Bill C-223 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to require that permanent residents who ordinarily reside in Quebec must have an adequate knowledge of French in order to obtain citizenship.

Citizenship Act

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

moved that Bill C-223, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the first bill that I have introduced in the House. I introduced a very simple bill with a clear objective, and that is to enable newcomers who want to become citizens and reside in Quebec to integrate into their host society.

In order to integrate, newcomers must be able to communicate with members of their host society. In Quebec, the common language is French. The purpose of the Charter of the French Language is to make French the official and common language of Quebec. As a result, newcomers must learn French in order to integrate into Quebec society.

Anyone who wants to become a Canadian citizen at the end of their immigration process must demonstrate a sufficient knowledge of one of Canada's two official languages. Right now, a permanent resident who wants to become a citizen and reside in Quebec could do so without knowing a single word of French. Of course, this situation is not in keeping with the Charter of the French Language, the main objective of which is to make French the common language of all Quebeckers.

That is why, during the last election campaign, the Bloc Québécois's platform included a promise to introduce a bill requiring that permanent residents residing in Quebec have knowledge of French in order to obtain citizenship. Promise kept: That is what we are debating today.

During the 42nd Parliament, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île introduced Bill C-421, which would have made that change. Unfortunately, the bill was deemed non-votable following an extraordinary procedure that included all MPs voting secretly in spite of the opinion of the clerk who drafted the bill.

This time, the Bloc Québécois has a legal opinion. The other parties can no longer hide behind the so-called unconstitutionality of this proposal.

In March, the Bloc Québécois commissioned this legal opinion to ensure the constitutionality of the bill we are debating today. The study was carried out by Professor Patrick Taillon of the law faculty at Laval University and lawyer and Ph.D. in law candidate Amélie Binette.

After reading this opinion, it is quite reasonable to believe that Bill C-223 is entirely constitutional. Thus, the first question we must ask ourselves is this: What are the general principles that should guide our interpretation of language rights?

The response issued by Ms. Binette and Mr. Taillon, based, among other things, on the Beaulac decision, is clear: Language rights must be interpreted broadly and liberally, based on their objectives of maintaining and enhancing the vitality of official language communities in Canada.

Given its status as both a majority and a minority of the historic francophone community, which is recognized by the Supreme Court in the Solski decision, the intervention of political actors is necessary to ensure substantive equality between English and French in Quebec. What is this logic of substantive equality?

Substantive equality is not the same as formal equality when interpreting section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which constitutionalizes the equality between the two official languages.

To sum up, it is a matter of looking at the linguistic situation in each province so that measures can be taken that take into account the specific needs of the minority community. Thus, there is nothing that precludes Parliament or provincial legislatures from taking action to promote the use of English or French in specific contexts, since the linguistic demography and pluralist reality of Canada requires an asymmetrical approach.

In Andrews, Justice McIntyre noted that a law will not necessarily be bad because it makes distinctions when having to implement measures for two people in similar circumstances. Therefore, Bill C-223 is not unconstitutional because it creates a distinction between residents of Quebec and those of other provinces. True equality requires consideration of the demographic, geographic and social context of a community when interpreting language rights.

If immigration is a shared responsibility of the provinces and the federal government under section 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the granting of citizenship is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government under subsection 91(25).

As our legal opinion on immigration shows, the courts have encouraged a type of co-operative federalism over the past few years. Passage of Bill C-233 would promote real equality between English and French through an asymmetrical approach and collaboration between both levels of government.

The citizenship test does not constitute a service since it seeks only to assess the linguistic skills of permanent residents and their knowledge of French. The bill does not infringe on the public's right to receive services in both languages, as stipulated in section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since nothing in its content prevents a permanent resident of Quebec from applying for citizenship in English, providing information in English, communicating with the government in English and swearing their oath of citizenship in English if they so desire even if they have to prove an adequate knowledge of French to obtain citizenship. That would be an curious path to take, but nothing in Bill C-223 would prevent that.

As pointed out in our legal opinion, even if the courts deemed that the citizenship test was a type of service, section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, clearly states that the rights it guarantees are “subject...to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Jurisprudence clearly shows that specific arrangements to guarantee substantive equality between the two official languages constitute a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.

In our legal opinion, Professor Taillon explained that the Supreme Court developed a two-part test to interpret section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The first part is to prove that the measure serves a pressing and substantial objective. The second part is to prove that the means are reasonable and demonstrably justified. The French language in Quebec is in such an alarming position, so the intent and content of Bill C-223 clearly serve a pressing and substantial objective.

As to whether this is a reasonable and justifiable measure, it is important to remember that the Citizenship Act already provides for language testing. In Forget v. Quebec, the Supreme Court ruled that the requirement that non-francophones pass a French test was not an arbitrary ground when it came to joining the nursing profession. The same reasoning could be applied to citizenship.

Bill C-223 contains a single provision that makes three important amendments to paragraphs 5(1)(d) and 5(1)(e) of the Citizenship Act.

First, Bill C-223 increases, from 55 to 65, the maximum age up until which a permanent resident who applies for Canadian citizenship is required to demonstrate a knowledge of one the official languages and to pass a test demonstrating that they have an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.

Second, the bill ensures that, if a permanent resident resides in Quebec, they will not be able to choose between demonstrating their knowledge of an official language in English or in French as is currently the case. Instead, they will have to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of French. Permanent residents residing in other provinces will be able to continue to choose between the two languages.

Third, consistent with the language requirement, under Bill C-223 the citizenship test must be administered in French in Quebec, not in one or the other official language. The bill does not impinge on that choice in other provinces.

The central element of this bill is citizenship. The question we must ask ourselves, and which we will attempt to answer, is as follows: Do individuals require an adequate knowledge of French to exercise their citizenship in Quebec? The Bloc Québécois believes they do.

This bill recognizes the primacy of French in Quebec, it is consistent with recognition of the Quebec nation, it contributes to sustaining French in Quebec, it restores the status of French in Quebec, it acknowledges the importance of understanding the language to exercise all the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship in Quebec, and it is an additional means to slow the decline of French in Quebec.

As we are seeing in the news, Quebeckers are more and more concerned about the decline of the French language.

According to a recent Leger poll, 63% of respondents said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned about the status of French in Quebec. Among francophones, that figure rises to 71%, an increase of 17% compared to a similar Leger poll conducted in 2018.

Nearly six in 10 Quebeckers think that the situation has gotten worse over the past decade. Six in 10 Quebeckers also think that the status of French will continue to decline over the next decade.

In a report from April 2019 on the evolution of the linguistic situation in Quebec, the Office québécois de la langue française found that the use of French greetings in stores on the Island of Montreal had dropped from 84% to 75% compared to 2010.

It is important that we do everything we possibly can at the federal level to reverse this trend. Major changes will be proposed shortly by the Government of Quebec, and the federal government must also do its part. It is only by passing Bill C-223 and making changes like these that we can stop this trend.

We cannot rely on the Liberal government to take leadership on this file, and that is why the Bloc Québécois is taking charge. I hope that the Liberals will vote in favour of my bill.

The Prime Minister once said, “The Liberal Party of Canada will always be there to protect the French language.” This would be a good opportunity to prove it.

All the same, there are a few factors that make me doubt the Liberals' goodwill on this issue, such as the comments made by the Liberal member at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. She did, however, walk back those comments today.

While questioning the Commissioner of Official Languages, she expressed doubts about the decline of French in Quebec. She needed proof. Well, all the evidence is there. She has only to look at the statistics and read reports like the one published in 2017 by the Auditor General of Quebec, who found that the campaign to teach French to immigrants in Quebec had failed, or simply take a walk in her riding or anywhere else in Quebec.

A Journal de Montréal reporter did just that. She walked into some shops in downtown Montreal. Of the 31 establishments she visited, 16 offered a unilingual English greeting, and in almost a third of the businesses she visited, staff were simply unable to respond in Quebec's official language.

If members of the House of Commons vote against the very principle of Bill C-223, they will be proving two things. First, they will be proving that Canada's bilingual nature is not important to them, by rejecting a minimum requirement for ensuring the vitality of French in North America. Second, they will be proving that Canada's constitutional framework cannot ensure the full vitality of the Quebec nation.

The elected members of the House of Commons will have to decide whether they agree with the spirit of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission or that of the more grievous Durham commission. Quebec deserves to see where it stands.

In conclusion, the entire history of Quebec and, by extension, the history of French-speaking Canada can be summed up as a fierce battle for self-preservation and the survival of French. After more than 400 years, we continue to fight for the right to exist, and the debate we have brought to the House of Commons today, with Bill C-223, is but one more episode in this never-ending story.

In 2006, the House of Commons recognized the Quebec nation. What does that mean?

So far, from both a legal and a political perspective, Canada's recognition of the Quebec nation has yet to translate into any tangible action. It was simply a political and symbolic gesture, and it does not address Quebec's historical constitutional demands.

Furthermore, as long as members of Parliament refuse to pass laws and implement government measures that allow Quebec to pursue its own cultural and linguistic development, as Bill C-223 would do, the recognition of the Quebec nation will be meaningless. Passing Bill C-223 would be consistent with the motion passed by the House of Commons.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am from the riding of Nepean, in Ottawa. In Ottawa, there is no need officially for bilingual language services or their promotion. However, in considering Franco-Ontarians, the national capital region and the two official languages of Canada, Ottawa uses both official languages on its own in almost all of its operations.

I would like to ask the member whether language and cultural heritage can grow through imposition. In my view, language and cultural heritage can only grow through promotion, not imposition.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Bill C-223 is for the province of Quebec. If we look back on our history and remember what happened, we are all immigrants from New England or France.

Now, 400 years later, we are still debating the French language, even though Quebec is francophone. This bill is truly essential, since we want newcomers to at least be able to speak and live in French, not just in Montreal, but all across Quebec. There are more and more newcomers all across Quebec, even in my riding.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Two weeks ago, Radio-Canada reported that asylum seekers hoping to take French lessons in Quebec were prevented from doing so as a result of new rules implemented by the Quebec minister of education that prohibit asylum seekers and newcomers from taking French lessons.

Would she agree that it makes no sense for Quebec's ministry of education to prevent newcomers to Quebec from taking French lessons?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

That is a matter that falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. The member can ask the Quebec minister of education about what is happening in Quebec.

However, today, I am talking about Bill C-223, which the House should support because it seeks to give newcomers to Quebec an opportunity to speak French.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Unfortunately, news reports are reminding us that the French language is in decline in Quebec right now. We often tend to be too quick to blame young people, but I would like to remind members that the young people of my generation care a lot about French and that we will do everything in our power to ensure that it is protected in Quebec.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that the Liberals should vote in favour of this bill if they seriously want to protect the French language in Quebec.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question, and I thank my colleague.

Young people are indeed the future. In Quebec, young people are also the future of the French language.

The current government must support this bill because it is very important for the French language. For days now, the Liberals and Conservatives have been saying how important French in Quebec is. They must prove it today by voting in favour of Bill C-223.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation and for this bill, which I will be very pleased to vote in favour of.

Some time ago, Quebec adopted an excellent law to protect the French language called the Charter of the French Language. The charter ended up being gutted by the Supreme Court, which is Canada's real government and which literally put it through the wringer.

In other words, it seems that standing up for French means nothing more than empty, purely symbolic motions and lip service. This bill, which makes sense in the same way that a distinct nation requiring the use of its own language within its borders makes sense, might not pass.

Does Quebec have to be independent so it can defend the French language?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question.

Indeed, we are here today to defend Bill C-223, which is about making knowledge of French a requirement for newcomers to Quebec. We need the support of all MPs to pass this bill. Otherwise, we will have to take other measures to finally achieve Quebec independence.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-223, which proposes changes to the current process for permanent residents of Canada to become Canadian citizens.

Before I address the bill specifically, I would like to take a moment to talk about myself and my family. I came to Quebec as a political refugee in the early years of Bill 101. I am a child of the very first reception classes and francization classes in Quebec. My single mother and my grandparents, who were over 60 years old, took francization classes at the infamous Centres d'orientation et de formation des immigrants, commonly known as COFIs.

My aunt Marcela arrived in 1978 at the age of 17. She also learned French upon arrival and worked for more than 20 years as a nurse in Quebec health care. She is now a francophone doctor in her field and a professor in the nursing program at the Université du Québec en Outaouais.

We all received our citizenship before we could speak French. Today, my children and my cousins are all young Quebec francophones who work and study in French. That was possible in 1980, and I think it is still possible today.

The Government of Canada encourages all immigrants to commit to taking part in every aspect of Canadian and Quebec society. Getting Canadian citizenship is one of the best foundations for successful integration in life. Immigrants make a considerable contribution on a cultural, economic, social and political level. They volunteer, join community organizations and share their points of view on so many important issues in our society.

Anyone who has had the chance to attend or take part in a citizenship ceremony knows that it is a very moving experience. It is a very touching celebration. It is an official step in a process for gaining Canadian citizenship. For most immigrants, this step signifies that they have demonstrated their knowledge of Canada, their host country, of its history and the rights and responsibilities that come with citizenship. They were also able to demonstrate that they can speak French or English and that they commit to living and working in this country.

The government of Canada is determined to help all newcomers acquire the French or English language skills they need to integrate into their host community and to contribute to the country's economy.

As we know, the pandemic has had significant repercussions for almost all sectors of society. We are now striving to adapt to the new realities and to make as many positive changes as possible. In March, in response to the constantly evolving COVID-19 situation, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada decided to cancel all citizenship ceremonies, tests, retests and in-person interviews. Through innovation and the use of existing platforms, we were fortunately able to continue welcoming new Canadian citizens at virtual citizenship ceremonies.

Recently, in mid-October 2020, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada held almost 8,800 ceremonies at which more than 43,000 new Canadian citizens took the oath of citizenship. We are currently planning the resumption of citizenship tests using technology that will let candidates take online tests. While waiting for the online testing solution to be ready and accessible, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is using a virtual platform to process urgent citizenship applications and administer a small number of citizenship tests and interviews.

Citizenship officers began contacting clients who reported an urgent need to obtain citizenship. The implementation of such measures shows our commitment to reducing the obstacles to citizenship during this very unusual time. It is important to point out that the government places a high value on Canada's two official languages. As a result, we remain determined to welcome more francophone newcomers. We believe that all newcomers to Canada and Quebec enrich our communities.

Most members know that Quebec is the only province that has an immigration agreement with the federal government.

Quebec selects its immigrants from the economic class. Most immigrants who live in Quebec speak French. Census data show that, 10 years after they arrive in Canada, 90.5% of economic immigrants, 71.1% of immigrants under the family reunification program and 84.3% of refugees speak French. Under this agreement, Quebec is also responsible for French-language and integration programs.

We must continue to be welcoming and open to the world. We must ensure that we promote francophone immigration and French-language training for all immigrants and refugees who settle in Quebec.

The Government of Canada knows that immigration positively contributes to our country's economy and society. We also know that newcomers contribute to the vitality of communities, particularly francophone minority communities outside Quebec, but also communities within Quebec. We need to maintain the demographic weight of francophones in North America, which is why francophone immigration is so important. That is why we are taking numerous measures to increase francophone immigration, promote the integration and retention of French-speaking newcomers and build capacity in francophone communities.

As part of the government's official languages action plan, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada will invest more than $40 million over five years to support a consolidated francophone integration pathway. In 2019, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada launched new language training services to support the francophone integration pathway, which helps French-speaking newcomers who settle in francophone minority communities and improves their language skills.

Although progress toward achieving these targets depends on lifting pandemic-related travel restrictions, I think we will get there eventually and increase the number of francophone newcomers across the country.

Taken together, these measures will help French-speaking newcomers build new lives in Canada and signal the government's support for linguistic duality in this country. The government's focus on French and francophone immigration will also strengthen the demographic weight of francophones in Quebec.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to deliver this speech in Canada's two official languages.

The proposed Bloc Québécois amendment to the Citizenship Act is something the Conservatives have given much thought and consideration. Our response is guided by two core principles of the Conservative Party.

The first principle is recognition of the Quebec nation by former prime minister Stephen Harper and our commitment to protecting its language and culture.

In my remarks, I will first address the proposed change to the maximum age at which knowledge of either English or French is necessary to obtain citizenship. I will then address the proposed change to require knowledge of French for applicants who wish to live in the province of Quebec.

We support the principle behind the French language requirement since it corresponds to our values and the commitment of our leader to Quebeckers. However, the Conservatives have concerns about the proposed change to the maximum age for which linguistic knowledge is mandatory, which would increase from 55 to 65.

Accordingly, we support the bill at first reading, while ensuring that the perspectives of older new Canadians are heard and their concerns reviewed in committee and addressed in amendments if necessary.

The Conservatives believe in compassionate measures to assist in family reunification and to uphold Canada's humanitarian tradition as a safe haven for refugees. We recognize that raising the maximum age may present challenges for families seeking to obtain citizenship for their older parents and grandparents, who may experience greater difficulties becoming fully bilingual. We want to ensure that parents and grandparents are treated with dignity.

Many families already face tremendous difficulties at the hands of the Liberal government, which never seems to get family reunification right, as we have seen across this country with heartbreaking stories of family separation due to the government's inability to recognize the desperate need to prioritize family reunification. It even brought back a failed grandparents and parents lottery system that is unfair, uncompassionate and ineffective. Immigrants and new Canadians deserve better.

This bill would make knowledge of French mandatory instead of French or English for permanent residents who live in Quebec and wish to obtain Canadian citizenship.

We support the principle behind this measure and we recognize the urgency of doing more than sharing French in Quebec. The situation of French in Quebec is getting worse. Outside of the Liberal caucus, there is a broad consensus on this. It is especially true in Montreal.

Montreal is one of the great metropolises in Canada and indeed in all of North America. Having lived and worked there for four years as a university student, I had the privilege of experiencing first-hand the richness of its history, diversity and culture. Part of what makes Montreal so unique is that it was founded in French, and French has been the main language spoken there for nearly all of its 378 years of existence. Francophone Quebeckers understandably wish to preserve its distinct character in the face of the pressures of globalization and assimilation into a North American standard that is uniformly English.

Unfortunately, the historical character of Montreal is being increasingly called into question.

In its April 2019 report, the Office québécois de la langue française found that nearly half of all francophone clients surveyed in the Montreal area were addressed in languages other than French.

A survey published last week in Le journal de Montréal showed that the staff of several retail chains in downtown Montreal addressed their customers in English only. Furthermore, they could not even communicate important information about public health guidelines that applied in the store and the possibility that their products might contain ingredients to which a customer might be allergic.

The Liberals, much like the member for Saint-Laurent in Montreal, have blatantly and inappropriately chosen to ignore and downplay this reality. As Conservatives, we choose instead to act.

That is why our leader has committed to allowing the application of Bill 101, which makes French the official language of work in Quebec, in federally regulated businesses in Quebec and to giving Quebec more powers in immigration matters. He reiterated his commitments when he met with Premier Legault on September 14.

I have to point out that there is a significant difference between the Conservative approach and that of the Bloc Québécois. Rather than amending the federal Citizenship Act, the Conservative government would work with Quebec to enhance the powers and autonomy of Quebec's government with respect to immigration based on the immigration agreement that was was put in place by Canada and Quebec in 1991. The Canada-Quebec accord was a great success and the Conservatives would strengthen this approach, which has already proven itself.

I must also point out another major difference between our approach and that of the Bloc. There will never be a Bloc Québécois government and its leader will never be the prime minister of Canada. Only the Conservative Party can beat the Liberals in the next election and elect a prime minister who could act on Quebeckers' priorities, defend their interests and protect their language.

Some might suggest that the French language requirement in this bill represents radical change. We disagree. The reality is that Quebec already controls most of its immigration, and French-language requirements have long played an important and critical role in Quebec's determination of eligibility for permanent residency.

Immigration to Quebec is a shared jurisdiction, governed by the terms of the Canada-Quebec accord relating to immigration and temporary admission of aliens, agreed to in partnership between the Quebec and Canadian governments in 1991. One of the agreement's objectives is, “the preservation of Quebec’s demographic importance within Canada and the integration of immigrants to that province in a manner that respects the distinct identity of Quebec.” The accord gives Quebec sole responsibility for the selection of economic immigrants and skilled workers, as well as most immigrants in the humanitarian and refugee categories. For the majority of these immigrants, knowledge of French is either a requirement for successful selection or part of the criteria in a points-based system for determining eligibility.

The Quebec government has signalled its intention to both strengthen its requirements for knowledge of French in these categories and provide greater resources for French-language teaching and integration services. Some exceptions to this framework include immigrants in the family reunification category, as well as those who make refugee claims within Canadian territory. Our approach would allow the Quebec government to extend the same rules and criteria to those additional immigrant categories with respect to obtaining Canadian citizenship. This bill, though different from our approach, goes in the same direction, which is why we have chosen to support it on that basis at first reading.

In conclusion, our leader and our party have great respect for the Quebec nation and understand the cultural importance of protecting the French language. The Conservatives are offering Quebeckers a serious alternative to the Liberals. We are the only ones who can beat them in the next election and form the next government.

Only a Conservative government will be able to work with the Legault government to obtain real results for Quebeckers.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to this bill.

I used to be a Quebecker, having lived in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, in the city formerly known as Chicoutimi and now known as Saguenay; in the Eastern Townships, in the city of Sherbrooke; in Montreal, in Plateau Mont-Royal; and in the Outaouais, in Hull, now known as Gatineau. I have some perspectives to share about this bill and about the use of French in Quebec.

There certainly are concerns about wanting to increase the use of French in Quebec. Having lived in Quebec for more than 10 years and having always insisted on being served in French, even with my accent, I never experienced the problems that are often raised about downtown Montreal. Although I was never denied service in French, I believe the concerns that have been raised and I think we need to do more to protect and promote the French fact in Quebec and across Canada.

This is why I am proud of my party's history. As members know, the NDP was the first party to recognize Quebec's right to self-determination and to push for legislation on Canada's official languages.

When the NDP was in power in provinces where it previously formed a government, the French fact thrived. In my home province of British Columbia, the NDP is the one that implemented the existing francophone school system with dozens and dozens of schools following that curriculum. There are French schools for francophones all across British Columbia.

It was the same thing in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In Alberta, Léo Piquette, a former NDP member, really helped to advance the French fact and the rights of Franco-Albertans. In Ontario, the NDP government established the francophone college network and increased services for francophones.

In New Brunswick, there was Elizabeth Weir, the former leader of our party in that province. There was also Yvon Godin, who was a member here in the House for a long time and who was recognized everywhere for his strong and passionate promotion of the French language and the Official Languages Act. We miss Yvon Godin. I know that Madam Speaker is also sorry that he is no longer a member of the House of Commons. We wish him a happy retirement. His voice was always extremely strong here in the House of Commons.

I am telling all these stories to illustrate the NDP approach to strengthening the French fact in Quebec and across Canada. Naturally, it starts with extending Bill 101 to federal institutions. People who work in Quebec must have the right to work in French. The systematic refusal, first by the Conservatives and then by the Liberals, to ensure that francophone workers can work in French in federal workplaces is a strange thing I have never understood. It is important to put these measures in place.

The NDP also strongly believes that Quebec's immigration-related rights need to be strengthened. We need increasing numbers of French-speaking immigrants. As everyone knows, the French fact is growing in importance internationally, and it is forecast that there will be a billion French speakers around the world within the next 20 years.

These statistics, which come from the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, also indicate that the French fact is expanding pretty much everywhere, especially in places like Africa. It is important to know this in order to understand how the French fact could be strengthened in Quebec and Canada.

This aspect is extremely important if we want to plan for francophone immigration. We have an inclusive immigration model in Canada, which makes this bill all the more interesting.

As I mentioned earlier in the House, I get a little concerned when I see the actions of the Government of Quebec around funding French courses and giving immigrants the right to take francization courses in Quebec. Two weeks ago, Radio-Canada published an article on this subject, which stated, “Many asylum seekers who were planning to attend francization courses in Quebec this fall are unable to do so. Radio-Canada has learned that new rules from the ministry of education are delaying their arrival at school or preventing them from being admitted altogether.”

The Government of Quebec is making cuts to French courses. However, these newcomers are hungry to learn French, like I was when I was in my 20s. My accent makes it easy to see that I am not a francophone. I started learning French in Chicoutimi when I was 24. I had this ideal and I thought it was extremely important to learn French, just like millions of anglophones across Canada.

In my neck of the woods, back home in New Westminster, parents line up every year to register their children in immersion schools. That does not happen so much in Quebec, but back home it is important. If people speak French well, that increases the consumption of francophone cultural products from Quebec and New Brunswick and the French language can take root, be promoted and flourish.

The Radio-Canada article talks about Christian and Ivonne, a young couple in their 30s, saying, “They left their native Colombia with their daughter to claim refugee protection in Canada in early 2020. They settled in Quebec and tried to take French language courses in the spring at a training centre for adults, but COVID-19 put everything on hold.”

They tried to register again at Centre du Phénix, but unfortunately they were informed of new rules established by Quebec's education ministry, which requires that they provide documents that are almost impossible to find to take a French course.

The Government of Quebec claims that it wants more people who speak French, but these new rules prevent newcomers from taking French courses. With all these delays, they will not have access to these courses, and that will have considerable consequences.

The NDP thinks it is clear that instead of punishing and dividing immigrants, it is important to offer them French language courses so they can learn French, as I did. Unfortunately, this bill does not facilitate an approach that would let everyone, including immigrants and refugees, take French courses. The NDP wants to promote the right of immigrants to learn French and to have access to these courses.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, for the first time since the implementation of the Official Languages Act 51 years ago, the federal government admitted in a throne speech that the situation of French is unique. Quebec is part of the minority of eight million francophones surrounded by 360 million anglophones.The federal government is committed to strengthening the Official Languages Act to protect and promote the French language in Quebec.

We cannot forget that before the Official Languages Act, the British North America Act, 1867, set out some fairly weak provisions for official bilingualism in the federal government. Quebec was the only province to have official bilingual status, in which English was favoured. The act allowed all of the provinces, which are now predominantly English-speaking, to create assimilationist and openly ethnocidal legislation. I am sure that many members here are not aware of this rarely mentioned part of history.

For example, in a previous life, I debated the head of the Suburban, a newspaper from the West Island, where I grew up. When I mentioned these laws that banned French even for francophones, he hit the roof and said that it was completely untrue. It is easy to prove, however, because the legislation is very clear.

For example, in Ontario, teaching French was banned in 1880 and again in 1885. Later, in 1912, it happened yet again with the infamous Regulation 17. It was not until 1968 that Franco-Ontarians were able to attend French public high schools. That was not that long ago. People my age were the first to attend French public high schools in Ontario.

In 1890, Manitoba passed a law that made English the sole official language of laws and the only language of instruction. Teaching French was prohibited, even for francophones.

When Alberta and Saskatchewan became provinces, they repealed section 110 of the Northwest Territories Act, which officially recognized the use of French and English in Parliament and in the courts.

Despite their Herculean efforts, francophone and Acadian communities were largely anglicized. In the last report issued by Statistics Canada in this regard, the cumulative assimilation rate was found to be approximately 75%. It is certainly even higher today.

People started to wake up and galvanize in the 1960s. There were the Estates General of French Canada. The independence movement was on the rise in Quebec, and the Laurendeau-Dunton commission was established on the heels of these events. The commission came to a damning conclusion on the state of the French language and the economic discrimination that francophones experienced across Canada and Quebec.

For example, francophones ranked 12th in terms of average salary of the 14 linguistic groups in Quebec. People say that a lot of progress has been made since then, but there is still a considerable gap.

The commissioners developed different models of language management, including models based on the principle of territoriality and collective rights, which are recognized in order to protect minority languages. These are the only models that are effective.

Among countries with several national languages, the only ones where there is no assimilation of one language by the others are those where there is a territorial model based on collective rights, such as Belgium and Switzerland, for example. In the Flemish region in Belgium, all government services are provided in Dutch. Even though Dutch is not a widely spoken language in Europe, it survives very well and is the common language there. This does not stop anyone from learning four or five other languages very effectively.

The idea behind this model is that where there is a critical mass of speakers of a certain language, it becomes the official language and all services are provided in that language.

The Laurendeau-Dunton commission, called the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, believed that Canadians would not accept this, and instead proposed a mixed model with bilingual territories.

The model chosen by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Liberal government of the day was that of institutional bilingualism based on a principle that has proven that it always leads to the covert assimilation of minority languages. Everywhere in the world where such a model of institutional bilingualism exists, we see the assimilation of minority languages. That is what we have seen here since the adoption of the Official Languages Act. With every census, we see that linguistic transfers from allophones to English are increasing.

The Official Languages Act of 1969 was designed to ensure that services are provided in French in federal institutions, where numbers warrant, in provinces other than Quebec. In Quebec, of course, it ensures that services are provided in French in federal institutions as well. However, its main goal is to ensure services in English everywhere, as though there was not enough of that already.

Bill 101, enacted in 1977, was founded on the principle of territoriality and collective rights. Securing the future of French and being able to help newcomers learn French and integrate is a question of math: French must be the language used by francophones, but we must ensure that it is the common language of all Quebeckers. Of course anglophones will speak English amongst themselves and italophones will speak Italian, but when people who speak different languages converse, French should be the language that brings them together. French is the mortar of Quebec society. That was the goal of Bill 101.

The Official Languages Act promotes the opposite in Quebec. Newcomers and all Quebeckers are told that there is not one but two official languages and that they can use the language of their choice, which is English. It makes sense that newcomers, who are in no way to blame, would tend to lean toward the majority when establishing themselves in a new country. Quebec is still part of Canada, and the country's majority is anglophone. The North American majority is even more strongly anglophone.

The Official Languages Act does not acknowledge that anglophones are part of the English-Canadian majority. It considers anglophones to be minorities in the same way as francophones outside Quebec. Even the UN Commission on Human Rights declared that anglophones in Quebec are not part of a minority, but part of the English-Canadian majority. It is a bit like if Quebec were independent, the federal government was not elected by the English-Canadian majority and did not interfere in Quebec.

In 1982, Ottawa imposed a Constitution on Quebec against its will and the judges it appointed in Quebec have continued to dismantle Bill 101 by virtue of this illegitimate Constitution. To Quebec, all the money from the official languages program, roughly $80 million a year, is used to defend and promote English.

The federal government funds anglophone lobbyists, organizations and institutions that are already over-funded by the Government of Quebec. Every measure for English in Quebec has taken a toll and the decline of French is so bad that Quebec is against the wall and has to mobilize yet again.

The federal government can hardly deny this decline. If the federal government wants to help, it has to stop harming.

The comments by the member for Saint-Laurent were simply a reflection of the comments made by Quebec Community Groups Network, which told the Standing Committee on Official Languages that Bill 101 was a violation of civil rights and that the French language in Quebec is doing well.

If a small measure like knowledge of French for citizenship is once again rejected by the government of the English Canadian majority, it will be a sign to Quebeckers that living in French is not possible in Canada. They will have yet more proof that the only solution for the future of Quebec is independence.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the bill is short-sighted. Any language, culture or heritage can prosper, grow and progress only through promotion, not through imposition.

In my riding of Nepean, 120 languages are spoken. There is a very small number of francophones in my riding, from Cameroon, Burundi and Haiti. Though 120 languages are being spoken in my riding, the number of French schools is increasing. The demand for French schools is so big that it is exceeding capacity. This is not because French is being imposed. It is because the federal government promotes both official languages.

Most parents of children who go to French-speaking schools do not speak French. Like many newcomers to Canada, many new Canadians are multilingual. They are not very well versed in both official languages, but they have the desire for their children to learn both English and French. That is a fact of life here.

In Ottawa, the capital, there are no regulations or legislation that mandate bilingualism. However, because Canada has both English and French as official languages, we promote both languages in Ottawa.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 19, 2020, consideration of the motion that Bill C-223, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the Bloc Québécois bill on citizenship for newcomers to Quebec. This bill would raise the age at which people must have an adequate knowledge of one of Canada's official languages, specifically French in Quebec, from 54 to 65.

This is a pretty significant change for people who have decided to immigrate to Canada, especially for older people, considering how hard it is to master a second language at a certain age. Often these newcomers are fluent in a language other than French or English. In Quebec, older people would have to become proficient in French.

At the same time, I think it contributes to the commendable goal of protecting French throughout Canada, but also in Quebec. The recognition that French is at risk is a big change in the discourse of the Canadian Parliament. French is the minority language in the other provinces outside of Quebec but also within Canada. French is also at risk in Quebec, as we learned from a study that was just published today. It found that the number of people who speak French at home is dropping in my beloved home province of Quebec.

It is important to point out that Quebec is the only unilingual francophone province or region in North America. Of course, there are anglophones and people who speak all sorts of other languages living in Quebec, but it is basically a francophone province. New Brunswick is bilingual, and the other provinces are anglophone, and they all exist in a country that has a law defining it as bilingual and where people can express themselves in both official languages, French and English.

Given that Quebec is a unilingual francophone province, we must be very careful and ensure that immigrants to Canada who settle in Quebec and apply for Canadian citizenship can do so in Quebec's main language, which is French. If we do not, the number of people who can speak French will fall steadily. We need only look at what is happening in Montreal, Quebec's economic metropolis and the second-largest city in Canada, where almost half the population primarily speaks English.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced a very interesting bill that deserves our consideration and that I believe should be studied in committee. That said, increasing the age from 54 to 65 may be problematic, and this provision should be amended and the age of 54 reinstated. However, we are fairly comfortable with the idea of having people in Quebec take a test to demonstrate their knowledge of French.

We are also very concerned that the Liberal government is making little effort to protect and promote the French language and ensure that it is healthy in this country. We often hear sanctimonious virtue signalling from the Minister of Official Languages and the Prime Minister, but in the past few months alone, the government accepted a unilingual English report on the former governor general, for example.

We know what a scandal that kicked off. This was someone who had been appointed by the Prime Minister, without even using the advisory committee that was created by former prime minister Stephen Harper to ensure that all appointments would be merit-based and non-partisan. We saw what happened three years later.

Just look at WE Charity, which the Prime Minister wanted to help. This organization, which had very close ties with his family, received a nearly $1-billion contract to administer a volunteer program. We know that this organization is unilingual anglophone and unable to serve communities in Quebec and across the country. That is another good example of this government's sloppy, insincere approach to protecting French.

We could also add to that the fact that some public servants feel they are being treated unfairly because they do not get to express themselves in French at work. We can think about the fact that COVID Alert texts are being sent in English only in Quebec. I am also thinking about the Commissioner of Official Languages, who made 18 recommendations in 2018 to ensure that the modernization of the Official Languages Act could be applied properly, French could be promoted and celebrated, and we could help francophones across the country. However, to date, none of those recommendations have been implemented by the current minister.

I could give countless examples that demonstrate how French does not seem to be a priority for this government. We have been waiting for the Official Languages Act to be modernized for months and years now. The consultations have been done, the Senate has done its work and the commissioner has made his recommendations. There was a bit of drama before the holidays, when we learned from the print media in Quebec that the minister would not introduce a bill after all, which is what everyone in the country was expecting, but would instead table a white paper.

As we waited for that white paper, another pseudo-consultation intended to stall for time, a media leak earlier this week revealed that in the end, there will be no white paper, but rather a discussion paper for a committee to reflect on what should be done to protect and promote French across the country. This issue is so important and we are supposed to be so proud of it, and yet it keeps being put off.

In Canada, there are two official languages. Having a francophone community like Quebec, this people, this nation of Quebec that Prime Minister Stephen Harper recognized under the previous Conservative government, is something we should be proud of and do everything we can to protect. We do not get that feeling from the current government, which is putting off this work by not bringing in legislation to respond to concerns we have across the country and in Quebec.

I understand that the Bloc Québécois wants to work with newcomers to Quebec to make French the priority. The Government of Quebec wants to improve Bill 101 so that employees in all federally regulated businesses and all private businesses in Quebec can work in French.

The Conservative Party supports this initiative. I think that Quebeckers will be happy to hear that. Meanwhile, once again, the Liberal government is not getting to work. The Liberals are not joining us in this movement to recognize that there are indeed two official languages, but only one is in jeopardy: French.

We support the substantive principle of this bill, that is, the principle behind its French language requirement. Indeed, this requirement is truly consistent with our values and our leader's commitment to Quebeckers and francophones.

However, as I pointed out earlier, the Conservatives are concerned with the proposed change to the maximum age for requiring linguistic knowledge, from 54 to 65.

We therefore supported this bill at first reading, making sure that the perspectives of older newcomers to Canada would be heard and that their concerns would be addressed in committee, with opportunities for amendment. This is extremely important to us and I hope the Bloc Québécois will take that into account.

This bill will make knowledge of French, rather than English or French, mandatory for permanent residents living in Quebec who wish to obtain Canadian citizenship. As I said, we support the principle behind this measure and we recognize the urgency of doing more to protect the French language not only in Canada's smaller communities, but also in Quebec. This represents a major shift in discourse on Parliament Hill. I think that is clear to all opposition parties.

Despite the fact that the Liberal Party has more than 35 Quebec MPs, several of them ministers, that our Prime Minister was born in Quebec and that the Minister of Official Languages is a Quebecker, there seems to be no sense of pride or desire to take action. Talk is not good enough. Lip service and public posturing change nothing. We need concrete action to promote French everywhere and create a sense of pride.

Our leader has even said that, once he is prime minister, in the first 100 days of the next Conservative government, he will introduce an official languages bill to implement positive measures—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I have to interrupt the member because time is up.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-233, which was introduced by my colleague.

First, I would like to remind members that the Bloc Québécois believes that the protection of French in Quebec requires an asymmetrical approach, which is why the bill is specifically tailored to Quebec with respect to the knowledge of French required to obtain citizenship.

In a way, we are pleased that the federal government is recognizing for the first time, albeit it timidly, that Quebec's situation and the status of French are unique. I would like to quote from this fall's throne speech:

Our two official languages are woven into the fabric of our country.... The Government of Canada must also recognize that the situation of French is unique. There are almost 8 million francophones in Canada within a region of over 360 million inhabitants who are almost exclusively anglophone. The government therefore has the responsibility to protect and promote French not only outside of Quebec, but also within Quebec.

This is in stark contrast to what we have seen in the past. The government is now talking about the importance of protecting the French language in Quebec. However, the government needs to walk the talk, and that is what the Bloc Québécois wants to achieve with this bill.

The notion of citizenship is closely tied to politics. It always has been, and that is still the case. The main differences between a permanent resident and a citizen are the following: the right to vote or run in elections; the right to hold a job requiring a specific security clearance, such as a position with a company that does business with National Defence; and the right to sit on a jury. All of this requires some knowledge of French, and the French-language test required for citizenship is not very difficult. Candidates are required to be able to interact in everyday situations or to ask simple, basic questions to express their needs in day-to-day life. They are not asked to compose poetry or write in Alexandrine verse.

This is not the first time that this bill has been introduced. What I find unfortunate is that, in the past, there seemed to be a determination to nip the bill in the bud. I am thinking of former MP David de Burgh Graham, who said the following concerning the bill at the admissibility stage, and I quote:

My wife speaks five languages. French is not one of them. When she got her Canadian citizenship, we had just moved to Quebec. I had already lived there; she came to Quebec with me. She would have had to return to Ontario or stay in Ontario to get her citizenship, and I think that's against the values of our Constitution, our charter. I cannot support that on constitutional grounds.

No evidence was ever provided to show that the bill was unconstitutional, aside from an opinion that was not supported by legal advice, and the clerks of the House had found the bill to be constitutional. It therefore seems that some were determined to kill the bill from the start, which I think is unfortunate.

This time, the bill has gotten further in the process. It has been deemed admissible. After second reading, the bill will be sent to committee, where expert witnesses will speak to various issues. I think it would be a shame to abort the process now and kill the bill again before it even gets off the ground. The argument is that we should not vote in favour of the bill because it would hinder many people from obtaining citizenship.

I would like to point out that, to obtain citizenship, a person has to have spent 1,095 days in Canada. That is a good opportunity to learn the basics of French. I would also like to point out that not having citizenship does not prevent anyone from working or getting health care, because permanent residents can do both of those things.

I think it is a shame that people are refusing to send the bill to committee. The purpose of this bill is to protect the French language, so I think it is a shame to miss this opportunity to see what other obstacles to citizenship exist.

Some people have said that making knowledge of French mandatory would prevent a lot of people from obtaining Canadian citizenship. However, in November 2019, which is not so long ago, Statistics Canada reported that the citizenship rate among recent immigrants had dropped between 1996 and 2016 and had declined much more dramatically after 2006. Even without the requirement to pass a French test, there has been a decrease in citizenship uptake. It would have been interesting to examine the reasons for this decrease in committee.

I also find it odd that the government claims that knowledge of French would be an obstacle to obtaining citizenship, when we know that one of the obstacles to citizenship is the cost of the tests that are required to obtain citizenship. In the 2019 election campaign, the Liberals promised to make the test free, but it still costs $630 per person. For a family of two adults with children, that could mean up to $1,200, $1,800 or $2,400. That is a lot of money, and it is a major obstacle to citizenship. This could also have been studied in committee.

There is another aspect that could have been studied in committee, although I admit it is rather upsetting. In some cases, to obtain permanent resident status and to access other stages of the immigration process, the person needs to already have knowledge of one of the two official languages. However, we are seeing an imbalance when it comes to the tests that are administered. The Commissioner of Official Languages has received several complaints about the cost of tests in French, which is not the same as the cost of tests in English. We see that the cost of these official language proficiency tests is twice as high in French as it is in English. We also see that those who choose to take these tests in French get their results much later.

Fundamentally, there is already an imbalance when it comes to knowledge of one of the two official languages. That is something that could also have been looked at in committee. This has been going on for some time. The government has made several promises on this, but it has not kept them.

Furthermore, these tests are developed and also marked in France, not Quebec. The tests given to many immigrants are not necessarily appropriate. I will give a very simple example. In France, the meals are called “petit-déjeuner”, “déjeuner” and “dîner”, whereas the terms used in Quebec are “déjeuner”, “dîner” and “souper”. This can lead some people to make mistakes and possibly fail the test. For example, a U.S. citizen stated that when she took the test, she was asked to role-play a conversation where she had to order something at the Bistro du Louvre. The different expressions used in Quebec and France were a thorn in her side.

By not sending this bill to committee, we are missing opportunities to improve access to citizenship in general. We are denying ourselves the chance to identify obstacles to citizenship. We are also missing an opportunity to examine how knowledge of the official languages is evaluated in Canada, not just in Quebec. This is a missed opportunity for the provinces and territories as well. We could also have examined the criteria, in particular for obtaining permanent residency.

That is the very essence of the bill. If it does not go to committee, the claims that this bill would make it difficult to obtain citizenship will remain unsubstantiated. We will not be able to determine whether the bill could help strengthen the French fact and ensure that newcomers will fulfill the duties that come with citizenship and that they will be able to fully and completely participate in all that citizenship entails, such as the right to vote and the right to run in elections.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-223, which would amend the Citizenship Act to require that citizenship applicants who ordinarily reside in Quebec must demonstrate an adequate knowledge of French and must pass a test on the rights, responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship in French.

This bill would also increase the age range of applicants who must meet the language and knowledge requirements to 18 years of age or more but less than 65 years of age, compared to the current age range of 18 to 54 years.

In 2017, we amended the Citizenship Act to make it easier for immigrants to build successful lives in Canada, reunite with their families and contribute to the country's economic success. The goal was to encourage immigrants to develop a permanent sense of belonging and to become full-fledged members of Canadian society by getting their citizenship more quickly. These changes to the act reduced the age range for language and knowledge requirements from 14 to 65 to today's 18 to 54. By asking only applicants between the ages of 18 and 54 to meet the language and knowledge requirements, we are making life easier for immigrants to Canada and reducing barriers to citizenship for our oldest and youngest populations.

This flexibility also helps support the reunification of families by helping children, their parents and their grandparents obtain citizenship more quickly. That is an important step in enabling immigrants to develop a deeper sense of belonging to our society and become more active citizens.

By proposing to raise to 18 or more, but less than 65, the age range of people who have to show that they meet the language and knowledge requirements, Bill C-223 would undo the changes made in 2017 and restore the barriers to citizenship for older applicants. This would also have an adverse effect on the naturalization rate in Canada, which is currently one of the highest in the world at 85.8%.

We encourage all immigrants to become full members of Canadian society and we know that one of the most important pillars of a successful integration into Canadian society is obtaining citizenship. The success of our immigrants is our success as a strong and united country.

The proposed changes in this bill that would expand the age range and eliminate the choice of language would have a disproportionate and adverse effect on refugees, women, older newcomers and other vulnerable populations who might consider the obligation to meet the language and knowledge requirements in French only to be a barrier to citizenship.

These are populations that need our support and compassion and not additional barriers that have already been exacerbated by COVID-19.

We know that the intention of this bill is to protect and promote the French language in Quebec. Our government values Canada's linguistic duality. French and English are a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian identity, and we know how important it is to promote both official languages.

French and English are fundamental characteristics of the Canadian identity, and we know how important it is to promote our two official languages. We are committed to promoting French across Canada and to preserving and protecting the French language in Quebec.

The Government of Canada has committed to helping all newcomers get the French- or English-language skills they need to integrate into their communities and contribute to the Canadian economy. We know that immigration plays a key role in supporting francophone minority communities across the country and in maintaining Canada's bilingualism. We also know that established immigrants who obtain Canadian citizenship have a very strong sense of belonging to Canada.

Citizenship is a key element that opens doors to greater economic opportunities and encourages full participation in Canadian society. We have implemented measures to attract francophone newcomers to Canada and are working hard to support their integration and retention. This approach has helped strengthen the capacity of francophone communities across the country. By consolidating the francophone integration pathway, our government is committing to the principle of “par et pour”, ensuring that settlement services for francophones are offered by francophones.

It is important to note that Quebec selects all immigrants settling in that province except those in the family reunification for protected persons category. Under the Canada-Quebec accord, the Government of Canada gives the Province of Quebec an annual amount to administer and deliver services for the reception and linguistic, cultural and economic integration of immigrants who settle in Quebec, including resettled refugees.

Statistics show high rates of French acquisition over time among permanent residents who remain in Quebec, which reinforces the ultimate goal of French language acquisition. Census data show that, 10 years after arriving in Quebec, over 90% of those in the economic immigrant category, over 70% of those in the family reunification category and over 83% of refugees speak French. That means the vast majority of immigrants residing in Quebec end up speaking French.

I think we can all agree that that is good news. Given the importance of French in Canada and Quebec, we should do and are doing everything in our power to maintain and support Canada's rich linguistic duality. However, becoming Canadian should be as inclusive and equitable as possible, no matter where one lives in this great country.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this evening's important discussion on Bill C-223.

I have been listening to my colleagues speak in the House for a little while now, and I think we all agree. The bill's objective is clear. We support the objective, which is entirely laudable and noble: to stand up for the French language, for the place of the French language and for the demographic weight of francophones. As a New Democrat, a Montrealer and a Quebecker, I fully endorse those objectives.

However, we believe that this is the wrong tool to achieve a good objective. In that regard, I think the bill completely misses the mark in terms of its original intention, and for several reasons. A bill can be judged on several criteria, and I will name three of them: its enforceability, its effectiveness and the unintended consequences that might arise from the application or non-application of the bill. Unfortunately, what is being proposed here today would be difficult to enforce and not very effective and could have a harmful impact on some people.

Essentially, there are three main immigration categories, which my colleague mentioned earlier: family reunification; refugees who are in distress and fleeing violence; and economic immigrants, who represent the vast majority of immigrants welcomed into the country for economic development reasons, to mitigate labour shortages and to stimulate the economy by growing communities. Quebec already has the exclusive power to select its economic immigrants. There is also a whole series of factors that are taken into account when determining whether an applicant should be accepted as an economic immigrant.

For years, under various governments, Quebec has used a points system that gives more points for knowledge of French. The questions are extremely easy. By and large, that has worked well. Quebec is already able to attract francophone immigrants because it has total control over the system. The federal government also provides support in the form of French integration and French language classes for those who need it. Quebec is fully autonomous in that regard and has made decisions aimed at increasing the percentage of francophone immigrants. This is working fairly well, and I think this is the type of approach that should be taken, where incentives and resources are provided to help immigrants learn French.

The two other immigration categories stem from something else entirely, with objectives that are quite different. Family reunification is fairly clear. However, we accept refugees out of humanitarian duty, solidarity and compassion for people experiencing oppression, discrimination, violence and civil war, as is currently the case in Yemen. I would not want to withhold Canadian citizenship from someone fleeing Yemen because there is little chance that they speak French. We prioritize immigrants from north Africa, Belgium, Switzerland and France because they are awarded more points to come work here and contribute to Quebec's economy and society. I believe we should be able to make this distinction.

What is the objective of the program and the end goal? I do not think it is right to put obstacles in the way of refugees seeking citizenship just because they do not speak French or have difficulty learning French. I believe that those people need help, not additional obstacles, even if we agree on welcoming more francophone immigrants. I think it is completely inappropriate to apply these provisions to refugees, and refugee advocacy groups are concerned about that approach. It is not just the idea of saying that we do not want them to come here, it is that they will not obtain citizenship, and if they never get citizenship, they will not become engaged citizens and will not be able to vote in elections. It is like telling them to come here because we want to help them, but warning that they will never have the right to vote unless they learn French.

Is that really the message we want to send to promote French?

Some refugee advocates, including lawyer Guillaume Cliche-Rivard, with whom I spoke recently, told me they were very concerned, because this proposal assumes that a refugee coming from a war zone does not have a learning disability or PTSD, and that he or she is on an equal footing with an economic immigrant who comes here to start a business or work for Quebec companies. These are two completely different scenarios, and the bill before us is very broad in scope.

That is why I said it could have unintended consequences on certain categories of immigrants, such as refugees and people who come for family reunification. This concerns us, when Quebec already has a system that works well for economic immigrants.

It would also be difficult to enforce and ineffective, because it does not really take into account the fluidity of interprovincial moves.

A French test might be a prerequisite for citizenship in Quebec, but many immigrants who do not speak French will go to Toronto, Halifax, or Moncton, New Brunswick. They get their Canadian citizenship there, and three months or six months later, they move to Quebec to find work.

That means some people have to take the test and some do not. The latter can still move to Quebec because nobody stops them at the border to ask them what test they had to pass to get citizenship. Given that interprovincial moves were not considered, we find ourselves with a double standard. What should we do about that?

We share the same goal of defending the French fact. I am actually very proud that a motion I moved in the House of Commons a few weeks ago regarding the fragility of French in Quebec and Canada and the need to strengthen and promote it received the unanimous support of the House.

The NDP has a history of defending French. I want to mention a former member of ours from the Quebec City area, Alexandrine Latendresse, whose hard work resulted in a real victory. Because of the bill we introduced and got passed in the House of Commons, all officers of Parliament, such as the environment commissioner and the Auditor General, must be able to understand and speak French. This is a great example of a very tangible and very practical victory for the rights of francophones across the country.

For the past 10 or 12 years, we have been saying that Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language, should apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. As I mentioned earlier, when I was talking about contradictions and double standards, the situation right now is a little strange. For example, a Caisse populaire employee is protected by Bill 101, but a Royal Bank employee does not have the same protections to communicate in French. If Bill 101 applied, all workers in Quebec would have equal rights, no matter which company they work for. The NDP has been advocating for this since before Jack Layton was our leader, and we are still advocating for it under our current leader.

We are also calling for and requiring that Supreme Court judges be bilingual, that they be able to understand French and speak it well. It is a matter of equal legal rights for people pleading their case in court. I am sure that my Bloc Québécois and Conservative Party colleagues agree with us on that. Unfortunately, the Liberal government does not seem to be listening when it comes to these two files, namely, the application of Bill 101 in Quebec and the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges.

Another issue on which we could take meaningful action to change things is the modernization of the Official Languages Act. That is something that was promised by the Liberals, who have been in office for five years. Rather than a new bill, we might see a white paper or a discussion paper tomorrow. The more time passes, the further behind we fall on this issue. This law has not been modernized in nearly 30 years. I think it is time to look at what we can do to give the Official Languages Act more teeth, to give it more power and authority to defend vulnerable francophone communities in some parts of the country.

We want to give rights to francophones working in federally regulated businesses outside Quebec, but we are somewhat concerned that this is only possible where warranted by the concentration of francophones. Information was recently leaked to the media that seemed to indicate that if immigrants may not have this right if they are not sufficiently francophone. It is like a Scotiabank employee in Moncton having certain rights and an employee of the same bank in Calgary not having them.

The Liberals must do better.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

As no members are rising, I invite the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou to use her right of reply. She has five minutes.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again to conclude the debate at second reading of the bill that I introduced.

I had the opportunity to hear from members of the different parties and I am disappointed that the Liberal Party and the NDP do not seem to want to give this bill a chance to be examined in committee. I am disappointed because many studies clearly show that French is in decline in Quebec, particularly in Montreal. I am disappointed because it is essential that we put a stop to this trend and it is by passing bills like Bill C-223, combined with other measures, that we will be able to prevent this disaster. Quite frankly, I am not sure what the Liberal and NDP members did not understand. During the debate, we heard them say all sorts of things that had nothing to do with the bill. Sometimes I wondered if they even read it.

As we know, only 55% of allophones in Quebec make the language transfer to French. In English Canada, approximately 99% of allophones make the language transfer to English. To maintain our relative weight, 90% of allophones in Quebec would have to make the transfer to French.

I therefore invite my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-223 because it recognizes the primacy of French in Quebec, it is consistent with recognition of the Quebec nation, it contributes to sustaining French in Quebec, it restores the status of French in Quebec, it acknowledges the importance of speaking the language to exercise all the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship in Quebec, and it is an additional means to slow the decline of French in Quebec.

As for the Liberals, especially the ones from Quebec, I do not really understand why they would vote against this bill. I have to say that all I heard from the Liberals were weak and unconvincing arguments that often had nothing to do with my bill. As usual, the Liberals are using empty words to hide their unwillingness to take action. This bill in no way prevents anyone from immigrating to Canada, because citizenship is the final step in the immigration process. Our bill does not prevent anyone from seeking asylum in Canada. It does not prevent anyone from applying for permanent residence, a study permit, a work permit or a visa.

The Liberals have offered us false arguments. I get the feeling the Liberals do not actually have a reason to oppose the bill. They are against it because they are against it. They are against it for ideological reasons. They just do not like it when opposition parties come up with good ideas.

I think it makes perfect sense for people who immigrate to Quebec to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of French, just as it makes sense to know English in Great Britain, German and Germany and Mandarin in China. Making knowledge of French a prerequisite for obtaining Canadian citizenship in Quebec just makes sense.

Members of the House of Commons who vote against the very principle of Bill C-223 will be proving two things. First, they will be proving that Canada's bilingual nature is not important to them, by rejecting a minimum requirement for ensuring the vitality of French in North America. Second, they will be proving that Canada's constitutional framework cannot ensure the full vitality of the Quebec nation. It is important to make French the common language, as well as to ensure that everyone is included in order to build a coherent and inclusive society.

I therefore ask all of my colleagues in the House to do the right thing and support my bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request either a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I ask them to now rise and indicate so to the Chair.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 24, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 6:08 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 37, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-234 under Private Members' Business.