Bill C-32 (Historical)

An Act for the Substantive Equality of French and English and the Strengthening of the Official Languages Act

An Act to amend the Official Languages Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Official Languages Act to, among other things,
(a) codify certain interpretative principles regarding language rights;
(b) provide that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for exercising leadership within the Government of Canada in relation to the implementation of that Act;
(c) provide that section 16 of that Act applies to the Supreme Court of Canada;
(d) provide for Government of Canada commitments to
(i) protect and promote French,
(ii) contribute to an estimate of the number of children whose parents are rights holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
(iii) advance opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives, including from early childhood to post-secondary education, and
(iv) advance the use of English and French in the conduct of Canada’s external affairs;
(e) provide for certain positive measures that federal institutions may take to implement certain Government of Canada commitments, including measures to
(i) promote and support the learning of English and French, and
(ii) support sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities and protect and promote the presence of strong institutions serving those communities;
(f) provide for certain measures that the Minister of Canadian Heritage may take to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society;
(g) provide that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is required to adopt a policy on francophone immigration;
(h) provide that the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of cooperating with provincial and territorial governments;
(i) provide for rights respecting the use of French as a language of service and a language of work in relation to federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and regions with a strong francophone presence;
(j) provide that the Treasury Board is required to monitor and audit federal institutions for their compliance with policies, directives and regulations relating to the official languages, evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of policies and programs of federal institutions relating to the official languages and provide certain information to the public and to employees of federal institutions;
(k) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to enter into compliance agreements and, in certain cases, to make orders; and
(l) permit employees of federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and regions with a strong francophone presence to make a complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages with respect to rights and duties in relation to language of work, and permit that Commissioner to refer the complaint to the Canada Industrial Relations Board in certain circumstances.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for their openness. I will therefore be sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

As I rise in the House today, I cannot help but feel disappointed. All that, for this? The Liberals tabled a white paper in February 2021 that clearly stated in black and white that the Treasury Board was to become the central agency responsible for implementing the Official Languages Act, as I pointed out in my question earlier. A few months later, in June 2021, the official languages minister at the time, currently the Minister of Foreign Affairs, introduced Bill C-32. An election was called two months later. What a coincidence. A lot of time was wasted, and we had to start over at square one.

The new Minister of Official Languages introduced her bill, C-13, in March 2022. We were told that the bill solved all the problems and that it had to be passed as quickly as possible. The Liberals begged the opposition parties to co-operate and expedite the bill. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages, where we heard from witnesses so we could do our work effectively. All of a sudden, the Liberals moved a motion to cut off debate. We had to move so quickly that we wasted eight meetings discussing this problem that had been caused by the Liberals at committee.

They are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They want us to move quickly, but they muzzled us for eight meetings. The opposition parties worked together to take the time needed. We reached out to the Liberals several times to try to get them to listen to reason. They wanted four meetings and we wanted twelve, so we split the difference and decided on eight. I think that is a good compromise. It shows that the opposition parties were acting in good faith. As for the Liberals, that is another story.

The Conservative Party takes bilingualism in Canada very seriously. We worked hard in committee, as I mentioned. We took the time to listen to stakeholders across the country. We worked to respond to their concerns. I am talking about stakeholders like the Fédération des communautés francophone et acadienne du Canada, the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, the Commissioner of Official Languages and many others. These people live with the reality of being a linguistic minority every day. The Liberals would have everyone living in these official language minority communities, particularly in New Brunswick, believe that they are responding to their demands.

I want to tell everyone living in those official language minority communities—whether it is in New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories or British Columbia—not to worry, because the Conservative Party of Canada is there for them and always will be.

In committee, we received a pile of amendments from all parties. About 10 amendments were tabled by the NDP; the Bloc proposed over 80, and we tabled about 60.

It comes as no surprise that the Liberals were ready. They had written a white paper, then introduced Bill C-32, followed by Bill C-13. They must have refined their bill, at least I hope so. However, they filed about 50 amendments, which is pretty interesting. In addition to the 50 amendments, it was clear that there was some dissension within the Liberal caucus. Among those 50 amendments, there were duplicates, which means that two Liberal members had tabled the same amendments. This goes to show how much time they are wasting. Are they even talking within their party? Are they talking to the anglophone members from Quebec? It is a mess. Then they want us to move quickly. They say this issue is so important. This is just one example of Liberal incompetence and inconsistency.

Again this week in the House, the Liberals proposed amendments that could and should have been put forward in committee—but no, they are holding up the process. They claim that it needs to move quickly, but they are holding up the process. Worse, to hear the Liberals talk about official languages, the decline of the French language and the need to protect both official languages, it all seems to be so important to them. However, there was a vote at report stage yesterday, and the Deputy Prime Minister, whom we have been looking for in all the committees, and even in the House of Commons, did not even vote, even though we have a virtual application to do just that. The Minister of Justice, who is a Quebecker and is affected by this legislation, did not even vote. Worse yet, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Quebec lieutenant, who is the main party involved and has responsibilities under this bill, did not even vote. Official languages and the decline of the French language are so very important to them—we had another clear demonstration of that yesterday.

This government's lack of interest and disengagement is obvious again today. What day is it? It is Friday, the day when members have the least amount of time to speak. Who is in charge of the agenda? The Liberals are. Who chose to do this on a Friday? The Liberals did. What does that mean? It means that they do not want to hear about this, that they want to sweep it under the rug. That is obvious, because there is bickering within the Liberal caucus. This is just more smoke and mirrors, to create the illusion that the Liberals care about official languages.

Let us talk about the stakeholders. We met several, but I want to talk about two in particular. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, which represents 2.8 million French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec, was calling for six amendments. It was not a huge or unreasonable request. How many of those amendments were fully adopted? Not one was adopted. Good job, Liberals. The Conservative Party agrees with those recommendations and brought forward amendments along those lines. Unfortunately, the NDP-Liberal coalition ignored the FCFA. It did the same thing to the Commissioner of Official Languages. The Liberals and the NDP did not listen.

The bill moved a step forward, but at a snail's pace. It is not that important, then. It was just one step forward. I think I would walk a long, long way for our official languages, but this bill, sadly, goes no farther than a single step. As parliamentarians, this was our chance to take concrete action to reverse the very real decline of French in Canada, and even in Quebec. It is deplorable that official language minority community stakeholders are not being listened to and get nothing but empty words.

I am concerned about the future of Canada as a country bilingual in English and French. We must remember that we have a Governor General who is bilingual but does not speak French. When we talk about bilingualism in Canada, we are referring to the two official languages, the two founding languages.

I was born a francophone in Canada, and my children speak French. I hope that my grandchildren will be able to speak French, here, in Canada. I am proud to be Canadian. I am proud to be a Quebecker. I am proud to represent the people of Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier. I will fight tooth and nail for francophones in Quebec and across Canada. My ancestors fought that fight and I will continue fighting it. I am proud of our bilingual Canada, and I am not alone: More than 80% of Canadians value their bilingualism.

I want to remind members of one thing. The Official Languages Act was introduced in 1969 and modernized in 1988. Who did that? The Conservatives. The Harper government was the first to recognize the Quebec nation in a united Canada. He understood Quebec and its unique linguistic reality, and he recognized that it was important for the country.

Quebec has the largest pool of francophones in North America, and it must have the tools it needs to preserve its language and culture, which, by extension, will help francophone communities across Canada.

Our leader, the member for Carleton also values the French language. He is educating his children in French and he speaks both official languages here in the House. He understands the challenges and is making an effort to protect and promote both of Canada's official languages.

In closing, I would again like to reassure the official language minority communities. Unlike the Liberals, we have heard them very clearly and we will call for a single central agency and an enumeration of rights holders. We heard them.

It is truly important to the Conservative Party of Canada that Canada remain an English-French bilingual country, and it will focus on reversing the decline of French and protecting both official languages.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

moved that Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members, colleagues and friends, I am extremely pleased to be here to speak to you today. To begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered here on the traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

Bill C‑13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages, is now in the hands of members for debate at third reading. At the end of the debate, members will have to decide whether the bill will pass in the House of Commons. I know they will give it due consideration in light of the bill's vital role in promoting Canada's two official languages, halting the decline of French in the country and ensuring that our nation's official language minority communities thrive.

I thank them in advance and I assure them once again of my full co-operation.

Bill C-13 has not yet reached the end of its legislative journey, but the fact that it has made it this far is an achievement worth noting. There has been lively debate, sometimes tense, often emotional but always productive. The operative word here is “productive”, because that is the message we should take away from this process. Without such debate, we could not claim to live in a healthy democracy and we would not have the robust bill that we have before us today.

We all have strong convictions about official languages because they define us and are central to our identity. At times, those convictions can divide us. Fortunately, however, everyone has done their bit and we have managed to come together because, despite our differing views, we recognize that our official languages contribute to Canada's development and are integral to the image that Canada projects in the world. I am delighted to have found common ground with the Government of Quebec, which is a key player in the Canadian and international Francophonie. We can be proud of the progress we have made to date.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for going through this bill clause by clause and, I have to say, with a fine-tooth comb. I know that, over the past year, they have devoted 26 meetings to this bill and proposed upward of 200 amendments. Some amendments from each party were adopted. Thanks to that colossal effort, Canadians can rest assured that Bill C-13 is on the right track. There is nothing more reassuring than knowing that a bill has passed the test of the House of Commons. Moreover, official-language minority communities have expressed relief, knowing that Bill C-13 has finally reached third reading. That alone is evidence enough for me that this bill has met the expectations on the ground.

A reform of this magnitude cannot be undertaken by just one player. It must be the result of collaborative thinking and must embrace all points of view.

We were able to do just that with Bill C-13 thanks to the thousands of people who stepped forward to present their views on official languages even before the reform began and who have continued to do so all along.

Let us remember that, in 2019, on the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act, Canadians expressed their commitment to our two official languages. They made it clear that they want to build on that legacy. Francophones and anglophones enthusiastically participated in the round tables and symposia that we organized across the country and online.

Every clause of this bill reflects their hopes, dreams and concerns. We did the impossible by incorporating all of that into the text of this legislation in order to preserve the spirit of their vision and make a difference in their daily lives. It is also important to point out that we took every opportunity to improve the bill for Canadians.

I want to once again take a moment to recognize the work done by my friend and colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when she was responsible for official languages. She was the one who started the major work of reforming our language regime, which included reaching out to stakeholders across the country. She was driven by sincere empathy and a desire to forge a friendship with official language minority communities.

She did not hesitate in the least when it came time to stand up for their institutions. As a francophone and a Montrealer, she demonstrated how important it is for Quebec's francophones to show solidarity with francophones in other provinces and territories.

I myself come from an official language minority community, and I personally felt her positive energy. I want to thank her again. In 2021, her efforts culminated in the tabling of the reform document entitled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”, which proposed 56 legislative, administrative and regulatory amendments. Bill C-13 embodies the government's vision for a modernized act.

We have been fortunate to strike the right legislative balance on official languages. Our experience with Bill C-32, the predecessor to Bill C‑13, was very enlightening. It enabled us to improve the bill to make it even more robust. Ultimately, Canadians are the ones who will benefit.

An objective of the language reform has always been clear: to strengthen and modernize our Official Languages Act. Bill C-13 would be one pillar of that reform. In adopting this bill, we would be laying the groundwork for substantive equality between French and English in Canada. Bill C-13 also seeks to ensure that Canadians would be able to live and thrive in both official languages.

The bill would recognize the importance of bilingualism to Canadian identity. In concrete terms, this would mean providing Canada with legislative tools to curb the decline of French; better protect the institutions of official-language minority communities, including English-speaking Quebeckers; improve the compliance of federal institutions by strengthening the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the role of the Treasury Board in part 7 of the act; and promote individual bilingualism in Canada.

People might ask, “What difference would this make in the lives of Canadians?” Bill C-13 would make a difference in a number of areas, as it would represent major gains for communities across the country. First, it would recognize the special status of French, which is in a minority situation in Canada and also in North America due to the predominant use of English. That recognition would make all the difference because it would pave the way for the necessary legislative measures to protect French, and Bill C-13 would take all the necessary measures.

Across the country, the stakeholders who best understand the challenges facing our official languages are urging us to pass Bill C-13 as soon as possible. Their calls to action have grown louder and louder in recent months, and I have to say that it is for good reason. Halting the decline of French will require a team effort on the part of all stakeholders, including communities, the Government of Canada, our provincial and territorial colleagues and Parliament itself. We can imagine what would happen if we just stood by and watched. The demographic weight of francophones continues to slide, and the demographic weight has already been below the critical threshold for some time now, which has francophones and francophiles worried.

Canada has now met its target for francophone immigration to minority communities for the first time since it set its targets in 2003. To be sure, this achievement is great news, and we have every reason to be delighted. It confirms that we have the capacity to act, and that well-managed efforts yield results, something we tend to doubt at times. However, we also know that we cannot afford to become complacent. We must do more and we must do better. We have made sure that Bill C-13 contains provisions to counter the decline of French, including by investing in francophone immigration. It is so crucial that our immigration policy include objectives, targets and also indicators that are conducive to increasing francophone immigration outside of Quebec.

More generally, Bill C-13 would provide better support for the French language throughout Canada, including in Quebec and also internationally. Such support would necessarily include increased protection for institutions of francophone minority communities across the country, whose vitality would be strengthened as a result. We recognize the positive effects of a vibrant language on the well-being and development of a community. Every action taken to strengthen a language yields profound, life-giving benefits for the people who speak it.

As members have often heard me say in the House, French is the only official language in Canada that is under threat; as such, we must do more in order to protect it. At the same time, we need to understand that increased support for French in no way represents a reduced commitment by the government to English-speaking Quebeckers in Quebec. Our commitment to those communities and their vitality remains firm and unwavering. On this point, I want to reassure Canadians that the provisions of Bill C-13 aimed at protecting linguistic minorities and minority institutions would apply to all official-language minority communities in Canada, including English-speaking Quebeckers.

For a bill to have a real impact, it needs to have teeth. If not, how could we enforce linguistic rights in this country? I must say that Bill C‑13 has the teeth we need.

It enhances the enforcement of part VII of the Official Languages Act to better regulate the implementation of positive measures by federal institutions and to clarify the duty of federal institutions to take the necessary measures to promote the inclusion of language clauses in agreements negotiated with the provinces and territories. It enhances the powers of the Treasury Board to ensure better coordination and accountability with respect to official languages across the entire Government of Canada. It strengthens the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages, giving him more tools, such as the power to enter into compliance agreements, make orders or even impose monetary penalties on certain private businesses and Crown corporations in the transportation sector that communicate with and serve the travelling public. As I already mentioned, the bill also enhances the francophone immigration policy.

Finally, it enacts a new act that will strengthen the use of French in federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence outside Quebec. What is more, the recently proposed amendments to this new legislation seek to enhance and clarify the federal system with respect to the use of French in businesses.

One of the priority areas of Bill C-13 was to take into account the varying realities of the provinces and territories. Once again, I am pleased that we were able to come to an agreement with the Government of Quebec on this crucial point.

The second pillar supporting our language regime is our action plan for official languages 2023-28, entitled “Protection-Promotion-Collaboration”. That new action plan, which I recently unveiled, would support the implementation of Bill C-13 by putting forward a historic investment of more than $4.1 billion to support the vitality of our official-language minority communities from coast to coast to coast.

Our plan is built on four key pillars: francophone immigration, supporting lifelong learning, strong measures to support communities, and a federal government that must lead by example. With the adoption of Bill C-13 and the historic investment made with our new action plan, our government would be sending a clear signal that our official languages are a priority for the government.

The bill has been a long time in the making. It has now come to fruition. I understand that some members might still be hesitant to pass this legislation, so I want everyone to know that a lot of hard work has gone into balancing the wishes of all Canadians, especially the wishes of official language minority communities and the wishes of their governments.

As members who care deeply about the interests of our constituents, we know that our priorities can differ from one another, and reconciling those priorities is not always easy. However, I am confident that Bill C-13 reflects everyone's interests to the extent possible and will bring tangible gains for each of our communities across the country. Bill C‑13 will help protect and promote French across Canada, including in Quebec. Once again, I would like to salute the spirit of co-operation that has made this such a great success.

As a francophone and an Acadian from Moncton, I never forget who I am and where I come from. I am most proud of having been able to introduce Bill C-13 virtually from Grand-Pré in Nova Scotia, the cradle of Acadia, as I like to call it. It is a place that reminds us of a people's struggle to preserve their language and culture in the face of the violence and assimilation they endured. In my part of the country, people have great hopes for this language reform. They have a great deal to lose if Bill C‑13 falls short.

I certainly am not going to disappoint them, and I feel confident that everything has been done to meet their expectations and those of all Canadians. Everyone can rest assured of that.

Therefore, it is with the utmost confidence that I invite my colleagues to pass this bill as quickly as possible. The members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages have already carried out a pre-study of Bill C-13. I now invite them to continue the work.

I now look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, French and English are foundational to our nation. The bilingual nature of our country is in our DNA, and we do not want to lose it. Where I am from in British Columbia, as well as throughout this country, there has been a decline in French spoken at home. The French language and French Canadian culture are part of who we are, our tradition and our heritage.

I live in Maple Ridge. Right across from where I live is Fort Langley, which is where the first capital of British Columbia was situated. The French Canadian coureurs de bois, or voyageurs, were very much a part of that. Maillardville in Coquitlam is the hub of francophone culture in the Vancouver area. Every year, thousands come to the annual Festival du Bois, which highlights French Canadian music, dance, art and traditions.

I am glad there are hundreds of thousands of students, past and current, who have gone through French immersion programs in British Columbia. It speaks volumes about the interest in the language among the non-francophone population.

Francophone minorities in my province of British Columbia, as well as across Canada, have been calling for the modernization of the law on official languages for many years.

My mother put a lot of effort into trying to encourage me, or force me, to learn French. She put me with French families and gave me lists of verbs to learn, but I did not really apply myself very well. It was after I graduated from high school and started travelling that I realized there was real value in learning other languages and communication. I went on to take courses in university to study it. I am very appreciative of the effort my mother made. It has enriched my life.

I believe there is great merit in strengthening the bilingual nature of our country.

I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-13, which modernizes the Official Languages Act. I have had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Official Languages for two or three years now, with a few interruptions. During that time, as a committee, we had the opportunity to hear from many individuals and organization representatives who shared their expertise and opinions on official languages in minority communities across Canada.

One thing is clear and unanimous. We need to modernize the Official Languages Act, particularly to address the decline of French in the areas of the country where it is a minority language.

I would like to talk a little bit about my francophone roots, my family lineage. What happened to my family happened to hundreds of thousands of other French Canadian families in western Canada who were originally from Quebec. My grandfather was Léopold Beaudoin. He married my grandmother, Alice, in the 1920s. At that time Quebec families had a lot of children. My grandparents had 18.

Like perhaps most people, my grandfather was a farmer. During this time, the population in Quebec was growing. There was less and less land to support the big families and provide enough food. They decided to move to Opasatika, near Kapuskasing, in Ontario.

As we all know, there is a large francophone community in northern Ontario. My mother was born there. However, after 10 years, they decided to start over in the Rivière‑la‑Paix region in northern Alberta. Many small francophone communities were established in the region, such as Falher, Girouxville, Saint‑Paul, Bonnyville and Morinville, and, beforehand, there were already towns such as Saint‑Albert and Leduc.

My father is Métis. He was born in Joussard. He later joined the Canadian Armed Forces. Whenever my family visited these communities, everyone spoke French. What is the current situation?

French is still spoken, but the demographic weight of francophones is decreasing. Farms are much bigger because of technological advances, and families have far fewer children. Furthermore, many of these children move to Edmonton, Calgary or other cities when they grow up. The situation is similar in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and other provinces.

Francophones are proud of their heritage, their culture, their language. We want it to be preserved, but not as an exhibit in a museum. The French language should be vibrant and alive. It is a major challenge. We are in a sea of anglophones. Almost all business transactions and communications are in English. It is the same situation all immigrants end up in when they want to retain their heritage, their culture and their language but still speak the language of the majority, either English or French in Quebec. The difference is that French and English are the official languages of our country.

It is part of our heritage, part of our history as a country. Speaking of our heritage, I am a little disappointed in the Liberal government. I do not think they show enough appreciation for our heritage. For instance, on the new passport that the Liberals are introducing, they have erased the image of the Vimy memorial, where thousands of Canadians were killed during the First World War. It was a foundational battle for Canada as a nation. The Liberals have also erased the image of Terry Fox, a Métis like me and a world-famous Canadian hero. In my view, in their pursuit of wokeness, they are rejecting Canada's traditions and history.

I am not entirely convinced that Liberals are committed to protecting and promoting the French language. I say this with respect, and I am certainly not accusing all Liberals. The Liberal government has been talking about modernizing the Official Languages Act to better promote bilingualism in Canada for eight years now. The Liberals promised this when they first came to power, and it was still part of their election platform in 2019 and again in 2021.

We were just about to begin the debate on Bill C-32 in 2021, but what happened? The Liberals decided to call an unnecessary election during the pandemic, and that killed the bill. We had to start over. What is happening now? The Liberal government just added a dozen amendments to its bill. Why did it not do this during the committee study? It will only slow down the process. That is also what the Liberals did in committee, with 50 amendments.

These motions at report stage are not substantive amendments and could easily have been moved in committee. However, the Liberals once again decided to waste time. I wonder if they really want to pass this bill. We have a minority government, and the Prime Minister could easily call an election, which would once again kill this bill. I hope we will quickly move to third reading.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑13 on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

As members know, this is a historic moment. It has been a long time since we have reviewed this legislation, 35 years to be exact. As the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, I want to tell my colleagues that I did all of my schooling in English because there was no French school. We did not have this essential protection at the time. My children, however, were able to do all of their schooling, from kindergarten to grade 12, in French. What a change. That was made possible because of the first Official Languages Act in 1969. Thanks to that, my grandchildren will also be able to complete all of their schooling in French.

I want to tell my colleagues that this was a very long process. First, there was the Official Languages Act in 1969. Section 23 was added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 and changes were made to the act in 1988. Then, as members know, Bill C‑32, which sought to strengthen the Official Languages Act, died on the Order Paper. Now, we are back with Bill C‑13, which underwent a number of essential changes in committee.

As I see it, the most important thing is that the act will have to be reviewed every 10 years. We will not have to wait 35 years. The procedure has already been established. The Minister of Canadian Heritage, in consultation with the President of the Treasury Board, will have to undertake a review, a comprehensive analysis of the enhancement of the vitality of the communities. They will examine whether we have achieved our objective of protecting and promoting the French language. They will also examine whether sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of Quebec's francophones and anglophones, including health, immigration, employment and French-language education from early childhood to the post-secondary level, have been respected. A report will have to be tabled in the House of Commons. In my opinion, this is a well-regimented procedure.

Let us start with the Treasury Board. It is the most important machine in Parliament. Bill C‑13 would make the optional powers, duties and responsibilities mandatory, which is essential. The Treasury Board will have some meaningful work to do.

Other improvements were made in committee. They are very important to mention. Every community across the country asked that there be a central agency, a minister responsible, and we can now check that off the list. What is more, the minister cannot withdraw from their responsibilities or delegate them. The Treasury Board and the minister will have to ensure compliance.

As far as justice is concerned, Bill C‑13 confirms that justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have to be bilingual. Still today, the Conservatives do not agree with that and do not want that to happen. I do not understand it. In committee, progress was also made on appointing justices to superior courts and appeal courts. It is extremely important. We have to take into account people's needs in terms of access to justice. The Canadian Bar Association and the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law have been asking for that for years.

Let us talk about immigration. In my opinion, this is the perfect example. When we started working on Bill C‑32, having a policy was important. When we moved on to Bill C‑13, ensuring that the policy had some content, some details, was important. Finally, in committee, we determined that not only did we need details, but we also needed to ensure that the demographic weight was restored and increased. It is going to be a game of catch-up and we will have to increase our newcomer target to 8% or 9% and then go back to our target of 4.4% or better.

Let us move on to real estate. I am quite pleased because this was a problem for 20, 25, 30 years across Canada.

I can say that now, because of the amendments that were made, the government has to consider the needs of the school community, which was not the case before. It is great to have a charter of rights that recognizes the right to education in French, but if land cannot be purchased, how and where are we supposed to build schools? It is not possible. Now, this will be guaranteed. It will no longer be an option, but an obligation, for the government to do something that is essential. It must consult the school boards about their needs.

I can cite examples such as the Jericho lands and Heather Street lands in Vancouver, Royal Roads in Victoria, Lagimodière Boulevard in Winnipeg, or Oxford Street in Halifax.

With respect to the language clause or the positive measures, the Standing Committee on Official Languages has made a lot of progress. It is not perfect, but it made a lot of progress.

When agreements are being negotiated, those involved, such as school boards or the organizations concerned, must be consulted. It is important to ensure that there is accountability, and that when money is earmarked for a certain organization or a certain location, it ends up there. Major progress has been made in that regard.

The Commissioner of Official Languages has been given significantly increased powers. Bill C-13 of course gives him the power to impose penalties and to make orders. This does not mean that violators will have to pay billions of dollars in penalties, but the idea is that anyone who has to pay $10, $100, $1,000 or $10,000 will be called out. That is very important. We are also giving the commissioner other powers and additional tools to do his job, which is to protect and promote the French language, and that is extremely important.

Now, I must say, there are areas where we did not accomplish as much as we would have liked, and that hurts. On enumeration, we were not able to get it done the way we wanted. Nevertheless, we added that question to the short form census two years ago, which means that everyone had to answer it. We still have that data, which will be good for 10 years. I am confident that if the Liberals are still in power in 10 years, we will be able to achieve and cement this. This is extremely important.

As I mentioned, the language clauses and positive measures are not what I would have liked, but we did make some progress, and I would like to thank the opposition parties for helping us.

I also realize that English-speaking Quebeckers have some concerns that deserve mentioning. However, I can assure you that our government is going to defend linguistic duality and the rights of anglophone Quebeckers in Quebec.

We will continue to provide funding, protect language and culture, and ensure the court challenges program is kept in place and adequately funded.

I am extremely proud to commend the government and the opposition for doing a great job and for the work done and the progress made on bills C‑32 and C‑13 at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It truly is a team effort. I am very proud of the House and, as always, ready to answer questions.

Motions in Amendment

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to say that I would have liked to debate the motion moved by my Bloc Québécois colleague. I think that we Conservatives would have agreed to it, because it is consistent with what we presented in committee, in that it is about shortening the review period. Instead of 10 years, as written, we wanted to shorten the period to five years, but the Liberals refused. My colleague in the Bloc Québécois had an even better idea, which was to reduce the review period to three years. When something is urgent, we need time to react. The faster we react, the easier it is to close the gap in order to halt the decline of the French language.

As a fervent defender of French, I am always happy to rise in the House of Commons to defend the language. My goal is obviously to halt the decline of the French language and to protect and promote both official languages.

Before I get into the nuts and bolts of the issue, that is, the government's proposed amendments to Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages, at report stage, it is important to understand how we got here.

Earlier, my colleague mentioned that funding was doubled, but we lost eight years that could have been spent providing the tools needed to protect French here in Canada. This government has been in power for eight years and, for eight years, it has dragged its feet when it comes to official languages. It gives organizations the illusion that it is doing enough to protect bilingualism in Canada.

Way back in 2018, the Prime Minister pledged to modernize the Official Languages Act, a promise that was repeated in the 2019 and 2021 Liberal platforms. It will probably be repeated again in the next election campaign, the outcome of which remains to be seen.

In 2021, the government tabled a white paper on the reform of the Official Languages Act, titled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”. Bill C-32 was tabled by the then minister of official languages, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but it later died on the Order Paper when the government decided to call an election.

When she was appointed after the 2021 election, the new Minister of Official Languages promised that she would present a new version of the Official Languages Act in her first 100 days. She almost kept her promise. Bill C-13 was tabled in March 2022 to halt the decline of the French language in Canada and promote our two official languages, English and French.

Why am I focusing on the words “English and French” when talking about bilingualism? It is because the government appointed a Governor General who is bilingual, but who does not speak French. The Governor General is our representative, and has some lovely qualities, but unfortunately, she does not speak French. That is a good representation of how much this government cares about defending the French fact.

If it were as important to the Liberals as they say it is, rather than just an election promise, we would not be here today debating Bill C‑13, since a reform would have been adopted long ago.

In rising in the House today, on April 26, at report stage of Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages, I recall the many times the language minister rose in this chamber.

She stated:

I hope once again that members of the House will work with us because stakeholders across the country want this bill to be passed as quickly as possible and we have a lot of work to do.

She was right. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages tried several times in committee to shut down debate on this bill by limiting the number of witnesses who would appear before the committee and the amount of time that would be spent debating the amendments. The Conservative Party of Canada takes English-French bilingualism very seriously.

We had an incredible opportunity to modernize the Official Languages Act, something that has not been done since 1988. As parliamentarians, this was our chance to take meaningful action to reverse the decline of French, a very real problem in both Canada and Quebec.

We were good sports and reached out to find compromises to move this file forward. We took the time to listen to stakeholder organizations that are feeling the impact of the decline of French every day, and we took the necessary action to give Bill C-13 more teeth, as the minister has said. However, we were unsuccessful because of a lack of will on the part of the government.

At committee stage, the Liberals moved over 50 amendments, many of which were identical but were submitted by different Liberal members. Some Liberal members also monopolized the time for debate and kept the Standing Committee on Official Languages from moving forward. That shows three things: The Liberals are not working as a team, they are inconsistent and they are disorganized.

Now here we are today, April 26, 2023, at report stage, with about 10 government motions on the table, and that is after some were withdrawn. These motions do not amend the substance of the bill. They could easily have been put forward in committee, but the Liberals chose instead to draw out the process for passing the bill.

I heard my colleague talking earlier about moving forward as quickly as possible so that the bill can be passed as soon as possible, as all organizations are calling for. Unfortunately, this was not taken into consideration, which is why, today, we are talking about details that are wasting time and dragging out the debate.

In accordance with the normal legislative process, we will have to vote at report stage. That will be followed by another stage in the House of Commons. We do not know when this will happen, since the government has not revealed its strategy. However, we will have to return to the House, debate and vote. Then the bill will have to be studied by the other place, the Senate. This shows that the Liberal government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It says it wants to move fast, but it is disorganized. Amendments were moved today. Amendments were moved in committee. I just want to point out that the Liberals moved 50 amendments.

They drafted a white paper, Bill C-32 and Bill C‑13. They submitted Bill C‑13 to committee and are submitting it again today. What does that show? It shows that the government does not necessarily want to fast-track Bill C‑13. I think that is unfortunate.

I also think it is unfortunate that the Bloc Québécois was unable to move its motion because the Liberals objected. I respect and accept your decision, but the decision was made based on the fact that it could have been debated in committee, yet that also applies to what the government just proposed.

Unfortunately, the act will not have a shorter review period that would allow us to make adjustments when we find out, on the day it takes effect after the bill receives royal assent, that it cannot ensure that concrete action will be taken to halt the decline of the French language in Canada.

I think that this is important, that we should be proud of this bill, proud of our French language and proud of our English language. Bilingualism is something for Canada to be proud of, something that makes us attractive and unique. We owe it to ourselves to respect the organizations that work hard every day to protect our official language minority communities.

With all due respect for my colleague, we in the Conservative Party of Canada will once again reach out and not obstruct the progress of Bill C‑13.

However, I hope the Liberal government does not have any more surprises in store for us that will slow the process down. We should pass the bill as soon as possible so we can move on to something else and give our organizations the tools they need to do what they do every day to protect the French language, halt its decline, and protect and promote English and French. We do not want to pit our two official languages against each other. We are proud of both.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In my opinion, this is another very important amendment. After hearing from many witnesses, including representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, I think that using the word “les” instead of “des” in French makes all the difference. There is only one letter that is different, but the word “des” is vaguer than the word “les”.

I will read the amendment and then I will present my arguments to try to convince my colleagues to adopt it.

Amendment CPC‑26 proposes that Bill C‑13, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 32 on page 11 with the following:

the positive measures necessary for the implementation of the commitments under—

In other words, in addition to the change that I just explained, the amendment seeks to replace the words “that it considers appropriate” to “necesssary” in reference to positive measures.

I will summarize.

A ruling was handed down in May 2018 after the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique, or FFCB, was forced to fight in court for services to be offered in French and for investments to be made in the francophone community. It talked about employment centres, among other things. I think that everyone is familiar with this case and its outcome. If I remember correctly, the judge ruled in favour of the FFCB based on the distinction between the words “les” and “des” in French. It was the case of FFCB v. Employment and Social Development Canada.

Then, there was Bill C‑32, which was well done.

The government then appealed the Federal Court's decision. You will understand that it is rather odd for the federal governmnet to take an organization that defends minorities to court.

In reference to federal insittutions, Bill C‑13 indicates “that the positive measures that it considers appropriate are taken”. I have heard that people want to replace the word “les” with “des” in French but we will see what happens later in committee. It is important to leave in the word “les” in French and to remove the phrase “that it considers appropriate” so that the number of rights-holders can be enumerated rather than estimated. That is the debate we just had in committee.

If we adopt amendment CPC‑26, it would strengthen the bill. I think that the goal of all members here is to properly support both official languages. If, in the near future, anyone argues in favour of replacing the word “les” with the word “des” in French, it will take us back even further than Bill C‑32.

Amendment CPC‑26 is vital to show respect for what we are doing here, for the FFCB and for the FCFA, which brings together nearly 200 organizations that represent francophone minorities outside Quebec. Even though this amendment may seem trivial because it is so short, it is vital. It seeks to do two things: to leave in the word “les” rather than changing it to another word like “des” in the French version of the bill and to remove the words “that it considers appropriate”.

I presented my arguments, as did my colleagues, on eliminating the idea of consideration.

I will stop there, Mr. Chair. I think it is very important that we adopt this amendment.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I would note that when this law was originally tabled as Bill C-32, I think it was—for people who have better memories than me—Bill 96 didn't even exist and it wasn't law.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Once again, and I want to emphasize this with regard to positive measures, Bill C-13 goes further than Bill C-32. In addition, non-governmental organizations, as you cited as an example, are mentioned in the new version of the act. That's new. We want to ensure that this bill is passed because we want to continue doing the necessary work.

We still have a lot of work ahead of us to develop the regulations and so on. We are all eager to continue that very important work.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

First of all, Mr. Godin, as regards my role at the cabinet table, my voice isn't a lesser voice; it carries just as much weight as those of all the other cabinet members.

Bill C-32 was indeed the first take on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. However, I have just introduced the final version of the bill, which contains improvements.

People often ask me if our bill is less rigorous. I was asked that today. However, it's quite the contrary: we've gone to great lengths to ensure that our bill has more teeth.

We've done that, Mr. Godin, because stakeholders across the country have asked us to make amendments to the bill. For example, they wanted us to give the Commissioner of Official Languages more powers and tools to do his job, to clarify the immigration policy and to provide a more precise definition of positive measures.

Since the bill hasn't yet been passed, I hope the committee will work together to pass it as soon as possible.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here today.

We all have the same objective: to work at strengthening bilingualism in Canada, both English and French.

You said in your statement that you had conducted many consultations. I believe that's true because we've seen your itinerary. You have a very busy schedule. So I'm satisfied that you met with the representatives of organizations.

However, I'd like to know something. We've had the white paper, BillC-32 and the consultation that you conducted this past year. Did you hear loud and clear what the representatives of the official language minority communities told you?

I'm going to talk to you right now about the first demand of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the FCFA. It has requested that the Treasury Board be designated as the central agency responsible for implementing Bill C-13. Do you support that request, which I believe is unanimous among all the communities represented by the FCFA?

We can see that there's some confusion. Earlier the Minister of Canadian Heritage didn't seem to be aware of the issue. He gave you all the responsibilities, but your position isn't mentioned in the bill. He has no powers.

Would you be inclined to amend the bill to implement the FCFA's first recommendation?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the ministers for being with us this morning.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, I've often heard francophone columnists and commentators say that Bill C-13 wouldn't go as far as Bill C-32.

I don't get the impression that's true, but I want to give you a chance to state your view of the matter.

[Mona Fortier]

It was Bill C‑32.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Senate has already done a study and submitted a report. We've wasted five meetings. Mr. Chair, follow the process regarding amendments.

The Conservative-Bloc coalition has merely submitted amendment after amendment.

Follow the process, and we will vote. We're flexible; we proved that two weeks ago. We were ready to accept the dates that Mr. Godin proposed, and then we continued with another meeting. We've heard from 6,000 stakeholders on the action plan and they told us we should pass the bill as soon as possible. The Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta, or ACFA, and the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, the AFO, told us we should proceed with clause-by-clause consideration. Since 2019, we've proposed the white paper, Bill C‑32 and Bill C‑13. Stakeholders want us to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.

I really don't understand what's going on. I'm being told to withdraw my motion without the other sub-amendments being voted upon. We have to follow the process. We're prepared to vote on an amendment. I encourage the members here today to vote for the sub-amendments. That way, we'll be following the process and can then move on to my motion. We're flexible on dates, as we've previously said.

We can't get there because there's been systematic obstruction over the past five meetings. Don't tell me we're wasting meetings. We've already wasted five. That's enough.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Larocque, after Bill C‑32 was introduced, you warned the political parties, calling on them to safeguard linguistic communities that are vulnerable to partisan squabbles.

In our view, it is very unfortunate that the Liberal government called an early election immediately after introducing the previous version of Bill C‑13 and then waited so long to introduce the new version of the bill in the House of Commons. We then had to wait for the House to vote on the bill in principle. Now that the bill is before us, former Liberal MPs are calling for it to be dropped.

The NDP's position is clear: the bill must be improved and passed. We must all pitch in to ensure the survival of francophone communities across the country. We have to recognize the current reality that French is in decline right across Canada.

In light of what we have seen in the year and a half since your publication and the unveiling of the plan to modernize the Official Languages Act, do you have a message for the government today?

[Ania Kolodziej]

Bill C‑13 is a considerable improvement over Bill C‑32. A lot of recommendations have been included, but others have been left out.

We are here today to continue that work. We want the bill that is ultimately adopted to be the right one, and to include all the necessary provisions for the full implementation of the Official Languages Act. We want it to truly help the young people we are working for and to encourage students to use French outside the classroom. We want the act to provide for the training of workers to support our institutions in order to increase the demographic weight of francophones in Canada.

[Dr. François Larocque]

Between Bill C‑32, the first version of the bill, and Bill C‑13, there was a change in the preamble.

In Bill C-13, there is now a sentence stating that the Official Languages Act applies “during emergencies“. I think it’s the very last sentence in the preamble. The pandemic taught us the importance of this reality. Legislation to protect official language minorities must apply in times of crisis.

We also saw the temporary and unfortunate suspension of rules for bilingual signage at the beginning of the pandemic. This was allowed under the interpretation of the Minister of Health’s regulatory powers. It seems to me, however, that this exercise of authority should not have been allowed. It would have been possible to allow the import of necessary health products, like disinfectants and medication, with bilingual labels. Once again, we saw that French and English are not on a level playing field, and that French can be disregarded in the name of other imperatives.

It’s true that public health and safety are important, but so is upholding official languages. It must be included in the Official Languages Act. It must also be included in the Emergencies Act. The preamble in the Emergencies Act could include a reminder to this effect, meaning that the Official Languages Act also applies when the former act is invoked.

We must remind the minister responsible for public safety that implementing emergency plans in response to a crisis must be done in compliance with the Official Languages Act.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Théberge, thank you for being here today. As a Franco-Ontarian, I want to thank you for the work that you do for the francophonie and that you have done for the Manitoban francophonie.

Earlier my colleague agreed with you that Bill C‑13 should be passed as soon as possible. So we should proceed with the clause-by-clause review of the bill taking your recommendations into consideration. Michel Bastarache, Linda Cardinal, Michel Doucet, Rémi Léger, Benoît Pelletier, Martin Normand and Alexandre Cédric Doucet also say the time to act is now.

As you said, consultations have been conducted on the earlier legislation, Bill C‑32, the present Bill C‑13 and the government's action plan for official languages. Should we continue discussing the importance of passing Bill C‑13 and enriching and supporting the action plan?

[Raymond Théberge]

We've done a lot of work for the parliamentary committees, the communities and many stakeholders in recent years, and many reports have been proposed, prepared and submitted. Now I think we're at the action stage.

I propose a number of amendments in the brief I've submitted to the committee. It's important to bear in mind that Bill C‑13 is an improvement over the earlier Bill C‑32, which was intended to be an improvement on the present Official Languages Act. The time to act is now.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Major improvements to positive measures have been made in bills C-32 and C-13. What positive measures should we focus more on?

[Martin Normand]

We spoke out about Bill C-13 as soon as it was introduced. Generally speaking, it's consistent with our ambitions. We had issues with certain parts of BillC-32, but they were resolved by Bill C-13.

Today we suggested some amendments to clarify certain aspects, but the bill has what it takes for us to be able to move forward.

[Martin Normand, Director, Strategic Research and International Relations, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne]

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

The ACUFC welcomed this bill when it was first introduced. The fact that all federal institutions will now be required to take the positive measures they consider appropriate to ensure more opportunities for francophone minorities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives, including at the post-secondary level, is a major improvement over Bill C-32. Even more significant, institutions will now have to deliver on this commitment knowing that the federal government has acknowledged the specific situation of French in this country.

We nevertheless wish to make three suggestions for clarifying part VII with respect to cooperation with the provinces, scientific research in French and other administrative measures.

I will start with cooperation with the provinces.

Federal institutions have a duty to ensure that positive measures are taken to enhance the vitality of the francophone minorities and to support and assist their development.

However, under the new subsection 45.1(1) introduced by the bill, the federal government recognizes the importance of cooperating with provincial and territorial governments in the implementation of part VII of the act. This provision, as drafted, could be interpreted to mean that the federal government's commitment to the vitality of the minorities is subject to a sharing of jurisdictions.

We believe the federal government cannot walk away from this commitment. Its willingness to cooperate with the provinces and territories must not undermine the vitality, development or maintenance of strong institutions. Instead the bill must establish favourable conditions for developing positive measures that will have a direct and continuing impact and be effectively and equitably implemented across the country.

We suggest that every reference to cooperation with the provinces and territories be reviewed to dispel any ambiguity regarding the federal government's exercise of its spending power to enhance the vitality of the minorities. If the implementation of positive measures were to depend on cooperation with the provinces and territories, the federal government's measures might ultimately be applied unevenly if reluctant governments refused to cooperate.

Now I will discuss scientific research in French.

The official languages reform document states that the federal government wishes to support the creation and dissemination of scientific information in French. However, we feel that the wording of new subparagraph 41(6)(c)(iv) is more restrictive and less ambitious. It provides that one of the positive measures the federal institutions might take would be to "support the creation and dissemination of information in French that contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge".

The reform document suggests that those measures would support the creation and dissemination of scientific knowledge created by the francophone research community. However, the bill implies that all types of information are considered equal and that they may come from various sources. For example, the translation into French of information produced by federal institutions could qualify as scientific knowledge, which would be redundant, having regard to what is already provided in part IV of the act, which concerns communications with the public.

We suggest that this subparagraph be reviewed to make it more consistent with the commitment expressed in the reform document. The original version was much more foundational for the post-secondary sector than the version proposed in the bill.

Turning now to other administrative measures.

A modernized Official Languages Act is not an end in itself. It is merely one piece, albeit a very important one, in the whole architecture of Canada's language regime. Other administrative measures must emerge, including two that will definitely follow from this bill.

The first such measure will be regulations establishing the terms and conditions under which the obligations set forth in part VII are to be performed. Those regulations may clarify the nature of the positive measures, the consultations they require, the accountability models respecting them, and the direct effects of government decisions. However, new subsection 41(3) does not establish a schedule on which those regulations will be made. The same possibility was introduced in the 1988 act, but no regulations subsequently emerged. We suggest that the act include a timetable for making regulations respecting part VII.

The second measure is the policy on francophone immigration. We simply want to express a wish, that the policy that is developed accommodate the international clientele of post-secondary institutions, an immigration pool that is essential if we are to achieve the objectives of the federal government's francophone immigration strategy.

Many stakeholders have great ambitions for this act, but history tells us you can never legislate on political leadership. A firm moral commitment from the political class will always be necessary. We ask you to lend substance to this commitment and to cooperate so the bill is promptly passed and we can work together on the next foundational measures that will enable Canada to progress toward substantive equality of English and French.

Thank you.

[Linda Cardinal]

In other words, you're asking me if I have a conflict of interest here.

I sat on the minister's expert panel on Bill C‑32, not on the panel on Bill C‑13. Don I'm no one's parrot. What I'm saying is that my impression is that Bill C‑13 is a very promising compromise that—

[Stéphanie Chouinard, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada and Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and colleagues.

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.

Many of you have heard me speak in previous consultations on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, an important project that should enjoy multipartisan support but that, for many reasons, has been mishandled for the past five years.

I have also written on the subject in newspapers and news magazines across the country in recent years. For the members of the committee, I have sent the clerk a short press review in which I explore in greater depth a number of aspects of the former Bill C‑32 and Bill C‑13, which I won't have time to address in my statement, such as the role of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and that of French Canadian civil diplomacy. However, I urge you to take a look at it should it interest you.

For the sake of concision, I will focus on three points this afternoon.

First, allow me to say a few words about the principle of substantive equality, which underlies many aspects of the bill.

For the first time, we now have an express legislative acknowledgement of a principle that has long been at work in official languages governance: to achieve equality between the official languages, one of them merits different support, particularly with regard to minority institutions, which play a completely different role than that performed by institutions in a majority sociolinguistic context. This is a major advance in the official language field, one that guarantees, in particular, that the legislative framework will reflect the interpretation of the Supreme Court, where this principle has been relied upon since the late 2000s.

However, there is an abiding misunderstanding in the general population of the meaning of substantive equality, judging by the reactions the bill has triggered in English Canada. There is a genuine need for public education on the meaning and implications of substantive equality to prevent the new version of the Official Languages Act from being interpreted as a mere rejection of the official and equal status of English and French. I think there's an urgent need for clarification in the current political context in order to prevent potential backlash against the French language outside Quebec.

Second, I want to note the federal government's wish to commit to enhancing opportunities for access to post-secondary education in the minority official language. For years now, this field has been in a crisis that peaked with the Laurentian University debacle in 2021. We all know how positively the vitality of our communities is affected when minority youth have a chance to pursue their studies beyond grade 12 in their own language.

The federal government commendably wishes to be part of the solution so these institutions can pull back from the edge of the abyss and at last plan for the future. However, it is critical that the federal government not release the provinces from their responsibility to invest in what is still their area of jurisdiction.

Your committee heard me discuss this topic last June, nearly one year ago to the day, during your study on federal support for minority post-secondary institutions. I felt the point was important enough for me to repeat it. In the long term, a disengagement by the provinces from minority post-secondary education could potentially mean those institutions would have to start over from scratch. We must ensure that federal government investment remains foundational.

Lastly, with regard to proposed section 44.1, which concerns francophone immigration, I find the language used in the bill disappointing. I don't think it goes far enough toward making the necessary changes to the policies and practices of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in the Canadian francophonie that are unacceptable and, in some instances, even disgraceful. We are already living with the result of nearly two decades of inadequate action in the field, and the target set in 2003 is so far from ever being met that the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada felt it had to sound the alarm this past winter. The new Official Languages Act should be decidedly more directive so it can ensure that we not only meet actually restorative targets that enable us to maintain the demographic weight of francophones outside Quebec relative to the majority society, but also that we can provide our communities with the support they need to welcome and support these newcomers appropriately.

In conclusion, despite these remarks, I would like to leave you with a final message: don't let perfection be the enemy of the good. Here we are 34 years after the last amendment of the Official Languages Act, and it is high time we saw a modernization of the act. Although it can definitely be improved, Bill C‑13 would be a major step toward securing the future of English and French in Canada.

It is my hope that, in 2022, we can leave our mark on the history of the official languages with an act that has at last been modernized and that will finally help us move forward to a future in which the two official languages are more strongly supported and defended across the country.

Thank you. I will be pleased to continue the discussion.

[Alain Dupuis]

I'd like to correct an assumption here. We never said there were 25 amendments either. A few years ago, we drafted a model bill in which we conducted a complete analysis of the Official Languages Act. Many of these requests were included in either Bill C‑32 or Bill C‑13, and now the six remaining amendments represent what's still to be done to produce the best possible bill for francophone and Acadian communities.

[Liane Roy]

First, we consulted all the parties as well as our members; we referred to the model bill we had proposed and to all the studies we had conducted in the context of the meetings of the standing committees on official languages of the House of Commons and the Senate. However, since the Bill C‑32 case in particular, we've exhaustively consulted all the parties, members and communities. We've also consulted people who aren't members of the FCFA but who work in the official languages field. So we've consulted all…

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Pardon me for interrupting. Whom did you consult so you could cut 25 amendments down to 6?

To put the question more clearly, did you consult my colleague Mr. Samson or my colleague the former Minister of Francophone Affairs for Ontario, for example?

Whom have you consulted in the past few months, since Bill C‑32 became Bill C‑13?

[Liane Roy]

As you know, we've been working on this for five years, even more. We began thinking about it in 2009. So it's been a very long time.

Many of you have witnessed the various efforts we've made: the model bill the FCFA presented in 2019, the involvement of our committees in Ms. Joly's consultations, our participation, as you know, in the studies conducted by the official languages committees of the House of Commons and the Senate, our in‑depth analysis of Ms. Joly's official languages reform document in February 2021, our actions concerning Bill C‑32, which was introduced in the last Parliament, and so on.

There's nothing surprising about our position. Our demands haven't changed; we believe we've said what we had to say. Now it's up to you to do the work.

Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-13, which is particularly important to the Bloc Québécois.

Today's strategy from the Liberals, supported by the NDP, was to move time allocation on a bill that is vital to protecting French in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada.

Bill C‑13, which is currently under consideration, represents the culmination of efforts to modernize the Official Languages Act. This objective is set out in the mandate letter of the current Minister of Official Languages, as well as that of her predecessor.

In the September 2020 Speech from the Throne, the government recognized the special status of French and its responsibility to protect and promote it, both outside and within Quebec.

The stage seemed to be set for the federal government to protect French in Quebec. It appeared the government would include the reform, requests and demands of those dealing with the decline of their language on a daily basis, namely Quebeckers.

However, in both Bill C-32 from the previous Parliament and the current version, the Official Languages Act reform completely ignores the demands made unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly and the Bloc Québécois about protecting French in Quebec.

In fact, the federal government's bill flies in the face of the Quebec National Assembly's Bill 96. One of the objectives of Bill 96 is to extend the application of the Charter of the French Language throughout Quebec. Despite that, in their interventions and communications, the Liberals claim to support Bill 101 and brag about being champions of the French language.

Since the Prime Minister and Liberal members claim that they have always supported the Charter of the French Language, how can they introduce a bill that will prevent the Quebec government from applying that charter within its own territory? Based on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, provincial laws can apply to federally regulated businesses as long as they do not directly violate any applicable federal law.

Quebec has long been asking Ottawa to allow Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated businesses based on that ruling. A resolution supported by all parties in the Quebec National Assembly and adopted on December 1, 2020, stated that the Charter of the French Language “must be applied to companies operating under federal jurisdiction within Québec” and called on the Government of Canada to “make a formal commitment to work with Québec to ensure the implementation of this change”.

The message could not be any clearer, but what did the Liberals do at the first opportunity? They imposed on Quebec a language regime that subjects all federally regulated businesses to the Official Languages Act, while at the same time destroying Quebec's ability to apply its Charter of the French Language to businesses operating on its territory.

That should not be taken lightly. There is even a serious and real danger for French in Quebec with Bill C‑13. In the event of a difference between the federal regime, which is based on bilingualism, and Quebec's regime, which is based on the primacy of French, the federal regime would prevail.

The Minister of Official Languages can repeat as much as she wants that Bill C‑13 will protect French in Quebec as well as Bill 101, but that is not true. It is factually incorrect.

Bill C‑13 seeks to apply the bilingualism regime to Air Canada. Francophones will be given the right to complain in the event that the right to work in French is breached. It has been shown many times that this model cannot protect the rights of francophones to work and be served in their language. Despite the thousands of complaints against Air Canada over the years, we see that for these non-compliant organizations, French is nothing but an irritant. How will extending this model to all federally regulated private business stop the decline of French?

What is more, Bill C‑13 confirms the right to work in English at federally regulated businesses in Quebec. I repeat, the Official Languages Act is reinforcing bilingualism, not protecting French. Some will say that the bilingualism approach seems reasonable at first glance. It leaves it up to the individual to interact in the language of their choice. However, when we take into account the linguistic and demographic dynamics in which that choice is made, this approach has devastating and irreversible consequences on French. Do not take it from me. It is science.

Professor Guillaume Rousseau from Université de Sherbrooke explained this phenomenon to the Standing Committee on Official Languages in February:

...virtually all language policy experts around the world believe that only [an approach that focuses on just one official language] can guarantee the survival and development of a minority language....

The...approach may seem generous, since individuals may choose which language to use among many, but it is in fact the strongest language that will dominate....In real terms, the federal government should do less for English and more for French in Quebec.

As my party's science and innovation critic, I must insist on the importance of basing our decisions on scientific data. Ottawa must listen to reason, listen to the science and respect the evidence. Science cannot be invoked only when it suits our purposes and ignored when it does not, and the Prime Minister needs to take that into account.

When we look around the House of Commons, we quickly see that the Liberal Party stands completely alone when it comes to the application of Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. It has always been easy for the Prime Minister to say that he is in favour of Bill 101 as long as that did not require him to take any action, politically speaking. Today, it is clear that French is declining in Quebec and Canada and that its decline is accelerating so fast that the Prime Minister himself has been forced to recognize it and express concern. He still says that he is in favour of Bill 101, but he is not walking the talk.

We are witnessing yet another attempt by the Liberal government to create a wide, untenable gap. On the one hand, the government wants to be the champion of French because it feels the public pressure to protect French better, including in Quebec. On the other hand, it completely refuses to let Quebec control its own language policy. The result is that the Liberal Party now stands alone in its stubbornness. We saw that when my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît introduced Bill C-238, which seeks to subject all federally regulated businesses to the Charter of the French Language. The Bloc, the Conservative Party and the NDP supported it, but the Liberal Party did not.

Let me make this clear. The Bloc Québécois will not support Bill C‑13 unless and until amendments are made that enable Quebec to be the master of its own language policy. The federal government must acknowledge that the Quebec nation is grappling with anglicization, and it must introduce a differentiated approach that recognizes and respects Quebec's unique linguistic reality. That is why explicit recognition that the Charter of the French Language takes precedence over the Official Languages Act for federally regulated businesses in Quebec is a minimum requirement. That is what the Bloc Québécois and the National Assembly of Quebec want, so that is what Quebec needs.

Bill C-13—Time Allocation Motion

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, if we look at the components of Bill C-32, our action plan and Bill C-13, it is clear that the common thread is the desire to achieve substantive equality. That is why we are going further with our bill. We want to ensure that we make our contribution to achieving substantive equality. It will not happen overnight. We recognize that French is in decline in this country. French is in decline in Canada. That is why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill. We absolutely want to correct this situation.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to once again thank my colleague who has been working in this field for several decades. I am extremely grateful to him for that and for the work that he does here in Ottawa as the chair of the official languages caucus.

Positive measures are indeed a very important part of Bill C-13. The stakeholders we spoke to really wanted to see improvements in the definition and handling of positive measures compared to former Bill C-32. That is exactly what we did.

We took care to closely examine every word and every comma in our new bill because we want to ensure that it will really help official language minority communities. We want the positive measures to be clearly defined, because they are a very important component.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, just the opposite is true.

Our government is firmly committed to protecting and promoting French across the country, including in Quebec. We recognize that there has been a decline in the use of French across the country, including in Quebec. That is why we are moving forward with this new version of our bill.

The former Bill C-32 was introduced last June. Since being appointed Minister of Official Languages, I have had the good fortune and privilege of meeting many of the people who have been working on this file for years. Based on the information we have received, we can say that they are very happy with the new version of the bill, which they think has more teeth.

That is why we really want to ensure that parliamentarians can continue the debate at the Standing Committee on Official Languages and move Bill C-13 forward.

I would remind the House that following the committee study, the bill will come back to the House before going to the Senate. I look forward to ensuring that this great bill receives royal assent as soon as possible.

An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, over the past few months, I have had the privilege of meeting with a number of stakeholders who have shared the improvements they want to see in this bill compared to the old Bill C‑32. I believe we have incorporated those improvements in Bill C‑13.

I really appreciated the comments by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and I would like to know what recommendations she would make and what amendments she would like to see to Bill C‑13.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging that I am on the traditional territory of the WSANEC nation in my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Since we are talking about languages this evening, I want to point out that the word “saanich” comes from an indigenous language called Sencoten. The word was mispronounced by the Europeans, which resulted in the change that explains the name of my riding today.

We are here this evening to debate Bill C‑13. It has been a long, hard-fought journey to get protections for both official languages here in Canada. As we have heard, the French language is obviously threatened because it is the minority language in Canada and in North America. Quebec culture represents the largest francophone community in our country, but it is not the only one. There are the Acadians in the Atlantic provinces and there are other francophone communities all across Canada, such as the Franco-Manitoban and Franco-Albertan communities. There is also a francophone community in British Columbia. It is not big, but it is important.

The Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969. That was a long time ago. It declared that French and English were the two official languages of Parliament and the Government of Canada. The next step came in 1982, with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reaffirmed French and English as the official languages of Canada. It has been 30 years since the last major reform to this legislation.

The government introduced Bill C‑32 during the previous Parliament, in 2021, but it died on the Order Paper when the election was called last August. We now have Bill C‑13, which was introduced in March 2022. This is my first opportunity to speak to this bill. We clearly need to address the decline of French in this country because French is still threatened, in spite of all of the work that has been done on official languages in Canada.

This bill has been well received. The Commissioner of Official Langauges said, “I have read the proposed measures and believe that they will breathe new life into efforts to protect and promote both of our official languages”. That notion of protecting and promoting French and of promoting and supporting the learning of English and French is a difference between Bill C‑32 from the previous Parliament and the current Bill C‑13. It is nevertheless clear that it is primarily the French language that needs to be protected. The bill also talks about promoting the French language, supporting francophone communities and, for the first time, protecting the right to work and receive services in French.

Bill C-13 is really two bills in one. It amends the Official Languages Act and enacts the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act, while making related amendments to other acts. This is an important effort for the protection and use of French in private companies.

As we have seen in tonight's debate, the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting this effort concerning Quebec. It is right to ask that French be protected in private businesses in Quebec. It is clear that the French language must be used in francophone majority regions. The bill does raise some issues, but I think we will be able to improve it in committee.

Bill C-13 expands and strengthens the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. It is a good idea to give him more powers and to strengthen his role by giving him the right to present and find solutions to violations related to the use of the French language in Canada.

This legislation also includes an effort to recognize indigenous languages. It is not much. It does not introduce new powers or new rights. However, the preamble of the amended act now includes these words in the way of recognition: “of maintaining and enhancing the use of languages other than English and French and reclaiming, revitalizing and strengthening Indigenous languages”.

I think that is a step in the right direction. We need to look to other legislation and other reconciliation programs to protect the most at-risk languages, our country's indigenous languages.

For unilingual anglophones who are following this debate, I cannot say how important it is for all of us who do not have French as a first language to keep trying to learn. I know that a lot of the members here tonight have tried, as I have, too. I love speaking French and I love improving my French. Late at night it gets a little more difficult, but it certainly improves and enriches our society.

It is not for nothing that French is known as the language of Molière. It is a beautiful language, and we need to make sure that Canada's identity on this continent, which is really one of the things that distinguishes us in an important way from, I do not know if we can call it American culture, but what passes for culture, not to be too self-satisfied about the richness of Canadian society in entertainment and music. We are, as anglophone Canadians, enormously enriched by the existence of the Quebec fact of the francophone reality that we are not a unilingual country. The more we protect and raise up indigenous languages and hang on to them, that will also improve who we are as a people and enrich us all.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that French in Quebec and outside Quebec is alive and well.

In the House, I sometimes get the impression from some speeches that French is being dismissed as a dying language. People have brought up certain monuments from the past. I agree that we can be proud, but French is not a thing of the past and the Bloc Québécois can attest that it has a future. However, I think Bill C‑13 is a step backward.

I will explain what I mean, as some of my colleagues have, but perhaps on a bit more of a personal level. We all have a very close and personal connection to our mother tongue, and even to what I did outside the House. In my professional life, this was always very important.

I mentioned a step backward.

First there was Bill C-32, and today we are debating Bill C‑13. We can all agree that sometimes bills are two sides of the same coin. They do look somewhat similar. There is talk of urgency and improvements, but urgency is relative given that the Liberals decided in 2021 to shut down Parliament and call an election just after the Minister of Official Languages had introduced Bill C‑32. Some changes were made. I remember hearing a colleague say earlier that the previous bill was really quite extraordinary, so much so that they decided to rewrite it in the next Parliament.

We keep hearing about equality. To me, “equality” is a pretty strong term. It is not “equity” or “the possibility of equity”. I do not think Bill C‑13 is about equality. Even in terms of institutional bilingualism or individual bilingualism, I think it is a denial of the truth to say that bilingualism truly exists in Canada.

I could talk about my personal experience as a private citizen, and not just with the Air Canada example. Even though Bill C‑13 supposedly sets out to achieve “substantive equality”, this is still just a bill. As with any rights issue, there can still be a right, and the idea with that right can be equality, but in actual fact and in practice in real life, there has to be a lot more than that. A colleague talked about “teeth”, but I think that overstates what is in the bill. I talked about a step backward, so “teeth” is not really what we have here.

One thing the Bloc Québécois feels is important is the acknowledgement of a fact. I am not sure this particular fact is worth getting excited about, but the bill does acknowledge the fact that French is in a minority situation in Canada and in North America. We agree on that. These are just numbers, but at least there is that acknowledgement, and that is one step in the right direction, albeit a small one.

The Bloc Québécois often comes back to the issue of minority status. Quebec's French is the language of the minority in Canada and we stand by that. It is not the language of the majority. It is in Quebec, but it is still surrounded by English. I will come back to that later with personal examples. I believe it is important to talk about the minority status of French.

The Bloc Québécois naturally stands with francophones outside Quebec. Bill C‑13 does not have the same impact on communities outside Quebec as it does on those in Quebec. That could sometimes be a good thing for certain communities. I was thinking about what the Minister of Official Languages was saying earlier concerning the court challenges program. For francophone groups outside Quebec, it may be useful. However, in Quebec, it is the complete opposite. It is destructive.

With regard to Bill C‑13, the best approach would have been to respect Quebec and its choices. Only a nation can properly defend its own language. Language is the main vehicle for culture. It is a means of expression that is replete with history and meaning.

It is up to Quebec to protect it. Quebec knows best how to do that, such as with the Charter of the French Language. Here the feds are imposing a bill that conflicts with our existing mechanisms to protect and promote the language. They are forcing us to do all kinds of things. I have emphasized that repeatedly this week. The feds force a lot of things on us.

Earlier, I talked about denial. I could talk about something that rings totally false. The government's proposal will be harmful. We really want something asymmetrical, but that is not at all what this is.

I wish I could have talked about a lot of other things. I really could have used 20 minutes, but I will move on to something more personal. Anyway I think we all agree, and we have said it over and over: there is no way we can accept this.

I would have liked to talk about the differences between a right and a responsibility. In the case of Quebec, this bill enables federally regulated businesses to choose the language, whereas the charter says that employees must speak French at work. That is a big difference. It is night and day. Protection needs to take precedence over choice. If the choice exists, we will not be able to defend our language. Sometimes, people choose the easy way out, and the easy way out is Bill C-13.

That being said, I would like to talk about my own personal experience. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île specializes in languages, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé is a historian and my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is an actor. My background is in the humanities. I enjoy literature. I am a literature professor. I worked in writing and publishing. My house is full of books. Of course, they are books of French literature, even though I also worked on British literature. The fact remains that, even though this was not a family trend, I somehow stumbled into the humanities and the language field. Every day, my thoughts turn to issues related to language, literature, culture and identity. Language is part of our identity.

I also have children. When one has children, they have a mother tongue. Of course I taught them French, but our children are not our children. That is the way it is; it is part of our existence. I have three children, one of whom is very small. He does not talk yet. I also have older children. Despite my efforts, all I see in their lives—this is a debate about territory, so I hope my colleagues will allow me this more or less accurate analogy—is like what the Romans did, but with English, which seeks to extinguish the French language right in our own homes. I am not against all these digital tools, but when I look at my children, I can see that, language-wise, it is no longer like it was in 1950, when people had to cross the border to swim in an anglophone sea. Now it is in our very own homes, so we really have to come up with some very strong measures.

I think of my son who is a gamer. He is bilingual, and I am glad he is. I speak several languages too. I speak a little German and Spanish. I studied Latin and Greek, and I speak French and English. I love languages. I see that he has become bilingual, but at the same time, I see how much languages change. I am talking about the written language, the spoken language and our relationship to language. Even though my kids are young, certain languages still dominate. In the concept itself, the idea of cultural domination means that one will assimilate the other.

The same is true of my daughter, through the use of social media, and I mean that in the pejorative sense. Sometimes she has no choice regarding what information she can access, even though the amount of information is astronomical. We have a huge encyclopaedia at our fingertips. She will end up becoming anglicized, too.

This will also be true for my little boy, with platforms like Netflix and everything he will have access to. Most of it is in English.

Everything I just described is really happening, and legislation like this is truly a complete setback. When we want to strengthen a language, and I am still talking about Quebec, we do not introduce legislation that goes against the will of a nation and against the will of a government. This would only weaken the language.

In my opinion, and my words will be harsh, this bill is an indirect linguistic assimilation policy for Quebec. When something cannot be done directly, it is done indirectly. I think Bill C‑13 is smoke and mirrors.

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

Madam Speaker, I am extremely honoured and happy to participate in tonight's debate on a subject that is particularly close to my heart, namely the vitality and future of the French language, whether in Quebec or anywhere in the federation's francophone minority communities.

That is why I would like to raise some points for consideration in tonight's discussion. The first thing to do is to provide an overview of the current situation.

How is it that we have reached a point where it is absolutely necessary to modernize the Official Languages Act? I remember one date: 1988. That is the year the last major reform of the Official Languages Act was carried out. I remember I was 15 years old and in ninth grade at Beaulieu school in Saint‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu. It was a very long time ago, so I think it is high time to modernize the act. In fact, this modernization is several years overdue.

The situation has changed a great deal since 1988, and it has not improved for francophones in Quebec or in certain communities elsewhere in Canada. I will provide a few figures to start. In 1971, the demographic weight of francophones in the federation was 27.5%. In 2016, it was only 22.8%, which represents a considerable decrease over those 45 years.

Admissions of francophone immigrants outside Quebec between 2008 and 2020 totalled approximately 50,000, well below the 125,000 expected and required to keep the demographic weight of their population outside Quebec at 4.4%. This shortfall of 75,000 francophone immigrants outside Quebec is equivalent to the entire francophone community of British Columbia. That says a lot.

The 4.4% target for francophone immigrants outside Quebec established in 2003 was supposed to be met in 2008. It was pushed back 15 years because, over 20 years, the federal government never managed to promote the French-speaking minority in Canada outside Quebec. It never met that target. On the contrary, the percentage of francophones among immigrants who settled outside Quebec stagnated at around 2%, with a historic low of 1.5% recorded in 2015. That is a far cry from the target of 4.4% for francophone immigration set by the previous government.

We have more recent figures on the systematic rejection of work permits for francophone students from Africa. They are extremely worrisome and show that there is a systemic problem at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. The refusal rate is much higher in Quebec than in the rest of Canada for these African countries. In Canada, the refusal rate was 29% in 2015 and it increased slightly to 33% in 2021. In Quebec, the refusal rate for francophone immigrants from Africa was 29% in 2015 and 52% in 2021, which is a significant increase.

These numbers are staggering, and then, on top of that, the French fact in Quebec and the rest of Canada has been declining for years. That is worrisome and the Commissioner of Official Languages has drawn attention to it. He said that, in 2021, he received approximately 1,000 complaints about non-compliance with the Official Languages Act and disregard for French in federally regulated businesses or federal departments. However, this year, he has already received 5,500 complaints, and the year is not over yet. That is five times more than last year. People see that there is a problem. The NDP noticed there was a problem over the years, but particularly in the past few years.

Some recent events in connection with the Official Languages Act were very upsetting for many people. The President of the Treasury Board said that he had not made any compromises and that no compromises would be made on official languages.

However, if we take a good look at internal federal government communications during the pandemic, we find communications that are in English only; meetings without interpretation services, or in which people were embarrassed or afraid to speak in French; and the approval of a unilingual English product label. In some cases, someone's health and safety could have been in danger because they did not have a French version of the label.

How could Health Canada authorize such a thing? It is mind-boggling. It is really shocking.

I will highlight some recent current events that really drive home what I have been talking about. The Liberals appointed a unilingual anglophone Lieutenant Governor in New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada. Incidentally, they were chastised for that. Another issue that has attracted a lot of attention is that the CEO of Air Canada does not speak French and is quite happy to say that he has been living in Montreal for years, that he does not need to speak French and that he sees no problem with this. More recently, we learned that the board of directors of Canadian National is composed solely of unilingual anglophones who do not understand French and who do not see the necessity of having someone on the board who does.

We must take action. We should have taken action long ago. I must point out, as some of my colleagues did earlier, that it was somewhat cynical of the Liberal government to say that it had taken action by introducing Bill C-32 when it dragged its feet for six years and did nothing to modernize the Official Languages Act despite the glaring issues. Then there is the fact that there was nothing about access to child care, education, high schools; being able to live in French; having cultural activities in French. The government said that at least it had introduced a bill.

A bill was introduced two weeks before the end of the parliamentary session, when the government knew very well that it was going to call an election. That was last year, in 2021. It introduced a bill, a white paper, that was useless. We had to start all over again in the new Parliament. When the government says that it is concerned, that it cares, and that it is in a hurry to take action, pay it no mind because it has done nothing for years. How pathetic.

It is clear that the pressure exerted by the NDP, stakeholders and members of francophone and Acadian communities across the country has paid off. The government came back with a new bill that brings in substantial changes. That is good. We should not dismiss or downplay these changes.

The preamble of the amended Official Languages Act recognizes that French is in a minority situation in Canada and is the official language of Quebec. Also, while acknowledging linguistic regimes put in place in other provinces like New Brunswick, the amended act underscores the importance of maintaining and promoting indigenous languages. For the first time, there is a recognition that French is in a minority situation in Canada and that it is the official language of Quebec. That is not insignificant. That did not exist previously. It really is a step in the right direction. Let us not be willfully blind or stick our heads in the sand for ideological or vote-seeking reasons. It is very important. There had never been an affirmation of the asymmetrical linguistic situation in any federal law before. It is enshrined in this bill, and we in the NDP are very happy about it because it will give more tools to francophone communities in Quebec and, more importantly, outside Quebec. That is unprecedented. It has to be said.

The bill also clarifies which positive measures the government must take to support francophone minority communities outside Quebec. There have been cases before the courts where that was not clear. There is now greater clarity in that regard.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, there was something very odd in the member's question, so I was just quickly researching this. The member cited Bill C-32 from the last Parliament as an achievement of the government. That bill did not pass. The bill was tabled for first reading on June 15, 2021. What happened to that bill? The government decided to call a premature election, which dissolved Parliament and, therefore, the bill. Only a Liberal would present a bill that was not debated and did not pass as a demonstration of their great accomplishments on this issue.

The minister then also spoke about money spent, instead of results. How do the Liberals measure their achievements? They talk about the money they spend instead of the results they achieve, and they talk about a bill they tabled at the 11th hour before they dissolved Parliament with a needless summer election. I suggest we need a better way of measuring accomplishment than that.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit confused. This evening I have been hearing many Conservative members talking about how we have not done much when it comes to official languages since 2015. Let me do a bit of recap. I am very proud of the work that has been done since we formed government.

We have put in place an action plan, which we have backed up with investments of $2.7 billion, when it comes to official languages. We have made historic investments in post-secondary education in minority communities. We also moved forward with Bill C-32, and now we have Bill C-13. After the consultation I have been doing since I became Minister of Official Languages, we have put in place a bill that has even more teeth and more strength.

Through all of the activities we have done over the past four years, our objective has always been to have substantive equality when it comes to French and English within this country. I have many Conservatives over the past few months who have told me this is great work, that they support the work that is being done and that they support this bill. This evening, I am a bit surprised that we are seeing amendments and amendments.

Which is it? Are the Conservatives supporting our legislation, to move forward with strengthening our official languages for all Canadians, or are we going to be playing games and seeing this being slowed down?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

As the resident of a rather remote area, I think it is important to talk about the situation in Yukon.

Yukon has a population of 40,000. Fourteen percent speak French and English and about 5%, or 1,600 people, speak French as their first language. Yukon has Canada's third-largest per capita population of francophones. It is a dynamic, spirited, and engaged community that has made a lot of progress in the past decades.

The francophone renaissance in Yukon started in the 1970s after the passage of the Official Languages Act. Strengthened by the federal government's engagement, Yukon's francophone community has grown in every way ever since.

Culturally speaking, Yukon's francophone community is strong. It has an influence on all of Yukon's communities. The progress continues. In fact, Yukon will soon be opening a bilingual health centre. Recently, we learned that a third French-language school will open in Dawson City for the next school year. Dawson City is located in northern Yukon. It is a small city with a big spirit and a great history.

The number of students in French immersion classes in Yukon has skyrocketed. Now, you can hear people speaking French all over Yukon.

As a francophile, I am proud to see the progress made since the implementation of Canada's Official Languages Act.

Personally, I pretty much grew up with the advancement of French as an official language in Canada. In the 1970s, I found the idea of a bilingual Canada inspiring. I was inspired by none other than Pierre Elliott Trudeau to try to bring the two solitudes together through a better mutual understanding and through the use of the other language.

I went into a French immersion program in Alberta. I travelled. I studied in France. Later on, I lived in Montreal for a few months. I lived and worked in a francophone environment abroad. I did my best to improve my French through the years. Obviously, it is far from perfect, but the basics are there. It is enough to allow me to participate, at least to some extent, in the francophone community, a community that is very open to francophiles.

Now, my wife speaks French as a second language. Both of my children, who grew up in Yukon, went to French institutions for the majority of their preschool and school years and are perfectly bilingual.

Yukon has such a strong francophone population that it attracts people from Canada, Acadia, Quebec, France and other francophone countries who are looking for a life of adventure in a northern community while keeping their ability to speak French.

With Bill C‑13, we can go even further by supporting our official language minority communities and contribute to the richness of everyone's life.

When I was campaigning as a first-time candidate, I learned about the former Bill C‑32 and about how important it was to the francophone community that the bill be improved. The need for swifter, stronger action to amend the Official Languages Act was one of the key measures I had in mind when I arrived as a new member of Parliament.

I am therefore pleased to talk about the successful and hard work of the Minister of Official Languages, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages and their team, as well as the consultations and analyses that went into the development of Bill C‑13.

This bill is important for all Canadians, including those who live far from the centre and those of us who live in the north. A strong Official Languages Act is important for all languages, including indigenous languages. I know that people in Yukon are familiar with this cross-fertilization, with the active preservation and promotion of language rights, whether they be for official languages or indigenous languages. They each help the other.

It is in this context that I speak not only of the significant progress we have made with Bill C‑13, but also of the improvements that give this new bill more teeth. I am talking about positive measures, a central agency and a scope that will benefit us all.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague, but I have to say that there is something kind of ironic.

Although I agree with what she said about promoting French in official language minority communities, I find it ironic that she accused me of wanting to delay a bill, when it took the Liberals seven years to introduce Bill C‑13. They are the ones who decided to call an election rather than adopt the previous bill they had introduced in the House, Bill C‑32.

I proposed an amendment that would allow us to go further, to take into account all of the advice that was given by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and by Quebec, for example, and to give us more time to design a better bill. I am not asking for seven years. I am asking for it to be sent to parliamentary committee so that we can improve it and pass a better bill.

I think it is worth taking a few weeks to come up with a better bill for the good and the future of French in Canada.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about your Acadian roots. As the member for the riding of West Nova, you represent two rather impressive francophone minority regions. We have had a chance to talk about this together. Some of my colleagues may get a chuckle out of this, but we talked about “par-en-haute” and “par-en-bas”, two Acadian-sounding names. Since I have known you, you have always supported and stood up for these francophone minority communities. The fact that you stood up this evening to remind us that you are a native Acadian, meaning that you are a native francophone, shows us how important the francophone fact is to you, not only in Nova Scotia, but across Canada. Thank you very much for clarifying that for us following the speech by my colleague from Hull—Aylmer.

This brings me to the topic of this Canadian Confederation, which was created in 1867, 155 years ago, through the union of two founding peoples, one francophone and one anglophone, with help from the first nations, of course.

What I want to talk about is this founding spirit, this spirit of co‑operation that still needs to be at the centre of government action today, 155 years later. In 2022, when we make laws and implement policies here in Canada, we must always keep in mind the fact that two nations, one francophone and one anglophone, decided to found this great country, Canada, together.

From the very beginning, one of the key aspects of this co‑operation has been the French language. French is part of Canada's identity. As I was saying, it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that francophone communities thrive from coast to coast to coast.

I am thinking about Acadian communities, such as yours, Mr. Speaker, especially minority communities and the francophone communities “par-en-haute” and “par-en-bas”. I think that I will enjoy using these names. To give people some context, these names refer to St. Marys Bay and Argyle, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. Speaker, you see, we chatted a bit and you had the chance to describe that community to me.

There are also Franco-Ontarian communities, Franco-Manitoban communities, Franco-Saskatchewanian communities and Franco-Albertan communities. With one of my colleagues, I had the chance to visit some francophone communities in Alberta, such as the municipality of Falher. It is rather surprising.

When we travel around Alberta and enter a village in the middle of the province, we hardly expect to feel like we are in an entirely francophone community, yet that is reality, that is not just a feeling. We go out, we talk with people in shops and restaurants, and French is the dominant language.

There is still a wonderfully strong francophone presence in many regions of Canada. What we expect is for the federal government to take action, instead of being content to talk about the importance of francophone communities to Canada. It is time for action. Unfortunately, in the past, instead of taking action, this Prime Minister's Liberals have often turned a deaf ear to the demands coming from francophone communities and from Quebec.

They have been bragging for years about wanting to promote the Canadian francophonie, but it has to be said that, for some Liberals, francophones are a minority like any other. We must always stand up against this utterly false assumption. This goes back to the foundation of the Confederation.

The modernization of the Official Languages Act was pushed back year after year, in spite of the Liberals' promises to Canadians during the 2015 election campaign. For years, several francophone organizations, including the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, and official languages commissioners have called for an overhaul of the Official Languages Act.

Members will recall that the Liberals proposed a modernization in 2018. It was also a campaign promise in 2019. Finally, a first bill to modernize the act, Bill C-32, was tabled in June 2021. What happened to Bill C‑32? It died on the Order Paper because the Prime Minister chose, in the middle of summer and at the height of a pandemic, to call a pointless and costly election that forced us to start from scratch once again.

The last time the Official Languages Act was modernized, it was under Brian Mulroney, a Conservative prime minister who was also proud of his Quebec and francophone roots.

For decades, the Liberals and the Prime Minister have refused to recognize something that is essential to the survival of the French language. It is that, of the two languages that were originally spoken at Confederation, just one is threatened today. Let me be clear. The federal government must make it a priority to protect the French language and to keep protecting it. That is the role of the federal government.

The French language is more than just a simple means of communication. It is more than just the soul of the Quebec nation. It is the soul of Canada and it is a testament to our country's long history. The federal government has a duty to protect the French language and to ensure that it remains valued as part of the government's daily operations and in the enforcement of our laws and regulations. Those of us on this side of the House will not budge on that.

The Conservatives have been asking the Liberals for years to modernize the Official Languages Act. We proposed many measures to protect French in Quebec and the rest of Canada, meaning in minority communities. I want to commend my colleagues from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and Richmond—Arthabaska for their outstanding work on the Official Languages Act file. They met with groups from all parts of Canada. They held discussions and sought out people's thoughts and opinions so that we would truly understand the reality of people living in French across Canada, mainly in Quebec, but also in other regions.

How do they live in French? Are they able to get services in French? Do they have enough support in French? Are they able to raise their families in French in other parts of Canada?

That is particularly important in rural areas and in francophone minority communities. I think that is something that the government overlooked in the current version of Bill C‑13.

In addition to wanting to modernize the act, we made other proposals, such as increasing the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We want the Treasury Board to have the authority to ensure that the act is applied in all federal departments. We have also suggested that an official languages administrative tribunal be created to settle disputes involving the act, to impose stricter penalties on those who do not comply, and to add more stringent formal obligations to part VII of the act.

Then, we worked to provide federal funding to francophone post-secondary institutions in minority settings, such as the Université de Moncton, the University of Alberta's Campus Saint‑Jean, and the Université de l'Ontario français. We have also proposed a new budget envelope of $30 million per year, notwithstanding any future funding, and collaborating with the provinces to achieve these objectives.

With the official languages in education program, we increased support for French-language education at the elementary and high school levels to better reflect the demographic growth of francophone students. Yes, demographic growth is happening in several regions with minority francophone communities.

In addition, to ensure that the demographic weight of francophone minorities outside Quebec remains stable, we are setting out to increase the number of French-speaking immigrants, not only in Quebec, but across Canada.

These are some of the measures we put forward to protect minority francophones and their rights.

As the member for Hull—Aylmer said, the government did take its time, unfortunately. It took seven years to introduce its bill. It said it needed to do it right. Unfortunately, despite seven years of consultations, pressure and advice, it seems the government did not really listen to what people directly affected by the Official Languages Act reform want.

Several key points were left out by the Liberal government, but I will talk about those a little later.

This took seven years of work. However, it seems that a few months were wasted on things other than the Official Languages Act.

In our view, Bill C‑13 is a rather weak legislative response to the decline of French in this country. As we have already pointed out, what is needed are real reforms, not just minor tweaks.

As it took seven years of work, we were expecting the Liberal bill to deal with the whole picture, the entire issue, all the problems and all the situations. However, it seems that the key reforms promised by the Liberals are unfortunately nowhere to be found in this bill.

As I said, the Liberals could have acted much earlier, not to introduce a bill, but to protect French in Canada. Our concern is not amending the bill or changing the regulations or rules and so on. Our role, and our aim, is to protect French in this country.

As currently drafted, Bill C‑13 will unfortunately not stop the decline of French, either in Canada or in Quebec.

As always, the Liberals are good at talking, but not so good at listening. They did not act on the advice that they received from francophone organizations, such as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. One of the things that the FCFA called for was the elimination of the division of powers between the Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage. This was a clear, concrete and specific request that would have given the reform of the Official Languages Act some teeth. I will come back to this a little later.

The bill has no teeth. The bottom line is that there is no obligation to deliver results. Bill C‑13 is full of good intentions, but it contains little that will really stop the decline of French. When certain situations arise, the government is not going to know who can do what. No one will be able to do anything to fix the situation.

Liane Roy, the president of the FCFA, said, “There are some significant gains, but some things still need to be worked on before we can say 'mission accomplished'.”

As my colleagues can see, I am not just saying negative things. Some people have had positive things to say, but others have been more scathing, saying that the bill should have gone much further.

The president of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario said that, compared with the previous bill, Bill C‑32, there are some improvements. It took a bit of time to make it better, but it is not good enough yet. More improvements are needed.

We identified six major problems with Bill C‑13.

The first is the government-wide coordination or the centralization of power in a single department. New subsection 2.1(1) makes the Department of Canadian Heritage responsible for “exercising leadership within the Government of Canada in relation to the implementation of this Act.” Everyone agrees that Canadian Heritage does not have the expertise to manage the other departments, unlike the Treasury Board. The Minister of Canadian Heritage can tell his colleagues to do this or that, but there is nothing he can do if they do not comply, except maybe refuse to give them flags for Canada Day. That is the only thing the Minister of Canadian Heritage can threaten his colleagues with.

If the Treasury Board had been made responsible for enforcing the act, it would be a whole different story. The Treasury Board is the one that holds the purse strings and authorizes all of the departments' spending. It is the one that oversees the other departments. The Treasury Board could have made the other departments implement the new version of the Official Languages Act. However, the government chose to go with the Department of Canadian Heritage. That is ineffective, and we think that only the Treasury Board should have been given the responsibility of implementing this act for many reasons that I will come back to at a later time.

Second, we are talking about promoting French and English. The act is being amended to set out federal commitments, specifically enhancing the vitality of minorities, promoting French and English, protecting French and expanding minority language learning. As I said, we believe that the term “commitment” and definitions of these commitments should be clarified. The Treasury Board should also be responsible for this aspect and for the entire act, as opposed to what is proposed in Bill C‑13. Furthermore, part VII of the act is not covered by the new power given to the Commissioner of Official Languages to issue orders, which is also problematic.

Third, we have immigration. The new clause 44.1 proposes that “the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration shall adopt a policy on francophone immigration to enhance the vitality of French linguistic minority communities in Canada”. However, there is no obligation to ensure that targets, objectives and indicators are met and respected. These are once again merely good intentions.

Fourth, the Commissioner of Official Languages is given three powers: to enter into a compliance agreement with federal institutions that contravene the act; to make an order directing any federal institution to rectify the contravention of part IV; and to impose administrative monetary penalties on a limited number of transportation companies offering passenger services that contravene part IV. We believe that these powers should extend to other parts of the act, specifically part VII. What is more, the maximum amount of these administrative monetary penalties is $25,000. We have to wonder what the deterrent effect of a $25,000 penalty would be for an organization like Air Canada, which had over $2 billion in revenue in 2021.

Fifth, the bill does not contain any obligation for the federal government to include language clauses in agreements made with other levels of government to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act, especially where federal transfers are involved, despite the fact that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that agreements lacking language clauses were invalid. Maybe the government should have listened just a tiny bit.

Sixth, the bill includes an important part about federally regulated private businesses. It creates a new act called “An Act to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts”. In Quebec, businesses would have the right to choose between the Quebec regime and the federal one. In other words, businesses would have a choice between getting punished and not getting punished.

In our view, this bill needs improvement. For these reasons, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn, and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.”.

In conclusion, Bill C‑13 does not constitute the reform the Liberals have been promising for years and does not fulfill those promises.

An Act respecting the French language

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-238 on the French language, sponsored by the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

This bill is similar to bills tabled in previous sittings of Parliament. In the 43rd Parliament, we had Bill C-223, which would have required that immigrants living in Quebec have an adequate knowledge of Quebec, as well as Bill C-254, which sought to apply Quebec's Charter of the French Language to federally regulated companies by amending the Official Languages Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Bill C‑238 essentially combines those two bills into one. We understand the Bloc's concern about the future of the French language, and we share that concern. As we acknowledged in the throne speech, the use of French is in decline throughout Quebec and across Canada. We have a responsibility to protect and promote French across Canada, including in Quebec.

Where we differ from the Bloc is in our response to this problem. In the last Parliament, the former minister of official languages tabled a document entitled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”, which laid out our government's vision for official languages reform, and Bill C-32, our modernization of the Official Languages Act.

Together, these two documents represented the most ambitious reform of the Official Languages Act since its passage more than 50 years ago. They acknowledged the challenges faced by the French language from coast to coast to coast, including in Quebec, and they recognized for the first time that our government has a duty to protect and promote the French language. However, during our consultations with stakeholders across Canada over the summer, during the election campaign and after the election, we kept hearing that we needed to do more.

That is why, on March 1, in Grand-Pré, Nova Scotia, which is an important historical site for our Acadian community, the current Minister of Official Languages, a proud Acadian herself, tabled Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other acts. This bill is noteworthy because it shares similar objectives with Bill C‑238, namely protecting and promoting the French language. However, it goes much further.

Bill C‑13 broadens the historical scope of the former Bill C‑32 by introducing even more protections for the French language. It ensures that francophones can work and receive services in their language, not only in Quebec, but in other regions of Canada with a strong Francophone presence.

That is why our government will not support Bill C‑238, because it does not protect and, by its very nature, cannot protect the French language and francophones from coast to coast to coast.

Let us compare the immigration provisions of Bill C‑238 with those in our bill. In the preamble to Bill C‑13, our government recognizes the importance of the contribution of francophone immigration to enhancing the vitality of French linguistic minority communities and that immigration is one of the factors that contributes to maintaining or increasing the demographic weight of those communities.

Moreover, our bill requires that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship adopt a policy on francophone immigration in order to enhance the vitality of French linguistic minority communities in Canada. This policy is to include objectives, targets and indicators, as well as a statement that the federal government recognizes that immigration is one of the factors that contributes to maintaining or increasing the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities in Canada.

This is in addition to the administrative measures set out in the reform paper, which instruct the Minister of Immigration to set up a new francophone immigration corridor, recognize the importance of recruiting and retaining French-speaking and French-language teachers and increase opportunities for newcomers to learn French. There is a shortage of French-language teachers in Canada, particularly outside Quebec, and we need these measures in order to meet our francophone immigration objectives and to nurture the next generation of French-speaking Canadians.

As for the other part of Bill C-238, the section dealing with federally regulated businesses such as banks and airlines, here again, Bill C‑13 offers a more comprehensive solution.

Bill C-13 recognizes that Quebec has adopted the Charter of the French Language. In fact, it even creates a new law, the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, which states that, in relation to communications with or services provided to consumers in Quebec or in relation to workplaces in Quebec, Quebec's Charter of the French Language applies instead of this bill if a federally regulated private business must be subject to the charter.

However, the Charter of the French Language does not protect francophones outside Quebec. As our government recognized in last year's reform paper, we have a duty to encourage federally regulated private businesses to promote the equal status of our two official languages in order to increase the use of French as a language of service and a language of work across the country.

That is what Bill C-13 does. We are making sure that Canadians have the right to work and be served in French in federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and other regions of Canada with a strong francophone presence. We require employers to communicate with their employees in French and prohibit discrimination against an employee solely because they speak only French or do not have adequate knowledge of a language other than French. We are also enacting legislation to ensure that consumers of goods and services have the right to be served in French.

These tools are necessary to support francophones across the country. That is what we are doing with Bill C-13, and Bill C-238 simply cannot do the same.

Once again, I would like to thank the member for Salaberry—Suroît for raising this extremely important issue. Like her, our government recognizes that the use of French is in decline across the country and that urgent action is needed not only to stop this decline, but also to reverse it and move toward a future where French grows stronger.

However, Bill C-238 does not and cannot do that. I hope that all members of the House will join us in passing Bill C-13 as quickly as possible so that we can meet the objective of protecting and promoting French from coast to coast to coast, including Quebec, for francophones across the country.

An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague for her speech and her French. She even named francophone schools, communities and regions. That is very impressive. I thank her for sharing all that information.

If we take a close look at Bill C‑13, I do think we can see that it is a big improvement over Bill C‑32 in many ways, especially when it comes to the positive measures we need to see. These are concrete actions on the ground.

I also think that Treasury Board, despite being very busy, is the machine responsible for enforcing laws. That will really strengthen this act.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to continue the tradition, it is with great pleasure that I address the House in French today to speak to Bill C-13, which seeks to modernize the Official Languages Act. I think it is important to explain how an anglophone like me is now able to deliver her speech in French in the House of Commons.

I was really lucky. When I was young, my parents, who do not speak a word of French, decided to enrol me in French immersion schools. From kindergarten to university, I was educated in French. I was even able to complete my high school education in French immersion at Father Mercredi School in Fort McMurray. This gave me the opportunity to enrol at Campus Saint-Jean, which is the francophone campus of the University of Alberta and is affectionately called “la fac”. That is where I earned my political science degree.

I really had the opportunity to immerse myself in the Franco-Albertan culture and heritage. Because of this background, I consider myself a francophone, a francophone by choice, not by chance, but a francophone nonetheless. I am part of the growing francophone population in Alberta.

It is an interesting fact that French was the first European language spoken in Alberta. The coureurs des bois were the first people to speak French in Alberta in the 17th century. There are francophone communities all over Alberta. Several places in the province have French names, including Miette, Plamondon, Grande Cache and Lac La Biche.

According to Statistics Canada, Alberta's francophone population is growing: 25% of Franco‑Albertans were born in Alberta, 24% were born abroad and 50% come from the rest of Canada. Francophones are coming in from Canada and abroad, and that gives our francophonie immense vitality and vibrancy.

It is worth noting that Alberta also welcomes more francophone immigrants than the national average, namely 10.3% of the immigrant population, according to Statistics Canada. I am sharing these facts to demonstrate how vibrant and strong the francophonie is in Alberta.

The federal government must rise to the challenge of collaborating with its provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure adequate basic funding that is permanent, predictable and indexed to the cost of living. Since the francophone population is growing, it is very important to provide services in French. We need meaningful action to support francophones outside Quebec, such as Franco‑Albertans.

Those who were counting on legislation with teeth that would result in substantial gains with respect to protecting and promoting French in this country are certainly disappointed by the half measures proposed in this bill.

Sheila Risbud, the president of the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta and spokesperson for the francophonie, said:

However, there is still work to be done because our communities want the bill to include the designation of the Treasury Board as the sole central agency responsible for coordinating and implementing the act, an obligation to negotiate binding language clauses in agreements with and transfers to the provinces and territories, and clarification concerning the objective of a francophone immigration policy.

It is clear that the Minister of Official Languages still has work to do before she can say, “Mission accomplished”. I note that Bill C‑13 takes a big step backwards compared to the reform document tabled by the former minister of official languages, which died on the Order Paper as a result of the 2021 election.

Bill C-32, introduced by the former minister, recognized an asymmetry between the status of French and the status of English in Canada, but this concept is not included in the new bill. In order for the reform of the Official Languages Act to ensure the future of the French language in Canada, it is vital that it reflect the current linguistic situation and that it not pretend that the two official languages are on an equal footing.

Fifty years after the implementation of the Official Languages Act, our world has changed a lot. Francophones are immigrating from Africa and many other countries. The francophonie is thriving.

We know that bilingualism has some real, tangible benefits, including economic benefits. The Conference Board of Canada released a report that clearly showed that bilingualism is deeply rooted in the Canadian identity and is an effective economic tool. Bilingualism allows for more diverse trade relationships and increased imports and exports.

It is important to note that meaningful measures are needed. We should start by asking why there is no central agency responsible for overseeing and providing horizontal coordination for the act. Instead, there are four bodies responsible for this under the act: Canadian Heritage, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Minister of Official Languages.

The Conservatives believe that the Treasury Board should definitely be the central repository of all powers for enforcing and issuing directives under the Official Languages Act as a whole. As it stands, the powers are split and several departments are being forced to share the tool box. Some departments wind up taking the blame for another department's failure to fulfill its obligations.

In addition, the reform of the Official Languages Act does not do enough to meet the needs of minority francophones, including Franco-Albertans. If the government truly wants to support minority francophones, it needs to support French schools.

As a proud francophone who served as parliamentary secretary for the Francophonie when I was a member of the Alberta legislature, I witnessed the vitality and viability of the French language first-hand.

I am worried about francophones in minority settings who lack support, and I urge the Minister of Official Languages to adopt a fresh, collaborative approach based on feedback from national and provincial organizations to help francophone communities from coast to coast to coast thrive.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

It is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

From the outset, I would like to point out to the hon. minister that I was parliamentary secretary for official languages during the 41st Parliament from May 2011 to September 2013. Not to upset or offend her, but I would remind her that her government is not the first to give Canada's two official languages the importance they deserve. The fact is that French has never ceased to be under threat, and there is no doubt that threat looms larger than ever since 2015, both in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

I worked on the road map for Canada's linguistic duality, which ended in 2013. We made an unprecedented investment of $1.1 billion to support linguistic duality that brought together 15 departments and agencies.

I will excuse the minister, since she was not yet elected and so many of the previous Conservative government's accomplishments were literally deleted from the Internet with the arrival of the Liberals in 2015.

We have been keeping a close eye on the act for quite some time to make sure it strives to achieve substantive equality between Canada's two official languages.

As a unilingual francophone, I am very familiar with the challenges of being from a small, practically unilingual francophone community, but I am very proud of my roots and my mother tongue.

Our two official languages are an integral part of our identity, and I am privileged to see my children function in both languages more comfortably than I ever did at their age. It is extremely important to be able to grow up, work and live in one's mother tongue. I understand the fragility of our official language minority communities and the many challenges they face.

Ensuring that francophones can access federal government services in their language and that federal public servants can work in the official language of their choice is still a very real challenge in 2022, and there is no denying it. This government has been in power since 2015, and things have not really improved on its watch. I will not even talk about balancing the budget or deficits or the possibility of losing our AAA credit rating, nor will I talk about our justice system or the legacy the Liberals have left our young people by legalizing both soft and hard drugs.

All that is scandalous, but let me get back to today's topic, Bill C‑13.

We have wasted precious time since 2015, and the Liberal government appears to have just recently realized that the Official Languages Act needs to be amended and modernized. I can guarantee that as a member of Parliament and a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I will personally work with my colleagues to ensure that Bill C-13 finally reflects the current linguistic realities and that it promotes substantive equality between French and English, while contributing to the vitality of official language minority communities, which greatly need us.

This bill could have passed in the previous Parliament as Bill C-32, but let me remind members that the Prime Minister felt the need to plunge us into a costly and unnecessary election. We are finally getting around to it now. Still, as the saying goes, better late than never.

Contrary to what the minister claimed last week, we have been working for quite some time already with community stakeholders, the provinces, the territories, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, which is very important to me.

The common goal is noble and reflects our commitment to ensure that the modernized bill reflects the reality of francophones living in Quebec, anglophones across the country, francophones living in minority situations, Acadians and anglophone Quebeckers.

The hardest work is yet to come, but we need to ensure that the Liberal government does not start playing dirty tricks, passing the buck or dragging the process out.

The situation of French is very worrisome, not to mention critically at risk. With eight million francophones in Canada in a sea of more than 360 million anglophones in North America, the protection of French is an issue that deserves close and immediate attention. We will push this federal government to play its role with respect to protecting official language minority communities.

We will ensure that Bill C‑13 responds to the challenges that the French language is facing in North America and the challenges that official language minority communities are facing. First, we will ensure that the bill recognizes the linguistic realities of each province and territory.

The federal government collaborates with provincial and territorial governments that provide services in the minority language and promote the vitality of the official language minority communities. However, the federal government must also make it a priority to work together with indigenous communities across the country to ensure that indigenous languages are preserved and protected. The modernized legislation would therefore explicitly state that it does not affect the strengthening and revitalization of indigenous languages.

As everyone knows, I do not like scandals. We will continue to speak out against the fact that French is in significant decline in this country in 2022, and it is scandalous that this is still happening. The Liberal government needs to take concerted action to reverse this trend.

More must be done to protect and promote French across Canada, including, of course, here in Quebec. We will ensure that francophones can live in French. We must establish new rights to enable francophones to work in French and to be served in French in federally regulated private businesses.

In this respect, the minister said on April 1 that these new rights will be enshrined in a new act, namely, the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act, and that these rights will apply in Quebec as well as regions with a strong francophone presence.

We will, of course, ensure that the Liberal government does not forget that the private sector also has a role to play in promoting our official languages and enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities.

I look forward to seeing how the government might ensure better access to justice in both official languages by introducing a new bilingualism requirement for the Supreme Court of Canada. That is a major challenge and, unfortunately, such challenges are not this government's strong suit.

That being said, we will ensure that Bill C‑13 fulfills the promise of strengthening the Treasury Board's role as a central agency to coordinate and enforce the Official Languages Act. The discretionary aspect of its monitoring, auditing and evaluating powers will now become mandatory. We will also ensure that the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages are strengthened. It is imperative that he be given more tools to do his job so that he is able to impose administrative and monetary penalties on certain privatized entities and Crown corporations operating in the area of transportation serving the travelling public.

Air Canada's recent appearance at committee gave us a good example of how francophone Canadians are basically being neglected because employees are not really encouraged to learn or improve their French-language skills.

The bill also includes important clarifications regarding part VII on federal institutions taking positive measures that will benefit official language minority communities. It will be mandatory to take into account potentially negative impacts that decisions could have on the vitality of the communities and on the promotion of both official languages. lt must also strengthen Canada's francophone immigration policy, which must include objectives, targets and indicators with the aim of increasing francophone immigration outside Quebec.

We will ensure that Bill C‑13 will increase supports for official language minority communities to protect the institutions they have built, both for francophones outside Quebec and for the development of the English-speaking minority in Quebec.

The bill must ensure that the Official Languages Act reflects the challenges of the 21st century. We are embarking on a legislative process that the Liberals have finally initiated to significantly advance Canada's linguistic framework, and not before time.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate this bill, which is very important for our country and for official language communities across Canada.

Canada's Constitution was tailor-made for a modern federation like ours with a non-homogenous population. Some might even call our federation postmodern. Ours is a federation that brings together different cultural groups, peoples and nations who all live together in mutual respect, who adapt and who work together to build a society founded on the principles that we all adhere to.

I am, of course, talking about the indigenous peoples, the French from New France and the British settlers, who, over the years, were joined by people from other cultures who all worked together to build the new Canadian reality. Our Constitution was designed for the modern world, for a world that is becoming increasingly complex, in which the historic boundaries of cultural groups have become more flexible, and different groups share the same country.

One of the pillars of our constitutional democracy is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, one of the world's wisest and most progressive bills of rights. Our diverse country calls for moderation and a sense of compromise. The charter contains the distinctive section 1, whereby rights are not considered absolute but rather are tempered where it is reasonable to do so.

Another defining pillar of our democracy, in addition to the constitutional recognition of indigenous rights, is the entrenchment in the Charter of Rights of official language minority rights. It is very important to be clear that, and this is a message that I want to get across to the many who might be watching today who are from minority language communities, language rights in our Constitution are beyond the reach of the notwithstanding clause, a clause that has attracted a great deal of attention and, I would say, begun to be used in a perfunctory manner by different governments.

I am speaking of minority language education rights under section 23 of the charter, as well as the right by virtue of section 133 of the British North America Act to use English or French in the federal courts and in Quebec courts, a right that also extends to Manitoba courts by virtue of section 23 of the Manitoba Act of 1870, and to New Brunswick courts owing to the province's 1993 amendment to the charter. These rights are beyond the reach of the notwithstanding clause. This is important for minority language communities.

The Official Languages Act adds a layer of protection and promotion to these constitutional language guarantees by protecting and promoting the use of official languages in the federal context, namely, in the federal public service and in Crown corporations, such as Canada Post, Air Canada, Via Rail, CN and Nav Canada.

In our constitutional democracy, independent courts adjudicate constitutional rights through the prism of our most fundamental values, and perhaps no program has been more valuable in protecting official language minorities in this country than the federal court challenges program. The program offers funding to those launching legal challenges to protect their rights, including linguistic rights, from laws and policies that threaten those rights.

The court challenges program was recently used by Quebec's English language school boards to protect them from the Legault government's Bill 40. the bill aims to eliminate school boards, which are central community institutions for Quebec's English-speaking minority.

As we know, there was a court decision that said the Quebec government could eliminate school boards, but not English-speaking school boards, because the community has protection under the Constitution regarding minority language rights, and this case continues through the courts. Earlier, the program was vital to protecting Ottawa's Montfort hospital against callous attempts by the Harris government to close this institution, which is so vital to eastern Ontario's francophone population.

As promised, Bill C-13 would strengthen the court challenges program by de facto referencing it in the legislation, namely section 43(1)(c) of the act. I admit the reference could be more explicit and more definitive, and we will see what happens in committee. We will see if someone proposes an amendment to make that clause a little more affirmative. However, like any government program, whether it is in law or not, its effectiveness is ultimately directly related to its budget.

Challenging a bill like Bill 40 through the long process of court appeals can be costly. I have heard it could cost up to $1 million for the English-speaking school boards in Quebec to fight Bill 40 all the way to the Supreme Court. I think this is beyond the capacity of the court challenges program, so I call on the government to increase the program's budget. It would be money well spent in support of the fundamental principles to which we, as Canadians, adhere. Not to mention that the 2021 Liberal election platform includes such a commitment.

I represent a riding in Quebec with a large anglophone population. It is, however, very much a bilingual riding with an English-speaking school board that offers bilingual and French immersion primary and secondary education. The community is rightfully attached to its schools and to the education rights of their children.

The new section 41(4) of the modernized Official Languages Act would help maintain those rights by requiring the government to proactively, through the census, help estimate:

...the number of children whose parents have, under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to have their children receive their instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province or territory, including the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities.

I would like to pay homage to my colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, who worked very hard on having the census be used to estimate the number of people in minority language communities across this country who have rights under the Constitution.

Whether their roots stretch back generations, or they have more recently arrived, Quebec's anglophones are deeply rooted and embedded, by choice, in Quebec society. They are profoundly attached to living in the only place in North America where French is broadly spoken every day, and they wish to remain in Quebec and contribute to its development, but they require employment opportunities to be able to do so.

The representation of anglophones in the federal public service in Quebec is, as I understand it, below the community's share of the population. Bill C-13 will hopefully help eliminate this gap in two ways. Section 41(5) of a modernized Official Languages Act would place a duty on the federal government to take concrete positive measures to enhance the vitality of English-speaking and French-speaking linguistic minority communities in Canada and assisting their development, including, presumably, by ensuring anglophones have their rightful place in the federal administration in Quebec.

Moreover, the role of the Treasury Board would be expanded as a result of Bill C-13. The Treasury Board would have a duty to establish directives and policies to give effect to the requirement to institute positive measures, as well as responsibility for “general direction and coordination” of these positive measures across departments. This is a very important addition to the Official Languages Act.

It is worth noting that in Bill C-32, Bill C-13's predecessor, this obligation was discretionary. In Bill C-13, it is mandatory. Also, Bill C-13 will require the Treasury Board to “monitor and audit federal institutions in respect of which it has responsibility for their compliance” with the aforementioned directives and policies.

As in Bill C-32, the Commissioner of Official Languages' role and enforcement powers have been enhanced, including the power to make compliance agreements. Namely, section 64.1(1) of the new modernized Official Languages Act will, after Bill C-13 is passed, state the following:

If, at any time during the course of or after carrying out an investigation, the Commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that a federal institution has contravened this Act, the Commissioner may enter into a compliance agreement with that federal institution aimed at ensuring compliance with this Act.

As has been mentioned, the government, in parallel to introducing amendments to the Official Languages Act, has also introduced a new act, the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. This second act reasserts Ottawa's role in regulating businesses operating in federal jurisdictions in Quebec. I know this is something not all parties in this House agree with. If I recall, all opposition parties would relinquish that jurisdiction to the province.

As I see it, this second act will reinforce bilingualism in federally regulated businesses. It will give consumers in Quebec:

...the right to communicate in French with and obtain available services in French from federally regulated private businesses that carry on business in Quebec...

This is already the case, practically speaking.

In any event, Quebec anglophones would not object to this principle. The Quebec anglophone community displays a very high degree of bilingualism. I cannot recall ever seeing a francophone consumer in Quebec being unable to obtain service in their language from an anglophone. As a matter of fact, sometimes what happens is a rather curious kind of dance where an anglophone goes into a store. The person behind the counter asks them in French if they can serve them and the anglophone asking for service is not really sure if the server is an anglophone or a francophone, ending up with two anglophones speaking to each other in French. This happens quite a lot and it is a moment of levity for all concerned.

Moreover, Bill C-13 does not prevent consumers from transacting in English. Section 7(3) states:

For greater certainty, the rights set out in subsection (1) do not preclude consumers from communicating with or obtaining services from the federally regulated private business in English or a language other than French if they wish to do so and the federally regulated private business is able to communicate or provide services in that language.

As regards language of work, section 9(1) states that employees of a federally regulated private business have a right to carry out work and be supervised in French. Again, I do not believe that anglophones in Quebec, at least not in my community, have a problem with this statement in principle. Of course, there will be regulations to determine how this right will be applied, and we will see what the regulations say.

Employees will have a right to use work instruments and computer systems in French. Again, this does not take anything away from those who speak English. Computer software interfaces provide for this flexibility. I trust the regulations will recognize this software flexibility.

This right to workplace bilingualism is reinforced in section 9(3), which reads:

The right set out in paragraph (1)‍(b) does not preclude communications and documents from being in both official languages...

Therefore, we see that this bill is reinforcing the core values that underlie the Official Languages Act, which of course is bilingualism.

Further, proposed subsection 10(2) states, “In developing the measures referred to in subsection (1)”, that is, measures to foster the use of French in workplaces, “the federally regulated private business must consider the needs of employees who are close to retirement, have many years of service or have conditions that could impede the learning of French.”

I believe this clause may require amendment. It seems to refer to medical conditions that could impede learning French, but there are many reasons why some individuals remain unilingual that have nothing to do with a medical condition. I think that needs to be taken into account.

Further, proposed subsection 11(2) states that a federally regulated private business “must not treat adversely an employee who occupies or is assigned to a position on or before the day on which this subsection comes into force for the sole reason that the employee does not have a sufficient knowledge of French.”

The vast majority of anglophones in Quebec are bilingual and growing more so every day. They should not be negatively impacted by this particular clause. The regulations will be key to ensuring an appropriate flexibility that protects everyone.

Many if not most federally regulated businesses deal with entities outside the province. One thinks of logistics and freight-forwarding companies, of which many are located in my community. This further reinforces the practical value of bilingualism in the federally regulated private sector, which brings me to section 11(3), which states:

Requiring an employee to have a knowledge of a language other than French does not constitute adverse treatment for the purposes of subsection (1) if the federally regulated private business is able to demonstrate that a knowledge of that language is objectively required by reason of the nature of the work to be performed

Federally regulated businesses tend to deal internationally, so there is a role for bilingual individuals in these businesses.

All that said, I feel strongly that no one, anglophone or francophone, should be prevented from working in a federally regulated business because they do not have knowledge of the other language, just as they would not be prevented from working in the federal public service because they only have knowledge of one of the official languages unless the position requires a level of bilingualism. I hope the regulations will respect this fundamental principle of the Official Languages Act.

I would like to see the regulations that will follow under Bill C-13 guarantee in some way this right to work. Perhaps this could be done through amendments to the bill. On a practical level, given today's acute labour shortage, it would be in the best interests of employers and the provincial economy to ensure that the law does not hamstring federally regulated businesses and their ability to recruit and hire qualified personnel.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑13 to modernize the Official Languages Act.

Let me be very clear at the outset. French is very important to Canada. When I was young, from my first year of school through to high school, I took French. It was mandatory. I think that is probably why I can speak French today.

I also worked in Quebec for 15 years. It was a great experience for learning the language. When I arrived here on Parliament Hill, I took French classes again, twice a week. It helped me improve my French and taught me parliamentary terms like “bill”, “second reading”, “clerk” and so on. That is exactly the kind of training we need across the country if we really want to be bilingual from coast to coast to coast.

However, that is not currently the case. In most provinces and territories, there are populations of francophones and francophiles, but the language of business is that of the majority, in other words, English. The francophone population is declining even in Quebec, and we need francophone immigration. That is the current reality.

How can we increase the proportion of francophones in Quebec and in the rest of Canada? How can we protect the culture? Now Bill C-13 has been introduced, a bill that attempts to improve the situation in the federal domain.

Sarnia‑Lambton was given the designation of francophone riding in Ontario. We have 8,000 francophones and francophiles. I am very proud to provide services in both official languages at my office. However, there is a lack of services in French in other sectors.

When I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, a study was conducted on the situation of the francophonie in Canada. I heard witnesses say that there is a lack of legal services and virtually no access to university programs in French. These testimonies are similar to those I received at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women during various studies. For example, the only midwifery program in French outside Quebec was cancelled. There is also a lack of legal services in French for military women who experience sexual harassment. That is unacceptable.

To correct the situation, training needs to be provided in French and English everywhere. This bill, however, does not address that need. I hope that the government will work with the provinces and territories to put enough training in place, starting with training for young people.

We also need legislation. Bill C‑13 will clarify the demand for French in every federally regulated office and business. That is a good thing. However, if people do not obey the law, then what? That is the problem.

The Commissioner of Official Languages does not have the power to penalize anyone who violates the act. In committee, he told us that there are several cases of non-compliance. He has the resources to investigate, but the consequences are not very severe. Thus, the problem persists.

Today, we see government ministers making announcements solely in English. That is not right. However, there is no penalty. This bill would have the commissioner work for Treasury Board and not the Minister of Official Languages.

There would finally be consequences for violating the act. These actions fall to the Commissioner of Official Languages, but I believe that this is not clearly defined.

The Treasury Board Secretariat has many challenges, and I believe that official languages violations will go to the bottom of the pile. I understand that the secretariat controls all departments, but it has many other priorities.

How will the Minister of Official Languages know where the problems are? What is actually her role?

I would like to make a few recommendations. First, I believe that this bill will improve the situation at the federal level, but that is not enough. The minister must work with the provinces and territories to create a plan to establish training in both official languages everywhere.

Second, the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada will work with the Minister of Official Languages with the same powers set out in this bill. Perhaps we could look at the possibility of penalizing individuals and not just businesses and departments. The penalties could be more severe. I am thinking of a $25,000 fine, which is a small penalty for Air Canada, for example.

Third, we must continue to welcome francophone immigrants to ensure that we protect the French language in Quebec. We need training in both official languages for all immigrants. Everyone knows that, historically, we have not reached our immigration targets.

In the last Parliament, the House studied Bill C-32. When the Liberals decided to call an election, that was the end of that. The minister says that she has improved the bill, but I am not convinced that it is much different. The Liberals promised to introduce this bill within 100 days of the last election, but it has been more than 200 days. I am not sure why.

There are still many things in this bill that are vague. For example, the onus is still on the institutions to determine appropriate and positive measures. It is not clear when all these measures will come into effect. It is not clear whether a “strong francophone presence” applies only to places where there is an official designation, or perhaps it applies to areas where many francophones live. I think there need to be some amendments in committee to clarify these aspects.

I have spoken a lot about the French language, and now I want to take a few moments to advocate for the rights of anglophones. There are one million anglophones in Quebec. This is not about forcing everyone to learn French. I hope to see the day when all Canadians can speak both languages, but I think some reasonable accommodations are needed. For example, our interim leader does not speak French, but she is making an effort every day, and our messaging is always in both languages. She has help from a deputy leader who ensures that announcements are always made in both official languages. That is a reasonable accommodation.

I have heard that the president of Air Canada is learning French, but in the meantime, he needs some help to ensure that all messaging is in both languages. In Canadian cities where there is a francophone or anglophone minority, we should be trying to find solutions to meet the service needs that are not being met.

In conclusion, I think that we can do more to establish our two languages all across the country, but Bill C‑13 is a step in the right direction.

Official Languages Act

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the work we have done together on several committees in the past.

The Commissioner of Official Languages made several recommendations. Some of those recommendations were included previously in Bill C-32. We have listened to communities across the country and we have also listened to the commissioner during this time. Bill C-13 now has more teeth for the commissioner in looking at making public statements and looking at les sanctions pécuniaires. I am not sure of the English term.

We know that the commissioner now has more powers and is really pleased with the additional responsibilities the commissioner now has to officially look at the Official Languages Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

Could he quickly talk about the differences between Bill C‑32 and this one, Bill C‑13?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 seeks to amend the Official Languages Act, which was enacted by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberal government in 1969 and then amended once by Brian Mulroney's Conservatives in 1998 based on the same principles.

Before that, for almost a century, the so-called equality of languages established by the Constitution of 1867 never really existed, except in theory.

It was nothing new when Gilles Duceppe said that there are two languages and that bilingualism in the federal government means English and translated English. In fact, French has remained the translated language, and in the past, francophone members who wanted to make themselves understood had to speak English because there was no simultaneous interpretation.

Anglophones were responsible for the important economic portfolios and held the vast majority of management positions in the public service. That too has not changed very much, but until the 1970s there were almost no francophones at all working in the federal public service.

For nearly a century, there were laws that banned French in all the provinces that are now predominantly English-speaking. Ontario's Regulation 17 is just one example. Unfortunately, it was not an exception, and it caused nearly 70% of Canada's francophones to become anglicized. These are the figures from the last time this was measured.

However, objectively speaking, I have to admit that there has been some progress, such as the adoption of bilingual stamps in 1927, bilingual bank bills in 1936 and bilingual federal cheques in 1962. Of course, with such dizzying progress, many people were not happy in Quebec, where things were moving and shaking. The Quiet Revolution was under way, Jean Lesage's “maîtres chez nous” was on everyone's lips, and the modern independence movement was gaining traction. I am not suggesting things were better outside Quebec. Speaking French outside Quebec remains a daily struggle. It is an act of resistance.

Getting back to the Official Languages Act, people say it is the result of the work of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. That is not quite true. The Laurendeau-Dunton commission was set up at the urging of André Laurendeau, who wrote an editorial calling for a commission of inquiry rather than debates about bilingual cheques and other trivial concessions to French Canadians.

André Laurendeau was a federalist. He thought the French‑Canadian nation could co-exist with English Canada. He would have wanted Quebec to be given special status as the heart of French‑Canadian society. He wanted to create an egalitarian partnership between French Canada and English Canada. To him, bilingualism was a secondary tool. He wanted a new division of powers between the central government and the francophone province.

Prime Minister Pearson made the commission of inquiry an electoral issue. He was elected. He said he wanted “to develop the Canadian Confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races”, but it did not happen that way because André Laurendeau died in the meantime and a new Liberal leader arrived. He was a fiercely anti‑nationalist Quebecker. His name was Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Contrary to what is often written, the key recommendations of the Laurendeau‑Dunton commission were cast aside by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who rejected the idea of two peoples and two national cultures and kept only the idea of having two languages associated with individual rights and multiculturalism, rather than biculturalism, which reduced Quebec culture to one culture among many.

It is important to consider the historical context because the fundamental principles of the Official Languages Act have not really changed, despite the fine declarations offered up in Bill C‑13 and in the Speech from the Throne.

In the study of language planning around the world, language policies are grouped into two major categories based on whether they are founded on the principle of territoriality or the principle of personality.

Virtually all experts agree that only an approach based on territoriality and collective rights can ensure the survival and development of a minority language.

It is also interesting to note that André Laurendeau talked about the Belgian and Swiss models, which are examples of how effective the territoriality principle can be in defending minority languages.

In Flanders, in Belgium, everything is done in Dutch. The entire public service and education system, from kindergarten to university, operate in Dutch. This does not prevent people there from learning five or six second languages, often very capably.

The same thing goes for French in Wallonia, but the central government in Brussels is bilingual, and that is where most of the problems have been, but that is not the subject of today's debate.

The Quebec model is based on the principle of territoriality, with the Charter of the French Language, which aims to make French the only official and common language in Quebec, while respecting the historic anglophone community and recognizing the right of first nations to maintain and develop their original language and culture.

In fact, Quebec treats the anglophone community eminently better than the Canadian provinces treat the francophone and Acadian communities.

In response to the rhetoric I hear from the Liberals, I would say that the principle of territoriality could very well apply outside Quebec, in territories that have a large concentration of francophones or Acadians, as we heard from an expert who recently testified before the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

This does not mean that we could not maintain some form of institutional bilingualism, as already exists in regions in which there are fewer francophones and they are more spread out. This would be a nominal gesture towards righting all of the wrongs done by the Canadian government's assimilation policies.

The Canadian model, with the Official Languages Act, is based on the principle of personality. It establishes individual language rights that can be transported across the Canadian territory. It claims to guarantee equal access to federal government services for people who belong to either of the two big linguistic groups, yet it limits such access to areas where numbers warrant.

This personality-based approach ultimately ends up creating a situation in which the strongest of several official languages develops at the expense of the other, more vulnerable ones. All over the world, models like Canada's non-territorial institutional bilingualism result in minority languages being assimilated.

This is what we have seen over the past 52 years with the Official Languages Act. The assimilation rate of francophones outside Quebec has steadily increased. It was 40% in 2016, which means that 40% of francophones outside Quebec now speak English at home. As for language of use, it went from 4.3% in 1971 to 2.3%. This drop in the use of French is a result of the Official Languages Act.

The Office québécois de la langue française is predicting a drop in the demographic weight of francophones in Quebec from 78.9% in 2011 to 69% in 2036. That prediction was made based on a high rate of immigration, but there has been a lot less immigration under the Liberal government.

Federal bilingualism is also territorial to some extent, because, as I was saying earlier, it is limited to regions where the numbers warrant it or there is sufficient demand. That does not make any sense at all. When French declines, the government cuts services in French. That is a bit like having a law to support employment that provides for cuts to employment services when there is a high rate of unemployment. People would be inclined to inflate the numbers to hide the real unemployment rate so that employment services would not be cut. That is more or less what is happening here.

Francophones outside Quebec have an incentive to inflate the numbers, to seem more numerous because they do not want their French services taken away. This is good for Ottawa, which makes it look like all is well. However, the consequence is that the federal government has, until very recently, denied the decline of French despite all the obvious signs. It has found all sorts of ways, all manner of indicators to send the message that French was doing just fine and, ostensibly, to help Francophone and Acadian communities.

This adversely affects Quebec because organizations like the QCGN and Canadian Heritage use indicators such as FOLS, first official language spoken, which they manipulate somewhat to inflate the figures. As a result, the QCGN advocates for the rights of anglophones who are defined in this way, many of whom are newcomers whom Quebec should, in fact, integrate into the francophone community.

Our big problem is that, in order to maintain the demographic weight of francophones in Quebec, 90% of the language transfers must be to French. At the moment, it is a little more than 50%, and this is mainly because of an agreement that enabled the Quebec government, for a time, to select more francophone or francotropic immigrants. However, that is happening less and less because the federal government adopted a two-stage strategy whereby immigration is increasingly based on temporary study permits. As we have heard in the media, the main sources of francophone immigration are experiencing abnormally high rejection rates. At the same time, the federal government has, until very recently, always denied the decline of French.

Another principle underlying the Official Languages Act is the symmetry established between anglophones in Quebec and the francophone and Acadian minorities. This is another absurdity that has been criticized by the Bloc Québécois, in particular, but also by a number of authors and journalists in Quebec. It is very easy to demonstrate that this does not correspond to reality.

Even the Laurendeau-Dunton commission showed that in Quebec, not only did anglophones have considerable privileges, but there were fewer francophones graduating from university, and that is still the case today. Francophones also had lower incomes. They ranked 12th out of 14 linguistic groups. Although there has been some catching up, there is still a decline, and the average salary of francophones, for example, if we do not use the doctored Statistics Canada indicators, is still well below the average salary of anglophones in Quebec.

The very principle of official language minorities is highly questionable, since as long as Quebec is in Canada, it will unfortunately be subject to the will of the federal government, which is controlled by the English Canadian majority. We have seen the results. This government had no qualms about changing and imposing a Constitution in which the principles of the Official Languages Act were enshrined, against the will of Quebec. It never worked. No Quebec government has signed this. It is locked up, so to speak.

In 1993, even the UN Human Rights Committee stated that anglophone citizens of Canada could not be considered a linguistic minority in the Canadian context, where they are in the majority. Still today, the sociolinguistic reality is that English is used in Quebec as a majority language in Canada and not as a minority language in Quebec.

As in the rest of Canada, language transfers disproportionately favour English. This symmetry that is at the very foundation of the concept of official language minority communities has another adverse effect, in that it has divided Quebec from francophone and Acadian communities. As a result, the federal government has ignored French language advocacy groups, claiming that they represented a majority. A study was done on the status of French at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the first in 52 years.

Despite all these criticisms, the Official Languages Act has maintained this fictitious symmetry between the anglophone community and the francophone and Acadian communities. This has allowed the federal government to justify providing massive funding to anglophone institutions and lobby groups, thereby contributing, as several researchers have noted, to the anglicization of Quebec.

Let us come back to Bill C‑13. After the Canadian government announced that it would modernize the Official Languages Act, the Government of Quebec stated its expectations. It asked that the Official Languages Act recognize that of the two official languages, French is the only minority language across Canada.

This seems to have resonated because the government mentioned it in the Speech from the Throne and in Bill C‑13, while maintaining that the federal government has a responsibility to protect and promote the anglophone minority in Quebec. The federal government acceded to the Government of Quebec's request to some extent, but upheld the same principles.

There are no specific measures in Bill C‑13 for defending the French language in Quebec. It is a little contradictory. We will see how things develop.

A month before the first bill to modernize the Official Languages Act was presented, the Quebec government detailed its position and presented five guiding principles.

The first was recognition of the minority status of French. As we saw, the bill offers some very ambiguous recognition and maintains the principle that the anglophone minority in Quebec needs support. We understand this to mean that all of the money from the official languages programs will continue to be devoted to defending English in Quebec.

The second request was that an asymmetrical approach be adopted. However, no such approach can be found in Bill C‑13, which maintains a symmetry between anglophones in Quebec and francophone minorities outside Quebec.

The third principle was that the Official Languages Act should recognize that Quebec is the sole architect of language policy on its territory and that the Charter of the French Language must take precedence. The bill does not incorporate this at all. In fact, it does the contrary, with measures that will have an impact on French as the common language and that will hamper the Quebec government's efforts.

There is a strong consensus in Quebec. All of the political parties unanimously adopted a motion in the National Assembly. The mayors of all of the big cities and the former premiers, including the very liberal Jean Charest, want Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated businesses.

The previous bill, Bill C-32, prevented Quebec from doing this by including a clause that made the application of Bill 101 optional. The present bill, Bill C‑13, goes so far as to raise the prospect of a separate bill that will prevent Quebec from applying Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses by allowing these businesses to choose which law will apply to them. We saw how this will play out when the question was put to the CEO of Air Canada, Michael Rousseau. Naturally, he said that he would prefer the Official Languages Act.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois recognizes the progress made in terms of promoting and protecting the French language in francophone communities outside Quebec. That said, we feel that we could go much farther, and we will support the demands of the francophone and Acadian communities. There again, we see the value of a differentiated approach.

However, the demands of the Quebec government and the Bloc Québécois were completely ignored, both in the previous bill and in this one.

At the time of the Laurendeau‑Dunton commission, it was said that Quebeckers had two choices. They could either choose an extensive amendment to Confederation and the Constitution, or they could choose independence for Quebec. We are now in the same place 52 years later, just worse off because we are gradually losing our language and at risk of losing our political weight.

Quebeckers need to be well aware of this.

In conclusion, long live a free, French Quebec.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer this question.

The process that took place over the last few years, which included consultations and engagement with parliamentarians to strengthen the bill, led to the introduction of Bill C-32 last June. Following the election, we came back with an even better bill, Bill C-13. The fact that the Treasury Board will act as a central agency and play a compliance monitoring role is an example of something that has been strengthened in the new legislation, Bill C-13.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech.

Another bill was introduced in the last Parliament, specifically Bill C-32.

What is the difference between that bill and Bill C-13?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I am truly pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑13 on modernizing the Official Languages Act and, especially, its importance to Canadians.

Canada's official languages are a defining characteristic of who we are as a country. They contribute to our diversity and inclusion, our social cohesion and our resilience.

Madam Speaker, as a proud Franco-Ontarian, I can assure the House that our two official languages and standing up for the interests of minority francophone and anglophone communities are very important to me.

This bill is possible because Canadians shared their passion and their ideas. Whether we are talking about community leaders, parliamentarians, experts or citizens, I am grateful to Canadians across the country for their comments and their important contributions to this bill. Canadians want us to do more to ensure the ongoing vitality of official language minority communities and enhance French across the country.

In the federal public service, we have seen major improvements in bilingualism. Since 2000, the number of bilingual positions and bilingualism rates among employees have increased, especially among those who provide services to the public in both official languages. What is more, the capacity of the public service to provide services in French and English has increased year after year. There are more bilingual supervisors, more employees who meet the linguistic requirements of their position and more positions that require a higher level of bilingualism.

The federal government continues to be a key partner in supporting the development and success of official language minority communities. A prime example of this is Canada's new official languages regulations for communications with, and services to, the public. These regulations will ensure that anyone who uses a minority official language at home will be considered when calculating the demand for services. This means that, for the first time, bilingual families and immigrants are included in our calculation. Equally important, federal offices in the vicinity of 900 minority schools across the country will have to offer their services in both French and English. We expect that, in the coming years, around 700 offices that are currently unilingual will become bilingual.

Canada's Official Languages Act became law more than 50 years ago, before digital technology, and it has been more than 30 years since its last major reform. The act needs to be modernized to ensure it continues to serve Canadians well. That is why the government introduced Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act and to make related amendments to other acts. This bill would make improvements that would address challenges facing the French language in Canada and the challenges faced by official language minority communities.

In addition to including the key measures in the previous bill, Bill C-32, Bill C-13 would significantly improve the Official Languages Act to clarify and strengthen the part of the act concerning the promotion of official languages and support for official language minority communities, and it would further improve compliance by federal institutions concerning official languages through more robust monitoring and new tools for the Commissioner of Official Languages. With respect to the role of the Treasury Board Secretariat, we share responsibility for the implementation of the Official Languages Act with other federal institutions.

Under this act, the Treasury Board is responsible for the general direction and coordination of policies and programs relating to the part IV of the act on communications with and services to the public, part V on the language of work in federal institutions, and part VI on the participation of anglophones and francophones in the federal public service.

As we know, these powers are exercised by the Treasury Board Secretariat, which establishes and interprets official languages policies, directives and regulations and monitors federal institutions for compliance.

Modernizing the Official Languages Act will enable the Treasury Board to reaffirm its role as a central agency by strengthening and expanding its powers to monitor federal institutions for compliance. That will improve our ability to support communities and serve Canadians in the official language of their choice.

More specifically, the new bill requires the Treasury Board to issue policies and regulations to help federal institutions meet their obligations under parts IV, V and VI of the act and to hold them accountable. This is now a mandatory requirement rather than a discretionary one, as it was in the past. For the first time, in consultation with Canadian Heritage, the Treasury Board will verify whether federal institutions are taking positive measures to enhance the vitality of these communities and promote English and French in Canadian society.

The Treasury Board Secretariat, as a central agency, is better positioned to monitor, audit and evaluate the act, and to develop and publish appropriate policy instruments designed to provide guidance to federal institutions.

Furthermore, under the new legislation, the rights surrounding language of work for employees in regions designated as bilingual for language of work purposes will continue to be protected.

What is more, Treasury Board policies will continue to ensure that public service jobs are designated bilingual where necessary and that they reflect the appropriate level of second-language proficiency.

More specifically, we are currently examining the need to increase the minimum second-language proficiency requirements for supervisors in bilingual regions so that those employees are able to work in the official language of their choice.

The new bill also shows how important bilingual communications are in emergency situations.

Treasury Board is working closely with the departments that play a key role in the health and safety of Canadians in order to ensure that communications are always of equal quality in both official languages in emergency or crisis situations.

In my mandate letter, the Prime Minister tasked me with continuing to ensure that Canadians across the country can receive services from federal institutions in both official languages. He also asked me to support the Minister of Official Languages in fully implementing the measures related to the public service that are outlined in the document “English and French: Towards a Substantive Equality of Official Languages in Canada”.

For example, one of the measures proposed in this document is a new second-language training framework for the public service adapted to the needs of employment equity groups and, more specifically, indigenous employees.

This framework will guide the departments so that they are able to provide training that responds to the diverse needs of employees and makes bilingualism attainable for them.

By increasing the level of bilingualism in the public service, we will be better able to meet the growing need for bilingual services.

The beginning of this decade was very difficult, but the time has come to build a stronger, more dynamic and more inclusive country for everyone.

Our official languages and their vitality unite us, and we must continue to defend and promote them. At this time in our country's history, it is more important than ever to protect and promote our official languages in federal workplaces and throughout Canada, and that is what this bill would do.

Thank you very much.

I am ready to answer questions.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question and for his work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I want to be perfectly clear. Bill C-13 does have real teeth. Last year, the former minister of official languages introduced Bill C-32. In my conversations with stakeholders and colleagues, I heard suggestions on how certain aspects of the bill could be improved, and that is exactly what we have done.

The bill we have introduced, Bill C-13, does have real teeth. The Commissioner of Official Languages will have more tools to do his job. Francophones will be given the choice to work and be served in French in businesses under federal jurisdiction.

I look forward to working with my counterparts to ensure that the bill ultimately receives royal assent.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise today to begin the second reading debate on Bill C‑13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages.

I would first like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe.

Our two official languages and 70 indigenous languages are central to our identity. They are a core part of our lives and integral to our interactions in our families, at school, at work and in the community. They are the focal point of our diversity and the face we proudly show to the rest of the world.

As an Acadian, I understand the importance of being able to grow up, work and live in one's own language. I also understand the fragility of our official language minority communities. It is therefore with a deep sense of purpose that I carry out my responsibilities as Minister of Official Languages, and I am proud to rise in the House today to talk more about Bill C‑13.

Since its enactment in 1969, the Official Languages Act has helped shape a state where English and French play a central role not only in the public affairs of our country, but also in our lives. It has also provided francophone minority communities and anglophone minority communities in Quebec a powerful development tool. It has helped ensure that francophones can access federal government services in their language and given federal public servants the opportunity to work in the official language of their choice. It has helped francophone minority communities and anglophone communities in Quebec build strong institutions.

However, Canada and the world have changed over the past 50 years, and we understand that the Official Languages Act must be modernized and changes must be made to it. With Bill C-13, we are ensuring that the act responds to current linguistic realities and that it promotes substantive equality between English and French while contributing to the vitality of official language minority communities.

This bill is the fruit of several years of consultations with community stakeholders, provinces and territories, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and, of course, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, whose members are here with us today. Throughout these consultations, we had a specific goal in mind, which was to ensure that the modernized bill reflected the reality of francophones living in Quebec, anglophones across the country, francophones living in minority communities, Acadians and even English-speaking Quebeckers. Thanks to a major team effort, we now have a bill with teeth.

However, one thing remained clear throughout our work on modernizing the act. The situation of French is worrisome. Whether we are talking about the predominance of English as an international language or about the fact that digital technologies, social media and streaming platforms far too often favour the use of English over French, one thing is becoming apparent. With eight million francophones in Canada in a sea of more than 360 million anglophones in North America, the protection of French is an issue that deserves close and immediate attention. At the same time, we must recognize the critical role that the federal government can and must play with respect to protecting official language minority communities. It is a duty that is especially important to me.

Bill C‑13 responds to the challenges that the French language is facing in North America and the challenges that official language minority communities are facing. It solidifies the vision proposed in the reform document and in Bill C‑32, which was introduced last June. Today I am very proud to introduce at second reading a stronger bill that rises to the challenges we are facing. It is a bill that, as I just said, has teeth.

First, the bill recognizes the linguistic realities of each province and territory. Our government collaborates with provincial and territorial governments that provide services in the minority language and promote the vitality of the official language minority communities. However, as a government, we must also make it a priority to work together with indigenous communities across the country to ensure that indigenous languages are preserved and protected. The modernized legislation would therefore explicitly state that it does not affect the strengthening and revitalization of indigenous languages.

We are the first government to recognize that French is in significant decline in the country and that we must make a concerted effort to reverse this trend. This is why we are proposing additional measures to protect and promote French across Canada, including in Quebec.

We will establish new rights to ensure that francophones can live in French and that they can work and be served in French in private-sector businesses under federal jurisdiction.

These new rights will be enshrined in a new act, the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. These rights will apply in Quebec as well as in regions with a strong francophone presence, because our government recognizes that the private sector has a role to play in promoting our official languages and enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities.

We are going even further. We introduced a new bilingualism requirement for the Supreme Court of Canada to improve access to justice in both official languages.

We will strengthen the Treasury Board's role as a central agency to coordinate and enforce the Official Languages Act. In other words, we will replace the discretionary aspect of its monitoring, auditing and evaluating powers and make these powers mandatory.

We will also will strengthen the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages to provide him with more tools to do his job. He will be able to impose administrative monetary penalties on certain privatized entities and Crown corporations operating in the area of transportation serving the travelling public.

Our bill also includes important clarifications regarding part VII and federal institutions taking positive measures that will benefit official language minority communities. It will be mandatory to take into account potentially negative impacts that decisions could have on the vitality of the communities and on the promotion of both official languages.

In addition, we will also strengthen Canada's francophone immigration policy, which will include objectives, targets and indicators with the aim of increasing francophone immigration outside Quebec.

We are also increasing supports for official language minority communities in order to protect the institutions they have built.

I want to take a moment to reassure English-speaking Quebeckers that nothing in this bill takes away from the rights and protections they have. We will always continue to support the development of the English-speaking minority in Quebec.

In short, this modernized legislation will result in numerous benefits for communities across the country. The bill we are presenting today ensures that the Official Languages Act reflects the challenges of the 21st century.

In other words, more francophones will be able to work and live in French.

More anglophone parents would be able to send their children to immersion. More official language minority communities would be able to thrive. All Canadians would recognize themselves in this legislation, which would give our children and grandchildren a world of opportunity.

Our history has taught us that we could never take our linguistic duality for granted. With this bill, we are adapting to a world that is constantly changing. We are preparing for the challenges of today and preparing for the challenges of tomorrow.

We are embarking on a historic legislative process that will significantly advance Canada's linguistic framework. The implications for everyone in Canada are huge.

I know parliamentarians will examine Bill C‑13 very closely. That is excellent news. As parliamentarians, we all have a duty to ensure this country has the best possible bill and that it will have a positive impact on all Canadians.

I want to assure all of my colleagues on both sides of the House that I will be here to work with them throughout this process and when it comes time to implement this bill that will soon, I hope, become law.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Corinne Prince]

Here is what I wanted to say. The same bill, Bill C‑32, was tabled in the House of Commons in June 2021. From that time on, we at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada worked with our Canadian Heritage colleagues and people in the francophone community to enhance Bill C‑13, which was tabled in the House of Commons in February. We added a number of items to the provision on the francophone immigration policy. Specifically we added information about objectives, targets and indicators.

[Corinne Prince, Director General, Afghanistan Settlement , Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you for the question.

We have been working closely with our Canadian Heritage colleagues for several months now. We enhanced Bill C‑32, and in fact made improvements to the bill that had been introduced, and which is now Bill C‑13.

You spoke earlier about the obligation to adopt a policy on francophone immigration. Accordingly, what we did in Bill C‑13 was add objectives, targets and indicators. This means that once there is a francophone immigration policy, it will include these details.

In a working group, we also worked closely on with the representatives of the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta and various representatives of the francophone community. The working group has two goals. The first is to find ways to meet the current 4.4% target in 2023. We also worked closely with the group to come up with solutions with respect to the next target. This means determining what we will be doing after 2023.

This means that we now have recommendations from the francophone community about the future of francophone immigration to Canada, outside Quebec.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you very much for your question, Ms. Ashton.

I also recently read your tweet in which you said you were looking for day care spaces for your children. I understand you because people here at home are in the same situation.

I have to go back in time to answer your question on language clauses in bilateral agreements.

After Bill C‑32 was introduced, stakeholders said they wanted the definition of positive measures in part VII of the Official Languages Act to have more teeth. When Bill C‑13 was drafted, we paid special attention to the terms used to define positive measures. That was necessary because part VII is closely related to the question you just asked.

We did that to ensure that, when the bill receives royal assent, all the decisions the government makes regarding bilateral agreements or anything else are subsequently analyzed to assess their impact on official language minority communities.

As I said, we want substantive equality, and we need to ensure that the measures we introduce help to achieve it. Consequently, we want to make sure all the analyses are done. I often compare this to gender-based analysis.

When we formed the government in 2015, we didn't discuss this at length, but now all decisions presented to cabinet are analyzed with respect to their gender impact. The Minister for Women and Gender Equality isn't the only one considering this matter; now all ministers do so, and we debate it.

So as regards the definition of positive measures and the work we've done on that, stakeholders are very pleased to see that we genuinely want to resolve the issue.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Beaulieu. I'm always glad to see you as well.

We state very clearly that French is in decline in Quebec and Canada. We haven't downplayed that fact in our bill's provisions. We acknowledge that we must do more to protect and promote French in Quebec and Canada. When you look at our reform document, Bill C‑32 and Bill C‑13, the common denominator is that we want substantive equality. We have to take further measures to ensure we make a difference for the greater francophone community. That's very clear in our bill.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

It's always a pleasure to see you, Mr. Iacono. Thank you for that question.

I was appointed Minister of Official Languages about five months ago. From the start of my mandate, I've been privileged to meet many of my colleagues who are around this table, members of the opposition parties, senators and many stakeholders. I wanted to hear their comments on Bill C‑32 and find out what they'd like to see in its new version.

I've met many national and provincial groups. I met with the Société de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, or SANB, because it's in my riding. I met with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the FCFA, the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, or AFO, the Quebec Community Groups Network, the QCGN, and others. All those conversations gave me a lot of food for thought, and my thoughts were included in Bill C‑13, which we introduced three weeks ago.

I heard a number of people say that Bill C‑13 didn't include all the aspects that were in Bill C‑32. I want to state clearly that that's absolutely false. All the elements that were in Bill C‑32 are in Bill C‑13. However, we've gone even further. Stakeholders told me they wanted a more robust bill, and that's exactly what we introduced. I'd like to say I've met the expectations expressed in the comments we received from stakeholders. Here are a few examples.

I'd like to address the matter of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The Commissioner asked us for more powers and tools to do his job. We all acknowledge that the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, is doing extremely important work to protect our official languages. However, the only power Mr. Théberge currently has is the power to conduct investigations and issue reports. So he wanted better tools to do his job, and that's precisely what we've given him.

We added tools in Bill C‑32, and, in Bill C‑13, we've also added administrative monetary penalties, which could be imposed on some federal institutions. In short, we want to ensure that our bill has teeth. We wanted to create a central agency, as was mentioned, since many stakeholders I spoke to raised the issue. That's precisely what we've done.

I genuinely hope we can work closely together to adopt Bill C‑13 as soon as possible since I'm really looking forward to continuing work on the regulatory framework. We definitely want to forge ahead.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister. It's always a pleasure to see our Acadian friends. I have to say that Quebec does things its own way. Oh, oh!

Minister, the work involved in modernizing the Official Languages Act has been ongoing for many years. You've been responsible for this portfolio since last October. Would you please tell us about your interactions with stakeholders representing official language minority communities and how those interactions have influenced the differences between Bill C‑32 from the last Parliament and Bill C‑13?

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

My first question is for the Department of Canadian Heritage representatives. I'd like to get a short answer.

Are there any parts of Bill C‑32 that would change the allocation of official languages funding in Quebec in a way that favours French?

[Sarah Boily]

I'll respond to that first and then let Ms. Boyer add what she wants to say about the promotion of French.

Several measures in Bill C‑32 address the objective of protecting and promoting French. The most significant and newest are those respecting federally regulated private businesses. The government has decided that the private sector has a role to play in protecting and promoting French. Bill C‑32 would grant Canadians the right to be served in French in federally regulated private businesses. That applies both in and outside Quebec in regions with a large francophone presence. It would also grant workers in those businesses the right to work in French. Those are some of the key measures in the bill.

Other approaches have been proposed to encourage and strengthen arts and culture, which enhance the vitality of French. So the media and agencies such as telefilm Canada, Radio-Canada and the museums would continue to be supported. Those are some key examples that come to mind in connection with expanding the place of French.

[Julie Boyer]

I'm going to turn the floor over to my colleague Sarah Boily, who has worked on those clauses of Bill C‑32.

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

Earlier on, Mr. Blackburn spoke about some problems related to the modernization of the act. Among other things, he mentioned that the Quebec bill to strengthen Bill 101 would apply to federally regulated organizations, but that Bill C‑32 would give companies the option to comply with Bill 101 or with the Official Languages Act, which will also create confusion.

How is that supposed to work?

I'd like to hear your comments first, Mr. Lacroix, and then Mr. Blackburn's.

[Angela Cassie, Chair, Board of Directors, Société de la francophonie manitobaine]

Good afternoon.

I would like to thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

I am currently on Treaty 1 land, homeland of the Métis nation. The Manitoban francophonie is spread over territory that is subject to several treaties and the ancestral lands of several indigenous peoples.

My name is Angela Cassie, and I am chair of the Société de la francophonie manitobaine, the SFM.

As the organization representing the francophone community of Manitoba, SFM is concerned with the advancement of all the community's areas of activity with the help of its network of collaborators and partners.

Today I would like to discuss three major themes: the urgent need to modernize the Official Languages Act, the priorities of the Manitoban francophonie and the efforts required to achieve the French-language immigration target.

First, I would like to mention that SFM supports the claims of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada regarding the act.

The work leading up to Bill C‑32, which we have been awaiting for many years, was not done in haste. On the contrary, it is the result of several studies and consultations dating back many years. Any more delays would only further weaken the position of French in our communities. Parliament should therefore begin its work immediately.

Having said that, I agree, as do all francophone communities, that Bill C‑32 still exhibits some major deficiencies that must be corrected.

First of all, the Office of the Commissioner of Official languages must be granted expanded powers to make orders and impose penalties. At the moment, the mere recommendations that he makes are not strong enough to protect minority languages.

That brings me to the next deficiency in the bill: it is vitally important to clarify further part VII of the Official Languages Act. Parts of the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique case should serve as a basis for establishing the necessary mechanisms to ensure compliance with part VII and to clarify the government's expectations with regard to “positive measures”.

In addition, to guarantee a common and generous interpretation of the act, the government must designate a single central agency to coordinate the act's implementation.

Lastly, Bill C‑32 should include a francophone immigration policy in order to restore the demographic weight of the francophonie.

I will now explain the immigration issue at greater length before concluding.

In 2016, Manitoba's francophone community adopted a strategic plan based on a consultation conducted by a research team from the Université de Saint-Boniface. That plan, which was developed for a 20‑year horizon, based on 5 lines of action, and projected 33 results, is now being implemented by the network of Manitoba francophone organizations. In our opinion, to achieve the intent of the Official Languages Act, particularly that of part VII, governments must consider this action plan in developing and evaluating programs. The government must act as a partner in enhancing the vitality of our communities.

Accueil francophone, an SFM initiative introduced to facilitate the intake and settlement of francophone newcomers to Manitoba, has provided services to the vast majority of those newcomers. In spite of our efforts in this initiative and Accueil francophone's ability to act, only 4.3% of immigrants had French as a spoken language in 2019. We must have specific and bold francophone immigration targets.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

All right.

My last question is for Ms. Crist.

Ms. Crist, you met with Minister Joly to discuss the modernization of the act when she was Minister of Official Languages. What points were addressed during your conversation? Do you feel that some of them were overlooked in the former Bill C‑32?

[Darius Bossé, Lawyer, Power Law]

The day-to-day delays in implementing the modernization of the act obviously causes harm that may at some point become irreparable. Yes, that's unfortunately the case.

We had a chance to see the first version of an attempted modernization of the act at the end of the last Parliament. As my colleague noted, there were many problems with that version. We see now that the communities and organizations have joined forces to inform the government clearly what those problems are and how to solve them.

For example, the Treasury Board's obligations must be more clearly established. Binding directives must be issued precisely to provide a framework for implementing the various parts of the act. The obligation to consult must be clarified. We now know that it's an obligation, as the Court of Appeal stated in its decision. It held that the government had breached its obligation and had to take the needs of the community into account, which it has not done.

In the case of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, the FFCB, the government was also required to adopt a linguistic clause under which it could intervene and ensure that the act was properly implemented by the province. In the Court of Appeal's view, however, that had not been done as the obligation to adopt linguistic clauses was not stated in Bill C‑32. These are the kinds of clarifications that the organizations and communities are asking the government to make in order to solve the problems in the next version of the bill to modernize the Official Languages Act. We hope that next version will be introduced shortly.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Power, you say there's still a lot of work to do since Bill C‑32 isn't good for francophones outside Quebec, Quebec francophones or Quebec anglophones.

Should we make new regulations or further clarify the text of the act to make part VII more robust?

What do you think is the difference between opting for new regulations and making part VII more specific, more robust and more comprehensive in the act?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being with us today. This is a very important day with regard to the matter at hand.

I'm going to address my questions to Maître Power and Maître Bossé.

First of all, I commend both of you and your colleagues for all the legal work you've done over the years before the courts in having them recognize and uphold the rights of our linguistic minority communities across the country.

I read with great interest the recent Federal Court of Appeal judgment concerning the FFCB and welcome not only the timing of it, but also the essence, and more specifically to the part of the judgment that overturns Justice Gascon's decision.

In your legal opinion, in what way is this recent decision helping or hindering the proposed amendment of the OLA found in, I'm going to call it the old version of Bill C-32 that was first introduced in June 2021?

[Mark Power]

The best way to protect French using the Official Languages Act, whether in Ottawa, Vancouver, New Brunswick, Quebec City, Montreal or Lévis, is to make a central agency such as the Treasury Board responsible for administering the act.

Right now, no one is responsible. No one puts his foot down. No one in cabinet pounds the table when necessary. No one is requiring any federal department to adopt a certain type of conduct.

If the Treasury Board becomes responsible for administering the act and compels colleagues and the departments to take action, that will definitely help solve many problems, whether it be signage or the possibility of travelling across Canada in French, whether in Gatineau or Bagotville.

I would ask you please to turn to page 105 in bookmark B of the briefing book. There you will see that Bill C‑32 would have enabled the Treasury Board to take certain actions to promote French but that it requires nothing significant. On page 107, the bill provides that Treasury Board would be required to monitor, audit and evaluate, among other things.

We need more than that.

[Mark Power, Lawyer, Power Law]

Good afternoon.

My name is Mark Power, and I'm a lawyer. I am here today with my colleague Darius Bossé, who comes from Madawaska.

I grew up in Toronto. My name is English, but my first language learned and still understood is French. I'm more comfortable in French. My mother comes from northern Ontario, from Kapuskasing, more specifically, and my father is from Timmins. My mother's family comes from Shawinigan.

We represent the legal team of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, or FFCB. You just heard from its president, Ms. Crist. We are here to say a few words about the judgment rendered by the Federal Court of Appeal barely a few weeks ago, in late January. The focus of our presentation will really be on part VII of the Official Languages Act. There are other things that could be said, but we want to stick to part VII.

In support of our remarks and to assist in the work of the committee and its analyst, we have provided some documentation. Those of you who aren't here in person received it by email and those who are in the meeting room, in Ottawa, have received a briefing book. For those who have the PDF version, we've included bookmarks to help you find your way through the documentation. At the very start, you'll see a short five-page document, in English and French, of course, summarizing our comments on the Federal Court of Appeal's decision.

Then there are five bookmarks. Bookmark A is the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, which we have annotated in part to make it easier for you to read. Certain passages are highlighted in yellow. Bookmark B is an excerpt from the current version of the Official Languages Act. By underlining and striking text, we have shown the effect that Bill C‑32, which was tabled last June, would have had if it had been passed as is and had received royal assent. Bookmarks C and D are the bills that your predecessors previously introduced and considered. Lastly, bookmark E is Bill C‑11, which is under consideration. It concerns broadcasting.

Ten years later—it took 10 years—the Federal Court of Appeal has rendered an absolutely fantastic judgment promoting the advancement of French in Canada. At last. It has helped clarify matters pertaining to part VII of the Official Languages Act, particularly as regards the federal-provincial agreements, where the Government of Canada decides to withdraw from an area of shared jurisdiction.

At least two major gains have been made before the Federal Court of Appeal, and we should point them out very briefly. They concern consultation and linguistic clauses. I'll begin at the end. What's significant is that Bill C‑32, which was introduced last June, isn't good for French outside Quebec. It's very good for French in Quebec, and it isn't very good for Quebec anglophones. An enormous amount of work remains to be done to reform the federal Official Languages Act so that it helps us live in French, whether we live in or outside Quebec.

[Lily Crist, Chair, Board of Directors, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique]

First of all, we would like to thank you for inviting us to outline the reality and challenges of francophones of British Columbia.

Members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we are counting on you to promote our rights and support the development of the francophone minority communities.

Today we would like to talk to you about the modernization of the Official Languages Act on two levels. At the national level, we have many priorities in common with our national representative, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, respecting the modernization of the Official Languages Act. We suggest that four essential changes be made to Bill C‑32.

First, we recommend that a single central agency, the Treasury Board in this instance, be made responsible for coordinating administration of the act across the entire federal government with the authority to compel other government bodies to provide results.

Second, we seek clarification of part VII of the act. The concept of positive measures that are necessary to enhance the vitality of the official language minority communities must be clarified, especially by specifying the way in which institutions must consult the minorities on policies and programs and by adding robust linguistic clauses to the federal-provincial-territorial agreements.

Third, we would like there to be an obligation for the government to develop a francophone immigration policy expressly designed to restore the francophonie's demographic weight.

Fourth, we would like the government to grant the Commissioner of Official Languages authority to impose sanctions and make orders, including authority to impose fines for breaches of language obligations under the act.

With respect to British Columbia more particularly, our request is related to our lawsuit that culminated in the Federal Court of Appeal's judgment rendered on January 28, 2022. Further details are provided in the open letter that we published last Friday, February 11, 2022.

I would also like to discuss the devolution agreements. We have been in court for some 15 years as a result of that type of agreement. They are not conventional agreements respecting the administration of a program or shared jurisdiction. The court held that the province was sovereign in the matter of devolution for the term of the agreement. Under this type of agreement, we systematically lose our services as we have no language legislation or policy respecting French-language services in British Columbia. We would like the act to be more specific about this type of agreement.

We would also like to alert you to certain challenges facing our communities that merit your attention. The 4.4% francophone immigration target has not been reached for nearly 20 years.

Remedial and restorative measures are urgently required. According to a report by the Commissioner of Official Languages released last November, failure to reach that target has resulted in a shortfall of approximately 76,000 francophone immigrants in our communities. That figure could represent the entire francophone population of my province.

[Raymond Théberge]

With respect to the first issue you raised, you're referencing legislative asymmetry, which seems to be part of Bill C-32. The goal of Bill C-32 is to achieve substantive equality, and I think those two concepts are quite different. Substantive equality is well defined by the Supreme Court in terms of how we can achieve substantive equality between linguistic communities. It doesn't mean we have to do the same thing for each community. Legislative asymmetry means that you bake into the legislation rights for one group and not for the other.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Théberge, I have a great deal of respect for you. My goal is not to catch you out or trip you up. However, I feel that this is a very important bill and that, once it is passed, you will either be a victim of it or you will be better equipped because of it.

So, I feel we need to take the time to do things right and make good amendments so that you can see some results. You said yourself that there are no results at the moment.

Bill C‑32 was introduced, but you said that it had no teeth. So we have to give ourselves the means and the time to do things right.

Let me ask you again: do we have to pass this bill quickly?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but my time is very short. You answered my question: you met with the Minister, but, as far as you recall, you did not address the situation.

Mr. Commissioner, let me remind you that you told my colleague Ms. Kayabaga that the next Official Languages Act must meet the needs not only of today, but especially of tomorrow. So let me remind you of some chronology.

In June 2021, Bill C‑32 was introduced. Parliament was dissolved in July. In August and September, we were in an election campaign. In October, the Cabinet was formed and decided to give itself 100 days to table a new version of the bill. Then along came the holiday season, and we understand that. It is now February 2022.

I asked you earlier whether we should move quickly to pass this new bill. You just said that when you met with the Minister, you did not deal with the child care agreements. You told me earlier that we need to pass the bill quickly.

Could you give me your definition of “quickly”?

[Raymond Théberge]

Any delay in tabling a bill will inevitably delay its passage.

In the original version of Bill C‑32, the language in Part VII did not thwart Justice Gascon's decision. It's extremely important that I mention that.

In some ways, the timing could not be better with respect to the Federal Court of Appeals decision. It clarifies the principles needed to give Part VII more teeth. We should even incorporate some aspects of the decision into Part VII to ensure their sustainability.

[Raymond Théberge]

To begin with, the parts of the act that deal with what you just talked about need to be reviewed. Part VII addresses federal institutions' obligation to take into account the needs of official language minority communities, and the Federal Court of Appeal recognized that obligation in its decision. It also recognized the need to ensure that the programs and policies in place support the development of those communities—not hurt it. The government also needs to be proactive by taking positive measures to ensure the development and vitality of official language minority communities.

Turning to the elements that address French specifically, I would say that if the objective is to achieve substantive equality, the act cannot be implemented in the same way across the country. Some regions are home to communities that are extremely vulnerable, such as out west. We are talking about very small communities, including those in my province of Manitoba. To achieve substantive equality, it's important to implement the act in a differentiated way. The Supreme Court provided a very clear definition of substantive equality, which is the objective.

On the compliance front, Bill C‑32 sets out the authority to enter into enforceable agreements with federal institutions, make orders and establish conflict resolution mechanisms, powers that are not currently available. Administrative monetary penalties could be added to the bill. That would provide a much larger tool box, giving the commissioner's office access to various resolution mechanisms, depending on the situation. Right now, the commissioner's office can make recommendations, something it has been doing for years.

Furthermore, the discussion around how to better protect French should also focus on mechanisms within the federal government. When it comes to language of work, it is crucial to recognize that English is the predominant language in the workplace. That means the appropriate conditions need to be in place to ensure that federal government employees can work in French, whether it is their mother tongue or their second language.

The way things are currently structured greatly favours one language over the other. That issue receives very little attention in the discussion around modernizing the Official Languages Act. The idea of providing better language training receives some consideration. That is a first step, but it is absolutely vital that part V of the act, which deals with language of work, really give employees the tools they need to speak their first or second language. That means changing how things are structured, because, as I see it, French very often receives secondary treatment within the federal government. That has been the case for years now.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Commissioner, for appearing before the committee today. I haven't yet had the opportunity to meet you formally, as a member of this committee, but I am fortunate to represent a large community of Franco-Ontarians. They account for 60% of all Franco-Ontarians. Every five years, the census tells us that we are losing ground.

I read the statement you put out on January 28, 2022, regarding the Federal Court of Appeal's decision. My fellow member Mr. Godin mentioned the decision.

What is your reaction, and what do you recommend?

You touched on Bill C‑32, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we can protect French through this study.

As far as the commissioner's responsibilities are concerned, what aspects can be strengthened in the bill?

[Raymond Théberge]

Certain things would need to be added to Bill C‑32, but I think they could be addressed during the next few parliamentary committee meetings.

For instance, the bill does not cover administrative monetary penalties, specifically in relation to institutions like Air Canada and federally regulated private organizations. The bill, in its current form, does not include all the necessary tools, but we know what the next iteration should look like to ensure improvement.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Commissioner, sorry to have to cut you off, but as you know, we have a limited amount of time.

From what you were saying, I gather that the process can be fast-tracked because we have all the necessary tools.

Do you mean to say that Bill C‑32 does what is expected, and gives you the tools to make a positive impact and protect French?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Commissioner.

I think we are coming to the same realization.

You mentioned the ongoing discussion and the fact that the modernized iteration of the act would be introduced soon, further to Bill C-32. The bill was brought forward at the end of the previous Parliament, before the Prime Minister called the election. Consequently, the whole process has to start over. We are looking at a time frame of 100 days.

You just flagged one of the biggest problems, the fact that you don't necessarily have the tools you need to do your job.

Are you with those who are in favour of moving quickly or those who want to take the time required to create an enduring tool that will ensure French is adequately protected? Let's be clear, here. The objective isn't to protect English. Yes, it's part of the objective, but the real threat is to French.

In your view, should we fast-track the modernization of the Official Languages Act, or conversely, should we take the time to come up with a piece of legislation that will give the commissioner the tools to achieve tangible results and protect the French language?

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

Okay.

I would like to very quickly ask another question.

In Bill C‑32 sponsored by Ms. Joly, the official languages minister at the time, an increase in funding was announced for French immersion schools, but not necessarily for schools designed by and for francophones.

Don't you think it would make sense to start by increasing funding for schools designed by and for francophones?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you for the clarification.

If I understand correctly, Bill C‑32, which amends the Official Languages Act, offers Quebec employees the opportunity to work in the language of their choice, that is, either in French or in English. I remind you that our study focuses on the government's measures to protect and promote French in Quebec and Canada.

Does offering employees the opportunity to work in the language of their choice, as included in Bill C‑32, achieve the objectives of promoting and protecting the French fact in Quebec?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you.

From a legal point of view, the application of language law to private companies under federal jurisdiction has a twofold aspect. On the one hand, it is a matter of federal jurisdiction, and on the other, it falls under Quebec provincial jurisdiction. Both may apply, but in the event of a clear conflict between the two legislative levels, the principle of federal paramountcy applies. Thus, if there is a vacuum in federal law, Quebec law will be able to apply, but if federal law conflicts with Quebec law, federal law will apply.

So it is indeed a bit dangerous for the federal government to legislate on matters governed by Bill 101, because federal law is likely to apply in a preponderant manner. Bill C‑32 is not as far-reaching as Bill 101. Moreover, Quebec's Bill 96 makes Bill 101 even more potent.

In Bill C‑32, what is interesting is that Bill 101 is used as a model for regions outside Quebec, therefore for regions with a francophone concentration, which have yet to be determined. In my opinion, these should be the regions bordering Quebec, namely northern New Brunswick, eastern Ontario and Labrador, and perhaps a few others.

We have to do both at the same time, that is to say, we have to apply Bill 101 to federal undertakings, and with respect to the other regions, federal law must intervene in favour of the right to work in French.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many legal experts in Quebec have said that the Quebec government could apply Bill 101 to businesses under federal jurisdiction. Yet Bill C‑32 clarifies that enterprises under federal jurisdiction may choose between Bill 101 and the Official Languages Act.

Some have said that the Official Languages Act is going to be modelled on Bill 101. What we saw in Bill C‑32 is that the part concerning the Official Languages Act provides for the right to work in French, but also to work in English. The logic of bilingualism always informs the Official Languages Act.

First, will Bill C‑32 prevent Quebec from implementing Bill 101?

Second, in the Official Languages Act, is Bill C‑32 a copy of Bill 101?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you for the question.

I do think that Bill C‑32 can be a good starting point. If it could be reintroduced, we could recommend a number of amendments.

The positive aspect of Bill C‑32, as I was saying earlier, is that it shows that the paradigm is starting to shift—in other words, that the federal government is realizing that it cannot treat French and English in the same way by saying it wants to protect English in Quebec and French in other provinces. The federal government must realize that the French language is in decline, including in Quebec, and especially in Montreal, and it must make efforts on that front. That is the first thing to do. That realization had already begun in the white paper that preceded Bill C‑32, but it must be taken further.

In concrete terms, I am seeing three things. First is the application of Quebec's Charter of the French Language, commonly referred to as Bill 101, to federally regulated private businesses. I think that is preferable to what was proposed in Bill C‑32, a sort of an option plan between Bill 101 and a federal equivalent, provisions in federal legislation that are somewhat based on Bill 101 while not going as far.

I feel that it is preferable to opt for the application of Bill 101, as it is the Office québécois de la langue française that has the know-how in providing private businesses with guidance on francization, much more so than the Commissioner of Official Languages. The commissioner is more specialized in public institutions. This is a matter of consistency, of know-how, as Bill 101, especially once it has been amended through Bill 96 in Quebec, goes further than what was set out in the federal legislation. So including the application of Bill 101 in a federal piece of legislation by referring to that bill would be the preferred solution. The federal legislation can then draw on Bill 101 to protect the right to work in French in francophone regions outside Quebec—essentially those located around that province.

So there is a way to do both, but I feel that the application of Bill 101 is preferable for Quebec.

Second, there is a lot of work to be done on federal public servants' right to work in French. According to a survey, nearly 44% of francophone federal public servants don't feel comfortable working in French. A rule must absolutely be implemented, and the two languages must not be put on an equal footing. When that is done, English predominates in reality. Precedence must be given to French in federal offices, across Quebec and in certain francophone regions. That will not preclude the government from providing certain accommodations and services in English, but priority must be given to French in the legislation, as English predominates in reality. The law must re-establish the balance by giving French precedence.

In terms of culture—and we discussed this earlier—it must also be ensured that federal subsidies are more directed toward citizen groups that promote French culture in Quebec, not only toward groups that promote culture in other languages.

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you for the question.

If we were to apply a territorial logic to Ontario, it would mean having to determine which regions had a concentration of francophones. That would enable the federal government to focus its efforts on promoting French in those regions.

This logic is, after a fashion, implicit in Bill C‑32. According to this bill, employees have the right to work in French in Quebec and in regions where there is a strong francophone presence.

As for Ontario, the federal government could make a greater effort to promote French, particularly in border region regions like northeastern and eastern Ontario.

The scholarly literature has shown that when efforts are concentrated in areas where many people speak the language, they can support its long-term vitality.

[Guillaume Rousseau]

I would draw a distinction here.

If the goal is strictly to ensure respect for individual rights, then the personality-based approach can be useful. There may occasionally be criteria for a sufficient number of people, but in theory, anywhere you might be in Canada, you can use the language of your choice. In terms of individual rights, the approach has some merit.

However, as for the development of the language and its survival through generations, the personality-based approach does not really yield effective results, because the dominant language will systematically take precedence.

It is therefore important to determine whether the objective is only individual rights, or whether it is a broader objective to enhance the vitality of the language and its development. Consideration should probably be given to both. Traditionally, however, the federal act places a little too much of an emphasis on language rights. The approach has not been very effective from the socio-demographic standpoint in the 54 years since the adoption of the initial Official Languages Act.

As for the application of Bill 101 to federally-regulated undertakings, the Quebec language act, the Charter of the French Language, goes beyond Bill C‑32 in protecting the right to work in French. It is not just an act, but also a fundamental right. The Office québécois de la langue française possesses the expertise required to interact with private undertakings and coach them through the francization process. The federal Commissioner of Official Languages, is much more specialized in dealing with public institutions. In the few instances in which the Commissioner attempted to have the act enforced in private undertakings like Air Canada, these efforts were only moderately successful.

Official Languages

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as Quebeckers prepare to celebrate their national holiday tomorrow, we can be proud of a federal government that protects and promotes the French language.

I am proud that our government has introduced Bill C‑32, which will modernize the Official Languages Act and bring it into the 21st century.

Could the Prime Minister tell the House how this bill will establish true equality between our two official languages?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent question and his leadership at the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Our Bill C‑32, essentially a modernisation of the Official Languages Act, will protect and promote French in all areas of Canadian life, in our cultural institutions, in our public service and in international relations.

Bill C‑32 guarantees that francophones have the right to work and be served in French, whether they live in Quebec or somewhere in the country with a strong francophone presence. I hope that all parties will join us so we can quickly pass Bill C‑32.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the government introduced Bill C‑32, which seeks to modernize the Official Languages Act. This bill contains historic measures to protect and promote French across Canada, including in Quebec.

Can the Minister of Official Languages tell the House how Bill C‑32 will help us achieve real equality between our two languages?

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when we asked the minister if she thought that her Bill C‑32 would protect French better than Bill 101 in Quebec, she said, and I quote, “Indeed, our remarks involve the entire country. Why? Because that is important. That is how we strengthen our federalism.”

That is great for her federalism, but her bill is supposed to strengthen French in Quebec. Does she realize that she will not strengthen French in Quebec with a single approach that does not accept that French is the only official language of Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand where the minister stands on the language issue.

There are two systems: One is for the very large majority of Quebeckers, who are protected under the Charter of the French Language. The other is for about 200,000 workers in federally regulated businesses. These are the people Bill C-32 seeks to help.

My question is simple: Between Bill C‑32 and the Charter of the French Language, which one is more effective in protecting the right to work in French?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, and I can see that our objectives are aligned. We both want to protect the French language in Quebec. Now, we want to protect it across the country too, and we will. We also want to protect linguistic minorities, including francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec.

My colleague should be happy. For the first time ever, the federal government is stepping up and protecting the French language. That is why I encourage her to vote in favour of Bill C‑32 on official languages.

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague should read Bill C‑32. She would get a good answer to her question.

Essentially, 55% of businesses that have already complied with Bill 101 in Quebec will have the right to continue under the same system, and those that have not can decide to do so at that time.

Naturally, we want to protect the right to work in French, the right to be served in French and the right not to be discriminated against for being a francophone in Quebec as well as in regions with a strong francophone presence.

My colleague will also recognize that within federalism, the federal government must have a national role and an approach that protects all francophones. That is the objective—

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Official Languages keeps repeating that the Charter of the French Language and her bill do the same thing. She says that someone protected by Bill C‑32 has the same rights as someone covered by the Charter of the French Language.

However, when minister Jolin-Barrette says that the Quebec law must apply to everyone, the minister digs in her heels. When the House voted for Quebec's federally regulated businesses to be subject to the Charter of the French Language, she voted against it.

My question is simple: Why did she vote against it if it is the same thing?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I obviously want to thank the President of the Treasury Board for being with us today to defend these budgetary appropriations.

Mr. Duclos, you have been an ally on the francophonie file. I've seen you many times in our official languages caucus.

Yesterday, the Minister of Official Languages introduced her Bill C-32 on the modernization of official languages, which provides for a number of protective measures. First of all, it states that bilingual judges should be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is also designed to protect the French fact. It takes into account the fact that more measures must be taken to protect the French language and put it on an equal footing with the English language, since French is a minority language in North America.

The Treasury Board has a major role to play in providing that protection. Could you explain to me what the Treasury Board's new role will be with regard to the proposed measures under Bill C-32?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, let us stop trying to scare people, as my colleague is doing.

It is not complicated. Bill C-32, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, which we introduced yesterday, requires federally regulated businesses to recognize the right to work in French, the right to be served in French, and the right of francophones not be discriminated against. Basically, these are the same provisions that are in Bill 101 and that have been adapted to a national system that applies to Quebec, as well as to regions with a strong francophone presence.

For businesses that are already compliant with Bill 101, an agreement will be made with the Government of Quebec. For those that are not compliant with Bill 101, it is not complicated; there is no longer a legal void and they will have to comply—

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑32 invalidates Quebec’s Bill 96 and its intent to apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. Bill C-32 does not force the francization of businesses; it simply tolerates that workers speak in French. Bill C-32 does not recognize French as Quebec’s only official language, nor does it do anything to make up for its threatened minority status. Bill C-32 therefore prevents Quebec from taking charge of its language policy.

Why would Quebec vote for this instead of its own Bill 101?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no legal void and Quebec has no plan to rely on Bill C‑32.

Quebec's minister responsible for the French language said, “One thing is for sure: The terms and conditions of Quebec's bill will be the ones that apply in Quebec”.

The federal minister, looking for a fight, responded, “We have jurisdiction over federally regulated businesses.... What do they want to do? Do they want to protect French or do they want to keep arguing?”

The minister clearly chose to keep arguing, because her bill does not protect the French language. It protects bilingualism. Why does the minister not simply let Quebec protect the French language with Bill 101?

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

Mr. Speaker, Quebec wants to protect the French language. All that Ottawa could do in its jurisdictions to protect French in Quebec was to let Quebec's Charter of the French Language apply to federally regulated businesses.

However, the minister is doing the opposite with Bill C‑32. She is setting the stage for increased bilingualism by extending the scope of Canada's Official Languages Act. She is creating a jurisdictional squabble instead of helping stop the decline of French.

Why is the minister refusing to do something useful by letting Quebec apply Bill 101?

Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (FedDev Ontario and Official Languages)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion moved by the member for Beloeil—Chambly.

I am pleased to pick up where the minister left off in talking about the reform of the Official Languages Act. I want to start by highlighting how important it is to build upon Canada's official languages in this process.

We know that our two official languages, French and English, are inextricably linked to our history and our identity. They are used in all of our conversations, activities and projects. They also help us express our culture, which is made up of and enriched by many different cultures. All of these cultures are at the very heart of the social contract that binds us all as Canadians.

French and English, along with the indigenous languages, enrich this country so much and inspired Parliament to adopt the first version of the Official Languages Act in 1969.

Since the passage of this act, various measures and amendments have allowed us to strengthen both the official languages framework and the measures defining their use in the public service. Of course, the most important contribution to official languages is without question their entrenchment in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Official Languages Act and other linguistic measures, including the court challenges program and the language rights support program, paved the way for incredible gains.

Among other things, we have seen the establishment of institutional bilingualism, enabling francophones across the country to access services in their mother tongue. We have also seen the emergence of a new generation of Canadians who were able to get an education in the minority official language, something their parents were unable to do. We have seen members of official language minority communities assert their rights and support the development and vitality of their community.

Many civil servants were able to learn the other official language in order to support the delivery of adapted services, while measures were taken to allow francophones and anglophones to find a job and advance their career in federal institutions.

Back when the act was passed, who would have thought French immersion schools would be so popular?

The whole country can see how far we have come, but the situation has changed rapidly in recent years. We have observed that, despite our efforts, the use of French has declined across Canada. Because of its minority status in North America, we have always had to be vigilant and focused. Over the past few years, the Internet and social media have become pervasive, international trade has advanced and every aspect of our lives has been digitized. All these factors unduly favour the use of English.

It is time to take action. This new reality has created an array of needs and expectations, as well as new responsibilities for us. A responsible government must study the situation, review its positions, develop solutions and consult Canadians about the best approach. That is exactly what we did.

In February, our efforts to that end resulted in the publication of our reform proposal, entitled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”, which the minister referred to.

In addition, this morning, after extensive efforts, the Minister of Official Languages introduced in Parliament Bill C-32, an act for the substantive equality of French and English and the strengthening of the Official Languages Act. This bill confirms the commitments made by our government in the throne speech and the 2021 budget statement. It fulfills the vision we presented in February, a vision that was favourably received by official language communities and by many community and government stakeholders.

We are convinced that, in a modern society like ours, and given our ambition to build a just society, all Canadians need to see themselves reflected in the Official Languages Act. Anglophone parents must be able to enrol their children in French immersion. The government must meet the expectations of francophones, both in Quebec and across Canada, and it must properly promote and protect the French language.

Francophones must have the right to work in their mother tongue everywhere in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence elsewhere in the country.

Immigration is quickly changing Canada's demographics, and the government needs to attract immigrants who speak French to both Quebec and other areas. The government also needs to support official language minority communities, both anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec, so that they have strong institutions that will ensure their vitality and survival.

Finally, the federal government needs to set an example. The public service needs to offer real services in both official languages. CBC/Radio-Canada needs to play its role as a key cultural institution, the Commissioner of Official Languages must be given more powers, and finally, judges of the Supreme Court of Canada must be bilingual.

We want to establish a new linguistic balance that will ensure substantive equality between our two official languages. That will sometimes require each linguistic group to be treated differently in the development and implementation of our policies in order to take into account their specific situation, characteristics or needs.

In Canada, French and English do not carry the same weight. It is up to the government to make smart interventions to restore the balance and ensure that the fundamental rights of all Canadians are respected.

Our reform plan and our bill include several guiding principles and proposed changes that will allow us to better promote and support French, support the establishment of essential institutions in official language minority communities and finally achieve the equality between our two official languages that we have been striving for.

Among other things, we want to highlight the specific linguistic vitality of each province and territory and protect the existing language rights of indigenous peoples. We want to create more opportunities for learning both official languages. We want to support institutions in official language minority communities, and we will commit to protecting and promoting French across Canada, including in Quebec. We want the Government of Canada to set an example by enhancing compliance within federal institutions.

I would like to reiterate that the reform will also affect federally regulated private businesses and, accordingly, the linguistic situation in that part of the labour market. We will protect the right to work in French in these businesses across the country wherever there is a strong francophone presence, which obviously includes Quebec. Both workers and consumers in these regions will be better protected, better informed and served in their language.

As well, we have found that legislation dealing with a subject as dynamic and evolving as language must be regularly reviewed and adjusted in order to stay relevant. That is why we have established a system of periodic reviews of the act and its implementation. This is how we will ensure that the Official Languages Act remains relevant and modern.

We want to ensure the vitality of our two linguistic communities and of all official language minority communities. Due to the differing circumstances of each linguistic community, we are adopting broad principles and comprehensive objectives in order to avoid taking a case-by-case approach, which could create more inequality. We are certain that the solution to achieving the desired results lies in a flexible but solid pan-Canadian framework.

I believe that all members of the House care about protecting the official languages and the language rights of all Canadians. I would therefore encourage them to study our reform proposal carefully and to support the bill that we introduced this morning.

Act for the Substantive Equality of French and English and the Strengthening of the Official Languages Act

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑32, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)