44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 26, 2023 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the work of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages, with whom we worked on Bill C-13 at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I would like to inform my colleague that, today, we are not debating the bill at third reading. We are studying the bill at report stage. My colleague should have spoken a little about the amendment motions he moved that delayed the study and passage of Bill C‑13.
I would like to know why my colleague did not move these motions to amend in committee when we were working on Bill C‑13.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to say that I would have liked to debate the motion moved by my Bloc Québécois colleague. I think that we Conservatives would have agreed to it, because it is consistent with what we presented in committee, in that it is about shortening the review period. Instead of 10 years, as written, we wanted to shorten the period to five years, but the Liberals refused. My colleague in the Bloc Québécois had an even better idea, which was to reduce the review period to three years. When something is urgent, we need time to react. The faster we react, the easier it is to close the gap in order to halt the decline of the French language.
As a fervent defender of French, I am always happy to rise in the House of Commons to defend the language. My goal is obviously to halt the decline of the French language and to protect and promote both official languages.
Before I get into the nuts and bolts of the issue, that is, the government's proposed amendments to Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages, at report stage, it is important to understand how we got here.
Earlier, my colleague mentioned that funding was doubled, but we lost eight years that could have been spent providing the tools needed to protect French here in Canada. This government has been in power for eight years and, for eight years, it has dragged its feet when it comes to official languages. It gives organizations the illusion that it is doing enough to protect bilingualism in Canada.
Way back in 2018, the Prime Minister pledged to modernize the Official Languages Act, a promise that was repeated in the 2019 and 2021 Liberal platforms. It will probably be repeated again in the next election campaign, the outcome of which remains to be seen.
In 2021, the government tabled a white paper on the reform of the Official Languages Act, titled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”. Bill C-32 was tabled by the then minister of official languages, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but it later died on the Order Paper when the government decided to call an election.
When she was appointed after the 2021 election, the new Minister of Official Languages promised that she would present a new version of the Official Languages Act in her first 100 days. She almost kept her promise. Bill C-13 was tabled in March 2022 to halt the decline of the French language in Canada and promote our two official languages, English and French.
Why am I focusing on the words “English and French” when talking about bilingualism? It is because the government appointed a Governor General who is bilingual, but who does not speak French. The Governor General is our representative, and has some lovely qualities, but unfortunately, she does not speak French. That is a good representation of how much this government cares about defending the French fact.
If it were as important to the Liberals as they say it is, rather than just an election promise, we would not be here today debating Bill C‑13, since a reform would have been adopted long ago.
In rising in the House today, on April 26, at report stage of Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages, I recall the many times the language minister rose in this chamber.
She stated:
I hope once again that members of the House will work with us because stakeholders across the country want this bill to be passed as quickly as possible and we have a lot of work to do.
She was right. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages tried several times in committee to shut down debate on this bill by limiting the number of witnesses who would appear before the committee and the amount of time that would be spent debating the amendments. The Conservative Party of Canada takes English-French bilingualism very seriously.
We had an incredible opportunity to modernize the Official Languages Act, something that has not been done since 1988. As parliamentarians, this was our chance to take meaningful action to reverse the decline of French, a very real problem in both Canada and Quebec.
We were good sports and reached out to find compromises to move this file forward. We took the time to listen to stakeholder organizations that are feeling the impact of the decline of French every day, and we took the necessary action to give Bill C-13 more teeth, as the minister has said. However, we were unsuccessful because of a lack of will on the part of the government.
At committee stage, the Liberals moved over 50 amendments, many of which were identical but were submitted by different Liberal members. Some Liberal members also monopolized the time for debate and kept the Standing Committee on Official Languages from moving forward. That shows three things: The Liberals are not working as a team, they are inconsistent and they are disorganized.
Now here we are today, April 26, 2023, at report stage, with about 10 government motions on the table, and that is after some were withdrawn. These motions do not amend the substance of the bill. They could easily have been put forward in committee, but the Liberals chose instead to draw out the process for passing the bill.
I heard my colleague talking earlier about moving forward as quickly as possible so that the bill can be passed as soon as possible, as all organizations are calling for. Unfortunately, this was not taken into consideration, which is why, today, we are talking about details that are wasting time and dragging out the debate.
In accordance with the normal legislative process, we will have to vote at report stage. That will be followed by another stage in the House of Commons. We do not know when this will happen, since the government has not revealed its strategy. However, we will have to return to the House, debate and vote. Then the bill will have to be studied by the other place, the Senate. This shows that the Liberal government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It says it wants to move fast, but it is disorganized. Amendments were moved today. Amendments were moved in committee. I just want to point out that the Liberals moved 50 amendments.
They drafted a white paper, Bill C-32 and Bill C‑13. They submitted Bill C‑13 to committee and are submitting it again today. What does that show? It shows that the government does not necessarily want to fast-track Bill C‑13. I think that is unfortunate.
I also think it is unfortunate that the Bloc Québécois was unable to move its motion because the Liberals objected. I respect and accept your decision, but the decision was made based on the fact that it could have been debated in committee, yet that also applies to what the government just proposed.
Unfortunately, the act will not have a shorter review period that would allow us to make adjustments when we find out, on the day it takes effect after the bill receives royal assent, that it cannot ensure that concrete action will be taken to halt the decline of the French language in Canada.
I think that this is important, that we should be proud of this bill, proud of our French language and proud of our English language. Bilingualism is something for Canada to be proud of, something that makes us attractive and unique. We owe it to ourselves to respect the organizations that work hard every day to protect our official language minority communities.
With all due respect for my colleague, we in the Conservative Party of Canada will once again reach out and not obstruct the progress of Bill C‑13.
However, I hope the Liberal government does not have any more surprises in store for us that will slow the process down. We should pass the bill as soon as possible so we can move on to something else and give our organizations the tools they need to do what they do every day to protect the French language, halt its decline, and protect and promote English and French. We do not want to pit our two official languages against each other. We are proud of both.
1456 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very relevant.
I would like to point out that he may have been reading from the wrong page in his speech because his was a third reading speech. We are in the House to debate motions that were moved by the Liberal government.
I can assure the House and all Canadians that our leader will take a position and will vote on Bill C‑13 in due time.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague and I have the same objective.
I had the pleasure of working harmoniously with the Bloc Québécois to advance Bill C‑13 and above all to stop the decline of French and protect it. In the Conservative Party, we have a more Canadian vision, that of protecting English and French in minority communities.
Now, what my colleague mentioned is not in Bill C‑13, but in the action plan for official languages, which was announced today. As if by chance, we are debating Bill C‑13 in the House today and the government decides to introduce its action plan. There is a marketing strategy there.
What I want to say is that we were not available for the reading of the action plan. There will be a briefing session tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock, and I will be attending.
The information I received is that 20% of the funding will be allocated to anglophone minorities in Quebec. The question we must ask is, on what criteria was that percentage based?
As my colleague mentioned concerning official languages, the situation of French outside Quebec is different from that of English in Quebec. I have fundamental questions about the percentage. We must not neglect our anglophone friends but there is no denying that additional efforts are needed for francophones outside Quebec.
234 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I had the privilege of working on Bill C‑13.
With regard to francophone immigration, it is unfortunate that there is only one small paragraph in Bill C‑13 about identifying targets and indicators, but no obligation to achieve results.
We did a more pragmatic study in committee. We adapted our motion to be more in line with the NDP's, to ensure that we have accurate data to promote francophone immigration, and I hope the results will be very encouraging for the future of francophone immigration in Canada.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge and thank my colleague for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. We worked very actively on Bill C‑13, although we did not always see eye to eye.
I heard her say in her speech that she was satisfied with Bill C‑13 and that the central agency, the Treasury Board, would do the work associated with the act as a whole. She talked about language provisions.
I would like her to reassure me. Were these supposed to be the provisions with teeth that would halt the decline of French and protect and promote the two official languages? I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of Bill C‑13.
I would like her to tell us more about the role of the central agency, the Treasury Board.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech.
I would like his thoughts on the fact that today we are debating motions moved by the government. As a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, he participated in the clause-by-clause study of the bill. I would like to know if all of this is consistent. He probably heard what I heard. This bill urgently needed to be adopted and the Liberals were quite adamant about it. I would like the member to tell me whether we are wasting our time today because we are delaying yet again the adoption of the bill that was urgent. We also saw obstruction from the government in committee.
I am a bit confused. I would like my colleague to help me untangle all this.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
