44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 10, 2023 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on a subject that is near and dear to my heart, namely, official languages, and the French language in particular.
First of all, I hope everyone can hear my Saguenay accent, because I am very proud of it. There are many types of linguistic variations: morphological, syntactic, diachronic. Speakers choose a certain word and not another, and the reason for their choice is mainly due to their age or geographic location. Therefore, I hope that everyone understands that, when I speak, my lexicon is tinged, shaped by my regional roots in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. I am proud to be someone from the Saguenay who says “là là” every once in a while.
No matter where we come from, language unites, brings us together and creates a feeling of community. Regardless of a person's accent, the expressions they use or the words they choose, French speakers are vectors of a true linguistic treasure. This language that we share and love so much is a legacy that has been bequeathed to us and of which we can be very proud.
As members can see, I care deeply about my language. I learned enough English to have a foundation, but there is nothing like proudly carrying the voice of my constituents in Ottawa in French. French has always been a big part of my identity.
I want to talk a little bit about linguistic identity, because that concept really resonates with me. I have never been embarrassed to identify myself as a francophone anywhere in the country or in the world. If someone were to ask me to describe myself in a few words, one of the adjectives I would use would obviously be “francophone”. Being francophone is part of my identity. It guides me and is part of who I am. Language allows us to express our thoughts and feelings, to communicate with those we love, to exchange opinions, to open up to the world. Language is one of the tools of our trade as politicians. We must use our language skills to debate, to denounce the things we disagree with and to support what we think is right.
Language is more than important; it is essential, hence the importance of promoting the richness of our two official languages across the country. That is why I am very pleased to rise in the House and begin the discussion on Bill C-13 to amend the Official Languages Act. Specifically, this conversation is relevant and necessary, because the Liberals have proposed a number of amendments. I was actually quite surprised when I saw the list of Liberal amendments, because I thought the Minister of Official Languages was insisting that the bill be passed as quickly as possible, because it was supposedly ready to be voted on.
I even remember that just a few months ago, the minister wanted to remove witnesses from the list of the Standing Committee on Official Languages when it was studying the bill. She did not think it was a good idea to hear from experts on such an important issue. We are talking about linguistics professors from several universities, stakeholders and people on the ground. She wanted to move a motion that was nothing more than a gag order.
As a result of the pressure applied by my colleague and friend, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, whom I would like to thank once more, we fortunately obtained more time for witnesses at the Standing Committee on Official Languages to continue studying the bill. The minister took a strictly political approach and wanted to end debate. As usual, the Liberals make it a priority to advance their political agenda and, this time, it was at the expense of bilingualism and the protection of French in Canada. The minister mentioned several times that she wanted to speed up debate on Bill C‑13 and pass it as quickly as possible.
It seems to me that anyone who wants to pass a bill quickly does not move 10 motions. What is more, why move so many motions in amendment if the bill is considered ready to be passed?
The Minister of Official Languages is being very contradictory on this file, but contradiction is not exactly out of character for the Liberals. The good news is that the Conservatives are here to fix the Liberals' broken promises.
As far as Bill C‑13 is concerned, I hope that the minister does not really believe that her bill will slow the decline of French. They keep making things up as they go along. It makes us wonder if the minister truly understands the issue of Canada's official languages. If she went out there to talk to the communities involved, the people who are living in linguistic insecurity daily, she would see that she is wrong.
Linguistic insecurity can be described as feeling uneasy, uncomfortable, even anxious about using one's mother tongue in an environment where they are not the majority. Obviously, that concept has become a hot topic for official language minority communities and Bill C‑13 is not exactly going to make them feel less linguistic insecurity. The content of this bill is not a big step forward for francophones outside Quebec or those in Quebec either.
Most of the amendments proposed by stakeholders, including the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Commissioner of Official Languages, were not even heard by the Liberals. Ignoring the observations made by the people on the ground who are directly affected by Bill C‑13 shows a complete lack of respect.
However, the Liberal-NDP coalition is not listening to Canadians. Once again, it only wants to advance its own political agenda. It wants to check Bill C‑13 off the list and move on to the next item.
Let me assure all the stakeholders we met with that the Conservative Party is here. We listened to them, and we have worked hard to incorporate their requests and their demands into this bill.
I would like to remind the House of a few Conservative amendments that were unfortunately rejected. First of all, we wanted to expand the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. It is vital to enhance the commissioner's ability to perform the duties of that position. Right now, the commissioner's powers are too narrow. In practical terms, the commissioner has the power to make orders concerning parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act. The problem is that the very core of the act is in part VII. Part VII is the one that talks about the equality of status of French and English and mechanisms for achieving it.
The commissioner must have the power to make orders that will ensure that federal institutions follow through on implementing positive measures, and that these measures do not have a harmful impact on official language minority communities. Bill C‑13 contains nothing but commitments under part VII of the act, without any obligation to achieve results. A lack of results is a tendency we see fairly often among the Liberals. For that reason, we wanted a central agency and expanded powers for the commissioner, to ensure that there is a way to meet the equality of status objective, and because we can by no means rely on the Liberals.
Then, we wanted to add obligations for federal institutions to take the necessary measures to protect and promote both official languages. The Conservatives were asking for regular, proactive reviews of the act in order to ensure that any necessary adjustments are made in keeping with the linguistic situation at any given time.
In short, I am disappointed, not only as a Conservative MP, because my party's amendments were not incorporated into the bill, but also as a francophone. I feel that the government is abandoning Quebeckers, official language speakers in minority settings and the French language altogether.
A Conservative government will ensure that we put a stop to the decline of the French language and that it is promoted across Canada. Bring back common sense.
1387 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague well knows, we are currently at report stage. It is not yet time to vote. The next step will be to debate the amendments and then, further down the road, we will vote.
I remember noticing when I was in committee that there were a lot of contradictions among the Liberal caucus members who were there. It seemed like the West Island contingent had one version and everyone else had another.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. That is a good question. First of all, the Liberals are out in left field because English is not in decline. I completely agree with my colleague.
We are missing three things that the Liberals failed to pay attention to. We need a central agency. We need to give the commissioner more powers, particularly for part VII, and we need to give the commissioner the power to issue orders.
I do hope that, at some point, the members of the Liberal caucus will be able to agree on official languages.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I find it rather odd that the Liberals are always looking back at the past.
We had an opportunity here. The Liberals had the opportunity to move this bill forward, but they did everything they could to delay it.
The bill was not ready, but they were saying that it was ready to be introduced and voted on. Now we find out that there are 10 motions that we need to debate. What is more, the Liberals rejected all of the amendments that we proposed. I think that they need to ask themselves a few hard questions.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague wants to know why the Liberals rejected this option, which was a very good option.
They rejected an option that would have significantly improved things because they were not interested. We never know what truly goes on in their heads. We never got the sense that they wanted to move this bill forward.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
