SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 282 - Feb/14/24

Feb/14/24 5:37:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do feel that we were allies with the Bloc, and we are allies in what has happened. The Bloc got this right from day one. Keep it in the province. Why did the feds wade into this water? Why did they do this?

46 words

Mr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC)

Feb/14/24 5:37:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35 Bill C-13

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Peterborough—Kawartha, who does excellent work on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It was a pleasure for me to work with her on the official languages section on this bill. It is always a pleasure for me to rise in the House to debate important issues that affect Canadians. People who know me know that I am a staunch defender of the French fact, so I am particularly enthusiastic about speaking on official languages, obviously in French. That is a valid question. Why are official languages mentioned in the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act? The answer is quite simple. The current Liberal government has once again forgotten francophone minority communities. That comes as no surprise. However, as we have already seen when modernizing the Official Languages Act, the Liberal government claims to be the champion of official languages, but lacks courage when it comes time to take meaningful action. That is what the Liberals are: all talk and no action. Because of the Liberal government's lack of vision and ambition, the elephant gave birth to a mouse, as I like to say when describing Bill C‑13. It aims to modernize the Official Languages Act. It was the first official languages review process in over 30 years. The government turned a deaf ear to stakeholders across the country. This is yet another missed opportunity. That has often been our experience with this Liberal government, which has been in power for eight years. There is no obligation to count the rights holders. The federal authorities' powers are diluted. There is no central agency. There is no accountability. That is how it is with the Liberals. No one is ever accountable. What about the Commissioner of Official Languages, who is still awaiting the order in council granting him his powers? It is written in the act, but who is going to table that order before the government? Is it the President of the Treasury Board? Is it the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is one of the two ministers named in the legislation, but will not even appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages? Is it the Minister of Official Languages? Is this the Minister of Justice? Who is it? No one knows and, in the meantime, the commissioner is waiting to take action. I would like to remind the House that French is in decline across Canada. The Liberals' approach to official languages is not serious, and it shows how little interest they have in this country's bilingualism. Bill C‑35 passed unanimously here in the House last June. Today, however, we are debating a Senate amendment put forward by Senator Cormier, an Acadian, who stood up for francophones. He wants to add the words “official language minority communities” to the first sentence of clause 8, after “including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples”; and he divides clause 8 into two paragraphs. It is not complicated. However, we are still debating that today. Wow. The first paragraph sets out the government's financial commitment. The second paragraph outlines the mechanisms that the federal government will use to provide the funding. Adding the words “official language minority communities” after the word “including” does not detract from any rights of any other minority or of indigenous peoples, but seeks to eliminate any ambiguity before the courts. The Liberals did a sloppy job, the Senate raised a red flag and made the necessary corrections. The Liberals always fly by the seat of their pants and leave things to the last minute. There is no discipline. We are well aware of how much work and resources official language minority communities must put into defending their language rights. Let us talk about that. Even though the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique in its case against Employment and Social Development Canada, the federation still has to fight with the Minister of Official Languages to have that ruling enforced. It is unbelievable. What a waste of time and money. However, as we saw again today, the Liberals think that money grows on trees. Early childhood is a critical period for children when it comes to learning language skills and developing their identity. All too often, access to early childhood services in French is essential for francophone minority communities to pass on their language and culture. These services are vectors for French learning, ensuring that children acquire the language skills they need to prepare them for an education in their own language, and facilitating their integration into francophone schools across Canada. This contributes to the implementation of the right to education, as enshrined in section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We believe that this amendment is relevant and necessary. I would also like to point out that the references to official language minority communities already found in clause 7 and clause 11 are thanks to the Conservative Party of Canada. I was the one who introduced them. I had the support of the Bloc Québécois, but the NDP and the Liberals voted against some of the amendments we proposed. However, we were able to get some of them through. Unfortunately, some others were rejected, and we had to go through the Senate. The Conservative Party of Canada made sure that francophones across Canada were included in the bilateral agreements for early childhood services. I would also like to take a moment to thank the folks at the Commission nationale des parents francophones and at the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada for their hard work on this file. The Liberals are not in favour of this amendment because they had to go through the Senate. Even the Speaker of the Senate, the government representative, clearly indicated that he would not support Senator Cormier's amendment. That was the stance the Liberal government was taking. Again, the Liberals flip-flopped. Francophones are the ones who took a stand. As I said, the Liberals were not in favour of this amendment. The government's position was that this amendment was not necessary or appropriate. However, today, out of the blue, the Liberals are saying that they are in favour of the amendment. What is the reason for that? Every individual should have access to early child care services in the official language of their choice, and that is non-negotiable as long as our country, Canada, is a bilingual country. I want to emphasize the concept of French and English bilingualism, because it is important to remember that this government appointed a governor general who is bilingual, but who does not speak French. I would also like to add that only one province in Canada is bilingual. This government appointed a unilingual lieutenant governor who, obviously, does not speak French, because the Liberals are inconsistent. Their intentions and desires may go beyond what is set out in the laws, but, unfortunately, the Liberal government does not walk the talk. The Liberals realized that they would lose support in francophone regions and decided to adopt the Conservative Party of Canada's common-sense position. Yes, it is common sense. As long as we are a bilingual country, we should be consistent and protect both official languages. We saw the Liberals use this same tactic with the pause on the carbon tax in Atlantic Canada. It is so odd. The Liberals reacted blindly, in panic mode. They punished all other Canadians outside the Atlantic provinces by denying them heat pumps. That was a problem. They were just reacting. Then the Liberals changed their minds and said that Albertans and British Columbians might be able to use the credit. Again, they were improvising. It is unfortunate. This government is a disaster. It is shameful to try to score political points off our country's bilingual identity. In closing, my message for francophones across the country is simple: Here in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party of Canada is the only party that can truly protect their interests. We will continue to take concrete action and stop the decline of French, which is a fact across Canada. We will also protect and promote our two official languages. We will not pit French against English. We intend to protect both official languages, French and English.

1446 words

Mr. Darrell Samson (Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, Lib.)

Feb/14/24 5:47:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-13

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague for his speech and, more importantly, for his hard work on Bill C‑13. All parties in the House worked together to support francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec, and it was a great victory. I always appreciate my colleague's work. However, I must point out that what he says and what his party says are two different things. The ideology of the party—

80 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/24 5:48:12 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member is not wearing a tie. Now that he is wearing his tie, the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook has the floor again.

28 words

Mr. Darrell Samson

Feb/14/24 5:48:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain that it was during the nine years of the Harper government that we saw major cuts to the Translation Bureau. Court challenges that we brought—

33 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Feb/14/24 5:48:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to follow and enforce the Standing Orders. We know that male members cannot speak in the House if they are not wearing a tie.

37 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/24 5:49:01 p.m.
Watch

I watched him put on his tie.

7 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Feb/14/24 5:49:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we agree that you would not normally have recognized the member in the first place since he was not wearing a tie. You did recognize him. We understand, but we are simply asking you to follow and enforce the Standing Orders next time.

45 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/24 5:49:24 p.m.
Watch

I did not realize he was not wearing a tie. I will be more careful next time. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

25 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/14/24 5:49:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a well-established precedent that if a member does not have a tie, but then gets a tie and puts it on the Speakers have always allowed them to continue their speech.

43 words

Mr. John Brassard

Feb/14/24 5:49:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I say we let him go because the tie does not match the shirt. If he wants to stand in this place like that, then he should go ahead.

38 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/24 5:49:57 p.m.
Watch

Personally, I think this is taking too long. The hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

17 words

Mr. Darrell Samson

Feb/14/24 5:50:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am Canadian, and I am sure everyone is proud they are here today discussing important things for Canadians. I will quickly finish my question. I would like to acknowledge the work that has been done on this issue. I would like my colleague to talk about the importance of early child care in Canada. That is what is important here. Francophones across Canada have missed out a lot of opportunities and have been assimilated. It is because they did not have the opportunity to receive preschool education in French. I would like my colleague to say how happy we are today to be working together to make the major changes that needed to be made.

118 words

Mr. Joël Godin

Feb/14/24 5:50:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell viewers at home that they do not need to adjust their video, even though the tie does not match. My colleague is a colourful character and I really appreciate his presence at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. As for the tie, I will give him some fashion advice this evening. I just want to say to my colleague that today we are talking about the amendment that seeks to include the official languages clause in the bill on child care and early childhood services. I think it is important to focus on 2024 and stop living in the past of more than 10 years ago. We need to look what the Liberal government has done in the past eight years. Recently, it prevented a committee from doing its work because it said that translating the documents would cost $300 million. That is disgraceful. It is unacceptable. This is a parliamentary right. Every parliamentarian needs to receive information in both official languages. Who is in government right now? It is the Liberal government.

180 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Feb/14/24 5:52:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his passionate speech. I know that he is on a mission for the Francophonie. I am delighted to serve with him on the Assemblée des parlementaires de la Francophonie. I know he cares about this. His speech earlier sounded more partisan than pro-francophone to me. I know that in the past, his party, which he loves to talk about, actually appointed an anglophone judge to the Supreme Court, which was a bit of a black mark against it. I would like him to tell me if there is anything good in this bill, apart from the fact that the inspiration came from Quebec's brilliant example.

122 words

Mr. Joël Godin

Feb/14/24 5:52:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-13

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières. We also have the pleasure of working together on the international scene to defend the French fact. I would like to remind my colleague that the Conservative Party did a lot to ensure that official languages were included in this bill. We worked very hard, with the collaboration of our colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who worked with me to try to put more in Bill C-13. I would like to remind my colleague that I myself was at the committee. I moved amendments. Official languages are in the bill thanks to the Conservative Party of Canada. Also, I would like to remind the House that all the Conservative senators—because there is a Conservative caucus in the Senate—voted in favour of Senator Cormier's amendment. How many Liberals or Liberal-appointed independents voted against it? That is the question we should be asking.

165 words

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

Feb/14/24 5:54:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I want to share that I agree with many of the comments made by my colleague about the importance of Canadians having access to French-language child care and early learning. The member was speaking about money not growing on trees and the importance of child care being effectively funded. I have frequently heard the Conservatives talk about privatized child care. We know that, when child care is public, it is increasingly accessible and available and that workers have livable wages, for example. Could the member share his thoughts around using public tax money for privatized child care? What is the importance of funding public child care with public funds?

115 words

Mr. Joël Godin

Feb/14/24 5:55:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who recognizes that what I said in my speech is appreciated by a very large majority of people in the NDP. It is common sense. We need to put money in the right places so that our Canadian families, mothers and fathers, can go to work, create wealth and then benefit from social programs.

64 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Feb/14/24 5:55:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville. I am pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy Valentine's Day, especially my spouse, Marc, despite the distance separating us. This bill has come back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Senate. In December, the Senate adopted an amendment to maintain long-term funding for child care services for official language minority communities, as well as child care services for indigenous peoples. The amendment reads as follows: That Bill C‑35...be amended in clause 8, on page 6, by replacing lines 13 to 20 with the following: “8 (1) The Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples and for official language minority communities. (2) The funding must be provided primarily through agreements with the provincial governments and Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members.”. On reading this amendment, it is clear that its purpose is to add the words “official language minority communities” to the bill. This amendment addresses the calls from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Commission nationale des parents francophones, who wanted to see long-term funding commitments, especially for francophones outside Quebec. Since Quebec already has its own agreement with Ottawa, this amendment should not apply to Quebec. In its current form, Bill C‑35 is not perfect from Quebec's perspective. I tried to improve it in committee, but all the amendments I proposed during the clause-by-clause study were rejected. In short, the demands of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec have not been heard or respected. I want to provide a little background. Throughout the committee's study of the bill, we heard witnesses talk about how important affordable, quality child care is for early childhood development, for better work-school-life balance, for the emancipation of women and for return on investment in the economy. Throughout this study, Quebec was lauded as a model. On numerous occasions, the Quebec model was mentioned as one to draw inspiration from. When it came time to include Quebec's expertise in the bill, however, I saw the other three parties dismiss that reality out of hand. The same thing happened with our amendments to include wording allowing Quebec to completely opt out of the federal program with full financial compensation. The only sign of any degree of openness was when a reference to Quebec's expertise was included in the preamble, the only place where these words ultimately have no real impact on the law. Thus, Quebec does not have the option of completely withdrawing from this program with full compensation. The agreement concluded with the Quebec government spans a period of five years. Enshrining Quebec's full right to opt out of this program would help avoid another dispute between Quebec and Ottawa in case the federal government ever tries to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions, as it does so well. Senior officials who worked on the bill also repeatedly stated, when questioned on the subject, that while nothing would prevent the federal government from imposing conditions as part of a future agreement, the bill had always been designed with the asymmetry of Quebec's reality compared to Canada's provinces in mind. The various members of the Liberal government who spoke on the bill also repeatedly said that the Liberals intended to continue working with Quebec on this issue. The current agreement also appealed to Quebec because it did not interfere in any area of jurisdiction and left the Quebec government free to spend the money wherever it wanted. Given the current agreement between Ottawa and Quebec and the federal government's express desire to continue working in this direction, Canada does not seem to have any intention of lecturing Quebec when it comes to child care. We therefore believe that another bilateral agreement would be possible, probable and necessary, since Quebec is the inspiration for the Canadian government. Then, at report stage in the House, nothing substantive was added to the debate. The Conservatives continued to argue that this bill has major flaws, particularly regarding accessibility, since private child care is not covered by the subsidies provided for under this bill. Meanwhile, the NDP continued to ask the government to interfere even more in jurisdictions belonging to Quebec and the provinces. It is also important to remember that for many years now, many Canadian families have been envious of Quebec's child care system, because child care often eats up a large portion of their household income. These families have long dreamed of having access to the same service that families in Quebec have been receiving for a very long time. It is high time that all Canadian families were able to access child care without breaking the bank. For a number of years now, Quebec's child care policy has enabled Quebeckers to benefit from a better work-life or school-life balance and more generous maternity and parental leave. It also extended family assistance programs to self-employed workers and workers with atypical work schedules. This model is a valuable program that the entire Quebec nation is proud of. Considering the popular support they enjoy, the child care centres rank among one of the greatest successes of the new social economy, being democratically managed using an approach that involves both parents and educators. It is also important to remember that the mission of Quebec's early childhood education services is threefold: one, to ensure the well-being, health and safety of the children receiving care; two, to provide an environment that stimulates their development in every way, from birth to school age; and three, to prevent learning, behavioural and social integration problems from appearing later on. In my opinion, a real family policy like the one in Quebec, which includes components such as family leave, income support and an accessible child care network, must be integrated into a coherent whole in order to be effective, so it should be overseen by just one level of government. Despite the many the flaws and imperfections of Bill C‑35's current wording, the Bloc Québécois will support the bill. It is high time that families outside Quebec also got to reap the benefits of an early learning and child care program. With prices rising across the board, Bill C‑35's passage will certainly bring many families some welcome financial relief. Not only will it give Canadian families some financial breathing room, we know it will also allow more mothers to enter the job market. Bill C‑35 will strengthen the vitality of the French language outside Quebec and prevent assimilation into English. As Jean-Luc Racine of the Commission nationale des parents francophones said, his organization's “experience in the field clearly shows that as soon as [francophone] children enter an English school, it's all over, even in immersion....As soon as people switch to the English-speaking side, within a few years, they forget French.” These are some of the major reasons I have decided to support Bill C‑35.

1284 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Feb/14/24 6:04:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I had an excellent time working with my colleague on this bill. I have two things. Number one, does the member think it was worthwhile for the federal government to interfere in provincial jurisdiction when this is a provincial matter? Number two, the Liberals turned these amendments down. These are in the Charter of Rights. These are about official languages and encouraging funding for French and minority languages. Why does the member believe the Liberals did not want to support that, especially in committee, and are changing their minds now?

92 words