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 .

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Mr. Collins for asking the question earlier, and Mr. Lobb for his openness.

I want to respond to what Mr. Lauzon is saying. There are implications. According to information published on the CBC website on independent funding, 98% of the total funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research goes to research in English. The figure is 81% for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and 96% for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. This strong bias on the part of independent bodies has a very significant impact. The link can be made to initiatives such as Bill C‑13 and its impact on the funding of English-language advocacy organizations in Quebec. This is a step backwards for the French language, and I absolutely cannot support it.

I'd like to hear from you on the issue of the psychological health of your members and underfunding. What impact does underfunding have on your members?

Court Challenges Program Act

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard a riveting comment from a colleague behind me, but I will not go that far.

It is indeed an honour and a privilege to rise in the House this evening to contribute to the debate on Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, court challenges program. Indeed, as has been mentioned in this House, this program has an off-and-on history in this place and in government through the Department of Canadian Heritage. I did have the honour and privilege of serving for some time at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Before I get into the meat of my speech, I do want to reflect on one of the more famous quotations from one of the great parliamentarians of this place. The Right Honourable John Diefenbaker was one of the great defenders and protectors of Canadian freedom. He said, “Parliament is more than procedure—it is the custodian of the nation's freedom.”

I think too often in this place we forget about our role as the protectors and defenders of the freedoms of Canadians. If we look back at the history of some of the great orators, some of the great defenders in this place, including Diefenbaker and his bill of rights, the first attempt at enshrining the rights and freedoms of Canadians in a single federal statute was by Diefenbaker. From his humble upbringing, his birth in Neustadt, Ontario, which is just north of my riding, Perth—Wellington, to his time as a defender, as a defence counsel and during his time as a parliamentarian, his focus was on the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That was what he lived for in this place.

We will recall that it was under Diefenbaker that the first woman was appointed to cabinet. It was under Diefenbaker that indigenous peoples in all corners of this country finally had the right to vote and it was through Diefenbaker's bill of rights that we saw the first written efforts at enshrining the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

That history and protection of rights and freedoms continues under other Conservative leaders as well. We need to be proud of their efforts. Indeed, under the leadership of former prime minister Mulroney and former foreign minister Joe Clark we saw the strong stand that Mulroney and Clark took in defending us on the world stage in calling out the apartheid regime in South Africa. We saw the efforts they led in the Commonwealth to make that happen and we saw the work they undertook here at home in Canada when it came to the defence of Canadian rights and freedoms. Their efforts on the two constitutional accords did, in fact, fail but, nonetheless, attempted to enshrine those rights and freedoms and ensure that all members in this country signed on.

To the issue at hand of this bill, Bill C-316, I think Canadians would be forgiven in not fully understanding why this is before us today. Members will know that, in fact, the court challenges program exists today. It is a program that is run out of the University of Ottawa and funded by the Government of Canada, so why is this being done today? Canadians might be forgiven for perhaps seeing it somewhat odd or ironic that the government is creating a program that would sue itself, that would provide funds for the Canadian public to sue themselves. There is an odd strategy there.

If we look back at the history of the court challenges program, in 1978 this was first established under then prime minister Pierre E. Trudeau. It was primarily for language cases. We look at the importance of language rights here today in Canada, and indeed we have a bill before the House, as we speak, Bill C-13, which is the modernization of the Official Languages Act. As luck would have it, was one of the first files I worked on when I first came here in 2015 as a member of Parliament. I was the vice-chair of the official languages committee, the Anglo from southern Ontario at the official languages committee but it was, nonetheless, a great opportunity to learn my beloved second language.

The importance of having the rights of official language minorities protected across the country is, indeed, very important. Whether someone is a Franco-Ontarian, a Franco-Albertan or even from a small language community in the country, it is important to protect their right to be able to receive services in their second language.

My time is dwindling, but I understand I will have four minutes remaining when the House takes up this important issue next. I look forward to concluding my remarks on Bill C-316 next time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, first, I will provide a different perspective by recognizing that this is a substantive piece of legislation. I must acknowledge, right at the very beginning, that it is difficult to get one's name in a position, as a member of Parliament, where one is able to bring forward legislation or a motion. What we have before us today is a substantive piece of legislation that would really make a difference. I want to recognize the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for his efforts in getting it to the stage where it is now, whether it gets to committee or not. We will wait and see what happens.

I was quite impressed to hear that the member has two older daughters who are perfectly bilingual. That might not surprise many people, depending on where they live, but if someone is living in British Columbia, or a province like Manitoba, it is noteworthy and ultimately emphasizes the importance of enshrining, where we can, language rights.

Just the other day, we were in the chamber, talking about Bill C-13 and the importance of Canada's being a land of two languages, English and French. What we have seen over the years is a commitment from the government to protect the minority languages. What takes place in the province of Manitoba with our francophone communities in particular, though not only them, but all over the province of Manitoba, is that we value the protection of the minority languages outside of the province of Quebec. The same principles apply whether it is in British Columbia, Atlantic Canada or anywhere in between, or up north.

With respect to the province of Quebec, there is an emphasis on the important role that Quebec plays in ensuring that the majority French language not only continues on but is healthy. It speaks volumes not only for Canada, but also, in fact, for North America. This is a government that has emphasized the importance of languages from coast to coast to coast, with an emphasis on protecting minority languages.

Let us put that in the perspective of when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. There used to be a court challenges program that predates this government, but it was Stephen Harper who ultimately cancelled the funding for that program. I suspect that might have been one of the triggers for the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam to look at the legislation. In that draw, the member is provided the opportunity to do a wide spectrum of types of legislation or resolutions. He could have taken the easy way out and said that we would have such-and-such day being recognized. However, he chose an issue important to his constituents and to all communities in Canada, because we are talking not only about language rights but also about human rights.

I listened to the member for Lethbridge, and at times it can be tough to listen to her. However, there is absolutely no doubt in her mind that if the Conservatives, heaven forbid, form government, this program is gone. That is an important part to the debate, because it amplifies why my friend from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam is trying to see this legislation get through. It is an important issue.

Does anyone believe in Canada being a country of two official languages? Does anyone believe there is a need to protect minority languages? I, for one, believe that is the case. I also believe it is important for us to recognize that there are organizations and individuals that at times feel threatened regarding those rights, and the issue of financial support is of absolute necessity.

We talk about the independence. It is arm's length. I am not going to question the independence of a post-secondary facility like the University of Ottawa. I am disappointed in the member for Lethbridge trying to give the impression that universities are not independent. I think of the University of Winnipeg. Lloyd Axworthy was a member of Parliament for many years and when he was president of the university, I never saw him as someone who would do anything other than what was in the best interests of the University of Winnipeg, recognizing the academic excellence and expectations that people had for the university.

The University of Ottawa has been, in essence, delegated the responsibility, and I believe that responsibility is taken very seriously. There is a reason it was being financed previously, going into the Stephen Harper regime, and there is a reason we have reinstated that funding. It was a few years back when we reinstated the funding and, in this particular budget, we are enhancing the contribution to the university administration in order to be able to run this critical program.

Individuals might want to raise concerns around the need to incorporate it into legislation, but there should be no doubt about the value of the program. Having a court challenges program to protect and, as I say, expand the rights to incorporate human rights I see as a positive. Maybe this is one of the considerations that was being taken, as to why, in a time of constraint, we enhance it. We are looking at ways to ensure that these human rights and language rights are protected.

As a government, we recognize that it is good to not only talk about it, but support it. One of the ways we can support it is to ensure that the budgetary needs, at least in good part, are being met by the government through supporting that arm's length organization and allowing the organization the opportunity to do the tertiary things required in order to select the types of cases that need to be heard at the court level. I believe it has the expertise in order to do that, far greater than members in this House, especially if we take them at random. It has been depoliticized. It has a program. The member is mocking it because it has money and questions the administrative costs. I do not think the member realizes that there is a carry-over year to year.

Suffice to say, support for the court challenges program is worthwhile.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C‑316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, specifically with respect to the court challenges program.

The Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle. We would like to look at Bill C‑316 in committee and make recommendations. The Bloc Québécois's current position already favours the continuation of the court challenges program, especially considering the important role it plays in promoting the rights of francophones outside Quebec. We therefore support the idea of ensuring the program's future by including it in the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

However, in my speech, I will go over the Bloc Québécois's reservations concerning the program's terms and conditions, especially the lack of clarity surrounding its management and the process for deciding which cases and organizations will receive funding. Next, Bill C‑316 proposes measures designed to make the program's administration more transparent. On the surface of things, it seems to answer a Bloc Québécois demand related to one of our major criticisms of the program, namely, its claim to operate at arm's length from the executive.

Finally, I will address the fact that this program is currently being implemented and administered by the University of Ottawa, but it is impossible to prove that decisions about cases are not politically driven because of the lack of transparency and accountability measures.

First, in terms of transparency, Bill C‑316 states that the organization responsible for administering the court challenges program would be required to report annually on its activities, including disclosure of the list of cases funded during the year. These reports would be tabled before Parliament. The Bloc Québécois believes it is imperative that the reports include not only the cases, but also the recipient organizations, as well as the amounts of money allocated. That is one way Bill C‑316 could be improved. We would also then be able to assess the amount each part of the program receives, in other words, official language rights and human rights. It would be interesting if the report also had to include a list of the unsuccessful applicants.

Second, the fact remains that the court challenges program can be used to fund challenges to Quebec laws, such as the Charter of the French Language and the state secularism law. The crux of the problem is that we cannot pick and choose, based on our political views, which laws should be challenged and which ones should not be, even if we have good reason to believe that some laws that do not pass the test in the Canadian courts would be deemed constitutional under a future constitution of Quebec.

A partial fix for this problem as far as the official languages component of the court challenges program is concerned could involve a program framework that takes an asymmetrical approach to Canada's official languages. Since the Liberal government recognizes that only one of the official languages is at risk, then it should agree to grant program funding only to cases that defend the rights of francophones.

The text of Bill C‑316 amends the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to specify that, in exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions assigned to the Minister of Canadian Heritage under that act, he or she shall maintain the court challenges program.

Here are a few explanations. From the Bloc Québécois's perspective, the court challenges program has two major flaws in its design. The first is the fact that, historically, the program has helped to undermine the protection of French in Quebec. The second is that, historically, the program was politically oriented and acted as the judicial arm of the executive branch.

Bill C‑316 could potentially fix, or at least mitigate, the second problem we see, namely the program's lack of transparency and independence. This would be brought about by adjustments and improvements, in particular by disclosing in the annual reports not just the cases funded, but also all the amounts granted and the recipient organizations.

As for the first problem, it could also be addressed, but this would require refocusing the vision of Canada's official languages policy, which the Liberal government and its NDP ally just rejected in the review of Bill C‑13. This problem could be solved with amendments to this bill or with future legislation.

The court challenges program has gone through three historical phases. First, the date of the program's creation is significant. The court challenges program was established in 1978 in a very specific context of heightened language tensions and Quebec-Ottawa confrontations following the election of the Parti Québécois in 1976, and the adoption of the Charter of the French Language the following year. We know that Canada's prime minister at the time, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and his government very much disliked Bill 101.

The year after Bill 101 was passed, Ottawa created the court challenges program to subsidize anglophone lobby groups' legal fees from challenging Bill 101. It was not originally a formal program. The Department of Justice decided which cases would be funded and how much they would receive based on its own objectives. This approach obviously put the government in a conflict of interest.

Between 1978 and 1982, the court challenges program funded six cases, half of which challenged Bill 101. At the time, the program was not at all independent. The cases that would be brought before the courts were selected and funded by the executive branch. To assess applications for funding for language rights, a committee was formed by selecting members from among a small group of candidates proposed by agencies that dealt with official languages.

The third version was initially called the language rights support program. The Stephen Harper government, which had cancelled the first program, was forced to create this new program following an out-of-court settlement with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA.

The new and current court challenges program arose from a Liberal campaign promise in 2015. The administration of the program was entrusted to the University of Ottawa. The program relies on two committees of experts to decide which cases can be funded according to two streams, namely human rights and official language rights. We know that there is a bit of bias here.

Currently, through an access to information request, it is possible to find out which cases were supported, but it is impossible to find out who the recipients were and how much money they got from the program. This means that taxpayers cannot find out how the money allocated to the program is being spent. Since the year 2000, the names of individuals or organizations receiving money cannot be disclosed, after a court ruled that applications and funding contracts are protected by attorney-client privilege. That has made it difficult, if not impossible, to access accurate information for at least two decades. Annual reports, when available, contain only general information and mention only examples.

To ensure transparency and accountability, a report by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights recommended that, after a case is filed, the names of those who received funding from the court challenges program and the nature of the cases be disclosed in each annual report, unless such disclosure would prejudice the litigants. It appears that no follow-up has been done in this regard.

During the committee's consideration of Bill C‑13 on modernizing the Official Languages Act, the Bloc Québécois tabled an amendment to have the program administered transparently, with consideration for the rights granted by provincial and territorial language regimes, and mirroring the position of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, to ensure as much transparency as possible. The amendment was rejected with the NDP's support, despite the party's claims about supporting Quebeckers' right to self-determination.

Issues related to the program's transparency and independence came into clear view during the controversy surrounding the $125,000 in funding provided to the English Montreal School Board to mount a legal challenge to Quebec's secularism law.

The Liberal government is hiding behind the program's alleged independence to avoid having to address the fundamental issue: the Canadian government's financial commitment to supporting challenges to Quebec's secularism and language laws.

In addition to the transparency issues, the other problem with the court challenges program is that, although it has been used to advance the rights of francophone minority communities in other provinces, it has also been used to challenge Quebec laws that are designed to promote and protect the French language in Quebec.

That problem stems from the main flaw in Canada's official languages policy, which assumes that there is symmetry between the anglophone and francophone minority communities. That structure, which was designed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and which the Liberals just refused to change when they modernized the Official Languages Act, pits the interests of Quebec against those of francophones in Canada.

In closing, the francophone communities of Canada have good reason to care about the existence of the court challenges program and to hope that it will be around permanently because it advances their language rights. That is the main reason the Bloc Québécois is not calling for the program to abolished. Rather, we are asking for it to be regulated and modernized.

There are some good things about the court challenges program, but it falls into the official languages trap. This would not be an issue if the Liberal Party and the NDP were willing to accept the solution proposed by the Government of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois, which is to use a differentiated approach in the implementation of the Official Languages Act, or in other words, to stop putting both official languages on equal footing.

If the Liberal government recognizes that only one of the two official languages is at risk—

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I am happy to reread the motion into the record for the member, Mr. Chair, but I will not be muzzled in making my case as to why the Minister of Finance should appear, because that is what this subamendment to Mr. Blaikie's amendment specifically speaks to.

What we're talking about here is that the minister be invited to appear for two hours such that “if the Minister of Finance has not appeared by May 18, 2023 amendments to Bill C-47, notwithstanding subparagraph (b)(i), be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11:00 a.m. ET the business day following the Minister appearing at Finance committee for a duration of no less than 2 hours.”

That's a very reasonable request, Mr. Chair.

My point is that I'm trying to make the argument, if the members opposite will allow me to, but if they want to continue to interrupt, I'm fine with that too.... They can speak for as long as they like. That's what democracy is about. We talk to each other and, hopefully, we resolve things. That's why it's called “Parliament”, Mr. Chair: We parley.

That's what I'm trying to do, and I'm trying to make the point that this particular provision led to a massive scandal, and that's why these types of bills are problematic. It's not just my saying that: It's the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said it's undemocratic. He said he wouldn't do it anymore and, like so many things that he says he won't do, he ends up doing them anyway.

We have all these parts of the budget bill that have nothing to do with the budget that really should go through the proper scrutiny of Parliament, be introduced in the House, go up for debate, be voted on by the committee, debated in committee, perhaps amended in the committee and sent back, but no. They're throwing everything but the kitchen sink in here.

I asked the question when the public servants were here, by the way. “Is there any one company that might benefit from any provision in this bill?” Do you know what they said, Mr. Chair?

Nothing.

Let me say that again.

Nothing.

That's the response I got, Mr. Chair. It was very informative.

I just think that it's incumbent on the finance minister to come here. There are very serious questions here.

The finance minister came here in November to talk about the fall economic statement, so here's one of my questions. If she would agree to come to committee, I might ask her this question. She said that in 2027-28 she forecasted a surplus. That was music to the ears of Conservatives. We thought that maybe the Liberals were finally taking fiscal responsibility seriously. They actually forecasted—this is just in November—a $4.5-billion surplus.

Imagine my surprise—and I'm sure my colleagues were surprised—when the budget showed up five months later. It seemed, by the way, that before the pandemic—and I want to say this, Mr. Chair—a billion dollars seemed like a lot of money. Now, it seems like we're throwing around billions of dollars with reckless abandon, but here we are.

We had a promise of fiscal responsibility: a surplus of four and a half billion dollars by 2027-28. I know the members on this committee are very much aware of that commitment.

Then the budget comes. I flip open to the chart and look at 2027-28, trying to see if maybe it's even better. Maybe they found a way to run an even larger surplus. What did I see? In that same year, a $14-billion deficit is forecast, with no balance in sight.

This is why this motion is so important. This is why it's so important for the finance minister to come here for the two hours that we're requesting, as stated in this motion. We're asking that provided that if the Minister of Finance has not appeared by May 18

amendments to Bill C-47, notwithstanding subparagraph (b)(1), be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11 a.m. eastern time, the business day following the minister appearing at the finance committee for a duration of no less than two hours.

On this subamendment, I want to make a very important point. If I can put my hands on the motion we had, as the precedent....

Here's an interesting one. There was a motion introduced at the official languages committee. It said:

That, in relation to the consideration of 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

There are two in particular:

...amendments to Bill C-13 to be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11 a.m. [eastern time] the business day following the last meeting with the ministers and departments.

If my colleagues in the Liberal Party want to argue that they don't want to set a precedent, I have news for them: It's been set. Marc G. Serré, a Liberal member, actually moved this motion. If the members opposite want to make the argument, “Well, we don't want to set a precedent. We don't want to create a condition precedent to the Minister of Finance coming here. That's just not right”.... They did it themselves in the transport committee. That motion passed in the transport committee.

We're saying the same thing, namely, submit it to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11 a.m. eastern of the business day following the minister appearing at the finance committee for a duration of no less than two hours.

I don't know what the problem here is, Mr. Chair. It makes me wonder, when the Minister of Finance has only been in the House six times this year. Despite three invitations from this committee, she has ghosted us. She came for one hour last fall and presented a forecast of a surplus into 2027-28. That disappeared, along with her, in the 2023 budget. We need to get on with our task of finding Freeland and passing the subamendment, the amendment and the subamendment, in order to get her here to answer these very important questions.

Now, I think I'm going to take a bit of a break from the microphone, at this point in time, Mr. Chair.

However, I would like to indulge...if I may ask one question of the clerk: Would they be so kind as to add my name back onto the list, in case I have further epiphanies—

Official Languages

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals acknowledge that French in Quebec is under threat; it is even in Bill C‑13. That is nice, but they have not changed a single thing in the federal strategy for promoting English in Quebec.

Despite their lofty words, their action plan for official languages 2023-2028 is basically crumbs for French in Quebec and $700 million for English.

What will have more impact, the rhetoric or $700 million invested directly in the anglicization of Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑13 acknowledges that French is under threat in Quebec.

However, the Liberals introduced an action plan yesterday that gives Quebec $140 million per year to promote English. That is $700 million over five years for English in Quebec and nothing, or a few crumbs, for French.

Today, Quebeckers are wondering if the federal government has some statistics to prove that English is under threat in Quebec. If not, why are the Liberals funding English in Quebec when it is French—

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unlike Émile Zola who, a hundred years ago, wrote an open letter accusing all the intellectual and government elites of his time of racism, I will turn the camera around and accuse myself.

I accuse myself and admit that I am guilty of being naive when it comes to political and public life. I am naive. When I went into politics three years ago, I thought that we would have intelligent debates in Parliament, in the House. I thought that the people elected across Canada, people with experience, people with a past, people who had worked on important issues, would come to Parliament and debate. I thought that, if I presented an argument, someone would come up with a counterargument, someone else would then present another counterargument, and that the process would result in brilliant bills—in short, the truth. I thought that we were going to come up with bills that would benefit Canadians, that people would look at us and say, “Wow, these are extraordinary people who are passing really effective bills that meet the specific needs of all Canadians and that are improving our country and ensuring we are going in the right direction”.

That is what I thought. Imagine how naive I was. I thought that was how democracy works in Quebec and Canada. I thought that that was how things worked, that we would work together and collaborate to get to the truth for the common good. That is what I thought. Imagine how naive I was and how my balloon burst after my three years here, when I saw how badly we fail to meet Canadians’ needs and, especially, how we have to keep repeating the same things day after day. I really was not expecting that.

In my past life I used to repeat lines as part of my work. I have a background in theatre. I played Molière’s Le Malade imaginaire 250 times. I repeated all my lines 250 times. When you work with Molière, there is always something new to discover. There are always truths hidden behind the lines. This broadens an actor’s horizons, since they can improve their performance every evening. In Parliament, however, all of us in the opposition strive to make speeches. We work in committee, we try to be wise. We conduct studies, we think hard every day to tell the government, the supposed decision-makers, what they should do and the measures they should put in place. We are close to the community, in our respective ridings. We see what is happening on the ground. Unfortunately, we have to repeat ourselves.

I say this because what I am going to say today is something I have said hundreds of times before in the House. I will have to repeat myself again today. It is sad, because these are important issues. For example, what is missing from this budget and this bill? Housing.

As my colleague said so well earlier, we need a game plan to build 3.5 million housing units in Canada in the next 10 years. This does not come from an extreme leftist group advocating for social housing, it comes from Scotiabank and the CMHC. These are the challenges we face.

We expected to see housing treated as an important concern in the budget. Most people devote 30%, 40% or 50% of their income to housing. There are even 80,000 households that spend 80% of their income on housing, and that is just in Quebec. That in itself is scandalous. Imagine someone earning $1,000 or $2,000 and having to spend $800 or $1,600 on housing. How would they eat? How would they send their children to school and pay for their school supplies? We are not even talking about recreational activities.

With such major concerns, with the bar set so high, with all the things we have repeated here and that organizations across the country have been repeating, we would expect the government to address the issue in the budget, to tackle this challenge and propose robust measures. Out of 250 pages of various measures in all sorts of areas, how many pages in the budget are devoted to the 3.5 million housing units we need over the next 10 years?

There is only one page. There is one short page about the most important issue of our generation. That is scandalous: a single short page on one of the most fundamental issues of our era, along with the fight against climate change and the language crisis. That in itself is scandalous.

Instead of addressing the issue, from what we learned yesterday, they are allocating $800 million over the next five years to protect the best protected linguistic minority in the history of humanity, the anglophone community in Quebec. This community represents only 8% of the population, but the power of English is quite evident in Quebec, Canada and North America. However, the government will be sending $800 million to the community over the next five years.

I advocated for 20 years for the survival of the French language in Quebec. That is one of the reasons I went into politics. The survival of the French language and culture in Quebec is one of our greatest challenges. Since I got here, I have heard a lot of promises. They say they recognize the symmetry between English and French in Canada, that they know it is important, that they know that French-language communities across the country are in peril, that they know that French in Quebec is also threatened, that they will get down to it and come up with a bill with teeth.

Now the government comes up with Bill C-13 and, yesterday, with a plan to invest $800 million. Anglophones in Quebec have three universities. They have as many hospitals and television stations as they need. They have access to all music on Spotify, and to more movies than they can watch. There is no housing for the most destitute in this country and no investments to make a difference in this budget, but the government’s excuse is that it has invested in recent years. It is unacceptable that we are failing to address this crucial issue. I just cannot believe it.

Right now, I am touring Quebec to document the crisis, to see what is happening on the ground. The things I am hearing are appalling. In Trois‑Rivières, a victim of domestic violence is sleeping in a car with her two children. How can we allow that? How can there be only one page about housing in the budget?

In my riding of Longueuil, there are 17 people living in a three-bedroom apartment. What country are we living in? Is this a G7 country, or is it some country in the Middle Ages? I cannot get over the idea of 17 people living in a three-bedroom apartment. There are no measures in the budget for these 17 people in their three-bedroom apartment. There are no measures to help that victim of domestic violence who is living in her car with her two children.

This budget is a disgrace, a disaster. It does not meet the needs of Quebec and Canadian society today. It is misguided. It fails to target the most important issues, and that is extremely unfortunate.

Maybe I am being too naive. Still, however much I do not like it, I will keep repeating these truths until the government finally understands what and where the real needs are in this society, here and now.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a good day for languages in our country. Many stakeholder groups gave statements that they were incredibly thrilled that this government has put forward funding to protect our two official languages throughout Canada. It is more than any government has ever given before. It is double what used to be put in.

It was a good day for Canada. It was a good day for French in Quebec and a good day for English in Quebec, too. That is the beauty of Canada. We respect both languages equally. We want to protect French, and that is why the government is making investments. Bill C-13 is another example of our government modernizing things to make sure that French is protected in our country.

Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House 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.

If I wanted to sum up the clause-by-clause study of this bill in committee, I would say that this bill is like the mountain that laboured and brought forth a mouse. Modernizing the Official Languages Act was 50 years overdue, much like EI reform, which is still long overdue. We worked on this bill for a full year at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and now we are finally at report stage, with additional amendments and yet another one of the Prime Minister's broken promises.

Should we be surprised? Making promises and not keeping them seems to be in the air in the spring of 2023 for this Prime Minister. Thousands of people across the country are extremely disappointed right now, and for a variety of reasons. Whether we take the Prime Minister at his word or believe he has been caught red-handed, his Liberal incompetence is pervasive throughout the machinery of government, and Bill C‑13 is no exception.

We could hardly manage after all the delays caused by the pandemic, which was blamed for many things. I am thinking of passport delays, immigration, foreign workers and the labour shortage. Now the public service is on strike even though the Prime Minister had promised that it would not have to happen. In the middle of tax season and tax refunds, hard-pressed families waiting for their money will have to patiently put up with one more thing.

I like to be optimistic, but I am also a realist. With this Prime Minister, we can never say, “promise made, promise kept”. For eight years, the Prime Minister has been perfecting the drama skills he learned at school, but it is sad to see that it has made him a man of all talk and no action. The last thing Canadians needed was a Prime Minister who wears rose-coloured glasses like his Minister of Finance, who does not know how to count given that she is spending $43 billion more than what we have. This Prime Minister does not keep his promises and is eroding the French fact.

We have a Prime Minister who is good at speaking in both official languages and sweet-talking people at election time, but it is a whole different ball game when it comes to getting real results in any area. I have to say that we are losing that ball game, and badly. We have also lost precious time and money. Committed, well-meaning people have now become disillusioned.

We are also seeing another disastrous consequence for thousands of French Canadians living in minority communities. I am talking about the decline of French. What I find the saddest is that, when faced with a Parliament that skimps on pretty much everything that Canadians care about the most, even the most steadfast individuals, those who have defended our country with strong, deeply-held convictions, have run out of steam and they no longer have the energy to fight the monster created by the Liberal Party of Canada: a country that is in social, cultural and economic decline.

We are now trapped in a country led by a pair of scheming, illegitimate political parties, where a laissez-faire ideology and reckless spending are the orders of the day and where fine words are never followed by concrete and sustainable action for a better future or any kind of future at all for that matter.

Providing hope for far too long only to produce mediocre results is what the Liberal Party of Canada has done yet again with Bill C‑13. In its priorities, legalizing drugs was the top priority, as was giving criminals lighter sentences. For months, if not years, we have been dealing with a flagrant lack of will and lack of meaningful actions. They are not making any real substantive changes, including when it comes to today's debate on modernizing Canada's Official Languages Act.

Both the community and the Conservative Party of Canada are unanimous: Bill C‑13 does not meet the objective of offering solutions to the problems regarding French as the language of work and as the language used in society.

As a diligent legislator, and I know what I am talking about because I worked on the amendments to Bill C‑13 in committee, and a concerned citizen who cares about promoting French, I read the disparaging newspaper articles about the Prime Minister, the Liberal Party and their desire to protect French in Canada.

As a member of Parliament for the people of Lévis-Lotbinière, who I proudly represent in my mother tongue, French, I would like to bring to the attention of all members two proposed amendments to Bill C‑13.

Motion No. 9 adds an obligation in the English version.

It states:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall advance the equality of status...

In contrast, the French version is weaker. We would like to see a way to ensure that the two texts are consistent, so that the French version reflects the English version with that obligation.

I also want to draw my colleagues' attention to Motion No. 13. This motion does not put Canada's two official languages, English and French, on an equal footing. The Conservative Party of Canada supports bilingualism in Canada and equality of status. We can and must protect and promote French in a way that does not take away from the English language.

As we know, Bill C‑13 is a failed attempt by the NDP-Liberal Party coalition to make us believe that bilingualism is being adequately protected in Canada. However, the Standing Committee on Official Languages did not listen carefully to a very large majority of the amendments called for by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Commissioner of Official Languages. Their amendments are not included in Bill C‑13.

After eight years of talk about protecting the French language, it is safe to say that this bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors and does not guarantee that the French language is going to flourish in the future.

The objectives should have been to stop the decline of French and to protect and promote both official languages, but Bill C‑13 achieves neither of those very laudable goals.

The Treasury Board should be the central agency for coordinating the implementation of the Official Languages Act. To ensure this coordination, the powers of the Treasury Board should have been extended to the entire act. The Treasury Board's powers in part VIII have not been extended to the entire act, not even to part VII. This is completely inconsistent, since all stakeholders were calling for the Treasury Board to become the central agency and to be given the tools to do so.

I would also like to call attention to another flaw in the bill. The current wording of the bill does not ensure that all children of rights holders will continue to be counted under section 23 of the Charter. It merely sets out a commitment to estimate the number of rights holders. There is no obligation to include these questions in the census, as they were in the 2021 census, which will lead to an underestimation of the number of children of rights holders.

Let us now look at how the legislation will be reviewed, since the Conservative Party of Canada proposed that a five-year review be conducted. Given the accelerating decline of French in Canada, this amendment could have provided an additional tool to react quickly and recalibrate.

As for the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages, they were completely ignored. His order-making powers should have been extended to part VII of the act to enable him to do his job properly.

We worked hard, but in vain, to move amendments required to strengthen part VII. We needed to add obligations to ensure that federal institutions take the positive measures needed to protect and promote both official languages.

I will close by addressing an issue that is at the heart of this bill, the definition of francophone minorities. The bill should have included an explicit definition of the term “francophone minority” so that it would continue to refer only to minority francophone communities outside Quebec and thus avoid any interpretation by the courts.

In conclusion, this is once again a failed attempt in the history of Canada to protect and promote the French language. It is an example of the disastrous legacy of the Liberal Party of Canada and of the Prime Minister, who really is not interested in what Canadians across the country really care about.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, just as the member for Hamilton Centre indicated, it pains me as well to not be able to deliver my comments in French. French is such a beautiful language, and with a last name like “Lamoureux”, one would expect that I could speak French. I think that might even be kind of a good starting point, just to emphasize what we are debating here today.

We need to take a look at the importance of Canada's diversity, and when we talk about that diversity, we need to recognize that Canada is a bilingual country, English and French. We need to recognize how important it is for all Canadians to recognize that fact. In many different ways, that has enhanced us as a nation, and for us to achieve our potential, we need to recognize the importance of French and English, and the fact that we are a bilingual nation.

I do not say that lightly. I look at my own heritage and where my family originated from a number of generations ago. On my father's side, it was the province of Quebec, just outside of the community of Montreal. My mother's side also originated in the province of Quebec, but her family went into Saskatchewan and, as I understand it, the United States. On my father's side, they came to the province of Manitoba.

I say this because, when my mother was growing up in the rural communities of Saskatchewan, it was discouraged to speak French. It was looked down on. If someone wanted to get ahead in southern Saskatchewan or in that Moose Jaw and Gravelbourg area, they did not speak French. That is what my mother was told. As a result, she could not speak a word of French, even though her mother, my grandmother, could speak French.

My father, on the other hand, went to and grew up in Manitoba. My heritage in Manitoba comes from St-Pierre-Jolys and the Transcona area. My father was still of the generation that could speak French. That was passed on to him.

I was born in the early sixties, and I can understand my mother was the one who raised the children. She did not speak to us at all in French. My father could speak French, but my mother could not. However, like with my grandmother, it was deemed as something that was not important, even though we were in the province of Manitoba, and even though my father could speak French.

I believe it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who ultimately recognized the importance of Canada being an English and French country. When Pierre Elliott Trudeau brought in the Official Languages Act, there was quite a resistance to it out in the Prairies, but it was that leadership and that initiative that started, in my opinion, to change the way that people on the Prairies viewed the French language.

Even though there was a cost factor to it, we have seen Liberal prime ministers from then all the way to now who say the same thing: It does not matter where we are in Canada when it comes to the importance of the French language, the French factor and French being one of our two official languages.

Through the Official Languages Act, we saw the growth of the French language in the province of Manitoba. We can put it in the perspective of the twenties, thirties and forties, when the French language was being rejected in the province of Manitoba, to the point when French started to be promoted. Communities such as St-Pierre-Jolys, Sainte-Anne, Saint Boniface and so many others are communities that really came alive. There is also Ste. Rose. Senator Molgat would never forgive me for not mentioning Ste. Rose.

In many ways I would like to think, and I may be a little bit biased, that Manitoba led the Prairies in understanding, appreciating and valuing the French language and in seeing the benefits of that diversity.

Even inside the Manitoba legislature, we started to move toward converting English-only laws into bilingual laws. At the end of the day, we can take a look at Winnipeg North and what is happening there today.

It is truly amazing, when we take a look at the waves of immigration that come to the province of Manitoba. I could talk for hours about things such as the Filipino heritage community and how it has had such a wonderful positive impact in the province of Manitoba, particularly in health care, or the Indo-Canadian community and how often Punjabi and Tagalog are spoken in the north end of Winnipeg, not to mention Ukrainian and a number of indigenous languages.

If we go to schools such as École Stanley Knowles and other schools in the north end, we will see that French is a part of a bilingual program. We will see kids of, let us say, Filipino or Punjabi heritage, in grade three or grade four, speaking English, their home heritage language and French. There is more French being spoken today in the province of Manitoba than there ever has been.

I would suggest to members that that is because of national policy. That national policy is ensuring that French is being spoken in every region of the country. There is no one in the Liberal caucus who would not recognize the French factor in the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec is leading the way, in many ways, in ensuring that Canada plays that pivotal role, not only in North America, but around the world, in recognizing and appreciating the true value of the French language.

That is something for which it does not matter where one is from. One does not have to be from Quebec. Like me, one does not even have to be able to speak French to understand and appreciate the value of the French language and us being part of a bilingual nation.

What does Bill C-13 do? It modernizes legislation that was passed decades ago, to the extent that the last time we have seen this kind of modernization was with Pierre Elliot Trudeau back in the late sixties.

As a government, we have recognized the importance of the French language and how important it is to promote and support it, not only with legislation but also with budgetary measures. The actions of the government have been incredibly positive in recognizing, promoting and ensuring that Canada will continue to have a nation that is bilingual.

This is all while recognizing the important role that Quebec has to play in this. That is not by choice, but because Quebec has to play that role. It will continue to do so, but we will continue to build the French language from coast to coast to coast, because it is the diversity that is so critically important to our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is a proud parent. This is about the next generation, and Bill C-13 would give us the tools to put a stop to the decline of French, give all of our children a chance to learn both of Canada's official languages, support francophone communities in majority anglophone areas and really live up to the vision of Canada that we all have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it would send a clear message if all parties, including the party leaders and the leader of the Conservative Party, vote in favour of Bill C‑13.

We must recognize that French is in decline. Bill C‑13 proposes measures that will stop this decline. We all worked on this.

We all have a chance to support this bill and especially to support the important work that must be done to protect the French language.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on behalf of the NDP to speak to Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages. Today is an historic day. It has been 30 years since the Official Languages Act was last amended. Finally, here we are; we have succeeded. It was hard work at times, but it was important.

This work is not only important, but it is essential for the francophonie, for Quebec, for Acadia, for the Franco-Manitoban community, as well as for all our communities. It is important for me, for my children, for all of our children and for our collective future.

I am a proud francophile. I was born in Thompson, in northern Manitoba. I am the daughter of two immigrants. My first language is neither English nor French, but Greek. I understand how lucky I am. My parents understood the importance of speaking both of Canada's official languages, and it is because of the struggle of francophones across the country, educators and their allies that I have had options to study French.

Manitoba is home to many francophones, and they have fought for their rights and for public investment in education, for example. In the 1980s, a Manitoba NDP government, including my father, fought against discrimination and defended the language rights of francophones in terms of public services and legislation. This taught me, from an early age, that nothing can be taken for granted. I also know that generations of young Canadians can communicate in our two official languages because of the dedication and especially the passion for French shared by our teachers.

I applaud the work of Mrs. Vachon, Miss Duceppe, Mr. Vermette, Mr. Labelle, Mr. Lamothe, Mr. Picard and many others. Many of us will never forget Mr. Macdonald, who put his heart and soul into his work to help us learn his language, our language. Mr. Macdonald was a proud Acadian, and his joy for his people and the Acadian culture was infectious. It is because of teachers like Mr. Macdonald and all those I have named, as well as hundreds of other francophones across the country, that many generations like mine speak French and that we have a unique and enriched understanding of our country and our world.

I want the same thing for my two children, Stefanos and Leonidas, who are now five and a half. They go to kindergarten at La Voie du Nord, a French school in the Franco-Manitoban school division. They are part of the next generation. The world has become smaller for that generation. However, in a Canada where French is in decline, we need to reverse that decline and fight for the next generation.

Today, I want to say that I am proud of the work that we did on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. On several occasions, I shared my experience and the challenges that families like mine experience in being unable to access French day care services. That is why I am proud of the work that we did in committee and that the NDP did in committee to guarantee that language provisions will be mandatory in federal-provincial agreements. The money that will be distributed and the funding that will finally be granted will help to ensure that francophone and anglophone minority communities get their fair share in this and other areas.

I also want to highlight the leadership demonstrated by such organizations as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA. I want to recognize the efforts of its president, Liane Roy. The FCFA is the national voice of 2.8 million French-speaking Canadians. They represent the voice of francophones across Canada and played a key role that has led us to this day. Thanks to them, the President of the Treasury Board will be responsible for enforcing Bill C‑13, francophone immigration will be supported, and there will be language provisions and stronger powers for the Commissioner of Official Languages. I want to salute defenders of the French language across the country.

The last major official languages reform took place in 1998. Clearly, the Official Languages Act had holes in it, such as the struggle to create an unbroken educational pathway for our children from early childhood to the post-secondary level, the lack of francophone staff, and problems related to accessing the justice system in French, communicating in French in an emergency, and obtaining health or public safety information.

The number of francophones in Canada has also experienced a sharp decline. We all know the statistics. In 1961, francophones accounted for 25.1% of the population. Today, they make up less than 23%. Obviously, if we do nothing to protect our services and institutions, the decline will continue.

I do not understand why the leader of the Conservative Party keeps attacking the CBC and Radio‑Canada. Bill C‑13 clearly states that the federal government recognizes that the CBC contributes through its activities to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities, as well as to protecting and promoting both official languages. The leader of the Conservative party even asked to cut $1 billion from CBC/Radio-Canada's funding. In 2021‑22, CBC/Radio-Canada received $1.2 billion from the federal government, so that kind of cut would be disastrous. If the Conservative Party understands that French is in decline across Canada, then why does it want to cut so much money from an institution that is so critical to protecting and promoting our two official languages?

The work of the Standing Committee on Official Languages was hard, but the spirit of collaboration was there. I want to thank all the members of the committee, whether they were Liberal, Conservative or from the Bloc, who made important amendments at the committee. I know that we did not always agree, but we all had the same goal: to protect French in Canada and stand up for the rights of linguistic communities in Canada. The amendments that were supported in committee are essential, and I sincerely hope that the Senate will respect them.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Minister of Official Languages. We found a way to work together with the common goal of amending the Official Languages Act in order to give communities the resources to protect their own language, our language.

Respect is fundamental to the work that we did in committee. I want to highlight the fact that, unfortunately, some members of the House of Commons based their comments in committee on outdated concerns and claimed that the systemic decline of French does not exist, even in Quebec. The NDP has a clear message for those who subscribe to the idea that if francophone rights and resources are protected, other communities will suffer or vice versa: There are no losers when we protect official languages. Living in a country where French and English are respected makes life richer.

The reality is that Bill C‑13 would change the federal government's approach by recognizing that French is a minority language throughout Canada and North America and that the measures the government takes must reflect that. This is an important change that will help slow the decline of French.

Today, we are moving forward on a national project, a project rooted in the recognition of first peoples and indigenous languages, a project that sends a clear message that we are proud of our two official languages. We are proud of a multilingual, multicultural, diverse Canada. We are proud to be able to move forward and fully support the protection of French, to ensure the rights of official language minority communities.

That is why I strongly encourage all my colleagues in the House to vote for Bill C‑13, an historic bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we will vote in favour of Bill C-13 because it does make some progress, particularly with regard to federally regulated businesses. It does not meet the demands or Quebec or our demands because, like the Government of Quebec, we are calling for Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated businesses. Such will not be the case. The businesses will get to choose.

However, since several elements of Bill 101 have been incorporated in the Official Languages Act, the minister is hoping that businesses will decide to continue to comply with Bill 101 over the Official Languages Act. We will see what happens when the Official Languages Act is implemented.

Minister Roberge also criticized the fact that all of the money is being spent on the anglophone side to support English and services in English in areas under provincial jurisdiction. I think that an agreement was reached on one thing, but the rest of the Official Languages Act is unacceptable for Quebec. It will merely speed up the English takeover of Quebec. We are going to rally the public so that we are able to amend this legislation for Quebec.