of a choice, they choose English. They choose English because it is easier, cheaper and more efficient for their accounting departments. Quebeckers are the ones who end up paying the price. This is happening despite the fact that French as a language of work works. It works for big corporations and multinationals, and for the flagship companies we are so proud of. That same model should apply to our federally governed enterprises.
Can anyone explain to me why the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, one of the largest pension funds in the world, which is governed by Quebec law, is able to operate in French and abide by the Charter of the French Language while making investments around the world? I would like someone to explain to me why the Caisse is able to do that.
Can anyone explain to me why Couche-Tard, headquartered in Laval, Quebec, can operate entirely in French at its headquarters while doing business internationally in pretty much every language of every country in which it does business? Couche-Tard can do that because the right signal and the right message have been sent. Do not try to tell me that an anglophone who goes to a Couche-Tard cannot buy a bag of chips in English.
The model that is working in Quebec should be replicated in businesses under federal jurisdiction. That is hardly small potatoes. We are talking about a major group of businesses with a large number of employees located for the most part in downtown Montreal, working mainly in English in some cases, which contributes to the anglicization of Montreal, its downtown and its cultural life.
Take telecommunications, for example. BCE has more than 14,000 employees, Rogers has 3,000 and Cogeco has 1,700. That means Quebec's telecommunications sector alone employs about 18,000 people. That is equivalent to the population of Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines, a town in my riding. That is a lot of people.
Then there are the banks. National Bank has 10,200 employees. I am not saying that they all necessarily speak English at work. What I am saying is that these thousands of workers have the right to work in French. They should not fall under a legislative regime where if just one person comes from Toronto or if just one person speaks English, everyone switches to English. We know what happens when there are 10 francophones and one anglophone at the table: They speak English over lunch. That is exactly what happens.
Quebeckers must be guaranteed the right to speak French at work. French is the only official and national language of Quebec. It is an inclusive language because it is our common language. The French language allows us to understand one another, integrate and grow together.
Quebec's banking sector alone employs 23,000 people. The aviation and rail transportation sectors would add another 9,000 or 10,000 people. The Liberals' bilingualism model is to linguistic policy what tax evasion is to taxation. It allows these businesses to be different from others. It gives these businesses a free pass and lets them break the rules. Francophones who want to work in telecommunications or in the rail transportation sector are subject to a regime that prevents them from working in Quebec's historical, national language.
The purpose of Bill C‑238 is to implement legislation that acknowledges the reality, the facts, the history and, most importantly, the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly. This is a bill that reflects the realities of Quebeckers and addresses the current confusion, which leaves Quebeckers under the impression that they are free to work in French in all federally regulated businesses. One does not need to have visited these businesses to understand that this is not the case.
There is another positive aspect to Bill C-238, specifically asymmetry. It is something that Canadian federalism has rejected all too often. In many provinces, such as Quebec, people's preferences and expectations, history, culture, the working world, practices and legislative agendas are not the same. Language in the workplace must also be dealt with a bit differently.
The principle of asymmetry is accepted in numerous areas, for example, in health care. The very fact that we are a federation implies that different provinces with different needs should work differently. There is also a certain asymmetry in the immigration system. Quebec has a certain number of targets in a certain number of programs, but not in all of them. For some time now, job training has been delegated to the Quebec government through special agreements. Why? Because Quebec has its own business ecosystem, its own community sector, its own institutions, and its own expectations. Bill C-238 does exactly the same thing.
What worries me about some of the speeches I have heard today, including the one from the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, a colleague I hold in high regard, is the fact that we are still having debates about whether francophones are or are not disappearing, whether French is or is not declining, and so on. Some Conservatives in the House, including the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, claim to be experts in mathematics. They look at three or four data points, see that such-and-such a statistic shows that there are three or four more francophones in such-and-such a place, and then some claim that there is no loss of francophones and no need to protect French. Just the fact that we are talking about it, that it is being brought up again, and that it is on the agenda demonstrates that there is a problem in Quebec. Can anyone tell me where in Canada there are debates about the disappearance of English? Nowhere. That is because it is obvious that English is not disappearing. French needs to be protected.
Bill C-238 is balanced, respectful, asymmetrical and well-thought-out. It will ensure that the real language of work in Quebec is French. Large companies will still be able to do business in English because that is the language everyone naturally gravitates to in North America. If we do not pass Bill C-238 but do pass Bill C-13, that force of gravity will simply lead us to unilingualism, eventually.
It is important to note, and I appreciated the speech by my colleague from the NDP, that the law applies only to Canadian citizens. Refugees and new immigrants under the family reunification program are exempt. This is an inclusive bill. I congratulate my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for introducing this bill. Of course, I am looking forward to voting for it.
1414 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as you probably know, the International Day of Older Persons is coming up soon. I would like to take advantage of the debate on my bill to draw everyone's attention to this important day, because the generation before mine did so much for the French language. As a society, it waged major battles. Its story is the story of a nation that owns its uniqueness. It is therefore fitting, on the eve of the International Day of Older Persons, to thank those who have done so much for our national language and who, quite frankly, are just as concerned about the decline of French as we are.
For some, conversations about the decline of French elicit a shrug of the shoulders. Members of Parliament say we are getting too worked up about it. They say we are misinterpreting the statistics, that the indicators do not accurately reflect new linguistic dynamics. It is a tempest in a teapot, they say. That was the message during the first hour of debate on Bill C‑238. However, Statistics Canada shed new light this summer on what is happening with French across Canada and in Quebec.
We knew it, but now it is clear. My colleague, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, predicted it. No matter what measure we use, we see a decline in French. In Quebec, there are fewer people whose mother tongue is French. The same goes for the primary language spoken at home and the language spoken in public, and that is key. It is a serious slide, to the benefit of English. What will my bill, which I have the honour of introducing on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, do to stop this decline?
It addresses two things: language of work and the language of newcomers. For language of work, Bill C‑238 incorporates the National Assembly's unanimous request to apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. Again, this was a unanimous request. Every Quebec member thought about the issue and came to the same conclusion. I hope that the House will be able to show a bit of consideration for democracy in Quebec.
During the first hour of debate, I heard someone say that Bill C‑13 would be better at protecting French at federally regulated businesses in Quebec. To say that is to flat out say no to the National Assembly. That is serious.
I have to say what I think. I do not trust the federal government to truly fight for the French language. It is the federal government that is responsible for the fact that, as we speak, a francophone veteran has to wait an average of 45 weeks for a decision on their file. An anglophone waits only 24 weeks. In Canada, discrimination based on language is tolerated. It is the federal government that is responsible for the fact that, in the House, ministers hold important briefings on their bills with no consideration for French. It is the federal government that tolerates the fact that it is very difficult for francophones to get top jobs in the government even though many francophones work in the public service. Despite efforts made in recent decades to protect French in Canada, everything is done in English.
I therefore place my trust in the Quebec government to ensure respect for Quebeckers' language rights, which is why Bill 101 must be applied to federally regulated businesses. Bill C‑238 has a second element, namely knowledge of French as a requirement for Quebec citizenship. To be clear, knowledge of French would be a requirement to obtain citizenship for people residing in Quebec. This would change nothing for people claiming refugee status or permanent residency. I think that this is a very reasonable provision.
There are all kinds of ways for people to step up and help stop the decline of the French language. I know that my bill is just one among many others. If I have not been convincing, I ask members to send Bill C‑238 to committee so that experts can come explain why it is so important. That is what Wednesday's vote will be about. My bill represents the first opportunity for all members of Parliament to show that they are concerned about the decline of French. My bill would give Quebec two new tools to help it wage this crucial, magnificent battle for the French language, for its words, its accents and its future. I urge members not to undermine the efforts of such a resilient nation. Let us pass Bill C‑238.
778 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 2:11:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has resumed parliamentary business, and the Conservatives are back with a new leader.
In the coming months, this leader will put people, their pensions, their paycheques, their homes and their country first. For this reason, he has entrusted me with the role of political lieutenant for Quebec to ensure that our vision for Canada includes the priorities of Quebec society.
I accept this role with humility, but also with the certainty that we will rally Conservatives across Quebec and offer political orphans a new vision of a government that is proactive, unlike the one that has governed us so poorly over the past seven years.
Over the next few months and starting this week, I will be meeting with the business community, ethnic communities and various stakeholders to learn more about their vision, their challenges and especially the solutions they are proposing to improve government services. Many issues need to be addressed and that is what I will be doing in collaboration with my colleagues.
Considering the ups and downs we have been experiencing as of late, changes need to be made. If anyone can bring hope to all Canadians and rally a majority of Quebeckers, it is the new Conservative leader.
208 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 2:30:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our health workers and our seniors need real help, measures that will be implemented and services. That is why we have been working with our provincial partners for quite some time and, yes, we are committed to making more investments in health care.
I know that Quebeckers and all Canadians expect to see results. That does not take just money, there have to be results. That is why we are having discussions with the provinces to ensure that these new investments make it into the right hands and really help people.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 2:41:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, thousands of Quebeckers marched last Friday to demand that governments take bolder action in the fight against climate change. The fact remains that if there is one government that is not doing enough, it is this federal government. Oil production continues to rise, and oil subsidies remain in place. Canada is still part of the problem, despite the rhetoric.
When will the minister start acting like we are in a climate emergency? When will he begin to take bold, concrete action to fight global warming?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate Bill C‑30, an act to amend the Income Tax Act regarding the temporary enhancement to the goods and services tax, or GST, credit.
Bill C‑30 is sponsored by the member for University—Rosedale, our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. This bill, which is at second reading in the House, would create a new refundable tax credit of $229 for a single person and $459 for a couple, with an extra $114 per dependent child. To be eligible for the full amount, however, people's income must be less than $39,826 in 2021.
If Bill C‑30 goes through quickly, eligible Quebeckers and Canadians may receive that tax credit in October. If not, it will not be available until November or December, which is very late. This measure, which will cost an estimated $2.5 billion, should help 11 million people. It is one tactic in the fight against inflation and the declining purchasing power of families in Quebec and Canada.
We in the Bloc Québécois have no problem supporting Bill C-30, but we wonder if the $39,826 threshold to receive the full benefits is not a bit low. Even with a slightly higher salary, home ownership is not possible in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada.
In the Laurentians, where my riding is located, the average rent for a three-bedroom apartment was $1,834 last spring. That is more than the cost of rent for the same type of apartment on the island of Montreal, and that is the number from six months ago.
Given that the cost of housing has risen twice as fast as the consumer price index, that number has already increased by $250 in only six months. When you do the math, it gets truly frightening. The bottom line is that an income threshold of $39,826 could almost be qualified as stingy.
There is more, however. The rebate decreases by 15 cents for every dollar earned above this threshold. This means that someone who earns $41,357 will not get a penny, even if the difference between the two amounts is quite small. I do understand, however, that 11 million people will benefit. We can assume that a lot of people will fall through the cracks, and that is what concerns me.
The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑30, but doubling the GST credit for six months will not magically allow Quebec seniors to get their heads above water.
Even before the surge of inflation, Canada was one of the industrialized countries where retirement income was the lowest compared to employment income for the same person. That number is 50.7% in Canada, compared to 57.6% in the OECD and 63% in Europe. Once we retire, we get half of what we earned when we were working. That is not a lot. It means that our seniors get poorer faster than those in other countries when they leave the workforce. Seniors need more than that to live in dignity. They need more than the $40 a month for six months that the government is currently offering them.
We in the Bloc Québécois have said it before, and we will say it again: We need keystone measures that are well thought out and properly targeted.
The first order of business would be to stop cutting the guaranteed income supplement payments of low-income seniors who received the Canada emergency response benefit or the Canada recovery benefit last year.
The second order of business would be to increase old age security by $110 a month, as soon as people reach 65 years of age. This is a measure the Bloc Québécois has been defending tooth and nail for the last two years.
Again, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑30, but I remind members that our party already asked for this measure six months ago in its budget expectations. It is nothing new and it did not just pop out of the heads of the Liberals. We helped inspire it. Six months is a long time when you do not know how you will make it to the end of the month or even the end of the week. Six months is a long time for the most vulnerable people and those who are in a financially precarious position. It is even worse if the refund is paid in December or October, as I said before.
Back home, singer-songwriter Dédé Fortin, who passed away unfortunately, summed it up best in his song The Answering Machine:Yesterday, I met a poor manHe lives on the street, doesn't own a thingHe told me something that I thought was really funnyLife is short, but it can be long at times
Let us think about that.
My colleagues opposite will say that inflation is dropping, that it was 8% in July and 7% in August. That is true, but the drop is due entirely to the price of gas, which fell 18.8% after reaching an all-time high in June. Everyone knows that Ottawa does not have a say in world oil prices, which are essentially set by the London and New York exchanges.
If we exclude gas, all other indices are rising, period. Baked goods have increased by 15.6%; fresh fruit, 13.2%; children's school supplies, 20%; housing, 15%; and the list goes on. These figures are from Statistics Canada, not me. In short, the Liberals can hardly be proud of and boast about this situation.
Increasing the GST credit is a good measure, but it is largely insufficient to make up for all the cost increases caused by the current surge in inflation. Right now, 41% of Quebeckers cannot make ends meet. I think it is urgent that the government step in in other areas to support them.
I would be remiss if I did not make the connection between the current relief measures and the situation of workers across the country. By country, I mean Quebec. Sadly, yesterday saw a return to the prepandemic EI system. Ottawa could have extended the measures it put in place during the pandemic. Ottawa could have delivered on its 2015 promise to reform EI. Ottawa did neither of those things. Now, six out of 10 workers are ineligible for benefits as of yesterday.
This is a government that gives with one hand and takes back with the other. How shameful. As Bloc Québécois members have said repeatedly, Ottawa has to deliver on its promise and completely overhaul the EI system. That would be, in my view, a truly meaningful measure, the kind we in the Bloc Québécois like to see. It would counter the negative impacts of the increased cost of living that is putting untenable pressure on Quebec workers. It would be far more effective than a $225 cheque. We in the Bloc Québécois hope that the government can understand that.
1208 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 7:57:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, thank you for that intervention.
As I was saying, we need to work together in a collaborative and proactive way. In exceptional situations like this, we must set partisanship aside and work for our constituents. All weekend long, my thoughts were with the residents of the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands. I was in the Gaspé Peninsula myself, and I must say that the winds were more intense than usual. In Matane, we are used to the wind, but this time it was something else.
Again, I want to thank all the people who are still helping out tonight, especially the firefighters and the line workers. I want to say hello again to my second dad, Mario, who is in Nova Scotia right now reconnecting homes that have had power outages. I also want to thank the military, the Red Cross workers, the many volunteers from St. John Ambulance and all the people who have helped out since Friday.
The Bloc Québécois just announced a partnership with the Red Cross. We did the same thing in May in solidarity with Ukraine and raised close to $35,000. Once again, we are counting on the generosity of Quebeckers and all citizens to help those in need.
I would like to take a moment this evening to commend the federal government, which, I must say, worked actively and collaboratively this weekend. I received a call from the Minister of Emergency Preparedness. I was provided with regular updates from his team, which showed that the government was prepared to deal with the situation, at least in the short term. It was ready to communicate with all levels of government, municipalities, provincial governments and opposition parties. I think that is to be commended. In politics, we too often spend our time criticizing each other. However, it is important to give praise where praise is due, like in this case. As I was saying, we have to work together, so I really want to recognize the government's proactive work this weekend.
This proactive work was necessary because hurricane Fiona has been devastating. The storm brought sustained winds of 80 kilometres an hour, with gusts reaching 90 to 120 kilometres an hour. A gust of 171 kilometres an hour was even recorded in Nova Scotia. Southwest Newfoundland was hit particularly hard. Water ripped through at least 20 homes in Port aux Basques. Hundreds of residents were forced to evacuate the area and move into a shelter.
The magnitude of the destruction is also evident in Prince Edward Island. Countless homes, businesses and wharves have been damaged. Some 200 people had to be evacuated from Cape Breton Island. The largest waves on the Gulf of St. Lawrence generally reached four to six metres. Ten-metre waves were recorded east of the Gaspé Peninsula. Ten metres is very high. At their peak, the waves reached 16 metres. The winds and waves damaged or destroyed many buildings. They washed away homes, cars and boats, the kinds of things people often spend their whole lives working for.
Eastern Gaspé has also sustained major damage. Château Dubuc in Chandler was swept away by waves on Saturday. I will say a little more about this building. I can say that it pained a good number of Gaspesians to watch a video of Château Dubuc being washed into the sea. The video has been shared thousands of times on social networks. It was a beloved heritage building that represented part of the industrial history of Chandler. In recent years, the municipality fought to save this heritage building from being destroyed. Unfortunately, it was already in very poor condition due to previous storms, and it was already at risk of being swept out to sea.
Levels of government failed to protect it in time, despite repeated requests from local communities. This long battle to restore the former inn began with the high tides of 2016 and 2017, when its protective wall was damaged, making it even more vulnerable to inclement weather. Later, in February 2021, the wall finally gave way, leaving the building unprotected. It was already very fragile, but this once again attests to our governments' lack of foresight when it comes to extreme weather events such as Fiona.
For Patrimoine Gaspésie, the destruction of Château Dubuc represents the disappearance of a part of Chandler's history. It is the loss of a heritage property that was the last physical remnant of the city's grand industrial era, as the chair of Patrimoine Gaspésie pointed out.
The Gaspé and Percé areas were also hard hit. The waves struck with great force. The sea rose over the pier in Rivière-au-Renard. Trees and utility poles were downed. Route 132 was quickly closed in Gaspé. The site of the Gaspé Oktoberfest in Percé suffered a lot of physical damage as well. The festival has been cancelled for this weekend.
There was water and debris on Highway 132 around La Martre, Marsoui, Manche‑d'Épée and Gros‑Morne. Wave run-up also caused coastal flooding in some areas.
Other sectors of the Gaspé Peninsula were also affected. High winds downed trees along Highway 198 between Murdochville and Gaspé and on Highway 299. Some places unfortunately still have no cell service, which is causing an even bigger safety issue. Local authorities are staying alert, and the roads continue to be closely monitored by the Quebec department of transport.
On the Magdalen Islands, the damage is even greater. Waves submerged wharves in several places, damaging several boats. Flash flooding destroyed dozens of buildings. On Havre Aubert Island, the coastline was completely underwater. Almost all the waterfront homes were flooded. The winds also tore off part of the roof of the Saint‑Pierre‑de‑La‑Vernière heritage church in L'Étang‑du‑Nord.
The areas hardest hit by the flooding include the historic site of La Grave on Havre Aubert Island, the Pointe‑Basse wharf, and the La Martinique area.
We obviously do not yet have an estimate of the damages, but at least 37 people had to be evacuated. There were fortunately no deaths or injuries on the islands. Highways were reopened last night and there are many Hydro-Québec teams on site to restore power to the nearly 6,000 people affected by outages.
One of the two underwater telecommunications cables connecting the islands to the mainland was damaged. The second cable held, which allowed people on the islands to maintain direct contact with the rest of Quebec. Imagine if both cables had been damaged. People on the Magdalen Islands would have been left to fend for themselves.
According to the interim mayor, they are looking at tens of thousands of dollars in damage, unless there are other surprises in the coming days. That is likely, since it is very difficult to assess the situation right now. It is still difficult to assess water damage on site.
Work to backfill the cliffs in Cap-aux-Meules was well under way when Fiona hit the east coast. The work site has suffered an estimated $150,000 to $200,000 in damage.
The beach developments in the Havre-Aubert area have held and proved their effectiveness. There was some flooding. The water went over the shoreline, but nothing was destroyed. We can conclude that the project was successful. That is at least one positive thing to take away from this that will help for what is to come. What is to come is the implementation of climate change adaptation measures.
The Government of Quebec quickly offered help. It will compensate island homeowners who did not have insurance. A special office will be set up in the next few days. Homeowners who were affected will be able to submit a request to the Department of Public Safety online or by phone.
Several cities quickly declared a state of emergency. In the Gaspé, declaring a state of emergency allows local mayors to make financial decisions without going through the city council. It is usually done to simplify the setting up of support programs to help the people affected.
As for the federal government, I know the government was on alert and had possible solutions on the table. However, I also know that when similar events have occurred in the past, the funds sometimes took a while to flow, which was criticized right away. I hope the government will step up quickly this time.
One thing is certain: We cannot leave municipalities and provinces to fend for themselves. In Maria, in my riding, it recently cost $10 million to deal with the effects of climate change on one short kilometre of road. It is often said that the energy transition will be expensive, but not doing it now will cost us even more.
This all raises many questions. One question I think we need to ask ourselves is this: Why is eastern Canada being hit by a tropical storm?
In an interview on CPAC earlier, I was asked about the connection I made in the House today between hurricane Fiona and climate change. The truth is that it is impossible not to make that connection. There is a direct correlation between global warming and extreme and violent weather events. That is undeniable. The experts agree.
Data recorded over the past 50 years ago by the U.S. National Hurricane Center show that cyclone events have clearly been increasing in intensity since the late 1990s.
Scientists expect that global warming will result in more intense cyclones producing stronger winds and more rain because of higher ocean temperatures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, confirmed it in its August 2021 study.
Whether the current disaster is directly or indirectly related to climate change is certainly not what we are debating. The fact is that climate change will result in more extreme weather events that will have a greater impact on our way of life and our societies. The current disaster is an example of the challenges the world will face in the future.
The proliferation of extreme weather events means governments need to do more faster to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so we can minimize global temperature increases. Governments also need to adapt to the effects of climate change by doing things like upgrading infrastructure. That is the adaptation piece.
I want to emphasize the importance of making the energy transition a reality in order to build a more resilient society. As early as the summer of 2020, my party made proposals to that effect when we published a green recovery plan. Quebec's regions have needs when it comes to adapting to environmental change. Our regions are not immune to the devastating effects of natural disasters. We are seeing this once again today.
We need to focus more on protecting our shorelines. For years, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the government to take a more aggressive approach to tackling shoreline erosion. There used to be a federal program that provided funding for shoreline protection. It was abolished and never reinstated. The Bloc Québécois has suggested reinstating it and even proposed that a fund be created to fight erosion with $250 million in annual funding. The funding must be recurrent and predictable.
The fight against climate change must be based on both mitigation of and adaptation to the effects of climate change. The amount of money invested in the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund is not enough to build the kind of infrastructure we need to counteract the negative effects of climate change. It is about $3 billion over 10 years. That is not enough.
The throne speech mentions investing in preventing and preparing for certain negative impacts of climate change. It talks about a national adaptation strategy. That would be the first such strategy to be published by the Canadian government. The environment minister talked about it at COP26 last year. Almost one year later, nothing has been published. We know nothing about the strategy or the Canadian government's plan for adaptation and resilience in the face of climate change.
Is it not unusual that, in 2022, we still do not have this plan, even after experiencing several intense weather events, such as this weekend's storm?
I believe that now more than ever, we must get to work, develop this strategy and implement it as quickly as possible to help our communities be more resilient and prepared to face climate change and its effects.
I believe this will quickly become the priority. The minister knows this full well. I do not know why he is not taking action right now. If members want my opinion, it is deplorable that the Liberal government boasts about fighting climate change, but does not implement the changes required to make the energy transition happen in Canada and to divest from fossil fuels. What we are seeing today is that it is not enough to fix the damage caused by weather events. We must prevent these events from happening in the first place.
People are getting increasingly worried. In my riding, more and more citizen committees are being formed to call on the different levels of government to act immediately. A woman who owns land in Métis‑sur‑Mer contacted my office recently to say that stones at least a metre in size have been carried away by the sea over the past year. People from Sainte‑Félicité who had never engaged in activism before gathered one Saturday this spring to take part in an event organized by a UQAR student studying shoreline erosion. Every participant said the same thing: They are worried about the future.
We cannot in good faith or good conscience continue to fund projects that exacerbate climate change. Today, the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs was studying whether indigenous communities are ready and able to deal with natural disasters.
Darcy Gray, the chief of the Mi'kmaq community of Listuguj, recounted the painful memories and events tied to the 2018 flooding, which affected a number of homes. He mentioned that the criteria for compensation changed along the way, lowering the number of qualifying homes.
These events could happen again. Are we really prepared to deal with that? The answer, unfortunately, is no. We have to take action to both adapt and mitigate.
Canada has long been criticized for not meeting its greenhouse gas reduction targets and for continuing to heavily subsidize its oil and gas industry instead of investing in renewable energy and developing the green economy.
However, the government remains obsessed with fossil fuels and unwilling to start gradually cutting back production. Much was made of the promise to cap oil and gas sector emissions, but that promise did not include gradually phasing out coal, oil and gas. The claim is that these industries can be environmentally friendly by making their operations less carbon-intensive.
In other words, as the world transitions away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy systems, Canada and the Liberal government are transitioning from fossil fuels to fossil fuels.
How many taxpayer dollars will Canada waste on helping polluters pollute less instead of helping innovative companies create the economy of the future?
For example, Canada's grey-hydrogen strategy and the dubious promises regarding carbon capture, use and storage technologies have already made it clear that the Liberals' inaction is going to come with a hefty price tag. We are already paying millions of dollars to develop untested technology that will be implemented years from now, when it is too late to help Canada meets its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target. All of that to produce so-called greener oil and gas rather than making the real ecological and energy transition.
Whether the current catastrophe is directly or indirectly linked to climate change is perhaps not the subject of the debate. However, it reminds us that we must absolutely, and as quickly as possible, prepare our communities to face the effects of climate change, which will be increasingly violent.
2739 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 9:39:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time on my feet since hurricane Fiona made landfall 72 hours ago, I want to make sure that all members in the communities that were affected know that our hearts are with them.
I want to say to Quebeckers affected by the hurricane that we are there for them.
I have a son posted in Gagetown, and my older son actually deployed as part of Operation Lentus back in 2019 in response to the flooding. Our colleague from Cape Breton—Canso talked about Canadian Armed Forces members who were on the ground immediately to help with removing debris and assisting with connectivity issues for electricity and so on.
Could the member elaborate a bit on what he is forecasting with respect to medium-term needs? What does he anticipate might be needed on the ground in supporting the Canadian Armed Forces?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
