Bill C-13

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

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

Part 1 amends the Official Languages Act to, among other things,
(a) specify that all legal obligations related to the official languages apply at all times, including during emergencies;
(b) codify certain interpretative principles regarding language rights;
(c) provide that section 16 of that Act applies to the Supreme Court of Canada;
(d) provide that a final decision, order or judgment of a federal court that has precedential value is to be made available simultaneously in both official languages;
(e) provide for Government of Canada commitments to
(i) protect and promote French,
(ii) estimate the number of children whose parents are rights holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ,
(iii) advance formal, non-formal and informal 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;
(f) clarify the nature of the duty of federal institutions to take positive measures to implement certain Government of Canada commitments and the manner in which the duty is to be carried out;
(g) 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 in Canada, 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;
(h) 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;
(i) provide that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is required to adopt a policy on francophone immigration and that the policy is to include, among other things, objectives, targets and indicators;
(j) provide that the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of cooperating with provincial and territorial governments;
(k) provide that the Treasury Board is required to establish policies to give effect to certain parts of that Act, 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;
(l) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to enter into compliance agreements and, in certain cases, to make orders; and
(m) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to impose administrative monetary penalties on certain entities for non-compliance with certain provisions of Part IV of that Act.
It also makes a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act .
Part 2 enacts the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act , which, among other things, provides for rights and duties 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 then, at a later date, in regions with a strong francophone presence. That Act also allows employees of federally regulated private businesses to make a complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages with respect to rights and duties in relation to language of work and allows the Commissioner to refer the complaint to the Canada Industrial Relations Board in certain circumstances. It also provides that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for promoting those rights. Finally, Part 2 makes related amendments to the Canada Labour Code .

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I would like to ask the departmental experts a question about clause 4 of Bill C‑316: Given that Bill C‑13, which received royal assent last year, already covers what clause 4 seeks to do, is clause 4 necessary?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague Mr. Blois, from Nova Scotia, who has demonstrated how important the French language is, and who wanted to tell the committee his story as it relates with the motion and, obviously, the proposed amendment to the motion.

I want to point out that we announced the tabling of the official languages bill at the historic site of Grand-Pré, in my colleague's riding. You were there with me, Mr. Chair, when Bill C-13 on the modernization of the Official Languages Act was announced. We announced it in Grand-Pré. Mr. Blois is pleased to know that we're very proud of that riding.

The comments that he made in his speech were impressive. He had done his homework on the weekend. He edited his speech. He even edited the speech that he gave a week ago. He added information to enrich the committee's discussions. He also added other information, other facts, that are essential to the discussions we've been having in the past few weeks. I want to thank him for his work and his efforts to speak French. His French continues to improve, and that makes his teachers proud of their success, which is also his, as is often the case.

I would also like to note that all of us have been sitting on the Standing Committee on Official Languages for seven, eight or nine years. I sat on the committee in the first four years. Then I temporarily left the committee to take up other duties last year during the process to modernize the Official Languages Act. I have to say that was the high point of this committee's work.

The purpose of the amendment that I have introduced is to reach out to my opposition colleagues. I have asked them to look at themselves in the mirror, to stop playing their little games and to focus on the task at hand. Obviously, they've either failed to look at themselves in the mirror, or else the mirror is broken, because so far they have failed to change their attitude.

Having said that, I know that Mr. Dalton, Mr. Généreux, Ms. Kusie and Mr. Godin want to get to work. They want to keep moving the French language file forward and to build the foundation for Bill C-13. We have the tools we need; now we need to use them.

When the Commissioner of Official Languages appeared here in committee a week ago, he explained how important it is to get to work. He explained that we needed to set aside items such as these motions, which are now truly pointless.

A few weeks ago, I spoke out about Pierre Poilievre, who had used unacceptable language in a House of Commons. What happened? He refused to apologize. The word “wacko” that he used isn't the problem; it's the fact that he refused to withdraw his remarks or to apologize for using a word that isn't acceptable in the most democratic institution in Canada, as he was asked to do by the Speaker of the House of Commons, who is responsible for enforcing the rules in the House.

That man, who represents Ottawa's democratic institution, asked the leader to withdraw his remarks, but, as the latter refused to do so, he was ejected from the House. My colleague Francis Drouin has apologized seven times, if I'm not mistaken. It has become a political game.

Now with regard to my amendment, in it I requested that we move on to the next phase, that we extend an olive branch and that we bring this matter to an end.

I don't know about the other parties, but while we were studying Bill C-13, Canadian organizations and associations contacted my party almost every week to express their frustration. They're very frustrated now that they see we're pointlessly wasting minutes, hours and days. If the committee could agree to get down to business, we could get things done and achieve very important objectives.

Why did we pass Bill C-13 if we aren't going to use it? Nothing makes me feel prouder than the fact that we modernized the act, 35 years after it was last reformed. In an indirect way, it's the Conservatives who reformed it. It was actually Lucien Bouchard. If you read the Debates of the House of Commons from 1988, you'll see that he wasn't satisfied and that he felt that his party was limiting the benefits that the act afforded those communities. The act actually benefited those communities, but not as much as he would have liked. That's what led to the birth of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc was founded because Conservatives weren't willing to move forward and give the act some teeth. If the Conservatives had been genuinely willing to support francophone communities outside Quebec, Mr. Bouchard would have stood down and gone about his business. He truly wanted to forge ahead, but it was too much for the Conservatives.

My memory may be a bit shaky here, but I think it was in 1982 that Mr. Dion established clear objectives regarding measures that would help support official language minority communities across Canada.

Today the organizations, which were so proud of all the MPs who had contributed to Bill C-13, feel that members don't want to move forward and implement the essential parts of the bill. How is that possible?

I can't cite a clearer example than Bill C-13, which, for the first time in Canada's history, acknowledges how important the education continuum is. This is the first time.

Consequently, this was an incredible opportunity for those community groups and associations. In the end, it's not just the primary level that will benefit from this, but, for the first time, the post-secondary and university levels will as well; Bill C-13 will help foster that. And the preschool level will benefit too. There has never been such an opportunity in the past. It's historic.

However, the Conservatives, and unfortunately the other opposition parties as well, don't actually want to implement Bill C-13. They don't want to let the post-secondary level conduct a study to ensure that programs and funding can meet existing needs and provide better service.

Then there's early childhood, which had no funding, no base and no driving force to help it along. I remember my father saying, in the 1960s, that if we had a bilingualism law, we could demand services because we'd have the necessary tools to do so. That was in 1969. The situation is exactly the same now, 63 years later.

We have Bill C-13, a tool with enormous potential that represents an opportunity to regain a lot of the ground that we have lost. But they aren't interested in that conversation. They don't want to look at themselves in the mirror. They don't want to look at their leader and tell him that enough's enough, that they were elected in their ridings to represent their people and that the people in their ridings want them to get to work, to conduct studies that will advance education, which—and I don't know how many times I've repeated this—is the key to a society's success. They don't want it. No, that isn't true. They want it, but they can't do it. They can't look their leader in the eye and say that they, the elected MPs, will control this issue, not him, and that we've already wasted enough time.

I don't understand how anyone can overlook opportunities to make major progress. It isn't as though opposition members don't consider the francophonie important. Everyone around this table thinks it's important, but biding our time to avoid implementing Bill C-13 is just another way for us to lose ground.

Lord knows the Conservatives have all the answers when they aren't in power. They do nothing to support francophone communities when they're in office. No one's in a better position than me to tell you that they cut funding. What funding will they cut if they ever get back in? They'll cut funding for minorities. It's what they do. You can't count on them when times are tough.

You know the analogy I always draw, don't you? Animals around a lake look at each other differently when the water level's low. That's exactly what's happening here. Minorities suffer when less money is on the table. And just as animals look at each other differently, people aren't treating each other as they used to do. It's unacceptable.

In the nine and a half years that Stephen Harper was in power, the Conservatives failed to allocate an additional penny of funding to the official languages in education program or the action plan for official languages. Not a single funding increase was granted in nine and a half years. Do you call that investing in the community and the francophonie? Is it progress? It's impossible. You know better than me that, if inflation rises by 2% a year, we'll be 20% behind 10 years later.

Look at the difference between the investments made by the Conservatives, who didn't increase funding for official language programs by a single cent, and those that the Liberals have made in eight and a half years. We've raised funding from $2.2 billion in 2015 to $4.1 billion; that's an increase of $1.9 billion. We've virtually doubled government investment in eight years, whereas the Conservatives never increased anything in nine years. So you know what will happen. As my colleague Mr. Serré said, and as we've often said in the House, the Conservatives will make cut after cut, especially in support for minorities. It's terrible.

The purpose of my amendment is to get us back to work. It's simply a matter of taking action. However, the Conservatives are opposed to it. They don't even want to look at it. They aren't interested in it because they want to continue playing political games. Which is unfortunate because I think that Bill C-13 was the high point of this committee's work and that what's happening now is its lowest. We're missing a favourable opportunity to improve the situation of minority preschool and post-secondary institutions.

Incidentally, I haven't even mentioned the francophone school boards, which, for the first time in Canada's history, became masters of their own destiny in the early 1990s. Before that, they reported to anglophone school boards. They couldn't operate on their own; they had to be guided. In the end, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that we were masters of our destiny in education. That's when we saw the number of francophone school boards increase right across Canada. In Nova Scotia, in 1996, we finally had an opportunity to establish a francophone school board that is now advancing and improving education in French.

Was that necessary? When I started out, I think there were 3,900 students, and now there are more than 6,000. Like the investments that have been made, the population has virtually doubled.

I remember that a former deputy minister of education in New Brunswick, whose name I forget, told me that he had read an article suggesting that, if the prevailing trend continued, no one would be speaking French in Nova Scotia in the 1960s. You can see the difference between then and now.

Why am I talking about that difference? I'm talking about it because we've had the Official Languages Act, the rise of francophone school boards across Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the modernization of the Official Languages Act in 1988, and, lastly, we've passed Bill C-13, which now provides tools that we can use to move forward. We've even gone further by agreeing to review the act every 10 years. That will ensure that we move forward. I predict that we will lose ground if the Conservatives come into power.

I'm going to cite a few specific examples, including a very important one.

The first thing they'll do with regard to Bill C-13 is say they can't let us require that Supreme Court judges be bilingual. They oppose that now. They've voted against it. They're always against things and they will continue opposing things in future. They won't look at themselves in the mirror or insist that their leader enforce that requirement. This is very important, and that's why I anticipate the enormous loss they will cause.

Which other part of Bill C-13 will they withdraw? I don't know, but another way to undermine the bill would be not to fund it. As you've noticed, the bill provides for funding so it can evolve.

Even when my colleagues discuss Bill C-13, they say Treasury Board will take the necessary steps and ensure that everything's confirmed. However, if the Conservatives are elected, they will refuse to grant funding to Treasury Board, thus preventing it from doing its job. There will be no more responsibility, no more progress. We will lose ground. That's what troubles me.

Every week, Canada's school boards ask me to encourage the committee to begin studying them, the school boards. Earlier I told you that the boards were created in the early 1990s. So they were established 34 or 35 years ago, but they're facing problems today. You tend to notice problems over time. The boards now have an opportunity to talk to the people, the committee, the experts—

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank everyone for being here this morning.

I'm a little disappointed that we're continuing to discuss Mr. Beaulieu's motion, but I'd nevertheless like to expand a little on Mr. Iacono's and Mr. Samson's comments. In addition, I think it's important, even though a number of meetings have dealt with the matter under consideration today, that the people following our work have some understanding of what's going on.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages has worked very well up until now. We did a good job with Bill C‑13, which sought to amend the Official Languages Act for the first time in 50 years. The work was difficult, because we had to address issues that affected the entire country. However, we got through it thanks to the co-operation of all parties, who all voted in favour of modernizing the act, because it really needed to be modernized.

We've also done some good studies, including the one on immigration. As you know, it was a very important study, for which we have completed the report.

Then, before the recent motions were introduced, we were reviewing the report concluding our study on the economic development of minority communities across the country, a very important matter. In fact, this week, I am in the Sudbury region, my riding. We talked about economic development, FedNor and the important contribution of French to the economy of Ontario and northern Ontario. So I'm really looking forward to getting back to the recommendations in our report on economic development.

We have a number of issues to discuss, not just economic development. We need to get back to them as quickly as possible. Not only do we need to continue our work on the economic development report, but as you know, we've also already begun the report on funding for post-secondary institutions. A number of witnesses have appeared on the subject. We were hearing the witnesses at the end of the meetings, because the opposition wanted to keep the minister and the officials for the end. Sometimes we have the ministers appear at the beginning of the meetings, but this time we had Minister Boissonnault at committee to wrap up the study on minority post-secondary institutions. As you know, they're in crisis across the country. They need help from the federal government, but also from the provinces. So I hope that we'll be able to start studying this issue again.

We weren't even able to complete our discussions because of the motion and the amendment that were moved. Mr. Beaulieu's motion was introduced on May 20, I believe. It's the same one submitted by Mr. Godin on May 15, when Minister Boissonnault appeared before the committee. Then, so people who are watching can understand, we had additional meetings on this, including during constituency week, and even on the Monday night of the long weekend. It's rare for us to have meetings at times like that.

We therefore discussed the motions submitted by Mr. Godin and Mr. Beaulieu before Mr. Samson moved an amendment, in particular to delete the part of the motion directing the committee to ask the chief government whip to remove Mr. Drouin from the committee.

However, as I already mentioned last week, that is not how Parliament works. I wish it were possible. I know that all parties have made recommendations to the whips to remove members of certain parties who have done unacceptable things during committee meetings. I mentioned the case of Rachael Thomas, who told Minister Pascale St‑Onge not to speak French. That was unacceptable, but she did apologize, as did Mr. Drouin.

The motions of Mr. Godin and Mr. Beaulieu ask the committee to relieve the president of an association of his duties. I would like to remind people that we have 12 Parliamentary associations. I'm the president of ParlAmericas, and I'm a member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council, which deals with these parliamentary associations.

I don't remember the standing order on which that decision was based, but the motions of Mr. Beaulieu and Mr. Godin were even ruled out of order, because the committee cannot ask an association to remove one of its members or its president. A committee cannot tell a whip to do it either. These motions were therefore ruled out of order, but since the Liberals are in a minority numbers-wise, the other three parties decided to continue debating them. I have a hard time understanding that, just like Mr. Samson.

We're at an impasse and we're reaching out to our colleagues, who are flying in the face of the committee's rules and procedures. We find ourselves in the current situation because we're in a minority and the members of the opposition challenged the rules and the chair's decision.

The committee has not completed its study on post-secondary education and its study on economic development. We want to complete the very important education continuum, from early childhood to elementary, secondary and post-secondary. When we talk about the continuum, we're talking about educational ecosystems.

We're currently negotiating with the provinces. They have played a key role at every meeting we've had here. As a result, the committee really needs to resume its studies and examine its responsibilities.

In fact, the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario sent a letter to all committee members. If members haven't read it, I can read it here so the public knows what it says. This group, like others, said that committee members had worked collaboratively in the past and that it was time to move on to the important issues, of which there are many. The committee even has a motion from Ms. Ashton, who wants a study on early childhood in the context of the education continuum. We know how important early childhood is.

I wish to remind people who are following our proceedings that the questions the opposition members put to the minister when he appeared were about Francis Drouin, and none of them asked a question about post-secondary education. In addition, the Commissioner of Official Languages appeared last week. The majority of the questions he was asked by our two Conservative members were about Francis Drouin. They asked the commissioner for his opinion, whereas this issue has nothing to do with the mandate of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The commissioner now has new powers. He has a lot on his plate. He did an interim report. So the opposition decided to politicize the situation when Minister Boissonnault and the commissioner appeared.

I therefore strongly urge my colleagues to come back to the table to find a solution to this impasse together. Like Mr. Samson, I am reaching out to my colleagues. The motion we're debating is telling the chief government whip what to do. I'm sure that the whips of the opposition parties are the only ones responsible for determining who sits on each committee and parliamentary associations.

In fact, perhaps the public doesn't know, but Mr. Godin's original motion, which was repeated by Mr. Beaulieu and is now the subject of an amendment moved by Mr. Samson, asks that member Francis Drouin step down as chair of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, the APF. It is not up to a parliamentary committee to make such a decision, but rather the members of the parliamentary association in question. I'd also like to remind the public and members of the committee that APF members met last Thursday and there were three votes. We don't know the details, since it was a secret ballot, but APF members decided to keep Mr. Drouin as president. We're proud that Canada has one of its francophones at the head of the APF. In fact, Mr. Drouin has already left to carry out his duties and prepare for the convention that will take place in Montreal in July, so the debate is closed.

However, I want to clarify something. I've heard some members say that the Liberals are standing up for Mr. Drouin. However, we all recognized that his comments and the way he addressed the witnesses were unacceptable. We recognized that it was a mistake, a small misdeed. As I have said several times, it makes no sense that we continue to waste time talking about it. We said it: Mr. Drouin's comments were unacceptable. He offered a very clear apology directly to the two witnesses.

They are entitled to their opinion, a fairly direct opinion in their case. Like Mr. Drouin, I don't agree with them, but obviously, as parliamentarians, the approach we need to take is not the one that Mr. Drouin chose. However, he has apologized, so that's it.

As a Franco‑Ontarian, I can contribute to the discussion. I know that the whole issue of Quebec separation is hotly debated in Quebec. I understand why there are people like Mr. Beaulieu who have fought all their lives for Quebec to separate. These individuals are proud of their language and culture. That's important, and I understand that. As I mentioned, I'm a little jealous of Mr. Généreux, Mr. Godin and Mr. Beaulieu, who have had the opportunity to work in French all their lives. I haven't had that opportunity here in northern Ontario, but I can assure you that the French language is very present, even though we fight for it every day.

My ancestors on both sides of the family came from here, in Ontario. They paddled down the Ottawa River in a canoe, just like indigenous people did. My ancestors came here in the 1870s, and we kept our language. We still speak French. It's true that I sometimes use anglicisms when I speak, but that's just who I am as Marc Serré. I'm proud of that.

When we hear comments that are very much in favour of Quebec separation, aimed at breaking up the country, it hurts francophones in Ontario. It scares us. If Quebec separates and leaves Canada, Quebec will be French-only. We are afraid that governments like Ontario's will decide that the province should be English-only, which will mean the end of francophones.

In Ontario, we've had governments like the Mike Harris government, which drastically cut services to francophones. The Doug Ford government eliminated the position of French Language Services Commissioner, as well as a number of services for francophones in Ontario. As francophones here in Ontario, we work hard to ensure that our rights are respected.

When you look at the motion—

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

That's a very good argument that makes a lot of sense. I really like it.

I'll conclude by saying that adding real property to Bill C-13—

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner, for being here today. Thank you also for the work you do on an everyday basis.

You said earlier that all the regulations would likely be adopted within 18 months.

I'd like you to explain to the committee members and to Canadians what additional powers you now have since the adoption of Bill C-13.

Some of your new powers, such as monetary penalties, have not yet come into force, but others have. Can you tell us about that?

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

However, you're talking about ethics and values, and I think they apply to us as well as members of Parliament, but that's fine.

Commissioner, I'd like to get another piece of information from you. You are granted new powers under Bill C-13. You said that you didn't have a crystal ball, that we unfortunately had lost a year and that you didn't even know when the government would issue its order to provide you with the necessary tools.

You also mentioned federally regulated businesses. That's another order that will apply to those businesses in Quebec, once it has been made and approved two years after the fact.

Don't you think it's taking a lot of time?

Doesn't this government's attitude reveal a lack of will?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many thanks to the Commissioner and his team for being here with us today.

We had some good times together during consideration of Bill C-13, and we thank you for your contribution.

It's interesting that you discuss evaluation many times in your report. As a former educator, I'm really interested in that because evaluation lets you know whether you're on the right track so you can make the necessary adjustments to meet the demand.

So you've made a two-part recommendation. What do you think we should do to develop responses quickly? What tools would be necessary?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Those are activities that are already proposed in Bill C‑13, which is linked to this one. The purpose of this subamendment is to use common terms. Perhaps Mr. Champoux would like more information on this subject.

I don't know if Mr. McMurren has more specific information on this, but I can tell you that we're certainly not talking about corn roasts and the like. Come on! Let's try to be professional.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

The amendment is fairly straightforward: It aims to ensure compliance with Bill C‑13, which, among other things, deals with modernizing the Official Languages Act. Earlier, that wasn't the case at all. It's an administrative amendment, since it deals with dates in connection with the annual report. According to some of the witnesses who came to testify, it was the right thing to do.

Through the clerk, I'd like to present a subamendment to all committee members. The purpose of this subamendment is strictly to add a line to the bill, after “cases that received funding in the previous year.”

I therefore propose to add, following this text, and just before the period, “and any outreach and promotional activities that were conducted with groups affected by these cases.” This is similar to the language used in Bill C‑13. We're also seeking to ensure that the administrative report will have been submitted by November.

So this is a fairly straightforward administrative amendment, and I hope everyone will agree to adopt it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, if no one else has anything to add, I will indulge in one last comment before we proceed to the vote.

As my colleague Mr. Gourde was saying just a few moments ago, I wish we parliamentarians had a modicum of consistency in our debates, exchanges and positions on the various bills we deal with, particularly in the context of Bill C‑13. After all, the latter has been studied at length and, I would say, well crafted, in collaboration with francophone communities outside Quebec and with all minority language communities. The Official Languages Act was adopted with the text we are proposing today in this amendment. It would be truly inconsistent to reject an amendment that was adopted in the Official Languages Act, almost word for word.

I'll stop there and let you proceed.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My comments will be along the same lines as Mr. Champoux's.

Like Mr. Marc Serré, I was present during the study on modernizing the Official Languages Act. This passage is an integral part of the legislation resulting from Bill C‑13 and it was accepted by the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I therefore think that Mr. Serré should accept what he previously agreed to when the Official Languages Act was modernized.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I hope you'll allow us to debate this amendment, because I think it's quite consistent with decisions and discussions that took place as part of the Bill C‑13 debate. It is literally based on principles that were recognized in the modernized version of the Official Languages Act.

I'll indulge myself by reading the amendment, which is, in fact, to amend Bill C‑13 by adding, before section 3, page 2, after line 15, the following:

2.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 5:

5.01 The test cases referred to in paragraph 5(a.1) respecting constitutional and quasi-constitutional official language rights shall be consistent with the following purposes of the Official Languages Act:

(a) advance the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society, taking into account the fact that French is in a minority situation in Canada and North America due to the predominant use of English and that there is a diversity of provincial and territorial language regimes that contribute to the advancement, including Quebec’s Charter of the French language, which provides that French is the official language of Quebec;

(b) advance the existence of a majority-French society in a Quebec where the future of French is assured.”

Madam Chair, I will let my colleagues comment on this amendment. I look forward to hearing the debate on this issue.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the NDP member for her comments on the importance of advancing the committee's essential work. That's exactly what we are trying to do with my amendment. We are trying to reach out to our fellow members and get back to work.

I'm wondering about some things. I come to this committee, and we aren't talking about the thing I've dedicated my life to, standing up for the rights of francophones outside Quebec. After Bill C‑13, nothing is more important than education, in my view. It is paramount.

If memory serves me correctly, the NDP member has a motion calling on the committee to address early childhood education, but we won't be able to do that in June if the opposition members aren't willing to reach out to us. What does that mean? We are a minority government, after all. We don't know what's going to happen. Those of us on this side want answers, we want reports so that the government has useful recommendations to consider. Through my amendment, I'm trying to break this impasse.

At Monday's meeting, I asked the opposition members to light their own way so we can move forward to help our communities succeed. They didn't do it, but perhaps they can use the flashlights on their cellphones. That might help.

I have the utmost respect for the people at this table. Mr. Généreux is a proud Quebecker and champion for minority communities. Since 2015—or 2009, rather—he has poured tremendous energy into the cause of defending the rights of francophones. That means he's been here longer than all of us. He is here for the right reasons, defending the French language and reversing the decline of French in Quebec. He's very familiar with the situation of minority communities across Canada. Why, then, is he choosing not to light the way forward and not to continue with that work? That is my question. I know that his heart is in the right place, but the position of his party, his leader or whatever else, is involved. Perhaps he can enlighten us if he plans to comment on my amendment.

I am trying to understand how someone can spend 15 years fighting for a cause, and then turn around and say they aren't interested in supporting French-speaking communities across the country right now because there's something more important going on. The most important thing is to fight what I described the other day when I spoke about being a soldier. I'm shocked.

Mr. Beaulieu also believes in the importance of education. He's the one who flagged the importance of doing a study on the post-secondary education sector. Heaven knows how the sector has been struggling for years. Post-secondary education hasn't been considered part of the continuum. Only the system for five to 18-year-olds has. We are losing an opportunity to move the needle on the issue.

I'm just trying to find a way out, so we can get back to the work we can be proud of. I've spoken to people at organizations that serve francophone and Acadian communities, and they're disappointed with what's going on. I can't even tell you how many people have called me this year, pushing us to continue our study on post-secondary institutions and to take up Ms. Ashton's study on early childhood education.

As you know, our government has made huge investments to support families and young people. In Nova Scotia last week, we announced $19.8 million in additional funding to create 9,500 child care spaces. Imagine what that means for our small province. It makes a very big difference, but it's also important to ensure that a percentage of those spaces is set aside for francophones. You know as well as I do that it's much harder for French-speaking children to keep their mother tongue when they attend English-language child care centres. They make friends there that they want to keep, so they usually go on to do their schooling in the English system. That's why this is so important.

The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier has been working with us since 2019, and I know his heart is in the right place. I know that he wants to help us and that he understands what an important role education plays in society. He often talks to me about early childhood education, and if I understand correctly, that's what our next study will focus on—the study Ms. Ashton proposed. Through my amendment, I'm trying to reach out to my fellow members to find a solution. Some say that it's not a very important amendment, but it is, because, at the very least, it calls on the committee to act within the limits of its authority by writing to the clerk to request something.

The committee cannot ask the chief government whip to remove a member from a committee, but that's what Mr. Beaulieu's motion seeks to do. I'm shocked. We don't have the power to do that. It's not within our authority. However, what I'm proposing through my amendment is within the committee's authority. Despite being very practical, the amendment put forward by my fellow member, which we voted on earlier, wasn't really of interest to the committee members, yet again. They are more interested in sullying the reputation of a member who has been doing an exceptional job for years.

Earlier, a member asked whether it was normal to invite former party candidates to appear before the committee, given that one of the witnesses we heard from a few weeks ago had run for the Bloc Québécois in 2015, if I'm not mistaken. I won't go too far down that road, but I do want the record to reflect that the individual is surely sympathetic to Bloc ideology.

Mr. Beaulieu may want the floor next to apologize for calling our Liberal colleague an extremist. If Mr. Beaulieu apologizes, great. I'm sure that the member would gladly accept the apology and listen to what he has to say. That is how we should work. Ms. Ashton referred to a monopoly, but I'm wondering whether the opposition members aren't simply playing politics.

We invited Mr. Boissonnault, and I believe he was here for an hour. Members of the minister's team were also here to answer committee members' questions. Had the committee spent the first hour of the meeting hearing from the minister, I could rest assured that, at least, the committee members weren't playing politics. Had they taken up political games afterwards, I could rest assured that they had at least listened to the information that mattered.

Minister Boissonnault doesn't have time in his schedule to come before the committee again. I believe the clerk told us that after receiving a note from the minister's office. I wonder whether the minister might come back if he knew that we were dealing with this matter. It's hard to understand why opposition members would not want to support my amendment.

If I'm not mistaken, the member has apologized seven times, and I know that Mr. Beaulieu, too, wants to apologize for his comments. However, everyone here was in the House and knows that the Leader of the Opposition has yet to apologize for what he said. He was kicked out of the House because he did not apologize. Actually, he was kicked out not because of what he said, but because he refused to do what the Speaker of the House was asking of him. According to the Speaker, the opposition leader used language that was unacceptable. I'm going to need someone to explain something to me that I don't understand. In one case, the member in question apologized seven times, and in the other case, the member refused to apologize. Everyone needs to look in the mirror, so we can turn the page.

I was enthusiastic at the prospect of joining the committee. It was my choice. I don't know whether the members opposite were given the choice or were forced to join. I chose to be here. The work we've done has led to significant changes. If I retire before we've finished our study on early childhood education or the study on the funding of post-secondary institutions, an issue I am deeply concerned about…. Francophones outside Quebec have had the right to manage their schools for about 34 years now.

That was in the early 1990s. It was one of the greatest victories for francophones outside Quebec.

As I've told you before, I believe education is the key to a prosperous society. It's patently obvious that, more than 35 years on, francophone school boards outside Quebec are often underfunded. I was a school board superintendent for 10 years. I can tell you that it wasn't easy being the only francophone superintendent in an anglophone school board. This is the case in many provinces. It wasn't easy advocating for the rights of our young francophones and safeguarding their prosperity and their future.

Someday, 15 or 20 years from now, I'm going to retire. If we haven't conducted a study of funding for preschool and elementary educational institutions by then, I may have a very hard time accepting that. To think we came so close, only to have our cause derailed by petty political games, will be unbearable.

Like Mr. Généreux, our analyst has been supporting this committee and has been our guide since 2010. She understands the importance of the studies we have to carry out.

When do my opposition colleagues suppose we'll carry out this study? At the end of June? Are we going to hold emergency meetings? Maybe that's what we should do. Maybe we should work all summer to make up for lost time.

Community groups and school boards across Canada are waiting. This study is important to them. They had almost made it to the table. They were on the verge of appearing before the committee to talk about their challenges as well as their strengths. They've been very successful in many ways. If they get a chance to tell us about what they've achieved, we can make headway on our report on best practices. Plus, if we know about the massive challenges they have to overcome and which sectors are largely underfunded, we can make recommendations that will help those boards make progress. The trouble is, they don't want to talk about it.

So, if we don't work on the study between now and June, and if we don't hold emergency meetings over the summer, when will we do it? In September? As you know, we have a minority government, and that means there are no guarantees. We've stayed in power for more than two and a half years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe three years is the longest any minority government has ever lasted.

That's where we're at. The other day, I talked about a candle. This morning, I talked about your cell phone, which has a flashlight to guide you. I use mine every now and then when I'm out walking at night.

This is serious. When will we meet with preschool organizations? When will they have a chance to tell us about the challenges they face? Let's bear in mind that they were never included in the continuum. At long last, we gave them a way forward, a guiding light. They're so, so happy to have a chance to plead their case. They're not afraid, because they know how the process works. If they can come here and plead their case, their testimony will shape a report and recommendations. It will inform governments' search for solutions. That's what I'm talking about. How can we reach out to them? My colleague tried to do it via an amendment today, but the opposition rejected the idea.

I then proposed another amendment that is consistent with our mandate. Once again, the opposition rejected it. I don't understand. Then they turn around and expect us to support their motion? How can I ask an individual or a group to do something that I don't have the authority to do?

That's like telling someone to go play in my neighbour's yard. Do I really have the right to do that? Absolutely not. I can let someone play in my yard, but not in my neighbour's yard. That's what they're asking us to do. How can we support a motion that has nothing to do with our mandate?

Mr. Chair, I have to congratulate you, too, because you assessed the situation and rejected the motion on the grounds that nobody can transfer authority to someone else if it's not within their jurisdiction.

It's odd that Mr. Beaulieu would propose this motion, considering that nobody at this table talks about jurisdiction as much as the Bloc Québécois. Every day in the House of Commons, the Bloc reminds us not to encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction. Obviously, I disagree, as you might imagine. As much as I respect provincial and territorial jurisdiction—and I certainly want to respect it—a Canadian is a Canadian no matter where they are. We have to make sure they all have the same rights.

When the government invests in doctors and health support offices and says it wants to boost support for doctors by 25% in one province, it also wants to make sure that every province and territory, including Quebec, contributes its own 25%. Do you see what I'm getting at, Mr. Chair?

That's very important, because Quebeckers have the right to access more doctors, too. However, if the government says it's going to hand over millions or even billions of dollars and let the provinces and territories do whatever they want with that money, that's not leadership on the federal government's part.

The federal government has a responsibility to people in Quebec, British Columbia and Manitoba, and to people on Isle Madame, a little island near Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Ninety-eight percent of the people there are very proud Acadians, and they've overcome challenges relating to anglophone preschool organizations and school boards.

You need to understand that I went through that. All of my schooling was in English from kindergarten to grade 12. You may be wondering why I did my schooling in English. The answer is simple. I didn't have a choice. You may be wondering what I mean when I say I didn't have a choice. We have choices in life, but our rights weren't being respected. Had militant defenders of the French language not waged that war, my children and grandchildren wouldn't have had the choice either. Fortunately, there are people at this table and people who preceded us, such as my colleague Mr. Serré's father, who were involved in that battle. They worked with organizations to advance the cause of the francophonie and get French schools. This is personal for me. I couldn't attend a French school because there wasn't one on Isle Madame. It was terrible.

All of my schooling was in English from kindergarten to grade 12. Then I realized I had a choice to make. I could pursue my studies in English, or I could choose a French-language university. I opted for French. That's exactly what I did. I didn't have a lot of options, as my colleague, Mr. Beaulieu, knows. There weren't enough francophone universities in Canada. There were two options relatively close to home, but there were other universities elsewhere. My first choice would have been Université Sainte-Anne, where I later did a master's degree, but, at the time, I didn't go there because it was a seven-hour drive to get there and seven hours to get back. I chose Université de Moncton, which was a four-hour drive away.

Mr. Chair, I believe you studied at Université de Moncton as well. Its reputation within the francophonie is stellar. I would add that, while I was there, 40% of the student body was made up of Quebeckers. You may be wondering why. It was because they had a choice. For one thing, they could do one less year of post-secondary studies by skipping the two years of CEGEP. Everyone has to make choices.

Speaking of choice, the Conservatives can choose to support my amendment. In my case, I couldn't choose education in French. However, thanks to my father and many people in the province of Nova Scotia who fought for this cause, 1996 was a milestone year, an extremely important year for Acadians and Nova Scotia francophones. At long last, a light appeared, and the government—I just want to point out that it was a Liberal government again, even though the Conservatives did do right by the Acadians—the government gave Acadians the power to shape their educational destiny. For the first time, they were in charge of running schools and education in French across the province. That was powerful.

As you know, it's kind of like the provinces. Anglophone school boards got the money, and they could toss a few crumbs to the francophones to set up a few scattered classes.

[Blair McMurren]

The allusion is to section 7.1 of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, which was added by Bill C-13. This provision states:

To promote a greater understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms and related values, the Minister may take measures to provide funding to an organization, independent of the Government of Canada, responsible for administering a program whose purpose is to provide funding for test cases of national significance to be brought before the courts to clarify and assert constitutional human rights.

This is a provision referring to the human rights stream of the court challenges program. There are two streams. There's a human rights stream and an official languages stream. I could read the provision from the Official Languages Act now, if that would be helpful, which corresponds.

[Blair McMurren]

I think it is amending Bill C-316 to reflect what is in Bill C-13.